
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 12:07:11 +0100, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:crt242dcjg56aaki5qdl16lbsco0mch2mg@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 11:56:35 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>Don't be silly, when Ritz wrote ballistic theory
>>>he could not have assumed that "photons are
>>>emitted instantaneously" because photons had not
>>>been discovered.
>>
>> Well bring yourself up to date George. 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.
>>>> You know my answer. The bullets don't shrink just because they move
>>>> closer
>>>> together.
>>>
>>>At that time the bullets were like your serrations.
>>>I never gave that model any real thought at the time.
>>
>> the coiled spring model has 'serations'.
>
>That's what I intended, each turn being equivalent
>to one of your serrations but allowing for variation
>of length in flight. I thought of "rubber bullets"
>to start with but they can't go to zero length and
>reverse so they didn't work as an analogy. Even the
>coil of wire isn't perfect, it can't stretch
>indefinitely as ballistic photons would. (Have you
>considered cosmological redshift?)
How about this: the intrinsic energy of an individual photon is reflected in
the number of 'coil turns' (standing wave nodes) and the spin rate. Also the
higher the energy, the smaller the effective cross section, as in gamma
particles.
This is not unlike Len's 'helical wave' photon idea.
>>
>> That doesn't alter the fact that a single 'packet of energy' from one
>> electron
>> transition in Andromeda will remain intact and independent all the way to
>> Earth.
>
>Independent and intact yes, but with a changing
>intrisic wavelength and frequency.
Why do you say that....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 energy
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
>> but
>> the above photon must be describable in terms of the physical geometry we
>> use
>> 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?
>> 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.
For one thing they originate in entirely different ways.
>>>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 would
immediately claim there is a 100% chance it will always come up heads.
>>>>>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 classical
>>>> one.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>> 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
>that up.
No George. In the ballistic theory, the photons themselves do not change as
they travel due to doppler.
>>>> That is correct. But real bullets are rigid George. Real photons are
>>>> rigid
>>>> 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?
>>
>> 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
>predictions.
My proram shows the results if the maths.
It agrees with observation.
>>
>> The only connection I can suggest is that the coils in the spring
>> represent
>> standing wave nodes... and the movement of this wave forms 'side bands'
>> with
>> 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 the
source is of no consequence.
>>>> This type of wave involves the synched
>>>> interrelationship of the fields of many photons, whatever that might
>>>> imply.
>>>
>>>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.
Do you see any similarity between a single gamma particle caused by a nuclear
energy transition and a VLF radio signal? I can't.
>>>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
>credibility.
Individual photon frequency is not affected by source acceleration.
Reconsider your own maths to suit that!
>>>>
>>>> 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 the
distance between pulses does.
You refuse to understand the model. 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
>> reproducable
>> 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...
>>
>> 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 images.
In that case, the predicted brightness curve is quite small and has a rapid
rise and something like an exponential drop off. ...that is without any speed
unification.
>
>> My latest program (again
>> upgraded) shows the predicted shape of pulses caused by multiple imagery.
>> (Just
>> 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.
>>>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 J19093744.
.....Yes George....but whoever directly measured its light speed George?
>
>> It should be c wrt the Earth once it gets into the Erth's atmosphere but
>> tat
>> 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
>Earth.
I would like to see the proof of that.
>
>George
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

