"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 12:07:11 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 11:56:35 +0100, "George Dishman"
Much history trimmed, we know what the problem is
>>> ... Forget Ritz and Einstein. Talk
>>> about the WSCSBaTh instead.
>>OK, your maths is wrong.
> The maths is used in my computer program.
> It simulates the curves of most variable stars.
The equations in your program are wrong. The
red curve shouldn't be (1+v/c), it should be
> How about this: the intrinsic energy of an individual photon is reflected
> the number of 'coil turns' (standing wave nodes) and the spin rate. Also
> higher the energy, the smaller the effective cross section, as in gamma
> This is not unlike Len's 'helical wave' photon idea.
How about this. When you aggregate large numbers of
photons, the results are the macroscopic behaviour
that we observe. That is accurately described by
classical wave theory so it is a constraint on your
theory that it reduces to that classical behaviour
in the limit of large numbers of photons.
>>> That doesn't alter the fact that a single 'packet of energy' from one
>>> transition in Andromeda will remain intact and independent all the way
>>Independent and intact yes, but with a changing
>>intrisic wavelength and frequency.
> Why do you say that....
Because the Doppler shift of a spectral line must
be by the same factor as the change in time between
pulses modulated onto it.
> Cosmic redshift? If so I agree. It loses energy due to a
> number of factors. Whether it actually slows down or just loses its spin
> is not something we can be certain about at present.
>>> It's all very well to apply a statistical approach to photons in the lab
>>> the above photon must be describable in terms of the physical geometry
>>> for the space between us and andromeda.
>>> My coiled spring model is a good start.
>>Whose model ?
> Mine. Why? Did someone else think of it first?
Me. You were talking of rigid bullets with serrations,
I introduced the idea of the coil that can change length
to get you round the error produced by your rigidity.
>>> George just because they are small, light and fast in our terms doesn't
>>> make them any different from anything else.
>>> Time and space axes have no absolute coordinates.
>>> 1000000000000000000hz is no stranger than 0.0000000000000001hz.
>>Exactly, the rules for gamma rays have to be the
>>same as those for the photons that form the signal
>>from BBC Radio 1.
> You don't know that.
Yes I do and so does everyone else with a clue
> For one thing they originate in entirely different ways.
They are both EM.
>>>>That's the point though, when you chop them the energy
>>>>doesn't divide, instead you get divided probabilities
>>>>so instead of a window letting half a photon through,
>>>>it has a 50% probability of letting the whole photon
>>>>through and 50% that it won't.
>>> Ah! Statistical stuff...doesn't work with a sample size of one George.
>>Yes it does, a coin has a 50% chance of landing heads
>>if you toss it once.
> But if a coin is tossed once and comes up heads, no decent statistician
> immediately claim there is a 100% chance it will always come up heads.
Nor did I.
>>>>>>Ballistic theory says nothing about photons, it
>>>>>>is purely classical. You have tried to graft the
>>>>>>idea of photons into it and you haven't got the
>>>>>>details right yet.
>>>>> George, my version of the BaTh is much more advanced that the
>>>>No, it is just contradicts it.
>>> The WSCSBaTh is the latest version.
>>It still gives a contradictory result.
> It gives the result that makes you cringe and shudder.
No, I'm just disappointed you have so little knowledge of
physics that we wasted weeks talking at cross purposes.
>>>>> I gather that was what Paul was on about too...but he didn't
>>>>> explain it as well as you did.
>>>>Thanks, hopefully you'll understand his points
>>>>better next time if you bear this in mind.
>>> By the same token, neither you nor Paul understood MY point.
>>It never crossed my mind that you wouldn't know
>>that the Doppler shift has to be the same for the
>>carrier as for the modulation, I just thought you
>>had made a slip up in your coding, but remember I
>>asked you to add a scale to the red curve so that
>>we could compare it with published values for
>>binaries over a year ago and you refused. I thought
>>you already knew it failed and were just covering
> No George. In the ballistic theory, the photons themselves do not change
> they travel due to doppler.
In any realistic ballistic theory they must. You say
they don't in your alternative to Ritz's ballistic
theory so your theory fails.
>>>>> That is correct. But real bullets are rigid George. Real photons are
>>>>> in length too.
>>>>Not according to ballistic theory, only yours.
>>> The most advanced ballistic theory is the WSCSBaTh.
>>More advanced because the coil idea allows the
>>analogy to stretch to match the way photons would
>>have to behave.
> ...behave the way they appear to behave in order to predict the brightness
> curves that match the observed curves.
> Does that constitute bad science to you George?
Yes, it is pure crank behaviour and I thought you
were better than that. You should take it to some
alt-newtheory group, it has no place here.
>>> Anything is possible in the WSCSBaTh.
>>Anything is possible in the next half hour if
>>you are watching Stingray and your ideas have
>>about as much to do with reality. Anything is
>>NOT possible when you apply maths to the
> My proram shows the results if the maths.
> It agrees with observation.
You already accepted some time ago that stars can
have intrisic variations. The maths in your program
is wrong. Correct the maths, your program will then
accurately predict the amount of intensity change
due to ballistic theory and then you can subtract
that from the observations to get the intrinsic
variablity. That would be good science.
>>> The only connection I can suggest is that the coils in the spring
>>> standing wave nodes... and the movement of this wave forms 'side bands'
>>> the average rate at which the coil turns pass an observer.
>>Analogies can only ever represent what we know.
>>What we know from Fourier analysis is that the
>>Doppler shift of spectral lines MUST be by the
>>same ratio as the time between pulses. A simple
>>example would be in a spectral line from an
>>eclipsing binary. The number of cycles of the
>>line between eclipses must be the same regardles
>>of the distance of the observer.
> You are completely missing the point George.
> The 'intrinsic' frequency of a photon is a function of its average
> velocity wrt
> the observer during its (finite) interval of creation. The acceleration of
> source is of no consequence.
No you are deliberately rejecting the point. The
Doppler shift of a carrier MUST be the same as
that of the modulation. When you reject that, your
ideas part company with the real world and become
fantasy inappropriate for sci.. groups. Analogies
cannot contradict what we know, they only aid
conveying understanding to others and sometimes
allow us to extrapolate from known situations
into more extreme conditions where testing is
impractical. Your attempts so far contradict basic
>>>>> This type of wave involves the synched
>>>>> interrelationship of the fields of many photons, whatever that might
>>>>Yes, that's right, what is being emitted (in the
>>>>first example) is a stream of photons some of which
>>>>are produced with a frequency of 2003000 Hz, some
>>>>of 2000000 Hz and some of 1997000 Hz.
>>> What exactly do you mean by 'frequency' here George?
>>> Are you suggesting that each photon has this 'frequency'?
>>Of course, look at how the concept of the photon
>>was derived from black body radiation.
> I think that is still a pretty grey area.
Then buy a book on physics and learn it if you
are so vague on the subject, it is a basic
> Do you see any similarity between a single gamma particle caused by a
> energy transition and a VLF radio signal? I can't.
As you said "1000000000000000000hz is no stranger
>>>>If those timestamps are the same time apart at
>>>>the receiver as they were when transmitted
>>>>(ignoring the velocity part) then there is no
>>>>bunching of timestamps or pulses from pulsars
>>>>and therefore the speed isn't c+v. Can you see
>>>>how these are intimately connected? You cannot
>>>>have bunching of pulses without having the same
>>>>Doppler shift on spectral lines.
>>> George, go away and think about the WSCSBaTh.
>>henry, go away and learm maths. Telling me to go
>>away and learn that 2+3 can be 6 if you haven't
>>been indoctrinated isn't going to improve your
> Individual photon frequency is not affected by source acceleration.
In that case the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source.
> Reconsider your own maths to suit that!
No need, Einstein already published the maths that
follows automatically from you statement.
>>>>> Sorry I cannot see what you are getting at here.
>>>>The very high Doppler shifts (pulse bunching) due
>>>>to acceleration would mean the energy of each photon
>>>>would got to infinity where fast pulses pass slow
>>>>ones. You just need a different equation to define
>>>>the energy of a photon.
>>> E= M(c+v)^2 = h. (c+v)/lambda.
>>lamda goes to zero at the critical distance for
>>photons emitted at peak acceleration.
> Forget it George. Lambda doesn't change. The photons don't shrink like
> distance between pulses does.
> You refuse to understand the model.
No I do understand the model and I'm telling you the
consequences. You don't seem to have the basic maths
tools to work it out for yourself.
> You are applying classical wave theory to
> an entirely different scenario.
>>> Note: Lambda has side bands due to summation of the longitudinal spring
>>> vibrations and the rate at which the 'coil turns' pass the observer.
>>Giberrish, the sidebands are determined by the
>>Fourier transform of the modulating waveform,
>>learn the maths Henry.
> I have someting more complicated in mind here. Forget about it for now.
>>> Experiments show that most variable star brightness curves are
>>> from purely WSCSBaTh principles.
>>Ballistic theory predicts no more than 0.0022 mag
>>variation from the fastest contact binaries, your
>>maths is wrong.
> Here we go again....irrelevant classical theory...
No, correct application of ballistic theory, not
your fantasy world in which maths doesn't apply.
>>> This pulsar is way beyond its critical distance.
>>Right, but the frequency modulation of the 339Hz pulse
>>train is a single pure sine wave of amplitude 31.2mHz.
>>You have said yourself, we don't see multiple images
>>so this tells you that your speed extinction occurs
>>over a very short distance.
> Not necessarily. We may be seeig the results of a great many multiple
No, we know we are seeing ONE image. There is a single
sine wave in the FM. If we were seeing multiple images
there would be beats in the pulse rate between the
pulse repetition frequencies (standard acronym: PRF)
emitted at different parts of the orbit. A Fourier
transform of pulses would give the red curve shown
here for enough overlap to produce a triple image
during part of the orbit:
and the PRF spectrum would alternate between one line
and three. That would be slightly beyond critical
distance. For multiple images, you get more lines
until with the several hundred that J1909-3744 should
produce they would become a band spectrum with a sharp
low frequency cutoff. Reverse transforming that would
give pink noise, a totally random pulse pattern with
no discernible timing other than a maximum gap between
pulses. What is seen is one line at 31.2mHz and a
second harmonic which if my way of estimating from the
eccentricity is right would be around 7nHz. This is how
the PRF varies over the orbit:
We are only seeing one image.
> In that case, the predicted brightness curve is quite small and has a
> rise and something like an exponential drop off. ...that is without any
Now try it for a single image with unification.
>>> My latest program (again
>>> upgraded) shows the predicted shape of pulses caused by multiple
>>> use orbits > 50).
>>Single image Henry.
> single star
>>>>Hint: start at 0.00003c, reduce in small steps and
>>>>note the trend. Extrapolate the result and try it.
>>>>Rounding errors are a problem for example try
>>>>0.00000183c to 0.00000187c in steps of 0.00000001c.
>>> I'll leave that to you george.
>>I did, that's why I know your program fails at those
>>levels. I'll leave it to you to fix it.
> You are using a different theory altogether.
The program is broken regardless. Try the numbers
>>>>Well the light from the pulsar system arrives at c
>>>>measured over a 2AU baseline so you have that to
>>>>explain as well. Let's see your maths.
>>> Whoever measured that speed to be c George.
>>It's that same pulsar again Henry, 74ns residuals in the
>>pulse sequence from J1909-3744.
> .....Yes George....but whoever directly measured its light speed George?
That IS a measure of its speed Henry.
>>> It should be c wrt the Earth once it gets into the Erth's atmosphere but
>>> doesn't mean it travels at c for the rest of its journey.
>>No, it means it travels at that speed for the 2AU
>>difference across the Solar system as it approaches
> I would like to see the proof of that.
Do some studying Henry, find out how Roemer measured
the speed of light.