|
 |
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro
From: HW@....(Henri Wilson)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 00:20:19 GMT
Local: Mon, Apr 30 2007 8:20 pm
Subject: Re: Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:16:22 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote: >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >> No George, I just do it mentally in seconds. >Then why have you never realised it was orders of magnitude perfectly feasible and explains everything. ........and since you have now dropped the classical wave theory you should be able to agree with me. >>>The correspondence is a consequence of the "c+v" equation, George, you are still insisting that the wavelength changes in the observed >>>either my statement is true or false but it is a purely algebraic >>>question. If it is true then it is true always. >> You're talking nonsense again George. >Nope, simple maths you said you could do "mentally in seconds". >> The Bath can predict and produce luminosity variations up to about mag 3.0 >Not source velocity Henry, observed velocity. They are light will be of the same proportion as the brightness variation...a tenfold increase in brightness would also mean a doppler shift corresponding with 10c !!!!!...if the VDoppler equation was used. I have now explained why that is not true. Fractional Photon Length Change = (Bunching Factor)/K This means the observed doppler shifts are still ADoppler with regard to phase >>>Provide the equations that come from it to replace "c+v" and I will >> It doesn't replace c+v. >Below you say "Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K" >By "shrinkage" I assume you mean the wavelength of an For pulsars, we have only a 'wave' situation, not an 'individual photon' one. >>>> VDoppler is not at all important, except maybe for pulsar pulses. George, assume the observed shifts in cepheids etc., are all ADoppler. Yet the >>>Try to read more carefully Henry, "larger than". >> That's perfectly OK George. >Don't keeep repeating that error Henry, in the only OBSERVED fractional wavelength shifts are much smaller than the max/min brightness ratio. When converted to orbit speeds, via VDoppler math, the velocities are those we The truth is, the observed wavelength shifts are all ADoppler derived and are All those high (radial) velocities calculated for contact binaries could in >> That's why they are Not so George. The ADoppler shifts are always (or nearly) in phase with the >> always nearly in phase with the brightness curves and not with the source >> velocity curves. >Wrong way round Henry, the observations are always in brightness curves. You are confusing this factor with my original red curve, which assumed photons were incompressible. >> I have. You didn't take any notice. >I was asking about _quantum_ equations, not the classical breakthrough! >>>> A remote atom in space emits a single light quanta. What name would you I am not talking classically. Bunching is purely ballistic. >>>> give to >>>> it George? >>>You can only treat it as a burst of waves. >> ...waves, waves?????....what's 'waving' George? >Since you are still talking classically it would be >> Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K I think you are talking about something else here. >>> v' = c + v [1] >>> dv'/ds = (c/n-v')/R [2] >>>What do you propose to replace them with? >> they don't have to be replaced. >OK, I'll leave you to calculate the new equation replacing You are asking how a photon changes when it encounters different conditions during flight, in which case bunching occurs. The factor K would imply that an RF signal, for instance, would be affected more by ADoppler than the individual photons which make it up. That could be true. How would we know? Nobody looks at individual photons when they detect RF. It might be possible to do something along these lines with Pulsar pulses, which are wide enough to provide a decent spectrum. >>>I do, but that's irrelevant. The point is that acceleration is 90 degrees You saw MY constructed curve for EF Dra. ..but I don't know the actual shape >>>out of phase with velocity (for a circular orbit) and the observeration >>>is of VDoppler only. >> It appears to be mainly VDoppler for pulsars and maybe contact binaries >Yes you do, you have the curves for EF Dra and probably behind the eclipsed part. >> It does NOT appear to be VDoppler for Cepheids or other variable stars. It It so happens that the VDoppler velocity curve shape and the ADoppler one are >> is >> all ADoppler. >You haven't shown a single Cepheid where the orbital phase virtually the same for certain values of eccentricity and yaw angle. That's just a strange mathematical fact....and I say one that has confused astronomers for a long time. >>>> Incidentally, the harmonic could be result from egg shaped stars in You're changing the subject. >>>> tidal lock. >>>Show the maths Henry. >> Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K >No Henry, pay attention. Show your mathematical proof that The answer should be pretty obvious anyway. >>>> Concentrate on the rubber photon theory George. All values of c+v, c+v1, c+v2.....c+vn will alter by about the same 'bunching >>>Tell me what is is then, where are you new equations. >> Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K >Carry on then, c+v is replaced by .... (show your working). factor' as they negotiate much the same 'space swirl'. >>>> >Nope, that doesn't do it. What you need to do is choose a George, as I explained to Bob, our own sun would appear variable to an observer >>>> >particular star or Cepeheid or binary or pulsar or whatever >>>> >you like and show that the phase is 90 degrees out from the >>>> >VDoppler only curve. >>>> Explained by the rubber photon theory George. >>>Sorry, you still haven't shown a single case that can't be explained >> George, typical star magnitude changes cannot be even approached with >Intrinsic variability explains them. The only way to prove it 50000 LYs away simply due to its small, long period orbit around the sun/Jupiter barycentre. >>>> >You have not put forward any theory whatsoever. In fact it Now you're back to classical wave theory. >>>> >was _I_ who put forward the BaTh theory for you! I have posted >>>> >the two equations a number of times so I won't repeat them >>>> >but you have offered no alternative to them so don't claim >>>> >you have. >>>Still waiting. >> Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K >> As the photons aggregate, each individual photon shrinks a little due to >Sorry, it doesn't. Do a Fourier analysis. The same factor >You could hand-wave it to say I explained, above. >that the pressure resists the bunching as well as reducing >the compression. A hand-waving guess would then be that c+v >will become (c+v)/K (my eqn [1])but you need to do the maths >properly to find out what happens to [2]. >> But what is also obserevd are magnitude changes that are 1000 times bigger >No Henry, those are intrinsic, "huff-puff" as you call it. analogous to orbiting eccentrically as far as radial velocity is concerned. The BaTh DOES however provide a perfectly sound and accurate expanation for the brightness variation, something no other theory can do. >> George, there are PHOTONS...and there are GROUPS OF PHOTONS. >No, but the aggregate wavelength of a groups of photons provide a few details. What is the PM measuring?..an oscillating light beam? >> You can have one XRay photon or one high energy gamma ray photon...or you That's OK. >> can >> thousands grouped together to make a super powerful xray or gamma....but >> grouping them doesn't change the wavelength much. >No, but the energy in the beam is deposited at the place Perfectly in accord with hte P.E. effect. >> George, we know that classical wave theory breaks down at the quantum >OK, show me a set of probability equations that apply to >> That theory might works for GROUPS of photons...but not for individual >If you ever produce a quantum version, you write down the >> INDIVIDUAL Photon shrinkage = (bunching factor)/K There is no conflict with energy conservation. >OK, so first what is the "bunching factor" for a single >> Hey that's wrong. ..and nobody has a hydrodynamic theory that even comes close to explaining >> All cepheid curves have ADoppler phasing....when the observed spectra are >> analysed with VDoppler methods, that is. >Sorry Henry, all Cepheids have intrinsic variability and INTRINSIC Cepheid brightness variations. >>>> There is no speed term in the grating equations. There is 'frequency of wavecrest arrival'. >>>You haven't written the ballistic theory equations yet Henry, speed >> I'm talking about classical theory not BaTh.. >So wa I. You haven't applied your current classical BaTh to >>>There is only one set of equations Henry, and a photon is just a short Hardly... >>>length >>>of a few thousand cycles cut from a macroscopic wave in ballistic theory >>>so >>>the factors can only be identical. >> No. >Yes, in your current theory. It is purely wave based. The bunching part is...but the photon shrinkage is more a mechanical effect. >>>I don't need to know the velocity, only the phase matters and it matches I haven't seen a velocity curve for Algol. >>>VDoppler not ADoppler. If the ADoppler contributed a tenth of the VDoppler >>>then the phase would shift by about 6 degrees relative to the time of the >>>eclipse and that is independent of the velocity. >> I gather you are refering to short period eclipsing binaries... >You seem to have lost the context, this refers to EF Dra >> where we know >If you think you have evidence for a phase difference >>>> >You miss the point, if photons were incompressible there would VDoppler can't match brightness curves...not even to 0.01%. VDoppler is >>>It is always dominant in observations. >> Negligible. >No dominant, ADoppler < VDoppler * 1% in all cases so far. negligible. >> Ps=Bf/K >Just meaningless letters Henry, what is Bf in terms of >> ...observed spectral shift is now correct in phase and magnitude. >Correct for VDoppler, yes. produce a whole range of brightness curves that match obseerved ones and I can also match observed spectra with those curves. >>>Nice that you can tell what the result is before having an equation when I get time. >>>to analyse. Clairvoyant are you? >> I sense a sqrt somewhere. >Tough, show your working. >> The real point is exactly what I am emphasizing. >Garbage, a length doesn't contract. Objects might. You exlained to me that the length between pulsar pulses should continue to contract during flight according to the BaTh. Have you forgotten? I have merely pointed out to you that the proportional change in length will >> The radial acceleration is NOT constant around an orbit. We are really talking about bunching in time, not space. >So what, I told you days ago the difference in _speed_ is Consider an orbit with zero phase nearest observer. A pulse is emitted at 0 and another at 1 degree. Acceleration is maximum as is Similarly a photon emitted between say 0 and 0.0000000001, will have a get it now? >>>No Henry, I just don't know what you think "change in length of a I am saying George, that a photon is a discrete entity, with length and cross >>>short radial length" has to do with radial acceleration. You seem >>>to have gone off onto another subject entirely. >> I'm talking about your classical wave approach. >Yes, in YOUR theory, the ends are launched at different speeds. >Ot perhaps you are thinking that the middle of the photon section as well an intrinsic structure and properties that give it a particle like quality. I am saying that movement between 'photons ends' is either dampened very >> You showed weeks ago why you thought a photon would shrink in the same It still has an intrinsic oscillation...but this has been affected by its >> proportion to the group. >> I'm showing you that if da/dt <>0 then this does not hold. >The _mean_ wavelength of the photon would be the same as the permanent length change.. >However, if you want to get to that level of detail, calculate My program already includes random distribution of molecular velocities for >the acceleration distribution of the indiviual atoms in the >photosphere of a star and see what spread you should get in the >ADoppler factor. ;-) diffrent temperatures. It's prety rough but provides an indication of what to expect. >> The proportional change will be the same only if the acceleration is That equation applies to pulses but not to individual photons. >> constant. >> You even provided the math for this once. >If you mean f'/f = c(c+v)/(c^2-da), yes that's right for You need the factor K. >> No. I find it quite obvious....but you're being deliberately stubborn >Your waffle about shrinking lengths was incomprehensible, why I mean the bloody thing DOES shrink but by a lot less than the distance between >>>> I was thinkinig of transmission gratings actually. Well this is another factor. I presume it becomes c/n. >>>Good point, what does ballistic theory say for the speed then? >> In remote space, c+v naturallly. >No, no, what does BaTh say for the change of speed of the I must p[oint out that I have discused grating before and I was the one who wanted reflection gratings not transmission gratings, for this very reason. >You should also think about how BaTh would deal with a One day George...but I don't see how my theory would violate any of these. >"quarter-wave" plate, dichroic mirrors, and so on. >> At ground level on Earth, it is c/n wrt the Don't you know the equation for diffraction angle for a reflection grating >> surface....but the wavelengths will have adjusted accordingly to still >> produce >> the right doppler shifts. >> However, if I move the grating away from the star at v.....???? What >> should >> happen George? >They're your equations Henry, you tell me. George? It's pretty simple. >>>> but no matter, in either case the light's wavelength is not affectd by No, the light initially arrives at c+v and certain diffraction angles are >>>> the >>>> movement of the grating. >>>That may or may not be true. >> How could remote light be affected by the movement of the grating? >I explained before, if you light arrives at c and the recorded, indicative of doppler shift. Then the grating is moved at v so the light now arrives at c. I'm asking why the angles should change when the equation does not contain a light speed term. >>>What is true is that the frequency at I think I'll start a new thread on gratings. >>>in the grating frame is not affected by reflection but if the >>>reflected >>>speed changes then the process will alter the wavelength. >> We in BaTh like to hear this kind of talk. >That's because I am describing the BaTh predictions, have >> We have always said grating wortk on If perpendicular light is directed towards a grating the diffraction angles for >> FREQUENCY not wavelength. >To naive Henry, the correct statement is that the combination reinforcement of particular wavelengths are just a lambda, cos theta thing. Note curved gratings are preferable to focus each colour. >> Thank you George. You are coming around... Including SR....and it still is.. >I think that aspect is the same in all the theories. >>>> >Then it is wrong, the variation is fixed by the green curve >>>> All has now been explained by the rubber photon theory.. >>>ROFL, Henry you are hilarious at times. Where are the equations ? :-) >> Throughout history, all major breakthroughs were initially ridiculed. >So were all the screw-ups. >> Ps=Bf/K This 'K' is not something we know much about George. >> Mind you, K might not be a constant but a function of other >Nope, K=1 from the first order measured VDoppler. >>>> ....thanks for your assistance George. De Sitter was te crank. >>>A true delight Henry. >> Throughout history, all major breakthroughs were initially ridiculed. >So were the cranks, the difference is cranks propose The BaTh has never been proved wrong. Every experiment I know of supports the BaTh. It is obviously correct. >>>Not "linked with" Henry, it is nothing but classical! You never >> The particle/wave duality is finally explained. >ROFL, go ahead, show how you derive the photo-electric shifted light? >George www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother. You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||