I'm reposting this as it is on my server but still
hasn't appeared in the Google group two days after
it was posted. Apologies to anyone getting two
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 00:31:51 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:50:45 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>>I'm trying to discuss it sensibly but all you
>>>>do is endlessly repeat your claim that photon
>>>>wavelength doesn't change which contradicts
>>>>the ballistic theory we were discussing. I've
>>>>proved that algebraically, logically using the
>>>>example of a transmitter on Mercury and using
>>>>Fourier analysis which you claim to know, and
>>>>you have ignored all of those and all you can
>>>>offer in return is "photons are like cars on
>>>>a motorway". Analogies are only useful when
>>>>they have the same properties as the subject
>>>>being explained, and your choice of cars is
>>>>inappropriate for something that changes length.
>>> The ballistic photon is a separate entity altogether.
>>> It doesn't change as it moves inertially.
>>Henry, you are doing the same thing again, you
>>are just making an arbitrary statemen without
>>showing where it comes from. I just said I've
>>shown you three different ways that the same
>>Doppler shift has to apply to single frequencies
>>as applies to pulses in ballistic theory and all
>>you have done is contradict that. If you want me
>>to take you seriously, show me how you worked
>>that out from the theory.
> What you have shown is not related to the model I am trying to discuss but
> which you will not even acknowledge.
I discussed it later in the same post to which
you are replying and reminded you that I have
discussed it previously.
>>> The 'colour' of light determined by the properties of individual
>>Yes, I agree that. If we look at a spectral line
>>from a star, we see the wavelength or equivalently
>>the frequency can be shifted and that affects
>>colour. What you can't tell in ballistic theory
>>without more information is whether that is diue
>>solely to velocity or partly to acceleration.
> George, the initial shift has an acceleration term. I know that...but it
> doesn't have 'observer distance' in it.
Sorry? The equation is
f' / f = c(c+v)/(c^2-da)
The term "da" is the observer distance multiplied by
the acceleration and neither term appears anywhere
else so it cannot be affected by one without being
affected by the other.
> The photon's intrinsic frequency doesn't change after it has left the
Why don't you tell me why you think that instead of
just repeating it endlessly as an act of faith. You
cannot derive it from ballistic theory so do you
think you can show it from an experiment? If not
what is your reason for the assumption?
> In fact nothing about the photon changes unless it changes speed, in which
> its 'intrinsic wavelength' (seration spacing) may permanently alter.
>>>>> Your whole aim here seems to be to inhibit the progress of people who
>>>>> endeavouring to correct a blatant mistake that has handicapped physics
>>>>> a hundred years.
>>>>No, my aim is to teach you how to use scientific
>>>>methods to analyse a theory and provide with some
>>>>data you might not otherwise be aware of. I doubt
>>>>you would have recognised how J1909-3744 could be
>>>>used to test ballistic theory if I hadn't pointed
>>> You are not even trying to consider my model. ...a model that works.
>>I _am_ considering ballistic theory. Your ideas on
>>photons conflict with ballistic theory so either I
>>abandon considering that and switch to your photon
>>model or I ignore the photons. Since we have been
>>talking about ballistic theory for months, I have
>>chosen to stick with that. I did consider you theory
>>briefly, the result I found is that if photons don't
>>change wavelength then the speed of all pulses from
>>a pulsar must be equal which rules out ballistic
> You are basing your argument and maths on the assumption that one end of a
> photon will continue to move at a different speed from the other end.
No. I am basing the argument on the postulate of
ballistic theory that one signal, such as a pulse
from a pulsar or the 'news headlines on the hour'
carried by a radio station travels at a speed
which is influenced by the speed of the emitter.
> I have
> explaind that this is not the model I am using.
And I have explained that since that contradicts
the postulate of ballistic theory, I have to treat
it as an alternative. I have dealt with both but
separately since they cannot be merged.
> Photons do not change in any way after they leave the source.
>>>>If you were really interested in sensible discussion
>>>>we could still look at the pulse rate because you
>>>>agree that pulse bunching results from acceleration
>>>>but it seems you would rather run away than risk
>>>>learning something new. That's your choice, I can
>>>>show you how to determine extinction distance from
>>>>J1909-3744, you couldn't even work out the FM
>>> George I understand perfectly what you are saying. You obviously don't
>>> want to try to understand my position because it conflicts with your
>>You obviously don't understand, I am saying that your
>>photon model is simply SR. If the Doppler is independent
>>of distance then I have shown mathematically that the
>>speed of the photons must be independent of the speed
>>of the source. You could do the same yourself if you
>>understood Fourier analysis as you claim.
> This is nonsense of the first degree.
It is a mathematical fact, you should not even
need to be told if you undrstand Fourier analysis.
>>>>I'll leave you to it Henry if you would rather have
>>>>a program that makes pretty pictures based on fantasy
>>>>than an accurate simulation of ballistic theory so
>>>>you can fan your ego, that seems to be all you are
>>>>interested in, but make no mistake, everyone reading
>>>>this thread now knows your program is worthless as it
>>>>stands, and the results entirely unrepresentative of
>>> The 'pretty pictures' happen to match observed curves. ..so the theory
>>> the evidence.
>>> How many time have I heard that this is what science is all about?
>>That's right but we have already seen ballistic theory
>>fails to match Sagnac, Ives-Stilwell and predicts an
>>advance for the Shapiro effect when we know it is
>>observed to be a delay.
> more nonsense...
Again statements of fact.
>>Comparing theories to observation is what science is about
>>but your program doesn't represent the theory. You have
>>taken a Doppler equation that relies on SR's invariant
>>speed and assumed a time of arrival of the signal that
>>relies on ballistic theory's speed of propagation, the
>>velocity curve is a mix of the two. The intensity curve
>>is OK though.
>>Even if the pictures matched the observations for variable
>>stars, the theory may not match but we can't tell from
>>your program as it stands because your program doesn't
>>match ballistic theory. In fact I have shown that the
>>amount of intensity variation from ballistic theory is so
>>small that it is in the measurement noise and neither
>>supports nor falsifies the theory, the effect is just too
>>small to measure.
> You relaly should give up George. You are becoming quite incoherent now.
It's not my problem if you cannot follow simple
maths. An orbital speed of 300km/s is 0.1%c and
a change of 0.2%c peak-to-peak is 0.0022 magnitude
considering photon arrival rate only.
>>If you were serious about this, you would agree to disagree
>>on the photon bit and then continue our discussion on the
>>pulse rate where we are in agreement on the correct
>>equation. We know the 339Hz PRF is modulated at 31.2mHz
>>amplitude and we agree time compression applies so why
>>not continue from there?
> I know my model and I know that the computer does the correct simulation.
> I know that this model produces the right results.
So why won't you discuss the PRF? You don't disagree
my analysis of that so what are you afraid of?