Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Jul 2005 18:11 On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:35:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:44:08 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular >>>>brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my >>>>variable star simulation program: >>>>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe >>> >>>We both know that you have tested your program only once, >>>namely on HD80715. >>>What was the result, Henri? >>> >>>Everybody, notice his answer. :-) >> >> >> The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >> SR. >> How COULD it be wrong? > >See? :-) > >Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was >the one time he tested his program with measured data >of a known binary. All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave. > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Aristotle on 20 Jul 2005 10:10 >>> >>> The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >>> SR. >>> How COULD it be wrong? >> >>See? :-) >> >>Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was >>the one time he tested his program with measured data >>of a known binary. > >All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave. And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician? You sure duck questions like one.
From: george@briar.demon.co.uk on 21 Jul 2005 08:23 bz wrote: > "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in > news:dbman7$372$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net: <much snipped> > > The key factor is path length difference. If > > you send the reference beam through a coil of > > fibre, the coherence length would [not] affect the > > distance but the depth of field. You will get > > good contrast if the difference betwen the coil > > length and twice the distance to the subject is > > less than the coherence length. > > hmmmm. Path length difference. Interesting. > > Still, most laser diodes have rather short coherence lengths (on the order > of a few hundred micrometers), giving a rather shallow depth of field. In > 1997 'Long coherence length Laser diodes' meant 'several centimeters'. > http://omlc.ogi.edu/news/dec97/pclaser.html It doesn't seem to have improved much but it would perhaps allow 3D filming of say insect flight with a depth of field of a few cm at a range of say 1m. <more snpped> > > Again, I will decline to speculate. I think > > QED would provide an answer but I don't know > > what it is. > > I have reservations about Feynman's multipath theory. It illustrates well how science need not provide understandable explanations. It works, just turn the handle and get the numbers, but thinking about the philosophical implications can be hazardous! > > I think I would be tempted to switch a current > > through a communications laser diode to do this > > at reasonable cost. > > But up in frequency mean the time resolution/switching speeds need to > increase. Higher carrier frequency means a lower photon rate for the same power hence lower switching speeds to select a single photon. It would be possible to measure the bandwidth of a laser diode with coherence length in the cm range going through a shutter which was open for say 1 microsecond at a repetition rate of 10 kHz with a photon rate of a few hundred per second. The chances of getting two photons during an opening would be low but the shutter would be open for a time much longer than the "duration" of a single photon. Then change to a shutter open time around 10ps and see if the bandwidth increases. The photon "length" should be 30ps per cm of coherence so selecting only part of the photon should increase the bandwidth if I am right. > > The higher energy reduces > > the number of photons per mW and current can be > > easily controlled. The harder part would be the > > detector, PMT's are expensive. > > CCD detectors, such as in a video camera, are very sensitive now. That and a decent diffraction grating would do it but I guess the CCD would need to be cooled. George
From: bz on 21 Jul 2005 10:20 "george(a)briar.demon.co.uk" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:1121948586.224680.50540(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > bz wrote: >> "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in >> news:dbman7$372$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net: > > <much snipped> >> > The key factor is path length difference. If >> > you send the reference beam through a coil of >> > fibre, the coherence length would [not] affect the >> > distance but the depth of field. You will get >> > good contrast if the difference betwen the coil >> > length and twice the distance to the subject is >> > less than the coherence length. >> >> hmmmm. Path length difference. Interesting. >> >> Still, most laser diodes have rather short coherence lengths (on the >> order of a few hundred micrometers), giving a rather shallow depth of >> field. In 1997 'Long coherence length Laser diodes' meant 'several >> centimeters'. http://omlc.ogi.edu/news/dec97/pclaser.html > > It doesn't seem to have improved much but it > would perhaps allow 3D filming of say insect > flight with a depth of field of a few cm at > a range of say 1m. That would be interesting, especially in color. > > <more snpped> >> > Again, I will decline to speculate. I think >> > QED would provide an answer but I don't know >> > what it is. >> >> I have reservations about Feynman's multipath theory. > > It illustrates well how science need not provide > understandable explanations. It works, just turn > the handle and get the numbers, but thinking about > the philosophical implications can be hazardous! I have a hard time integrating it into my personality. >> > I think I would be tempted to switch a current >> > through a communications laser diode to do this >> > at reasonable cost. >> >> But up in frequency mean the time resolution/switching speeds need to >> increase. > > Higher carrier frequency means a lower photon > rate for the same power hence lower switching > speeds to select a single photon. The way to test the photon 'length' is by switching times on the order of the expected time for the expected number of cycles per photon. > It would be > possible to measure the bandwidth of a laser > diode with coherence length in the cm range > going through a shutter which was open for say > 1 microsecond at a repetition rate of 10 kHz > with a photon rate of a few hundred per second. That would tell us nothing about the length of the photons. We can already get single photons by attenuating the beam intensity. Besides, spectrum analysis is done, every day, on fiber optical lasers. We know that for switching speeds used for gigabit data rates, the bandwidths needed are consistent with information theory. We need to push the envelope, so to speak, and see what happens with VERY narrow pulses, so narrow that they can only contain a single cycle. > The chances of getting two photons during an > opening would be low but the shutter would be > open for a time much longer than the "duration" > of a single photon. > > Then change to a shutter open time around 10ps > and see if the bandwidth increases. The photon > "length" should be 30ps per cm of coherence so > selecting only part of the photon should increase > the bandwidth if I am right. Selecting only part of the photon should either (1) produce no output or (2) produce a photon with less energy, since part of its energy has been absorbed. (1) is consistent with Einstein. (2) would blow all kinds of holes in quantum electro dynamics unless it could be shown to be consistent with the compton effect. >> > The higher energy reduces >> > the number of photons per mW and current can be >> > easily controlled. The harder part would be the >> > detector, PMT's are expensive. >> >> CCD detectors, such as in a video camera, are very sensitive now. > > That and a decent diffraction grating would do it > but I guess the CCD would need to be cooled. We used Peltier coolers to cool the PMTubes in our NOx monitors, back when I did instrument repair for a division of Borg Warner. On the other hand, liquid nitrogen is pretty cheap. Liquid He is a bit pricy. But I could 'borrow a cup' of either as we use both in our building. [aside: when the new superconductor magnet for our new 700 MHz NMR was being brought up to field, they had a quench incident that boiled off 2000 litres of liquid helium in a few seconds. The fog in the air set off the fire alarms and cleared the building.] -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Jul 2005 19:46
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:10:59 GMT, Aristotle <wandering_philosopher(a)socratic_discipline.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >>>> SR. >>>> How COULD it be wrong? >>> >>>See? :-) >>> >>>Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was >>>the one time he tested his program with measured data >>>of a known binary. >> >>All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave. > >And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician? >You sure duck questions like one. I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even forgotten what the question was. Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |