Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:21:17 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:

No it doesn't. Your theory is a single equation, v=c+u
and a second that I added regarding speed equalisation.
There is nothing in that equation relating to frequency
at all. You could aply it to a particle but there are
no intrinsic features described by the equation, or you
can use Ritz's original where the speed is that of
wavefronts in a semi-classical wave model (I say 'semi-'
because a classical wave can be described by a second
order differential while Ritz's version cannot).

now you are trying to change my model even though you don't even know what it
is.

As I said above, your model consists of only two equations,
one is the vector sum at emission:

v = c + u [1]

and the second is the scalar equation for speed equalisation

dv/ds = (c/n -v) / R [2]

That's all there is Henry, nothing more.

George, you are omitting a most important factor...the time delay between
emission of the 'pulses'.

Don't be silly, those equations apply to each pulse
or wavefront individually. If you think there needs to
be more, by all means add it but I am taking for
granted such trivia as the time between pulses or
wavefronts being the inverse of the frequency.

This gives the appearance of a moving spatial
pattern... like a moving saw blade.
It also says that observed frequency is really the 'wavecrest arrival
frequency' at the observer. The equation is f = h(c+v)/Lambda, where
Lambda is
ABSOLUTE wavelength.

There is no ABSOLUTE wavelength Henry, as the waves
speed up, according to your equation they move farther
apart so frequency is unchanged.

All lengths (spatial intervals) are absolute, George.

Sorry Henry, your religious convictions count for nothing.

George, it is simple exercise to prove that rods do not physically change when
subjected to a speed change...so any rigid rod can be used as an absolute
spatial length standard ANYWHERE.

It is also a simple exercise to show that the distance between
two pulses that pass an observer (the wavelength) is equal to
the distance moved by the first in the time until the arrival of
the second, hence wavelength varies with the speed of the
wave regradless of what you use to measure it.

That wavelength can differ from the norm in the source frame if: 1) the
source is accelerating (ADoppler x K) or 2)

That is not how K appears in the final equation,
you need to derive it properly, but that is an
aside.

It ends up with the same phase and shape of the brightness curve but much
smaller in magnitude change.

Nope, as we discussed a few days ago, for a laser it
might produce an effect similar to a standing wave, but
you need to calculate it to find out, you won't get
anywhere guessing as it is going to be very complex.

I'm not guessing, The calculation is trivial.

You are guessing, you don't have an equation to combine
photons, and in fact you don't even have an equation for
the oscillatory part of a photon. You will need to do a
statistical summation over multiple photons of time-varying
phase relationship and you don't have the basic information
needed to do that.

if light speed varies during travel

see George, you apparently cannot drag yourself away from the belief that
space
has absolute properties which detrmine light speed.

We both know that Henry, you imagine that 'absolute
property' is the Galilean Transforms, experimentally
it is the Lorentz Transforms.

Not 'experimentally'...

Yes Henry, experimentally.

never has there been an experiment that directly verifies an LT.

Sorry Henry, you lack of understanding is showing
again. Things aren't proved in science, you can only
falsify the alternatives, and there is no alternative that
hasn't been falsified.

George, run my program again:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe

Why does the light move at THAT particular speed?

For the same reason that all objects above your head have
an elevation of 90 degrees.

What is the reference?

It is the same in _every_ inertial reference frame just
as the elevation of 90 degrees for an item above you
remains if you stand on a box.

you are raving...

Simple geometry Henry, but clearly beyond you. Read
"Spacetime Physics, chapter 1 for a more detailed
explanation at a layman introductory level.

George

On 22 Aug 2007 23:34:53 -0700, George Dishman wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:21:17 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:

No it doesn't. Your theory is a single equation, v=c+u


dv/ds = (c/n -v) / R [2]

That's all there is Henry, nothing more.

George, you are omitting a most important factor...the time delay between
emission of the 'pulses'.

Don't be silly, those equations apply to each pulse
or wavefront individually. If you think there needs to
be more, by all means add it but I am taking for
granted such trivia as the time between pulses or
wavefronts being the inverse of the frequency.

George, what you are doing is trivial and primative.
I am way ahead of you.

This gives the appearance of a moving spatial
pattern... like a moving saw blade.
It also says that observed frequency is really the 'wavecrest arrival
frequency' at the observer. The equation is f = h(c+v)/Lambda, where
Lambda is
ABSOLUTE wavelength.

There is no ABSOLUTE wavelength Henry, as the waves
speed up, according to your equation they move farther
apart so frequency is unchanged.

All lengths (spatial intervals) are absolute, George.

Sorry Henry, your religious convictions count for nothing.

George, it is simple exercise to prove that rods do not physically change when
subjected to a speed change...so any rigid rod can be used as an absolute
spatial length standard ANYWHERE.

It is also a simple exercise to show that the distance between
two pulses that pass an observer (the wavelength) is equal to
the distance moved by the first in the time until the arrival of
the second, hence wavelength varies with the speed of the
wave regradless of what you use to measure it.

That's classical wave theory. ...not relevant here.
Photons are partly compressible particles.


Nope, as we discussed a few days ago, for a laser it
might produce an effect similar to a standing wave, but
you need to calculate it to find out, you won't get
anywhere guessing as it is going to be very complex.

I'm not guessing, The calculation is trivial.

You are guessing, you don't have an equation to combine
photons, and in fact you don't even have an equation for
the oscillatory part of a photon. You will need to do a
statistical summation over multiple photons of time-varying
phase relationship and you don't have the basic information
needed to do that.

I don't need it. I see the results in star brightness curves.



We both know that Henry, you imagine that 'absolute
property' is the Galilean Transforms, experimentally
it is the Lorentz Transforms.

Not 'experimentally'...

Yes Henry, experimentally.

never has there been an experiment that directly verifies an LT.

Sorry Henry, you lack of understanding is showing
again. Things aren't proved in science, you can only
falsify the alternatives, and there is no alternative that
hasn't been falsified.

George, rods do not physiclly change in any way after a velocity change.
...nor do clock rates. The proof is well known and trivial.


George, run my program again:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe

Why does the light move at THAT particular speed?

For the same reason that all objects above your head have
an elevation of 90 degrees.

What is the reference?

It is the same in _every_ inertial reference frame just
as the elevation of 90 degrees for an item above you
remains if you stand on a box.

you are raving...

Simple geometry Henry, but clearly beyond you. Read
"Spacetime Physics, chapter 1 for a more detailed
explanation at a layman introductory level.

That kind of thing might impress the gullible ....but not me George.

George



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 22 Aug 2007 23:34:53 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:21:17 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

correcting Henry's faked quote:

As I said above, your model consists of only two equations,
one is the vector sum at emission:

v = c + u [1]

and the second is the scalar equation for speed equalisation

dv/ds = (c/n -v) / R [2]

That's all there is Henry, nothing more.

George, you are omitting a most important factor...the time delay
between
emission of the 'pulses'.

Don't be silly, those equations apply to each pulse
or wavefront individually. If you think there needs to
be more, by all means add it but I am taking for
granted such trivia as the time between pulses or
wavefronts being the inverse of the frequency.

George, what you are doing is trivial and primative.

Yes, they are trivial and primitive but those
two equations are the totality of your model.

I am way ahead of you.

ROFL, you haven't even appreciated the impact of
the difference between brightness and luminosity.
Your curves are totally screwed because of that.

This gives the appearance of a moving spatial
pattern... like a moving saw blade.
It also says that observed frequency is really the 'wavecrest
arrival
frequency' at the observer. The equation is f = h(c+v)/Lambda,
where
Lambda is
ABSOLUTE wavelength.

There is no ABSOLUTE wavelength Henry, as the waves
speed up, according to your equation they move farther
apart so frequency is unchanged.

All lengths (spatial intervals) are absolute, George.

Sorry Henry, your religious convictions count for nothing.

George, it is simple exercise to prove that rods do not physically
change when
subjected to a speed change...so any rigid rod can be used as an
absolute
spatial length standard ANYWHERE.

It is also a simple exercise to show that the distance between
two pulses that pass an observer (the wavelength) is equal to
the distance moved by the first in the time until the arrival of
the second, hence wavelength varies with the speed of the
wave regradless of what you use to measure it.

That's classical wave theory.

Right, and your theory is totally classical.

...not relevant here.
Photons are partly compressible particles.

You have no particle equations, only the two above
which are a modification of Ritz's classical theory.

Nope, as we discussed a few days ago, for a laser it
might produce an effect similar to a standing wave, but
you need to calculate it to find out, you won't get
anywhere guessing as it is going to be very complex.

I'm not guessing, The calculation is trivial.

You are guessing, you don't have an equation to combine
photons, and in fact you don't even have an equation for
the oscillatory part of a photon. You will need to do a
statistical summation over multiple photons of time-varying
phase relationship and you don't have the basic information
needed to do that.

I don't need it.

You do, or you cannot even predict that interference
will occur with a grating.

I see the results in star brightness curves.

Those are entirely size and temperature driven.
Remove those effects and there is no residual
variation for ballistic theory.

We both know that Henry, you imagine that 'absolute
property' is the Galilean Transforms, experimentally
it is the Lorentz Transforms.

Not 'experimentally'...

Yes Henry, experimentally.

never has there been an experiment that directly verifies an LT.

Sorry Henry, you lack of understanding is showing
again. Things aren't proved in science, you can only
falsify the alternatives, and there is no alternative that
hasn't been falsified.

George, rods do not physiclly change in any way after a velocity change.
..nor do clock rates. The proof is well known and trivial.

Liar, you know that GPS clocks have to be offset
to work correctly Henry, exactly as predicted by
GR (and don't say ballistic theory says the same,
it doesn't, it predicts no change in the clock
frequency).

Simple geometry Henry, but clearly beyond you. Read
"Spacetime Physics, chapter 1 for a more detailed
explanation at a layman introductory level.

That kind of thing might impress the gullible ....but not me George.

You are too clueless to understand it.

George

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:45:51 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 22 Aug 2007 23:34:53 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:21:17 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

correcting Henry's faked quote:

As I said above, your model consists of only two equations,
one is the vector sum at emission:

v = c + u [1]

and the second is the scalar equation for speed equalisation

dv/ds = (c/n -v) / R [2]

That's all there is Henry, nothing more.

George, you are omitting a most important factor...the time delay
between
emission of the 'pulses'.

Don't be silly, those equations apply to each pulse
or wavefront individually. If you think there needs to
be more, by all means add it but I am taking for
granted such trivia as the time between pulses or
wavefronts being the inverse of the frequency.

George, what you are doing is trivial and primative.

Yes, they are trivial and primitive but those
two equations are the totality of your model.

I am way ahead of you.

ROFL, you haven't even appreciated the impact of
the difference between brightness and luminosity.
Your curves are totally screwed because of that.

It would make little difference even if the stars DID expand slightly.


There is no ABSOLUTE wavelength Henry, as the waves
speed up, according to your equation they move farther
apart so frequency is unchanged.

All lengths (spatial intervals) are absolute, George.

Sorry Henry, your religious convictions count for nothing.

George, it is simple exercise to prove that rods do not physically
change when
subjected to a speed change...so any rigid rod can be used as an
absolute
spatial length standard ANYWHERE.

It is also a simple exercise to show that the distance between
two pulses that pass an observer (the wavelength) is equal to
the distance moved by the first in the time until the arrival of
the second, hence wavelength varies with the speed of the
wave regradless of what you use to measure it.

That's classical wave theory.

Right, and your theory is totally classical.

Newtonian?....more Willsonian....

...not relevant here.
Photons are partly compressible particles.

You have no particle equations, only the two above
which are a modification of Ritz's classical theory.

Drop that rubber ball in the ocean again...

Nope, as we discussed a few days ago, for a laser it
might produce an effect similar to a standing wave, but
you need to calculate it to find out, you won't get
anywhere guessing as it is going to be very complex.

I'm not guessing, The calculation is trivial.

You are guessing, you don't have an equation to combine
photons, and in fact you don't even have an equation for
the oscillatory part of a photon. You will need to do a
statistical summation over multiple photons of time-varying
phase relationship and you don't have the basic information
needed to do that.

I don't need it.

You do, or you cannot even predict that interference
will occur with a grating.

I have provided my equation. It explains why gratings detect doppler on the
HST.

I see the results in star brightness curves.

Those are entirely size and temperature driven.
Remove those effects and there is no residual
variation for ballistic theory.

Gas temperature falls during an expansion, George.

We both know that Henry, you imagine that 'absolute
property' is the Galilean Transforms, experimentally
it is the Lorentz Transforms.

Not 'experimentally'...

Yes Henry, experimentally.

never has there been an experiment that directly verifies an LT.

Sorry Henry, you lack of understanding is showing
again. Things aren't proved in science, you can only
falsify the alternatives, and there is no alternative that
hasn't been falsified.

George, rods do not physiclly change in any way after a velocity change.
..nor do clock rates. The proof is well known and trivial.

Liar, you know that GPS clocks have to be offset
to work correctly Henry, exactly as predicted by
GR (and don't say ballistic theory says the same,
it doesn't, it predicts no change in the clock
frequency).

That's why the GR correction is a joke. It requires that the 'velocity
component' is a REAL PHYSICAL change...when we know it cannot be.

Simple geometry Henry, but clearly beyond you. Read
"Spacetime Physics, chapter 1 for a more detailed
explanation at a layman introductory level.

That kind of thing might impress the gullible ....but not me George.

You are too clueless to understand it.

George, rods do not physically change when they experience a change in speed. I
can take a rigid rod anywhere, anyhow with the full knowledge that it is
exactly the same as it was before I left.

Do you dispute that?

George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:45:51 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On 22 Aug 2007 23:34:53 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:21:17 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

correcting Henry's faked quote:

As I said above, your model consists of only two equations,
one is the vector sum at emission:

v = c + u [1]

and the second is the scalar equation for speed equalisation

dv/ds = (c/n -v) / R [2]

That's all there is Henry, nothing more.

George, you are omitting a most important factor...the time delay
between
emission of the 'pulses'.

Don't be silly, those equations apply to each pulse
or wavefront individually. If you think there needs to
be more, by all means add it but I am taking for
granted such trivia as the time between pulses or
wavefronts being the inverse of the frequency.

George, what you are doing is trivial and primative.

Yes, they are trivial and primitive but those
two equations are the totality of your model.

I am way ahead of you.

ROFL, you haven't even appreciated the impact of
the difference between brightness and luminosity.
Your curves are totally screwed because of that.

It would make little difference even if the stars DID expand slightly.

For L Car, 12% radius and 26% area out of 33%
luminosity for K band, 5 times more than the
effect of the surface brighness change, it is
the dominant factor.

There is no ABSOLUTE wavelength Henry, as the waves
speed up, according to your equation they move farther
apart so frequency is unchanged.

All lengths (spatial intervals) are absolute, George.

Sorry Henry, your religious convictions count for nothing.

George, it is simple exercise to prove that rods do not physically
change when
subjected to a speed change...so any rigid rod can be used as an
absolute
spatial length standard ANYWHERE.

It is also a simple exercise to show that the distance between
two pulses that pass an observer (the wavelength) is equal to
the distance moved by the first in the time until the arrival of
the second, hence wavelength varies with the speed of the
wave regradless of what you use to measure it.

That's classical wave theory.

Right, and your theory is totally classical.

Newtonian?....more Willsonian....

Newtonian indeed, it assumes the Galilean Transforms.

...not relevant here.
Photons are partly compressible particles.

You have no particle equations, only the two above
which are a modification of Ritz's classical theory.

Drop that rubber ball in the ocean again...

Is that supposed to be an equation?

Nope, as we discussed a few days ago, for a laser it
might produce an effect similar to a standing wave, but
you need to calculate it to find out, you won't get
anywhere guessing as it is going to be very complex.

I'm not guessing, The calculation is trivial.

You are guessing, you don't have an equation to combine
photons, and in fact you don't even have an equation for
the oscillatory part of a photon. You will need to do a
statistical summation over multiple photons of time-varying
phase relationship and you don't have the basic information
needed to do that.

I don't need it.

You do, or you cannot even predict that interference
will occur with a grating.

I have provided my equation.

No, you provided a diagram which assume a
wavelength, but since the wave nature of light
came from the solution of Maxwell's Equations
and those don't apply to ballistic theory, you
don't have an equation for a wave. Your diagram
and associated equation would be the next step
after that.

Those are entirely size and temperature driven.
Remove those effects and there is no residual
variation for ballistic theory.

Gas temperature falls during an expansion, George.

Conventional modelling includes the thermodynamic
effects of course. As an aside, you might be
interested to find out the thermal capacity of
the plasma.

We both know that Henry, you imagine that 'absolute
property' is the Galilean Transforms, experimentally
it is the Lorentz Transforms.

Not 'experimentally'...

Yes Henry, experimentally.

never has there been an experiment that directly verifies an LT.

Sorry Henry, you lack of understanding is showing
again. Things aren't proved in science, you can only
falsify the alternatives, and there is no alternative that
hasn't been falsified.

George, rods do not physiclly change in any way after a velocity change.
..nor do clock rates. The proof is well known and trivial.

Liar, you know that GPS clocks have to be offset
to work correctly Henry, exactly as predicted by
GR (and don't say ballistic theory says the same,
it doesn't, it predicts no change in the clock
frequency).

That's why the GR correction is a joke. It requires that the 'velocity
component' is a REAL PHYSICAL change...when we know it cannot be.

It is perfectly real Henry, proven many times
including by Ives and Stillwell as I have pointed
out before. It is of course geometrical in nature
rather than what you mean by 'physical' but the
geometry is still part of the physics.

Simple geometry Henry, but clearly beyond you. Read
"Spacetime Physics, chapter 1 for a more detailed
explanation at a layman introductory level.

That kind of thing might impress the gullible ....but not me George.

You are too clueless to understand it.

George, rods do not physically change when they experience a change in
speed.

Their proper length does not change, their
coordinate length does.

I can take a rigid rod anywhere, anyhow with the full knowledge that
it is exactly the same as it was before I left.

Do you dispute that?

Coordinate length does not change do to a change
in location in SR provided the velocity is
unchanged.

George

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:20:42 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

Yes, they are trivial and primitive but those
two equations are the totality of your model.

I am way ahead of you.

ROFL, you haven't even appreciated the impact of
the difference between brightness and luminosity.
Your curves are totally screwed because of that.

It would make little difference even if the stars DID expand slightly.

For L Car, 12% radius and 26% area out of 33%
luminosity for K band, 5 times more than the
effect of the surface brighness change, it is
the dominant factor.

But the figures are completely wrong....based entirely on willusory data and
wild speculation.


That's classical wave theory.

Right, and your theory is totally classical.

Newtonian?....more Willsonian....

Newtonian indeed, it assumes the Galilean Transforms.

The only transformation needed is for velocity and quantities that contain
L/T...and they are linear.

...not relevant here.
Photons are partly compressible particles.

You have no particle equations, only the two above
which are a modification of Ritz's classical theory.

Drop that rubber ball in the ocean again...

Is that supposed to be an equation?

no, it's called 'imagination'...something every good engineer should possess.


I don't need it.

You do, or you cannot even predict that interference
will occur with a grating.

I have provided my equation.

No, you provided a diagram which assume a
wavelength, but since the wave nature of light
came from the solution of Maxwell's Equations
and those don't apply to ballistic theory, you
don't have an equation for a wave. Your diagram
and associated equation would be the next step
after that.

George, your Einsteinian grating theory wold not allow the gratings on HST to
detect its orbital motion.

Those are entirely size and temperature driven.
Remove those effects and there is no residual
variation for ballistic theory.

Gas temperature falls during an expansion, George.

Conventional modelling includes the thermodynamic
effects of course. As an aside, you might be
interested to find out the thermal capacity of
the plasma.

Whatever.....Its temperature will still increase as it compresses during the
contraction phase under gravity. That is not what the 'experts' find in the
desperation to make their wrong theory to fit the willusory data.



Liar, you know that GPS clocks have to be offset
to work correctly Henry, exactly as predicted by
GR (and don't say ballistic theory says the same,
it doesn't, it predicts no change in the clock
frequency).

That's why the GR correction is a joke. It requires that the 'velocity
component' is a REAL PHYSICAL change...when we know it cannot be.

It is perfectly real Henry, proven many times
including by Ives and Stillwell as I have pointed
out before. It is of course geometrical in nature
rather than what you mean by 'physical' but the
geometry is still part of the physics.

George, it is trivial to prove that rods do not physically change with
velocity.
Would they increase or decrease their absolute lengths?

Simple geometry Henry, but clearly beyond you. Read
"Spacetime Physics, chapter 1 for a more detailed
explanation at a layman introductory level.

That kind of thing might impress the gullible ....but not me George.

You are too clueless to understand it.

George, rods do not physically change when they experience a change in
speed.

Their proper length does not change, their
coordinate length does.

Sorry, I don't recognise these artificial terms.

the number of ticks emitted by an orbiting clock PER ORBIT is te same no matter
WHO counts them.

I can take a rigid rod anywhere, anyhow with the full knowledge that
it is exactly the same as it was before I left.

Do you dispute that?

Coordinate length does not change do to a change
in location in SR provided the velocity is
unchanged.

It matters not what happens to the rod. It always occupies the same absolute
spatial interval.

George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

George, your Einsteinian grating theory wold not allow the gratings on
HST to detect its orbital motion.

On the contrary. The Doppler effect's change in frequency/wavelength is quite
well documented for waves and can be shown to be dependent only on the
relative velocity of the source and observer.

The same can be shown for Doppler effect for 'photons' as the change in
energy (and thus the wavelength and frequency) can be shown to depend on the
relative velocity of the source and observer.

The same can NOT be said for Wilsonian light carriers .... are they waves or
particles Henri?





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:20:42 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..

Yes, they are trivial and primitive but those
two equations are the totality of your model.

I am way ahead of you.

ROFL, you haven't even appreciated the impact of
the difference between brightness and luminosity.
Your curves are totally screwed because of that.

It would make little difference even if the stars DID expand slightly.

For L Car, 12% radius and 26% area out of 33%
luminosity for K band, 5 times more than the
effect of the surface brighness change, it is
the dominant factor.

But the figures are completely wrong....based entirely on willusory data

I have told you numerous times why they are
just as valid in baalistic theory, don't
waste our time.

and
wild speculation.

Or "Planck's Law" as we like to call it.

That's classical wave theory.

Right, and your theory is totally classical.

Newtonian?....more Willsonian....

Newtonian indeed, it assumes the Galilean Transforms.

The only transformation needed is for velocity and quantities that contain
L/T...and they are linear.

...not relevant here.
Photons are partly compressible particles.

You have no particle equations, only the two above
which are a modification of Ritz's classical theory.

Drop that rubber ball in the ocean again...

Is that supposed to be an equation?

no, it's called 'imagination'...

That's fair, nothing to do with science.

No, you provided a diagram which assume a
wavelength, but since the wave nature of light
came from the solution of Maxwell's Equations
and those don't apply to ballistic theory, you
don't have an equation for a wave. Your diagram
and associated equation would be the next step
after that.

George, your Einsteinian grating theory ...

Don't duck the issue by changing the subject
or you will never fix your problems.

Those are entirely size and temperature driven.
Remove those effects and there is no residual
variation for ballistic theory.

Gas temperature falls during an expansion, George.

Conventional modelling includes the thermodynamic
effects of course. As an aside, you might be
interested to find out the thermal capacity of
the plasma.

Whatever.....Its temperature will still increase as it compresses during
the
contraction phase under gravity. ...

Of course. Remember also that the ionisation
hence the position of the photosphere also depend
on the temperature and other conditions. It is a
complex set of linked dynamics but the bottom line
is that when all these aspects are taken into
account, conventioanl theory matches what is
observed.

Liar, you know that GPS clocks have to be offset
to work correctly Henry, exactly as predicted by
GR (and don't say ballistic theory says the same,
it doesn't, it predicts no change in the clock
frequency).

That's why the GR correction is a joke. It requires that the 'velocity
component' is a REAL PHYSICAL change...when we know it cannot be.

It is perfectly real Henry, proven many times
including by Ives and Stillwell as I have pointed
out before. It is of course geometrical in nature
rather than what you mean by 'physical' but the
geometry is still part of the physics.

George, it is trivial to prove that rods do not physically change with
velocity.

The proper length does not change, their
coordinate length does.

Would they increase or decrease their absolute lengths?

The standard terminology is "proper length" and
it doesn't change.

Simple geometry Henry, but clearly beyond you. Read
"Spacetime Physics, chapter 1 for a more detailed
explanation at a layman introductory level.

That kind of thing might impress the gullible ....but not me George.

You are too clueless to understand it.

George, rods do not physically change when they experience a change in
speed.

Their proper length does not change, their
coordinate length does.

Sorry, I don't recognise these artificial terms.

Then you need to learn the standard terminology
if you wan to discuss physics.

the number of ticks emitted by an orbiting clock PER ORBIT is te same no
matter
WHO counts them.

Of course, the duration of the orbit depends
on who is counting, that is a coordinate time,
not a proper time.

I can take a rigid rod anywhere, anyhow with the full knowledge that
it is exactly the same as it was before I left.

Do you dispute that?

Coordinate length does not change do to a change
in location in SR provided the velocity is
unchanged.

It matters not what happens to the rod.

Then I guess you raised the question just to change
the subject as usual.

It always occupies the same absolute
spatial interval.

It has the same "proper length". Learn the terminology
Henry.

George

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:20:42 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

George, what you are doing is trivial and primative.

Yes, they are trivial and primitive but those
two equations are the totality of your model.

I am way ahead of you.

ROFL, you haven't even appreciated the impact of
the difference between brightness and luminosity.
Your curves are totally screwed because of that.

It would make little difference even if the stars DID expand slightly.

For L Car, 12% radius and 26% area out of 33%
luminosity for K band, 5 times more than the
effect of the surface brighness change, it is
the dominant factor.

You obtained those figures using circular logic.



That's classical wave theory.

Right, and your theory is totally classical.

Newtonian?....more Willsonian....

Newtonian indeed, it assumes the Galilean Transforms.

...not relevant here.
Photons are partly compressible particles.

You have no particle equations, only the two above
which are a modification of Ritz's classical theory.

Drop that rubber ball in the ocean again...

Is that supposed to be an equation?

Nope, as we discussed a few days ago, for a laser it
might produce an effect similar to a standing wave, but
you need to calculate it to find out, you won't get
anywhere guessing as it is going to be very complex.

I'm not guessing, The calculation is trivial.

You are guessing, you don't have an equation to combine
photons, and in fact you don't even have an equation for
the oscillatory part of a photon. You will need to do a
statistical summation over multiple photons of time-varying
phase relationship and you don't have the basic information
needed to do that.

I don't need it.

You do, or you cannot even predict that interference
will occur with a grating.

I have provided my equation.

No, you provided a diagram which assume a
wavelength, but since the wave nature of light
came from the solution of Maxwell's Equations
and those don't apply to ballistic theory, you
don't have an equation for a wave. Your diagram
and associated equation would be the next step
after that.

Maxwell's equations probably DO apply to BaTh. They could explain why light
moves initially at c wrt its source. Remember however that the values of the
two constants must be measured NEAR the source and at rest wrt it.

But the MEs don't mean much in space below the WDT.

Those are entirely size and temperature driven.
Remove those effects and there is no residual
variation for ballistic theory.

Gas temperature falls during an expansion, George.

Conventional modelling includes the thermodynamic
effects of course. As an aside, you might be
interested to find out the thermal capacity of
the plasma.

You tell me.



Liar, you know that GPS clocks have to be offset
to work correctly Henry, exactly as predicted by
GR (and don't say ballistic theory says the same,
it doesn't, it predicts no change in the clock
frequency).

That's why the GR correction is a joke. It requires that the 'velocity
component' is a REAL PHYSICAL change...when we know it cannot be.

It is perfectly real Henry, proven many times
including by Ives and Stillwell as I have pointed
out before. It is of course geometrical in nature
rather than what you mean by 'physical' but the
geometry is still part of the physics.

George, SR simply doesn't work without fairies. It is nonsense from start to
finish. The only reason it has survived to this day is that until recently
there was no way to directly test it..... and a certain group had a vested
interest in turning Einstein into a veritable god..

Simple geometry Henry, but clearly beyond you. Read
"Spacetime Physics, chapter 1 for a more detailed
explanation at a layman introductory level.

That kind of thing might impress the gullible ....but not me George.

You are too clueless to understand it.

George, rods do not physically change when they experience a change in
speed.

Their proper length does not change, their
coordinate length does.

Don't use meaningless words like proper' to try to appear intelligent George.
Rods defiine an absolute spatial interval...it is unaffected by movement.

I can take a rigid rod anywhere, anyhow with the full knowledge that
it is exactly the same as it was before I left.

Do you dispute that?

Coordinate length does not change do to a change
in location in SR provided the velocity is
unchanged.

I'm not interested in what SR says.

George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:49:37 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

George, your Einsteinian grating theory wold not allow the gratings on
HST to detect its orbital motion.

On the contrary. The Doppler effect's change in frequency/wavelength is quite
well documented for waves and can be shown to be dependent only on the
relative velocity of the source and observer.

The same can be shown for Doppler effect for 'photons' as the change in
energy (and thus the wavelength and frequency) can be shown to depend on the
relative velocity of the source and observer.

The same can NOT be said for Wilsonian light carriers .... are they waves or
particles Henri?

Sorry Bob, I just called you 'George'.


www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.