FR Bending of Light -- Proof
in [Physics]
|
From: glird on 28 Jan 2010 16:09 On Jan 27, 5:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Velocity is defined as dr/dt, Phil! > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html I looked there and then at http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Wavenumber.html and found this: "There are unfortunately two different definitions of the wavenumber. French (1971, p. 214) uses the definition (1) k = 1/ gamma, where gamma is the wavelength. However, as French notes, it is more common in theoretical physics to use the definition (2) k = 2 pi/ gamma". In the quantum of energy in a photon, the length per wave is equal to 2 pi r, where r is the length of a radius of a circle. Let r = 1 cm for now. Then gamma = 2pi cm; and Eq 1 says the wavenumber k = 1/gamma = 1/2pi = .1591549 cm. HOWEVER, if we let r = .0001 cm then Eq 1 says the wavenumber k = 1/gamma = 1/(2pi x .0001) = 1591.5494 cm and Eq 2 says k = 2pi/(2pi x gamma = 2 pi/(2pi x .0001) = 1/.0001) = 10,000 cm. Either way, why should the "wavenumber" be a function of an unknown value of r; but if r is stipulated it remains a constant regardless of how many waves there might be in a given photon? Why should the "wave number" of the 4th wave in a series of 500 be the same as that of the 44th and the 53nd and all of them? As to Sam's "Velocity is defined as dr/dt, Phil!"; Phil had said: "If v = m/s and s is reduced then v will increase." In his equation, m denotes "meters" and s denotes "seconds". In Sam's equation, dr denotes a length and dt an interval of time. Since the unit of length is a meter and the unit of time is a second, v = m/s = meters per second is either identical or equivalent to v = dr/dt = meters per second. glird
From: spudnik on 29 Jan 2010 14:29
there are no photons. see, you say taht r is "the radius of a circle," which seems to be a confusion of the notion of a "plane wave," whose radius is ideally infinite; sibstitute diameter-not-in-the-plane. > Either way, why should the "wavenumber" be a function of an unknown > value of r; but if r is stipulated it remains a constant regardless of > how many waves there might be in a given photon? Why should the "wave > number" of the 4th wave in a series of 500 be the same as that of the > 44th and the 53nd and all of them? thus: I would say that the LHC or its omnipotent caretakeers had to take a few pages out of its flip-book -- just rip them right out & shred, like the Royal Astronomer would try to do to yours, if you were to question his Reality Bumpersticker. > comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it > as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com |