"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:49:35 -0000, "George Dishman"
> <[email protected]>
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:02:02 -0000, "George Dishman"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>I don't blame you, I already gave up.
>>> May I now complicate the whole issue by rejuvenating my 'serated bullet'
>>I don't think so, this is just more handwaving.
> No it isn't. It is quite a sound theory.
Show the equations then, forget the handwaving.
>>decides he can behave in a reasonable manner and thinks
>>about my question, we can move on and I will address his
>>request to try to create an analogy with the bullets.
>>I would rather you went back to our conversation which
>>Jim interrupted, looking at the pulses from the pulsar
>>in a binary system and how your program can model their
>>arrival times. That is like bullets from a machine gun
>>on a carousel in the ballistic light model but each
>>round represents a multi-megaton blast, not a photon.
> George, the pulsar must be orbiting something for my program to throw any
> on why its pulses appear to behave as they do.
It is orbiting a low mass white dwarf based on
it's spectrum. See fig 3 of:
> Please give me the reference again.
The pulsar is J1909-3744. The paper I looked at before
but I think the discussion was prompted by a paper
forwarded by Andrew Yee.
>>> Consider photons as resembling bullets that have regular bumps or
>>> along them.
>>> The 'frequency' that an observer measures is the rate at which the
>>> arrive. Obviously that is proportional to both the speed of the bullets
>>> and the
>>> number of bumps per unit length along the bullet.
>>> IT IS NOT RELATED TO THE FEQUENCY OF ARRIVAL OF THE BULLETS THEMSELVES.
>>> The serations might represent some kind of standing wave structure along
>>> photon. ..or something like Len Gaasenbeek's helical wave.
>>It's all just fishing, work out the equations and apply
>>them to Sagnac, MMX, Ives-Stilwell etc. and then you
>>would have something to talk about.
> The BaTh explains all of these.
No it doesn't, stop wasting time. Ballistic theory
gets Sagnac and Ives-Stilwell wrong. You know that,
it's why your looking for "photon drag" to correct
the Sagnac failure. Ballistic theory (Ritz) predicts
a null as it stands.