The Modern Ballistic Theory of Light.
Henri Wilson
binary stars to argue that light could not be ballistic. His supposed 'proof'
was virtually the only reason why that theory became unpopular. With the
premature death of Walter Ritz, one of the BaTh's main supporters, the theory
was dropped altogether in favour of the new mathematical theory of Einstein.
DeSitter's proof has now been refuted by the simple fact that the speed of
light in any one direction tends to become unified... due to a number of
factors.
Meanwhile, the whole of astronomy has been led astray by the assumption that
all starlight in the universe is specifically adjusted to travel towards little
planet Earth at the one speed, 'c'. The result is that most of the recorded
information about the universe is 'willusory'. (A 'willusion' being a specific
type of illusion caused by the fact that an observed image or event is produced
by light traveling across space at different speeds). Here on Earth, willusory
effects are negligible because of light's enormous speed...and not
surprisingly, astronomers are yet to wake up to the fact that they have been
completely led astray by Einstein's theory.
The plain fact is, cosmic observations are all WILLUSORY and NO CURRENT
ASTRONOMY LAW OR THEORY CAN BE REGARDED AS CORRECT.
The OW speed of light from a relatively moving source has never been measured
in remote space. However, computer simulations based solely on ballistic theory
accurately predict most variable star brightness and velocity curves OBSERVED
over a wide range of situations.
The BaTh is supported by all known physical experiments.
Here are some basic principles and postulates of the BaTh:
1) Light initially moves at c wrt its source.
2) Light moves at c-v wrt an object moving at v wrt the source.
3) In pure vacuum, light moves 100% ballistically. Its speed does not change.
4) Much of space contains matter and fields and cannot be regarded as 'empty'.
5) Light consists of particles (photons) which possess intrinsic structure and
properties.
6) Photons change speed as they negotiate regions of space with different
degrees of 'emptiness'.
7) There exists a 'density threshold' (WDT) below which fields become
fragmented and the inverse square breaks down.
8) All photons moving in any one direction tend towards a unified speed.
9) Around large masses such as stars, there exists an 'EM control sphere' which
tends to regulate the speed of light leaving the vicinity of a star.
10) the spheres of two close stars, eg, contact binaries, can overlap and
neutralise each other.
11) Unification (previously called 'extinction') occurs in two distinct stages,
one near the source and the other (smaller) across large distances of space.
12) A distant star in orbit emits light at c+vsin(ft) wrt Earth.
13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT NEVER
overtakes it because of extinction. As a result, dstant observers see the star
varying in luminosity.
14) The degree of this 'photon bunching' is referred to as ADoppler, since it
depends on the acceleration of the source at instant of emission.
15) Individual photons also experience bunching, due to the fact that they
possess 'length' and are emitted over a finite time.
16) The relative movement between 'photon ends' does not continue for as long
or to the same degree as the bunching BETWEEN photons.
17) Photons possess an 'intrinsic oscillation', the frequency of which is not
directly related to that of say, a generated EM signal such as RF.
18) this oscillation produces a recurring spatial pattern that defines the
absolute 'wavelength' of a photon.
19) A diffraction grating is sensitive to the ABSOLUTE wavelength of a photon
AND its arrival speed wrt the grating.
20) The measured wavelength of a photon can include components of both ADoppler
and convenional VDoppler.
21) When a photon changes speed during travel, its absolute wavelength also
changes in proportion. The relative speed between source and observer is coded
into this VDoppler effect.
22) Photons emerging from the common sphere of a contact binary pair contain
little or no ADoppler. The observed VDoppler can be taken as a true measure of
their source speeds.
23) Photons emanating from the sphere of a star in long period orbit will
travel at c wrt that sphere. Note: the sphere's movement can lag in phase
behind the star.
24) The pulses from Pulsars are generally NOT ADoppler affected.
25) Any rigid rod con be used to define an absolute spatial standard interval.
26) Since the rod experiences no physical change as a result of an
acceleration, it can be used as the same standard for assessing absolute
'length' anywhere, anyhow..
27) If the length of a moving rod is found to differ from its known rest
length, then the method used to measure the moving rod is flawed.
28) Similarly, the ticks between a clock can be used to define a time interval.
29) A clock can be acceleration to a new relative speed without being
physically affected in any way. The absolute time interval between ticks will
not change.
These are just a few....
To be continued.....
These VBasic animations are relevant:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe
Some star curve matchings are at: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
Bill Hobba
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:45m0f3hc7bspsubeh...@4ax.com...
> Towards the end of the 19th century, the astronomer DeSitter used images
> of
> binary stars to argue that light could not be ballistic. His supposed
> 'proof'
> was virtually the only reason why that theory became unpopular. With the
> premature death of Walter Ritz, one of the BaTh's main supporters, the
> theory
> was dropped altogether in favour of the new mathematical theory of
> Einstein.
> DeSitter's proof has now been refuted by the simple fact that the speed of
> light in any one direction tends to become unified... due to a number of
> factors.
>
> Meanwhile, the whole of astronomy has been led astray by the assumption
They did not assume it - experiment dictated it. Rest of usual stupidity
sniped.
Bill
xx...@comcast.net
xxein: I know that our present notion of physics is wrong. You know
that our present notion of physics is wrong. So?
You have not shown a physic beyond a wish. Even on the scale of a
wish, you are very incorrect and self-contradictory.
You are worse than Einstein. At least he had an observable backup to
try to maintain a claim. You invent imaginary scenarios without
observational fact. Wrt any degree of provability, you are stone-
age. There is nothing 'there'.
Jeckyl
news:92i6s4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
> <HW@>
> wrote
> on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:28:27 GMT
> <45m0f3hc7bspsubeh...@4ax.com>:
Refuted by Sagnac
>> 29) A clock can be acceleration to a new relative speed without being
>> physically affected in any way. The absolute time interval between ticks
>> will
>> not change.
Refuted experimentally.
Ballistic theories like this are dead in the water
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:92i6s4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: <HW@>
: wrote
: on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:28:27 GMT
: <45m0f3hc7bspsubeh...@4ax.com>:
: This is probably the clearest set of postulates regarding BaTh I've seen
: in awhile; I will want to analyze them. :-)
Ritz, dead for 100 years, was a "supporter" of Wilson's Bath.
6) is fucking garbage, Sagnac works in air.
7) is fucking garbage, Sagnac works using a light guide.
The Wilson density threshold (WTD) is opacity.
8) is fucking garbage, http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
: Of course, the mathematics
: aren't quite sufficient; #12, in particular, needs to explain that the
: orbit of a distant star is parameterized based on orbit tilt,
: eccentricity, orbit plane tilt, object masses, and orbit semimajor axis.
: (Note that period is solely dependent on the semimajor axis and the
: object masses.)
Wilson left out inclination in his crackpot Bathwater.
: #17 is interesting; are the frequency (nu), the absolute wavelength,
: and the "intrinsic oscillation" of a photon in fact related? If so,
precisely how?
Roads have wavelength, cars have frequency.
Speed = displacement/time = displacement * frequency
: #26 is erroneous for technical reasons; an accelerated rod experiences
: a force, which means Young's Modulus gets involved. This modulus
: determines the amount of compression of a rod, given a certain pressure.
: This compression isn't really related to GR.
:
: If #29 is interpreted as t' = t, the Galilean transformation is
: practically assured in the BaTh, rendering #19 redundant
: (wavelength is unchanged in the Galilean transform).
:
: To be continued. ;-)
:
: >
: > These VBasic animations are relevant:
: >
: > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
: > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe
: >
: > Some star curve matchings are at: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
: >
: >
: > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
: >
: > The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the
latter at least has a product to sell.
:
:
: --
: #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
: Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
: important, it's the ability to DO something
: with it.
:
: --
: Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
:
Paul B. Andersen
> Towards the end of the 19th century, the astronomer DeSitter used images of
> binary stars to argue that light could not be ballistic. His supposed 'proof'
> was virtually the only reason why that theory became unpopular. With the
> premature death of Walter Ritz, one of the BaTh's main supporters, the theory
> was dropped altogether in favour of the new mathematical theory of Einstein.
> DeSitter's proof has now been refuted by the simple fact that the speed of
> light in any one direction tends to become unified... due to a number of
> factors.
Quite.
But since Ritz's theory is falsified by a number of other experiments,
the shortcomings of DeSitter's proof is a mute point.
Ritz's theory was born dead.
BTW, fibre optic gyros and ring lasers work.
Paul
George Dishman
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:45m0f3hc7bspsubeh...@4ax.com...
First let us state what constituse henry's "BaTh" since
he has insufficient mathematical ability to do it himself.
Capitals indicate vectors, lower case are scalars:
a) The universe is Galilean Invariant. [1]
b) Light emitted in vacuo from a source moving with
velocity U in an inertial reference frame will
move with velocity
V = C + U where C is a vector [2]
of magnitude c, the usual fundamental constant.
c) In the presence of a locally isotropic and
homogenous refractive medium of index n, the
speed will decay at a rate given by
dv/ds = (c/n(s) - v)/r(s) [3]
where r(s) and n(s) are scalar functions determined
by the material through which the light passes.
The behaviour in variable density material is undefined but
could perhaps be determined by applying conservation of
memontume to eqn [3].
> The BaTh is supported by all known physical experiments.
Liar, you know it is refuted by Sagnac, the Shapiro delay,
Ives and Stilwell and GPS to name only those we have
discussed. Fizeau's experiment also means equation [3] is
true in the rest frame of the matterial defining r(s) and
refutes [1] but we have not addressed that to date.
> Here are some basic principles and postulates of the BaTh:
>
> 1) Light initially moves at c wrt its source.
Correct, see eqn [2] above.
> 2) Light moves at c-v wrt an object moving at v wrt the source.
Follows by applying postulate [1] to equation [2].
> 3) In pure vacuum, light moves 100% ballistically. Its speed does not
> change.
Eqn [2].
> 4) Much of space contains matter and fields and cannot be regarded as
> 'empty'.
Speculation, not part of the theory.
> 5) Light consists of particles (photons) which possess intrinsic structure
> and
> properties.
Speculation, not part of the theory. No definition of
"photon" has been given.
> 6) Photons change speed as they negotiate regions of space with different
> degrees of 'emptiness'.
Light varies in speed as given by eqn [3]. "Photons" are
not part of the theory.
> 7) There exists a 'density threshold' (WDT) below which fields become
> fragmented and the inverse square breaks down.
Untrue, there is no threshold function in
the equations.
> 8) All photons moving in any one direction tend towards a unified speed.
Untrue, the speed of the light is given by equations [2]
and [3].
> 9) Around large masses such as stars, there exists an 'EM control sphere'
> which
> tends to regulate the speed of light leaving the vicinity of a star.
Speculation. If true this would only affect the
light by providing the value and rest frame of
factor r(s).
> 10) the spheres of two close stars, eg, contact binaries, can overlap and
> neutralise each other.
Speculation, not part of the theory.
> 11) Unification (previously called 'extinction') occurs in two distinct
> stages,
> one near the source and the other (smaller) across large distances of
> space.
Speculation, enters via r(s) as above.
> 12) A distant star in orbit emits light at c+vsin(ft) wrt Earth.
Incorrect, assumes a perfectly circular orbit.
> 13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT NEVER
> overtakes it because of extinction.
Untrue, there is no causal link between the value of
r(s) and the motion of the source.
> As a result, dstant observers see the star
> varying in luminosity.
This assumes light transports energy and that
energy is conserved though neither is stated
as a postulate.
> 14) The degree of this 'photon bunching' is referred to as ADoppler, since
> it
> depends on the acceleration of the source at instant of emission.
OK, definition of field-specific terminology. This
effect is in addition to the normal velocity-dependent
effect which Henry and I call "VDoppler". The usage
is such that:
f_r / f_t = VDoppler * ADoppler
where f_t is the frequency of a transmitted sine
wave and f_r is the resulting received frequency.
> 15) Individual photons also experience bunching, due to the fact that they
> possess 'length' and are emitted over a finite time.
Not true, there are no photons in the theory.
> 16) The relative movement between 'photon ends' does not continue for as
> long
> or to the same degree as the bunching BETWEEN photons.
Irrelevant as photons are not part of the theory.
Applying equations [2] and [3] to a radiated sine
wave defines the effect on the received frequency.
> 17) Photons possess an 'intrinsic oscillation', the frequency of which is
> not
> directly related to that of say, a generated EM signal such as RF.
Not true, there are no photons in the theory.
> 18) this oscillation produces a recurring spatial pattern that defines the
> absolute 'wavelength' of a photon.
Not true, there are no photons in the theory.
> 19) A diffraction grating is sensitive to the ABSOLUTE wavelength of a
> photon
> AND its arrival speed wrt the grating.
Not true, diffraction gratings produce maxima at
angles dependent on the received _frequency_ and
the speed of a _reflected_ propagating sine wave.
> 20) The measured wavelength of a photon can include components of both
> ADoppler
> and convenional VDoppler.
True.
> 21) When a photon changes speed during travel, its absolute wavelength
> also
> changes in proportion. The relative speed between source and observer is
> coded
> into this VDoppler effect.
There are no photons in the theory but this would be
true of a transmitted sine wave, basically it assumes
cycles are conserved (but that may not be true for
complex waveforms as is well known).
> 22) Photons emerging from the common sphere of a contact binary pair
> contain
> little or no ADoppler. The observed VDoppler can be taken as a true
> measure of
> their source speeds.
Speculation, the true effects can be calculated from
the theory.
> 23) Photons emanating from the sphere of a star in long period orbit will
> travel at c wrt that sphere.
Not true, the speed of exit can be calulated by
integrating [3] along the path within the region
(heliosphere for the Sun) using [2] to find the
initial speed.
> Note: the sphere's movement can lag in phase
> behind the star.
Speculation, the true effects can be calculated from
the theory.
> 24) The pulses from Pulsars are generally NOT ADoppler affected.
True from observation, not part of the theory. The
same is true of contact binaries.
> 25) Any rigid rod con be used to define an absolute spatial standard
> interval.
> 26) Since the rod experiences no physical change as a result of an
> acceleration, it can be used as the same standard for assessing absolute
> 'length' anywhere, anyhow..
> 27) If the length of a moving rod is found to differ from its known rest
> length, then the method used to measure the moving rod is flawed.
> 28) Similarly, the ticks between a clock can be used to define a time
> interval.
> 29) A clock can be acceleration to a new relative speed without being
> physically affected in any way. The absolute time interval between ticks
> will
> not change.
Not part of the theory but can be derived from
postulate [1].
George
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
><HW@>
> wrote
>on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:28:27 GMT
><45m0f3hc7bspsubeh...@4ax.com>:
>This is probably the clearest set of postulates regarding BaTh I've seen
>in awhile; I will want to analyze them. :-)
Congratulations Ghost. You are the only one here who has given even a remotely
sane answer.
>Of course, the mathematics
>aren't quite sufficient; #12, in particular, needs to explain that the
>orbit of a distant star is parameterized based on orbit tilt,
>eccentricity, orbit plane tilt, object masses, and orbit semimajor axis.
>(Note that period is solely dependent on the semimajor axis and the
>object masses.)
Ghost, that has all been settled. Any possible orbit can be brought to an edge
on configuration by rotating it around the axis that is perpendicular to the
LOS and lies in the orbit plane. Every orbit has one. That introduces a factor,
cos(inclination). All values of radial velocity and acceleration around the
orbit are multiplied by this factor...so all brightness curves can be produced
using edge-on orbits only. The velocity used in the program is the true orbial
velocity x cos(inclination)
>#17 is interesting; are the frequency (nu), the absolute wavelength,
>and the "intrinsic oscillation" of a photon in fact related? If so, precisely how?
My feeling is that conventional 'frequency' is the rate at which 'wavecrests'
arrive at the observer. nu = lambda/(c+v).
Wavecrests are determined by the intrinsic oscillation, which might be
something like this: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe
>#26 is erroneous for technical reasons; an accelerated rod experiences
>a force, which means Young's Modulus gets involved. This modulus
>determines the amount of compression of a rod, given a certain pressure.
>This compression isn't really related to GR.
Ghost, the statement reads, "as a result of an acceleration", not "during an
acceleration".
An 'acceleration' is a velocity change.
The rod is inertial.
>If #29 is interpreted as t' = t, the Galilean transformation is
>practically assured in the BaTh, rendering #19 redundant
>(wavelength is unchanged in the Galilean transform).
Ghost, my model of a photon looks something like a coil spring. More
precisely, a photon resembles a metal bellows or a flexible pipe....you
know....the ones with corrugations. In the photon case, the pattern is made by
a standing wave in the fields carried along with the photon.....maybe you have
seen a stretched wire vibrated at one of its higher harmonics...in which case
you see a lot of nodes along its length. The space between peaks defines its
absolute 'wavelength' (L).
A photon is not elastic although it resists a length change. When it is slows
or speeds up on entering a medium, the thing shrinks or stetches according to
the equation L' = L (v-dv)/v. Thus, the observed frequency (wavecrest arrival
rate) retains information about relative source velocity.
However, another somewhat different process takes place when a photon is
emitted by an accelerating source. Photons are long and are emitted over a
finite time. The two ends of an individual photon are emitted at different
speeds....just as will two photons emitted at different instants from an
accelerating source.
Subsequently, one end will move wrt the other BUT NOT to the same degree as the
inter-photon 'bunching' that gives rise to apparent luminosity variation..
Photon shrinkage shows up as doppler shift in a grating. This type of bunching
and 'shift' is called 'ADoppler' and crucially, thcalculated velocity shift is
in phase with the brightness variation..not 90 degrees behind...as would be the
case if only VDoppler is present.
I hope that explains it Ghost...
>To be continued. ;-)
>
>>
>> These VBasic animations are relevant:
>>
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe
>>
>> Some star curve matchings are at: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>>
>>
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>>
>> The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
>
>
>--
>#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
>Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
>important, it's the ability to DO something
>with it.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jeckyl
> Congratulations Ghost. You are the only one here who has given even a
> remotely
> sane answer.
Mine was sane .. emission theory is refuted by Sagnac.
bz
news:45m0f3hc7bspsubeh...@4ax.com:
> 13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT
> NEVER overtakes it because of extinction. As a result, dstant observers
> see the star varying in luminosity.
>
You have forgotten c-v
You need 'the slower light catches up to the light moving at c'.
Which is, of course, impossible as it violates laws of thermodynamics.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:45m0f3hc7bspsubeh...@4ax.com...
>...
>
>First let us state what constituse henry's "BaTh" since
>he has insufficient mathematical ability to do it himself.
>Capitals indicate vectors, lower case are scalars:
>
>a) The universe is Galilean Invariant. [1]
>
>b) Light emitted in vacuo from a source moving with
> velocity U in an inertial reference frame will
> move with velocity
>
> V = C + U where C is a vector [2]
>
> of magnitude c, the usual fundamental constant.
>
>c) In the presence of a locally isotropic and
> homogenous refractive medium of index n, the
> speed will decay at a rate given by
>
> dv/ds = (c/n(s) - v)/r(s) [3]
This is not the way I would approach it...but continue....
> where r(s) and n(s) are scalar functions determined
> by the material through which the light passes.
>
>The behaviour in variable density material is undefined but
>could perhaps be determined by applying conservation of
>memontume to eqn [3].
>
>> The BaTh is supported by all known physical experiments.
>
>Liar, you know it is refuted by Sagnac, the Shapiro delay,
>Ives and Stilwell and GPS to name only those we have
>discussed. Fizeau's experiment also means equation [3] is
>true in the rest frame of the matterial defining r(s) and
>refutes [1] but we have not addressed that to date.
I do not know this George. There is a simple alternative explanation in every
case.
As far as I am concerned all these 'refutations' exist only in the minds of
delusional relativists.
>> Here are some basic principles and postulates of the BaTh:
>>
>> 1) Light initially moves at c wrt its source.
>
>Correct, see eqn [2] above.
>
>> 2) Light moves at c-v wrt an object moving at v wrt the source.
>
>Follows by applying postulate [1] to equation [2].
>
>> 3) In pure vacuum, light moves 100% ballistically. Its speed does not
>> change.
>
>Eqn [2].
>
>> 4) Much of space contains matter and fields and cannot be regarded as
>> 'empty'.
>
>Speculation, not part of the theory.
That's silly...even for you.....
>> 5) Light consists of particles (photons) which possess intrinsic structure
>> and
>> properties.
>
>Speculation, not part of the theory. No definition of
>"photon" has been given.
I have provided a model of a photon that works...
>> 6) Photons change speed as they negotiate regions of space with different
>> degrees of 'emptiness'.
>
>Light varies in speed as given by eqn [3]. "Photons" are
>not part of the theory.
Changes can result from factors other than conventional refractive index....
>> 7) There exists a 'density threshold' (WDT) below which fields become
>> fragmented and the inverse square breaks down.
>
>Untrue, there is no threshold function in
>the equations.
Prove it...
Fields are more than just mathematical equations George. For instance, if they
are quantised in any way, there will be a limit to their PHYSICAL divisibility.
I can't imagine that the gravity field of every atom in the universe extends
forever....even though the combined field of all the atoms in a very distant
star probably DOES extend for a lot further.
>> 8) All photons moving in any one direction tend towards a unified speed.
>
>Untrue, the speed of the light is given by equations [2]
>and [3].
George, extinction is a two stage process. Your equation only applies to the
region broadly referred to as the heliopause...and then only roughly.
>> 9) Around large masses such as stars, there exists an 'EM control sphere'
>> which
>> tends to regulate the speed of light leaving the vicinity of a star.
>
>Speculation. If true this would only affect the
>light by providing the value and rest frame of
>factor r(s).
I have told you,..... extinction involves more than ordinary matter.
>> 10) the spheres of two close stars, eg, contact binaries, can overlap and
>> neutralise each other.
>
>Speculation, not part of the theory.
correction...it is a vital part of the theory. It silences Paul Andersen's
favorite 'contact binary' argument.
It's not my fault if you cant understand the fairly obvious principle involved.
>> 11) Unification (previously called 'extinction') occurs in two distinct
>> stages,
>> one near the source and the other (smaller) across large distances of
>> space.
>
>
>Speculation, enters via r(s) as above.
Not speculation. The effect shows up in long period variable star curves.
>> 12) A distant star in orbit emits light at c+vsin(ft) wrt Earth.
>
>Incorrect, assumes a perfectly circular orbit.
try 'f(t)' then... I thought you would realise that...
>> 13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT NEVER
>> overtakes it because of extinction.
>
>Untrue, there is no causal link between the value of
>r(s) and the motion of the source.
There doesn't have to be. that's just the way 'empty space' is...
Actually it IS possible that photons occasionally overtake and multiple images
exist...it's just that none have been knowingly observed.
>> As a result, dstant observers see the star
>> varying in luminosity.
>
>This assumes light transports energy and that
>energy is conserved though neither is stated
>as a postulate.
Correct.
luminosity variation is a consequence of variable photon arrival rate....this
assumes photons retain constant energy...or thereabouts. In fact there is a
steady loss that adds to the cosmic redshift It is due to the fact that an
entropy increase occurs whenever a photon change speed...
>> 14) The degree of this 'photon bunching' is referred to as ADoppler, since
>> it
>> depends on the acceleration of the source at instant of emission.
>
>OK, definition of field-specific terminology. This
>effect is in addition to the normal velocity-dependent
>effect which Henry and I call "VDoppler". The usage
>is such that:
>
> f_r / f_t = VDoppler * ADoppler
>
>where f_t is the frequency of a transmitted sine
>wave and f_r is the resulting received frequency.
Did you mean: (f_t- f_r) / f_t = VDoppler + ADoppler.
It depends on the actual equations for V and A doppler.
>> 15) Individual photons also experience bunching, due to the fact that they
>> possess 'length' and are emitted over a finite time.
>
>Not true, there are no photons in the theory.
......very silly George....I hope you aren't reverting to classical wave theory
again.....
>> 16) The relative movement between 'photon ends' does not continue for as
>> long
>> or to the same degree as the bunching BETWEEN photons.
>
>Irrelevant as photons are not part of the theory.
>Applying equations [2] and [3] to a radiated sine
>wave defines the effect on the received frequency.
there is NO aether George. Photons are particles.
>> 17) Photons possess an 'intrinsic oscillation', the frequency of which is
>> not
>> directly related to that of say, a generated EM signal such as RF.
>
>Not true, there are no photons in the theory.
there is NO aether George. Photons are particles.
>> 18) this oscillation produces a recurring spatial pattern that defines the
>> absolute 'wavelength' of a photon.
>
>Not true, there are no photons in the theory.
there is NO aether George. Photons are particles.
>> 19) A diffraction grating is sensitive to the ABSOLUTE wavelength of a
>> photon
>> AND its arrival speed wrt the grating.
>
>Not true, diffraction gratings produce maxima at
>angles dependent on the received _frequency_ and
>the speed of a _reflected_ propagating sine wave.
...and the received fequency is dependent on arrival speed and absolute
distance between wavecests.
>> 20) The measured wavelength of a photon can include components of both
>> ADoppler
>> and convenional VDoppler.
>
>True.
Correct...
>> 21) When a photon changes speed during travel, its absolute wavelength
>> also
>> changes in proportion. The relative speed between source and observer is
>> coded
>> into this VDoppler effect.
>
>There are no photons in the theory but this would be
>true of a transmitted sine wave, basically it assumes
>cycles are conserved (but that may not be true for
>complex waveforms as is well known).
OK...although we are not dealing with classical waves...
>> 22) Photons emerging from the common sphere of a contact binary pair
>> contain
>> little or no ADoppler. The observed VDoppler can be taken as a true
>> measure of
>> their source speeds.
>
>Speculation, the true effects can be calculated from
>the theory.
My theory agrees with observation.
Short period binaries exhibit mainly VDoppler.
>> 23) Photons emanating from the sphere of a star in long period orbit will
>> travel at c wrt that sphere.
>
>Not true, the speed of exit can be calulated by
>integrating [3] along the path within the region
>(heliosphere for the Sun) using [2] to find the
>initial speed.
Since the heliosphere moves with the sun, it does not significantly affect the
emerging light speed RELATIVE TO THE ORBIT CENTRE.
Anyway, it is the variation in light speed around the orbit that matters.
>> Note: the sphere's movement can lag in phase
>> behind the star.
>
>Speculation, the true effects can be calculated from
>the theory.
I'm sure therecanl be a lag.
There should never be a lead...and that is what is observed.
>> 24) The pulses from Pulsars are generally NOT ADoppler affected.
>
>True from observation, not part of the theory. The
>same is true of contact binaries.
the theory is not developed sufficiently to explain the state of matter and
fields around a pulsar. It acepts the observation that pulsars appear to
exhibit mainly VDoppler....although that is by no means certain...
>> 25) Any rigid rod con be used to define an absolute spatial standard
>> interval.
>> 26) Since the rod experiences no physical change as a result of an
>> acceleration, it can be used as the same standard for assessing absolute
>> 'length' anywhere, anyhow..
>> 27) If the length of a moving rod is found to differ from its known rest
>> length, then the method used to measure the moving rod is flawed.
>> 28) Similarly, the ticks between a clock can be used to define a time
>> interval.
>> 29) A clock can be acceleration to a new relative speed without being
>> physically affected in any way. The absolute time interval between ticks
>> will
>> not change.
>
>
>Not part of the theory but can be derived from
>postulate [1].
SR uses postulate 1, as well....one of the things Einstein got right....
>George
George Dishman
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:03:50 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:45m0f3hc7bspsubeh...@4ax.com...
>>...
>>
>>First let us state what constituse henry's "BaTh" since
>>he has insufficient mathematical ability to do it himself.
>>Capitals indicate vectors, lower case are scalars:
>>
>>a) The universe is Galilean Invariant. [1]
>>
>>b) Light emitted in vacuo from a source moving with
>> velocity U in an inertial reference frame will
>> move with velocity
>>
>> V = C + U where C is a vector [2]
>>
>> of magnitude c, the usual fundamental constant.
>>
>>c) In the presence of a locally isotropic and
>> homogenous refractive medium of index n, the
>> speed will decay at a rate given by
>>
>> dv/ds = (c/n(s) - v)/r(s) [3]
>
> This is not the way I would approach it...
Well you need to address that because I was just stating
your theory as I understand it. You talked a lot about
the theory but since this is a new thread with possibly
new readers, it makes sense to state the theory before
describing conclusions you think might come from it.
If I have missed anything or got part wrong, now is the
time to correct it.
> but continue....
>
>> where r(s) and n(s) are scalar functions determined
>> by the material through which the light passes.
>>
>>The behaviour in variable density material is undefined but
>>could perhaps be determined by applying conservation of
>>momentum to eqn [3].
>
>>> The BaTh is supported by all known physical experiments.
>>
>>Liar, you know it is refuted by Sagnac, the Shapiro delay,
>>Ives and Stilwell and GPS to name only those we have
>>discussed. Fizeau's experiment also means equation [3] is
>>true in the rest frame of the matterial defining r(s) and
>>refutes [1] but we have not addressed that to date.
>
> I do not know this George. There is a simple alternative explanation in
> every
> case.
None that you have produced. The equations above predict
no fringe shift for Sagnac for example and you have not
offered any alternative. You talk about the speed of light
reflecting from a mirror being other than the ballistic
value but have given no alternative equation, and since
the process can be seen as the incident light causing
motion of the electrons in the mirror which then re-radiate,
equation [2] above should apply.
> As far as I am concerned all these 'refutations' exist only in the minds
> of
> delusional relativists.
As far as I am concerned, it follows from your primary
postulate, light is re-emitted from the mirror at c
relative to the mirror, that is your theory.
>>> Here are some basic principles and postulates of the BaTh:
>>>
>>> 1) Light initially moves at c wrt its source.
>>
>>Correct, see eqn [2] above.
>>
>>> 2) Light moves at c-v wrt an object moving at v wrt the source.
>>
>>Follows by applying postulate [1] to equation [2].
>>
>>> 3) In pure vacuum, light moves 100% ballistically. Its speed does not
>>> change.
>>
>>Eqn [2].
>>
>>> 4) Much of space contains matter and fields and cannot be regarded as
>>> 'empty'.
>>
>>Speculation, not part of the theory.
>
> That's silly...even for you.....
Merely a comment, that space contains matter does not
follow from your equations, though of course we know
the ISM and IGM densities from observation.
>>> 5) Light consists of particles (photons) which possess intrinsic
>>> structure
>>> and
>>> properties.
>>
>>Speculation, not part of the theory. No definition of
>>"photon" has been given.
>
> I have provided a model of a photon that works...
No, you have given no equations relating to your EM
visualisation and you cannot use Maxwell's Equations
so you have not provided a model at all, working or
otherwise.
>>> 6) Photons change speed as they negotiate regions of space with
>>> different
>>> degrees of 'emptiness'.
>>
>>Light varies in speed as given by eqn [3]. "Photons" are
>>not part of the theory.
>
> Changes can result from factors other than conventional refractive
> index....
Yes, the factor r(s) is included in [3] which I mentioned.
I was agreeing and adding the justificaton for that
agreement.
>>> 7) There exists a 'density threshold' (WDT) below which fields become
>>> fragmented and the inverse square breaks down.
>>
>>Untrue, there is no threshold function in
>>the equations.
>
> Prove it...
Look at the equations for yourself, it is obvious there
is no threshold function in them, they are purely linear.
> Fields are more than just mathematical equations George.
Your theory is only those two equations unless you have some
up your sleeve that you haven't told me about. That's why you
need to tell eveyone what your equations are as a first step.
> For instance, if they
> are quantised in any way, there will be a limit to their PHYSICAL
> divisibility.
> I can't imagine that the gravity field of every atom in the universe
> extends
> forever....even though the combined field of all the atoms in a very
> distant
> star probably DOES extend for a lot further.
Again, your equations do not have any mention of fields
in them other than possibly that the speeds you have
defined apply to disturbances in a field, but you would
need to prove that mathematically because the usual sort
of second order differential formulation will not work.
>>> 8) All photons moving in any one direction tend towards a unified speed.
>>
>>Untrue, the speed of the light is given by equations [2]
>>and [3].
>
> George, extinction is a two stage process. Your equation only applies to
> the
> region broadly referred to as the heliopause...and then only roughly.
The equation is your theory AFAIK unless you tell me some
other version. It allows for a "two stage process" because
you could have a (near) step change in the value of r(s)
at the heliopause with a shorter value inside. However,
there is no dependence of the speed of one item on the
speed of another in the equations, speeds only depend on
the local values of r(s) and n(s).
>>> 9) Around large masses such as stars, there exists an 'EM control
>>> sphere'
>>> which
>>> tends to regulate the speed of light leaving the vicinity of a star.
>>
>>Speculation. If true this would only affect the
>>light by providing the value and rest frame of
>>factor r(s).
>
> I have told you,..... extinction involves more than ordinary matter.
Irrelevant, it enters the equation through r(s) and n(s)
only. It is speculation because your equations do not
_predict_ those values, they are set by the physical
conditions around the star.
>>> 10) the spheres of two close stars, eg, contact binaries, can overlap
>>> and
>>> neutralise each other.
>>
>>Speculation, not part of the theory.
>
> correction...it is a vital part of the theory.
No, the theory is just the two equations. What you
are describing is a practical application of the
theory, not the theory itself.
> It silences Paul Andersen's
> favorite 'contact binary' argument.
> It's not my fault if you cant understand the fairly obvious principle
> involved.
I understand what you are suggesting but I am clarifying
what constitutes the theory and what is an _application_
of the theory to stellar physics.
>>> 11) Unification (previously called 'extinction') occurs in two distinct
>>> stages,
>>> one near the source and the other (smaller) across large distances of
>>> space.
>>
>>
>>Speculation, enters via r(s) as above.
>
> Not speculation.
Yes speculation, it is not predicted by the theory.
> The effect shows up in long period variable star curves.
That is your conclusion after _making_use_ of the
theory, it is not _part_ of the theory.
>>> 12) A distant star in orbit emits light at c+vsin(ft) wrt Earth.
>>
>>Incorrect, assumes a perfectly circular orbit.
>
> try 'f(t)' then... I thought you would realise that...
I assumed f was the orbital frequency and t was time.
It makes the point that you always need to define your
variables.
>>> 13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT
>>> NEVER
>>> overtakes it because of extinction.
>>
>>Untrue, there is no causal link between the value of
>>r(s) and the motion of the source.
>
> There doesn't have to be. that's just the way 'empty space' is...
No, there is nothing in your equations that stops
faster light passing slower light if an experiment
is set up to test it. I suggested a mirror on an
ultrasonic piezo speaker, remember?
> Actually it IS possible that photons occasionally overtake and multiple
> images
> exist...it's just that none have been knowingly observed.
Exactly what I was saying.
>>> As a result, dstant observers see the star
>>> varying in luminosity.
>>
>>This assumes light transports energy and that
>>energy is conserved though neither is stated
>>as a postulate.
>
> Correct.
Then you need to add those postulates to your theory.
That isn't as easy as it sounds since energy cannot
be related to frequency in the normal manner if it is
also to be conserved due to ADoppler.
> luminosity variation is a consequence of variable photon arrival
> rate....this
> assumes photons retain constant energy...or thereabouts. In fact there is
> a
> steady loss that adds to the cosmic redshift It is due to the fact that an
> entropy increase occurs whenever a photon change speed...
That does not happen according to your equations,
frequencies are preserved for a source at rest.
>>> 14) The degree of this 'photon bunching' is referred to as ADoppler,
>>> since
>>> it
>>> depends on the acceleration of the source at instant of emission.
>>
>>OK, definition of field-specific terminology. This
>>effect is in addition to the normal velocity-dependent
>>effect which Henry and I call "VDoppler". The usage
>>is such that:
>>
>> f_r / f_t = VDoppler * ADoppler
>>
>>where f_t is the frequency of a transmitted sine
>>wave and f_r is the resulting received frequency.
>
> Did you mean: (f_t- f_r) / f_t = VDoppler + ADoppler.
No, that doesn't work. You could subtract 1 from the
product to get the delta and the sign is arbitrary
but you cannot replace the product with an addition.
> It depends on the actual equations for V and A doppler.
To a degree, yes, but if VDoppler increases the frequency
by 1% and ADoppler by 10% then you get 1.01*1.1 = 1.111
or an increase of 11.1% and not 1% + 10%= 11%, note the
difference of 0.1%.
>>> 15) Individual photons also experience bunching, due to the fact that
>>> they
>>> possess 'length' and are emitted over a finite time.
>>
>>Not true, there are no photons in the theory.
>
> ......very silly George....I hope you aren't reverting to classical wave
> theory
> again.....
You don't have any equations for photons. The two
above can apply you some disturbance in a field
such as wavefronts or the red/blue waves in your
visualisation but they apply independently so
they say the ends of a wave burst move independently
and the tail can pass the head.
>>> 16) The relative movement between 'photon ends' does not continue for as
>>> long
>>> or to the same degree as the bunching BETWEEN photons.
>>
>>Irrelevant as photons are not part of the theory.
>>Applying equations [2] and [3] to a radiated sine
>>wave defines the effect on the received frequency.
>
> there is NO aether George. Photons are particles.
I agree entirely, but what I said is still true, your
equations give the speed of the sine wave crests even
if they are constructed from agregated particle effects.
>>> 17) Photons possess an 'intrinsic oscillation', the frequency of which
>>> is
>>> not
>>> directly related to that of say, a generated EM signal such as RF.
>>
>>Not true, there are no photons in the theory.
>
> there is NO aether George. Photons are particles.
Your equations only give speeds of whatever. You
need to explain how to apply them to a CW RF signal
because the normal interpretation is that they tell
me the speed of those waves.
>>> 18) this oscillation produces a recurring spatial pattern that defines
>>> the
>>> absolute 'wavelength' of a photon.
>>
>>Not true, there are no photons in the theory.
>
> there is NO aether George. Photons are particles.
See above.
>>> 19) A diffraction grating is sensitive to the ABSOLUTE wavelength of a
>>> photon
>>> AND its arrival speed wrt the grating.
>>
>>Not true, diffraction gratings produce maxima at
>>angles dependent on the received _frequency_ and
>>the speed of a _reflected_ propagating sine wave.
>
> ...and the received fequency is dependent on arrival speed and absolute
> distance between wavecests.
What I said is true but there is no equation for the
speed of reflection in above (unless [2] applies) so
you can go no farther.
>>> 20) The measured wavelength of a photon can include components of both
>>> ADoppler
>>> and convenional VDoppler.
>>
>>True.
>
> Correct...
>
>>> 21) When a photon changes speed during travel, its absolute wavelength
>>> also
>>> changes in proportion. The relative speed between source and observer is
>>> coded
>>> into this VDoppler effect.
>>
>>There are no photons in the theory but this would be
>>true of a transmitted sine wave, basically it assumes
>>cycles are conserved (but that may not be true for
>>complex waveforms as is well known).
>
> OK...although we are not dealing with classical waves...
If I want to apply your theory to my favourite
radio station, I will apply it to classical
waves. Your equations tell me their speeds.
>>> 22) Photons emerging from the common sphere of a contact binary pair
>>> contain
>>> little or no ADoppler. The observed VDoppler can be taken as a true
>>> measure of
>>> their source speeds.
>>
>>Speculation, the true effects can be calculated from
>>the theory.
>
> My theory agrees with observation.
No, it fails almost all tests notably Sagnac and the
Shapiro delay. Incidentally your equations do not
cater for gravitational speed changes so as they stand
they predict no bending and no Shapiro effect at all.
> Short period binaries exhibit mainly VDoppler.
>
>>> 23) Photons emanating from the sphere of a star in long period orbit
>>> will
>>> travel at c wrt that sphere.
>>
>>Not true, the speed of exit can be calulated by
>>integrating [3] along the path within the region
>>(heliosphere for the Sun) using [2] to find the
>>initial speed.
>
> Since the heliosphere moves with the sun, it does not significantly affect
> the
> emerging light speed RELATIVE TO THE ORBIT CENTRE.
> Anyway, it is the variation in light speed around the orbit that matters.
Regardless, since [3] produces an exponential approach
towards c/n, it never reaches that value and light
initially emitted at c-v will always be below c/n, it
never reaches c.
>>> Note: the sphere's movement can lag in phase
>>> behind the star.
>>
>>Speculation, the true effects can be calculated from
>>the theory.
>
> I'm sure therecanl be a lag.
> There should never be a lead...and that is what is observed.
You are guessing but it could be calculated.
>>> 24) The pulses from Pulsars are generally NOT ADoppler affected.
>>
>>True from observation, not part of the theory. The
>>same is true of contact binaries.
>
> the theory is not developed sufficiently to explain the state of matter
> and
> fields around a pulsar. It acepts the observation that pulsars appear to
> exhibit mainly VDoppler....although that is by no means certain...
It remains an observation, not part of the theory.
Using the theory to calculate the density would still
be an application, not part of the theory.
>>> 25) Any rigid rod con be used to define an absolute spatial standard
>>> interval.
>>> 26) Since the rod experiences no physical change as a result of an
>>> acceleration, it can be used as the same standard for assessing absolute
>>> 'length' anywhere, anyhow..
>>> 27) If the length of a moving rod is found to differ from its known rest
>>> length, then the method used to measure the moving rod is flawed.
>>> 28) Similarly, the ticks between a clock can be used to define a time
>>> interval.
>>> 29) A clock can be acceleration to a new relative speed without being
>>> physically affected in any way. The absolute time interval between ticks
>>> will
>>> not change.
>>
>>
>>Not part of the theory but can be derived from
>>postulate [1].
>
> SR uses postulate 1, as well....one of the things Einstein got right....
No, it is incompatible with [1] but it derives Lorentz
Invariance. In fact that is the most significant
difference between the theories, you could always say
light is equalised to c so fast by r(s) that we cannot
detect ADoppler in any experiment, even in the lab, but
the difference in invariance still shows up in Fizeau's
experiments.
George
Jeckyl
> The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the
> latter at least has a product to sell.
You don't have a product to sell, preacher man .. ballistic theory is
refuted by Sagnac. You're flogging a dead horse
Dono
...and by Ives-Stilwell. But Ralphie here, with his forged degree,
doesn't know either ....
Paul B. Andersen
... and by Fizeau
... and by Alvaeger et al
... and by Filipas and Fox
... and by the fact that fiber optic gyros and ring lasers work
... and by the fact that none of the binary stars appear as prdicted
by the BaTh, we simply do not observe what the BaTh predicts
... and by the fact that pulsating stars like Cepheids amd Miras
dont appear as predicted by the BaTh
Paul
Jeckyl
news:46F37001...@hiadeletethis.no...
Hey .. maybe .. just maybe .. ballistic theory might be wrong? :):)
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Well for one thing we might consider what happens one direction only to get rid
of your vector and scalar notations. ...not that they are wrong...
Your equation applies essentially to light emitted by a source that is moving
wrt a medium of variable refracive index.That is only ONE situation.....for
instance light emitted by a member of a close binary pair. Its speed unifies
with lignt from the other member as it negotiates their common 'EM sphere'.
In that case, there will be a kind of exponential approach to the final speed
of each,,,as your equation suggests.
For a single pulsating star or one in a long period orbit, the equation doesn't
apply at all since all light will leave the EM sphere at c wrt the star's
centre. Subsequent unification as it travels through space will bemore or less
unpredictable.
>> I do not know this George. There is a simple alternative explanation in
>> every
>> case.
>
>None that you have produced. The equations above predict
>no fringe shift for Sagnac for example and you have not
>offered any alternative.
I have provided the real reason for the Sagnac shift.
Light does NOT reflect from a moving mirror at the incident angle of speed.
>You talk about the speed of light
>reflecting from a mirror being other than the ballistic
>value but have given no alternative equation, and since
>the process can be seen as the incident light causing
>motion of the electrons in the mirror which then re-radiate,
>equation [2] above should apply.
>
>> As far as I am concerned all these 'refutations' exist only in the minds
>> of
>> delusional relativists.
>
>As far as I am concerned, it follows from your primary
>postulate, light is re-emitted from the mirror at c
>relative to the mirror, that is your theory.
Not if the mirror is moving transversly.
>>>Speculation, not part of the theory. No definition of
>>>"photon" has been given.
>>
>> I have provided a model of a photon that works...
>
>No, you have given no equations relating to your EM
>visualisation and you cannot use Maxwell's Equations
>so you have not provided a model at all, working or
>otherwise.
Maxwell's equations re;ate to the movement of EM waves in a medium....not empty
space..
>>>Untrue, there is no threshold function in
>>>the equations.
>>
>> Prove it...
>
>Look at the equations for yourself, it is obvious there
>is no threshold function in them, they are purely linear.
>
>> Fields are more than just mathematical equations George.
>
>Your theory is only those two equations unless you have some
>up your sleeve that you haven't told me about. That's why you
>need to tell eveyone what your equations are as a first step.
George, I don't claim to know the factors involved in light speed unification
I have discovered its existence. It is now up to astronomers to invstigate how
and why it happens
>> For instance, if they
>> are quantised in any way, there will be a limit to their PHYSICAL
>> divisibility.
>> I can't imagine that the gravity field of every atom in the universe
>> extends
>> forever....even though the combined field of all the atoms in a very
>> distant
>> star probably DOES extend for a lot further.
>
>Again, your equations do not have any mention of fields
>in them other than possibly that the speeds you have
>defined apply to disturbances in a field, but you would
>need to prove that mathematically because the usual sort
>of second order differential formulation will not work.
First things first George. I have to get the model right before the maths can
be applied. The model I already have appears to work well.
>>>> 8) All photons moving in any one direction tend towards a unified speed.
>>>
>>>Untrue, the speed of the light is given by equations [2]
>>>and [3].
>>
>> George, extinction is a two stage process. Your equation only applies to
>> the
>> region broadly referred to as the heliopause...and then only roughly.
>
>The equation is your theory AFAIK unless you tell me some
>other version. It allows for a "two stage process" because
>you could have a (near) step change in the value of r(s)
>at the heliopause with a shorter value inside. However,
>there is no dependence of the speed of one item on the
>speed of another in the equations, speeds only depend on
>the local values of r(s) and n(s).
You are considering only conventional 'matter media'. Ther are other factors
involved in this.
>>>> 10) the spheres of two close stars, eg, contact binaries, can overlap
>>>> and
>>>> neutralise each other.
>>>
>>>Speculation, not part of the theory.
>>
>> correction...it is a vital part of the theory.
>
>No, the theory is just the two equations. What you
>are describing is a practical application of the
>theory, not the theory itself.
>
>> It silences Paul Andersen's
>> favorite 'contact binary' argument.
>> It's not my fault if you cant understand the fairly obvious principle
>> involved.
>
>I understand what you are suggesting but I am clarifying
>what constitutes the theory and what is an _application_
>of the theory to stellar physics.
Well, I discovered the theory...by applying physics and philosophy.
I'll let the engineers and astronomers perform the tedious work .
>
>>>> 13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT
>>>> NEVER
>>>> overtakes it because of extinction.
>>>
>>>Untrue, there is no causal link between the value of
>>>r(s) and the motion of the source.
>>
>> There doesn't have to be. that's just the way 'empty space' is...
>
>No, there is nothing in your equations that stops
>faster light passing slower light if an experiment
>is set up to test it. I suggested a mirror on an
>ultrasonic piezo speaker, remember?
You would have to do it in space....even then, the apparatus would create its
own EM reference frame. The distance required would be huge....
Have you any idea of the maximum speed of the speaker?
>> Actually it IS possible that photons occasionally overtake and multiple
>> images
>> exist...it's just that none have been knowingly observed.
>
>Exactly what I was saying.
I have never claimed otherwise.
...in fact there are stars that regularly flare up...
>> Correct.
>
>Then you need to add those postulates to your theory.
>That isn't as easy as it sounds since energy cannot
>be related to frequency in the normal manner if it is
>also to be conserved due to ADoppler.
just assume energy is conserved...
>> luminosity variation is a consequence of variable photon arrival
>> rate....this
>> assumes photons retain constant energy...or thereabouts. In fact there is
>> a
>> steady loss that adds to the cosmic redshift It is due to the fact that an
>> entropy increase occurs whenever a photon change speed...
>
>That does not happen according to your equations,
>frequencies are preserved for a source at rest.
There is a slow loss of energy from light as it travels.....'tired light'
theory
>>>OK, definition of field-specific terminology. This
>>>effect is in addition to the normal velocity-dependent
>>>effect which Henry and I call "VDoppler". The usage
>>>is such that:
>>>
>>> f_r / f_t = VDoppler * ADoppler
>>>
>>>where f_t is the frequency of a transmitted sine
>>>wave and f_r is the resulting received frequency.
>>
>> Did you mean: (f_t- f_r) / f_t = VDoppler + ADoppler.
>
>No, that doesn't work. You could subtract 1 from the
>product to get the delta and the sign is arbitrary
>but you cannot replace the product with an addition.
>
>> It depends on the actual equations for V and A doppler.
>
>To a degree, yes, but if VDoppler increases the frequency
>by 1% and ADoppler by 10% then you get 1.01*1.1 = 1.111
>or an increase of 11.1% and not 1% + 10%= 11%, note the
>difference of 0.1%.
yes...I actually use the product in my program...
>>>> 15) Individual photons also experience bunching, due to the fact that
>>>> they
>>>> possess 'length' and are emitted over a finite time.
>>>
>>>Not true, there are no photons in the theory.
>>
>> ......very silly George....I hope you aren't reverting to classical wave
>> theory
>> again.....
>
>You don't have any equations for photons. The two
>above can apply you some disturbance in a field
>such as wavefronts or the red/blue waves in your
>visualisation but they apply independently so
>they say the ends of a wave burst move independently
>and the tail can pass the head.
no.
>>>> directly related to that of say, a generated EM signal such as RF.
>>>
>>>Not true, there are no photons in the theory.
>>
>> there is NO aether George. Photons are particles.
>
>Your equations only give speeds of whatever. You
>need to explain how to apply them to a CW RF signal
>because the normal interpretation is that they tell
>me the speed of those waves.
Generated EM signals are waves based on variations in photon numbers. They are
not related to intrinsic photon frequencies.
>>>> 19) A diffraction grating is sensitive to the ABSOLUTE wavelength of a
>>>> photon
>>>> AND its arrival speed wrt the grating.
>>>
>>>Not true, diffraction gratings produce maxima at
>>>angles dependent on the received _frequency_ and
>>>the speed of a _reflected_ propagating sine wave.
>>
>> ...and the received fequency is dependent on arrival speed and absolute
>> distance between wavecests.
>
>What I said is true but there is no equation for the
>speed of reflection in above (unless [2] applies) so
>you can go no farther.
Probably true.
>>>There are no photons in the theory but this would be
>>>true of a transmitted sine wave, basically it assumes
>>>cycles are conserved (but that may not be true for
>>>complex waveforms as is well known).
>>
>> OK...although we are not dealing with classical waves...
>
>If I want to apply your theory to my favourite
>radio station, I will apply it to classical
>waves. Your equations tell me their speeds.
...initially c/n wrt the source.
>>
>> Since the heliosphere moves with the sun, it does not significantly affect
>> the
>> emerging light speed RELATIVE TO THE ORBIT CENTRE.
>> Anyway, it is the variation in light speed around the orbit that matters.
>
>Regardless, since [3] produces an exponential approach
>towards c/n, it never reaches that value and light
>initially emitted at c-v will always be below c/n, it
>never reaches c.
George, the 'medium' making up the sphere approaches zero density with
distance. Light eventually moves at c wrt the star no matter what happens
inside the sphere..
>>>> Note: the sphere's movement can lag in phase
>>>> behind the star.
>>>
>>>Speculation, the true effects can be calculated from
>>>the theory.
>>
>> I'm sure therecanl be a lag.
>> There should never be a lead...and that is what is observed.
>
>You are guessing but it could be calculated.
It is observed that way.
>> the theory is not developed sufficiently to explain the state of matter
>> and
>> fields around a pulsar. It acepts the observation that pulsars appear to
>> exhibit mainly VDoppler....although that is by no means certain...
>
>It remains an observation, not part of the theory.
>Using the theory to calculate the density would still
>be an application, not part of the theory.
Just ccept that the 'sphere' around a pulsar remains pretty steady....even f
the pulsar itself is in orbit. It's something like a close binary system.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not part of the theory but can be derived from
>>>postulate [1].
>>
>> SR uses postulate 1, as well....one of the things Einstein got right....
>
>No, it is incompatible with [1] but it derives Lorentz
>Invariance. In fact that is the most significant
>difference between the theories, you could always say
>light is equalised to c so fast by r(s) that we cannot
>detect ADoppler in any experiment, even in the lab, but
>the difference in invariance still shows up in Fizeau's
>experiments.
of course we can't detect ADoppler in the lab...and Fizeau's experiment proves
SR wrong.
http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>news:45m0f3hc7bspsubeh...@4ax.com:
>
>> 13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT
>> NEVER overtakes it because of extinction. As a result, dstant observers
>> see the star varying in luminosity.
>>
>
>You have forgotten c-v
>You need 'the slower light catches up to the light moving at c'.
>Which is, of course, impossible as it violates laws of thermodynamics.
There is no violation. When light speeds up, the medium slows down.
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Dono wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 8:46 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:e6r5f3pvfjc4p5fiv...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the
>>>> latter at least has a product to sell.
>>> You don't have a product to sell, preacher man .. ballistic theory is
>>> refuted by Sagnac. You're flogging a dead horse
>>
>>
>>
>> ...and by Ives-Stilwell. But Ralphie here, with his forged degree,
>> doesn't know either ....
>>
>
>... and by Fizeau
http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
>... and by Alvaeger et al
>... and by Filipas and Fox
both bullshit...
>... and by the fact that fiber optic gyros and ring lasers work
>... and by the fact that none of the binary stars appear as prdicted
> by the BaTh, we simply do not observe what the BaTh predicts
>... and by the fact that pulsating stars like Cepheids amd Miras
> dont appear as predicted by the BaTh
I don't care how long you remaiind deluded Paul.
>
>Paul
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jeckyl
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:17:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>>Dono wrote:
>>> On Sep 20, 8:46 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:e6r5f3pvfjc4p5fiv...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the
>>>>> latter at least has a product to sell.
>>>> You don't have a product to sell, preacher man .. ballistic theory is
>>>> refuted by Sagnac. You're flogging a dead horse
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ...and by Ives-Stilwell. But Ralphie here, with his forged degree,
>>> doesn't know either ....
>>>
>>
>>... and by Fizeau
>
> http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
>
>>... and by Alvaeger et al
>
>>... and by Filipas and Fox
>
> both bullshit...
>
>>... and by the fact that fiber optic gyros and ring lasers work
>>... and by the fact that none of the binary stars appear as prdicted
>> by the BaTh, we simply do not observe what the BaTh predicts
>>... and by the fact that pulsating stars like Cepheids amd Miras
>> dont appear as predicted by the BaTh
>
> I don't care how long you remaiind deluded Paul.
You are the deluded one .. you keep supporting a theory that is plainly and
simply wrong. How many times does it need to be refuted? Once should be
enough. Stop peddling your religious views (because they cannot be
scientific ones)
Jeckyl
> Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
Hypocrite
> The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the
> latter at least has a product to sell.
Hypocrite
George Dishman
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
On the contrary, your model has to cope with changes
due to refraction so eventualy it needs to be extended
to a full 3D version, I have kept it deliberately simple
to illustrate the principle only, the equations are far
from complete but adequate for the discussions of pulsars
etc..
> Your equation applies essentially to light emitted by a source that is
> moving
> wrt a medium of variable refracive index.
No, it is easiest to assume constant properties, so
n(s) and r(s) are constant and could be written as
just "n" and "r", but the way I wrote it allows for
variation along the path such as if the light passed
through a thin nebula en route.
> That is only ONE situation.....for
> instance light emitted by a member of a close binary pair. Its speed
> unifies
> with lignt from the other member as it negotiates their common 'EM
> sphere'.
>
> In that case, there will be a kind of exponential approach to the final
> speed
> of each,,,as your equation suggests.
It is always exponential, the rate varies with
the conditions.
> For a single pulsating star or one in a long period orbit, the equation
> doesn't
> apply at all since all light will leave the EM sphere at c wrt the star's
> centre. Subsequent unification as it travels through space will bemore or
> less
> unpredictable.
The equations are valid in that case too, learn
some maths Henry.
>>> I do not know this George. There is a simple alternative explanation in
>>> every case.
>>
>>None that you have produced. The equations above predict
>>no fringe shift for Sagnac for example and you have not
>>offered any alternative.
>
> I have provided the real reason for the Sagnac shift.
> Light does NOT reflect from a moving mirror at the incident angle of
> speed.
You have not provided a reason Henry because you
have not altered your theory to include an equation
that tells you that speed. Equation [2] says the
light emitted from the mirror leaves it at c relative
to the atoms of the mirror.
You have not explained Sagnac because you have not
applied your equations to the experimental situation
and shown that it produces an equation for the fringe
shift that matches observation.
>>You talk about the speed of light
>>reflecting from a mirror being other than the ballistic
>>value but have given no alternative equation, and since
>>the process can be seen as the incident light causing
>>motion of the electrons in the mirror which then re-radiate,
>>equation [2] above should apply.
>>
>>> As far as I am concerned all these 'refutations' exist only in the minds
>>> of
>>> delusional relativists.
>>
>>As far as I am concerned, it follows from your primary
>>postulate, light is re-emitted from the mirror at c
>>relative to the mirror, that is your theory.
>
> Not if the mirror is moving transversly.
Relative to the atoms of the mirror Henry, that
includes their motion in all directions which is
why equation [2] must be stated in vectors.
>>>>Speculation, not part of the theory. No definition of
>>>>"photon" has been given.
>>>
>>> I have provided a model of a photon that works...
>>
>>No, you have given no equations relating to your EM
>>visualisation and you cannot use Maxwell's Equations
>>so you have not provided a model at all, working or
>>otherwise.
>
> Maxwell's equations re;ate to the movement of EM waves in a medium....not
> empty
> space..
Wrong, they apply in pure vacuum and anything in that
vacuum is explicitly stated as parameters. You need
to look at the equations before trying to comment,
apparently you have not yet done so.
>>>>Untrue, there is no threshold function in
>>>>the equations.
>>>
>>> Prove it...
>>
>>Look at the equations for yourself, it is obvious there
>>is no threshold function in them, they are purely linear.
>>
>>> Fields are more than just mathematical equations George.
>>
>>Your theory is only those two equations unless you have some
>>up your sleeve that you haven't told me about. That's why you
>>need to tell eveyone what your equations are as a first step.
>
> George, I don't claim to know the factors involved in light speed
> unification
> I have discovered its existence. It is now up to astronomers to
> invstigate how
> and why it happens
No, it is up to you, it is your theory. Astronomers
provide observational data which anyone can use.
>>> For instance, if they
>>> are quantised in any way, there will be a limit to their PHYSICAL
>>> divisibility.
>>> I can't imagine that the gravity field of every atom in the universe
>>> extends
>>> forever....even though the combined field of all the atoms in a very
>>> distant
>>> star probably DOES extend for a lot further.
>>
>>Again, your equations do not have any mention of fields
>>in them other than possibly that the speeds you have
>>defined apply to disturbances in a field, but you would
>>need to prove that mathematically because the usual sort
>>of second order differential formulation will not work.
>
> First things first George. I have to get the model right before the maths
> can
> be applied. The model I already have appears to work well.
You need to learn the difference between science
and philosophy Henry, your scientific model is
those two equations only at the moment, nothing
more. That was the point I tried to emphasise in
my first reply. Much of what you posted is not
part of the theory but conclusions you might
reach by its application and you seem to have
trouble distinguishing the two.
>>>>> 8) All photons moving in any one direction tend towards a unified
>>>>> speed.
>>>>
>>>>Untrue, the speed of the light is given by equations [2]
>>>>and [3].
>>>
>>> George, extinction is a two stage process. Your equation only applies to
>>> the
>>> region broadly referred to as the heliopause...and then only roughly.
>>
>>The equation is your theory AFAIK unless you tell me some
>>other version. It allows for a "two stage process" because
>>you could have a (near) step change in the value of r(s)
>>at the heliopause with a shorter value inside. However,
>>there is no dependence of the speed of one item on the
>>speed of another in the equations, speeds only depend on
>>the local values of r(s) and n(s).
>
> You are considering only conventional 'matter media'. Ther are other
> factors
> involved in this.
Matter is all there is, fields cannot have an
effect since the behaviour is linear as we
discussed elsewhere. However, even if some
other factors were involved, the r(s) function
is simply the overall effect so it includes
all causes.
>>>>> 10) the spheres of two close stars, eg, contact binaries, can overlap
>>>>> and
>>>>> neutralise each other.
>>>>
>>>>Speculation, not part of the theory.
>>>
>>> correction...it is a vital part of the theory.
>>
>>No, the theory is just the two equations. What you
>>are describing is a practical application of the
>>theory, not the theory itself.
>>
>>> It silences Paul Andersen's
>>> favorite 'contact binary' argument.
>>> It's not my fault if you cant understand the fairly obvious principle
>>> involved.
>>
>>I understand what you are suggesting but I am clarifying
>>what constitutes the theory and what is an _application_
>>of the theory to stellar physics.
>
> Well, I discovered the theory...by applying physics and philosophy.
> I'll let the engineers and astronomers perform the tedious work .
Sorry Henry, what you call "the tedious work" is the
part that changes handwaving useless philosophy into
an actual theory, the equations that make the
quantitative predictions, so that is down to you.
>>>>> 13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT
>>>>> NEVER
>>>>> overtakes it because of extinction.
>>>>
>>>>Untrue, there is no causal link between the value of
>>>>r(s) and the motion of the source.
>>>
>>> There doesn't have to be. that's just the way 'empty space' is...
>>
>>No, there is nothing in your equations that stops
>>faster light passing slower light if an experiment
>>is set up to test it. I suggested a mirror on an
>>ultrasonic piezo speaker, remember?
>
> You would have to do it in space....even then, the apparatus would create
> its
> own EM reference frame. The distance required would be huge....
> Have you any idea of the maximum speed of the speaker?
You don't need high speed, just high acceleration.
A commercial AT cut crystal oscillates in the MHz
range so you could silver a surface and bounce the
light off that easily.
>>> Actually it IS possible that photons occasionally overtake and multiple
>>> images
>>> exist...it's just that none have been knowingly observed.
>>
>>Exactly what I was saying.
>
> I have never claimed otherwise.
Yes do did, you said light never overtakes and
we never see multiple images in the other thread.
> ...in fact there are stars that regularly flare up...
>
>>> Correct.
>>
>>Then you need to add those postulates to your theory.
>>That isn't as easy as it sounds since energy cannot
>>be related to frequency in the normal manner if it is
>>also to be conserved due to ADoppler.
>
> just assume energy is conserved...
"just assume" doesn't cut it Henry, _you_ have to
provide the equations that conserve it.
>>> luminosity variation is a consequence of variable photon arrival
>>> rate....this
>>> assumes photons retain constant energy...or thereabouts. In fact there
>>> is
>>> a
>>> steady loss that adds to the cosmic redshift It is due to the fact that
>>> an
>>> entropy increase occurs whenever a photon change speed...
>>
>>That does not happen according to your equations,
>>frequencies are preserved for a source at rest.
>
> There is a slow loss of energy from light as it travels.....'tired light'
> theory
Proven wrong.
>>>>OK, definition of field-specific terminology. This
>>>>effect is in addition to the normal velocity-dependent
>>>>effect which Henry and I call "VDoppler". The usage
>>>>is such that:
>>>>
>>>> f_r / f_t = VDoppler * ADoppler
>>>>
>>>>where f_t is the frequency of a transmitted sine
>>>>wave and f_r is the resulting received frequency.
>>>
>>> Did you mean: (f_t- f_r) / f_t = VDoppler + ADoppler.
>>
>>No, that doesn't work. You could subtract 1 from the
>>product to get the delta and the sign is arbitrary
>>but you cannot replace the product with an addition.
>>
>>> It depends on the actual equations for V and A doppler.
>>
>>To a degree, yes, but if VDoppler increases the frequency
>>by 1% and ADoppler by 10% then you get 1.01*1.1 = 1.111
>>or an increase of 11.1% and not 1% + 10%= 11%, note the
>>difference of 0.1%.
>
> yes...I actually use the product in my program...
OK.
>>>>> 15) Individual photons also experience bunching, due to the fact that
>>>>> they
>>>>> possess 'length' and are emitted over a finite time.
>>>>
>>>>Not true, there are no photons in the theory.
>>>
>>> ......very silly George....I hope you aren't reverting to classical wave
>>> theory
>>> again.....
>>
>>You don't have any equations for photons. The two
>>above can apply you some disturbance in a field
>>such as wavefronts or the red/blue waves in your
>>visualisation but they apply independently so
>>they say the ends of a wave burst move independently
>>and the tail can pass the head.
>
> no.
Yes henry, if you apply your equations, that
is what happens so that is "what your theory
predicts".
>>>>> directly related to that of say, a generated EM signal such as RF.
>>>>
>>>>Not true, there are no photons in the theory.
>>>
>>> there is NO aether George. Photons are particles.
>>
>>Your equations only give speeds of whatever. You
>>need to explain how to apply them to a CW RF signal
>>because the normal interpretation is that they tell
>>me the speed of those waves.
>
> Generated EM signals are waves based on variations in photon numbers.
Wrong, the photon rate is the power level divided
by the energy per photon, which for CW is perfectly
constant by definition. (Any variation in power
level would be AM.)
Come on Henry, you should know these basics by now,
I have corrected you several times before.
> They are
> not related to intrinsic photon frequencies.
Wrong again as you have been told, shine a
low level light on a grating and the individual
photons are deflected by exactly the same angle
as the macroscopic sine wave.
>>>>> 19) A diffraction grating is sensitive to the ABSOLUTE wavelength of a
>>>>> photon
>>>>> AND its arrival speed wrt the grating.
>>>>
>>>>Not true, diffraction gratings produce maxima at
>>>>angles dependent on the received _frequency_ and
>>>>the speed of a _reflected_ propagating sine wave.
>>>
>>> ...and the received fequency is dependent on arrival speed and absolute
>>> distance between wavecests.
>>
>>What I said is true but there is no equation for the
>>speed of reflection in above (unless [2] applies) so
>>you can go no farther.
>
> Probably true.
It is true, Equation [3] doesn't apply at the
point of emission, only thereafter and you have
no more equations.
>>>>There are no photons in the theory but this would be
>>>>true of a transmitted sine wave, basically it assumes
>>>>cycles are conserved (but that may not be true for
>>>>complex waveforms as is well known).
>>>
>>> OK...although we are not dealing with classical waves...
>>
>>If I want to apply your theory to my favourite
>>radio station, I will apply it to classical
>>waves. Your equations tell me their speeds.
>
> ...initially c/n wrt the source.
No, initially c (equation [2]) and changing towards
c/n at a rate determined by r(s) in equation [3].
>>> Since the heliosphere moves with the sun, it does not significantly
>>> affect
>>> the
>>> emerging light speed RELATIVE TO THE ORBIT CENTRE.
>>> Anyway, it is the variation in light speed around the orbit that
>>> matters.
>>
>>Regardless, since [3] produces an exponential approach
>>towards c/n, it never reaches that value and light
>>initially emitted at c-v will always be below c/n, it
>>never reaches c.
>
> George, the 'medium' making up the sphere approaches zero density with
> distance.
The the rate at which the light approaches c/n falls
to zero and it gets less close to c at the point it
leaves the sphere.
> Light eventually moves at c wrt the star no matter what happens
> inside the sphere..
Not at the boundary.
>>>>> Note: the sphere's movement can lag in phase
>>>>> behind the star.
>>>>
>>>>Speculation, the true effects can be calculated from
>>>>the theory.
>>>
>>> I'm sure therecanl be a lag.
>>> There should never be a lead...and that is what is observed.
>>
>>You are guessing but it could be calculated.
>
> It is observed that way.
Irrelevant, we are discussing what your theory
predicts.
>>> the theory is not developed sufficiently to explain the state of matter
>>> and
>>> fields around a pulsar. It acepts the observation that pulsars appear to
>>> exhibit mainly VDoppler....although that is by no means certain...
>>
>>It remains an observation, not part of the theory.
>>Using the theory to calculate the density would still
>>be an application, not part of the theory.
>
> Just ccept that the 'sphere' around a pulsar remains pretty steady....even
> f
> the pulsar itself is in orbit. It's something like a close binary system.
Nobody "just accepts" anything, _you_ have to
do the calculation, then I and others can check
your maths to see if you did it correctly. Only
then do you have an "explanation".
>>>>Not part of the theory but can be derived from
>>>>postulate [1].
>>>
>>> SR uses postulate 1, as well....one of the things Einstein got right....
>>
>>No, it is incompatible with [1] but it derives Lorentz
>>Invariance. In fact that is the most significant
>>difference between the theories, you could always say
>>light is equalised to c so fast by r(s) that we cannot
>>detect ADoppler in any experiment, even in the lab, but
>>the difference in invariance still shows up in Fizeau's
>>experiments.
>
> of course we can't detect ADoppler in the lab...and Fizeau's experiment
> proves
> SR wrong.
>
> http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
There's too much math for me to check in a
reasonable time but Renshaw has a number of
other pages that at first glance look
reasonable but on detailed examination have
clear flaws. He is quite good at disguising
the errors to get the result he wants. At
least he knows how to present a scientific
analysis by applying the equations to the
situation, you could learn a lot by looking
at how he lays out his pages and discarding
your pointless philosophising.
George
bz
news:csebf3loih26u3pd7...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:31:25 +0000 (UTC), bz
> <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>
>>HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>>news:45m0f3hc7bspsubeh...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> 13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT
>>> NEVER overtakes it because of extinction. As a result, dstant
>>> observers see the star varying in luminosity.
>>>
>>
>>You have forgotten c-v
>>You need 'the slower light catches up to the light moving at c'.
>>Which is, of course, impossible as it violates laws of thermodynamics.
>
> There is no violation. When light speeds up, the medium slows down.
>
> Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
What medium? Have you suddenly become an aetherist. I thought that you were
a ballisticist (remember BaTh????) BECAUSE you did not believe in an
aether.
Extracting energy from a medium requires that the medium has an excess of
energy. Loss of energy through speeding up light would cool the medium. But
that is not the main problem. The interstellar media are 'chaotic'.
Any light passing through such a chaotic medium would be 'scrambled', the
medium would NOT systematically speed up slow light and slow down fast
light. There are no mechanisms that allow such violations of the laws of
thermodynamics.
For light passing through to extract the exact right amount of energy to
bring it up to c and not beyond requires some wilsonian miracles.
Remember that each emission band and absorption band must be shifted by
the exact right amount to produce the wiluison that there is only one star
and it is going through a cycle of heating and expansion followed by
cooling and contraction with all of the shifts in relative brightness of
different bands that are observed.
Unless you believe in miracles, (and you frequently make fun of people for
doing that), YOU, have a problem.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:17:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>> Dono wrote:
>>> On Sep 20, 8:46 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:e6r5f3pvfjc4p5fiv...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the
>>>>> latter at least has a product to sell.
>>>> You don't have a product to sell, preacher man .. ballistic theory is
>>>> refuted by Sagnac. You're flogging a dead horse
>>>
>>>
>>> ...and by Ives-Stilwell. But Ralphie here, with his forged degree,
>>> doesn't know either ....
>>>
>> ... and by Fizeau
>
> http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
So we can conclude that Fizeau's experiment falsifies both the BaTh
and SR, and confirms the Radiation Continuum Model Of Light.
Right? :-)
You don't recognize a crackpot paper when you see one, do you? :-)
You don't even see what the author writes as long as he claims
to refute SR, do you? :-)
I quote from the paper:
<<
By observing the change in interference pattern, the effective
velocity of light through the moving medium, as measured in
the lab frame, was calculated. Within experimental limits,
the results obtained by measuring the fringe shift agreed with
the results predicted by Fresnel’s formula.
>>
That is, Michelson found that the result of his repeated Fizeau
experiment was in accordance with Fresnel's formula.
And Fresnel's formula is in accordance with the prediction of SR.
That's why Fizeau's experiment confirms SR.
The quote above continues:
<<
However, Michelson neglected to take into account the Doppler effect
of light from a stationary source interacting with moving water,
and therefore concluded that the aether convection concept of Fresnel
was essentially correct.
>>
That is, Renshaw claims that the result of Fizeau's experiment was
different from what Michelson and everybody else ever since have
calculated it to be.
Henri, do you agree with Renshaw's calculations, or do you think
Michelson's calculations were correct?
(As if you are capable of even understanding the calculation! :-) )
The truth is that Michelson's repetition of Fizeau's experiment
confirmed SR with far better precision than did Fizeau's original
experiment.
And several later repetitions have done it even better.
>
>> ... and by Alvaeger et al
>
>> ... and by Filipas and Fox
>
> both bullshit...
Quite.
Your arguments are as strong and convincing as always.
>
>> ... and by the fact that fiber optic gyros and ring lasers work
>> ... and by the fact that none of the binary stars appear as prdicted
>> by the BaTh, we simply do not observe what the BaTh predicts
>> ... and by the fact that pulsating stars like Cepheids amd Miras
>> dont appear as predicted by the BaTh
>
> I don't care how long you remaiind deluded Paul.
..as I said above ..
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
I've done my own calculations.
Consider what SR says about the speed of the light in the frame of the moving
water.
Tell me Paul, what is the speed of light in a rod of glass, WRT THAT ROD when
1) the rod is at rest rt a light source and, 2) the rod is moving wrt the light
source.
1. S ->c ============c/n->====
2. S ->c ===============?====== ->v
Note: This is not the same as Fizeau's experiment....although I doubt if you
can spot the difference....
>>> ... and by Alvaeger et al
>>
>>> ... and by Filipas and Fox
>>
>> both bullshit...
>
>Quite.
>Your arguments are as strong and convincing as always.
Paul it is obvious that relativists have built up their own large library of
'evidence' in support of their religion. It is written BY relativists FOR
relativists and is believed ONLY by relativists.
>>> ... and by the fact that fiber optic gyros and ring lasers work
>>> ... and by the fact that none of the binary stars appear as prdicted
>>> by the BaTh, we simply do not observe what the BaTh predicts
>>> ... and by the fact that pulsating stars like Cepheids amd Miras
>>> dont appear as predicted by the BaTh
>>
>> I don't care how long you remaiind deluded Paul.
>
>..as I said above ..
>
>Paul
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>news:csebf3loih26u3pd7...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:31:25 +0000 (UTC), bz
>> <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>>>news:45m0f3hc7bspsubeh...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> 13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT
>>>> NEVER overtakes it because of extinction. As a result, dstant
>>>> observers see the star varying in luminosity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You have forgotten c-v
>>>You need 'the slower light catches up to the light moving at c'.
>>>Which is, of course, impossible as it violates laws of thermodynamics.
>>
>> There is no violation. When light speeds up, the medium slows down.
>>
>> Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
>
>What medium? Have you suddenly become an aetherist. I thought that you were
>a ballisticist (remember BaTh????) BECAUSE you did not believe in an
>aether.
Bob, my use of the term 'medium' is not the conventional one...as I have
explained before.
Throughout space, there are poorly regions that possess different properties
regarding the densities of matter, charge and fields. Light entering such a
region can either slow up or slow down. The 'region' does the opposite.
>Extracting energy from a medium requires that the medium has an excess of
>energy. Loss of energy through speeding up light would cool the medium. But
>that is not the main problem. The interstellar media are 'chaotic'.
>
>Any light passing through such a chaotic medium would be 'scrambled', the
>medium would NOT systematically speed up slow light and slow down fast
>light. There are no mechanisms that allow such violations of the laws of
>thermodynamics.
n the contrary. There is nothing in thermodynamics that conflicts with this
idea.
>For light passing through to extract the exact right amount of energy to
>bring it up to c and not beyond requires some wilsonian miracles.
>Remember that each emission band and absorption band must be shifted by
>the exact right amount to produce the wiluison that there is only one star
>and it is going through a cycle of heating and expansion followed by
>cooling and contraction with all of the shifts in relative brightness of
>different bands that are observed.
>
>Unless you believe in miracles, (and you frequently make fun of people for
>doing that), YOU, have a problem.
Sorry, I cannot see you argument.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:r76bf3pfs6cmnnhok...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:00:46 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>>> dv/ds = (c/n(s) - v)/r(s) [3]
>>>>
>>>> This is not the way I would approach it...
>>>
>>>Well you need to address that because I was just stating
>>>your theory as I understand it. You talked a lot about
>>>the theory but since this is a new thread with possibly
>>>new readers, it makes sense to state the theory before
>>>describing conclusions you think might come from it.
>>>If I have missed anything or got part wrong, now is the
>>>time to correct it.
>>
>> Well for one thing we might consider what happens one direction only to
>> get rid
>> of your vector and scalar notations. ...not that they are wrong...
>
>On the contrary, your model has to cope with changes
>due to refraction so eventualy it needs to be extended
>to a full 3D version, I have kept it deliberately simple
>to illustrate the principle only, the equations are far
>from complete but adequate for the discussions of pulsars
>etc..
If photons only disperse to about 600 metres cross section in 1800 LYs, I can
see the point in introducing 3D.
>> Your equation applies essentially to light emitted by a source that is
>> moving
>> wrt a medium of variable refracive index.
>
>No, it is easiest to assume constant properties, so
>n(s) and r(s) are constant and could be written as
>just "n" and "r", but the way I wrote it allows for
>variation along the path such as if the light passed
>through a thin nebula en route.
They certainly will vary.
>> That is only ONE situation.....for
>> instance light emitted by a member of a close binary pair. Its speed
>> unifies
>> with lignt from the other member as it negotiates their common 'EM
>> sphere'.
>>
>> In that case, there will be a kind of exponential approach to the final
>> speed
>> of each,,,as your equation suggests.
>
>It is always exponential, the rate varies with
>the conditions.
>
>> For a single pulsating star or one in a long period orbit, the equation
>> doesn't
>> apply at all since all light will leave the EM sphere at c wrt the star's
>> centre. Subsequent unification as it travels through space will bemore or
>> less
>> unpredictable.
>
>The equations are valid in that case too, learn
>some maths Henry.
They might be valid.... but the end result is that both n(s) and r(s) are zero.
So why bother?
>>>> I do not know this George. There is a simple alternative explanation in
>>>> every case.
>>>
>>>None that you have produced. The equations above predict
>>>no fringe shift for Sagnac for example and you have not
>>>offered any alternative.
>>
>> I have provided the real reason for the Sagnac shift.
>> Light does NOT reflect from a moving mirror at the incident angle of
>> speed.
>
>You have not provided a reason Henry because you
>have not altered your theory to include an equation
>that tells you that speed. Equation [2] says the
>light emitted from the mirror leaves it at c relative
>to the atoms of the mirror.
George, visual photons are many INTRINSIC wavelengths long. When they arrive at
a moving mirror, THE ENDS strike it at slightly different points...and
different angles. It isn't difficult to imagine the effect this has.
>You have not explained Sagnac because you have not
>applied your equations to the experimental situation
>and shown that it produces an equation for the fringe
>shift that matches observation.
>
>>>You talk about the speed of light
>>>reflecting from a mirror being other than the ballistic
>>>value but have given no alternative equation, and since
>>>the process can be seen as the incident light causing
>>>motion of the electrons in the mirror which then re-radiate,
>>>equation [2] above should apply.
>>>
>>>> As far as I am concerned all these 'refutations' exist only in the minds
>>>> of
>>>> delusional relativists.
>>>
>>>As far as I am concerned, it follows from your primary
>>>postulate, light is re-emitted from the mirror at c
>>>relative to the mirror, that is your theory.
>>
>> Not if the mirror is moving transversly.
>
>Relative to the atoms of the mirror Henry, that
>includes their motion in all directions which is
>why equation [2] must be stated in vectors.
It can be done perfectly well without vectors.
>>
>> First things first George. I have to get the model right before the maths
>> can
>> be applied. The model I already have appears to work well.
>
>You need to learn the difference between science
>and philosophy Henry, your scientific model is
>those two equations only at the moment, nothing
>more. That was the point I tried to emphasise in
>my first reply. Much of what you posted is not
>part of the theory but conclusions you might
>reach by its application and you seem to have
>trouble distinguishing the two.
George, the theory has to encompass all situations and withstand all tests.. So
far, you and others have thrown everything you can at the Modern BaTh and
failed to even put a dent in it.
>> You are considering only conventional 'matter media'. Ther are other
>> factors
>> involved in this.
>
>Matter is all there is, fields cannot have an
>effect since the behaviour is linear as we
>discussed elsewhere. However, even if some
>other factors were involved, the r(s) function
>is simply the overall effect so it includes
>all causes.
I ddn't say you equation was wrong. I merely consider it an oversimplifiaction
and inadequate.
>>>I understand what you are suggesting but I am clarifying
>>>what constitutes the theory and what is an _application_
>>>of the theory to stellar physics.
>>
>> Well, I discovered the theory...by applying physics and philosophy.
>> I'll let the engineers and astronomers perform the tedious work .
>
>Sorry Henry, what you call "the tedious work" is the
>part that changes handwaving useless philosophy into
>an actual theory, the equations that make the
>quantitative predictions, so that is down to you.
fortunately,I have been able to train my computer to do the tedious stuff up
till now.
>>
>> You would have to do it in space....even then, the apparatus would create
>> its
>> own EM reference frame. The distance required would be huge....
>> Have you any idea of the maximum speed of the speaker?
>
>You don't need high speed, just high acceleration.
>A commercial AT cut crystal oscillates in the MHz
>range so you could silver a surface and bounce the
>light off that easily.
I still don't think your accelerations would be anywhere nealy high enough. The
vibration amplitude is minute.
Say the maximum amplitude is 10^-9 metres at frequency 1 Mhz.
A = 10^-9.sin(2pi.t.10^6)
d2A/dt2(max) = [4pi^2.10^3] m/sec^2
I can't believe that....
>>>> Actually it IS possible that photons occasionally overtake and multiple
>>>> images
>>>> exist...it's just that none have been knowingly observed.
>>>
>>>Exactly what I was saying.
>>
>> I have never claimed otherwise.
>
>Yes do did, you said light never overtakes and
>we never see multiple images in the other thread.
Since there is no evidence that is happens, there is good reason to believe
that in practice it will NEVER happen, even though there is no direct proof
that it IS physically impossible.
>>>That does not happen according to your equations,
>>>frequencies are preserved for a source at rest.
>>
>> There is a slow loss of energy from light as it travels.....'tired light'
>> theory
>
>Proven wrong.
:)
>>>>>OK, definition of field-specific terminology. This
>>>> ......very silly George....I hope you aren't reverting to classical wave
>>>> theory
>>>> again.....
>>>
>>>You don't have any equations for photons. The two
>>>above can apply you some disturbance in a field
>>>such as wavefronts or the red/blue waves in your
>>>visualisation but they apply independently so
>>>they say the ends of a wave burst move independently
>>>and the tail can pass the head.
>>
>> no.
>
>Yes henry, if you apply your equations, that
>is what happens so that is "what your theory
>predicts".
No George, a rubber ball cannot have a negative volume no matter how much
pressure is exerted on it.
>>>Your equations only give speeds of whatever. You
>>>need to explain how to apply them to a CW RF signal
>>>because the normal interpretation is that they tell
>>>me the speed of those waves.
>>
>> Generated EM signals are waves based on variations in photon numbers.
>
>Wrong, the photon rate is the power level divided
>by the energy per photon, which for CW is perfectly
>constant by definition. (Any variation in power
>level would be AM.)
it isn't constant at the micro level... How could it be?
>Come on Henry, you should know these basics by now,
>I have corrected you several times before.
>
>> They are
>> not related to intrinsic photon frequencies.
>
>Wrong again as you have been told, shine a
>low level light on a grating and the individual
>photons are deflected by exactly the same angle
>as the macroscopic sine wave.
Why shouldn't they be. It's pure probability....independent of time.
>>>If I want to apply your theory to my favourite
>>>radio station, I will apply it to classical
>>>waves. Your equations tell me their speeds.
>>
>> ...initially c/n wrt the source.
>
>No, initially c (equation [2]) and changing towards
>c/n at a rate determined by r(s) in equation [3].
You don't know that...
>>>> Since the heliosphere moves with the sun, it does not significantly
>>>> affect
>>>> the
>>>> emerging light speed RELATIVE TO THE ORBIT CENTRE.
>>>> Anyway, it is the variation in light speed around the orbit that
>>>> matters.
>>>
>>>Regardless, since [3] produces an exponential approach
>>>towards c/n, it never reaches that value and light
>>>initially emitted at c-v will always be below c/n, it
>>>never reaches c.
>>
>> George, the 'medium' making up the sphere approaches zero density with
>> distance.
>
>The the rate at which the light approaches c/n falls
>to zero and it gets less close to c at the point it
>leaves the sphere.
No, you don't get it. n goes to zero at the edge of the sphere. Light speeds up
as it moves outwards....just as it does going from glass to air....or
negotiating a negative density gradient in a salt solution.
>> Light eventually moves at c wrt the star no matter what happens
>> inside the sphere..
>
>Not at the boundary.
Yes George, at the boundary....
>>>You are guessing but it could be calculated.
>>
>> It is observed that way.
>
>Irrelevant, we are discussing what your theory
>predicts.
And you have it wrong....
>>
>> Just ccept that the 'sphere' around a pulsar remains pretty steady....even
>> f
>> the pulsar itself is in orbit. It's something like a close binary system.
>
>Nobody "just accepts" anything, _you_ have to
>do the calculation, then I and others can check
>your maths to see if you did it correctly. Only
>then do you have an "explanation".
The computer has done the maths and shown that at least some pulsars behave as
though little or no ADoppler is present in their observed pulse rate curves..
>> of course we can't detect ADoppler in the lab...and Fizeau's experiment
>> proves
>> SR wrong.
>>
>> http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
>
>There's too much math for me to check in a
>reasonable time but Renshaw has a number of
>other pages that at first glance look
>reasonable but on detailed examination have
>clear flaws. He is quite good at disguising
>the errors to get the result he wants.
Isn't that what relativists do all the time?
>
>George
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dono
[crap snipped]
So, Ralphie
After falsifying your BSc diploma you "graduated" to falsifying a
"Dr." degree?
Eric Gisse
I would have loved to go to the thesis defense.
Dono
never happened, Ralphie never graduated from anything, even from high
school :-)
George Dishman
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:49:12 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:r76bf3pfs6cmnnhok...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:00:46 +0100, "George Dishman"
> >>>>> dv/ds = (c/n(s) - v)/r(s) [3]
>
> >>>> This is not the way I would approach it...
>
> >>>Well you need to address that because I was just stating
> >>>your theory as I understand it. You talked a lot about
> >>>the theory but since this is a new thread with possibly
> >>>new readers, it makes sense to state the theory before
> >>>describing conclusions you think might come from it.
> >>>If I have missed anything or got part wrong, now is the
> >>>time to correct it.
>
> >> Well for one thing we might consider what happens one direction only to
> >> get rid
> >> of your vector and scalar notations. ...not that they are wrong...
>
> >On the contrary, your model has to cope with changes
> >due to refraction so eventualy it needs to be extended
> >to a full 3D version, I have kept it deliberately simple
> >to illustrate the principle only, the equations are far
> >from complete but adequate for the discussions of pulsars
> >etc..
>
> If photons only disperse to about 600 metres cross section in 1800 LYs, I can
> see the point in introducing 3D.
Whether they do or not, you cannot apply the theory to a
prism without handling more than 1D.
> >> Your equation applies essentially to light emitted by a source that is
> >> moving wrt a medium of variable refracive index.
>
> >No, it is easiest to assume constant properties, so
> >n(s) and r(s) are constant and could be written as
> >just "n" and "r", but the way I wrote it allows for
> >variation along the path such as if the light passed
> >through a thin nebula en route.
>
> They certainly will vary.
Yes and my equation is designed to cope with
that so what are you complaining about?
> >> That is only ONE situation.....for
> >> instance light emitted by a member of a close binary pair. Its speed
> >> unifies
> >> with lignt from the other member as it negotiates their common 'EM
> >> sphere'.
>
> >> In that case, there will be a kind of exponential approach to the final
> >> speed
> >> of each,,,as your equation suggests.
>
> >It is always exponential, the rate varies with
> >the conditions.
>
> >> For a single pulsating star or one in a long period orbit, the equation
> >> doesn't
> >> apply at all since all light will leave the EM sphere at c wrt the star's
> >> centre. Subsequent unification as it travels through space will bemore or
> >> less
> >> unpredictable.
>
> >The equations are valid in that case too, learn
> >some maths Henry.
>
> They might be valid....
They are supposed to be your theory Henry, if I have written
incorrectly, by all means post the correct versions. If you
don't I have to assume they are correctly expressed.
> but the end result is that both n(s) and r(s) are zero.
> So why bother?
Garbage, n(s) is 1 for vacuum and close to 1 for thin gas
while r(s) tends to infinity as the density falls to zero
(meaning the speed is constant).
> >>>> I do not know this George. There is a simple alternative explanation in
> >>>> every case.
>
> >>>None that you have produced. The equations above predict
> >>>no fringe shift for Sagnac for example and you have not
> >>>offered any alternative.
>
> >> I have provided the real reason for the Sagnac shift.
> >> Light does NOT reflect from a moving mirror at the incident angle of
> >> speed.
>
> >You have not provided a reason Henry because you
> >have not altered your theory to include an equation
> >that tells you that speed. Equation [2] says the
> >light emitted from the mirror leaves it at c relative
> >to the atoms of the mirror.
>
> George, visual photons are many INTRINSIC wavelengths long. When they arrive at
> a moving mirror, THE ENDS strike it at slightly different points...
Think back Henry, they don't strike at "points", they
are metres wide so illuminate the whole mirror and
create diffraction effects at the edges.
> and
> different angles. It isn't difficult to imagine the effect this has.
Imagination is irrelevant, the numerical predictions of your
theory are given solely by the equations.
> >You have not explained Sagnac because you have not
> >applied your equations to the experimental situation
> >and shown that it produces an equation for the fringe
> >shift that matches observation.
>
> >>>You talk about the speed of light
> >>>reflecting from a mirror being other than the ballistic
> >>>value but have given no alternative equation, and since
> >>>the process can be seen as the incident light causing
> >>>motion of the electrons in the mirror which then re-radiate,
> >>>equation [2] above should apply.
>
> >>>> As far as I am concerned all these 'refutations' exist only in the minds
> >>>> of
> >>>> delusional relativists.
>
> >>>As far as I am concerned, it follows from your primary
> >>>postulate, light is re-emitted from the mirror at c
> >>>relative to the mirror, that is your theory.
>
> >> Not if the mirror is moving transversly.
>
> >Relative to the atoms of the mirror Henry, that
> >includes their motion in all directions which is
> >why equation [2] must be stated in vectors.
>
> It can be done perfectly well without vectors.
What other method do you suggest that isn't equivalent?
> >> First things first George. I have to get the model right before the maths
> >> can be applied. The model I already have appears to work well.
>
> >You need to learn the difference between science
> >and philosophy Henry, your scientific model is
> >those two equations only at the moment, nothing
> >more. That was the point I tried to emphasise in
> >my first reply. Much of what you posted is not
> >part of the theory but conclusions you might
> >reach by its application and you seem to have
> >trouble distinguishing the two.
>
> George, the theory has to encompass all situations and withstand all tests..
And it has to be expressed mathematically.
> So
> far, you and others have thrown everything you can at the Modern BaTh and
> failed to even put a dent in it.
The equations as they stand predict no fringe shift for
the Sagnac experiment so it is falsified. You have not
presented any alternative equations.
> >> You are considering only conventional 'matter media'. Ther are other
> >> factors involved in this.
>
> >Matter is all there is, fields cannot have an
> >effect since the behaviour is linear as we
> >discussed elsewhere. However, even if some
> >other factors were involved, the r(s) function
> >is simply the overall effect so it includes
> >all causes.
>
> I ddn't say you equation was wrong. I merely consider it an oversimplifiaction
> and inadequate.
Sure, it is a gross simplification suitable for the
stronomical tests we were discussing, but in that
context where we have a simple line of sight path,
they are an adequate approximation.
> >>>I understand what you are suggesting but I am clarifying
> >>>what constitutes the theory and what is an _application_
> >>>of the theory to stellar physics.
>
> >> Well, I discovered the theory...by applying physics and philosophy.
> >> I'll let the engineers and astronomers perform the tedious work .
>
> >Sorry Henry, what you call "the tedious work" is the
> >part that changes handwaving useless philosophy into
> >an actual theory, the equations that make the
> >quantitative predictions, so that is down to you.
>
> fortunately,I have been able to train my computer to do the tedious stuff up
> till now.
So get it to tell you the equations.
> >> You would have to do it in space....even then, the apparatus would create
> >> its
> >> own EM reference frame. The distance required would be huge....
> >> Have you any idea of the maximum speed of the speaker?
>
> >You don't need high speed, just high acceleration.
> >A commercial AT cut crystal oscillates in the MHz
> >range so you could silver a surface and bounce the
> >light off that easily.
>
> I still don't think your accelerations would be anywhere nealy high enough. The
> vibration amplitude is minute.
>
> Say the maximum amplitude is 10^-9 metres at frequency 1 Mhz.
>
> A = 10^-9.sin(2pi.t.10^6)
> d2A/dt2(max) = [4pi^2.10^3] m/sec^2
>
> I can't believe that....
Surprising, isn't it. Nice to see you trying a bit of maths
though, if I had just told you the number you would not have
believed me and would then have posted nonsense for days
trying to avoid the subject. Now try with a piezo tweeter
with say 1mm throw at 20kHz.
The point is that with a bit of ingenuity you can produce
very high accelerations in the lab. so rather than dismiss
the problem with hand-waving, you should be trying to find
a way to do the test.
> >>>> Actually it IS possible that photons occasionally overtake and multiple
> >>>> images
> >>>> exist...it's just that none have been knowingly observed.
>
> >>>Exactly what I was saying.
>
> >> I have never claimed otherwise.
>
> >Yes do did, you said light never overtakes and
> >we never see multiple images in the other thread.
>
> Since there is no evidence that is happens, there is good reason to believe
> that in practice it will NEVER happen, even though there is no direct proof
> that it IS physically impossible.
But you miss the point, your theory says that it _is_
possible and that if speed equalisation is so rapid
that we never see it then it also means we can never
see ADoppler. The difference in distance between no
ADoppler effect and multiple images is a very small
ratio.
> >>>>>OK, definition of field-specific terminology. This
> >>>> ......very silly George....I hope you aren't reverting to classical wave
> >>>> theory
> >>>> again.....
>
> >>>You don't have any equations for photons. The two
> >>>above can apply you some disturbance in a field
> >>>such as wavefronts or the red/blue waves in your
> >>>visualisation but they apply independently so
> >>>they say the ends of a wave burst move independently
> >>>and the tail can pass the head.
>
> >> no.
>
> >Yes henry, if you apply your equations, that
> >is what happens so that is "what your theory
> >predicts".
>
> No George, a rubber ball cannot have a negative volume no matter how much
> pressure is exerted on it.
Which proves that your analogy is useless for
representing your equations.
> >>>Your equations only give speeds of whatever. You
> >>>need to explain how to apply them to a CW RF signal
> >>>because the normal interpretation is that they tell
> >>>me the speed of those waves.
>
> >> Generated EM signals are waves based on variations in photon numbers.
>
> >Wrong, the photon rate is the power level divided
> >by the energy per photon, which for CW is perfectly
> >constant by definition. (Any variation in power
> >level would be AM.)
>
> it isn't constant at the micro level... How could it be?
You get the same variation as quantisation noise
in a resistor, it is purely random of course and
nothing to do with CW.
> >Come on Henry, you should know these basics by now,
> >I have corrected you several times before.
>
> >> They are
> >> not related to intrinsic photon frequencies.
>
> >Wrong again as you have been told, shine a
> >low level light on a grating and the individual
> >photons are deflected by exactly the same angle
> >as the macroscopic sine wave.
>
> Why shouldn't they be.
You tell me, you keep denying it.
> It's pure probability....independent of time.
The point is that all the photons go to the same
location as the macroscopic wave even when each
must act individually in very low flux tests.
> >>>If I want to apply your theory to my favourite
> >>>radio station, I will apply it to classical
> >>>waves. Your equations tell me their speeds.
>
> >> ...initially c/n wrt the source.
>
> >No, initially c (equation [2]) and changing towards
> >c/n at a rate determined by r(s) in equation [3].
>
> You don't know that...
Of course I do, that's what the equations say.
> >>>> Since the heliosphere moves with the sun, it does not significantly
> >>>> affect
> >>>> the
> >>>> emerging light speed RELATIVE TO THE ORBIT CENTRE.
> >>>> Anyway, it is the variation in light speed around the orbit that
> >>>> matters.
>
> >>>Regardless, since [3] produces an exponential approach
> >>>towards c/n, it never reaches that value and light
> >>>initially emitted at c-v will always be below c/n, it
> >>>never reaches c.
>
> >> George, the 'medium' making up the sphere approaches zero density with
> >> distance.
>
> >The the rate at which the light approaches c/n falls
> >to zero and it gets less close to c at the point it
> >leaves the sphere.
>
> No, you don't get it. n goes to zero at the edge of the sphere.
The light speed goes to zero? I don't think so. n(s) is
very close to 1 so it might be 1.000001 inside and
1.000000001 outside (toy numbers) with a rapid change at
the heliopause.
> Light speeds up
> as it moves outwards....just as it does going from glass to air....or
> negotiating a negative density gradient in a salt solution.
If the speed is higher than c/n inside but lower than
the value of c/n outside then that would be true but
it isn't immediate, the speed doesn't change of a thin
boundary. That's why I suggested you consider quarter
wave plates.
> >> Light eventually moves at c wrt the star no matter what happens
> >> inside the sphere..
>
> >Not at the boundary.
>
> Yes George, at the boundary....
No, try plotting a graph of speed versus distance
with a step change in n(s) and/or r(s).
> >>>You are guessing but it could be calculated.
>
> >> It is observed that way.
>
> >Irrelevant, we are discussing what your theory
> >predicts.
>
> And you have it wrong....
No I don't, apply the equations and see what you get.
> >> Just ccept that the 'sphere' around a pulsar remains pretty steady....even
> >> if the pulsar itself is in orbit. It's something like a close binary system.
>
> >Nobody "just accepts" anything, _you_ have to
> >do the calculation, then I and others can check
> >your maths to see if you did it correctly. Only
> >then do you have an "explanation".
>
> The computer has done the maths and shown that at least some pulsars behave as
> though little or no ADoppler is present in their observed pulse rate curves..
Only if you assume a very small equalisation distance,
something I told you two years ago without needing a
program.
> >> of course we can't detect ADoppler in the lab...and Fizeau's experiment
> >> proves
> >> SR wrong.
>
> >>http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
>
> >There's too much math for me to check in a
> >reasonable time but Renshaw has a number of
> >other pages that at first glance look
> >reasonable but on detailed examination have
> >clear flaws. He is quite good at disguising
> >the errors to get the result he wants.
>
> Isn't that what relativists do all the time?
If you think you can find a mathematical flaw in
any conventional equations, feel free to publish
them, that is what the review process is all about.
George
Paul B. Andersen
Why won't the doctor answer this?
Did you give the reference above because you thought it was correct?
Did you give the reference above despite knowing it was nonsense?
Did you give the reference above without reading it?
>>
>> (As if you are capable of even understanding the calculation! :-) )
Was I possibly right?
Some doctor!
>> The truth is that Michelson's repetition of Fizeau's experiment
>> confirmed SR with far better precision than did Fizeau's original
>> experiment.
>> And several later repetitions have done it even better.
No comment, doctor?
Facts are facts, so what could you say?
You can talk about something else:
> I've done my own calculations.
Calculations about what?
Would the doctor care to show us?
> Consider what SR says about the speed of the light in the frame of the moving
> water.
>
> Tell me Paul, what is the speed of light in a rod of glass, WRT THAT ROD when
> 1) the rod is at rest rt a light source and, 2) the rod is moving wrt the light
> source.
c/n in either case, obviously. You knew that, didn't you?
Why do you ask when you know the answer?
Now your calculations, please.
Or are you bluffing?
Done no calculations?
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On 24 Sep, 01:08, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:49:12 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>c) In the presence of a locally isotropic and
> homogenous refractive medium of index n, the
> speed will decay at a rate given by
> dv/ds = (c/n(s) - v)/r(s) [3]
> where r(s) and n(s) are scalar functions determined
> by the material through which the light passes.
>> >No, it is easiest to assume constant properties, so
>> >n(s) and r(s) are constant and could be written as
>> >just "n" and "r", but the way I wrote it allows for
>> >variation along the path such as if the light passed
>> >through a thin nebula en route.
>>
>> They certainly will vary.
>
>Yes and my equation is designed to cope with
>that so what are you complaining about?
The equation doesn't go far enough. What exactly are you trying to model?
You can't really associate a refractive index with the kind of rare media
experienced in space.
Maybe the equation would apply roughly to the EM sphere surrounding a star...
but I think it should be (c+v)/n(s) anyway.
>> >The equations are valid in that case too, learn
>> >some maths Henry.
>>
>> They might be valid....
>
>They are supposed to be your theory Henry, if I have written
>incorrectly, by all means post the correct versions. If you
>don't I have to assume they are correctly expressed.
George, I don't envisage that light speed is rigidly determined in any of the
space that starlight negotiates...except maybe in the immediate vicinity of the
source..
Light entering a region that has a natural light speed (relative to that
region) will not change speed abruptly. It may pass right through without much
change at all.
>> but the end result is that both n(s) and r(s) are zero.
>> So why bother?
>
>Garbage, n(s) is 1 for vacuum and close to 1 for thin gas
>while r(s) tends to infinity as the density falls to zero
>(meaning the speed is constant).
Yes Sorry n(s) ->1...I'm not really sure what r(s) is suppoed to represent....
>> George, visual photons are many INTRINSIC wavelengths long. When they arrive at
>> a moving mirror, THE ENDS strike it at slightly different points...
>
>Think back Henry, they don't strike at "points", they
>are metres wide so illuminate the whole mirror and
>create diffraction effects at the edges.
In sagnac they don't have time to disperse and strike at points.
>> >You need to learn the difference between science
>> >and philosophy Henry, your scientific model is
>> >those two equations only at the moment, nothing
>> >more. That was the point I tried to emphasise in
>> >my first reply. Much of what you posted is not
>> >part of the theory but conclusions you might
>> >reach by its application and you seem to have
>> >trouble distinguishing the two.
>>
>> George, the theory has to encompass all situations and withstand all tests..
>
>And it has to be expressed mathematically.
Your equation is inadequate.
>> So
>> far, you and others have thrown everything you can at the Modern BaTh and
>> failed to even put a dent in it.
>
>The equations as they stand predict no fringe shift for
>the Sagnac experiment so it is falsified. You have not
>presented any alternative equations.
You don't read properly....
>>
>> I ddn't say you equation was wrong. I merely consider it an oversimplifiaction
>> and inadequate.
>
>Sure, it is a gross simplification suitable for the
>stronomical tests we were discussing, but in that
>context where we have a simple line of sight path,
>they are an adequate approximation.
But for what situation?
>> >>>I understand what you are suggesting but I am clarifying
>> >>>what constitutes the theory and what is an _application_
>> >>>of the theory to stellar physics.
>>
>> >> Well, I discovered the theory...by applying physics and philosophy.
>> >> I'll let the engineers and astronomers perform the tedious work .
>>
>> >Sorry Henry, what you call "the tedious work" is the
>> >part that changes handwaving useless philosophy into
>> >an actual theory, the equations that make the
>> >quantitative predictions, so that is down to you.
>>
>> fortunately,I have been able to train my computer to do the tedious stuff up
>> till now.
>
>So get it to tell you the equations.
It bypasses equations and prints the results...why don't you try it?
>> >You don't need high speed, just high acceleration.
>> >A commercial AT cut crystal oscillates in the MHz
>> >range so you could silver a surface and bounce the
>> >light off that easily.
>>
>> I still don't think your accelerations would be anywhere nealy high enough. The
>> vibration amplitude is minute.
>>
>> Say the maximum amplitude is 10^-9 metres at frequency 1 Mhz.
>>
>> A = 10^-9.sin(2pi.t.10^6)
>> d2A/dt2(max) = [4pi^2.10^3] m/sec^2
>>
>> I can't believe that....
>
>Surprising, isn't it. Nice to see you trying a bit of maths
>though, if I had just told you the number you would not have
>believed me and would then have posted nonsense for days
>trying to avoid the subject. Now try with a piezo tweeter
>with say 1mm throw at 20kHz
....you reckon 1mm at 20 kHz ?????
a = nearly 2000 gs...good luck sticking the mirror on.....
>The point is that with a bit of ingenuity you can produce
>very high accelerations in the lab. so rather than dismiss
>the problem with hand-waving, you should be trying to find
>a way to do the test.
Producing a field free vacuum is the problem. Why don't you try it?
Note the maximum velocity is only 120 m/s and wont produce much VDoppler.
>>
>> >Yes do did, you said light never overtakes and
>> >we never see multiple images in the other thread.
>>
>> Since there is no evidence that is happens, there is good reason to believe
>> that in practice it will NEVER happen, even though there is no direct proof
>> that it IS physically impossible.
>
>But you miss the point, your theory says that it _is_
>possible and that if speed equalisation is so rapid
>that we never see it then it also means we can never
>see ADoppler. The difference in distance between no
>ADoppler effect and multiple images is a very small
>ratio.
This is where the WDT comes in.
In the lab what you say is probably true but in interstellar space, there is
nothing much to alter the speed from c+v. It is a much slower process..but
apparently sufficiently effective to prevent overtaking of photons.
You still don't seem to understand that starlight doesn't all start out at
precisely c wrt Earth. It leaves the star's sphere at c+v.
>> >Yes henry, if you apply your equations, that
>> >is what happens so that is "what your theory
>> >predicts".
>>
>> No George, a rubber ball cannot have a negative volume no matter how much
>> pressure is exerted on it.
>
>Which proves that your analogy is useless for
>representing your equations.
Don't revert to classical wave theory again George.
My approach is purely mechanical adn logical...similar to the application of a
pressure sensitive bulk modulus...
>>
>> >> They are
>> >> not related to intrinsic photon frequencies.
>>
>> >Wrong again as you have been told, shine a
>> >low level light on a grating and the individual
>> >photons are deflected by exactly the same angle
>> >as the macroscopic sine wave.
>>
>> Why shouldn't they be.
>
>You tell me, you keep denying it.
When?
>> It's pure probability....independent of time.
>
>The point is that all the photons go to the same
>location as the macroscopic wave even when each
>must act individually in very low flux tests.
That is fully explained by my theory...
>> >>>If I want to apply your theory to my favourite
>> >>>radio station, I will apply it to classical
>> >>>waves. Your equations tell me their speeds.
>>
>> >> ...initially c/n wrt the source.
>>
>> >No, initially c (equation [2]) and changing towards
>> >c/n at a rate determined by r(s) in equation [3].
>>
>> You don't know that...
>
>Of course I do, that's what the equations say.
The equations are irrelevant.
>> >The the rate at which the light approaches c/n falls
>> >to zero and it gets less close to c at the point it
>> >leaves the sphere.
>>
>> No, you don't get it. n goes to zero at the edge of the sphere.
>
>The light speed goes to zero?
replace with "Change in light speed goes to zero"
>I don't think so. n(s) is
>very close to 1 so it might be 1.000001 inside and
>1.000000001 outside (toy numbers) with a rapid change at
>the heliopause.
>
>> Light speeds up
>> as it moves outwards....just as it does going from glass to air....or
>> negotiating a negative density gradient in a salt solution.
>
>If the speed is higher than c/n inside but lower than
>the value of c/n outside then that would be true but
>it isn't immediate, the speed doesn't change of a thin
>boundary.
The speed is c/n inside and c outside (WRT the star).
>That's why I suggested you consider quarter
>wave plates.
They are interesting... but I can't see the connection here.
>
>> >> Light eventually moves at c wrt the star no matter what happens
>> >> inside the sphere..
>>
>> >Not at the boundary.
>>
>> Yes George, at the boundary....
>
>No, try plotting a graph of speed versus distance
>with a step change in n(s) and/or r(s).\
There is no step... the sphere's effectiveness tapers off to zero.
>> >>>You are guessing but it could be calculated.
>>
>> >> It is observed that way.
>>
>> >Irrelevant, we are discussing what your theory
>> >predicts.
>>
>> And you have it wrong....
>
>No I don't, apply the equations and see what you get.
I wouldn't waste my time...
>> >Nobody "just accepts" anything, _you_ have to
>> >do the calculation, then I and others can check
>> >your maths to see if you did it correctly. Only
>> >then do you have an "explanation".
>>
>> The computer has done the maths and shown that at least some pulsars behave as
>> though little or no ADoppler is present in their observed pulse rate curves..
>
>Only if you assume a very small equalisation distance,
>something I told you two years ago without needing a
>program.
see, you still don't get it...
The fact is, all the light from the ORBITING pulsar leaves the common EM sphere
at about the same speed. That doesn't require a short unification distance at
all. Quite the contrary in fact. It is probably quite large.... to accommodate
all the encircling junk in the vicinity..
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@guesswhathia.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:52:26 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
>> Consider what SR says about the speed of the light in the frame of the moving
>> water.
>>
>> Tell me Paul, what is the speed of light in a rod of glass, WRT THAT ROD when
>> 1) the rod is at rest rt a light source and, 2) the rod is moving wrt the light
>> source.
>
>c/n in either case, obviously. You knew that, didn't you?
>Why do you ask when you know the answer.
I certainly do not know that...and neither do you. You merely follow your
religious teachings.
Light enters the glass at c+v wrt the glass.
Why should it subsequently move at c/n and not (c+v)/n?
>Now your calculations, please.
>Or are you bluffing?
>Done no calculations?
>
>
>Paul
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
George Dishman
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 06:52:53 -0700, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 24 Sep, 01:08, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:49:12 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >c) In the presence of a locally isotropic and
> > homogenous refractive medium of index n, the
> > speed will decay at a rate given by
> > dv/ds = (c/n(s) - v)/r(s) [3]
> > where r(s) and n(s) are scalar functions determined
> > by the material through which the light passes.
> >> >No, it is easiest to assume constant properties, so
> >> >n(s) and r(s) are constant and could be written as
> >> >just "n" and "r", but the way I wrote it allows for
> >> >variation along the path such as if the light passed
> >> >through a thin nebula en route.
>
> >> They certainly will vary.
>
> >Yes and my equation is designed to cope with
> >that so what are you complaining about?
>
> The equation doesn't go far enough. What exactly are you trying to model?
I wrote down the equaton that expresses scientifically
your handwaving discussion. You said that the speed of
light launched at c+v and c-v would equalise as it
moved through space. We know the asymptotic value is
c divided by the refractive index and since slow light
speeds up while fast light slows down it must be a first
order relation. The equation follows. All I have done is
written down as a theory what you can only express in
lay terms.
> You can't really associate a refractive index with the kind of rare media
> experienced in space.
Of course you can, the ligh has some speed and you just
divide c by the that to get the index. The equation on
this page gives you the value:
> Maybe the equation would apply roughly to the EM sphere surrounding a star...
> but I think it should be (c+v)/n(s) anyway.
Write your own eqyuaton then and then write a little
program to plot speed versus distance for c+v and c-v
initial values. Try mine and yours and see which
behaves the way you want.
> >> >The equations are valid in that case too, learn
> >> >some maths Henry.
>
> >> They might be valid....
>
> >They are supposed to be your theory Henry, if I have written
> >incorrectly, by all means post the correct versions. If you
> >don't I have to assume they are correctly expressed.
>
> George, I don't envisage that light speed is rigidly determined in any of the
> space that starlight negotiates...except maybe in the immediate vicinity of the
> source..
> Light entering a region that has a natural light speed (relative to that
> region) will not change speed abruptly. It may pass right through without much
> change at all.
That is the case if r(s) is much greater than the thickness
of the region. You need to learn how to do maths.
> >> but the end result is that both n(s) and r(s) are zero.
> >> So why bother?
>
> >Garbage, n(s) is 1 for vacuum and close to 1 for thin gas
> >while r(s) tends to infinity as the density falls to zero
> >(meaning the speed is constant).
>
> Yes Sorry n(s) ->1...I'm not really sure what r(s) is suppoed to represent....
It is the distance over which the speed difference
between the light and c/n falls by 1/e. It is the
same mathenmatically as the conventional "time
constant" for an electrical RC circuit.
> >> George, visual photons are many INTRINSIC wavelengths long. When they arrive at
> >> a moving mirror, THE ENDS strike it at slightly different points...
>
> >Think back Henry, they don't strike at "points", they
> >are metres wide so illuminate the whole mirror and
> >create diffraction effects at the edges.
>
> In sagnac they don't have time to disperse and strike at points.
Not true, Young's Slits works over distances far smaller
than Sagnac's equipment.
> >> >You need to learn the difference between science
> >> >and philosophy Henry, your scientific model is
> >> >those two equations only at the moment, nothing
> >> >more. That was the point I tried to emphasise in
> >> >my first reply. Much of what you posted is not
> >> >part of the theory but conclusions you might
> >> >reach by its application and you seem to have
> >> >trouble distinguishing the two.
>
> >> George, the theory has to encompass all situations and withstand all tests..
>
> >And it has to be expressed mathematically.
>
> Your equation is inadequate.
It completely encapsulates what you have said. If you
learnt some maths, you would be able to write down the
theory for yourself instead of needing me to do it for
you.
> >> So
> >> far, you and others have thrown everything you can at the Modern BaTh and
> >> failed to even put a dent in it.
>
> >The equations as they stand predict no fringe shift for
> >the Sagnac experiment so it is falsified. You have not
> >presented any alternative equations.
>
> You don't read properly....
I read what you wrote fine, your theory isn't just "dented",
it is completely falsified by Sagnac.
> >> I ddn't say you equation was wrong. I merely consider it an oversimplifiaction
> >> and inadequate.
>
> >Sure, it is a gross simplification suitable for the
> >astronomical tests we were discussing, but in that
> >context where we have a simple line of sight path,
> >they are an adequate approximation.
>
> But for what situation?
It assumes a straight line path or to put it another
way it ignores scintillation caused by the ISM which
is so small it is undetectable. It also ignores any
small change of direction as the light passes through
the heliopause of the emitting star. Otherwise it is
valid.
> >> >>>I understand what you are suggesting but I am clarifying
> >> >>>what constitutes the theory and what is an _application_
> >> >>>of the theory to stellar physics.
>
> >> >> Well, I discovered the theory...by applying physics and philosophy.
> >> >> I'll let the engineers and astronomers perform the tedious work .
>
> >> >Sorry Henry, what you call "the tedious work" is the
> >> >part that changes handwaving useless philosophy into
> >> >an actual theory, the equations that make the
> >> >quantitative predictions, so that is down to you.
>
> >> fortunately,I have been able to train my computer to do the tedious stuff up
> >> till now.
>
> >So get it to tell you the equations.
>
> It bypasses equations and prints the results...why don't you try it?
Because what you call "the tedious work" above which you
claim you get the computer to do is the task of translating
your handwaving philosophical ideas into the equations which
constitute a theory. Unless you are using symbolic software
like Maple, the computer won't do that for you.
> >> >You don't need high speed, just high acceleration.
> >> >A commercial AT cut crystal oscillates in the MHz
> >> >range so you could silver a surface and bounce the
> >> >light off that easily.
>
> >> I still don't think your accelerations would be anywhere nealy high enough. The
> >> vibration amplitude is minute.
>
> >> Say the maximum amplitude is 10^-9 metres at frequency 1 Mhz.
>
> >> A = 10^-9.sin(2pi.t.10^6)
> >> d2A/dt2(max) = [4pi^2.10^3] m/sec^2
>
> >> I can't believe that....
>
> >Surprising, isn't it. Nice to see you trying a bit of maths
> >though, if I had just told you the number you would not have
> >believed me and would then have posted nonsense for days
> >trying to avoid the subject. Now try with a piezo tweeter
> >with say 1mm throw at 20kHz
>
> ....you reckon 1mm at 20 kHz ?????
How much throw do you think you need on a loudspeaker cone?
> a = nearly 2000 gs...good luck sticking the mirror on.....
>
> >The point is that with a bit of ingenuity you can produce
> >very high accelerations in the lab. so rather than dismiss
> >the problem with hand-waving, you should be trying to find
> >a way to do the test.
>
> Producing a field free vacuum is the problem. Why don't you try it?
No need, the speed of propagation which is a ripple in the
field in your classical view is what you are trying to
measure. In ballistic theory, there are no fields.
> Note the maximum velocity is only 120 m/s and wont produce much VDoppler.
Right, so there would be no doubt about the cause.
> >> >Yes do did, you said light never overtakes and
> >> >we never see multiple images in the other thread.
>
> >> Since there is no evidence that is happens, there is good reason to believe
> >> that in practice it will NEVER happen, even though there is no direct proof
> >> that it IS physically impossible.
>
> >But you miss the point, your theory says that it _is_
> >possible and that if speed equalisation is so rapid
> >that we never see it then it also means we can never
> >see ADoppler. The difference in distance between no
> >ADoppler effect and multiple images is a very small
> >ratio.
>
> This is where the WDT comes in.
There is no threshold in your theory but if there were
it would make the situation worse because it would
remove speed equalisation.
> In the lab what you say is probably true but in interstellar space, there is
> nothing much to alter the speed from c+v. It is a much slower process..but
> apparently sufficiently effective to prevent overtaking of photons.
>
> You still don't seem to understand that starlight doesn't all start out at
> precisely c wrt Earth. It leaves the star's sphere at c+v.
Some leaves at c+v, some at c-v, and the former will
overtake the latter to give multiple images unless
equalisation is _rapid_. If that process is slow, then
multiple images are more likely. You don't seem to
understand your own predictions.
> >> >Yes henry, if you apply your equations, that
> >> >is what happens so that is "what your theory
> >> >predicts".
>
> >> No George, a rubber ball cannot have a negative volume no matter how much
> >> pressure is exerted on it.
>
> >Which proves that your analogy is useless for
> >representing your equations.
>
> Don't revert to classical wave theory again George.
That's all your theory is.
> My approach is purely mechanical adn logical...similar to the application of a
> pressure sensitive bulk modulus...
No, the equations allow later, faster light to overtake
earlier slower light without hinderance, your analogy
does not represent the actual theory.
> >> >> They are
> >> >> not related to intrinsic photon frequencies.
>
> >> >Wrong again as you have been told, shine a
> >> >low level light on a grating and the individual
> >> >photons are deflected by exactly the same angle
> >> >as the macroscopic sine wave.
>
> >> Why shouldn't they be.
>
> >You tell me, you keep denying it.
>
> When?
Every time I point out that individual photons are
subject to interference effects.
> >> It's pure probability....independent of time.
>
> >The point is that all the photons go to the same
> >location as the macroscopic wave even when each
> >must act individually in very low flux tests.
>
> That is fully explained by my theory...
Don't be silly, your equations only specify the speed
of the light, they don't explain interference in any
way at all.
> >> >>>If I want to apply your theory to my favourite
> >> >>>radio station, I will apply it to classical
> >> >>>waves. Your equations tell me their speeds.
>
> >> >> ...initially c/n wrt the source.
>
> >> >No, initially c (equation [2]) and changing towards
> >> >c/n at a rate determined by r(s) in equation [3].
>
> >> You don't know that...
>
> >Of course I do, that's what the equations say.
>
> The equations are irrelevant.
Those two equations, and nothing else, constitute your
"BaTh" theory.
> >> >Then the rate at which the light approaches c/n falls
> >> >to zero and it gets less close to c at the point it
> >> >leaves the sphere.
>
> >> No, you don't get it. n goes to zero at the edge of the sphere.
>
> >The light speed goes to zero?
>
> replace with "Change in light speed goes to zero"
That's what I said, the rate of change falls to zero.
You didn't get it.
> >I don't think so. n(s) is
> >very close to 1 so it might be 1.000001 inside and
> >1.000000001 outside (toy numbers) with a rapid change at
> >the heliopause.
>
> >> Light speeds up
> >> as it moves outwards....just as it does going from glass to air....or
> >> negotiating a negative density gradient in a salt solution.
>
> >If the speed is higher than c/n inside but lower than
> >the value of c/n outside then that would be true but
> >it isn't immediate, the speed doesn't change of a thin
> >boundary.
>
> The speed is c/n inside and c outside (WRT the star).
It is asymptotic to c/n in both regions but n is
closer to 1 outside, and not wrt the star but wrt
the material. Relative to the star, that might be
around 500km/s radially outwards inside and some
tenjs of km/s in a different direction outside.
> >That's why I suggested you consider quarter
> >wave plates.
>
> They are interesting... but I can't see the connection here.
The speed has to change from c/n in air to c/n in the
material in a tiny fraction of a wavelength for the
phase shift to be accurate, say around 1/400 of a
wavelength for 1% accuracy.
> >> >> Light eventually moves at c wrt the star no matter what happens
> >> >> inside the sphere..
>
> >> >Not at the boundary.
>
> >> Yes George, at the boundary....
>
> >No, try plotting a graph of speed versus distance
> >with a step change in n(s) and/or r(s).\
>
> There is no step... the sphere's effectiveness tapers off to zero.
In reality, the heliopause is a short region where
the gas hits a shock wave, the step would be a few
light seconds thick some light hours from the star.
> >> >>>You are guessing but it could be calculated.
>
> >> >> It is observed that way.
>
> >> >Irrelevant, we are discussing what your theory
> >> >predicts.
>
> >> And you have it wrong....
>
> >No I don't, apply the equations and see what you get.
>
> I wouldn't waste my time...
You are incapable, what I said is correct.
> >> >Nobody "just accepts" anything, _you_ have to
> >> >do the calculation, then I and others can check
> >> >your maths to see if you did it correctly. Only
> >> >then do you have an "explanation".
>
> >> The computer has done the maths and shown that at least some pulsars behave as
> >> though little or no ADoppler is present in their observed pulse rate curves..
>
> >Only if you assume a very small equalisation distance,
> >something I told you two years ago without needing a
> >program.
>
> see, you still don't get it...
>
> The fact is, all the light from the ORBITING pulsar leaves the common EM sphere
> at about the same speed. That doesn't require a short unification distance at
> all. ...
See, you still don't get it. The maximum distance allowed
by the measurements that we looked at before is the same
whether the sphere exists or not.
The accuracy of the pulse arrival times (74ns spread)
requires that the distance is short, regardless of
whether you invent a purposeless sphere or just say
it is the ISM that does the equalisation.
George
PD
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
I have to tell you, Ralph, that this new "Dr. Henri Wilson" moniker is
more than a little offensive, even for a web alias.
It's one thing for a rap artist to call himself Dr. Dre. It's one
thing for a disc jockey to call himself Dr. Feelgood.
It's quite another thing for an unlicensed hack to appear on a public
medical forum, posing as Dr. Wilson. It's another thing for an
untrained goofball to appear on a public physics forum posing as Dr.
Wilson. Under some circumstances, it is in fact *criminal* to suggest
that one has credentials one does not, which is why professionals have
to provide proof of their credentials to their clientele.
While what you are doing here with this "DSc(T)" nonsense may not be
criminal, it is certainly sleazy and immoral and a new low even for
you.
PD
Paul B. Andersen
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:35:39 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@guesswhathia.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
<unsnip>
>>>> The truth is that Michelson's repetition of Fizeau's experiment
>>>> confirmed SR with far better precision than did Fizeau's original
>>>> experiment.
>>>> And several later repetitions have done it even better.
You would like us to forget the issue, would you?
>>> Consider what SR says about the speed of the light in the frame of the moving
>>> water.
>>>
>>> Tell me Paul, what is the speed of light in a rod of glass, WRT THAT ROD when
>>> 1) the rod is at rest rt a light source and, 2) the rod is moving wrt the light
>>> source.
>> c/n in either case, obviously. You knew that, didn't you?
>> Why do you ask when you know the answer.
>
> I certainly do not know that...and neither do you. You merely follow your
> religious teachings.
>
> Light enters the glass at c+v wrt the glass.
> Why should it subsequently move at c/n and not (c+v)/n?
You are talking nonsense to evade the issue, Henri.
What you are saying can be summarized thus:
"Since the experimental evidence is contrary to my
conviction, the experimental evidence must be wrong
and can be ignored."
But I won't ignore the experimental evidence.
The issue is that SR, which assumes that the speed of light
in a medium is c/n relative to the medium, is confirmed
by Fizeau's experiment and it's many repetitions.
I wrote:
| The truth is that Michelson's repetition of Fizeau's experiment
| confirmed SR with far better precision than did Fizeau's original
| experiment.
| And several later repetitions have done it even better.
Your evasive response was:
| I've done my own calculations.
Which calculations were you referring to?
Were they related to the issue you failed to respond to?
Can you please show us those calculations, Henri?
Of course you can't.
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On 25 Sep, 00:54, HW@....(clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 06:52:53 -0700, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Yes and my equation is designed to cope with
>> >that so what are you complaining about?
>>
>> The equation doesn't go far enough. What exactly are you trying to model?
>
>I wrote down the equaton that expresses scientifically
>your handwaving discussion. You said that the speed of
>light launched at c+v and c-v would equalise as it
>moved through space. We know the asymptotic value is
>c divided by the refractive index and since slow light
>speeds up while fast light slows down it must be a first
>order relation. The equation follows. All I have done is
>written down as a theory what you can only express in
>lay terms.
>
>> You can't really associate a refractive index with the kind of rare media
>> experienced in space.
>
>Of course you can, the ligh has some speed and you just
>divide c by the that to get the index.
...but the speed might not be the equilibrium speed in that region. That is my
point. Most of space is so rare that, even if a natural light speed COULD be
assigned to it, the light passing through can still have a wide range of
speeds. Those speeds TEND TOWARD the natural one. ...but you cannot assume that
your 'refractive index' determines speed precisely as it does in say, water or
glass.
>The equation on
>this page gives you the value:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2vru22
>
>> Maybe the equation would apply roughly to the EM sphere surrounding a star...
>> but I think it should be (c+v)/n(s) anyway.
>
>Write your own eqyuaton then and then write a little
>program to plot speed versus distance for c+v and c-v
>initial values. Try mine and yours and see which
>behaves the way you want.
Well, I suppose I could work out an equation for a sphere with density
decreasing to zero at a finite radius around an inertial star.
It would be reasonable to assume that both n(s) and r(s) would involve inverse
cube terms somewhere.
>> George, I don't envisage that light speed is rigidly determined in any of the
>> space that starlight negotiates...except maybe in the immediate vicinity of the
>> source..
>> Light entering a region that has a natural light speed (relative to that
>> region) will not change speed abruptly. It may pass right through without much
>> change at all.
>
>That is the case if r(s) is much greater than the thickness
>of the region. You need to learn how to do maths.
Maybe I have a more efficient mind than some.
>> >> but the end result is that both n(s) and r(s) are zero.
>> >> So why bother?
>>
>> >Garbage, n(s) is 1 for vacuum and close to 1 for thin gas
>> >while r(s) tends to infinity as the density falls to zero
>> >(meaning the speed is constant).
>>
>> Yes Sorry n(s) ->1...I'm not really sure what r(s) is suppoed to represent....
>
>It is the distance over which the speed difference
>between the light and c/n falls by 1/e. It is the
>same mathenmatically as the conventional "time
>constant" for an electrical RC circuit.
See, the problem is, n(s) will decrease to unity by a function including r^3
whilst r(s) INCREASES in a similar way. It's too speculative and impractical.
>> >> George, visual photons are many INTRINSIC wavelengths long. When they arrive at
>> >> a moving mirror, THE ENDS strike it at slightly different points...
>>
>> >Think back Henry, they don't strike at "points", they
>> >are metres wide so illuminate the whole mirror and
>> >create diffraction effects at the edges.
>>
>> In sagnac they don't have time to disperse and strike at points.
>
>Not true, Young's Slits works over distances far smaller
>than Sagnac's equipment.
....so what is the 'cross-section' of a typical photon...and how does it vary
with travel time?
I have stated my view before. Its influence extends to infinity but its
'strength' drops off very rapidly with 'radius'.
We can probably add to that the notion that a single photon will experience
dispersion as it tavels. Maybe that alone will cause it to reshift slightly
too.
>> >> >You need to learn the difference between science
>> >> >and philosophy Henry, your scientific model is
>> >> >those two equations only at the moment, nothing
>> >> >more. That was the point I tried to emphasise in
>> >> >my first reply. Much of what you posted is not
>> >> >part of the theory but conclusions you might
>> >> >reach by its application and you seem to have
>> >> >trouble distinguishing the two.
>>
>> >> George, the theory has to encompass all situations and withstand all tests..
>>
>> >And it has to be expressed mathematically.
>>
>> Your equation is inadequate.
>
>It completely encapsulates what you have said. If you
>learnt some maths, you would be able to write down the
>theory for yourself instead of needing me to do it for
>you.
You equation would apply to, say, a saline pond of water. I gather you copied
it from something like that.
>> >> So
>> >> far, you and others have thrown everything you can at the Modern BaTh and
>> >> failed to even put a dent in it.
>>
>> >The equations as they stand predict no fringe shift for
>> >the Sagnac experiment so it is falsified. You have not
>> >presented any alternative equations.
>>
>> You don't read properly....
>
>I read what you wrote fine, your theory isn't just "dented",
>it is completely falsified by Sagnac.
George, I will write a program showing the TRUE reason for Sagnac. I have
already told you but you wont listen.
>> But for what situation?
>
>It assumes a straight line path or to put it another
>way it ignores scintillation caused by the ISM which
>is so small it is undetectable. It also ignores any
>small change of direction as the light passes through
>the heliopause of the emitting star. Otherwise it is
>valid.
..for a saline pond...
>> >> Say the maximum amplitude is 10^-9 metres at frequency 1 Mhz.
>>
>> >> A = 10^-9.sin(2pi.t.10^6)
>> >> d2A/dt2(max) = [4pi^2.10^3] m/sec^2
>>
>> >> I can't believe that....
>>
>> >Surprising, isn't it. Nice to see you trying a bit of maths
>> >though, if I had just told you the number you would not have
>> >believed me and would then have posted nonsense for days
>> >trying to avoid the subject. Now try with a piezo tweeter
>> >with say 1mm throw at 20kHz
>>
>> ....you reckon 1mm at 20 kHz ?????
>
>How much throw do you think you need on a loudspeaker cone?
>
>> a = nearly 2000 gs...good luck sticking the mirror on.....
>>
>> >The point is that with a bit of ingenuity you can produce
>> >very high accelerations in the lab. so rather than dismiss
>> >the problem with hand-waving, you should be trying to find
>> >a way to do the test.
>>
>> Producing a field free vacuum is the problem. Why don't you try it?
>
>No need, the speed of propagation which is a ripple in the
>field in your classical view is what you are trying to
>measure. In ballistic theory, there are no fields.
there are 'fields' all around us.
>> Note the maximum velocity is only 120 m/s and wont produce much VDoppler.
>
>Right, so there would be no doubt about the cause.
So your main problem is sticking a mirror on the speaker without significantly
reducing the acceleration characteristics. 2000gs create quite a force.
Reflecting polythene might do... but it has to be flat...or rather, focussed on
the receiver some distance away. What distance is required to see a brightness
variation I wonder.
If done in a decent vacuum, I would look for a change in the pulse waveform due
to ADoppler as frequency is increased...but it would be hard to rule out
mechanical distortion as a possible cause. .
>> >> >Yes do did, you said light never overtakes and
>> >> >we never see multiple images in the other thread.
>>
>> >> Since there is no evidence that is happens, there is good reason to believe
>> >> that in practice it will NEVER happen, even though there is no direct proof
>> >> that it IS physically impossible.
>>
>> >But you miss the point, your theory says that it _is_
>> >possible and that if speed equalisation is so rapid
>> >that we never see it then it also means we can never
>> >see ADoppler. The difference in distance between no
>> >ADoppler effect and multiple images is a very small
>> >ratio.
>>
>> This is where the WDT comes in.
>
>There is no threshold in your theory but if there were
>it would make the situation worse because it would
>remove speed equalisation.
No George, remember unification is a two stage affair. The sphere around a
single long period star will only unify molecular source speeds. All subsequent
unification will be the stage 2 type...much weaker. ..but enough to prevent the
formation of multiple images.
On the other hand, the combined sphere of a contact binary pair will tend to
unify all the light from both... ALL light will move at about the pair's proper
speed towards Earth. Subsequent unification will occur but will usually be
pretty negligible. ADoppler will also be negligible.
I wish you would try to understand this principle George, so I would not have
to repeat it over and over.
>> In the lab what you say is probably true but in interstellar space, there is
>> nothing much to alter the speed from c+v. It is a much slower process..but
>> apparently sufficiently effective to prevent overtaking of photons.
>>
>> You still don't seem to understand that starlight doesn't all start out at
>> precisely c wrt Earth. It leaves the star's sphere at c+v.
>
>Some leaves at c+v, some at c-v, and the former will
>overtake the latter to give multiple images unless
>equalisation is _rapid_. If that process is slow, then
>multiple images are more likely. You don't seem to
>understand your own predictions.
George, I understand perfectly. I have a program that tells me exactly where
and when m
The fact that they don't seem to occur when they might tells us all about
unification.
>> >Which proves that your analogy is useless for
>> >representing your equations.
>>
>> Don't revert to classical wave theory again George.
>
>That's all your theory is.
>
>> My approach is purely mechanical adn logical...similar to the application of a
>> pressure sensitive bulk modulus...
>
>No, the equations allow later, faster light to overtake
>earlier slower light without hinderance, your analogy
>does not represent the actual theory.
I'm talking about one photon 'end' overtaking the other.
It can't happen. ...and nor does one photon overtake another because their
speeds become unified long before that will occur...
>>
>> >You tell me, you keep denying it.
>>
>> When?
>
>Every time I point out that individual photons are
>subject to interference effects.
I have never denied that. I have even explained why it happens...
>>
>> That is fully explained by my theory...
>
>Don't be silly, your equations only specify the speed
>of the light, they don't explain interference in any
>way at all.
George, you memory is failing....
>> >> >No, initially c (equation [2]) and changing towards
>> >> >c/n at a rate determined by r(s) in equation [3].
>>
>> >> You don't know that...
>>
>> >Of course I do, that's what the equations say.
>>
>> The equations are irrelevant.
>
>Those two equations, and nothing else, constitute your
>"BaTh" theory.
The actual nature of n(s) and r(s) might have something to do with it...
How about providing equations for THEM.
>> >> >Then the rate at which the light approaches c/n falls
>> >> >to zero and it gets less close to c at the point it
>> >> >leaves the sphere.
>>
>> >> No, you don't get it. n goes to zero at the edge of the sphere.
>>
>> >The light speed goes to zero?
>>
>> replace with "Change in light speed goes to zero"
>
>That's what I said, the rate of change falls to zero.
>You didn't get it.
OK...n-> 1
>> >I don't think so. n(s) is
>> >very close to 1 so it might be 1.000001 inside and
>> >1.000000001 outside (toy numbers) with a rapid change at
>> >the heliopause.
>>
>> >> Light speeds up
>> >> as it moves outwards....just as it does going from glass to air....or
>> >> negotiating a negative density gradient in a salt solution.
>>
>> >If the speed is higher than c/n inside but lower than
>> >the value of c/n outside then that would be true but
>> >it isn't immediate, the speed doesn't change of a thin
>> >boundary.
>>
>> The speed is c/n inside and c outside (WRT the star).
>
>It is asymptotic to c/n in both regions but n is
>closer to 1 outside, and not wrt the star but wrt
>the material. Relative to the star, that might be
>around 500km/s radially outwards inside and some
>tenjs of km/s in a different direction outside.
In a very short time, the photons will find themselves in space below the WDT.
They will spend most of their lifetimes in that kind of space....space which
does not possess a refractive index in the normal sense.
>> >That's why I suggested you consider quarter
>> >wave plates.
>>
>> They are interesting... but I can't see the connection here.
>
>The speed has to change from c/n in air to c/n in the
>material in a tiny fraction of a wavelength for the
>phase shift to be accurate, say around 1/400 of a
>wavelength for 1% accuracy.
I don't see this is relevant to the current discussion.
>> >No, try plotting a graph of speed versus distance
>> >with a step change in n(s) and/or r(s).\
>>
>> There is no step... the sphere's effectiveness tapers off to zero.
>
>In reality, the heliopause is a short region where
>the gas hits a shock wave, the step would be a few
>light seconds thick some light hours from the star.
I'm not assuming that the EM sphere around a star is just the heliopause.
>> >No I don't, apply the equations and see what you get.
>>
>> I wouldn't waste my time...
>
>You are incapable, what I said is correct.
If you want to do something really useful, write the equations for n(s) and
r(s).
>>
>> see, you still don't get it...
>>
>> The fact is, all the light from the ORBITING pulsar leaves the common EM sphere
>> at about the same speed. That doesn't require a short unification distance at
>> all. ...
>
>See, you still don't get it. The maximum distance allowed
>by the measurements that we looked at before is the same
>whether the sphere exists or not.
>
>The accuracy of the pulse arrival times (74ns spread)
>requires that the distance is short, regardless of
>whether you invent a purposeless sphere or just say
>it is the ISM that does the equalisation.
George, according to BaTh any variation would be caused by the pulsar's
orbiting around its barycentre with all the surrounding masses. One would
expect that orbit to be pretty small....and the orbit incliation is a direct
factor involved in this.
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@guesswhathia.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:35:39 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@guesswhathia.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:52:26 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
><unsnip>
> >>>> The truth is that Michelson's repetition of Fizeau's experiment
> >>>> confirmed SR with far better precision than did Fizeau's original
> >>>> experiment.
> >>>> And several later repetitions have done it even better.
>
>You would like us to forget the issue, would you?
It confirmed it but with the entirely wrong interpretation of the results..
In other words, It was a fiddle. It refuted SR.
>> I certainly do not know that...and neither do you. You merely follow your
>> religious teachings.
> >
>> Light enters the glass at c+v wrt the glass.
>> Why should it subsequently move at c/n and not (c+v)/n?
>
>You are talking nonsense to evade the issue, Henri.
I am talking the issue to evade YOUR nonsense, Paul.
>What you are saying can be summarized thus:
> "Since the experimental evidence is contrary to my
> conviction, the experimental evidence must be wrong
> and can be ignored."
>
>But I won't ignore the experimental evidence.
>The issue is that SR, which assumes that the speed of light
>in a medium is c/n relative to the medium, is confirmed
>by Fizeau's experiment and it's many repetitions.
.....but it isn't is it Paul...You read the paper...
>I wrote:
>| The truth is that Michelson's repetition of Fizeau's experiment
>| confirmed SR with far better precision than did Fizeau's original
>| experiment.
>| And several later repetitions have done it even better.
>
>Your evasive response was:
>| I've done my own calculations.
>
>Which calculations were you referring to?
>Were they related to the issue you failed to respond to?
>Can you please show us those calculations, Henri?
>Of course you can't.
I can. IIRC, my answer is:
The change in path length = (D.nv)/(c+nv)
This assumes light moves at c/n in the frame of the water.
I don't necessarilagre that this is true.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:51:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@guesswhathia.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:35:39 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b....@guesswhathia.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:52:26 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> <unsnip>
>>>>>> The truth is that Michelson's repetition of Fizeau's experiment
>>>>>> confirmed SR with far better precision than did Fizeau's original
>>>>>> experiment.
>>>>>> And several later repetitions have done it even better.
>> You would like us to forget the issue, would you?
>
> It confirmed it but with the entirely wrong interpretation of the results..
> In other words, It was a fiddle. It refuted SR.
It confirmed SR but it refuted SR ?
I must be talking to an idiot.
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
......just like Sagnac...
>
>I must be talking to an idiot.
You should stop talking to yourself then...
gu...@hotmail.com
bz
news:6q2jf39jk49iobcif...@4ax.com:
> I'm talking about one photon 'end' overtaking the other.
> It can't happen. ...and nor does one photon overtake another because
> their speeds become unified long before that will occur...
>
Lets see, if a typical wilson variable is studied, how long must 'long
before' be?
Lets pick a Cepheid with a 24 hour period, just to make things simple.
Pick a star the size of our sun, orbiting a 'typical WHB' with 10 times
the mass of our sun. The orbital velocity would be 473.5 km/s so the 'head
start' speed difference between slow photons vs fast photons would be 947
km/s. (The fast photons are going 947 km/s faster than the slow ones).
Vorb=((2*p^2*G*(M1+M2)*pi)^(1/3))/p where p is the period M1 & M2 the
masses involved, G is the universal gravitational constant.
The slowest photons get a 12 hour 'head start' on the fastest photons.
So, it should take the fast photons about 0.4 years to catch up with the
slow ones.
So any Cepheid with a 24 hour period that is over 0.4 light years away
should be 'flashy'.
Take half the orbital period times c and divide that by twice the orbital
velocity.
A Cepheid with a 4 hour period and same masses would be going at 860 km/s,
and the 'catch up' distance would be about 0.04 LY.
So 'long before' that can occur needs to be within a small fraction of a
light year.
You do have a couple of minor problems with those two orbits, however.
Radius of the second would be about 2 million km, and radius of the first
would be 6.5 million km.
Since the radius of a sun sized star would be 696 million km, the WHB
would be 'submerged' in the star in both cases. Why doesn't the star
collapse into the WHB that keeps wiggling around in its stomach?
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
>news:6q2jf39jk49iobcif...@4ax.com:
>
>> I'm talking about one photon 'end' overtaking the other.
>> It can't happen. ...and nor does one photon overtake another because
>> their speeds become unified long before that will occur...
>>
>
>Lets see, if a typical wilson variable is studied, how long must 'long
>before' be?
>
>Lets pick a Cepheid with a 24 hour period, just to make things simple.
>Pick a star the size of our sun, orbiting a 'typical WHB' with 10 times
>the mass of our sun. The orbital velocity would be 473.5 km/s so the 'head
>start' speed difference between slow photons vs fast photons would be 947
>km/s. (The fast photons are going 947 km/s faster than the slow ones).
>
>Vorb=((2*p^2*G*(M1+M2)*pi)^(1/3))/p where p is the period M1 & M2 the
>masses involved, G is the universal gravitational constant.
>
>The slowest photons get a 12 hour 'head start' on the fastest photons.
>So, it should take the fast photons about 0.4 years to catch up with the
>slow ones.
>
>So any Cepheid with a 24 hour period that is over 0.4 light years away
>should be 'flashy'.
>
>Take half the orbital period times c and divide that by twice the orbital
>velocity.
>
>A Cepheid with a 4 hour period and same masses would be going at 860 km/s,
>and the 'catch up' distance would be about 0.04 LY.
I have found the reason for the apparent connection between unification
distance and peiod. It is all to do with the EM sphere surrounding a star or
binary pair.
run: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe
>
>So 'long before' that can occur needs to be within a small fraction of a
>light year.
>
>You do have a couple of minor problems with those two orbits, however.
>Radius of the second would be about 2 million km, and radius of the first
>would be 6.5 million km.
>
>Since the radius of a sun sized star would be 696 million km, the WHB
>would be 'submerged' in the star in both cases. Why doesn't the star
>collapse into the WHB that keeps wiggling around in its stomach?
Bob, forget your equations, just run my program....it can do in seconds what
will take you centuries.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
bz
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:38:55 +0000 (UTC), bz
> <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>
>>HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
>>news:6q2jf39jk49iobcif...@4ax.com:
>>
....
>>A Cepheid with a 4 hour period and same masses would be going at 860
>>km/s, and the 'catch up' distance would be about 0.04 LY.
>
> I have found the reason for the apparent connection between unification
> distance and peiod. It is all to do with the EM sphere surrounding a
> star or binary pair.
> run: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe
Pretty pictures but they don't quantify anything.
>>
>>So 'long before' that can occur needs to be within a small fraction of a
>>light year.
>>
>>You do have a couple of minor problems with those two orbits, however.
>>Radius of the second would be about 2 million km, and radius of the
>>first would be 6.5 million km.
>>
>>Since the radius of a sun sized star would be 696 million km, the WHB
>>would be 'submerged' in the star in both cases. Why doesn't the star
>>collapse into the WHB that keeps wiggling around in its stomach?
>
> Bob, forget your equations, just run my program....it can do in seconds
> what will take you centuries.
Five minutes with a couple of equations showed a major problem with your
WHB.
You really should take a few minutes and play with the equation for orbital
radius as a function of total mass and orbital period. It will give you a
rough idea of the minimum possible orbital period for a Wilson Variable.
Do you want me to give you the equation or do you want to derive it
yourself?
T.M. Sommers
>
> 12) A distant star in orbit emits light at c+vsin(ft) wrt Earth.
Are c and v vectors or scalars?
I assume f is a frequency of some sort, but frequency of what? t
is presumably a time, but what time? It appears possible to
change the results just by changing the zero of time. v is
presumably the orbital speed. In what frame is it measured? Is
it the total linear speed, or the component in the direction of
the observer?
The A in ADoppler evidently means acceleration, but there is no
acceleration dependence in your equation.
> 13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT NEVER
> overtakes it because of extinction. As a result, dstant observers see the star
> varying in luminosity.
Why don't all binaries show this variation? Why don't the stars
in close orbits around the black hole at the center of our galaxy
show any variation?
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
George Dishman
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:6q2jf39jk49iobcif...@4ax.com...
When we looked at the pulsars, we found the
equalisation must occur in a few light hours,
pronbably much less. They are 4000 light years
away. The light travels at its mean equilibrium
value for the vast majority of the time and we
know the value of the refractive index from the
resulting dispersion.
>>The equation on
>>this page gives you the value:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2vru22
>>
>>> Maybe the equation would apply roughly to the EM sphere surrounding a
>>> star...
>>> but I think it should be (c+v)/n(s) anyway.
>>
>>Write your own eqyuaton then and then write a little
>>program to plot speed versus distance for c+v and c-v
>>initial values. Try mine and yours and see which
>>behaves the way you want.
>
> Well, I suppose I could work out an equation for a sphere with density
> decreasing to zero at a finite radius around an inertial star.
You will need that for later but at this point
I just meant do two version, mine and your
suggestion of using "(c+v)/n(s)" and see how
they compare.
> It would be reasonable to assume that both n(s) and r(s) would involve
> inverse
> cube terms somewhere.
See my other replies for how to do it.
>>> George, I don't envisage that light speed is rigidly determined in any
>>> of the
>>> space that starlight negotiates...except maybe in the immediate vicinity
>>> of the
>>> source..
>>> Light entering a region that has a natural light speed (relative to that
>>> region) will not change speed abruptly. It may pass right through
>>> without much
>>> change at all.
>>
>>That is the case if r(s) is much greater than the thickness
>>of the region. You need to learn how to do maths.
>
> Maybe I have a more efficient mind than some.
No, you just got it wrong:
>>> >> but the end result is that both n(s) and r(s) are zero.
>>> >> So why bother?
>>>
>>> >Garbage, n(s) is 1 for vacuum and close to 1 for thin gas
>>> >while r(s) tends to infinity as the density falls to zero
>>> >(meaning the speed is constant).
>>>
>>> Yes Sorry n(s) ->1...I'm not really sure what r(s) is suppoed to
>>> represent....
A more efficient mind would not need to
be corrected.
>>It is the distance over which the speed difference
>>between the light and c/n falls by 1/e. It is the
>>same mathematically as the conventional "time
>>constant" for an electrical RC circuit.
>
> See, the problem is, n(s) will decrease to unity by a function including
> r^3
> whilst r(s) INCREASES in a similar way.
Inverse square for the density.
> It's too speculative and impractical.
Not at all, it is how you do all physics, by breaking
problems down into separate aspects. Finding an equation
that gives r(s) from the particle density and species is
one aspect, predicting the actual density as a function
of radius from the star is quite separate.
>>> >> George, visual photons are many INTRINSIC wavelengths long. When they
>>> >> arrive at
>>> >> a moving mirror, THE ENDS strike it at slightly different points...
>>>
>>> >Think back Henry, they don't strike at "points", they
>>> >are metres wide so illuminate the whole mirror and
>>> >create diffraction effects at the edges.
>>>
>>> In sagnac they don't have time to disperse and strike at points.
>>
>>Not true, Young's Slits works over distances far smaller
>>than Sagnac's equipment.
>
> ....so what is the 'cross-section' of a typical photon...and how does it
> vary
> with travel time?
See my other post but basically it if the slits
can be done on the bench with a few cm between
them then for a distant star and the same subtended
angle, it must be light years.
> I have stated my view before. Its influence extends to infinity but its
> 'strength' drops off very rapidly with 'radius'.
> We can probably add to that the notion that a single photon will
> experience
> dispersion as it tavels. Maybe that alone will cause it to reshift
> slightly
> too.
Again see my other reply, the whole energy
deposits at one point on the detector which
is the evidence that light consists of
particles. That is the philosophical problem
in QM, something that appears distibuted in
one experiment appears point-like in others.
>>> >> >You need to learn the difference between science
>>> >> >and philosophy Henry, your scientific model is
>>> >> >those two equations only at the moment, nothing
>>> >> >more. That was the point I tried to emphasise in
>>> >> >my first reply. Much of what you posted is not
>>> >> >part of the theory but conclusions you might
>>> >> >reach by its application and you seem to have
>>> >> >trouble distinguishing the two.
>>>
>>> >> George, the theory has to encompass all situations and withstand all
>>> >> tests..
>>>
>>> >And it has to be expressed mathematically.
>>>
>>> Your equation is inadequate.
>>
>>It completely encapsulates what you have said. If you
>>learnt some maths, you would be able to write down the
>>theory for yourself instead of needing me to do it for
>>you.
>
> You equation would apply to, say, a saline pond of water. I gather you
> copied
> it from something like that.
No Henry, I just wrote it myself as I explained in
another post. You even pretended you understood how
it was done so you should be able to do the one for
r(s) which isn't much harder. We will see how you
get on ;-)
>>> >> So
>>> >> far, you and others have thrown everything you can at the Modern BaTh
>>> >> and
>>> >> failed to even put a dent in it.
>>>
>>> >The equations as they stand predict no fringe shift for
>>> >the Sagnac experiment so it is falsified. You have not
>>> >presented any alternative equations.
>>>
>>> You don't read properly....
>>
>>I read what you wrote fine, your theory isn't just "dented",
>>it is completely falsified by Sagnac.
>
> George, I will write a program showing the TRUE reason for Sagnac. I have
> already told you but you wont listen.
That's because you haven't written the program and
I can already see that none of your handwaving
suggestions would solve the problem even if you
did write a program. You cannot alter the time of
flight without changing either the length of the
path or the speed, you don't want to change the
speed (since that confirms SR) so you need to change
the length, but you don't have a suggestion that
would do that.
>>> But for what situation?
>>
>>It assumes a straight line path or to put it another
>>way it ignores scintillation caused by the ISM which
>>is so small it is undetectable. It also ignores any
>>small change of direction as the light passes through
>>the heliopause of the emitting star. Otherwise it is
>>valid.
>
> ..for a saline pond...
It is a valid equation that matches your description
of what happens no matter what the environment.
<snip speaker cones>
>>> >The point is that with a bit of ingenuity you can produce
>>> >very high accelerations in the lab. so rather than dismiss
>>> >the problem with hand-waving, you should be trying to find
>>> >a way to do the test.
>>>
>>> Producing a field free vacuum is the problem. Why don't you try it?
>>
>>No need, the speed of propagation which is a ripple in the
>>field in your classical view is what you are trying to
>>measure. In ballistic theory, there are no fields.
>
> there are 'fields' all around us.
Only in the classical wave description, in particle
theory they are explained/replaced by the mean
momentum transfered by the particles.
>>> Note the maximum velocity is only 120 m/s and wont produce much
>>> VDoppler.
>>
>>Right, so there would be no doubt about the cause.
>
> So your main problem is sticking a mirror on the speaker without
> significantly
> reducing the acceleration characteristics. 2000gs create quite a force.
Sure, but I would assume you plate the crystal
surface. That is probably done anyway to make
the electrical contacts.
> Reflecting polythene might do... but it has to be flat...or rather,
> focussed on
> the receiver some distance away. What distance is required to see a
> brightness
> variation I wonder.
> If done in a decent vacuum, I would look for a change in the pulse
> waveform due
> to ADoppler as frequency is increased...but it would be hard to rule out
> mechanical distortion as a possible cause. .
The key test would be to go beyond critical distance
and look for multiple images but at a rough guess
that needs about the distance to the Moon :-(
Bottom line Henry is that real physicists find ways
to test their theories while you start by looking
for excuses for failure.
>>> >> >Yes do did, you said light never overtakes and
>>> >> >we never see multiple images in the other thread.
>>>
>>> >> Since there is no evidence that is happens, there is good reason to
>>> >> believe
>>> >> that in practice it will NEVER happen, even though there is no direct
>>> >> proof
>>> >> that it IS physically impossible.
>>>
>>> >But you miss the point, your theory says that it _is_
>>> >possible and that if speed equalisation is so rapid
>>> >that we never see it then it also means we can never
>>> >see ADoppler. The difference in distance between no
>>> >ADoppler effect and multiple images is a very small
>>> >ratio.
>>>
>>> This is where the WDT comes in.
>>
>>There is no threshold in your theory but if there were
>>it would make the situation worse because it would
>>remove speed equalisation.
>
> No George, remember unification is a two stage affair. The sphere around a
> single long period star will only unify molecular source speeds. All
> subsequent
> unification will be the stage 2 type...much weaker. ..but enough to
> prevent the
> formation of multiple images.
It could be, but then it is also likely to be much
less than the critical distance or statistically
the tail of the distribution over many star systems
should show at least some that exhibit multiple
images, and the figures from the pulsar/dwarf system
bear that out, light hours or minutes compared to
several light years. With that ratio, any luminosity
variation is tiny and undetectable.
> On the other hand, the combined sphere of a contact binary pair will tend
> to
> unify all the light from both... ALL light will move at about the pair's
> proper
> speed towards Earth. Subsequent unification will occur but will usually be
> pretty negligible. ADoppler will also be negligible.
>
> I wish you would try to understand this principle George, so I would not
> have
> to repeat it over and over.
I do Henry and you only just understood it yourself,
to quote you: "ADoppler will also be negligible."
The difference between 5 mags of luminosity and
multiple images is a tiny change in distance so
over a random selection of binary systems we should
either see both effects or neither, it takes magic
to get one without the other.
>>> In the lab what you say is probably true but in interstellar space,
>>> there is
>>> nothing much to alter the speed from c+v. It is a much slower
>>> process..but
>>> apparently sufficiently effective to prevent overtaking of photons.
>>>
>>> You still don't seem to understand that starlight doesn't all start out
>>> at
>>> precisely c wrt Earth. It leaves the star's sphere at c+v.
>>
>>Some leaves at c+v, some at c-v, and the former will
>>overtake the latter to give multiple images unless
>>equalisation is _rapid_. If that process is slow, then
>>multiple images are more likely. You don't seem to
>>understand your own predictions.
>
> George, I understand perfectly. I have a program that tells me exactly
> where
> and when m
>
> The fact that they don't seem to occur when they might tells us all about
> unification.
Yes, it says it is so fast that ADoppler will always
be negligible.
>>> >Which proves that your analogy is useless for
>>> >representing your equations.
>>>
>>> Don't revert to classical wave theory again George.
>>
>>That's all your theory is.
>>
>>> My approach is purely mechanical adn logical...similar to the
>>> application of a
>>> pressure sensitive bulk modulus...
>>
>>No, the equations allow later, faster light to overtake
>>earlier slower light without hinderance, your analogy
>>does not represent the actual theory.
>
> I'm talking about one photon 'end' overtaking the other.
So am I.
> It can't happen.
The theory - your equations - say it _will_ happen.
> ...and nor does one photon overtake another because their
> speeds become unified long before that will occur...
Yes, therefore no significant ADoppler contribution
to luminosity variation.
>>> >You tell me, you keep denying it.
>>>
>>> When?
>>
>>Every time I point out that individual photons are
>>subject to interference effects.
>
> I have never denied that.
OK, stick with that view when we talk of VLBI then.
> I have even explained why it happens...
No you haven't, you talked about the case of
multiple photons and were told why you were
wrong, but that was never the subject anyway.
>>> That is fully explained by my theory...
>>
>>Don't be silly, your equations only specify the speed
>>of the light, they don't explain interference in any
>>way at all.
>
> George, you memory is failing....
I remeber equations [2] and [3] because I wrote
them for you. You have added no others to my
knowledge.
>>> >> >No, initially c (equation [2]) and changing towards
>>> >> >c/n at a rate determined by r(s) in equation [3].
>>>
>>> >> You don't know that...
>>>
>>> >Of course I do, that's what the equations say.
>>>
>>> The equations are irrelevant.
>>
>>Those two equations, and nothing else, constitute your
>>"BaTh" theory.
>
> The actual nature of n(s) and r(s) might have something to do with it...
> How about providing equations for THEM.
I did at the top for n(s) and I have told you
how you can do r(s) for yourself. If you can't
do the physics, I'll do it for you soon but I
want to see if you have any capability at all.
>>> >> >Then the rate at which the light approaches c/n falls
>>> >> >to zero and it gets less close to c at the point it
>>> >> >leaves the sphere.
>>>
>>> >> No, you don't get it. n goes to zero at the edge of the sphere.
>>>
>>> >The light speed goes to zero?
>>>
>>> replace with "Change in light speed goes to zero"
>>
>>That's what I said, the rate of change falls to zero.
>>You didn't get it.
>
> OK...n-> 1
Yes.
>>> >I don't think so. n(s) is
>>> >very close to 1 so it might be 1.000001 inside and
>>> >1.000000001 outside (toy numbers) with a rapid change at
>>> >the heliopause.
>>>
>>> >> Light speeds up
>>> >> as it moves outwards....just as it does going from glass to air....or
>>> >> negotiating a negative density gradient in a salt solution.
>>>
>>> >If the speed is higher than c/n inside but lower than
>>> >the value of c/n outside then that would be true but
>>> >it isn't immediate, the speed doesn't change of a thin
>>> >boundary.
>>>
>>> The speed is c/n inside and c outside (WRT the star).
>>
>>It is asymptotic to c/n in both regions but n is
>>closer to 1 outside, and not wrt the star but wrt
>>the material. Relative to the star, that might be
>>around 500km/s radially outwards inside and some
>>tens of km/s in a different direction outside.
>
> In a very short time, the photons will find themselves in space below the
> WDT.
I keep ponting out there is _no_ threshold in your
equations but you blindly repeat this nonsense.
> They will spend most of their lifetimes in that kind of space....space
> which
> does not possess a refractive index in the normal sense.
There is no such space, truly empty space has
an index of 1 exactly. See the dispersion chart
on the page I cited at the top:
The refractive index varies with frequency over
the whole journey to create that effect.
>>> >That's why I suggested you consider quarter
>>> >wave plates.
>>>
>>> They are interesting... but I can't see the connection here.
>>
>>The speed has to change from c/n in air to c/n in the
>>material in a tiny fraction of a wavelength for the
>>phase shift to be accurate, say around 1/400 of a
>>wavelength for 1% accuracy.
>
> I don't see this is relevant to the current discussion.
You want it to take light minutes or more for the
light to equalise but it would have to happens in
a fraction of a wavelength.
>>> >No, try plotting a graph of speed versus distance
>>> >with a step change in n(s) and/or r(s).\
>>>
>>> There is no step... the sphere's effectiveness tapers off to zero.
>>
>>In reality, the heliopause is a short region where
>>the gas hits a shock wave, the step would be a few
>>light seconds thick some light hours from the star.
>
> I'm not assuming that the EM sphere around a star is just the heliopause.
I think you meant heliosphere, the pause is the boundary
or at least one of them, there are a number of nested
effects.
>>> >No I don't, apply the equations and see what you get.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't waste my time...
>>
>>You are incapable, what I said is correct.
>
> If you want to do something really useful, write the equations for n(s)
> and
> r(s).
I had already provided n(s) at the top:
You need to work out r(s) for yourself but I've
told you how to do it, a few minutes effort should
give you the solution, but I expect your cannot do
even the simplest real physics even after I showed
you how to get eqn [3] using virtually the same
approach.
>>> see, you still don't get it...
>>>
>>> The fact is, all the light from the ORBITING pulsar leaves the common EM
>>> sphere
>>> at about the same speed. That doesn't require a short unification
>>> distance at
>>> all. ...
>>
>>See, you still don't get it. The maximum distance allowed
>>by the measurements that we looked at before is the same
>>whether the sphere exists or not.
>>
>>The accuracy of the pulse arrival times (74ns spread)
>>requires that the distance is short, regardless of
>>whether you invent a purposeless sphere or just say
>>it is the ISM that does the equalisation.
>
> George, according to BaTh any variation would be caused by the pulsar's
> orbiting around its barycentre with all the surrounding masses. One would
> expect that orbit to be pretty small....and the orbit incliation is a
> direct
> factor involved in this.
The orbit diameter projected onto the line of sight
using the inclination was 3.9s from memory. There is
no detectable ADoppler at the 10ns level or better.
George
George Dishman
"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:8eaof3lpp3r3p43uh...@4ax.com...>>HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote in
Doesn't that shorten the distance over which the
catch-up happens requiring an even smaller orbit?
>>So 'long before' that can occur needs to be within a small fraction of a
>>light year.
>>
>>You do have a couple of minor problems with those two orbits, however.
>>Radius of the second would be about 2 million km, and radius of the first
>>would be 6.5 million km.
>>
>>Since the radius of a sun sized star would be 696 million km, the WHB
>>would be 'submerged' in the star in both cases. Why doesn't the star
>>collapse into the WHB that keeps wiggling around in its stomach?
>
> Bob, forget your equations, just run my program....it can do in seconds
> what
> will take you centuries.
Bob's equations told you something in minutes
that you had never discovered from your program.
Incidentally, this problem was pointed out almost
as soon as Cepheids were discovered.
George
bz
news:7oadnU40qfCdrWDb...@pipex.net:
> The key test would be to go beyond critical distance
> and look for multiple images but at a rough guess
> that needs about the distance to the Moon :-(
>
> Bottom line Henry is that real physicists find ways
> to test their theories while you start by looking
> for excuses for failure.
>
I don't think that a test of the ballistic theory would be that difficult
or need that long a distance.
Recently, I proposed a test to Sean (I think he has abandoned his idea
that light is tied to the source, at least I haven't seen anything from
him recently) that would also show if light is influenced by the motion of
the source.
[quote]
Let us put a LED (light emitting diode) on the rim of a ultra centrifuge
rotor that is 10 cm in diameter and rotate the disk at 50,000 rpm. The
circumference will be 0.628 meters. The speed of the diode will be 523.599
meters per second or 1.7 micro c.
Now, we spin the rotor clock wise for one test and counter clockwise for
another test. We pulse the LED near the point where it is closest to us
(thus traveling at max speed perpendicular to the line of sight) From a
distance of 10 meters we use a long focal length microscope to view the
position of the LED at the moment that it pulses. Our microscope gives us
a 100 to 1 magnification of the image of the LED. We use a ccd camera to
display the image on our computer screen.
What do I predict and what does your theory predict?
I predict that the image will appear in the same location, with the rotor
non rotating, or with it rotating clockwise or counterclockwise at 50,000
rpm.
What does your theory predict? Your theory predicts that during the 0.033
us it take the light to travel from the LED to our tele-microscope 10
meters away, the light will have moved 0.017 mm in the direction of
rotation. As there are LEDs that are only 20 um in size,
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6410940-claims.html so, I calculate that
if your theory were correct that the image would be displaced by 873
diameters in the direction of travel.
[unquote]
If the ballistic theory were correct, the transverse component of the
motion of the source WOULD influence the light emitted from the LED.
A year or more back, I had suggested a similar test, looking at the light
from a rotating source at its maximum velocity toward or away from the
observer, but the test was not sensitive enough without expensive lab
equipment.
However, if we look at light emitted when the source is moving
perpendicular to the line of sight, my calculations show that it should be
quite easy to see displacement of the source, even over rather short
distances, if the ballistic theory were correct.
Of course, this should also apply to light from a Henri star, it should
'wiggle' back and forth as it travels at right angles to the line of
sight.
George Dishman
"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns99B985F016302WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:7oadnU40qfCdrWDb...@pipex.net:
>
>> The key test would be to go beyond critical distance
>> and look for multiple images but at a rough guess
>> that needs about the distance to the Moon :-(
>>
>> Bottom line Henry is that real physicists find ways
>> to test their theories while you start by looking
>> for excuses for failure.
>
> I don't think that a test of the ballistic theory would be that difficult
> or need that long a distance.
It isn't, the Sagnac setup is fine. What Henry was
discussing was specifically a way to check for what
we call "ADoppler", a frequency shift or intensity
change purely due to acceleration.
> Recently, I proposed a test to Sean (I think he has abandoned his idea
> that light is tied to the source, at least I haven't seen anything from
> him recently) that would also show if light is influenced by the motion of
> the source.
>
> [quote]
> Let us put a LED (light emitting diode) on the rim of a ultra centrifuge
> rotor that is 10 cm in diameter and rotate the disk at 50,000 rpm. The
> circumference will be 0.628 meters. The speed of the diode will be 523.599
> meters per second or 1.7 micro c.
I get 261.8m/s, diameter versus radius?
> Now, we spin the rotor clock wise for one test and counter clockwise for
> another test. We pulse the LED near the point where it is closest to us
> (thus traveling at max speed perpendicular to the line of sight) From a
> distance of 10 meters we use a long focal length microscope to view the
> position of the LED at the moment that it pulses. Our microscope gives us
> a 100 to 1 magnification of the image of the LED. We use a ccd camera to
> display the image on our computer screen.
>
> What do I predict and what does your theory predict?
>
> I predict that the image will appear in the same location, with the rotor
> non rotating, or with it rotating clockwise or counterclockwise at 50,000
> rpm.
Hmm, would aberration apply in the relativistic analysis?
For a laser diode, you have a rotating cavity which sounds
complex to analyse, it might alter the modes.
For 10m the travel time is 33ns. For Henry's version the
lateral component is 261.8m/s so it would move 8.73 um
sideways.
> What does your theory predict? Your theory predicts that during the 0.033
> us it take the light to travel from the LED to our tele-microscope 10
> meters away, the light will have moved 0.017 mm in the direction of
> rotation.
For Sean's theory I get 0.017 mm as well.
George
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
>news:8eaof3lpp3r3p43uh...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:38:55 +0000 (UTC), bz
>> <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
>>>news:6q2jf39jk49iobcif...@4ax.com:
>>>
>....
>>>A Cepheid with a 4 hour period and same masses would be going at 860
>>>km/s, and the 'catch up' distance would be about 0.04 LY.
>>
>> I have found the reason for the apparent connection between unification
>> distance and peiod. It is all to do with the EM sphere surrounding a
>> star or binary pair.
>> run: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe
>
>Pretty pictures but they don't quantify anything.
that's a funny thing to say. ALL the numbers are there.
>>>
>>>So 'long before' that can occur needs to be within a small fraction of a
>>>light year.
>>>
>>>You do have a couple of minor problems with those two orbits, however.
>>>Radius of the second would be about 2 million km, and radius of the
>>>first would be 6.5 million km.
>>>
>>>Since the radius of a sun sized star would be 696 million km, the WHB
>>>would be 'submerged' in the star in both cases. Why doesn't the star
>>>collapse into the WHB that keeps wiggling around in its stomach?
>>
>> Bob, forget your equations, just run my program....it can do in seconds
>> what will take you centuries.
>
>Five minutes with a couple of equations showed a major problem with your
>WHB.
>
>You really should take a few minutes and play with the equation for orbital
>radius as a function of total mass and orbital period. It will give you a
>rough idea of the minimum possible orbital period for a Wilson Variable.
>
>Do you want me to give you the equation or do you want to derive it
>yourself?
.....totally irelevant nonsense.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:8eaof3lpp3r3p43uh...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:38:55 +0000 (UTC), bz
>> <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>> wrote:
>>>A Cepheid with a 4 hour period and same masses would be going at 860 km/s,
>>>and the 'catch up' distance would be about 0.04 LY.
>>
>> I have found the reason for the apparent connection between unification
>> distance and peiod. It is all to do with the EM sphere surrounding a star
>> or
>> binary pair.
>> run: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe
>
>Doesn't that shorten the distance over which the
>catch-up happens requiring an even smaller orbit?
you two are getting desperate now....
>>>So 'long before' that can occur needs to be within a small fraction of a
>>>light year.
>>>
>>>You do have a couple of minor problems with those two orbits, however.
>>>Radius of the second would be about 2 million km, and radius of the first
>>>would be 6.5 million km.
>>>
>>>Since the radius of a sun sized star would be 696 million km, the WHB
>>>would be 'submerged' in the star in both cases. Why doesn't the star
>>>collapse into the WHB that keeps wiggling around in its stomach?
>>
>> Bob, forget your equations, just run my program....it can do in seconds
>> what
>> will take you centuries.
>
>Bob's equations told you something in minutes
>that you had never discovered from your program.
>Incidentally, this problem was pointed out almost
>as soon as Cepheids were discovered.
George, you have been wrong about Sagna all along, why should I think anything
you say is right?
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:6q2jf39jk49iobcif...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>Of course you can, the ligh has some speed and you just
>>>divide c by the that to get the index.
>>
>> ...but the speed might not be the equilibrium speed in that region. That
>> is my
>> point. Most of space is so rare that, even if a natural light speed COULD
>> be
>> assigned to it, the light passing through can still have a wide range of
>> speeds. Those speeds TEND TOWARD the natural one. ...but you cannot assume
>> that
>> your 'refractive index' determines speed precisely as it does in say,
>> water or
>> glass.
>
>When we looked at the pulsars, we found the
>equalisation must occur in a few light hours,
>pronbably much less. They are 4000 light years
>away. The light travels at its mean equilibrium
>value for the vast majority of the time and we
>know the value of the refractive index from the
>resulting dispersion.
It isn't constant over the whole distance.
>>>
>>>That is the case if r(s) is much greater than the thickness
>>>of the region. You need to learn how to do maths.
>>
>> Maybe I have a more efficient mind than some.
>
>No, you just got it wrong:
Like Sagnac, I suppose... :)
>
>>>It is the distance over which the speed difference
>>>between the light and c/n falls by 1/e. It is the
>>>same mathematically as the conventional "time
>>>constant" for an electrical RC circuit.
>>
>> See, the problem is, n(s) will decrease to unity by a function including
>> r^3
>> whilst r(s) INCREASES in a similar way.
>
>Inverse square for the density.
Not right.
>> It's too speculative and impractical.
>
>Not at all, it is how you do all physics, by breaking
>problems down into separate aspects. Finding an equation
>that gives r(s) from the particle density and species is
>one aspect, predicting the actual density as a function
>of radius from the star is quite separate.
If I look into this, I will first examine lots of stars to see if there is any
pattern in the extinction distance.
>> ....so what is the 'cross-section' of a typical photon...and how does it
>> vary
>> with travel time?
>
>See my other post but basically it if the slits
>can be done on the bench with a few cm between
>them then for a distant star and the same subtended
>angle, it must be light years.
You must only condsider single photon experiments, not full beam.
>> I have stated my view before. Its influence extends to infinity but its
>> 'strength' drops off very rapidly with 'radius'.
>> We can probably add to that the notion that a single photon will
>> experience
>> dispersion as it tavels. Maybe that alone will cause it to reshift
>> slightly
>> too.
>
>Again see my other reply, the whole energy
>deposits at one point on the detector which
>is the evidence that light consists of
>particles. That is the philosophical problem
>in QM, something that appears distibuted in
>one experiment appears point-like in others.
it is plain physics.
>>
>> You equation would apply to, say, a saline pond of water. I gather you
>> copied
>> it from something like that.
>
>No Henry, I just wrote it myself as I explained in
>another post. You even pretended you understood how
>it was done so you should be able to do the one for
>r(s) which isn't much harder. We will see how you
>get on ;-)
Now I've solved Sagnac, I might have a look.
>>>I read what you wrote fine, your theory isn't just "dented",
>>>it is completely falsified by Sagnac.
>>
>> George, I will write a program showing the TRUE reason for Sagnac. I have
>> already told you but you wont listen.
>
>That's because you haven't written the program and
>I can already see that none of your handwaving
>suggestions would solve the problem even if you
>did write a program. You cannot alter the time of
>flight without changing either the length of the
>path or the speed, you don't want to change the
>speed (since that confirms SR) so you need to change
>the length, but you don't have a suggestion that
>would do that.
One little .jpg brings down Einstein and makes George look silly. :)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Producing a field free vacuum is the problem. Why don't you try it?
>>>
>>>No need, the speed of propagation which is a ripple in the
>>>field in your classical view is what you are trying to
>>>measure. In ballistic theory, there are no fields.
>>
>> there are 'fields' all around us.
>
>Only in the classical wave description, in particle
>theory they are explained/replaced by the mean
>momentum transfered by the particles.
A field is more than just its effect on particles. Fields exist without
particles.
Real physicists solve things like the Sagnac riddle.
>>>> This is where the WDT comes in.
>>>
>>>There is no threshold in your theory but if there were
>>>it would make the situation worse because it would
>>>remove speed equalisation.
>>
>> No George, remember unification is a two stage affair. The sphere around a
>> single long period star will only unify molecular source speeds. All
>> subsequent
>> unification will be the stage 2 type...much weaker. ..but enough to
>> prevent the
>> formation of multiple images.
>
>It could be, but then it is also likely to be much
>less than the critical distance or statistically
>the tail of the distribution over many star systems
>should show at least some that exhibit multiple
>images, and the figures from the pulsar/dwarf system
>bear that out, light hours or minutes compared to
>several light years. With that ratio, any luminosity
>variation is tiny and undetectable.
the chances of seeing and recognizing multiple images are prettty slim.
>> On the other hand, the combined sphere of a contact binary pair will tend
>> to
>> unify all the light from both... ALL light will move at about the pair's
>> proper
>> speed towards Earth. Subsequent unification will occur but will usually be
>> pretty negligible. ADoppler will also be negligible.
>>
>> I wish you would try to understand this principle George, so I would not
>> have
>> to repeat it over and over.
>
>I do Henry and you only just understood it yourself,
>to quote you: "ADoppler will also be negligible."
>The difference between 5 mags of luminosity and
>multiple images is a tiny change in distance so
>over a random selection of binary systems we should
>either see both effects or neither, it takes magic
>to get one without the other.
If there WERE multiple images, the star would be too far away to resolve them
optically.
There are stars that appear to flare up periodically. This is most likely a c+v
effect.
>> The fact that they don't seem to occur when they might tells us all about
>> unification.
>
>Yes, it says it is so fast that ADoppler will always
>be negligible.
:)
Don't make wild guesses George. If you learnt how to use my program you would
understand these things.
>>>
>>>No, the equations allow later, faster light to overtake
>>>earlier slower light without hinderance, your analogy
>>>does not represent the actual theory.
>>
>> I'm talking about one photon 'end' overtaking the other.
>
>So am I.
>
>> It can't happen.
>
>The theory - your equations - say it _will_ happen.
No matter how much pressure is applied to a rubber ball it wont turn inside
out.
>> ...and nor does one photon overtake another because their
>> speeds become unified long before that will occur...
>
>Yes, therefore no significant ADoppler contribution
>to luminosity variation.
You are talking nonsense...just as you have for years about Sagnac.
>>>>
>>>> The equations are irrelevant.
>>>
>>>Those two equations, and nothing else, constitute your
>>>"BaTh" theory.
>>
>> The actual nature of n(s) and r(s) might have something to do with it...
>> How about providing equations for THEM.
>
>I did at the top for n(s) and I have told you
>how you can do r(s) for yourself. If you can't
>do the physics, I'll do it for you soon but I
>want to see if you have any capability at all.
See if you can understand this simple piece of maths George:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
:)
>>>
>>>It is asymptotic to c/n in both regions but n is
>>>closer to 1 outside, and not wrt the star but wrt
>>>the material. Relative to the star, that might be
>>>around 500km/s radially outwards inside and some
>>>tens of km/s in a different direction outside.
>>
>> In a very short time, the photons will find themselves in space below the
>> WDT.
>
>I keep ponting out there is _no_ threshold in your
>equations but you blindly repeat this nonsense.
George, do you not agree that starlight spends most its lifetime traveling
through 'empty' space?
Do you not consider that this space varies in the degree of its 'emptiness'?
>> They will spend most of their lifetimes in that kind of space....space
>> which
>> does not possess a refractive index in the normal sense.
>
>There is no such space, truly empty space has
>an index of 1 exactly. See the dispersion chart
>on the page I cited at the top:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2vru22
>
>The refractive index varies with frequency over
>the whole journey to create that effect.
maybe....but why should I believe anything based on constant c?
>>>
>>>In reality, the heliopause is a short region where
>>>the gas hits a shock wave, the step would be a few
>>>light seconds thick some light hours from the star.
>>
>> I'm not assuming that the EM sphere around a star is just the heliopause.
>
>I think you meant heliosphere, the pause is the boundary
>or at least one of them, there are a number of nested
>effects.
yes.
>>
>> If you want to do something really useful, write the equations for n(s)
>> and
>> r(s).
>
>I had already provided n(s) at the top:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2vru22
>
>You need to work out r(s) for yourself but I've
>told you how to do it, a few minutes effort should
>give you the solution, but I expect your cannot do
>even the simplest real physics even after I showed
>you how to get eqn [3] using virtually the same
>approach.
......says the sagnac expert..... :)
>>>The accuracy of the pulse arrival times (74ns spread)
>>>requires that the distance is short, regardless of
>>>whether you invent a purposeless sphere or just say
>>>it is the ISM that does the equalisation.
>>
>> George, according to BaTh any variation would be caused by the pulsar's
>> orbiting around its barycentre with all the surrounding masses. One would
>> expect that orbit to be pretty small....and the orbit incliation is a
>> direct
>> factor involved in this.
>
>The orbit diameter projected onto the line of sight
>using the inclination was 3.9s from memory. There is
>no detectable ADoppler at the 10ns level or better.
I have agreed there is litle if any ADoppler present. I have explained why.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>news:Xns99B985F016302WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:7oadnU40qfCdrWDb...@pipex.net:
>>
>>> The key test would be to go beyond critical distance
>>> and look for multiple images but at a rough guess
>>> that needs about the distance to the Moon :-(
>>>
>>> Bottom line Henry is that real physicists find ways
>>> to test their theories while you start by looking
>>> for excuses for failure.
>>
>> I don't think that a test of the ballistic theory would be that difficult
>> or need that long a distance.
>
>It isn't, the Sagnac setup is fine. What Henry was
>discussing was specifically a way to check for what
>we call "ADoppler", a frequency shift or intensity
>change purely due to acceleration.
Sagnac is indeed fine. It proves the BaTh correct..... and SR wrong.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
I hope the math isn't too hard for you George.
>> rotation.
>
>For Sean's theory I get 0.017 mm as well.
>
>George
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>> 12) A distant star in orbit emits light at c+vsin(ft) wrt Earth.
>
>Are c and v vectors or scalars?
Radial components towards earth. that's all we are interested in.
>I assume f is a frequency of some sort, but frequency of what? t
>is presumably a time, but what time?
Sorry, ft should be f(t) ...a function of time.
>It appears possible to
>change the results just by changing the zero of time. v is
>presumably the orbital speed. In what frame is it measured? Is
>it the total linear speed, or the component in the direction of
>the observer?
>
>The A in ADoppler evidently means acceleration, but there is no
>acceleration dependence in your equation.
Yes there is.
>> 13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT NEVER
>> overtakes it because of extinction. As a result, dstant observers see the star
>> varying in luminosity.
>
>Why don't all binaries show this variation? Why don't the stars
>in close orbits around the black hole at the center of our galaxy
>show any variation?
Because of the 'common sphere' effect.
This demo explains it.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
George Dishman
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:50:20 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>>news:Xns99B985F016302WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>>> I don't think that a test of the ballistic theory would be that
>>> difficult
>>> or need that long a distance.
>>
>>It isn't, the Sagnac setup is fine. What Henry was
>>discussing was specifically a way to check for what
>>we call "ADoppler", a frequency shift or intensity
>>change purely due to acceleration.
>
> Sagnac is indeed fine. It proves the BaTh correct..... and SR wrong.
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>
> I hope the math isn't too hard for you George.
It is a copy of what I posted and you agreed
on the 28th November 2005:
It is gratifying to see that you have finally
satisfied yourself that my maths was correct
after all this time.
See my other post for the rather subtle reason
why your use of wavelength is flawed and the
result does indeed confirm SR and falsify
ballistic theory.
It is also pleasing to se you doing some real
physics instead of philosophy for a change, well
done Henry.
George
bz
>> Let us put a LED (light emitting diode) on the rim of a ultra centrifuge
>> rotor that is 10 cm in diameter and rotate the disk at 50,000 rpm. The
>> circumference will be 0.628 meters. The speed of the diode will be 523.599
>> meters per second or 1.7 micro c.
>
> I get 261.8m/s, diameter versus radius?
>
Yep. I said diameter but treated it as the radius. My bad.
Good catch.
bz
> Hmm, would aberration apply in the relativistic analysis?
> For a laser diode, you have a rotating cavity which sounds
> complex to analyse, it might alter the modes.
I specified an LED rather than a laser diode. I just wanted a cheap, small,
pulseable light source. No need for coherence.
>
> For 10m the travel time is 33ns. For Henry's version the
> lateral component is 261.8m/s so it would move 8.73 um
> sideways.
>
Yep
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:cljtf3dm4244jb001...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:50:20 +0100, "George Dishman"
>> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns99B985F016302WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>...
>>>> I don't think that a test of the ballistic theory would be that
>>>> difficult
>>>> or need that long a distance.
>>>
>>>It isn't, the Sagnac setup is fine. What Henry was
>>>discussing was specifically a way to check for what
>>>we call "ADoppler", a frequency shift or intensity
>>>change purely due to acceleration.
>>
>> Sagnac is indeed fine. It proves the BaTh correct..... and SR wrong.
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>>
>> I hope the math isn't too hard for you George.
>
>It is a copy of what I posted and you agreed
>on the 28th November 2005:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/27sp3w
George, I now know where your errors were in that post.
Firstly, you say:
"
>So constant speed rotation produces no change to the
>time taken for the light to travel the increased path
>length, the increased speed compensates. That means
>no fringe displacement because the displacement is
>determined by the time difference between the forward
>and backward paths. They are both equal (at t) when
>the table is stationary so the are still equal when
>it is rotating at constant speed.
"
This is entirely wrong.
The fringe displacement at any time is an indication of the difference in the
number of wavelengths in the two paths. It is NOT determined by the travel
times, which are indeed the same.
Later you say:
"
>For this speed profile:
> _________
> / \
> / \ ^
> __________/ \_________ | speed
> |
> __________________________________
> ------>
> time
>Ritz predicts this fringe displacement:
> __
> +ve | | ^
> | | | displacement
> | | |
> 0 _______| |_______ ________
> | |
> ------> | |
> time | |
"
That is entirely incorrect.
The fringe DISPLACEMENT curve is determined by the path length difference curve
which which is identical to the rotation speed curve.
George Dishman
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:26:06 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
> >>http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>
> >> I hope the math isn't too hard for you George.
>
> >It is a copy of what I posted and you agreed
> >on the 28th November 2005:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/27sp3w
Rather than have multiple threads running, I suggest
you reply in the one related to Sagnac:
> George, I now know where your errors were in that post.
> Firstly, you say:
> ">So constant speed rotation produces no change to the
> >time taken for the light to travel the increased path
> >length, the increased speed compensates. That means
> >no fringe displacement because the displacement is
> >determined by the time difference between the forward
> >and backward paths. They are both equal (at t) when
> >the table is stationary so the are still equal when
> >it is rotating at constant speed.
>
> "
> This is entirely wrong.
> The fringe displacement at any time is an indication of the difference in the
> number of wavelengths in the two paths. It is NOT determined by the travel
> times, which are indeed the same.
It is not wrong as you agree the travel times are
the same. the number of waves in flight at any
time is given by the travel time multiplied by
the frequency which is constant (a given).
> Later you say:
>
> "
> >For this speed profile:
> > _________
> > / \
> > / \ ^
> > __________/ \_________ | speed
> > |
> > __________________________________
> > ------>
> > time
> >Ritz predicts this fringe displacement:
> > __
> > +ve | | ^
> > | | | displacement
> > | | |
> > 0 _______| |_______ ________
> > | |
> > ------> | |
> > time | |
>
> "
>
> That is entirely incorrect.
>
> The fringe DISPLACEMENT curve is determined by the path length difference curve
> which which is identical to the rotation speed curve.
The diagram is correct, but you will need to
learn how to differentiate to check it. Before
you do that though, you need to fix the error
in your understanding of the constant velocity
situation.
George
George Dishman
"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:j0htf3pfmm4t45i7u...@4ax.com...>>"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>
>>>>
>>>>Of course you can, the ligh has some speed and you just
>>>>divide c by the that to get the index.
>>>
>>> ...but the speed might not be the equilibrium speed in that region. That
>>> is my
>>> point. Most of space is so rare that, even if a natural light speed
>>> COULD
>>> be
>>> assigned to it, the light passing through can still have a wide range of
>>> speeds. Those speeds TEND TOWARD the natural one. ...but you cannot
>>> assume
>>> that
>>> your 'refractive index' determines speed precisely as it does in say,
>>> water or
>>> glass.
>>
>>When we looked at the pulsars, we found the
>>equalisation must occur in a few light hours,
>>pronbably much less. They are 4000 light years
>>away. The light travels at its mean equilibrium
>>value for the vast majority of the time and we
>>know the value of the refractive index from the
>>resulting dispersion.
>
> It isn't constant over the whole distance.
That's why I said "mean". We know there are variations
en route, but the overall effect is that the dispersion
is roughly proportional to the distance to the pulsar.
>>>>That is the case if r(s) is much greater than the thickness
>>>>of the region. You need to learn how to do maths.
>>>
>>> Maybe I have a more efficient mind than some.
>>
>>No, you just got it wrong:
>
> Like Sagnac, I suppose... :)
Yes, you got it wrong again.
>>>>It is the distance over which the speed difference
>>>>between the light and c/n falls by 1/e. It is the
>>>>same mathematically as the conventional "time
>>>>constant" for an electrical RC circuit.
>>>
>>> See, the problem is, n(s) will decrease to unity by a function including
>>> r^3
>>> whilst r(s) INCREASES in a similar way.
>>
>>Inverse square for the density.
>
> Not right.
Yes, the density varies as the material spreads
out on the surface of a spherical shell.
>>> It's too speculative and impractical.
>>
>>Not at all, it is how you do all physics, by breaking
>>problems down into separate aspects. Finding an equation
>>that gives r(s) from the particle density and species is
>>one aspect, predicting the actual density as a function
>>of radius from the star is quite separate.
>
> If I look into this, I will first examine lots of stars to see if there is
> any
> pattern in the extinction distance.
Before you do, draw yourself a polar plot of
extinction distance like this:
E
/
/
S-+-S
"S" represents the binary stars, "E" is Earth
and "+" is the barycentre. Assume we see say
5 magnitudes of variation and draw a polar
plot of the surface where multiple images are
first seen.
>>> ....so what is the 'cross-section' of a typical photon...and how does it
>>> vary with travel time?
>>
>>See my other post but basically it if the slits
>>can be done on the bench with a few cm between
>>them then for a distant star and the same subtended
>>angle, it must be light years.
>
> You must only condsider single photon experiments, not full beam.
Yes, I am still talking about single photons,
Young's Slits works with single photons.
>>> I have stated my view before. Its influence extends to infinity but its
>>> 'strength' drops off very rapidly with 'radius'.
>>> We can probably add to that the notion that a single photon will
>>> experience
>>> dispersion as it tavels. Maybe that alone will cause it to reshift
>>> slightly
>>> too.
>>
>>Again see my other reply, the whole energy
>>deposits at one point on the detector which
>>is the evidence that light consists of
>>particles. That is the philosophical problem
>>in QM, something that appears distibuted in
>>one experiment appears point-like in others.
>
> it is plain physics.
No, the physics is known, just apply the equations
and you get the numbers, but there are several
philosophical interpretations, Copenhagen, MWI, etc..
>>> You equation would apply to, say, a saline pond of water. I gather you
>>> copied
>>> it from something like that.
>>
>>No Henry, I just wrote it myself as I explained in
>>another post. You even pretended you understood how
>>it was done so you should be able to do the one for
>>r(s) which isn't much harder. We will see how you
>>get on ;-)
>
> Now I've solved Sagnac, I might have a look.
It shouldn't take you more that ten or fifteen
minutes if you trust the algebra, but if you
let intuition get in the way, you might get
bogged down by distrusting the result. Just
blibndly apply the maths first and see how you
get on.
>>>>I read what you wrote fine, your theory isn't just "dented",
>>>>it is completely falsified by Sagnac.
>>>
>>> George, I will write a program showing the TRUE reason for Sagnac. I
>>> have
>>> already told you but you wont listen.
>>
>>That's because you haven't written the program and
>>I can already see that none of your handwaving
>>suggestions would solve the problem even if you
>>did write a program. You cannot alter the time of
>>flight without changing either the length of the
>>path or the speed, you don't want to change the
>>speed (since that confirms SR) so you need to change
>>the length, but you don't have a suggestion that
>>would do that.
>
> One little .jpg brings down Einstein and makes George look silly. :)
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/Sagnac_wavelength.png
but respond in the other thread, let's not
duplicate it any more.
>>>>> Producing a field free vacuum is the problem. Why don't you try it?
>>>>
>>>>No need, the speed of propagation which is a ripple in the
>>>>field in your classical view is what you are trying to
>>>>measure. In ballistic theory, there are no fields.
>>>
>>> there are 'fields' all around us.
>>
>>Only in the classical wave description, in particle
>>theory they are explained/replaced by the mean
>>momentum transfered by the particles.
>
> A field is more than just its effect on particles. Fields exist without
> particles.
Fields exist in the classical non-particle theory,
particles replace fields.
>>Bottom line Henry is that real physicists find ways
>>to test their theories while you start by looking
>>for excuses for failure.
>
> Real physicists solve things like the Sagnac riddle.
Yeah, Sagnac did that.
>>>>> This is where the WDT comes in.
>>>>
>>>>There is no threshold in your theory but if there were
>>>>it would make the situation worse because it would
>>>>remove speed equalisation.
>>>
>>> No George, remember unification is a two stage affair. The sphere around
>>> a
>>> single long period star will only unify molecular source speeds. All
>>> subsequent
>>> unification will be the stage 2 type...much weaker. ..but enough to
>>> prevent the
>>> formation of multiple images.
>>
>>It could be, but then it is also likely to be much
>>less than the critical distance or statistically
>>the tail of the distribution over many star systems
>>should show at least some that exhibit multiple
>>images, and the figures from the pulsar/dwarf system
>>bear that out, light hours or minutes compared to
>>several light years. With that ratio, any luminosity
>>variation is tiny and undetectable.
>
> the chances of seeing and recognizing multiple images are prettty slim.
According to ballistic theory, they should
occur in the majority of cases.
>>> On the other hand, the combined sphere of a contact binary pair will
>>> tend
>>> to
>>> unify all the light from both... ALL light will move at about the pair's
>>> proper
>>> speed towards Earth. Subsequent unification will occur but will usually
>>> be
>>> pretty negligible. ADoppler will also be negligible.
>>>
>>> I wish you would try to understand this principle George, so I would not
>>> have
>>> to repeat it over and over.
>>
>>I do Henry and you only just understood it yourself,
>>to quote you: "ADoppler will also be negligible."
>>The difference between 5 mags of luminosity and
>>multiple images is a tiny change in distance so
>>over a random selection of binary systems we should
>>either see both effects or neither, it takes magic
>>to get one without the other.
>
> If there WERE multiple images, the star would be too far away to resolve
> them
> optically.
We would see them in most spectroscopic binaries.
> There are stars that appear to flare up periodically. This is most likely
> a c+v
> effect.
Nonsense.
>>> The fact that they don't seem to occur when they might tells us all
>>> about
>>> unification.
>>
>>Yes, it says it is so fast that ADoppler will always
>>be negligible.
>
> :)
> Don't make wild guesses George.
I don't need to Henry, statistically the dsistance
range between multiple images and neglible luminosity
effects is only about 2:1.
> If you learnt how to use my program you would
> understand these things.
If you learnt maths properly, you wouldn't need
the program and you wouldn't be limited to self-
fulfilling prophecies. You only see the results
that give you the answer you want because you
have to fine-tune the parameters to fit.
>>>>No, the equations allow later, faster light to overtake
>>>>earlier slower light without hinderance, your analogy
>>>>does not represent the actual theory.
>>>
>>> I'm talking about one photon 'end' overtaking the other.
>>
>>So am I.
>>
>>> It can't happen.
>>
>>The theory - your equations - say it _will_ happen.
>
> No matter how much pressure is applied to a rubber ball it wont turn
> inside
> out.
Hence it is a useless analogy, the equations
say the photons _will_ reverse for d >= c^2/a
so your rubber ball is in conflict with the
theory.
>>> ...and nor does one photon overtake another because their
>>> speeds become unified long before that will occur...
>>
>>Yes, therefore no significant ADoppler contribution
>>to luminosity variation.
>
> You are talking nonsense...
Just maths that is beyond you.
>>>>> The equations are irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>Those two equations, and nothing else, constitute your
>>>>"BaTh" theory.
>>>
>>> The actual nature of n(s) and r(s) might have something to do with it...
>>> How about providing equations for THEM.
>>
>>I did at the top for n(s) and I have told you
>>how you can do r(s) for yourself. If you can't
>>do the physics, I'll do it for you soon but I
>>want to see if you have any capability at all.
>
> See if you can understand this simple piece of maths George:
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
> :)
You copied it from my post of 28th November 2005:
It proves ballistic theory wrong as you admit in
the text just before you screwed up the wavelength
part.
>>>>It is asymptotic to c/n in both regions but n is
>>>>closer to 1 outside, and not wrt the star but wrt
>>>>the material. Relative to the star, that might be
>>>>around 500km/s radially outwards inside and some
>>>>tens of km/s in a different direction outside.
>>>
>>> In a very short time, the photons will find themselves in space below
>>> the
>>> WDT.
>>
>>I keep ponting out there is _no_ threshold in your
>>equations but you blindly repeat this nonsense.
>
> George, do you not agree that starlight spends most its lifetime traveling
> through 'empty' space?
Dispersion is proportional to distance, it spends
all its time in a refractive index that varies
with frequency.
> Do you not consider that this space varies in the degree of its
> 'emptiness'?
Yes, and there is still _no_ threshold in your
equations.
>>> They will spend most of their lifetimes in that kind of space....space
>>> which
>>> does not possess a refractive index in the normal sense.
>>
>>There is no such space, truly empty space has
>>an index of 1 exactly. See the dispersion chart
>>on the page I cited at the top:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2vru22
>>
>>The refractive index varies with frequency over
>>the whole journey to create that effect.
>
> maybe....but why should I believe anything based on constant c?
Pardon? The whole point of that diagram is that the
speed is _not_ c, and in fact it proves the speed
isn't even the same for different frequencies! That
means there must be a frequency-dependent "refractive
index in the normal sense".
>>> If you want to do something really useful, write the equations for n(s)
>>> and
>>> r(s).
>>
>>I had already provided n(s) at the top:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2vru22
>>
>>You need to work out r(s) for yourself but I've
>>told you how to do it, a few minutes effort should
>>give you the solution, but I expect your cannot do
>>even the simplest real physics even after I showed
>>you how to get eqn [3] using virtually the same
>>approach.
>
> ......says the sagnac expert..... :)
See my correction of your error in the relevant thread.
In this thread, let's see if you can work out r(s). You
have already stalled once as I predicted, how much more
time do you need?
George
George Dishman
"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:03:12 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:8eaof3lpp3r3p43uh...@4ax.com...
>>> Bob, forget your equations, just run my program....it can do in seconds
>>> what will take you centuries.
>>
>>Bob's equations told you something in minutes
>>that you had never discovered from your program.
>>Incidentally, this problem was pointed out almost
>>as soon as Cepheids were discovered.
>
> George, you have been wrong about Sagna all along, why should I think
> anything
> you say is right?
a) Because I have been right about Sagnac all the
time and your own page admits that the travel
times are equal as I have always said.
b) Because your own page precisely duplicates the
equations I told you on the 28th November 2005
so you have already proven my maths was right.
George
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On 30 Sep, 22:40, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
Wrong.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
George Dishman
"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
Not wrong, you divided by the wrong distance.
See the other thread.
George
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
George, in light of the ring gyro revelation why don't you simply give up and
admit I'm right.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:j0htf3pfmm4t45i7u...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>When we looked at the pulsars, we found the
>>>equalisation must occur in a few light hours,
>>>pronbably much less. They are 4000 light years
>>>away. The light travels at its mean equilibrium
>>>value for the vast majority of the time and we
>>>know the value of the refractive index from the
>>>resulting dispersion.
>>
>> It isn't constant over the whole distance.
>
>That's why I said "mean". We know there are variations
>en route, but the overall effect is that the dispersion
>is roughly proportional to the distance to the pulsar.
or star...
>>>> See, the problem is, n(s) will decrease to unity by a function including
>>>> r^3
>>>> whilst r(s) INCREASES in a similar way.
>>>
>>>Inverse square for the density.
>>
>> Not right.
>
>Yes, the density varies as the material spreads
>out on the surface of a spherical shell.
You are ignoring pressure effects....and maybe temperature... Consider the
Earth's atmosphere, for instance.
>>>> It's too speculative and impractical.
>>>
>>>Not at all, it is how you do all physics, by breaking
>>>problems down into separate aspects. Finding an equation
>>>that gives r(s) from the particle density and species is
>>>one aspect, predicting the actual density as a function
>>>of radius from the star is quite separate.
>>
>> If I look into this, I will first examine lots of stars to see if there is
>> any
>> pattern in the extinction distance.
>
>Before you do, draw yourself a polar plot of
>extinction distance like this:
>
> E
> /
> /
> S-+-S
>
>
>"S" represents the binary stars, "E" is Earth
>and "+" is the barycentre. Assume we see say
>5 magnitudes of variation and draw a polar
>plot of the surface where multiple images are
>first seen.
You can't just use '5 mag variation' as a criterion.
You have to consider all the parameters to do this kind of thing.
>>>See my other post but basically it if the slits
>>>can be done on the bench with a few cm between
>>>them then for a distant star and the same subtended
>>>angle, it must be light years.
>>
>> You must only condsider single photon experiments, not full beam.
>
>Yes, I am still talking about single photons,
>Young's Slits works with single photons.
yes.... but how far apart can they be for single photons? Nowhere near as far
as for a stronger beam.
>>>Again see my other reply, the whole energy
>>>deposits at one point on the detector which
>>>is the evidence that light consists of
>>>particles. That is the philosophical problem
>>>in QM, something that appears distibuted in
>>>one experiment appears point-like in others.
>>
>> it is plain physics.
>
>No, the physics is known, just apply the equations
>and you get the numbers, but there are several
>philosophical interpretations, Copenhagen, MWI, etc..
the physics is NOT known. There are math treatments that provide reasonable
theoretical models.
>>>No Henry, I just wrote it myself as I explained in
>>>another post. You even pretended you understood how
>>>it was done so you should be able to do the one for
>>>r(s) which isn't much harder. We will see how you
>>>get on ;-)
>>
>> Now I've solved Sagnac, I might have a look.
>> One little .jpg brings down Einstein and makes George look silly. :)
>>
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>
> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/Sagnac_wavelength.png
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro1.jpg
>but respond in the other thread, let's not
>duplicate it any more.
good idea. I'm not going to waste time on long messages any more.
>>>theory they are explained/replaced by the mean
>>>momentum transfered by the particles.
>>
>> A field is more than just its effect on particles. Fields exist without
>> particles.
>
>Fields exist in the classical non-particle theory,
>particles replace fields.
that's the engineer talking again....
You really say some funny things george.
>>
>> Real physicists solve things like the Sagnac riddle.
>
>Yeah, Sagnac did that.
...but he got it wrong....
>> the chances of seeing and recognizing multiple images are prettty slim.
>
>According to ballistic theory, they should
>occur in the majority of cases.
No George, according to DeSitter they should. We now know better...
>> If there WERE multiple images, the star would be too far away to resolve
>> them
>> optically.
>
>We would see them in most spectroscopic binaries.
not short period ones...becasue there is little or no ADoppler present then.
>> There are stars that appear to flare up periodically. This is most likely
>> a c+v
>> effect.
>
>Nonsense.
why should it be?
>>>> The fact that they don't seem to occur when they might tells us all
>>>> about
>>>> unification.
>>>
>>>Yes, it says it is so fast that ADoppler will always
>>>be negligible.
>>
>> :)
>> Don't make wild guesses George.
>
>I don't need to Henry, statistically the dsistance
>range between multiple images and neglible luminosity
>effects is only about 2:1.
that's wrong for a start...and it depends very much on eccentricity and yaw
angle.
>
>> If you learnt how to use my program you would
>> understand these things.
>
>If you learnt maths properly, you wouldn't need
>the program and you wouldn't be limited to self-
>fulfilling prophecies. You only see the results
>that give you the answer you want because you
>have to fine-tune the parameters to fit.
George, there are good reasons why we don't expect multiple images. fast moving
stars are usuall close to their companion..and so their EM spheres overlap,
markedly reducing ADoppler in the process.
Slow moving stars don't have the speeds to create multiple images before the
typical unification distances.
It has everything to do with the interrelatinship between type1 and type 2
unification.
>> No matter how much pressure is applied to a rubber ball it wont turn
>> inside
>> out.
>
>Hence it is a useless analogy, the equations
>say the photons _will_ reverse for d >= c^2/a
>so your rubber ball is in conflict with the
>theory.
that's your classical wave theory again....
>>>I keep ponting out there is _no_ threshold in your
>>>equations but you blindly repeat this nonsense.
>>
>> George, do you not agree that starlight spends most its lifetime traveling
>> through 'empty' space?
>
>Dispersion is proportional to distance, it spends
>all its time in a refractive index that varies
>with frequency.
Space below the WDT doesn't have an RI....and that's most of it.
>>>The refractive index varies with frequency over
>>>the whole journey to create that effect.
>>
>> maybe....but why should I believe anything based on constant c?
>
>Pardon? The whole point of that diagram is that the
>speed is _not_ c, and in fact it proves the speed
>isn't even the same for different frequencies! That
>means there must be a frequency-dependent "refractive
>index in the normal sense".
You don't know it varies over the WHOLE journey...I would expect little change
over vast distances in many cases.
>>>
>>>You need to work out r(s) for yourself but I've
>>>told you how to do it, a few minutes effort should
>>>give you the solution, but I expect your cannot do
>>>even the simplest real physics even after I showed
>>>you how to get eqn [3] using virtually the same
>>>approach.
>>
>> ......says the sagnac expert..... :)
>
>See my correction of your error in the relevant thread.
>
>In this thread, let's see if you can work out r(s). You
>have already stalled once as I predicted, how much more
>time do you need?
The only way to find any sort of figure for r(s) is to examine lots of stars
using my program.
However I would prefer accurate figures for true source velocity rather that
willusory ones.
George Dishman
Because arithmetic only gives one answer and you
made a mistake in your analysis. When that mistake
is corrected, the correct answer confirms SR. I
have told you where your error lies, it is up to
you to deal with it.
George
George Dishman
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:20:44 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:j0htf3pfmm4t45i7u...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>When we looked at the pulsars, we found the
> >>>equalisation must occur in a few light hours,
> >>>pronbably much less. They are 4000 light years
> >>>away. The light travels at its mean equilibrium
> >>>value for the vast majority of the time and we
> >>>know the value of the refractive index from the
> >>>resulting dispersion.
>
> >> It isn't constant over the whole distance.
>
> >That's why I said "mean". We know there are variations
> >en route, but the overall effect is that the dispersion
> >is roughly proportional to the distance to the pulsar.
>
> or star...
Yes, I would argue that star light passing through
the same region would be similarly affected but we
only have dispersion evidence from pulsars at radio
frequencies AFAIK.
> >>>> See, the problem is, n(s) will decrease to unity by a function including
> >>>> r^3
> >>>> whilst r(s) INCREASES in a similar way.
>
> >>>Inverse square for the density.
>
> >> Not right.
>
> >Yes, the density varies as the material spreads
> >out on the surface of a spherical shell.
>
> You are ignoring pressure effects....and maybe temperature... Consider the
> Earth's atmosphere, for instance.
Temperature has no effect, it alters the mean
velocity of the particles within a box but not
the number of them. Pressure would be highest
nearest the star so should accelerate the wind
away, however at maybe 10^4 particles per m^3
and an initial speed of ~500km/s the change of
speed due to pressure is negligible. You missed
gravity which slows the wind but again the speed
so so much higher than escape velocity that the
effect is tiny, and it opposes the pressure
gradient so they tend to cancel.
Why do I talk in terms of speed? Because at
constant speed the effect is exactly inverse
square. If the wind slows, there is "bunching"
and the density will be slightly increased
while an increase in speed will decrease the
density. However, your are talking in parts
per thousand at most compared to an inverse
square which causes changes of orders of
magnitiude.
> >>>> It's too speculative and impractical.
>
> >>>Not at all, it is how you do all physics, by breaking
> >>>problems down into separate aspects. Finding an equation
> >>>that gives r(s) from the particle density and species is
> >>>one aspect, predicting the actual density as a function
> >>>of radius from the star is quite separate.
>
> >> If I look into this, I will first examine lots of stars to see if there is
> >> any
> >> pattern in the extinction distance.
>
> >Before you do, draw yourself a polar plot of
> >extinction distance like this:
>
> > E
> > /
> > /
> > S-+-S
>
> >"S" represents the binary stars, "E" is Earth
> >and "+" is the barycentre. Assume we see say
> >5 magnitudes of variation and draw a polar
> >plot of the surface where multiple images are
> >first seen.
>
> You can't just use '5 mag variation' as a criterion.
> You have to consider all the parameters to do this kind of thing.
No, just pick a number and you will see the
form of the curve. Or you could plot a family
of curves from 0.5 mag to 9.5 mag in steps of
0.5 mag. You will learn a lot from the shape.
Hint: if space is uniform, you expect to get
concentric circles. Try it and see.
> >>>See my other post but basically it if the slits
> >>>can be done on the bench with a few cm between
> >>>them then for a distant star and the same subtended
> >>>angle, it must be light years.
>
> >> You must only condsider single photon experiments, not full beam.
>
> >Yes, I am still talking about single photons,
> >Young's Slits works with single photons.
>
> yes.... but how far apart can they be for single photons?
There is no limit, they can be 180 degrees
apart.
> Nowhere near as far
> as for a stronger beam.
Yes, exactly as far apart. The histogram of
individual photon impact locations precisely
duplicates the intensity curve for a bright
source.
> >>>Again see my other reply, the whole energy
> >>>deposits at one point on the detector which
> >>>is the evidence that light consists of
> >>>particles. That is the philosophical problem
> >>>in QM, something that appears distibuted in
> >>>one experiment appears point-like in others.
>
> >> it is plain physics.
>
> >No, the physics is known, just apply the equations
> >and you get the numbers, but there are several
> >philosophical interpretations, Copenhagen, MWI, etc..
>
> the physics is NOT known. There are math treatments that provide reasonable
> theoretical models.
Physics IS maths applied to observables, nothing
more. What you are looking for is philosophy, not
science.
> >>>No Henry, I just wrote it myself as I explained in
> >>>another post. You even pretended you understood how
> >>>it was done so you should be able to do the one for
> >>>r(s) which isn't much harder. We will see how you
> >>>get on ;-)
>
> >> Now I've solved Sagnac, I might have a look.
> >> One little .jpg brings down Einstein and makes George look silly. :)
>
> >>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>
> >http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/Sagnac_wavelength.png
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro1.jpg
Same error.
> >but respond in the other thread, let's not
> >duplicate it any more.
>
> good idea. I'm not going to waste time on long messages any more.
>
> >>>theory they are explained/replaced by the mean
> >>>momentum transfered by the particles.
>
> >> A field is more than just its effect on particles. Fields exist without
> >> particles.
>
> >Fields exist in the classical non-particle theory,
> >particles replace fields.
>
> that's the engineer talking again....
Nope, that's the physicist talking, the engineer
uses fields happily because at RF photons are
too small to worry about.
> You really say some funny things george.
You have no comprehension of the basics of 20th
century physics, statements I make that are so
basic nobody would even blink at them in any
undergraduate course seem to be revelations for
you.
> >> Real physicists solve things like the Sagnac riddle.
>
> >Yeah, Sagnac did that.
>
> ...but he got it wrong....
No, you divided by the wrong number in your
path length version, he got it right.
> >> the chances of seeing and recognizing multiple images are prettty slim.
>
> >According to ballistic theory, they should
> >occur in the majority of cases.
>
> No George, according to DeSitter they should. We now know better...
No Henry, according to _ballistic theory_ they
should. If a star looks variable at one inclination
due to ADoppler, it should show multiple images at
a slightly lower inclination. I gave you an example
table but the arithmetic seems to be too hard for
you.
> >> If there WERE multiple images, the star would be too far away to resolve
> >> them optically.
>
> >We would see them in most spectroscopic binaries.
>
> not short period ones...becasue there is little or no ADoppler present then.
Of course not, ADoppler doesn't exist.
> >> There are stars that appear to flare up periodically. This is most likely
> >> a c+v effect.
>
> >Nonsense.
>
> why should it be?
Because flares occur at random times and show
other changes similar to solar flares that we
see in our own system. You'r not sugesting CMEs
are due to "c+v", are you ;-)
> >>>> The fact that they don't seem to occur when they might tells us all
> >>>> about
> >>>> unification.
>
> >>>Yes, it says it is so fast that ADoppler will always
> >>>be negligible.
>
> >> :)
> >> Don't make wild guesses George.
>
> >I don't need to Henry, statistically the dsistance
> >range between multiple images and neglible luminosity
> >effects is only about 2:1.
>
> that's wrong for a start...
Try the sums Henry, I gave you the table of values
but you can't even do simple arithmetic.
> and it depends very much on eccentricity and yaw
> angle.
Nope, not in the slightest. You really don't
understand your theory at all.
> >> If you learnt how to use my program you would
> >> understand these things.
>
> >If you learnt maths properly, you wouldn't need
> >the program and you wouldn't be limited to self-
> >fulfilling prophecies. You only see the results
> >that give you the answer you want because you
> >have to fine-tune the parameters to fit.
>
> George, there are good reasons why we don't expect multiple images. fast moving
> stars are usuall close to their companion..and so their EM spheres overlap,
> markedly reducing ADoppler in the process.
> Slow moving stars don't have the speeds to create multiple images before the
> typical unification distances.
>
> It has everything to do with the interrelatinship between type1 and type 2
> unification.
No, it has everything to do with the fact
that SR is correct and ADoppler doesn't exist.
> >> No matter how much pressure is applied to a rubber ball it wont turn
> >> inside
> >> out.
>
> >Hence it is a useless analogy, the equations
> >say the photons _will_ reverse for d >= c^2/a
> >so your rubber ball is in conflict with the
> >theory.
>
> that's your classical wave theory again....
No, those are your two equations. Nothing in them
stops the end of a signal catching up and passing
the front so if your analogy says it can't then
the analogy is wrong, its sole purpose is to aid
human understanding of the equations.
> >>>I keep ponting out there is _no_ threshold in your
> >>>equations but you blindly repeat this nonsense.
>
> >> George, do you not agree that starlight spends most its lifetime traveling
> >> through 'empty' space?
>
> >Dispersion is proportional to distance, it spends
> >all its time in a refractive index that varies
> >with frequency.
>
> Space below the WDT doesn't have an RI....and that's most of it.
Space has an RI, that's what causes dispersion, so
observationally none of it is below any threshold,
but anyway there is no threshold in your theory so
what are you talking about?
> >>>The refractive index varies with frequency over
> >>>the whole journey to create that effect.
>
> >> maybe....but why should I believe anything based on constant c?
>
> >Pardon? The whole point of that diagram is that the
> >speed is _not_ c, and in fact it proves the speed
> >isn't even the same for different frequencies! That
> >means there must be a frequency-dependent "refractive
> >index in the normal sense".
>
> You don't know it varies over the WHOLE journey...I would expect little change
> over vast distances in many cases.
What you expect does not happen, the dispersion
is roughly proportional to the distance so it
_does_ happen over the whole path, your
expectations are wrong again.
> >>>You need to work out r(s) for yourself but I've
> >>>told you how to do it, a few minutes effort should
> >>>give you the solution, but I expect your cannot do
> >>>even the simplest real physics even after I showed
> >>>you how to get eqn [3] using virtually the same
> >>>approach.
>
> >> ......says the sagnac expert..... :)
>
> >See my correction of your error in the relevant thread.
>
> >In this thread, let's see if you can work out r(s). You
> >have already stalled once as I predicted, how much more
> >time do you need?
>
> The only way to find any sort of figure for r(s) is to examine lots of stars
> using my program.
But we aren't talking about finding _values_ for
r(s), we are testing your ability to do physics
by deriving the theoretical equation. I have given
you all the information you need, all you have to
do is turn the handle, just like in exams.
> However I would prefer accurate figures for true source velocity rather that
> willusory ones.
The formula for r(s) does not need that information,
you are just stalling becaue you cannot do it.
George
T.M. Sommers
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:34:38 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>12) A distant star in orbit emits light at c+vsin(ft) wrt Earth.
>>
>>Are c and v vectors or scalars?
>
> Radial components towards earth. that's all we are interested in.
That should be made explicit. Is the sine supposed to project v
in the direction to the observer?
>>I assume f is a frequency of some sort, but frequency of what? t
>>is presumably a time, but what time?
>
> Sorry, ft should be f(t) ...a function of time.
What function of time?
>>It appears possible to
>>change the results just by changing the zero of time. v is
>>presumably the orbital speed. In what frame is it measured? Is
>>it the total linear speed, or the component in the direction of
>>the observer?
>>
>>The A in ADoppler evidently means acceleration, but there is no
>>acceleration dependence in your equation.
>
> Yes there is.
Where?
>>>13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT NEVER
>>>overtakes it because of extinction. As a result, dstant observers see the star
>>>varying in luminosity.
>>
>>Why don't all binaries show this variation? Why don't the stars
>>in close orbits around the black hole at the center of our galaxy
>>show any variation?
>
> Because of the 'common sphere' effect.
>
> This demo explains it.
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe
Sorry, I don't do windows. Show your equations.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On 2 Oct, 00:31, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:20:44 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:j0htf3pfmm4t45i7u...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> It isn't constant over the whole distance.
>>
>> >That's why I said "mean". We know there are variations
>> >en route, but the overall effect is that the dispersion
>> >is roughly proportional to the distance to the pulsar.
>>
>> or star...
>
>Yes, I would argue that star light passing through
>the same region would be similarly affected but we
>only have dispersion evidence from pulsars at radio
>frequencies AFAIK.
That's OK
>> >>>> See, the problem is, n(s) will decrease to unity by a function including
>> >>>> r^3
>> >>>> whilst r(s) INCREASES in a similar way.
>>
>> >>>Inverse square for the density.
>>
>> >> Not right.
>>
>> >Yes, the density varies as the material spreads
>> >out on the surface of a spherical shell.
>>
>> You are ignoring pressure effects....and maybe temperature... Consider the
>> Earth's atmosphere, for instance.
>
>Temperature has no effect, it alters the mean
>velocity of the particles within a box but not
>the number of them.
Both Temperature and Pressure have a large effect on the density gradient of
the earth's atmosphere. Pressure actually partially accommodates gravity.
but I shouldn't liken solar wind to the earth's atmosphere anyway.
>Pressure would be highest
>nearest the star so should accelerate the wind
>away, however at maybe 10^4 particles per m^3
>and an initial speed of ~500km/s the change of
>speed due to pressure is negligible. You missed
>gravity which slows the wind but again the speed
>so so much higher than escape velocity that the
>effect is tiny, and it opposes the pressure
>gradient so they tend to cancel.
See! there is alreasy too much speculation for a decent model to be
constructed.
>Why do I talk in terms of speed? Because at
>constant speed the effect is exactly inverse
>square.
....everything else remaining constant...
>If the wind slows, there is "bunching"
>and the density will be slightly increased
>while an increase in speed will decrease the
>density. However, your are talking in parts
>per thousand at most compared to an inverse
>square which causes changes of orders of
>magnitiude.
well I still reckon the power would be closer to 3 than 2...but no matter...
George,I don't know what you are talking about. the forms of star curves varies
with other factors.
>> >>>See my other post but basically it if the slits
>> >>>can be done on the bench with a few cm between
>> >>>them then for a distant star and the same subtended
>> >>>angle, it must be light years.
>>
>> >> You must only condsider single photon experiments, not full beam.
>>
>> >Yes, I am still talking about single photons,
>> >Young's Slits works with single photons.
>>
>> yes.... but how far apart can they be for single photons?
>
>There is no limit, they can be 180 degrees
>apart.
How would you know only single photons were involved?
It would take a long time....
>> Nowhere near as far
>> as for a stronger beam.
>
>Yes, exactly as far apart. The histogram of
>individual photon impact locations precisely
>duplicates the intensity curve for a bright
>source.
This doesn't worry me....
My theory says that photon 'influence' extends more or less to infinity even
though it drops off extremely rapidly with distance.
>>
>> >No, the physics is known, just apply the equations
>> >and you get the numbers, but there are several
>> >philosophical interpretations, Copenhagen, MWI, etc..
>>
>> the physics is NOT known. There are math treatments that provide reasonable
>> theoretical models.
>
>Physics IS maths applied to observables, nothing
>more. What you are looking for is philosophy, not
>science.
George, I don't know where you learnt all these strange ideas.
>>
>> >>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>>
>> >http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/Sagnac_wavelength.png
>>
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro1.jpg
>
>Same error.
Your error is that you are so indoctrinated with Einsteiniana that you
incapable of undestanding that lengths are absolute and the same in all frames.
You keep repeating SR principles in an attempt to disprove the BaTh.
>> >> Real physicists solve things like the Sagnac riddle.
>>
>> >Yeah, Sagnac did that.
>>
>> ...but he got it wrong....
>
>No, you divided by the wrong number in your
>path length version, he got it right.
He was an aetherist.
>>thances of seeing and recognizing multiple images are prettty slim.
>>
>> >According to ballistic theory, they should
>> >occur in the majority of cases.
>>
>> No George, according to DeSitter they should. We now know better...
>
>No Henry, according to _ballistic theory_ they
>should. If a star looks variable at one inclination
>due to ADoppler, it should show multiple images at
>a slightly lower inclination. I gave you an example
>table but the arithmetic seems to be too hard for
>you.
You are very confused about this George.
Star curves are all well away from the conditions for multiple imagery.
I accept there is a group like S Cas with reported mag variations of around 7-9
that cannot be explained with the simple c+v model but that doesn't mean it is
wrong.
>> >> If there WERE multiple images, the star would be too far away to resolve
>> >> them optically.
>>
>> >We would see them in most spectroscopic binaries.
>>
>> not short period ones...becasue there is little or no ADoppler present then.
>
>Of course not, ADoppler doesn't exist.
>
>> >> There are stars that appear to flare up periodically. This is most likely
>> >> a c+v effect.
>>
>> >Nonsense.>>
>> why should it be?
>
>Because flares occur at random times and show
>other changes similar to solar flares that we
>see in our own system. You'r not sugesting CMEs
>are due to "c+v", are you ;-)\
No George
>>
>> >I don't need to Henry, statistically the dsistance
>> >range between multiple images and neglible luminosity
>> >effects is only about 2:1.
>>
>> that's wrong for a start...
>
>Try the sums Henry, I gave you the table of values
>but you can't even do simple arithmetic.
Have you heard of elliptical orbits George?
>> and it depends very much on eccentricity and yaw
>> angle.
>
>Nope, not in the slightest. You really don't
>understand your theory at all.
You haven't a clue George. Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a little kid.
Reverse the ellipse and you will get an entirely different star curve.
>> George, there are good reasons why we don't expect multiple images. fast moving
>> stars are usuall close to their companion..and so their EM spheres overlap,
>> markedly reducing ADoppler in the process.
>> Slow moving stars don't have the speeds to create multiple images before the
>> typical unification distances.
>>
>> It has everything to do with the interrelatinship between type1 and type 2
>> unification.
>
>No, it has everything to do with the fact
>that SR is correct and ADoppler doesn't ex
Sagnac proves SR is wrong.
>> >Hence it is a useless analogy, the equations
>> >say the photons _will_ reverse for d >= c^2/a
>> >so your rubber ball is in conflict with the
>> >theory.
>>
>> that's your classical wave theory again....
>
>No, those are your two equations. Nothing in them
>stops the end of a signal catching up and passing
>the front so if your analogy says it can't then
>the analogy is wrong, its sole purpose is to aid
>human understanding of the equations.
Photons can pass other photons just as cars can pass other cars...but they
don't turn inside out when it happens....
>>
>> >Dispersion is proportional to distance, it spends
>> >all its time in a refractive index that varies
>> >with frequency.
>>
>> Space below the WDT doesn't have an RI....and that's most of it.
>
>Space has an RI, that's what causes dispersion, so
>observationally none of it is below any threshold,
>but anyway there is no threshold in your theory so
>what are you talking about?
'dispersion' is not the same as 'slowing' George even if it is vaguely related.
>> >>>The refractive index varies with frequency over
>> >>>the whole journey to create that effect.
>>
>> >> maybe....but why should I believe anything based on constant c?
>>
>> >Pardon? The whole point of that diagram is that the
>> >speed is _not_ c, and in fact it proves the speed
>> >isn't even the same for different frequencies! That
>> >means there must be a frequency-dependent "refractive
>> >index in the normal sense".
>>
>> You don't know it varies over the WHOLE journey...I would expect little change
>> over vast distances in many cases.
>
>What you expect does not happen, the dispersion
>is roughly proportional to the distance so it
>_does_ happen over the whole path, your
>expectations are wrong again.
Dispersion will occur over much of the path but that is not necessarily the
principle factor in type2 unification. That's what I'm saying...
>> >In this thread, let's see if you can work out r(s). You
>> >have already stalled once as I predicted, how much more
>> >time do you need?
>>
>> The only way to find any sort of figure for r(s) is to examine lots of stars
>> using my program.
>
>But we aren't talking about finding _values_ for
>r(s), we are testing your ability to do physics
>by deriving the theoretical equation. I have given
>you all the information you need, all you have to
>do is turn the handle, just like in exams.
Your approach is too conventional.
You have to accept that there are probably other relevant factors about which
we know nothing.
>> However I would prefer accurate figures for true source velocity rather that
>> willusory ones.
>
>The formula for r(s) does not need that information,
>you are just stalling becaue you cannot do it.
I can do it all right...it's quite trivial really. Dispersion is just a 'random
walk' type of thing....
But dispersion is not what we want to know about..
Dr. Henri Wilson
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:34:38 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>12) A distant star in orbit emits light at c+vsin(ft) wrt Earth.
>>>
>>>Are c and v vectors or scalars?
>>
>> Radial components towards earth. that's all we are interested in.
>
>That should be made explicit. Is the sine supposed to project v
>in the direction to the observer?
The terminology we use is that 'radial velocity' means the star's velocity
component in the direction of Earth.
If a star is in edge on orbit, its radial speed is v.sin(t/T)
>>>I assume f is a frequency of some sort, but frequency of what? t
>>>is presumably a time, but what time?
>>
>> Sorry, ft should be f(t) ...a function of time.
>
>What function of time?
t/T will do.
I'm not going to teach you elementary physics.
>>>It appears possible to
>>>change the results just by changing the zero of time. v is
>>>presumably the orbital speed. In what frame is it measured? Is
>>>it the total linear speed, or the component in the direction of
>>>the observer?
>>>
>>>The A in ADoppler evidently means acceleration, but there is no
>>>acceleration dependence in your equation.
>>
>> Yes there is.
>
forget it. This is way over your head.
>>>>13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT NEVER
>>>>overtakes it because of extinction. As a result, dstant observers see the star
>>>>varying in luminosity.
>>>
>>>Why don't all binaries show this variation? Why don't the stars
>>>in close orbits around the black hole at the center of our galaxy
>>>show any variation?
>>
>> Because of the 'common sphere' effect.
>>
>> This demo explains it.
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe
>
>Sorry, I don't do windows. Show your equations.
:)
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
T.M. Sommers
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:08:30 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:34:38 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>12) A distant star in orbit emits light at c+vsin(ft) wrt Earth.
>>>>
>>>>Are c and v vectors or scalars?
>>>
>>>Radial components towards earth. that's all we are interested in.
>>
>>That should be made explicit. Is the sine supposed to project v
>>in the direction to the observer?
>
> The terminology we use is that 'radial velocity' means the star's velocity
> component in the direction of Earth.
I know that, and I know how to calculate it.
> If a star is in edge on orbit, its radial speed is v.sin(t/T)
Again you introduce a symbol without defining it, and force
people to guess what you mean, but I suppose T is the orbital
period divided by 2 times \pi, which is an odd thing for T to be.
Usually, in this context, it is just the period. By using T in
a unconventional way, you needlessly confuse your readers.
You also have to carefully pick the zero point of time. And you
assume a circular orbit.
>>>>I assume f is a frequency of some sort, but frequency of what? t
>>>>is presumably a time, but what time?
>>>
>>>Sorry, ft should be f(t) ...a function of time.
>>
>>What function of time?
>
> t/T will do.
>
> I'm not going to teach you elementary physics.
I wouldn't dream of asking you to. I simply want you to explain
your own "theory".
>>>>It appears possible to
>>>>change the results just by changing the zero of time. v is
>>>>presumably the orbital speed. In what frame is it measured? Is
>>>>it the total linear speed, or the component in the direction of
>>>>the observer?
>>>>
>>>>The A in ADoppler evidently means acceleration, but there is no
>>>>acceleration dependence in your equation.
>>>
>>>Yes there is.
>
> forget it. This is way over your head.
Typical of cranks and crackpots to attempt to belittle others
when they (the cranks and crackpots) can't explain their own
"theories".
>>>>>13) During transit, its faster light catches up to slower light BUT NEVER
>>>>>overtakes it because of extinction. As a result, dstant observers see the star
>>>>>varying in luminosity.
>>>>
>>>>Why don't all binaries show this variation? Why don't the stars
>>>>in close orbits around the black hole at the center of our galaxy
>>>>show any variation?
>>>
>>>Because of the 'common sphere' effect.
>>>
>>>This demo explains it.
>>>http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe
>>
>>Sorry, I don't do windows. Show your equations.
>
> :)
So where are the equations?
Dr. Henri Wilson
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:08:30 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:34:38 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> The terminology we use is that 'radial velocity' means the star's velocity
>> component in the direction of Earth.
>
>I know that, and I know how to calculate it.
>
>> If a star is in edge on orbit, its radial speed is v.sin(t/T)
>
>Again you introduce a symbol without defining it, and force
>people to guess what you mean, but I suppose T is the orbital
>period divided by 2 times \pi, which is an odd thing for T to be.
> Usually, in this context, it is just the period. By using T in
>a unconventional way, you needlessly confuse your readers.
then readers can use their own fucking heads.
>You also have to carefully pick the zero point of time. And you
>assume a circular orbit.
Run; www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe if you want to know all about
elliptical or any other orbits.
>>>>>I assume f is a frequency of some sort, but frequency of what? t
>>>>>is presumably a time, but what time?
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, ft should be f(t) ...a function of time.
>>>
>>>What function of time?
>>
>> t/T will do.
>>
>> I'm not going to teach you elementary physics.
>
>I wouldn't dream of asking you to. I simply want you to explain
>your own "theory".
It has been explained many times.
Light leaves its source at c. That light travels to earth at c+v wrt earth,
where the v can be periodic as in the case of an orbiting star.
fast light moves up on slow light, causing bunching of photons and an apparent
periodic variation in brightness when viewed at a distance.
Most star curves fit this model exactly. See a few at
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg:
>>>>Yes there is.
>>
>> forget it. This is way over your head.
>
>Typical of cranks and crackpots to attempt to belittle others
>when they (the cranks and crackpots) can't explain their own
>"theories".
Listen little girl, this has been discussed at length for several years here.
If you have no knowledge of physics you shouldn't be asking silly questions on
this NG.
>>>
>>>Sorry, I don't do windows. Show your equations.
>>
>> :)
>
>So where are the equations?
Go away troll....
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Eric Gisse
[...]
>>So where are the equations?
>
>Go away troll....
Nothing like someone pretending to have a bachelors in physics and a
doctorate who is insulted when someone else requests the working
equations.
>
>
>
>Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
George Dishman
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:25:37 -0700, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 2 Oct, 00:31, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:20:44 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in messagenews:j0htf3pfmm4t45i7u...@4ax.com...
>
> >> >>>> See, the problem is, n(s) will decrease to unity by a function including
> >> >>>> r^3
> >> >>>> whilst r(s) INCREASES in a similar way.
>
> >> >>>Inverse square for the density.
>
> >> >> Not right.
>
> >> >Yes, the density varies as the material spreads
> >> >out on the surface of a spherical shell.
>
> >> You are ignoring pressure effects....and maybe temperature... Consider the
> >> Earth's atmosphere, for instance.
>
> >Temperature has no effect, it alters the mean
> >velocity of the particles within a box but not
> >the number of them.
>
> Both Temperature and Pressure have a large effect on the density gradient of
> the earth's atmosphere. Pressure actually partially accommodates gravity.
>
> but I shouldn't liken solar wind to the earth's atmosphere anyway.
No, it's more like an omnidirectional stream of
bullets due to its dynamic nature. The number
passing through a spherical shell varies as the
inverse square of the radius other than slowing
effects.
> >Pressure would be highest
> >nearest the star so should accelerate the wind
> >away, however at maybe 10^4 particles per m^3
> >and an initial speed of ~500km/s the change of
> >speed due to pressure is negligible. You missed
> >gravity which slows the wind but again the speed
> >so so much higher than escape velocity that the
> >effect is tiny, and it opposes the pressure
> >gradient so they tend to cancel.
>
> See! there is alreasy too much speculation for a decent model to be
> constructed.
No speculation at all Henry, the terminal speed
is sqrt(Vr^2 - Ve^2) where Vr is the wind velocity
at radius r and Ve is the escape velocity at that
radius.
> >Why do I talk in terms of speed? Because at
> >constant speed the effect is exactly inverse
> >square.
>
> ....everything else remaining constant...
Yes, so we only need to consider the effect
of everything else on velocity.
> >If the wind slows, there is "bunching"
> >and the density will be slightly increased
> >while an increase in speed will decrease the
> >density. However, your are talking in parts
> >per thousand at most compared to an inverse
> >square which causes changes of orders of
> >magnitiude.
>
> well I still reckon the power would be closer to 3 than 2...but no matter...
Do the sum above, you'll see what I mean, but as
you say, no matter.
Read what I suggested carefully and try to work
out a couple of points for some magnitude, the
reason I suggest it should become obvious. It's
easier for you to "try it and see" than for me
to put it into words.
> >> >>>See my other post but basically it if the slits
> >> >>>can be done on the bench with a few cm between
> >> >>>them then for a distant star and the same subtended
> >> >>>angle, it must be light years.
>
> >> >> You must only condsider single photon experiments, not full beam.
>
> >> >Yes, I am still talking about single photons,
> >> >Young's Slits works with single photons.
>
> >> yes.... but how far apart can they be for single photons?
>
> >There is no limit, they can be 180 degrees
> >apart.
>
> How would you know only single photons were involved?
Because in the lab you can turn the source
down until single photons are observed.
> It would take a long time....
A rate of oine or two photons per second isn't
a problem.
> >> Nowhere near as far
> >> as for a stronger beam.
>
> >Yes, exactly as far apart. The histogram of
> >individual photon impact locations precisely
> >duplicates the intensity curve for a bright
> >source.
>
> This doesn't worry me....
I didn't think it would but it is an experimental
observation which is one of the fundamental drivers
of all particle-based theories, you need to take ]
it into account, that's all.
> My theory says that photon 'influence' extends more or less to infinity even
> though it drops off extremely rapidly with distance.
>
> >> >No, the physics is known, just apply the equations
> >> >and you get the numbers, but there are several
> >> >philosophical interpretations, Copenhagen, MWI, etc..
>
> >> the physics is NOT known. There are math treatments that provide reasonable
> >> theoretical models.
>
> >Physics IS maths applied to observables, nothing
> >more. What you are looking for is philosophy, not
> >science.
>
> George, I don't know where you learnt all these strange ideas.
I went to university and took a degree course in
physics. You would have had a course on epistemology
and the history of physics as a first year student
if you had done a degree too.
> >> >>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>
> >> >http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/Sagnac_wavelength.png
>
> >>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro1.jpg
>
> >Same error.
>
> Your error is that you are so indoctrinated with Einsteiniana that you
> incapable of undestanding that lengths are absolute and the same in all frames.
> You keep repeating SR principles in an attempt to disprove the BaTh.
Your problem is that you make assumptions without
checking, the wavelength is invariant but you should
not be dividing by the wavelength, it should be the
distance moved by a wave _along_ the blue line in
your diagram, and that distance is greater than
the wavelength.
> >> >> Real physicists solve things like the Sagnac riddle.
>
> >> >Yeah, Sagnac did that.
>
> >> ...but he got it wrong....
>
> >No, you divided by the wrong number in your
> >path length version, he got it right.
>
> He was an aetherist.
Don't try to change the subject, you simply got
your algebra wrong, you used the wrong number.
> >> No George, according to DeSitter they should. We now know better...
>
> >No Henry, according to _ballistic theory_ they
> >should. If a star looks variable at one inclination
> >due to ADoppler, it should show multiple images at
> >a slightly lower inclination. I gave you an example
> >table but the arithmetic seems to be too hard for
> >you.
>
> You are very confused about this George.
Not in the slightest and you know it, you are just
saying that in an attempt to avoid the issue.
> Star curves are all well away from the conditions for multiple imagery.
>
> I accept there is a group like S Cas with reported mag variations of around 7-9
> that cannot be explained with the simple c+v model but that doesn't mean it is
> wrong.
But they can easily be explained by c+v Henry, they
just need a speed equalisation distance a little
bit longer than the mag 5 case.
..
> >> >I don't need to Henry, statistically the dsistance
> >> >range between multiple images and neglible luminosity
> >> >effects is only about 2:1.
>
> >> that's wrong for a start...
>
> >Try the sums Henry, I gave you the table of values
> >but you can't even do simple arithmetic.
>
> Have you heard of elliptical orbits George?
Yes Henry, so tell me, do they have a value for
peak acceleration twoards the observer or don't
they? If so look up that number in my table.
> >> and it depends very much on eccentricity and yaw
> >> angle.
>
> >Nope, not in the slightest. You really don't
> >understand your theory at all.
>
> You haven't a clue George. Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a little kid.
Says the man who can't convert magnitude to linear
and then work out a simple inverse.
> Reverse the ellipse and you will get an entirely different star curve.
Sure, you also get an entirely different value for
peak acceleration which you could also look up in
the table. That doesn't alter the fact that you
can't work out the numbers in the table.
> >> George, there are good reasons why we don't expect multiple images. fast moving
> >> stars are usuall close to their companion..and so their EM spheres overlap,
> >> markedly reducing ADoppler in the process.
> >> Slow moving stars don't have the speeds to create multiple images before the
> >> typical unification distances.
>
> >> It has everything to do with the interrelatinship between type1 and type 2
> >> unification.
>
> >No, it has everything to do with the fact
> >that SR is correct and ADoppler doesn't ex
>
> Sagnac proves SR is wrong.
Wrong again, your diagram proves it right.
> >> >Hence it is a useless analogy, the equations
> >> >say the photons _will_ reverse for d >= c^2/a
> >> >so your rubber ball is in conflict with the
> >> >theory.
>
> >> that's your classical wave theory again....
>
> >No, those are your two equations. Nothing in them
> >stops the end of a signal catching up and passing
> >the front so if your analogy says it can't then
> >the analogy is wrong, its sole purpose is to aid
> >human understanding of the equations.
>
> Photons can pass other photons just as cars can pass other cars...but they
> don't turn inside out when it happens....
Your equations say a single photon turns inside
out when the distance exceeds c^2/A where A is
the acceleration when it was emitted. The
shortest value of that distance corresponds to
the highest value of A and is where multiple
images occur, that is the distance in the table.
> >> >Dispersion is proportional to distance, it spends
> >> >all its time in a refractive index that varies
> >> >with frequency.
>
> >> Space below the WDT doesn't have an RI....and that's most of it.
>
> >Space has an RI, that's what causes dispersion, so
> >observationally none of it is below any threshold,
> >but anyway there is no threshold in your theory so
> >what are you talking about?
>
> 'dispersion' is not the same as 'slowing' George even if it is vaguely related.
It is not related in the slightest Henry, it
refers to the variation of refractive index with
frequency. The point is that it proves the
refractive index is slightly less than 1 over
the entire journey.
> >> >>>The refractive index varies with frequency over
> >> >>>the whole journey to create that effect.
>
> >> >> maybe....but why should I believe anything based on constant c?
>
> >> >Pardon? The whole point of that diagram is that the
> >> >speed is _not_ c, and in fact it proves the speed
> >> >isn't even the same for different frequencies! That
> >> >means there must be a frequency-dependent "refractive
> >> >index in the normal sense".
>
> >> You don't know it varies over the WHOLE journey...I would expect little change
> >> over vast distances in many cases.
>
> >What you expect does not happen, the dispersion
> >is roughly proportional to the distance so it
> >_does_ happen over the whole path, your
> >expectations are wrong again.
>
> Dispersion will occur over much of the path but that is not necessarily the
> principle factor in type2 unification.
The two are essentially unrelated.
> That's what I'm saying...
What I am saying is that dispersion requires a
"refractive index in the normal sense" hence an
index applies over the whole journey.
> >> >In this thread, let's see if you can work out r(s). You
> >> >have already stalled once as I predicted, how much more
> >> >time do you need?
>
> >> The only way to find any sort of figure for r(s) is to examine lots of stars
> >> using my program.
>
> >But we aren't talking about finding _values_ for
> >r(s), we are testing your ability to do physics
> >by deriving the theoretical equation. I have given
> >you all the information you need, all you have to
> >do is turn the handle, just like in exams.
>
> Your approach is too conventional.
You are incapable of doing the algebra.
> You have to accept that there are probably other relevant factors about which
> we know nothing.
No, the scientific method says we do not
invent unknowns until they are proven.
You do the analysis they way I an teching
you and then any discrepancy is used to
find the next level. You should have done
a course on physics.
> >> However I would prefer accurate figures for true source velocity rather that
> >> willusory ones.
>
> >The formula for r(s) does not need that information,
> >you are just stalling becaue you cannot do it.
>
> I can do it all right...it's quite trivial really.
Then why spend ten times longer making up excuses?
> Dispersion is just a 'random
> walk' type of thing....
Wrong, that would blur images.
> But dispersion is not what we want to know about..
Correct, we want the ballistic theory equation
for r(s), nothing more, and I have told you how
to go about it. You are incapable of doing it.
George
bz
> Your problem is that you make assumptions without
> checking, the wavelength is invariant but you should
> not be dividing by the wavelength, it should be the
> distance moved by a wave _along_ the blue line in
> your diagram, and that distance is greater than
> the wavelength.
>
>
Ballistic theory has the time taken by the light to be identical for light
traveling in both directions.
Under ballistic theory, the number of waves that travel along the path in a
unit of time must be identical for both directions.
That being true for ballistic theory, the wave crests (or photons) that
leave the source to travel in both directions at a particular instant must
arrive at the target at exactly the same time.
Under ballistic theory, the length of the waves, from crest to crest, as
they travel one direction MUST therefore be different than if they travel
the other direction because the number traveling the path is unchanged and
the time to travel the path is unchanged but the path's length IS changed
and the velocity along that path is changed.
This means that ballistic theory predicts a null effect for sagnac.
George Dishman
> George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:1191397444.7...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Your problem is that you make assumptions without
>> checking, the wavelength is invariant but you should
>> not be dividing by the wavelength, it should be the
>> distance moved by a wave _along_ the blue line in
>> your diagram, and that distance is greater than
>> the wavelength.
>
> Ballistic theory has the time taken by the light to be identical for light
> traveling in both directions.
Yes, even Henry agrees that.
> Under ballistic theory, the number of waves that travel along the path in
> a
> unit of time must be identical for both directions.
The number of waves is the time taken divided by
the period hence must be the same for both paths.
> That being true for ballistic theory, the wave crests (or photons) that
> leave the source to travel in both directions at a particular instant must
> arrive at the target at exactly the same time.
Yes, the speed is always c relative to the source
o the wavelength is always lambda = c/frequency.
> Under ballistic theory, the length of the waves, from crest to crest, as
> they travel one direction MUST therefore be different than if they travel
> the other direction because the number traveling the path is unchanged and
> the time to travel the path is unchanged but the path's length IS changed
> and the velocity along that path is changed.
That's not quite right, though it may be the way I
am reading it. Consider a stationary source:
_
/ \
S+---+---+---+---+-
| \_/
|
|<--8-->|
_ | _
/ \ |/ \
S+---+---+---+---+-
\_/ \_/
|<--8-->|
The wavelength above is 8 characters and in one
period the wave will move 8 characters too. Now
compare that with the moving source. During one
period, the source moves 5 characters from S to X:
_ _
/ \ / \
S+---+---+---+---+-
| \_/ \_/
|
|<----13---->|
| |
|<5>| |
| _ | _
| / \ |/ \
----X+---+---+---+---+-
\_/ \_/
|<--8-->|
The wavelength remains 8 characters but the
distance moved by the wave is now 13 characters.
Henry should have used the second value because
he is dividing the length of the path in the
inertial frame, not the rotating frame. You have
to compare like with like.
> This means that ballistic theory predicts a null effect for sagnac.
Yes.
George
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:1191397444.7...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Your problem is that you make assumptions without
>> checking, the wavelength is invariant but you should
>> not be dividing by the wavelength, it should be the
>> distance moved by a wave _along_ the blue line in
>> your diagram, and that distance is greater than
>> the wavelength.
>>
>>
>
>
>Ballistic theory has the time taken by the light to be identical for light
>traveling in both directions.
>
>Under ballistic theory, the number of waves that travel along the path in a
>unit of time must be identical for both directions.
>
>That being true for ballistic theory, the wave crests (or photons) that
>leave the source to travel in both directions at a particular instant must
>arrive at the target at exactly the same time.
Indeed they do...at constant rotation speed. Fringe pattern is static.
Displacement is proportional to speed.
>Under ballistic theory, the length of the waves, from crest to crest, as
>they travel one direction MUST therefore be different than if they travel
>the other direction because the number traveling the path is unchanged and
>the time to travel the path is unchanged but the path's length IS changed
>and the velocity along that path is changed.
>
>This means that ballistic theory predicts a null effect for sagnac.
It is during an acceleration that the travel TIMES vary and fringes move into
one path and out of the other. When the acceleration ceases, the path lengths
are different again and the fringes cease movement. Their new DISPLACEMENT is
indicative of the final rotation speed.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On 2 Oct, 23:44, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:25:37 -0700, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On 2 Oct, 00:31, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> Both Temperature and Pressure have a large effect on the density gradient of
>> the earth's atmosphere. Pressure actually partially accommodates gravity.
>>
>> but I shouldn't liken solar wind to the earth's atmosphere anyway.
>
>No, it's more like an omnidirectional stream of
>bullets due to its dynamic nature. The number
>passing through a spherical shell varies as the
>inverse square of the radius other than slowing
>effects.
...which could be anything.....
>> >Pressure would be highest
>> >nearest the star so should accelerate the wind
>> >away, however at maybe 10^4 particles per m^3
>> >and an initial speed of ~500km/s the change of
>> >speed due to pressure is negligible. You missed
>> >gravity which slows the wind but again the speed
>> >so so much higher than escape velocity that the
>> >effect is tiny, and it opposes the pressure
>> >gradient so they tend to cancel.
>>
>> See! there is alreasy too much speculation for a decent model to be
>> constructed.
>
>No speculation at all Henry, the terminal speed
>is sqrt(Vr^2 - Ve^2) where Vr is the wind velocity
>at radius r and Ve is the escape velocity at that
>radius.
Obviously if you redefine 'terminal velocity' with that equation the equation
must be right.
:)
>> >Why do I talk in terms of speed? Because at
>> >constant speed the effect is exactly inverse
>> >square.
>>
>> ....everything else remaining constant...
>
>Yes, so we only need to consider the effect
>of everything else on velocity.
I should imagine that the conditions around different stars would vary
considerably with star size and type....so you will have trouble including
these factors in your equation.
All right, I know what you are getting at...there is a different critical
distance in each direction because of the orbit inclination....but what's the
point? You can do it easily for circular orbits but you have to consider
elliptical orbits and include eccentricity and yaw angles.
>> >There is no limit, they can be 180 degrees
>> >apart.
>>
>> How would you know only single photons were involved?
>
>Because in the lab you can turn the source
>down until single photons are observed.
>
>> It would take a long time....
>
>A rate of oine or two photons per second isn't
>a problem.
...at least it proves photons are particles...like I said.
All you need now George, is a physical model for them.
Mine seems to work OK....
>> >> Nowhere near as far
>> >> as for a stronger beam.
>>
>> >Yes, exactly as far apart. The histogram of
>> >individual photon impact locations precisely
>> >duplicates the intensity curve for a bright
>> >source.
>>
>> This doesn't worry me....
>
>I didn't think it would but it is an experimental
>observation which is one of the fundamental drivers
>of all particle-based theories, you need to take ]
>it into account, that's all.
I have. the 'influence of a photon extends virtually to infininty....or at
least until its field becomes 'fragmented'.
The more I think about my WDT idea the more I like it. Fields cannot go on
forever according to he inverse square law. I say the field from say, an
individual charge gets lost amongst all the other fields in quite a short
distance.
..not too short becasue we know how far radio waves can travel....
>> >Physics IS maths applied to observables, nothing
>> >more. What you are looking for is philosophy, not
>> >science.
>>
>> George, I don't know where you learnt all these strange ideas.
>
>I went to university and took a degree course in
>physics.
You must have failed if you were forced to become an engineer instead....
>You would have had a course on epistemology
>and the history of physics as a first year student
>if you had done a degree too.
:)
>> Your error is that you are so indoctrinated with Einsteiniana that you
>> incapable of undestanding that lengths are absolute and the same in all frames.
>> You keep repeating SR principles in an attempt to disprove the BaTh.
>
>> Star curves are all well away from the conditions for multiple imagery.
>>
>> I accept there is a group like S Cas with reported mag variations of around 7-9
>> that cannot be explained with the simple c+v model but that doesn't mean it is
>> wrong.
>
>But they can easily be explained by c+v Henry, they
>just need a speed equalisation distance a little
>bit longer than the mag 5 case.
No the problem is the curve becomes peaked.
I suspect the phenomenon may be caused by the 'weakening' of light as it
travels.
....assume loss is inversely related to all the EM flux in one
direction...which in most of space can mean that from only one star.
...so what appears as 'mag 10' might really be 'mag 5' that has lost most of
its power along the way.
I have a way to check that theory and will get onto it soon.
>> >> >I don't need to Henry, statistically the dsistance
>> >> >range between multiple images and neglible luminosity
>> >> >effects is only about 2:1.
>>
>> >> that's wrong for a start...
>>
>> >Try the sums Henry, I gave you the table of values
>> >but you can't even do simple arithmetic.
>>
>> Have you heard of elliptical orbits George?
>
>Yes Henry, so tell me, do they have a value for
>peak acceleration twoards the observer or don't
>they? If so look up that number in my table.
George, unless you include about five variables in your equations you are
wasting your time..... that's what I'm trying to tell you.
>> >> and it depends very much on eccentricity and yaw
>> >> angle.
>>
>> >Nope, not in the slightest. You really don't
>> >understand your theory at all.
>>
>> You haven't a clue George. Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a little kid.
>
>Says the man who can't convert magnitude to linear
>and then work out a simple inverse.
George, my program gives both log and linear mags.
Who do you think programmed the bloody thing.
>> Reverse the ellipse and you will get an entirely different star curve.
>
>Sure, you also get an entirely different value for
>peak acceleration which you could also look up in
>the table. That doesn't alter the fact that you
>can't work out the numbers in the table.
......you are wasting your time fiddling with trivial equations.
I'm lightyears ahead of you already.
>> >No, it has everything to do with the fact
>> >that SR is correct and ADoppler doesn't ex
>>
>> Sagnac proves SR is wrong.
>
>Wrong again, your diagram proves it right.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
>>
>> Photons can pass other photons just as cars can pass other cars...but they
>> don't turn inside out when it happens....
>
>Your equations say a single photon turns inside
>out when the distance exceeds c^2/A where A is
>the acceleration when it was emitted. The
>shortest value of that distance corresponds to
>the highest value of A and is where multiple
>images occur, that is the distance in the table.
My photons are damped, plastic, nonelastic ones.
>> >> >Dispersion is proportional to distance, it spends
>> >> >all its time in a refractive index that varies
>> >> >with frequency.
>>
>> >> Space below the WDT doesn't have an RI....and that's most of it.
>>
>> >Space has an RI, that's what causes dispersion, so
>> >observationally none of it is below any threshold,
>> >but anyway there is no threshold in your theory so
>> >what are you talking about?
>>
>> 'dispersion' is not the same as 'slowing' George even if it is vaguely related.
>
>It is not related in the slightest Henry, it
>refers to the variation of refractive index with
>frequency. The point is that it proves the
>refractive index is slightly less than 1 over
>the entire journey.
really George, you should know better than this.
Dispersion simply means a general broadening of an original parallel light beam
with travel.
Whatever causes it could easily contribute to speed unification as well.
>> >What you expect does not happen, the dispersion
>> >is roughly proportional to the distance so it
>> >_does_ happen over the whole path, your
>> >expectations are wrong again.
>>
>> Dispersion will occur over much of the path but that is not necessarily the
>> principle factor in type2 unification.
>
>The two are essentially unrelated.
How do you know?
>> That's what I'm saying...
>
>What I am saying is that dispersion requires a
>"refractive index in the normal sense" hence an
>index applies over the whole journey.
that's an oversimplification and an over generalisation.
..and it's also probably overly wrong....
>
>> You have to accept that there are probably other relevant factors about which
>> we know nothing.
>
>No, the scientific method says we do not
>invent unknowns until they are proven.
...says the engineer again...
>You do the analysis they way I an teching
>you and then any discrepancy is used to
>find the next level. You should have done
>a course on physics.
George, a physicist operates regularly through pure speculation....then tests
that speculation against observation.
Intelligent speculation requires imagination and creativity that engineers
don't need and generally lack.
>> >> However I would prefer accurate figures for true source velocity rather that
>> >> willusory ones.
>>
>> >The formula for r(s) does not need that information,
>> >you are just stalling becaue you cannot do it.
>>
>> I can do it all right...it's quite trivial really.
>
>Then why spend ten times longer making up excuses?
I have other more important things to do, eg.,:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
>> Dispersion is just a 'random
>> walk' type of thing....
>
>Wrong, that would blur images.
It does.
>> But dispersion is not what we want to know about..
>
>Correct, we want the ballistic theory equation
>for r(s), nothing more, and I have told you how
>to go about it. You are incapable of doing it.
I'd probably just try an exponential relationship first..
T.M. Sommers
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:12:10 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:08:30 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:34:38 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>If a star is in edge on orbit, its radial speed is v.sin(t/T)
>>
>>Again you introduce a symbol without defining it, and force
>>people to guess what you mean, but I suppose T is the orbital
>>period divided by 2 times \pi, which is an odd thing for T to be.
>> Usually, in this context, it is just the period. By using T in
>>a unconventional way, you needlessly confuse your readers.
>
> then readers can use their own fucking heads.
What a wonderful attitude you have. You probably didn't even
realize that you need that factor of 2 \pi.
>>You also have to carefully pick the zero point of time. And you
>>assume a circular orbit.
>
> Run; www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe if you want to know all about
> elliptical or any other orbits.
I told you, I don't do windows. Show your equations, like a real
scientist would. I can write a computer program to show anything
I want it to show.
>>>>>>I assume f is a frequency of some sort, but frequency of what? t
>>>>>>is presumably a time, but what time?
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, ft should be f(t) ...a function of time.
>>>>
>>>>What function of time?
>>>
>>>t/T will do.
>>>
>>>I'm not going to teach you elementary physics.
>>
>>I wouldn't dream of asking you to. I simply want you to explain
>>your own "theory".
>
> It has been explained many times.
> Light leaves its source at c. That light travels to earth at c+v wrt earth,
> where the v can be periodic as in the case of an orbiting star.
> fast light moves up on slow light, causing bunching of photons and an apparent
> periodic variation in brightness when viewed at a distance.
>
> Most star curves fit this model exactly. See a few at
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg:
So where are the equations? You have also failed to explain why,
for instance, the stars in close orbit around the center of our
galaxy do not pulsate.
>>>>>Yes there is.
>>>>
>>>forget it. This is way over your head.
>>
>>Typical of cranks and crackpots to attempt to belittle others
>>when they (the cranks and crackpots) can't explain their own
>>"theories".
>
> Listen little girl,
Pathetic. You must be related to that guskz character.
> this has been discussed at length for several years here.
> If you have no knowledge of physics you shouldn't be asking silly questions on
> this NG.
You started a brand-new thread to expound your so-called
"theory"; you have no right to complain if people question you now.
>>>>Sorry, I don't do windows. Show your equations.
>>>
>>>:)
>>
>>So where are the equations?
>
> Go away troll....
I can only conclude that you do not have any equations, and are
just making things up.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>news:Xns99BE4B6E7DCE6WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:1191397444.7...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Your problem is that you make assumptions without
>>> checking, the wavelength is invariant but you should
>>> not be dividing by the wavelength, it should be the
>>> distance moved by a wave _along_ the blue line in
>>> your diagram, and that distance is greater than
>>> the wavelength.
>>
>> Ballistic theory has the time taken by the light to be identical for light
>> traveling in both directions.
>
>Yes, even Henry agrees that.
>
>> Under ballistic theory, the number of waves that travel along the path in
>> a
>> unit of time must be identical for both directions.
>
>The number of waves is the time taken divided by
>the period hence must be the same for both paths.
..SRian logic again....
>> That being true for ballistic theory, the wave crests (or photons) that
>> leave the source to travel in both directions at a particular instant must
>> arrive at the target at exactly the same time.
>
>Yes, the speed is always c relative to the source
>o the wavelength is always lambda = c/frequency.
You actually got something right George....but remember you are only talking
about the 'frequency' at the source.
George, have you ever seen a chain saw?
Do you really think the number of teeth in the blade depends on the speed it
moves?
>> This means that ballistic theory predicts a null effect for sagnac.
This meamns I would have a more intelligent conversation talkingto two monkeys.
>Yes.
Dr. Henri Wilson
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:12:10 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:08:30 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>>>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:34:38 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>If a star is in edge on orbit, its radial speed is v.sin(t/T)
>>>
>>>Again you introduce a symbol without defining it, and force
>>>people to guess what you mean, but I suppose T is the orbital
>>>period divided by 2 times \pi, which is an odd thing for T to be.
>>> Usually, in this context, it is just the period. By using T in
>>>a unconventional way, you needlessly confuse your readers.
>>
>> then readers can use their own fucking heads.
>
>What a wonderful attitude you have. You probably didn't even
>realize that you need that factor of 2 \pi.
>
>>>You also have to carefully pick the zero point of time. And you
>>>assume a circular orbit.
>>
>> Run; www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe if you want to know all about
>> elliptical or any other orbits.
>
>I told you, I don't do windows. Show your equations, like a real
>scientist would. I can write a computer program to show anything
>I want it to show.
Here's some of it:
Dim eccindex, pointindex, timefraction As Integer, Bfraction As Integer,
dfraction, overlag, fac
Dim p, j, K, L, s, t, falsep, lag, Ylag, Xlag, ecc, Extinction As Boolean, AG2,
BG2, pts, overt As Boolean
Dim lightspeed(70000), Lumin As Single, velocity(70000) As Double,
Vangle(70000) As Double, amp As Double
Dim imaghite, outerperiod, outerp As Double, velratio, twovelrat, scaling,
points, yaw, piyaw, piyawb, lineY
Dim W, vone, voneA, rone, rtwo, Vtwo, b, c, d, e, f, u, m, n, x, z, v, q, r,
linaver, jbunch(1000) As Double
Dim orbs As Integer, A As Integer, lumrat, pimod, Gmod As Double, VVorbs,
VVoverP, FiveP, scaler, BBunch(1000) As Double
Dim yawadd As Integer, stepsize As Integer, Yone As Double, Ytwo As Double,
linearcurve As Boolean, logcurve As Boolean
Dim cut As Boolean, tempfac, sixthpi, btime As Double, Atime As Double, orbrat,
overmin, overmax
Dim pi As Double, twopi, halfpi, elipsize, pointnumber, DoverC, bluemax,
bluesum, bothaver
Dim Tmax As Double, Tdiff, DA, DB, xco As Integer, Bco As Integer, picshow As
Boolean
Dim Tmin As Double, Maginner, magouter, magboth, brightaver, logaver, logint As
Double, linmagA, linmagB, linboth
Dim BmaxInner, BmaxOuter, BmaxBoth, BminInner, BminOuter, BminBoth, PP As
Double, GBoption As Boolean
Dim Tbt(70000) As Double, orbtime(201) As Double, Ta As Double, hite, cosTRP As
Double, sinTRP As Double
Dim Tb As Double, LR, UD, SIZE, WIDE, TmaxA As Double, Xdiff(1000),
Bdiff(1000), Abulge(70000), Blum
Dim Stardist As Double, lagmax As Double, lagmin As Double, Tat(70000) As
Double
Dim intensity(600), INTB(600), scanintA(4, 12, 2000), scanintB(4, 12, 2000),
Yactual(601), Bactual(601), Cactual(601)
Dim vellx As Double, velly As Double, Xtemp As Double, Ytemp As Double, dtemp
As Double
Dim xstart, Ystart As Integer, FocusX As Integer, FocusY As Integer, RADSQ,
GA(710), GB(710), GC(710)
Dim G As Double, pmax, Xacc As Double, Yacc As Double, Force As Double,
Radvector As Double, Xrate, Gsum
Dim Lightdays, temptime As Double, TempBtime As Double, BULGE As Boolean
Public Sub CExtinc_Click()
If Extinction = False Then
Extinction = True
CExtinc.Caption = "No Extinction"
Else: Extinction = False
CExtinc.Caption = "Add Extinction"
End If
End Sub
Private Sub Comend_Click()
End
End Sub
Public Sub Comhowto_Click()
If Linstruct.Visible = False Then
Linstruct.Visible = True
Comhowto.Caption = "Close Instructions"
Else
Linstruct.Visible = False
Comhowto.Caption = "Instructions"
End If
End Sub
Public Sub cfronts_Click()
Parameters.Hide
LightFronts.Show
End Sub
Public Sub Covertone_Click()
overt = True
GBoption = True
Call brightness 'George
End Sub
Public Sub Form_Load()
Randomize
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.000001 'peripheral velocity inner star, c=1
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.00001
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.00003
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.0001
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.0003
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.001
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.01
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.1
Cper.AddItem 0.003 'period. years
Cper.AddItem 0.01
Cper.AddItem 0.03
Cper.AddItem 0.1
Cper.AddItem 0.3
Cper.AddItem 0.7
Cper.AddItem 1
Cper.AddItem 3
Cper.AddItem 10
Csetstart.AddItem 0 ' dtemp, x1000 LYs
Csetstart.AddItem 1
Csetstart.AddItem 3
Csetstart.AddItem 10
Csetstart.AddItem 20
Csetstart.AddItem 40
Csetstart.AddItem 70
Csetstart.AddItem 100
Csetstart.AddItem 150
Csetstart.AddItem 220
Csetstart.AddItem 300
Csetstart.AddItem 500
Csetstart.AddItem 1000
Csetstart.AddItem 10000
Csetstart.AddItem 100000
Cpoints.AddItem 20000
Cpoints.AddItem 33000
Cpoints.AddItem 60000
Corbits.AddItem 1# 'Orbs, number of Orbits for calc.
Corbits.AddItem 2#
Corbits.AddItem 3#
Corbits.AddItem 4#
Corbits.AddItem 50#
Chite.AddItem 0.25
Chite.AddItem 0.5
Chite.AddItem 1
Chite.AddItem 2
Chite.AddItem 5 'a scaling factor to bring curves
Chite.AddItem 20# 'into screen
Chite.AddItem 50#
Chite.AddItem 200#
Chite.AddItem 1000
Cyaw.AddItem 180 'Yaw angle
Cyaw.AddItem 150
Cyaw.AddItem 120
Cyaw.AddItem 90
Cyaw.AddItem 60
Cyaw.AddItem 30
Cyaw.AddItem 0
Cyaw.AddItem -30
Cyaw.AddItem -60
Cyaw.AddItem -90
Cyaw.AddItem -120
Cyaw.AddItem -150
Clum.AddItem 4 'relative luminosity outer/inner star
Clum.AddItem 3
Clum.AddItem 2
Clum.AddItem 1.7
Clum.AddItem 1.5
Clum.AddItem 1.3
Clum.AddItem 1#
Clum.AddItem 0.8
Clum.AddItem 0.6
Clum.AddItem 0.4
Clum.AddItem 0.2
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0 'Ceccentricity
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.06
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.1
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.15
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.2
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.25
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.3
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.4
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.5
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.6
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.7
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.75
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.8
Cvoverv.AddItem 0 ''velratio' R2/R1
Cvoverv.AddItem 0.1
Cvoverv.AddItem 0.2
Cvoverv.AddItem 0.4
Cvoverv.AddItem 0.6
Cvoverv.AddItem 0.8
Cvoverv.AddItem 1#
Clag.AddItem 0 'phase lag
Clag.AddItem 30
Clag.AddItem 60
Clag.AddItem 75
Clag.AddItem 90
Clag.AddItem 120
Clag.AddItem 150
Clag.AddItem 180
Clag.AddItem 210
Clag.AddItem 240
Clag.AddItem 270
Clag.AddItem 300
Clag.AddItem 330
CEx.AddItem 0.9
CEx.AddItem 0.99
CEx.AddItem 0.999
CEx.AddItem 0.9999
CEx.AddItem 0.99999
CEx.AddItem 0.999999
CEx.AddItem 0.9999999
pi = 3.141592653575: twopi = 2 * pi: sixthpi = 0.5235987756: pimod = pi / 180:
halfpi = pi / 2
overt = False: Extinction = False: cut = False: picshow = False
End Sub
Public Function combovalues()
If Ceccentricity.Text = "" Then
Ceccentricity.Text = "0"
ecc = 0
Else
ecc = Ceccentricity
End If
If ecc > 0.9 Then
ecc = 0.9
Ceccentricity.Text = 0.9
End If
velratio = Cvoverv 'all combo values
falsep = Cper
outerp = falsep * 3.15576 * (10 ^ 7) 'orbit period in seconds
tempfac = CTempfac / 90 / 10000000
imaghite = Chite
vone = CMaxvel
yaw = Cyaw
lag = Abs(Clag)
Lumin = Clum
pointindex = Cpoints
dtemp = Csetstart
Xrate = CEx
orbs = Corbits
If orbs = 0 Then 'prevents a crash
Corbits.Text = 2
orbs = 2
End If
If orbs <> 0 Then VVorbs = 500 / orbs
If velratio = 0 Then Vtwo = 1 Else Vtwo = vone * velratio
If BULGE = True Then Blum = Clum 'sets eggshape area ratio
LR = CLR: UD = CUD: SIZE = CSize: WIDE = CWide
If pointindex = 0 Then pointindex = 33000
outerperiod = outerp 'period has to be formatted
outerperiod = Format(outerperiod, "0.00000")
Stardist = dtemp * 9.46 * (10 ^ 12) 'kilometres
c = 2.997 * (10 ^ 5) 'kilometres per second
DoverC = Stardist / c
If Option5.Value = True Then BULGE = False Else BULGE = True
LF.Visible = False: LA.Visible = False: LC.Visible = False: LB.Visible = False
Comhowto.Caption = "Instructions": Linstruct.Visible = False: Lredclick.Visible
= False
piyaw = pimod * yaw
End Function
Public Sub Frame1_click() 'start program. red button
elipse
overt = False
End Sub
Public Function elipse()
Randomize
Call combovalues
Erase velocity, Vangle
Lwarn.Visible = False: cut = True
If Ceccentricity.Text = "" Then
eccindex = 0 'this is to generate an error
message if eccentricity is changed
Lredclick.Visible = True
Else
Lredclick.Visible = False
eccindex = ecc
Parameters.Cls: DrawWidth = 2
'****************************
If ecc = 0 Then
r = CMaxvel * falsep / twopi 'circle radius, lightdays
points = 33402
Else 'GENERATE ELLIPSE
Orbit.Cls
If pointindex = 20000 Then pointnumber = 3.2
If pointindex = 33000 Then pointnumber = 5
If pointindex = 60000 Then pointnumber = 9.2
p = 0: pmax = 0
xstart = pointnumber * (1 - ecc) ^ (5 / 3) 'empirically
determined to give the about the right number of points
G = xstart / (1 + ecc) / (10 ^ 6) 'ditto
elipsize = 750 / xstart * ((1 - ecc) ^ (2 / 3)) 'empirically
adjusts print size
Ystart = 0: Xtemp = -xstart: Ytemp = 0
RADSQ = (Xtemp ^ 2) + (Ytemp ^ 2)
Radvector = (RADSQ) ^ 0.5 'length of radius vector
vellx = 0.00000000001: velly = 0.001 'this
introduces a factor of 0.001
Force = G / RADSQ '(Radvector ^ 2)
'DrawWidth = 1
While Ytemp >= 0 'determines apastron
If p Mod 4 = 0 Then
PSet (2000 + (elipsize * Xtemp), 1500 + (Ytemp * elipsize)),
RGB(255, 255, 255) 'draw ellipse
PSet (2000 + (elipsize * Xtemp), 1500 - (Ytemp * elipsize)),
RGB(255, 255, 255)
End If
velocity(p) = (((vellx ^ 2) + (velly ^ 2)) ^ 0.5) * 1000
'PERIPHERAL VELOCITY, cancels the 0.001
If vellx <> 0 Then
x = (velly / vellx)
Vangle(p) = (pi / 2) - Atn(x) 'last reading at pmax
End If
RADSQ = (Xtemp ^ 2) + (Ytemp ^ 2)
Radvector = RADSQ ^ 0.5
'radv(p) = Radvector
Xtemp = Xtemp + vellx '+ (0.5 * Xacc)
Ytemp = Ytemp + velly '- (0.5 * Yacc)
Xacc = Force * (-Xtemp) / Radvector
Yacc = Force * (Ytemp) / Radvector
vellx = vellx + Xacc
velly = velly - Yacc
Force = G / RADSQ
p = p + 1
Wend
pmax = p - 1
points = (2 * pmax) '+ 1
VVoverP = VVorbs / points
lineY = lineytemp * 4000 / points
LA.Left = 1980 - (elipsize * xstart)
LC.Left = 1980 + ((Xtemp - xstart) * elipsize / 2)
LB.Left = 1980 + (Xtemp * elipsize)
LF.Visible = True: LA.Visible = True: LC.Visible = True: LB.Visible =
True
For j = 1 To pmax 'other half of ellipse
velocity(pmax + j) = velocity(pmax - j)
Vangle(pmax + j) = (twopi) - Vangle(pmax - j) '
Next
velocity(0) = 1
Vangle(0) = 0:
Vangle(pmax) = pi
Gmod = G * 80000000 * (ecc + 0.1) / points
End If
10:
End If
End Function
Public Function diagram() 'Draw ellipse bottom corner.
Shape2.Visible = True: Shape1.Visible = True
Shape1.Shape = 2: Shape1.Width = 40 * ((1 - (ecc ^ 2)) ^ 0.5): Shape1.Left =
724 - (Shape1.Width / 2)
Shape2.Top = 370 - (2# * ecc): Shape2.Left = Shape1.Left - 1.5 + (Shape1.Width
/ 2)
Linobs.X1 = 1.5 + Shape2.Left: Linobs.Y1 = 1.5 + Shape2.Top: Linobs.X2 =
Linobs.X1 - (65 * Sin(yaw * pimod))
Linobs.Y2 = Linobs.Y1 - (65 * Cos(yaw * pimod)): Lobs.Top = Linobs.Y2:
Lobs.Left = Linobs.X2
End Function
'Private Sub Pulsemove_Click()
'If Timer2.Enabled = False Then Timer2.Enabled = True Else Timer2.Enabled =
False
'End Sub
'***********************************************************************
Public Sub Frame6_Click() 'start brightness curve, yellow button
GBoption = True: overt = False
Call brightness
End Sub
'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Public Function brightness()
Call combovalues
Call diagram 'position of obswerver, bottom left.
YawScan.Label16.Visible = False: YawScan.Label17.Visible = False
YawScan.Caption = "yawscan OF BRIGHTNESS CURVES VERSUS YAW ANGLE"
Comhowto.Caption = "Instructions"
Timer1.Enabled = False
If cut = False Then 'Stops a crash
Lwarn.Visible = True
GoTo outyetagain
End If
If ecc <> eccindex Then 'Stops a crash
Lwarn.Visible = True
cut = False
GoTo outyetagain
End If
PP = outerp / points 'seconds per point moved
eccindex = ecc
If Ceccentricity.Text = "" Then 'Stops a crash
Lredclick.Visible = True
GoTo outyetagain
Else
Lredclick.Visible = False
End If
Erase intensity, INTB, Tat, Tbt, orbtime, Yactual, Bactual, Cactual
'**************************************************
If Option6.Value = True Then
Call scanyaw
GoTo outyetagain
End If
'**************************************************
scaling = 40000 * imaghite / points / orbs
If ecc = 0 Then GoTo circlebright 'for circle
v = velocity(0) * c * vone 'Parameters ellipse, km/sec. 3.15576*10^7
secs per year
Tmin = 2 * Stardist / c: Tmax = 0 'DETERMINE MAX AND MIN TIMES
lagmin = 2 * Stardist / c: lagmax = 1 'this is the start setting for max
time (sec)
For A = 0 To orbs 'time lag between subsequent orbits
orbtime(A) = A * outerp 'secs
Next
'**************************
Xlag = Int(points * lag / 360)
If Extinction = True Then 'introduce extinction
docalc
Else
For r = 0 To points - 1 'Step 100 'determine T
minimum. Ellipse
If lag <> 0 Then Ylag = Sin(Vangle((r + Xlag) Mod (points - 1)) -
piyaw)
Yone = vone * velocity(r) * Sin(Vangle(r) - piyaw) 'include YAW
angle in radial velocity component
Tat(r) = (DoverC / (1 - Yone)) + (PP * r) 'travel time plus
starting lag, inner star
If Tat(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tat(r) 'this gives actual
arrival time after T=0
If Tat(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tat(r)
If velratio <> 0 Then '2nd star
If overt = False Then 'no overtone
Ytwo = velocity(r) * Vtwo * Sin(Vangle(r) - piyaw)
If lag = 0 Then 'lag =
Clag
Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 + Ytwo)) + (PP * r) 'travel time
plus starting lag, outer star. one orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat
If Tbt(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(r)
If Tbt(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(r) 'Maximum light travel
time over 1 orbit
Else 'Ylag =
Cos(Vangle(r + xlag) - (pimod * yaw))
Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 + (velocity((r + Xlag) Mod (points -
1)) * Ylag * Vtwo))) + (PP * r)
'lagmin = 2 * Stardist / c: lagmax = 1 'this is the
start setting for max time (sec)
If Tbt(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(r)
If Tbt(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(r)
End If
End If
End If
Next
dfraction = (Tmax + ((orbs - 1) * outerp) - Tmin) / 501 'If overt = False
Then '501 time divisions.Graph will be drawn across 500 pixels.
'If lag <> 0 Then If overt = False Then dfraction = (lagmax + (outerp *
(orbs - 1)) - lagmin) / 501
End If
GoTo out
'CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
circlebright:
Vtwo = vone * velratio
rone = falsep * vone / 2 / pi 'Lys
rtwo = rone * velratio
molecV1 = 0
sinechange = 0
DoverC = Stardist / c 'Time taken for points with no doppler
Erase Tat, intensity, Tbt, INTB, orbtime
Tmin = 2 * DoverC / (1 + vone)
Tmax = 1
For A = 0 To orbs 'time lag between subsequent orbits
orbtime(A) = A * outerp 'secs
Next
For r = 0 To points - 1
sinTRP = Sin(twopi * r / points)
Tat(r) = (DoverC / (1 - (sinTRP * vone))) + (PP * r)
If Tat(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tat(r)
If Tat(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tat(r)
If velratio <> 0 Then
If Clag = 0 Then
Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 + (sinTRP * velratio * vone))) + (PP * r)
If Tbt(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(r)
If Tbt(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(r)
Else
Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 + (Sin(twopi * ((r / points) + (lag / 360)))
* velratio * vone))) + (PP * r)
If Tbt(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(r)
If Tbt(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(r)
End If
End If
Next
dfraction = (Tmax + ((orbs - 1) * outerp) - Tmin) / 501
out:
Call Brightcalc
Call Magdiff
Erase Yactual, Bactual
compare.Cls
If velratio = 0 Then
Call inner
Else
If picshow = False Then
Call inner: Call outer: Call both
Else
Call both
End If
End If
outyetagain:
End Function
Public Function Brightcalc() 'not used by george
For r = 0 To points - 1 'Step 10 '503300
For x = 0 To (orbs - 1)
Ta = Tat(r) + orbtime(x) 'adds times for subsequent
orbits
timefraction = (Ta - Tmin) / dfraction ' 'dfraction) '
If timefraction >= 0 And timefraction <= 501 Then
intensity(timefraction) = intensity(timefraction) + 1 'sums the number of times
each division
If velratio <> 0 Then 'second star of binary pair
If overt = False Then
Tb = Tbt(r) + orbtime(x)
Bfraction = ((Tb - Tmin) / dfraction)
If Bfraction >= 0 And Bfraction <= 501 Then INTB(Bfraction) =
INTB(Bfraction) + 1 'sums the number of times each division
End If
End If
Next
Next
intensity(0) = 2 * intensity(0) 'REMOVES END EFFECT
End Function
Public Function inner()
compare.Cls
If ecc = 0 Then pts = 33402 Else pts = points
FiveP = 501 / pts
compare.Line (10, 402)-(600, 402), RGB(55, 255, 255)
compare.Line (10, 462)-(600, 462), RGB(255, 255, 255)
For n = 0 To points + 1000 Step 1250 'vertical white lines
compare.Line ((n * FiveP), 428)-((n * FiveP), 432), RGB(255, 255,
255)
Next
If ecc = 0 Then 'draw true source
speed for circle
For m = 0 To pts Step 40 '
compare.PSet (10 + (m * FiveP), 460 - (40 * Sin(twopi * m *
orbs / 33402))), RGB(0, 0, 255)
Next
Else
For s = 0 To pts - 1 Step 30 'determine max. height of
velocity blue curve
bluesum = velocity(s) / Gmod '* Cos(Vangle(s) -
piyaw)
If bluemax < bluesum Then bluemax = bluesum
Next
If compare.Picture = Empty Then
For z = 0 To (pts - 1) Step 40 'plot velocity graph at
source (ellipse, blue)
For n = 0 To orbs - 1
compare.PSet (10 + (n * VVorbs) + (z * VVoverP), 460 + (40
* velocity(z) * -Sin(Vangle(z) - piyaw) / bluemax / Gmod)), RGB(0, 0, 255)
Next
Next
End If
End If 'end ecc
If GBoption = True Then
'brightness
For m = 1 To 501 'no scan, print
brightness graph
If Option3.Value = True Then
Yactual(m) = (intensity(m) - BminInner)
compare.PSet (LR + (m * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * scaling *
Yactual(m))), RGB(0, 255, 0)
Else 'log
If intensity(m) = 0 Then intensity(m) = 1
Yactual(m) = Log(intensity(m) / BminInner)
compare.PSet (LR + (m * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * Yactual(m) *
100 * scaling)), RGB(0, 255, 0)
End If
Next
Else 'George
For m = 1 To pts Step 100 'brightness curves for both circle and
ellipse
j = ((m - 1) / 100) '1+
For x = 0 To orbs - 1
xco = DA + (scaler * x) + Xdiff(j)
If xco > 1000 Then xco = 1000 'stops a crash
GA(xco) = jbunch(j) 'ga is required for
magboth
If velratio = 0 Then
drawA
Else
If picshow = False Then drawA
End If
Next
Next
End If 'end gboption
linmagA = Format(linmagA, "0.00000")
Lmags.Caption = Maginner: LinearM.Caption = linmagA
End Function
Public Function drawA()
If Option3.Value = True Then 'linear output.....curves scale is in
pixels
Yactual(j) = (jbunch(j) - BminInner)
compare.PSet (LR + (xco * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * 2 * imaghite *
Yactual(j))), RGB(0, 255, 0) 'BRIGHTNESS CURVE
Else
If jbunch(j) = 0 Then jbunch(j) = 1
Yactual(j) = (Log(jbunch(j) / BminInner) + 0.0001)
compare.PSet (LR + (xco * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * 50 * imaghite *
Yactual(j))), RGB(0, 255, 0) 'log brightness
End If
End Function
Public Function outer() 'print brightness graph
If velratio <> 0 Then
imaghite = Chite
If ecc = 0 Then pts = 33402 Else pts = points
If GBoption = True Then
'brightness
If overt = False Then
For m = 1 To 501 'no scan,
print brightness graph
If Option3.Value = True Then
Bactual(m) = INTB(m) - BminOuter
compare.PSet (LR + (m + WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * scaling *
Bactual(m) * Lumin)), RGB(255, 255, 0)
Else
If INTB(m) = 0 Then INTB(m) = 1
Bactual(m) = Log(INTB(m) / BminOuter)
compare.PSet (LR + (m * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * 100 *
Bactual(m) * scaling)), RGB(255, 255, 0)
End If
Next
Else 'overtone present
fac = 501 / orbs
overlag = lag / 360 * fac
BminOuter = 100000000000#: BmaxOuter = 0
For m = 0 To 501 Step 2 '
print brightness graph
INTB(m / 2) = intensity((m + overlag) Mod fac) * Lumin
INTB(251 + (m / 2)) = intensity((m + overlag) Mod fac) *
Lumin
Next
For m = 0 To 500
If INTB(m) <> 0 Then
If INTB(m) > BmaxOuter Then BmaxOuter = INTB(m)
If INTB(m) < BminOuter Then BminOuter = INTB(m)
'establishing brightness ratio
End If
Next
For m = 0 To 501
If Option3.Value = True Then
Bactual(m) = (INTB(m) - BminOuter) '* Lumin
compare.PSet (LR + ((m) * WIDE), 400 + UD - (Bactual(m) *
SIZE * scaling)), RGB(255, 255, 0)
Else
Bactual(m) = Log((INTB(m) / BminOuter) + 0.0001) / 0.921
compare.PSet (LR + ((m) * WIDE), 400 + UD - (Bactual(m) *
100 * SIZE * scaling)), RGB(255, 255, 0)
End If
Next
overmin = 10000000000#: overmax = 0
For m = 0 To 501
If intensity(m) + INTB(m) < overmin Then overmin = intensity(m)
+ INTB(m)
If intensity(m) + INTB(m) > overmax Then overmax = intensity(m)
+ INTB(m)
Next
BminBoth = overmin: BmaxBoth = overmax: linboth = BmaxBoth /
BminBoth: magboth = Log(linboth) / 0.921
linmagB = BmaxOuter / BminOuter
magouter = Log(linmagB + 0.0001) / 0.921
magouter = Format(magouter, "0.00000")
magboth = Format(magboth, "0.00000")
linboth = Format(linboth, "0.00000")
End If 'end overt
Else 'end brightness
For m = 1 To pts Step 100 'George
j = (m - 1) / 100
For x = 0 To orbs - 1
Bco = DB + (scaler * x) + Bdiff(j)
If Bco > 1000 Then Bco = 1000 'stops a crash
GB(Bco) = BBunch(j) 'Gb is required for
magboth
If compare.Picture = Empty Then
If Option3.Value = True Then
Bactual(j) = BBunch(j) - BminOuter
compare.PSet (LR + (Bco * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * 2 *
imaghite * Bactual(j) * Lumin)), RGB(255, 255, 0) 'linear brightness
Else
If BBunch(j) = 0 Then BBunch(j) = 1
Bactual(j) = Log(BBunch(j) * Lumin / BminOuter)
compare.PSet (LR + (Bco * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * 50
* imaghite * Bactual(j))), RGB(255, 255, 0) 'log brightness
End If
End If
GC(Bco) = GA(Bco) + (GB(Bco) * Lumin)
Next
Next
End If 'end GBoption
End If 'end velratio
If overt = False Then
linmagB = BmaxOuter / BminOuter
magouter = Log(linmagB + 0.0001) / 0.921
magouter = Format(magouter, "0.00000")
magboth = Format(magboth, "0.00000")
linboth = Format(linboth, "0.00000")
linmagB = Format(linmagB, "0.00000")
Lmags.Caption = magouter: LinearM.Caption = linmagB
End If
End Function
Public Function both() 'no scan, print brightness graph
Curves.Option3.Value = True
imaghite = Chite
If GBoption = True Then 'brightness
If overt = True Then BminBoth = overmin
For m = 0 To 501
If Option3.Value = True Then 'linear brightness curve
Cactual(m) = intensity(m) + (INTB(m) * Lumin) - BminBoth
compare.PSet (LR + (m * WIDE), 300 + UD - (SIZE / 2 *
Cactual(m) * scaling)), RGB(255, 0, 55)
Else:
If intensity(m) = 0 Then intensity(m) = 1 'combined
brightness graph, log
If INTB(m) = 0 Then INTB(m) = 1
Cactual(m) = Log((intensity(m) + (INTB(m) * Lumin)) / BminBoth)
compare.PSet (LR + (m * WIDE), 300 + UD - (SIZE * Cactual(m) *
100 * scaling)), RGB(255, 0, 55) '
End If
Next
Else 'George
BmaxBoth = 0.1: BminBoth = 10000000000#
For n = 1 To 499
If GA(n) <> 0 And GB(n) <> 0 Then
If GC(n) < BminBoth Then BminBoth = GC(n)
If GC(n) > BmaxBoth Then BmaxBoth = GC(n)
End If
Next
For j = 1 To 500
For x = 0 To orbs - 1
If Option3.Value = True Then 'linear output.....curves
scale is in pixels
compare.PSet (LR + (j * WIDE), 300 + UD - (SIZE * imaghite
* (GC(j) - BminBoth))), RGB(255, 0, 55) 'BRIGHTNESS CURVE
Else 'log output
If GC(j) <> 0 Then compare.PSet (LR + (j * WIDE), 300 + UD
- (SIZE * 50 * imaghite * Log(GC(j) / BminBoth))), RGB(255, 0, 55)
End If
Next
Next
linboth = BmaxBoth / BminBoth: magboth = Log(linboth) / 0.921
magboth = Format(magboth, "0.00000"): linboth = Format(linboth,
"0.00000")
Curves.Llinmag.Caption = linboth: Curves.Label19.Caption = magboth
End If 'end GBoption
Lmags.Caption = magboth: LinearM.Caption = linboth
End Function
Public Sub Cgeorge_Click()
overt = False
If BULGE = False Then
GBoption = False
Call George
Else
Call brightness
End If
End Sub
Public Function George()
GBoption = False
If Option5.Value = True Then BULGE = False Else BULGE = True
Erase Tat, Tbt, jbunch, BBunch, Xdiff, Bdiff, GA, GB, GC, Abulge, Yactual,
Bactual
Call combovalues
If ecc = 0 Then pts = 33402 Else pts = points
Call diagram 'position of obswerver, bottom left.
Linstruct.Visible = False
YawScan.Label16.Visible = False
YawScan.Label17.Visible = False
'YawScan.Caption = "yawscan OF BRIGHTNESS CURVES VERSUS YAW ANGLE"
Comhowto.Caption = "Instructions"
Timer1.Enabled = False
If cut = False Then 'Stops a crash
Lwarn.Visible = True
GoTo Gout
End If
If ecc <> eccindex Then 'Stops a crash
Lwarn.Visible = True
cut = False
GoTo Gout
End If
eccindex = ecc
If Ceccentricity.Text = "" Then 'Stops a crash
Lredclick.Visible = True
GoTo Gout
Else
Lredclick.Visible = False
End If
BmaxInner = 0: BminInner = 100000000000#
BmaxOuter = 0: BminOuter = 100000000000#
BmaxBoth = 0: BminBoth = 100000000000#
Xlag = lag * twopi / 360
'**********************
If ecc = 0 Then 'for circle
PP = outerp / 33402 'time between adjacent pulse emissions,
seconds.
scaler = 501 / orbs
q = 33402 / scaler 'eg orbs*167
z = twopi / 33402
rone = falsep * vone / 2 / pi * 9.46 * (10 ^ 12) 'kms
If BULGE = True Then
For n = 0 To (2 * pts) - 1 Step 100
Abulge(n / 2) = Blum * (Sin((z * n / 2) - Xlag)) 'two maxima per
orbit.
Next
End If
'For n = 0 To (2 * points) - 1 Step 200
'Curves.PSet (200 + (n / 200), 200 + (500 * Abulge(n / 2))), RGB(255,
0, 0)
'Next
For n = 1 To 33401 Step 100 'this sets values for Tat at 1,
101,201,301.....points.
sinTRP = Sin(z * (n - 1)) * vone 'this is radial velocity (x c)
cosTRP = rone * Cos(z * (n - 1)) 'this corrects the distance to
observer, kms
Tat((n - 1)) = (Stardist - cosTRP) / (c * (1 - sinTRP)) 'stardist
is in kms'this sets Tat values at 2,102,202,302....points.
If velratio <> 0 Then Tbt((n - 1)) = (Stardist + cosTRP) / (c * (1 +
(sinTRP * velratio))) 'outer star
sinTRP = Sin(z * n) * vone
cosTRP = rone * Cos(z * n)
Tat(n) = (Stardist - cosTRP) / (c * (1 - sinTRP))
Call Abits
If velratio <> 0 Then 'outer
star
Tbt(n) = (Stardist + cosTRP) / (c * (1 + (sinTRP * velratio)))
'+ sinTRP
Call BBits
Tdiff = Int(scaler * (Tbt(1) - Tat(1)) / outerp)
End If
Next
'************************
Else 'george, ellipse
PP = outerp / points 'seconds per point moved
scaler = 501 / orbs
q = points / scaler
If BULGE = True Then
For n = 0 To (2 * (points - 1)) Step 100
Abulge(n / 2) = 0.6 * Blum * (Sin(Vangle(n / 2) - piyaw - Xlag))
'two maxima per orbit.
Next
End If
For n = 1 To points - 1 Step 100
Yone = vone * velocity(n - 1) * Sin(Vangle(n - 1) - piyaw) 'include YAW
angle in radial velocity component
Tat(n - 1) = (DoverC / (1 - Yone)) 'travel time , inner star.... Tat(0)
If velratio <> 0 Then Tbt(n - 1) = (DoverC / (1 + (velratio * Yone)))
'outer star
Yone = vone * velocity(n) * Sin(Vangle(n) - piyaw) 'include YAW angle
in radial velocity component
Tat(n) = (DoverC / (1 - Yone))
'tat(1)
Call Abits
If velratio <> 0 Then
Tbt(n) = DoverC / (1 + (velratio * Yone)) 'yone has been
changed
Call BBits
Tdiff = Int(scaler * (Tbt(1) - Tat(1)) / outerp)
End If
If Tdiff <= 0 Then
DA = -Tdiff
DB = 0
Else
DB = Tdiff
DA = 0
End If
Next
End If
linmagA = BmaxInner / BminInner
Maginner = Log(linmagA + 0.001) / 0.921
If velratio <> 0 Then magouter = Log(BmaxOuter / BminOuter) / 0.921
linmagA = Format(linmagA, "0.00000")
Maginner = Format(Maginner, "0.00000")
magouter = Format(magouter, "0.00000")
If BULGE = True Then
Call inner
Else
If velratio = 0 Then
Call inner
Else
Call inner
Call outer
If overt = False Then Call both
End If
End If
Gout:
End Function
Public Function Abits()
Atime = Abs((Tat(n) - Tat(n - 1)) + PP) / PP 'difference in actual arrival
times, as fraction of emission period
j = (n - 1) / 100
'If ecc = 0 Then Yone = vone
jbunch(j) = ((1 + Abulge(n - 1))) * (1 - Yone) * 40 / Atime
'this includes the VDoppler factor
If jbunch(j) > BmaxInner Then BmaxInner = jbunch(j) 'for determining
brigtness ratio
If jbunch(j) < BminInner Then BminInner = jbunch(j)
Xdiff(j) = Abs(scaler * (((Tat(n) + ((n - 1) * PP) - Tat(1)) / outerp)))
'phase of actual pulse arrival time ...adjusts x coordinate
If Xdiff(j) > 700 Then Xdiff(j) = 700
End Function
Public Function BBits()
btime = Abs((Tbt(n) - Tbt(n - 1)) + PP) / PP 'difference in actual
arrival times, as fraction of emission period
j = (n - 1) / 100
'If ecc = 0 Then Yone = vone
BBunch(j) = (40 / btime) * (1 + Yone) 'takes account of relative
brightness
If BBunch(j) > BmaxOuter Then BmaxOuter = BBunch(j)
If BBunch(j) < BminOuter Then BminOuter = BBunch(j)
Bdiff(j) = Abs(scaler * (((Tbt(n) + ((n - 1) * PP) - Tbt(1)) / outerp)))
If Bdiff(j) > 700 Then Bdiff(j) = 700
End Function
Private Sub compare_MouseDown(Button As Integer, Shift As Integer, x As Single,
Y As Single)
If Button = 2 Then
If compare.Picture = Empty Then 'draws yellow line on screen
compare.DrawWidth = 1
compare.Line (x, 0)-(x, 500), RGB(255, 255, 0)
End If
End If
End Sub
Public Function alleccopts()
vell0 = lightspeed(360) 'velocity labels
vell90 = lightspeed(90)
vell180 = lightspeed(180)
vell270 = lightspeed(270)
vell0 = Format(vell0, "0.00000")
vell180 = Format(vell180, "0.00000")
vell90 = Format(vell90, "0.00000")
vell270 = Format(vell270, "0.0000")
Label3.Caption = vell0
Label3.Visible = True
rone = falsep * vone / 2 / pi * 365 'Ldays
rone = Format(rone, "00.000000")
Line3.Y1 = 1330: Line3.Y2 = 1330
Line5.Y1 = 3330: Line5.Y2 = 3330
End Function
Public Function allcirclabs()
If ecc = 0 Then
Label3.Visible = True
Label4.Visible = True
Label5.Visible = True
Label6.Visible = True
Label7.Visible = True
Else
Label3.Visible = False
Label4.Visible = False
Label5.Visible = False
Label6.Visible = False
Label7.Visible = False
End If
End Function
Public Function labels()
YawScan.Label1.Visible = False
YawScan.Label2.Visible = False
YawScan.Label3.Visible = False
YawScan.Label13.Visible = False
YawScan.Label14.Visible = False
YawScan.Label15.Visible = False
YawScan.Label16.Visible = True
YawScan.Label17.Visible = True
End Function
Public Function Magdiff()
BmaxOuter = 0: BminOuter = 10000000000#
BmaxInner = 0: BminInner = 10000000000#
BmaxBoth = 0: BminBoth = 10000000000#
Maginner = 0: magouter = 0: magboth = 0
For m = 2 To 499
If intensity(m) <> 0 Then
If intensity(m) > BmaxInner Then BmaxInner = intensity(m)
If intensity(m) < BminInner Then BminInner = intensity(m)
'establishing brightness ratio
End If
Next
linmagA = (BmaxInner / BminInner)
Maginner = Log(linmagA) / 0.921
linmagA = Format(linmagA, "0.00000")
If overt = False Then
For m = 20 To 480
If INTB(m) <> 0 Then
If INTB(m) > BmaxOuter Then BmaxOuter = INTB(m)
If INTB(m) < BminOuter Then BminOuter = INTB(m) 'establishing
brightness ratio
End If
If intensity(m) <> 0 And INTB(m) <> 0 Then
If intensity(m) + (INTB(m) * Lumin) > BmaxBoth Then BmaxBoth =
intensity(m) + (INTB(m) * Lumin)
If intensity(m) + (INTB(m) * Lumin) < BminBoth Then BminBoth =
intensity(m) + (INTB(m) * Lumin) 'Lumin *
End If
Next
If velratio <> 0 Then
linmagB = BmaxOuter / BminOuter
magouter = Log(linmagB) / 0.921
End If
If velratio = 0 Then linboth = Maginner Else linboth = BmaxBoth / BminBoth
If velratio = 0 Then magboth = Maginner Else magboth = Log(linboth) / 0.921
magouter = Format(magouter, "0.00000")
Maginner = Format(Maginner, "0.00000")
magboth = Format(magboth, "0.00000")
linboth = Format(linboth, "0.00000")
End If
End Function
Private Sub CHide_Click()
If compare.Picture = Empty Then
compare.Picture = LoadPicture("c:\testcurves\curve1.jpg")
CHide.Caption = "HIDE CURVE"
picshow = True
Else
compare.Picture = LoadPicture
CHide.Caption = "SHOW CURVE"
picshow = False
End If
End Sub
Public Sub Cgetvalues_Click()
Call Getvalues
CLR.Text = LR: CUD.Text = UD: CWide.Text = WIDE: CSize.Text = SIZE
End Sub
Public Sub compare_Click()
If Button = 0 Then
compare.Cls
LR = CLR: UD = CUD: SIZE = CSize: WIDE = CWide
If CUD <> "" And CLR <> "" And CSize <> "" And CWide <> "" Then
Call keepvalues
If overt = False Then
If velratio = 0 Then
Call inner
Else
If picshow = True Then
Call both
Else:
Call inner: Call outer: Call both
End If
End If
Else
Call inner: Call outer
End If
Else
Getvalues
End If
End If
End Sub
Public Function keepvalues()
Open "c:\oldvalues.txt" For Output As #1
Write #1, LR, UD, WIDE, SIZE
Close #1
End Function
Public Function Getvalues()
Open "c:\oldvalues.txt" For Input As #1
Input #1, LR, UD, WIDE, SIZE
Close #1
End Function
Public Function Usecurves()
t = Tmax / 3.15576 / (10 ^ 7)
u = Tmin / 3.15576 / (10 ^ 7)
t = Format(t, "0.00E+00"): u = Format(u, "0.00E+00")
dtemp = Format(dtemp, "0.00E+00")
rtwo = Format(rtwo, "0.0E+00")
Curves.Text1.Text = dtemp: Curves.Text2.Text = rone: Curves.Text3.Text =
outerperiod
Curves.Text4.Text = orbs: Curves.Text5.Text = points: Curves.Text8.Text =
rtwo: Curves.Text9 = vone: Curves.Text10 = velratio
Curves.Text11.Text = yaw: Curves.Text12.Text = ecc: 'curves.Text13 =
Combo5.Text
Curves.Show
End Function
Public Function docalc() 'calculates extinction
If Xrate = 1 Then Xrate = 0.999999999
'temptime = 0
'TempBtime = 0
Lightdays = dtemp * 365
Gsum = (((Xrate ^ Lightdays) - 1) / (Xrate - 1))
For r = 0 To points - 1 Step 1
Yone = velocity(r) * vone * Sin(Vangle(r) - piyaw)
'fraction of c...use Ldays/day
temptime = Lightdays - (Yone * Gsum)
Tat(r) = (temptime * 86400) + (PP * r) 'seconds
If Tat(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tat(r)
If Tat(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tat(r)
If velratio <> 0 Then 'add second star
Ytwo = velocity(r) * Vtwo * Sin(Vangle(r) - piyaw)
TempBtime = Lightdays + (Ytwo * Gsum)
Tbt(r) = (TempBtime * 86400) + (PP * r) 'travel time plus starting lag,
outer star. one orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat
If Tbt(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(r)
If Tbt(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(r) 'Maximum light travel time over
1 orbit
End If
Next
End Function
'********************************************************************************
'**********************************************************************************
'*****************************************************************************
'********************************************************************
Public Function scanyaw() 'repeat but with yawscan
Curves.Hide
Parameters.Hide
YawScan.ZOrder 0
YawScan.Cls
YawScan.Command1.Caption = "Wait...."
Linstruct.Visible = False
Erase orbtime
PP = outerp / points
For A = 0 To 4 'time lag between subsequent orbits
orbtime(A) = A * outerp 'secs
Next
If ecc = 0 Then GoTo circlescan 'for circle
v = velocity(0) * c * vone 'km/secs. 3.15576*10^7 secs per
year
Tmin = 2 * Stardist / (c - v) 'DETERMINE MAX AND MIN TIMES
'in seconds. This sets starting angle =0, for min travel time. Inner star is
approaching
Tmax = 1
'**************************
'**************************
'Parameters calculation
Erase scanintA, scanintB, Tat, Tbt
twovelrat = 0
For yaw = 0 To 11 'yaw loop
yawadd = yaw * 36
piyawb = (sixthpi * yaw)
For r = 0 To points Step 10 'determine T max and minimum.
Y = Vangle(r) - piyawb
Tat(r) = (DoverC / (1 + (velocity(r) * Cos(Y) * vone))) + (PP * r)
'travel time ' one orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat
If Tat(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tat(r)
If Tat(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tat(r)
Next
For twovelrat = 0 To 3 'starts velratio loop
velratio = twovelrat / 3
Erase Tbt
For r = 0 To points Step 10
Y = Vangle(r) - piyawb 'Y = angle/point in radians
Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 - (velocity(r) * velratio * Cos(Y) *
vone))) + (PP * r) 'travel time plus starting lag, one orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat
If Tbt(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(r)
If Tbt(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(r)
dfraction = (Tmax + orbtime(4) - Tmin) / 500
For x = 0 To 3
If twovelrat = 0 Then
Ta = Tat(r) + orbtime(x)
'adds times for subsequent orbits
timefraction = Fix((Ta - Tmin) / dfraction)
'timefraction has approx. maximumm value 3500'
scanintA(twovelrat, yaw, timefraction) =
scanintA(twovelrat, yaw, timefraction) + 1 'sums the number of times each
division
Else
Tb = Tbt(r) + orbtime(x) 'second
star of binary pair
timefraction = Fix((Tb - Tmin) / dfraction)
'timefraction has maximumm value Dfraction
scanintB(twovelrat, yaw, timefraction) =
scanintB(twovelrat, yaw, timefraction) + Lumin 'sums the number of times each
division
End If
Next
Next
Next
Next
YawScan.Show
YawScan.Label2.Visible = True
YawScan.Label3.Visible = True
YawScan.Label13.Visible = False
YawScan.Label14.Visible = False
YawScan.Label15.Visible = False
YawScan.Label16.Visible = False
YawScan.Label17.Visible = False
DrawWidth = 1
Call combined
YawScan.Command1.Caption = "Back To Parameters Screen"
GoTo outscan
circlescan: 'yawscan for circle,
V2/V1=0.4,0.7,1....luminosity ratio=0.5, 1, 1.5
Vtwo = vone * velratio
rone = falsep * vone / twopi 'LYs
rtwo = rone * velratio
Curves.Cls
Curves.Print "Inner Orbit velocity="; vone; "x c"
Curves.Print "Outer Orbit velocity="; Vtwo; "x c"
'rone = Format(rone, "0.0E+00")
'rtwo = Format(rtwo, "0.0E+00")
YawScan.Label16.Visible = True
YawScan.Label17.Visible = True
YawScan.Label13.Visible = True
YawScan.Label14.Visible = True
YawScan.Label15.Visible = True
YawScan.Label16.Visible = False
YawScan.Label17.Visible = False
YawScan.Caption = "FOR CIRCULAR ORBITS"
Erase scanintA, scanintB, Tat, Tbt, orbtime
For A = 0 To 4 'time lag between subsequent orbits
orbtime(A) = A * outerp 'secs
Next
Tmin = DoverC / (1 + vone)
Tmax = (DoverC / (1 - (vone))) + (5 * outerp)
dfraction = (Tmax - Tmin) / 500
For r = 0 To points Step 10
Tat(r) = (DoverC / (1 + (Cos(twopi * r / points) * vone))) + (PP * r)
For z = 0 To 3
Ta = Tat(r) + orbtime(z) 'adds times for subsequent
orbits
timefraction = Fix((Ta - Tmin) / dfraction) 'timefraction has approx.
maximumm value 3500'
For f = 0 To 5
scanintA(0, f, timefraction) = scanintA(0, f, timefraction) + 1 'sums the
number of times each division
Next
Next
Next
'1st for loop starts
For velrat = 0 To 5 '2nd for loops start
velratio = velrat / 5
Vtwo = vone * velratio
Erase Tbt
For r = 0 To points Step 10
Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 - (Cos(twopi * ((r / points))) * velratio *
vone))) + (PP * r) ' + (lag / 360)
For b = 0 To (orbs - 1) 'Y = angle/point in radians
Tb = Tbt(r) + orbtime(b) 'second star of
binary pair
timefraction = Fix((Tb - Tmin) / dfraction) 'timefraction has
maximumm value Dfraction
For lumrat = 1 To 3
Lumin = lumrat / 2
scanintB(lumrat, velrat, timefraction) = scanintB(lumrat, velrat,
timefraction) + Lumin 'sums the number of times each division
Next
Next
Next
Next
YawScan.Label16.Visible = True
YawScan.Label17.Visible = True
DrawWidth = 1
Call combined
YawScan.Command1.Caption = "Back To Parameters Screen"
outscan:
YawScan.Show
velratio = 0
End Function
Public Function combined() ' curves, yawscan
YawScan.Cls
YawScan.Show
scaling = 0.5 * imaghite '10000/ points
If ecc = 0 Then
Call labels
YawScan.Caption = "COMBINED BRIGHTNESS VERSUS TIME (each cycle repesents
one period)"
For f = 0 To 5 'yawscan, circle, log brightness graphs
For m = 0 To 405
YawScan.PSet (30 + (m / 2.2), 260 + (46 * f) - (50 * Log(scanintA(0, f,
m) + 1) * scaling)), RGB(84, 255, 0)
For e = 1 To 3
YawScan.PSet (30 + (190 * e) + (m / 2.2), 260 + (46 * f) - (50 *
Log(scanintA(0, f, m) + scanintB(e, f, m) + 1) * scaling)), RGB(e * 84, 255,
255 - (e * 84))
Next
Next
Next
Else
YawScan.Label2.Visible = True
YawScan.Label3.Visible = True
YawScan.Label1.Visible = True
YawScan.Label13.Visible = False
YawScan.Label14.Visible = False
YawScan.Label15.Visible = False
YawScan.Label16.Visible = False
YawScan.Label17.Visible = False
YawScan.Caption = "COMBINED BRIGHTNESS VERSUS TIME (each cycle repesents
one period)"
For f = 0 To 11
For m = 0 To 405 'print brightness graph, ellipse,
yawscan log scale
YawScan.PSet (30 + (m / 2.2), 180 + (39 * f) - (50 * Log((scanintA(0,
f, m) + 1)) * scaling)), RGB(84, 255, 0)
For e = 1 To 3
YawScan.PSet (30 + (190 * e) + (m / 2.2), 180 + (39 * f) - (50 *
(Log(scanintA(0, f, m) + scanintB(e, f, m) + 1)) * scaling)), RGB(e * 84, 255,
255 - (e * 84))
Next
Next
Next
End If
End Function
Public Function individual() 'individual star curves, yawscan
YawScan.Cls
YawScan.Show
YawScan.Caption = "INDIVIDUAL STAR CONTRIBUTION"
scaling = 0.5 * imaghite '10000/ points
If ecc = 0 Then
Call labels
For f = 0 To 5
For m = 0 To 405 'yawscan, circle, log brightness graphs
YawScan.PSet (30 + (m / 2.2), 250 + (46 * f) - (50 * Log(scanintA(0, f,
m) + 1) * scaling)), RGB(84, 255, 0)
For e = 1 To 3
YawScan.PSet (30 + (190 * e) + (m / 2.2), 250 + (46 * f) - (50 *
Log((scanintB(e, f, m) + 1)) * scaling)), RGB(e * 84, 255, 255 - (e * 84))
Next
Next
Next
Else
YawScan.Label1.Visible = True
YawScan.Label2.Visible = True
YawScan.Label3.Visible = True
YawScan.Label13.Visible = False
YawScan.Label14.Visible = False
YawScan.Label15.Visible = False
YawScan.Label16.Visible = False
YawScan.Label17.Visible = False
For f = 0 To 11
For m = 0 To 405 'yawscan, ellipse, log brightness graphs
YawScan.PSet (30 + (m / 2.2), 160 + (39 * f) - (50 * Log((scanintA(0,
f, m) + 1)) * scaling)), RGB(84, 255, 0)
For e = 1 To 3
YawScan.PSet (30 + (190 * e) + (m / 2.2), 160 + (39 * f) - (50 *
Log((scanintB(e, f, m) + 1)) * scaling)), RGB(e * 84, 255, 255 - (e * 84))
Next
Next
Next
End If
End Function
Private Sub Option1_Click()
compare.DrawWidth = 1
End Sub
Private Sub Option9_Click()
Call both
End Sub
Private Sub Option10_Click()
Call outer
End Sub
Private Sub Option11_Click()
compare.Cls
Call inner
End Sub
Private Sub Option2_Click()
compare.DrawWidth = 2
End Sub
'If overt = True Then 'overtone present
'If velratio <> 0 Then
'For n = 0 To 2 * (points - 1) Step 2
'm = n / 2
'Ytwo = Vtwo * Sin(Vangle(n Mod (points)) - piyaw)
'Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 + (velocity((n + Xlag) Mod (points))
* Ylag * Ytwo))) + (PP * m)
'Tbt(m) = (DoverC / (1 + sinechange + Ytwo)) + (PP * m)
' 'travel time plus starting lag, outer star. one
orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat
'If lag = 0 Then
'lag = Clag
'Tbt(m) = (DoverC / (1 - (velocity(n Mod points) *
Ytwo))) + (PP * m) 'travel time plus starting lag, outer star. one
orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat
'If Tbt(m) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(m)
'If Tbt(m) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(m) 'Maximum light
travel time over 1 orbit
' Else
'Ylag = Sin(Vangle((n + Xlag) Mod (points - 1)) -
(piyaw)) 'Ylag =
Cos(Vangle(r + xlag) - (pimod * yaw))
'Tbt(m) = (DoverC / (1 + sinechange + (velocity((n +
Xlag) Mod (points - 1)) * Ylag * Ytwo))) + (PP * m)
'If Tbt(m) < lagmin Then lagmin = Tbt(m)
'If Tbt(m) > lagmax Then lagmax = Tbt(m)
'End If
'Next
'End If
'End If
Public Sub Option5_Click()
BULGE = False
Option8.Value = False
End Sub
Public Sub Option8_Click()
BULGE = True
Option5.Value = False
End Sub
'**********************************************
'For j = 0 To points Step 20 ''velocity v/s
time graph
'Orbit.PSet (50 + (j * 100 / p), 300 - (0.1 / Gmod * velocity(j))), RGB(0,
0, 255) 'blue
'Orbit.PSet (50 + (j * 100 / p), 200 - (0.05 / Gmod * velocity(j) *
Cos(Vangle(j) - piyaw))), RGB(0, 0, 0)
'Orbit.PSet (50 + (j * 100 / p), 150 - (20 * Vangle(j))), RGB(255, 0, 0)
'red
'Next
'For j = 0 To 5
'Orbit.Print velocity(j); Vangle(j):
'Next
'FocusX = 0: FocusY = 0
'Ystart = 0
'Xtemp = xstart: Ytemp = 0
'Radvector = (((FocusX - Xtemp) ^ 2) + ((FocusY - Ytemp) ^ 2)) ^ 0.5
'length of radius vector
'p = 0
'__________
'If Option1.Value = True Then
'molecV1 = tempfac * (Int((830 / ((Rnd * 100) + 1))) - 8)
'molecular velocities - mean velocity= 30*tempfac x c
'If Rnd < 0.5 Then sinechange = molecV1 Else sinechange = molecV1
'End If
'
'Private Sub Cmintime_Click()
'Parameters.Hide
'Mintime.Show
'End Sub
______________
Good luck , little girl..
if you could write something like that you too could prove Einstein wrong...
>> It has been explained many times.
>> Light leaves its source at c. That light travels to earth at c+v wrt earth,
>> where the v can be periodic as in the case of an orbiting star.
>> fast light moves up on slow light, causing bunching of photons and an apparent
>> periodic variation in brightness when viewed at a distance.
>>
>> Most star curves fit this model exactly. See a few at
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg:
>
>So where are the equations? You have also failed to explain why,
>for instance, the stars in close orbit around the center of our
>galaxy do not pulsate.
Since you can't run windows programs you cannot benefit from mine.
In layman's language, every star has an 'EM sphere of influence' around it.
Thas a big influence on the speed of light leaving the vicinity.
Close binaies have spheres that overlap and virtually cancel each other...so
little or no ADoppler gets out. ...their light is mainly affected only by
Vdoppler.
>>>Typical of cranks and crackpots to attempt to belittle others
>>>when they (the cranks and crackpots) can't explain their own
>>>"theories".
>>
>> Listen little girl,
>
>Pathetic. You must be related to that guskz character.
and YOU sound like geesey's sister...
>> this has been discussed at length for several years here.
>> If you have no knowledge of physics you shouldn't be asking silly questions on
>> this NG.
>
>You started a brand-new thread to expound your so-called
>"theory"; you have no right to complain if people question you now.
read past messages.
>>>>>Sorry, I don't do windows. Show your equations.
>>>>
>>>>:)
>>>
>>>So where are the equations?
>>
>> Go away troll....
>
>I can only conclude that you do not have any equations, and are
>just making things up.
Dim eccindex, pointindex, timefraction As Integer, Bfraction As Integer,
dfraction, overlag, fac
Dim p, j, K, L, s, t, falsep, lag, Ylag, Xlag, ecc, Extinction As Boolean, AG2,
BG2, pts, overt As Boolean
Dim lightspeed(70000), Lumin As Single, velocity(70000) As Double,
Vangle(70000) As Double, amp As Double
Dim imaghite, outerperiod, outerp As Double, velratio, twovelrat, scaling,
points, yaw, piyaw, piyawb, lineY
Dim W, vone, voneA, rone, rtwo, Vtwo, b, c, d, e, f, u, m, n, x, z, v, q, r,
linaver, jbunch(1000) As Double
Dim orbs As Integer, A As Integer, lumrat, pimod, Gmod As Double, VVorbs,
VVoverP, FiveP, scaler, BBunch(1000) As Double
Dim yawadd As Integer, stepsize As Integer, Yone As Double, Ytwo As Double,
linearcurve As Boolean, logcurve As Boolean
Dim cut As Boolean, tempfac, sixthpi, btime As Double, Atime As Double, orbrat,
overmin, overmax
Dim pi As Double, twopi, halfpi, elipsize, pointnumber, DoverC, bluemax,
bluesum, bothaver
Dim Tmax As Double, Tdiff, DA, DB, xco As Integer, Bco As Integer, picshow As
Boolean
Dim Tmin As Double, Maginner, magouter, magboth, brightaver, logaver, logint As
Double, linmagA, linmagB, linboth
Dim BmaxInner, BmaxOuter, BmaxBoth, BminInner, BminOuter, BminBoth, PP As
Double, GBoption As Boolean
Dim Tbt(70000) As Double, orbtime(201) As Double, Ta As Double, hite, cosTRP As
Double, sinTRP As Double
Dim Tb As Double, LR, UD, SIZE, WIDE, TmaxA As Double, Xdiff(1000),
Bdiff(1000), Abulge(70000), Blum
Dim Stardist As Double, lagmax As Double, lagmin As Double, Tat(70000) As
Double
Dim intensity(600), INTB(600), scanintA(4, 12, 2000), scanintB(4, 12, 2000),
Yactual(601), Bactual(601), Cactual(601)
Dim vellx As Double, velly As Double, Xtemp As Double, Ytemp As Double, dtemp
As Double
Dim xstart, Ystart As Integer, FocusX As Integer, FocusY As Integer, RADSQ,
GA(710), GB(710), GC(710)
Dim G As Double, pmax, Xacc As Double, Yacc As Double, Force As Double,
Radvector As Double, Xrate, Gsum
Dim Lightdays, temptime As Double, TempBtime As Double, BULGE As Boolean
Public Sub CExtinc_Click()
If Extinction = False Then
Extinction = True
CExtinc.Caption = "No Extinction"
Else: Extinction = False
CExtinc.Caption = "Add Extinction"
End If
End Sub
Private Sub Comend_Click()
End
End Sub
Public Sub Comhowto_Click()
If Linstruct.Visible = False Then
Linstruct.Visible = True
Comhowto.Caption = "Close Instructions"
Else
Linstruct.Visible = False
Comhowto.Caption = "Instructions"
End If
End Sub
Public Sub cfronts_Click()
Parameters.Hide
LightFronts.Show
End Sub
Public Sub Covertone_Click()
overt = True
GBoption = True
Call brightness 'George
End Sub
Public Sub Form_Load()
Randomize
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.000001 'peripheral velocity inner star, c=1
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.00001
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.00003
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.0001
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.0003
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.001
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.01
CMaxvel.AddItem 0.1
Cper.AddItem 0.003 'period. years
Cper.AddItem 0.01
Cper.AddItem 0.03
Cper.AddItem 0.1
Cper.AddItem 0.3
Cper.AddItem 0.7
Cper.AddItem 1
Cper.AddItem 3
Cper.AddItem 10
Csetstart.AddItem 0 ' dtemp, x1000 LYs
Csetstart.AddItem 1
Csetstart.AddItem 3
Csetstart.AddItem 10
Csetstart.AddItem 20
Csetstart.AddItem 40
Csetstart.AddItem 70
Csetstart.AddItem 100
Csetstart.AddItem 150
Csetstart.AddItem 220
Csetstart.AddItem 300
Csetstart.AddItem 500
Csetstart.AddItem 1000
Csetstart.AddItem 10000
Csetstart.AddItem 100000
Cpoints.AddItem 20000
Cpoints.AddItem 33000
Cpoints.AddItem 60000
Corbits.AddItem 1# 'Orbs, number of Orbits for calc.
Corbits.AddItem 2#
Corbits.AddItem 3#
Corbits.AddItem 4#
Corbits.AddItem 50#
Chite.AddItem 0.25
Chite.AddItem 0.5
Chite.AddItem 1
Chite.AddItem 2
Chite.AddItem 5 'a scaling factor to bring curves
Chite.AddItem 20# 'into screen
Chite.AddItem 50#
Chite.AddItem 200#
Chite.AddItem 1000
Cyaw.AddItem 180 'Yaw angle
Cyaw.AddItem 150
Cyaw.AddItem 120
Cyaw.AddItem 90
Cyaw.AddItem 60
Cyaw.AddItem 30
Cyaw.AddItem 0
Cyaw.AddItem -30
Cyaw.AddItem -60
Cyaw.AddItem -90
Cyaw.AddItem -120
Cyaw.AddItem -150
Clum.AddItem 4 'relative luminosity outer/inner star
Clum.AddItem 3
Clum.AddItem 2
Clum.AddItem 1.7
Clum.AddItem 1.5
Clum.AddItem 1.3
Clum.AddItem 1#
Clum.AddItem 0.8
Clum.AddItem 0.6
Clum.AddItem 0.4
Clum.AddItem 0.2
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0 'Ceccentricity
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.06
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.1
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.15
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.2
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.25
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.3
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.4
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.5
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.6
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.7
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.75
Ceccentricity.AddItem 0.8
Cvoverv.AddItem 0 ''velratio' R2/R1
Cvoverv.AddItem 0.1
Cvoverv.AddItem 0.2
Cvoverv.AddItem 0.4
Cvoverv.AddItem 0.6
Cvoverv.AddItem 0.8
Cvoverv.AddItem 1#
Clag.AddItem 0 'phase lag
Clag.AddItem 30
Clag.AddItem 60
Clag.AddItem 75
Clag.AddItem 90
Clag.AddItem 120
Clag.AddItem 150
Clag.AddItem 180
Clag.AddItem 210
Clag.AddItem 240
Clag.AddItem 270
Clag.AddItem 300
Clag.AddItem 330
CEx.AddItem 0.9
CEx.AddItem 0.99
CEx.AddItem 0.999
CEx.AddItem 0.9999
CEx.AddItem 0.99999
CEx.AddItem 0.999999
CEx.AddItem 0.9999999
pi = 3.141592653575: twopi = 2 * pi: sixthpi = 0.5235987756: pimod = pi / 180:
halfpi = pi / 2
overt = False: Extinction = False: cut = False: picshow = False
End Sub
Public Function combovalues()
If Ceccentricity.Text = "" Then
Ceccentricity.Text = "0"
ecc = 0
Else
ecc = Ceccentricity
End If
If ecc > 0.9 Then
ecc = 0.9
Ceccentricity.Text = 0.9
End If
velratio = Cvoverv 'all combo values
falsep = Cper
outerp = falsep * 3.15576 * (10 ^ 7) 'orbit period in seconds
tempfac = CTempfac / 90 / 10000000
imaghite = Chite
vone = CMaxvel
yaw = Cyaw
lag = Abs(Clag)
Lumin = Clum
pointindex = Cpoints
dtemp = Csetstart
Xrate = CEx
orbs = Corbits
If orbs = 0 Then 'prevents a crash
Corbits.Text = 2
orbs = 2
End If
If orbs <> 0 Then VVorbs = 500 / orbs
If velratio = 0 Then Vtwo = 1 Else Vtwo = vone * velratio
If BULGE = True Then Blum = Clum 'sets eggshape area ratio
LR = CLR: UD = CUD: SIZE = CSize: WIDE = CWide
If pointindex = 0 Then pointindex = 33000
outerperiod = outerp 'period has to be formatted
outerperiod = Format(outerperiod, "0.00000")
Stardist = dtemp * 9.46 * (10 ^ 12) 'kilometres
c = 2.997 * (10 ^ 5) 'kilometres per second
DoverC = Stardist / c
If Option5.Value = True Then BULGE = False Else BULGE = True
LF.Visible = False: LA.Visible = False: LC.Visible = False: LB.Visible = False
Comhowto.Caption = "Instructions": Linstruct.Visible = False: Lredclick.Visible
= False
piyaw = pimod * yaw
End Function
Public Sub Frame1_click() 'start program. red button
elipse
overt = False
End Sub
Public Function elipse()
Randomize
Call combovalues
Erase velocity, Vangle
Lwarn.Visible = False: cut = True
If Ceccentricity.Text = "" Then
eccindex = 0 'this is to generate an error
message if eccentricity is changed
Lredclick.Visible = True
Else
Lredclick.Visible = False
eccindex = ecc
Parameters.Cls: DrawWidth = 2
'****************************
If ecc = 0 Then
r = CMaxvel * falsep / twopi 'circle radius, lightdays
points = 33402
Else 'GENERATE ELLIPSE
Orbit.Cls
If pointindex = 20000 Then pointnumber = 3.2
If pointindex = 33000 Then pointnumber = 5
If pointindex = 60000 Then pointnumber = 9.2
p = 0: pmax = 0
xstart = pointnumber * (1 - ecc) ^ (5 / 3) 'empirically
determined to give the about the right number of points
G = xstart / (1 + ecc) / (10 ^ 6) 'ditto
elipsize = 750 / xstart * ((1 - ecc) ^ (2 / 3)) 'empirically
adjusts print size
Ystart = 0: Xtemp = -xstart: Ytemp = 0
RADSQ = (Xtemp ^ 2) + (Ytemp ^ 2)
Radvector = (RADSQ) ^ 0.5 'length of radius vector
vellx = 0.00000000001: velly = 0.001 'this
introduces a factor of 0.001
Force = G / RADSQ '(Radvector ^ 2)
'DrawWidth = 1
While Ytemp >= 0 'determines apastron
If p Mod 4 = 0 Then
PSet (2000 + (elipsize * Xtemp), 1500 + (Ytemp * elipsize)),
RGB(255, 255, 255) 'draw ellipse
PSet (2000 + (elipsize * Xtemp), 1500 - (Ytemp * elipsize)),
RGB(255, 255, 255)
End If
velocity(p) = (((vellx ^ 2) + (velly ^ 2)) ^ 0.5) * 1000
'PERIPHERAL VELOCITY, cancels the 0.001
If vellx <> 0 Then
x = (velly / vellx)
Vangle(p) = (pi / 2) - Atn(x) 'last reading at pmax
End If
RADSQ = (Xtemp ^ 2) + (Ytemp ^ 2)
Radvector = RADSQ ^ 0.5
'radv(p) = Radvector
Xtemp = Xtemp + vellx '+ (0.5 * Xacc)
Ytemp = Ytemp + velly '- (0.5 * Yacc)
Xacc = Force * (-Xtemp) / Radvector
Yacc = Force * (Ytemp) / Radvector
vellx = vellx + Xacc
velly = velly - Yacc
Force = G / RADSQ
p = p + 1
Wend
pmax = p - 1
points = (2 * pmax) '+ 1
VVoverP = VVorbs / points
lineY = lineytemp * 4000 / points
LA.Left = 1980 - (elipsize * xstart)
LC.Left = 1980 + ((Xtemp - xstart) * elipsize / 2)
LB.Left = 1980 + (Xtemp * elipsize)
LF.Visible = True: LA.Visible = True: LC.Visible = True: LB.Visible =
True
For j = 1 To pmax 'other half of ellipse
velocity(pmax + j) = velocity(pmax - j)
Vangle(pmax + j) = (twopi) - Vangle(pmax - j) '
Next
velocity(0) = 1
Vangle(0) = 0:
Vangle(pmax) = pi
Gmod = G * 80000000 * (ecc + 0.1) / points
End If
10:
End If
End Function
Public Function diagram() 'Draw ellipse bottom corner.
Shape2.Visible = True: Shape1.Visible = True
Shape1.Shape = 2: Shape1.Width = 40 * ((1 - (ecc ^ 2)) ^ 0.5): Shape1.Left =
724 - (Shape1.Width / 2)
Shape2.Top = 370 - (2# * ecc): Shape2.Left = Shape1.Left - 1.5 + (Shape1.Width
/ 2)
Linobs.X1 = 1.5 + Shape2.Left: Linobs.Y1 = 1.5 + Shape2.Top: Linobs.X2 =
Linobs.X1 - (65 * Sin(yaw * pimod))
Linobs.Y2 = Linobs.Y1 - (65 * Cos(yaw * pimod)): Lobs.Top = Linobs.Y2:
Lobs.Left = Linobs.X2
End Function
'Private Sub Pulsemove_Click()
'If Timer2.Enabled = False Then Timer2.Enabled = True Else Timer2.Enabled =
False
'End Sub
'***********************************************************************
Public Sub Frame6_Click() 'start brightness curve, yellow button
GBoption = True: overt = False
Call brightness
End Sub
'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Public Function brightness()
Call combovalues
Call diagram 'position of obswerver, bottom left.
YawScan.Label16.Visible = False: YawScan.Label17.Visible = False
YawScan.Caption = "yawscan OF BRIGHTNESS CURVES VERSUS YAW ANGLE"
Comhowto.Caption = "Instructions"
Timer1.Enabled = False
If cut = False Then 'Stops a crash
Lwarn.Visible = True
GoTo outyetagain
End If
If ecc <> eccindex Then 'Stops a crash
Lwarn.Visible = True
cut = False
GoTo outyetagain
End If
PP = outerp / points 'seconds per point moved
eccindex = ecc
If Ceccentricity.Text = "" Then 'Stops a crash
Lredclick.Visible = True
GoTo outyetagain
Else
Lredclick.Visible = False
End If
Erase intensity, INTB, Tat, Tbt, orbtime, Yactual, Bactual, Cactual
'**************************************************
If Option6.Value = True Then
Call scanyaw
GoTo outyetagain
End If
'**************************************************
scaling = 40000 * imaghite / points / orbs
If ecc = 0 Then GoTo circlebright 'for circle
v = velocity(0) * c * vone 'Parameters ellipse, km/sec. 3.15576*10^7
secs per year
Tmin = 2 * Stardist / c: Tmax = 0 'DETERMINE MAX AND MIN TIMES
lagmin = 2 * Stardist / c: lagmax = 1 'this is the start setting for max
time (sec)
For A = 0 To orbs 'time lag between subsequent orbits
orbtime(A) = A * outerp 'secs
Next
'**************************
Xlag = Int(points * lag / 360)
If Extinction = True Then 'introduce extinction
docalc
Else
For r = 0 To points - 1 'Step 100 'determine T
minimum. Ellipse
If lag <> 0 Then Ylag = Sin(Vangle((r + Xlag) Mod (points - 1)) -
piyaw)
Yone = vone * velocity(r) * Sin(Vangle(r) - piyaw) 'include YAW
angle in radial velocity component
Tat(r) = (DoverC / (1 - Yone)) + (PP * r) 'travel time plus
starting lag, inner star
If Tat(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tat(r) 'this gives actual
arrival time after T=0
If Tat(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tat(r)
If velratio <> 0 Then '2nd star
If overt = False Then 'no overtone
Ytwo = velocity(r) * Vtwo * Sin(Vangle(r) - piyaw)
If lag = 0 Then 'lag =
Clag
Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 + Ytwo)) + (PP * r) 'travel time
plus starting lag, outer star. one orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat
If Tbt(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(r)
If Tbt(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(r) 'Maximum light travel
time over 1 orbit
Else 'Ylag =
Cos(Vangle(r + xlag) - (pimod * yaw))
Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 + (velocity((r + Xlag) Mod (points -
1)) * Ylag * Vtwo))) + (PP * r)
'lagmin = 2 * Stardist / c: lagmax = 1 'this is the
start setting for max time (sec)
If Tbt(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(r)
If Tbt(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(r)
End If
End If
End If
Next
dfraction = (Tmax + ((orbs - 1) * outerp) - Tmin) / 501 'If overt = False
Then '501 time divisions.Graph will be drawn across 500 pixels.
'If lag <> 0 Then If overt = False Then dfraction = (lagmax + (outerp *
(orbs - 1)) - lagmin) / 501
End If
GoTo out
'CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
circlebright:
Vtwo = vone * velratio
rone = falsep * vone / 2 / pi 'Lys
rtwo = rone * velratio
molecV1 = 0
sinechange = 0
DoverC = Stardist / c 'Time taken for points with no doppler
Erase Tat, intensity, Tbt, INTB, orbtime
Tmin = 2 * DoverC / (1 + vone)
Tmax = 1
For A = 0 To orbs 'time lag between subsequent orbits
orbtime(A) = A * outerp 'secs
Next
For r = 0 To points - 1
sinTRP = Sin(twopi * r / points)
Tat(r) = (DoverC / (1 - (sinTRP * vone))) + (PP * r)
If Tat(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tat(r)
If Tat(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tat(r)
If velratio <> 0 Then
If Clag = 0 Then
Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 + (sinTRP * velratio * vone))) + (PP * r)
If Tbt(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(r)
If Tbt(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(r)
Else
Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 + (Sin(twopi * ((r / points) + (lag / 360)))
* velratio * vone))) + (PP * r)
If Tbt(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(r)
If Tbt(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(r)
End If
End If
Next
dfraction = (Tmax + ((orbs - 1) * outerp) - Tmin) / 501
out:
Call Brightcalc
Call Magdiff
Erase Yactual, Bactual
compare.Cls
If velratio = 0 Then
Call inner
Else
If picshow = False Then
Call inner: Call outer: Call both
Else
Call both
End If
End If
outyetagain:
End Function
Public Function Brightcalc() 'not used by george
For r = 0 To points - 1 'Step 10 '503300
For x = 0 To (orbs - 1)
Ta = Tat(r) + orbtime(x) 'adds times for subsequent
orbits
timefraction = (Ta - Tmin) / dfraction ' 'dfraction) '
If timefraction >= 0 And timefraction <= 501 Then
intensity(timefraction) = intensity(timefraction) + 1 'sums the number of times
each division
If velratio <> 0 Then 'second star of binary pair
If overt = False Then
Tb = Tbt(r) + orbtime(x)
Bfraction = ((Tb - Tmin) / dfraction)
If Bfraction >= 0 And Bfraction <= 501 Then INTB(Bfraction) =
INTB(Bfraction) + 1 'sums the number of times each division
End If
End If
Next
Next
intensity(0) = 2 * intensity(0) 'REMOVES END EFFECT
End Function
Public Function inner()
compare.Cls
If ecc = 0 Then pts = 33402 Else pts = points
FiveP = 501 / pts
compare.Line (10, 402)-(600, 402), RGB(55, 255, 255)
compare.Line (10, 462)-(600, 462), RGB(255, 255, 255)
For n = 0 To points + 1000 Step 1250 'vertical white lines
compare.Line ((n * FiveP), 428)-((n * FiveP), 432), RGB(255, 255,
255)
Next
If ecc = 0 Then 'draw true source
speed for circle
For m = 0 To pts Step 40 '
compare.PSet (10 + (m * FiveP), 460 - (40 * Sin(twopi * m *
orbs / 33402))), RGB(0, 0, 255)
Next
Else
For s = 0 To pts - 1 Step 30 'determine max. height of
velocity blue curve
bluesum = velocity(s) / Gmod '* Cos(Vangle(s) -
piyaw)
If bluemax < bluesum Then bluemax = bluesum
Next
If compare.Picture = Empty Then
For z = 0 To (pts - 1) Step 40 'plot velocity graph at
source (ellipse, blue)
For n = 0 To orbs - 1
compare.PSet (10 + (n * VVorbs) + (z * VVoverP), 460 + (40
* velocity(z) * -Sin(Vangle(z) - piyaw) / bluemax / Gmod)), RGB(0, 0, 255)
Next
Next
End If
End If 'end ecc
If GBoption = True Then
'brightness
For m = 1 To 501 'no scan, print
brightness graph
If Option3.Value = True Then
Yactual(m) = (intensity(m) - BminInner)
compare.PSet (LR + (m * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * scaling *
Yactual(m))), RGB(0, 255, 0)
Else 'log
If intensity(m) = 0 Then intensity(m) = 1
Yactual(m) = Log(intensity(m) / BminInner)
compare.PSet (LR + (m * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * Yactual(m) *
100 * scaling)), RGB(0, 255, 0)
End If
Next
Else 'George
For m = 1 To pts Step 100 'brightness curves for both circle and
ellipse
j = ((m - 1) / 100) '1+
For x = 0 To orbs - 1
xco = DA + (scaler * x) + Xdiff(j)
If xco > 1000 Then xco = 1000 'stops a crash
GA(xco) = jbunch(j) 'ga is required for
magboth
If velratio = 0 Then
drawA
Else
If picshow = False Then drawA
End If
Next
Next
End If 'end gboption
linmagA = Format(linmagA, "0.00000")
Lmags.Caption = Maginner: LinearM.Caption = linmagA
End Function
Public Function drawA()
If Option3.Value = True Then 'linear output.....curves scale is in
pixels
Yactual(j) = (jbunch(j) - BminInner)
compare.PSet (LR + (xco * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * 2 * imaghite *
Yactual(j))), RGB(0, 255, 0) 'BRIGHTNESS CURVE
Else
If jbunch(j) = 0 Then jbunch(j) = 1
Yactual(j) = (Log(jbunch(j) / BminInner) + 0.0001)
compare.PSet (LR + (xco * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * 50 * imaghite *
Yactual(j))), RGB(0, 255, 0) 'log brightness
End If
End Function
Public Function outer() 'print brightness graph
If velratio <> 0 Then
imaghite = Chite
If ecc = 0 Then pts = 33402 Else pts = points
If GBoption = True Then
'brightness
If overt = False Then
For m = 1 To 501 'no scan,
print brightness graph
If Option3.Value = True Then
Bactual(m) = INTB(m) - BminOuter
compare.PSet (LR + (m + WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * scaling *
Bactual(m) * Lumin)), RGB(255, 255, 0)
Else
If INTB(m) = 0 Then INTB(m) = 1
Bactual(m) = Log(INTB(m) / BminOuter)
compare.PSet (LR + (m * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * 100 *
Bactual(m) * scaling)), RGB(255, 255, 0)
End If
Next
Else 'overtone present
fac = 501 / orbs
overlag = lag / 360 * fac
BminOuter = 100000000000#: BmaxOuter = 0
For m = 0 To 501 Step 2 '
print brightness graph
INTB(m / 2) = intensity((m + overlag) Mod fac) * Lumin
INTB(251 + (m / 2)) = intensity((m + overlag) Mod fac) *
Lumin
Next
For m = 0 To 500
If INTB(m) <> 0 Then
If INTB(m) > BmaxOuter Then BmaxOuter = INTB(m)
If INTB(m) < BminOuter Then BminOuter = INTB(m)
'establishing brightness ratio
End If
Next
For m = 0 To 501
If Option3.Value = True Then
Bactual(m) = (INTB(m) - BminOuter) '* Lumin
compare.PSet (LR + ((m) * WIDE), 400 + UD - (Bactual(m) *
SIZE * scaling)), RGB(255, 255, 0)
Else
Bactual(m) = Log((INTB(m) / BminOuter) + 0.0001) / 0.921
compare.PSet (LR + ((m) * WIDE), 400 + UD - (Bactual(m) *
100 * SIZE * scaling)), RGB(255, 255, 0)
End If
Next
overmin = 10000000000#: overmax = 0
For m = 0 To 501
If intensity(m) + INTB(m) < overmin Then overmin = intensity(m)
+ INTB(m)
If intensity(m) + INTB(m) > overmax Then overmax = intensity(m)
+ INTB(m)
Next
BminBoth = overmin: BmaxBoth = overmax: linboth = BmaxBoth /
BminBoth: magboth = Log(linboth) / 0.921
linmagB = BmaxOuter / BminOuter
magouter = Log(linmagB + 0.0001) / 0.921
magouter = Format(magouter, "0.00000")
magboth = Format(magboth, "0.00000")
linboth = Format(linboth, "0.00000")
End If 'end overt
Else 'end brightness
For m = 1 To pts Step 100 'George
j = (m - 1) / 100
For x = 0 To orbs - 1
Bco = DB + (scaler * x) + Bdiff(j)
If Bco > 1000 Then Bco = 1000 'stops a crash
GB(Bco) = BBunch(j) 'Gb is required for
magboth
If compare.Picture = Empty Then
If Option3.Value = True Then
Bactual(j) = BBunch(j) - BminOuter
compare.PSet (LR + (Bco * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * 2 *
imaghite * Bactual(j) * Lumin)), RGB(255, 255, 0) 'linear brightness
Else
If BBunch(j) = 0 Then BBunch(j) = 1
Bactual(j) = Log(BBunch(j) * Lumin / BminOuter)
compare.PSet (LR + (Bco * WIDE), 400 + UD - (SIZE * 50
* imaghite * Bactual(j))), RGB(255, 255, 0) 'log brightness
End If
End If
GC(Bco) = GA(Bco) + (GB(Bco) * Lumin)
Next
Next
End If 'end GBoption
End If 'end velratio
If overt = False Then
linmagB = BmaxOuter / BminOuter
magouter = Log(linmagB + 0.0001) / 0.921
magouter = Format(magouter, "0.00000")
magboth = Format(magboth, "0.00000")
linboth = Format(linboth, "0.00000")
linmagB = Format(linmagB, "0.00000")
Lmags.Caption = magouter: LinearM.Caption = linmagB
End If
End Function
Public Function both() 'no scan, print brightness graph
Curves.Option3.Value = True
imaghite = Chite
If GBoption = True Then 'brightness
If overt = True Then BminBoth = overmin
For m = 0 To 501
If Option3.Value = True Then 'linear brightness curve
Cactual(m) = intensity(m) + (INTB(m) * Lumin) - BminBoth
compare.PSet (LR + (m * WIDE), 300 + UD - (SIZE / 2 *
Cactual(m) * scaling)), RGB(255, 0, 55)
Else:
If intensity(m) = 0 Then intensity(m) = 1 'combined
brightness graph, log
If INTB(m) = 0 Then INTB(m) = 1
Cactual(m) = Log((intensity(m) + (INTB(m) * Lumin)) / BminBoth)
compare.PSet (LR + (m * WIDE), 300 + UD - (SIZE * Cactual(m) *
100 * scaling)), RGB(255, 0, 55) '
End If
Next
Else 'George
BmaxBoth = 0.1: BminBoth = 10000000000#
For n = 1 To 499
If GA(n) <> 0 And GB(n) <> 0 Then
If GC(n) < BminBoth Then BminBoth = GC(n)
If GC(n) > BmaxBoth Then BmaxBoth = GC(n)
End If
Next
For j = 1 To 500
For x = 0 To orbs - 1
If Option3.Value = True Then 'linear output.....curves
scale is in pixels
compare.PSet (LR + (j * WIDE), 300 + UD - (SIZE * imaghite
* (GC(j) - BminBoth))), RGB(255, 0, 55) 'BRIGHTNESS CURVE
Else 'log output
If GC(j) <> 0 Then compare.PSet (LR + (j * WIDE), 300 + UD
- (SIZE * 50 * imaghite * Log(GC(j) / BminBoth))), RGB(255, 0, 55)
End If
Next
Next
linboth = BmaxBoth / BminBoth: magboth = Log(linboth) / 0.921
magboth = Format(magboth, "0.00000"): linboth = Format(linboth,
"0.00000")
Curves.Llinmag.Caption = linboth: Curves.Label19.Caption = magboth
End If 'end GBoption
Lmags.Caption = magboth: LinearM.Caption = linboth
End Function
Public Sub Cgeorge_Click()
overt = False
If BULGE = False Then
GBoption = False
Call George
Else
Call brightness
End If
End Sub
Public Function George()
GBoption = False
If Option5.Value = True Then BULGE = False Else BULGE = True
Erase Tat, Tbt, jbunch, BBunch, Xdiff, Bdiff, GA, GB, GC, Abulge, Yactual,
Bactual
Call combovalues
If ecc = 0 Then pts = 33402 Else pts = points
Call diagram 'position of obswerver, bottom left.
Linstruct.Visible = False
YawScan.Label16.Visible = False
YawScan.Label17.Visible = False
'YawScan.Caption = "yawscan OF BRIGHTNESS CURVES VERSUS YAW ANGLE"
Comhowto.Caption = "Instructions"
Timer1.Enabled = False
If cut = False Then 'Stops a crash
Lwarn.Visible = True
GoTo Gout
End If
If ecc <> eccindex Then 'Stops a crash
Lwarn.Visible = True
cut = False
GoTo Gout
End If
eccindex = ecc
If Ceccentricity.Text = "" Then 'Stops a crash
Lredclick.Visible = True
GoTo Gout
Else
Lredclick.Visible = False
End If
BmaxInner = 0: BminInner = 100000000000#
BmaxOuter = 0: BminOuter = 100000000000#
BmaxBoth = 0: BminBoth = 100000000000#
Xlag = lag * twopi / 360
'**********************
If ecc = 0 Then 'for circle
PP = outerp / 33402 'time between adjacent pulse emissions,
seconds.
scaler = 501 / orbs
q = 33402 / scaler 'eg orbs*167
z = twopi / 33402
rone = falsep * vone / 2 / pi * 9.46 * (10 ^ 12) 'kms
If BULGE = True Then
For n = 0 To (2 * pts) - 1 Step 100
Abulge(n / 2) = Blum * (Sin((z * n / 2) - Xlag)) 'two maxima per
orbit.
Next
End If
'For n = 0 To (2 * points) - 1 Step 200
'Curves.PSet (200 + (n / 200), 200 + (500 * Abulge(n / 2))), RGB(255,
0, 0)
'Next
For n = 1 To 33401 Step 100 'this sets values for Tat at 1,
101,201,301.....points.
sinTRP = Sin(z * (n - 1)) * vone 'this is radial velocity (x c)
cosTRP = rone * Cos(z * (n - 1)) 'this corrects the distance to
observer, kms
Tat((n - 1)) = (Stardist - cosTRP) / (c * (1 - sinTRP)) 'stardist
is in kms'this sets Tat values at 2,102,202,302....points.
If velratio <> 0 Then Tbt((n - 1)) = (Stardist + cosTRP) / (c * (1 +
(sinTRP * velratio))) 'outer star
sinTRP = Sin(z * n) * vone
cosTRP = rone * Cos(z * n)
Tat(n) = (Stardist - cosTRP) / (c * (1 - sinTRP))
Call Abits
If velratio <> 0 Then 'outer
star
Tbt(n) = (Stardist + cosTRP) / (c * (1 + (sinTRP * velratio)))
'+ sinTRP
Call BBits
Tdiff = Int(scaler * (Tbt(1) - Tat(1)) / outerp)
End If
Next
'************************
Else 'george, ellipse
PP = outerp / points 'seconds per point moved
scaler = 501 / orbs
q = points / scaler
If BULGE = True Then
For n = 0 To (2 * (points - 1)) Step 100
Abulge(n / 2) = 0.6 * Blum * (Sin(Vangle(n / 2) - piyaw - Xlag))
'two maxima per orbit.
Next
End If
For n = 1 To points - 1 Step 100
Yone = vone * velocity(n - 1) * Sin(Vangle(n - 1) - piyaw) 'include YAW
angle in radial velocity component
Tat(n - 1) = (DoverC / (1 - Yone)) 'travel time , inner star.... Tat(0)
If velratio <> 0 Then Tbt(n - 1) = (DoverC / (1 + (velratio * Yone)))
'outer star
Yone = vone * velocity(n) * Sin(Vangle(n) - piyaw) 'include YAW angle
in radial velocity component
Tat(n) = (DoverC / (1 - Yone))
'tat(1)
Call Abits
If velratio <> 0 Then
Tbt(n) = DoverC / (1 + (velratio * Yone)) 'yone has been
changed
Call BBits
Tdiff = Int(scaler * (Tbt(1) - Tat(1)) / outerp)
End If
If Tdiff <= 0 Then
DA = -Tdiff
DB = 0
Else
DB = Tdiff
DA = 0
End If
Next
End If
linmagA = BmaxInner / BminInner
Maginner = Log(linmagA + 0.001) / 0.921
If velratio <> 0 Then magouter = Log(BmaxOuter / BminOuter) / 0.921
linmagA = Format(linmagA, "0.00000")
Maginner = Format(Maginner, "0.00000")
magouter = Format(magouter, "0.00000")
If BULGE = True Then
Call inner
Else
If velratio = 0 Then
Call inner
Else
Call inner
Call outer
If overt = False Then Call both
End If
End If
Gout:
End Function
Public Function Abits()
Atime = Abs((Tat(n) - Tat(n - 1)) + PP) / PP 'difference in actual arrival
times, as fraction of emission period
j = (n - 1) / 100
'If ecc = 0 Then Yone = vone
jbunch(j) = ((1 + Abulge(n - 1))) * (1 - Yone) * 40 / Atime
'this includes the VDoppler factor
If jbunch(j) > BmaxInner Then BmaxInner = jbunch(j) 'for determining
brigtness ratio
If jbunch(j) < BminInner Then BminInner = jbunch(j)
Xdiff(j) = Abs(scaler * (((Tat(n) + ((n - 1) * PP) - Tat(1)) / outerp)))
'phase of actual pulse arrival time ...adjusts x coordinate
If Xdiff(j) > 700 Then Xdiff(j) = 700
End Function
Public Function BBits()
btime = Abs((Tbt(n) - Tbt(n - 1)) + PP) / PP 'difference in actual
arrival times, as fraction of emission period
j = (n - 1) / 100
'If ecc = 0 Then Yone = vone
BBunch(j) = (40 / btime) * (1 + Yone) 'takes account of relative
brightness
If BBunch(j) > BmaxOuter Then BmaxOuter = BBunch(j)
If BBunch(j) < BminOuter Then BminOuter = BBunch(j)
Bdiff(j) = Abs(scaler * (((Tbt(n) + ((n - 1) * PP) - Tbt(1)) / outerp)))
If Bdiff(j) > 700 Then Bdiff(j) = 700
End Function
Private Sub compare_MouseDown(Button As Integer, Shift As Integer, x As Single,
Y As Single)
If Button = 2 Then
If compare.Picture = Empty Then 'draws yellow line on screen
compare.DrawWidth = 1
compare.Line (x, 0)-(x, 500), RGB(255, 255, 0)
End If
End If
End Sub
Public Function alleccopts()
vell0 = lightspeed(360) 'velocity labels
vell90 = lightspeed(90)
vell180 = lightspeed(180)
vell270 = lightspeed(270)
vell0 = Format(vell0, "0.00000")
vell180 = Format(vell180, "0.00000")
vell90 = Format(vell90, "0.00000")
vell270 = Format(vell270, "0.0000")
Label3.Caption = vell0
Label3.Visible = True
rone = falsep * vone / 2 / pi * 365 'Ldays
rone = Format(rone, "00.000000")
Line3.Y1 = 1330: Line3.Y2 = 1330
Line5.Y1 = 3330: Line5.Y2 = 3330
End Function
Public Function allcirclabs()
If ecc = 0 Then
Label3.Visible = True
Label4.Visible = True
Label5.Visible = True
Label6.Visible = True
Label7.Visible = True
Else
Label3.Visible = False
Label4.Visible = False
Label5.Visible = False
Label6.Visible = False
Label7.Visible = False
End If
End Function
Public Function labels()
YawScan.Label1.Visible = False
YawScan.Label2.Visible = False
YawScan.Label3.Visible = False
YawScan.Label13.Visible = False
YawScan.Label14.Visible = False
YawScan.Label15.Visible = False
YawScan.Label16.Visible = True
YawScan.Label17.Visible = True
End Function
Public Function Magdiff()
BmaxOuter = 0: BminOuter = 10000000000#
BmaxInner = 0: BminInner = 10000000000#
BmaxBoth = 0: BminBoth = 10000000000#
Maginner = 0: magouter = 0: magboth = 0
For m = 2 To 499
If intensity(m) <> 0 Then
If intensity(m) > BmaxInner Then BmaxInner = intensity(m)
If intensity(m) < BminInner Then BminInner = intensity(m)
'establishing brightness ratio
End If
Next
linmagA = (BmaxInner / BminInner)
Maginner = Log(linmagA) / 0.921
linmagA = Format(linmagA, "0.00000")
If overt = False Then
For m = 20 To 480
If INTB(m) <> 0 Then
If INTB(m) > BmaxOuter Then BmaxOuter = INTB(m)
If INTB(m) < BminOuter Then BminOuter = INTB(m) 'establishing
brightness ratio
End If
If intensity(m) <> 0 And INTB(m) <> 0 Then
If intensity(m) + (INTB(m) * Lumin) > BmaxBoth Then BmaxBoth =
intensity(m) + (INTB(m) * Lumin)
If intensity(m) + (INTB(m) * Lumin) < BminBoth Then BminBoth =
intensity(m) + (INTB(m) * Lumin) 'Lumin *
End If
Next
If velratio <> 0 Then
linmagB = BmaxOuter / BminOuter
magouter = Log(linmagB) / 0.921
End If
If velratio = 0 Then linboth = Maginner Else linboth = BmaxBoth / BminBoth
If velratio = 0 Then magboth = Maginner Else magboth = Log(linboth) / 0.921
magouter = Format(magouter, "0.00000")
Maginner = Format(Maginner, "0.00000")
magboth = Format(magboth, "0.00000")
linboth = Format(linboth, "0.00000")
End If
End Function
Private Sub CHide_Click()
If compare.Picture = Empty Then
compare.Picture = LoadPicture("c:\testcurves\curve1.jpg")
CHide.Caption = "HIDE CURVE"
picshow = True
Else
compare.Picture = LoadPicture
CHide.Caption = "SHOW CURVE"
picshow = False
End If
End Sub
Public Sub Cgetvalues_Click()
Call Getvalues
CLR.Text = LR: CUD.Text = UD: CWide.Text = WIDE: CSize.Text = SIZE
End Sub
Public Sub compare_Click()
If Button = 0 Then
compare.Cls
LR = CLR: UD = CUD: SIZE = CSize: WIDE = CWide
If CUD <> "" And CLR <> "" And CSize <> "" And CWide <> "" Then
Call keepvalues
If overt = False Then
If velratio = 0 Then
Call inner
Else
If picshow = True Then
Call both
Else:
Call inner: Call outer: Call both
End If
End If
Else
Call inner: Call outer
End If
Else
Getvalues
End If
End If
End Sub
Public Function keepvalues()
Open "c:\oldvalues.txt" For Output As #1
Write #1, LR, UD, WIDE, SIZE
Close #1
End Function
Public Function Getvalues()
Open "c:\oldvalues.txt" For Input As #1
Input #1, LR, UD, WIDE, SIZE
Close #1
End Function
Public Function Usecurves()
t = Tmax / 3.15576 / (10 ^ 7)
u = Tmin / 3.15576 / (10 ^ 7)
t = Format(t, "0.00E+00"): u = Format(u, "0.00E+00")
dtemp = Format(dtemp, "0.00E+00")
rtwo = Format(rtwo, "0.0E+00")
Curves.Text1.Text = dtemp: Curves.Text2.Text = rone: Curves.Text3.Text =
outerperiod
Curves.Text4.Text = orbs: Curves.Text5.Text = points: Curves.Text8.Text =
rtwo: Curves.Text9 = vone: Curves.Text10 = velratio
Curves.Text11.Text = yaw: Curves.Text12.Text = ecc: 'curves.Text13 =
Combo5.Text
Curves.Show
End Function
Public Function docalc() 'calculates extinction
If Xrate = 1 Then Xrate = 0.999999999
'temptime = 0
'TempBtime = 0
Lightdays = dtemp * 365
Gsum = (((Xrate ^ Lightdays) - 1) / (Xrate - 1))
For r = 0 To points - 1 Step 1
Yone = velocity(r) * vone * Sin(Vangle(r) - piyaw)
'fraction of c...use Ldays/day
temptime = Lightdays - (Yone * Gsum)
Tat(r) = (temptime * 86400) + (PP * r) 'seconds
If Tat(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tat(r)
If Tat(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tat(r)
If velratio <> 0 Then 'add second star
Ytwo = velocity(r) * Vtwo * Sin(Vangle(r) - piyaw)
TempBtime = Lightdays + (Ytwo * Gsum)
Tbt(r) = (TempBtime * 86400) + (PP * r) 'travel time plus starting lag,
outer star. one orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat
If Tbt(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(r)
If Tbt(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(r) 'Maximum light travel time over
1 orbit
End If
Next
End Function
'********************************************************************************
'**********************************************************************************
'*****************************************************************************
'********************************************************************
Public Function scanyaw() 'repeat but with yawscan
Curves.Hide
Parameters.Hide
YawScan.ZOrder 0
YawScan.Cls
YawScan.Command1.Caption = "Wait...."
Linstruct.Visible = False
Erase orbtime
PP = outerp / points
For A = 0 To 4 'time lag between subsequent orbits
orbtime(A) = A * outerp 'secs
Next
If ecc = 0 Then GoTo circlescan 'for circle
v = velocity(0) * c * vone 'km/secs. 3.15576*10^7 secs per
year
Tmin = 2 * Stardist / (c - v) 'DETERMINE MAX AND MIN TIMES
'in seconds. This sets starting angle =0, for min travel time. Inner star is
approaching
Tmax = 1
'**************************
'**************************
'Parameters calculation
Erase scanintA, scanintB, Tat, Tbt
twovelrat = 0
For yaw = 0 To 11 'yaw loop
yawadd = yaw * 36
piyawb = (sixthpi * yaw)
For r = 0 To points Step 10 'determine T max and minimum.
Y = Vangle(r) - piyawb
Tat(r) = (DoverC / (1 + (velocity(r) * Cos(Y) * vone))) + (PP * r)
'travel time ' one orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat
If Tat(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tat(r)
If Tat(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tat(r)
Next
For twovelrat = 0 To 3 'starts velratio loop
velratio = twovelrat / 3
Erase Tbt
For r = 0 To points Step 10
Y = Vangle(r) - piyawb 'Y = angle/point in radians
Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 - (velocity(r) * velratio * Cos(Y) *
vone))) + (PP * r) 'travel time plus starting lag, one orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat
If Tbt(r) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(r)
If Tbt(r) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(r)
dfraction = (Tmax + orbtime(4) - Tmin) / 500
For x = 0 To 3
If twovelrat = 0 Then
Ta = Tat(r) + orbtime(x)
'adds times for subsequent orbits
timefraction = Fix((Ta - Tmin) / dfraction)
'timefraction has approx. maximumm value 3500'
scanintA(twovelrat, yaw, timefraction) =
scanintA(twovelrat, yaw, timefraction) + 1 'sums the number of times each
division
Else
Tb = Tbt(r) + orbtime(x) 'second
star of binary pair
timefraction = Fix((Tb - Tmin) / dfraction)
'timefraction has maximumm value Dfraction
scanintB(twovelrat, yaw, timefraction) =
scanintB(twovelrat, yaw, timefraction) + Lumin 'sums the number of times each
division
End If
Next
Next
Next
Next
YawScan.Show
YawScan.Label2.Visible = True
YawScan.Label3.Visible = True
YawScan.Label13.Visible = False
YawScan.Label14.Visible = False
YawScan.Label15.Visible = False
YawScan.Label16.Visible = False
YawScan.Label17.Visible = False
DrawWidth = 1
Call combined
YawScan.Command1.Caption = "Back To Parameters Screen"
GoTo outscan
circlescan: 'yawscan for circle,
V2/V1=0.4,0.7,1....luminosity ratio=0.5, 1, 1.5
Vtwo = vone * velratio
rone = falsep * vone / twopi 'LYs
rtwo = rone * velratio
Curves.Cls
Curves.Print "Inner Orbit velocity="; vone; "x c"
Curves.Print "Outer Orbit velocity="; Vtwo; "x c"
'rone = Format(rone, "0.0E+00")
'rtwo = Format(rtwo, "0.0E+00")
YawScan.Label16.Visible = True
YawScan.Label17.Visible = True
YawScan.Label13.Visible = True
YawScan.Label14.Visible = True
YawScan.Label15.Visible = True
YawScan.Label16.Visible = False
YawScan.Label17.Visible = False
YawScan.Caption = "FOR CIRCULAR ORBITS"
Erase scanintA, scanintB, Tat, Tbt, orbtime
For A = 0 To 4 'time lag between subsequent orbits
orbtime(A) = A * outerp 'secs
Next
Tmin = DoverC / (1 + vone)
Tmax = (DoverC / (1 - (vone))) + (5 * outerp)
dfraction = (Tmax - Tmin) / 500
For r = 0 To points Step 10
Tat(r) = (DoverC / (1 + (Cos(twopi * r / points) * vone))) + (PP * r)
For z = 0 To 3
Ta = Tat(r) + orbtime(z) 'adds times for subsequent
orbits
timefraction = Fix((Ta - Tmin) / dfraction) 'timefraction has approx.
maximumm value 3500'
For f = 0 To 5
scanintA(0, f, timefraction) = scanintA(0, f, timefraction) + 1 'sums the
number of times each division
Next
Next
Next
'1st for loop starts
For velrat = 0 To 5 '2nd for loops start
velratio = velrat / 5
Vtwo = vone * velratio
Erase Tbt
For r = 0 To points Step 10
Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 - (Cos(twopi * ((r / points))) * velratio *
vone))) + (PP * r) ' + (lag / 360)
For b = 0 To (orbs - 1) 'Y = angle/point in radians
Tb = Tbt(r) + orbtime(b) 'second star of
binary pair
timefraction = Fix((Tb - Tmin) / dfraction) 'timefraction has
maximumm value Dfraction
For lumrat = 1 To 3
Lumin = lumrat / 2
scanintB(lumrat, velrat, timefraction) = scanintB(lumrat, velrat,
timefraction) + Lumin 'sums the number of times each division
Next
Next
Next
Next
YawScan.Label16.Visible = True
YawScan.Label17.Visible = True
DrawWidth = 1
Call combined
YawScan.Command1.Caption = "Back To Parameters Screen"
outscan:
YawScan.Show
velratio = 0
End Function
Public Function combined() ' curves, yawscan
YawScan.Cls
YawScan.Show
scaling = 0.5 * imaghite '10000/ points
If ecc = 0 Then
Call labels
YawScan.Caption = "COMBINED BRIGHTNESS VERSUS TIME (each cycle repesents
one period)"
For f = 0 To 5 'yawscan, circle, log brightness graphs
For m = 0 To 405
YawScan.PSet (30 + (m / 2.2), 260 + (46 * f) - (50 * Log(scanintA(0, f,
m) + 1) * scaling)), RGB(84, 255, 0)
For e = 1 To 3
YawScan.PSet (30 + (190 * e) + (m / 2.2), 260 + (46 * f) - (50 *
Log(scanintA(0, f, m) + scanintB(e, f, m) + 1) * scaling)), RGB(e * 84, 255,
255 - (e * 84))
Next
Next
Next
Else
YawScan.Label2.Visible = True
YawScan.Label3.Visible = True
YawScan.Label1.Visible = True
YawScan.Label13.Visible = False
YawScan.Label14.Visible = False
YawScan.Label15.Visible = False
YawScan.Label16.Visible = False
YawScan.Label17.Visible = False
YawScan.Caption = "COMBINED BRIGHTNESS VERSUS TIME (each cycle repesents
one period)"
For f = 0 To 11
For m = 0 To 405 'print brightness graph, ellipse,
yawscan log scale
YawScan.PSet (30 + (m / 2.2), 180 + (39 * f) - (50 * Log((scanintA(0,
f, m) + 1)) * scaling)), RGB(84, 255, 0)
For e = 1 To 3
YawScan.PSet (30 + (190 * e) + (m / 2.2), 180 + (39 * f) - (50 *
(Log(scanintA(0, f, m) + scanintB(e, f, m) + 1)) * scaling)), RGB(e * 84, 255,
255 - (e * 84))
Next
Next
Next
End If
End Function
Public Function individual() 'individual star curves, yawscan
YawScan.Cls
YawScan.Show
YawScan.Caption = "INDIVIDUAL STAR CONTRIBUTION"
scaling = 0.5 * imaghite '10000/ points
If ecc = 0 Then
Call labels
For f = 0 To 5
For m = 0 To 405 'yawscan, circle, log brightness graphs
YawScan.PSet (30 + (m / 2.2), 250 + (46 * f) - (50 * Log(scanintA(0, f,
m) + 1) * scaling)), RGB(84, 255, 0)
For e = 1 To 3
YawScan.PSet (30 + (190 * e) + (m / 2.2), 250 + (46 * f) - (50 *
Log((scanintB(e, f, m) + 1)) * scaling)), RGB(e * 84, 255, 255 - (e * 84))
Next
Next
Next
Else
YawScan.Label1.Visible = True
YawScan.Label2.Visible = True
YawScan.Label3.Visible = True
YawScan.Label13.Visible = False
YawScan.Label14.Visible = False
YawScan.Label15.Visible = False
YawScan.Label16.Visible = False
YawScan.Label17.Visible = False
For f = 0 To 11
For m = 0 To 405 'yawscan, ellipse, log brightness graphs
YawScan.PSet (30 + (m / 2.2), 160 + (39 * f) - (50 * Log((scanintA(0,
f, m) + 1)) * scaling)), RGB(84, 255, 0)
For e = 1 To 3
YawScan.PSet (30 + (190 * e) + (m / 2.2), 160 + (39 * f) - (50 *
Log((scanintB(e, f, m) + 1)) * scaling)), RGB(e * 84, 255, 255 - (e * 84))
Next
Next
Next
End If
End Function
Private Sub Option1_Click()
compare.DrawWidth = 1
End Sub
Private Sub Option9_Click()
Call both
End Sub
Private Sub Option10_Click()
Call outer
End Sub
Private Sub Option11_Click()
compare.Cls
Call inner
End Sub
Private Sub Option2_Click()
compare.DrawWidth = 2
End Sub
'If overt = True Then 'overtone present
'If velratio <> 0 Then
'For n = 0 To 2 * (points - 1) Step 2
'm = n / 2
'Ytwo = Vtwo * Sin(Vangle(n Mod (points)) - piyaw)
'Tbt(r) = (DoverC / (1 + (velocity((n + Xlag) Mod (points))
* Ylag * Ytwo))) + (PP * m)
'Tbt(m) = (DoverC / (1 + sinechange + Ytwo)) + (PP * m)
' 'travel time plus starting lag, outer star. one
orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat
'If lag = 0 Then
'lag = Clag
'Tbt(m) = (DoverC / (1 - (velocity(n Mod points) *
Ytwo))) + (PP * m) 'travel time plus starting lag, outer star. one
orbiTraveltime(n) = Tat
'If Tbt(m) < Tmin Then Tmin = Tbt(m)
'If Tbt(m) > Tmax Then Tmax = Tbt(m) 'Maximum light
travel time over 1 orbit
' Else
'Ylag = Sin(Vangle((n + Xlag) Mod (points - 1)) -
(piyaw)) 'Ylag =
Cos(Vangle(r + xlag) - (pimod * yaw))
'Tbt(m) = (DoverC / (1 + sinechange + (velocity((n +
Xlag) Mod (points - 1)) * Ylag * Ytwo))) + (PP * m)
'If Tbt(m) < lagmin Then lagmin = Tbt(m)
'If Tbt(m) > lagmax Then lagmax = Tbt(m)
'End If
'Next
'End If
'End If
Public Sub Option5_Click()
BULGE = False
Option8.Value = False
End Sub
Public Sub Option8_Click()
BULGE = True
Option5.Value = False
End Sub
'**********************************************
'For j = 0 To points Step 20 ''velocity v/s
time graph
'Orbit.PSet (50 + (j * 100 / p), 300 - (0.1 / Gmod * velocity(j))), RGB(0,
0, 255) 'blue
'Orbit.PSet (50 + (j * 100 / p), 200 - (0.05 / Gmod * velocity(j) *
Cos(Vangle(j) - piyaw))), RGB(0, 0, 0)
'Orbit.PSet (50 + (j * 100 / p), 150 - (20 * Vangle(j))), RGB(255, 0, 0)
'red
'Next
'For j = 0 To 5
'Orbit.Print velocity(j); Vangle(j):
'Next
'FocusX = 0: FocusY = 0
'Ystart = 0
'Xtemp = xstart: Ytemp = 0
'Radvector = (((FocusX - Xtemp) ^ 2) + ((FocusY - Ytemp) ^ 2)) ^ 0.5
'length of radius vector
'p = 0
'__________
'If Option1.Value = True Then
'molecV1 = tempfac * (Int((830 / ((Rnd * 100) + 1))) - 8)
'molecular velocities - mean velocity= 30*tempfac x c
'If Rnd < 0.5 Then sinechange = molecV1 Else sinechange = molecV1
'End If
'
'Private Sub Cmintime_Click()
'Parameters.Hide
'Mintime.Show
'End Sub
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
George Dishman
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 22:44:37 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:Xns99BE4B6E7DCE6WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> >> George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> >>news:1191397444.7...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> Your problem is that you make assumptions without
> >>> checking, the wavelength is invariant but you should
> >>> not be dividing by the wavelength, it should be the
> >>> distance moved by a wave _along_ the blue line in
> >>> your diagram, and that distance is greater than
> >>> the wavelength.
>
> >> Ballistic theory has the time taken by the light to be identical for light
> >> traveling in both directions.
>
> >Yes, even Henry agrees that.
>
> >> Under ballistic theory, the number of waves that travel along the path in
> >> a
> >> unit of time must be identical for both directions.
>
> >The number of waves is the time taken divided by
> >the period hence must be the same for both paths.
>
> ..SRian logic again....
If someting emits one cycle every second then in
10 seconds it emits 10 cycles. Are you saying that
is not true in ballistic theory?
> >> That being true for ballistic theory, the wave crests (or photons) that
> >> leave the source to travel in both directions at a particular instant must
> >> arrive at the target at exactly the same time.
>
> >Yes, the speed is always c relative to the source
> >so the wavelength is always lambda = c/frequency.
>
> You actually got something right George....but remember you are only talking
> about the 'frequency' at the source.
I said "relative to the source".
Henry, have you ever seen a chain saw? Do you really
think the distance the teeth move in a given time
doesn't depends on the speed it moves?
The whole point of the above diagrams is to point
out that the distance between the waves (wavelength)
is _not_ the same as the distance moved in the period.
You used one value when you shoul have been using the
other. The reason is that you are incapable of doing
basic algebra so you didn't _derive_ your equation
mathematically, you just guessed using the wavelength
would be right. Well it isn't, you screwed up again.
> >> This means that ballistic theory predicts a null effect for sagnac.
>
> This meamns I would have a more intelligent conversation talkingto two monkeys.
I'm sure you would think you were, they wouldn't
be forever correcting your endless errors.
George
bz
news:r799g3d4qks57kl0v...@4ax.com:
> George, have you ever seen a chain saw?
> Do you really think the number of teeth in the blade depends on the
> speed it moves?
>
Henri, congratulations, you have just articulated one of the reasons that
shows exactly why ballistic theory predicts a null result for Sagnac, and
is thus invalidated by it.
The 'chains' have the same total number of teeth going around in each
direction.
The 'chains' have the same number of teeth per second going in each
direction.
Since the DISTANCE the chains travel are different for the two directions,
one chain is stretched more than the other, but the tooth arrivals
coincidently from both directions.
This happens (when one is using math consistent with BatH) irrespective of
the rotation speed of the platform.
BaTh does NOT permit Sagnac to 'work'.
Androcles
: HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
: news:r799g3d4qks57kl0v...@4ax.com:
:
: > George, have you ever seen a chain saw?
: > Do you really think the number of teeth in the blade depends on the
: > speed it moves?
: >
:
: Henri, congratulations, you have just articulated one of the reasons that
: shows exactly why ballistic theory predicts a null result for Sagnac, and
: is thus invalidated by it.
:
: The 'chains' have the same total number of teeth going around in each
: direction.
Yes, ok.
: The 'chains' have the same number of teeth per second going in each
: direction.
Wrong, idiot.
T.M. Sommers
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:24:47 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:12:10 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:08:30 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>If a star is in edge on orbit, its radial speed is v.sin(t/T)
>>>>
>>>>Again you introduce a symbol without defining it, and force
>>>>people to guess what you mean, but I suppose T is the orbital
>>>>period divided by 2 times \pi, which is an odd thing for T to be.
>>>>Usually, in this context, it is just the period. By using T in
>>>>a unconventional way, you needlessly confuse your readers.
>>>
>>>then readers can use their own fucking heads.
>>
>>What a wonderful attitude you have. You probably didn't even
>>realize that you need that factor of 2 \pi.
>>
>>>>You also have to carefully pick the zero point of time. And you
>>>>assume a circular orbit.
>>>
>>>Run; www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe if you want to know all about
>>>elliptical or any other orbits.
>>
>>I told you, I don't do windows. Show your equations, like a real
>>scientist would. I can write a computer program to show anything
>>I want it to show.
>
> Here's some of it:
<snip code>
> Good luck , little girl..
I wonder if you would say that to someone like C.S. Wu (not that
you have any idea who she was).
> if you could write something like that you too could prove Einstein wrong...
I'm not going to waste time trying to deduce your so-called
"theory" from your program, if for no other reason than, since
you refuse to show your equations, there is no way of knowing
whether you have implemented them correctly.
>>>It has been explained many times.
>>>Light leaves its source at c. That light travels to earth at c+v wrt earth,
>>>where the v can be periodic as in the case of an orbiting star.
>>>fast light moves up on slow light, causing bunching of photons and an apparent
>>>periodic variation in brightness when viewed at a distance.
>>>
>>>Most star curves fit this model exactly. See a few at
>>>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg:
>>
>>So where are the equations? You have also failed to explain why,
>>for instance, the stars in close orbit around the center of our
>>galaxy do not pulsate.
>
> Since you can't run windows programs you cannot benefit from mine.
> In layman's language, every star has an 'EM sphere of influence' around it.
> Thas a big influence on the speed of light leaving the vicinity.
> Close binaies have spheres that overlap and virtually cancel each other...so
> little or no ADoppler gets out. ...their light is mainly affected only by
> Vdoppler.
I don't want layman's language. Show me the equations.
>>>>Typical of cranks and crackpots to attempt to belittle others
>>>>when they (the cranks and crackpots) can't explain their own
>>>>"theories".
>>>
>>>Listen little girl,
>>
>>Pathetic. You must be related to that guskz character.
>
> and YOU sound like geesey's sister...
Whoever that is.
Why do you even participate in a physics newsgroup if you refuse
to discuss physics?
>>>this has been discussed at length for several years here.
>>>If you have no knowledge of physics you shouldn't be asking silly questions on
>>>this NG.
>>
>>You started a brand-new thread to expound your so-called
>>"theory"; you have no right to complain if people question you now.
>
> read past messages.
You started the new thread; you don't get to tell people to
search the archives.
>>>>>>Sorry, I don't do windows. Show your equations.
>>>>>
>>>>>:)
>>>>
>>>>So where are the equations?
>>>
>>>Go away troll....
>>
>>I can only conclude that you do not have any equations, and are
>>just making things up.
<snip more code>
If you are going to propound a new "theory", you have to tell
people what the "theory" actually is. Drawing pictures with a
computer program and then saying, in effect, "Trust me, I'm
right" does not cut it. For you to propound a "theory" and then
refuse to tell anyone what it actually is, and moreover try to
insult anyone who asks to see it, proves that you are a charlatan.
bz
4ax.com:
> Here's some of it:
unuseable and unreadable because of line wrap.
Why not post it on your web site with and put a link here.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On 4 Oct, 09:38, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 22:44:37 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>> >Yes, even Henry agrees that.
That's irrelevant.
The only thing we are interested in is the number of teeth around the loop....a
loop that varies when the whole chain saw is rotated ....because the start and
end points used to 'count the teeth' are then not he same.
>
>The whole point of the above diagrams is to point
>out that the distance between the waves (wavelength)
>is _not_ the same as the distance moved in the period.
>You used one value when you shoul have been using the
>other. The reason is that you are incapable of doing
>basic algebra so you didn't _derive_ your equation
>mathematically, you just guessed using the wavelength
>would be right. Well it isn't, you screwed up again.
You keep introducing time when the only criterion is distance.
>> >> This means that ballistic theory predicts a null effect for sagnac.
>>
>> This meamns I would have a more intelligent conversation talkingto two monkeys.
>
>I'm sure you would think you were, they wouldn't
>be forever correcting your endless errors.
try to understand my 'spinning wheel' message George.
Dr. Henri Wilson
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:24:47 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>You started the new thread; you don't get to tell people to
>search the archives.
If you don't study a NG for some time before you join it you will make a fool
of yourself by continuously reinventing the wheel.
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
>news:r799g3d4qks57kl0v...@4ax.com:
>
>> George, have you ever seen a chain saw?
>> Do you really think the number of teeth in the blade depends on the
>> speed it moves?
>>
>
>Henri, congratulations, you have just articulated one of the reasons that
>shows exactly why ballistic theory predicts a null result for Sagnac, and
>is thus invalidated by it.
>
>The 'chains' have the same total number of teeth going around in each
>direction.
>The 'chains' have the same number of teeth per second going in each
>direction.
>
>Since the DISTANCE the chains travel are different for the two directions,
>one chain is stretched more than the other, but the tooth arrivals
>coincidently from both directions.
I haven't seen the chain of a chainsaw stretch.....it would fly off if it
did....
If you rotate the whole chainsaw in the same sense as the chain, the number of
teeth lying in a complete cycle is increased because of the extra distance
traveled.....
>This happens (when one is using math consistent with BatH) irrespective of
>the rotation speed of the platform.
>
>BaTh does NOT permit Sagnac to 'work'.
I'm sorry Bob but you simply haven't gotten the picture yet.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
T.M. Sommers
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:00:32 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>
>>You started the new thread; you don't get to tell people to
>>search the archives.
>
> If you don't study a NG for some time before you join it you will make a fool
> of yourself by continuously reinventing the wheel.
If you start a brand new thread about a subject that has been
discussed before, you have no right to demand that people not ask
you questions because you answered them before. You reopened the
topic; you deal with it now.
Now, where are your equations?
bz
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:32:54 +0000 (UTC), bz
> <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>
>>HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
>>news:r799g3d4qks57kl0v...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> George, have you ever seen a chain saw?
>>> Do you really think the number of teeth in the blade depends on the
>>> speed it moves?
>>>
>>
>>Henri, congratulations, you have just articulated one of the reasons
>>that shows exactly why ballistic theory predicts a null result for
>>Sagnac, and is thus invalidated by it.
>>
>>The 'chains' have the same total number of teeth going around in each
>>direction.
>>The 'chains' have the same number of teeth per second going in each
>>direction.
>>
>>Since the DISTANCE the chains travel are different for the two
>>directions, one chain is stretched more than the other, but the tooth
>>arrivals coincidently from both directions.
>
> I haven't seen the chain of a chainsaw stretch.....it would fly off if
> it did....
That can happen.
> If you rotate the whole chainsaw in the same sense as the chain
You are NOT rotating the WHOLE chainsaw, The chain saw has two chains
rotating in opposite directions. They are driven at identical 'teeth per
second' rates. There is more tension on the idlers for travel in one
direction than for travel in the other. One chain is 'stretched' more than
the other.
> , the
> number of teeth lying in a complete cycle is increased because of the
> extra distance traveled.....
If the same number of cycles going each way take the same amount of time
to make the trip, there CAN'T be any 'extra cycles' or extra teeth on the
chain.
One chain MUST be stretched when compared to the other.
>
>>This happens (when one is using math consistent with BatH) irrespective
>>of the rotation speed of the platform.
>>
>>BaTh does NOT permit Sagnac to 'work'.
>
> I'm sorry Bob but you simply haven't gotten the picture yet.
Get yourself a couple of beaded chains or bycycle chains and try it
yourself.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
One day both you and George you might understand this.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
I prefer animations. You recall that old proverb, "A picture speaks a thousand
words".
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
George Dishman
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:h348g3db5mkltg45q...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:44:04 -0700, George Dishman
> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 2 Oct, 23:44, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:25:37 -0700, George Dishman
>>> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >On 2 Oct, 00:31, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
>>> Both Temperature and Pressure have a large effect on the density
>>> gradient of
>>> the earth's atmosphere. Pressure actually partially accommodates
>>> gravity.
>>>
>>> but I shouldn't liken solar wind to the earth's atmosphere anyway.
>>
>>No, it's more like an omnidirectional stream of
>>bullets due to its dynamic nature. The number
>>passing through a spherical shell varies as the
>>inverse square of the radius other than slowing
>>effects.
>
> ...which could be anything.....
They are negligible, I gave you an indication
of the figures:
>>> >Pressure would be highest
>>> >nearest the star so should accelerate the wind
>>> >away, however at maybe 10^4 particles per m^3
>>> >and an initial speed of ~500km/s the change of
>>> >speed due to pressure is negligible. You missed
>>> >gravity which slows the wind but again the speed
>>> >so so much higher than escape velocity that the
>>> >effect is tiny, and it opposes the pressure
>>> >gradient so they tend to cancel.
>>>
>>> See! there is alreasy too much speculation for a decent model to be
>>> constructed.
>>
>>No speculation at all Henry, the terminal speed
>>is sqrt(Vr^2 - Ve^2) where Vr is the wind velocity
>>at radius r and Ve is the escape velocity at that
>>radius.
>
> Obviously if you redefine 'terminal velocity' with that equation the
> equation
> must be right.
> :)
True. Since you can't work out the meaning, I guess
I'll have to teach you some physics ... ;)
If you launch an object away from a "point" mass
(or spherically symetric) at a speed greater than
escape velocity then it slows but never stops. As
the gravitational acceleration falls, the speed
is asypmtotic to some value which I called the
terminal velocity. I thought that was a fairly
common use of the term though I'm aware of the
use when discussing air resistance too.
The kinetic energy of the object is m/2*Vr^2, the
energy when far from the mass approaches m/2*Vt^2
and the energy needed to just escape is m/2*Ve^2.
The object loses the latter in escaping hence:
m/2*Vt^2 = m/2*Vr^2 - m/2*Ve^2
Vt^2 = Vr^2 - Ve^2
Vt = sqrt(Vr^2 - Ve^2)
See Henry, that's how it is done.
>>> >Why do I talk in terms of speed? Because at
>>> >constant speed the effect is exactly inverse
>>> >square.
>>>
>>> ....everything else remaining constant...
>>
>>Yes, so we only need to consider the effect
>>of everything else on velocity.
>
> I should imagine that the conditions around different stars would vary
> considerably with star size and type....so you will have trouble including
> these factors in your equation.
Assuming you are going back to the discussion of r(s),
nope, they don't appear. You really don't understand
how to do physics at all. What you get is an equation
that predicts the value of r(s) as a _function_ of those
local conditions. For example if the density affects r(s)
and it varies along the path given by function d(s) then
r(s) needs to be a function of d(s) rather than some
constant D. However, I can still write r(s) in terms of
d(s) without worrying about the form of d(s) itself.
For a star d(s) might be an inverse square but for say
a fibre gyro, d(s) will be constant at the density of
the fibre.
There is a critical distance in any direction
because of the peak acceleration of the source.
The point is that it varies with the sin of the
inclination for any given orbit, therefore if
you are just one side of the boundary at one
inclination, a few degrees difference pushes
you over and you get multiple images. We don't
get multiple images _ever_ which means the
speed equalisation must be significantly less
than the critical distance otherwise you have
to rely on fairies tilting every binary system
in the galaxy to an inclination sufficient to
prevent multiple images.
Given that the speed equalisation distance must
be very small compared to the critical distance
for multiple images it follows that high luminosity
variations cannot be explained and the plots above
would show you why - the family of curves are close
together and get closer as they approach critical.
> You can do it easily for circular orbits but you have to consider
> elliptical orbits and include eccentricity and yaw angles.
Sure but that's not the point, for any specific
peak acceleration, regardless of the shape and
speed of the orbit that creats it, you get a
family of curves. It is the closeness and shape
of those curves that is informative.
>>> >There is no limit, they can be 180 degrees
>>> >apart.
>>>
>>> How would you know only single photons were involved?
>>
>>Because in the lab you can turn the source
>>down until single photons are observed.
>>
>>> It would take a long time....
>>
>>A rate of oine or two photons per second isn't
>>a problem.
>
> ...at least it proves photons are particles...like I said.
> All you need now George, is a physical model for them.
QED works fine.
> Mine seems to work OK....
From this aspect you simply need to allow the
wavfront of your photons to be wide enough to
cover Young's Slits, which means they are
spherical. For the VLTI, a separation of 102m
after travelling for light years is a minute
subtended angle so there is no problem. VLTI
creates interference with every individual
photon.
>>> >> Nowhere near as far
>>> >> as for a stronger beam.
>>>
>>> >Yes, exactly as far apart. The histogram of
>>> >individual photon impact locations precisely
>>> >duplicates the intensity curve for a bright
>>> >source.
>>>
>>> This doesn't worry me....
>>
>>I didn't think it would but it is an experimental
>>observation which is one of the fundamental drivers
>>of all particle-based theories, you need to take ]
>>it into account, that's all.
>
> I have. the 'influence of a photon extends virtually to infininty....or at
> least until its field becomes 'fragmented'.
> The more I think about my WDT idea the more I like it. Fields cannot go on
> forever according to he inverse square law.
Sort of. Think of a stream of particles from a point
source. At 10m away, the flux is 1000 particles
per cm^2 per second. At 100m, that drops to 10
particles per cm^2 per second, but what about
one light year away? The mean flux is the same
number of particles divided by the larger surface
area of the 1 light year radius sphere, but the
vast majority of 1 cm^2 areas on the surface will
not receive a particle in 1 second. That's how you
convert the classical "field" approach into a
particle approach.
> I say the field from say, an
> individual charge gets lost amongst all the other fields in quite a short
> distance.
I say light is particles, not classical waves so
there are no "fields" other than as a term denoting
the aggregated effect of the particles. The
conservation of the number of particles as they
pass through spherical shells of increasing
radius and hence surface area is what causes
the classical fields to be inverse square.
> ..not too short becasue we know how far radio waves can travel....
>
>
>>> >Physics IS maths applied to observables, nothing
>>> >more. What you are looking for is philosophy, not
>>> >science.
>>>
>>> George, I don't know where you learnt all these strange ideas.
>>
>>I went to university and took a degree course in
>>physics.
>
> You must have failed if you were forced to become an engineer instead....
Upper second honours, as a design engineer I design
what goes into ICs, currently FPGAs for low volume,
high value contracts. Sadly the word "engineer" is
a very broad-brush term in English.
>>You would have had a course on epistemology
>>and the history of physics as a first year student
>>if you had done a degree too.
>
> :)
>
>>> Your error is that you are so indoctrinated with Einsteiniana that you
>>> incapable of undestanding that lengths are absolute and the same in all
>>> frames.
>>> You keep repeating SR principles in an attempt to disprove the BaTh.
>>
>
>>> Star curves are all well away from the conditions for multiple imagery.
>>>
>>> I accept there is a group like S Cas with reported mag variations of
>>> around 7-9
>>> that cannot be explained with the simple c+v model but that doesn't mean
>>> it is
>>> wrong.
>>
>>But they can easily be explained by c+v Henry, they
>>just need a speed equalisation distance a little
>>bit longer than the mag 5 case.
>
> No the problem is the curve becomes peaked.
Indeed, so it is non-Keplerian, so all light curves
should be non-Kelperian to some extent. That's why
you should show residuals instead of you 'matching'
curves, they are always there and you need to show
they are below the noise in any published paper.
> I suspect the phenomenon may be caused by the 'weakening' of light as it
> travels.
That only happens in classical theory, in a particle
based model energy and momentum must be conserved
for each particle and it is the way they spread out
over distance that weakens them.
Remember the photoelectric effect, a photon of some
frequency from a star has the same energy as one of
a similar frequency generated in the lab.
> ....assume loss is inversely related to all the EM flux in one
> direction...which in most of space can mean that from only one star.
> ...so what appears as 'mag 10' might really be 'mag 5' that has lost most
> of
> its power along the way.
>
>
> I have a way to check that theory and will get onto it soon.
You don't have a theory to check - no equation so
no predictions that can be tested.
>>> >> >I don't need to Henry, statistically the dsistance
>>> >> >range between multiple images and neglible luminosity
>>> >> >effects is only about 2:1.
>>>
>>> >> that's wrong for a start...
>>>
>>> >Try the sums Henry, I gave you the table of values
>>> >but you can't even do simple arithmetic.
>>>
>>> Have you heard of elliptical orbits George?
>>
>>Yes Henry, so tell me, do they have a value for
>>peak acceleration twoards the observer or don't
>>they? If so look up that number in my table.
>
> George, unless you include about five variables in your equations you are
> wasting your time..... that's what I'm trying to tell you.
That you would try to tell me that makes it
perfectly clear you have never done any physics
in your life. You have _all_ the information you
need to solve the exam question and I have given
you lots of hints on how to do it but you are
completely clueless about the process. The approach
is _identical_ to the worked example I gave you
when I explained how to derive Eqn [3] of your
theory but the whole thing remians beyond you.
>>> >> and it depends very much on eccentricity and yaw
>>> >> angle.
>>>
>>> >Nope, not in the slightest. You really don't
>>> >understand your theory at all.
>>>
>>> You haven't a clue George. Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a little
>>> kid.
>>
>>Says the man who can't convert magnitude to linear
>>and then work out a simple inverse.
>
> George, my program gives both log and linear mags.
> Who do you think programmed the bloody thing.
I'm starting to wonder since you told me my table
of numbers was wrong.
>>> Reverse the ellipse and you will get an entirely different star curve.
>>
>>Sure, you also get an entirely different value for
>>peak acceleration which you could also look up in
>>the table. That doesn't alter the fact that you
>>can't work out the numbers in the table.
>
> ......you are wasting your time fiddling with trivial equations.
That is the science we call physics.
> I'm lightyears ahead of you already.
In 17th century philosophy, you might well be,
but you have never done any physics.
>>> >No, it has everything to do with the fact
>>> >that SR is correct and ADoppler doesn't ex
>>>
>>> Sagnac proves SR is wrong.
>>
>>Wrong again, your diagram proves it right.
>
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
Yep, you have two different answers for the
same calulation on the same page, you don't
get much more obvious than that. Animate
your "toothed wheels" and you'll find out
which is correct.
>>> Photons can pass other photons just as cars can pass other cars...but
>>> they
>>> don't turn inside out when it happens....
>>
>>Your equations say a single photon turns inside
>>out when the distance exceeds c^2/A where A is
>>the acceleration when it was emitted. The
>>shortest value of that distance corresponds to
>>the highest value of A and is where multiple
>>images occur, that is the distance in the table.
>
> My photons are damped, plastic, nonelastic ones.
Your theory does not permit anything like that
but it does say a photon can reverse end-for-end
if emitted from a source accelerating towards the
observer given sufficient distance.
Remember your theory consiste of nothing more than
equations [2] and [3] and the Galilean transforms.
>>> >> >Dispersion is proportional to distance, it spends
>>> >> >all its time in a refractive index that varies
>>> >> >with frequency.
>>>
>>> >> Space below the WDT doesn't have an RI....and that's most of it.
>>>
>>> >Space has an RI, that's what causes dispersion, so
>>> >observationally none of it is below any threshold,
>>> >but anyway there is no threshold in your theory so
>>> >what are you talking about?
>>>
>>> 'dispersion' is not the same as 'slowing' George even if it is vaguely
>>> related.
>>
>>It is not related in the slightest Henry, it
>>refers to the variation of refractive index with
>>frequency. The point is that it proves the
>>refractive index is slightly less than 1 over
>>the entire journey.
>
> really George, you should know better than this.
> Dispersion simply means a general broadening of an original parallel light
> beam
> with travel.
No, you haven't learned the astronomical jargon.
Dispersion means that different frequencies travel
at different speeds so that the click you would
hear in a radio receiver close to a pulsar becomes
a decsending (I think) whistle when heard from a
distance, or one click before the other if you
listen through two narrowband receivers. The time
between the clicks depends on the frequency
difference and is proportional to the distance to
the star.
> Whatever causes it could easily contribute to speed unification as well.
The ISM (matter) causes it.
>>> >What you expect does not happen, the dispersion
>>> >is roughly proportional to the distance so it
>>> >_does_ happen over the whole path, your
>>> >expectations are wrong again.
>>>
>>> Dispersion will occur over much of the path but that is not necessarily
>>> the
>>> principle factor in type2 unification.
>>
>>The two are essentially unrelated.
>
> How do you know?
The terms describe different effects, one real
and the other your fantasy. Interactions with
the ISM is a common cause but the effects are
not related.
>>> That's what I'm saying...
>>
>>What I am saying is that dispersion requires a
>>"refractive index in the normal sense" hence an
>>index applies over the whole journey.
>
> that's an oversimplification and an over generalisation.
No, it is very simple. Dispersion is caused by
different frquencies travelling at different
speeds, and if you divide that speed by c, you
get the refractive index.
> ..and it's also probably overly wrong....
It is the _definition_ of "refractive index".
>>> You have to accept that there are probably other relevant factors about
>>> which
>>> we know nothing.
>>
>>No, the scientific method says we do not
>>invent unknowns until they are proven.
>
> ...says the engineer again...
Says Occam's Razor which is science, not
it application.
>>You do the analysis they way I an teching
>>you and then any discrepancy is used to
>>find the next level. You should have done
>>a course on physics.
>
> George, a physicist operates regularly through pure speculation....
No, a physicist works through maths, philosophers
speculate then expect someone else to do the
physics for them.
> then tests
> that speculation against observation.
> Intelligent speculation requires imagination and creativity that engineers
> don't need and generally lack.
ROFL, you have that _completely_ the wrong way round :-)
We engineers get Ohm's Law from the physicists and have
to turn it into a saleable product, _that_ requires the
imagination and creativity!
>>> >> However I would prefer accurate figures for true source velocity
>>> >> rather that
>>> >> willusory ones.
>>>
>>> >The formula for r(s) does not need that information,
>>> >you are just stalling becaue you cannot do it.
>>>
>>> I can do it all right...it's quite trivial really.
>>
>>Then why spend ten times longer making up excuses?
>
> I have other more important things to do, eg.,:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
>
>>> Dispersion is just a 'random
>>> walk' type of thing....
>>
>>Wrong, that would blur images.
>
> It does.
That is not observed.
>>> But dispersion is not what we want to know about..
>>
>>Correct, we want the ballistic theory equation
>>for r(s), nothing more, and I have told you how
>>to go about it. You are incapable of doing it.
>
> I'd probably just try an exponential relationship first..
ROFL, totally clueless! Thanks for that Henry,
that is a real classic :)
George
T.M. Sommers
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:11:33 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:00:32 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You started the new thread; you don't get to tell people to
>>>>search the archives.
>>>
>>>If you don't study a NG for some time before you join it you will make a fool
>>>of yourself by continuously reinventing the wheel.
>>
>>If you start a brand new thread about a subject that has been
>>discussed before, you have no right to demand that people not ask
>>you questions because you answered them before. You reopened the
>>topic; you deal with it now.
>>
>>Now, where are your equations?
>
> I prefer animations.
Then don't be surprised when no one takes you seriously. That is
not the way scientific theories are presented. You have to have
some equations in mind to write your little programs. That you
don't want anyone to see those equations speaks volumes. What
are you trying to hide?
> You recall that old proverb, "A picture speaks a thousand
> words".
Pictures can also lie. It is much harder to lie with math.
George Dishman
"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 05:06:11 -0700, George Dishman
> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 4 Oct, 09:38, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>> George, have you ever seen a chain saw?
>>> Do you really think the number of teeth in the blade depends on the
>>> speed it
>>> moves?
>>
>>Henry, have you ever seen a chain saw? Do you really
>>think the distance the teeth move in a given time
>>doesn't depends on the speed it moves?
>
> That's irrelevant.
> The only thing we are interested in is the number of teeth around the
> loop....a
> loop that varies when the whole chain saw is rotated ....because the start
> and
> end points used to 'count the teeth' are then not he same.
The only thing we are interested in is the phase
of the teeth on arrival. If they arrive together
you get constructive interference - a bright fringe.
See Jerry's animation which demonstrates what
ballistic theory predicts:
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm
>>The whole point of the above diagrams is to point
>>out that the distance between the waves (wavelength)
>>is _not_ the same as the distance moved in the period.
>>You used one value when you shoul have been using the
>>other. The reason is that you are incapable of doing
>>basic algebra so you didn't _derive_ your equation
>>mathematically, you just guessed using the wavelength
>>would be right. Well it isn't, you screwed up again.
>
> You keep introducing time when the only criterion is distance.
Phase is the only criterion that matters, in phase means
peaks arrive _simultaneously_ which is determined by time.
>>> >> This means that ballistic theory predicts a null effect for sagnac.
>>>
>>> This meamns I would have a more intelligent conversation talkingto two
>>> monkeys.
>>
>>I'm sure you would think you were, they wouldn't
>>be forever correcting your endless errors.
>
> try to understand my 'spinning wheel' message George.
See Jery's animation linked above. If the speed were
such that a whole number of waves fitted round the
circumference, it would be a perfect illustration
of your wheels and shows exactly what I told you in
words.
George
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
I had a good laugh...don't need another one...
>>>The whole point of the above diagrams is to point
>>>out that the distance between the waves (wavelength)
>>>is _not_ the same as the distance moved in the period.
>>>You used one value when you shoul have been using the
>>>other. The reason is that you are incapable of doing
>>>basic algebra so you didn't _derive_ your equation
>>>mathematically, you just guessed using the wavelength
>>>would be right. Well it isn't, you screwed up again.
>>
>> You keep introducing time when the only criterion is distance.
>
>Phase is the only criterion that matters, in phase means
>peaks arrive _simultaneously_ which is determined by time.
George, during constant rotation speeds, the fringe pattern doesn't change or
move.
The phase relationship at one particular spot on the detector remains the same
at any particular speed but that relationship IS velocitty dependent.
>>>> >> This means that ballistic theory predicts a null effect for sagnac.
>>>>
>>>> This meamns I would have a more intelligent conversation talkingto two
>>>> monkeys.
>>>
>>>I'm sure you would think you were, they wouldn't
>>>be forever correcting your endless errors.
>>
>> try to understand my 'spinning wheel' message George.
>
>See Jery's animation linked above. If the speed were
>such that a whole number of waves fitted round the
>circumference, it would be a perfect illustration
>of your wheels and shows exactly what I told you in
>words.
But the number of waves around the circumference changes with speed because the
path lengths change and wavelength is absolute and invariant.
My simple advice to you is DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES.