GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Aug 2007 19:43 On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:20:34 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:a3fhc3l76g5b3vvi8pqgd11ruc28it495u(a)4ax.com: > >> >> George, to change the subject slightly, I was thinking yesterday as I >> was fixing a microwave oven, "what role do photons play in a 1000mhz >> 10KV AC field between two electrodes?" There seems little similarity >> between a single photon arriving on Earth from a very distant star and >> the wave nature of any AC field. > >Although the 60 Hz AC driving the magnetron may peak in the KV, the >'photons' at 1 GHz have only 4.136E-6 eV of energy. >The magnetron does not depend on the field being AC. The microwave just >uses the magnetron as both a rectifier and a microwave oscillator. The >magnetron just depends on a high voltage to drive the electrons along the >spiral path from the cathode to the anode and the motion of the electron >along that path excites oscillatory currents in the ring of cavities around >the outside of the magnetron. Output is tapped off from one of those >cavities. > >Semi conductors can generate the same wavelength while using a very low >voltage. > >By the way, the path the electron takes, the fact that microwaves are >generated by the motion of the electrons, and the length of time it takes >for the electrons to spiral out from cathode to anode are all inconsistent >with BaTH. I was asking what role PHOTONS play, not electrons... 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.
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Aug 2007 19:46 On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:35:36 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:ptfhc3pa7593cf68abm3qdgoj29if09ftn(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:26:21 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>>news:b6qec3dg4nkf9lses1v3stns1acfrq338c(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:01:01 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>>>> You haven't examined many at all George. I've looked at hundreds... >>>>> >>>>>You have looked at hundreds - and always modelled >>>>>the temperature variation wrongly thinking it was >>>>>that caused by ballistic effects. >>>> >>>> YOU certainly do not know the true temperature variation. >>> >>>I'm not a professional astronomer, but they DO know >>>and I can understand the papers. Typically the >>>variation is ~1000K. >> >> :) >> Calculated from brightness changes and Planck curve mode shift. > >Calculated from _relative_ changes hence any >ballistic effects cancel, the temprature >determine by that method is equally valid for >ballistic theory. No they are not. >>>You're the one claiming to be able to model the >>>curve Henry, I'll just keep pointing out that >>>you cannot do so without proving that the cause >>>is VDoppler, not ADoppler which is why you always >>>refuse to make the attempt. >> >> George, if I thought it would be of any use, I would try to explain >> ADoppler to >> you..... but I see you mind is closed. > >You forget it was I who had to tell you the >ADoppler equation, you couldn't work it out >for yourself. I know the effects far better >than you. You don't even understand the role of emission delay time. You don't include da/dt... >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.
From: bz on 21 Aug 2007 20:18 HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:u4umc39hpp2902dsddk0ciepchnnb6g7h5(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:20:34 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:a3fhc3l76g5b3vvi8pqgd11ruc28it495u(a)4ax.com: >> >>> >>> George, to change the subject slightly, I was thinking yesterday as I >>> was fixing a microwave oven, "what role do photons play in a 1000mhz >>> 10KV AC field between two electrodes?" There seems little similarity >>> between a single photon arriving on Earth from a very distant star and >>> the wave nature of any AC field. >> >>Although the 60 Hz AC driving the magnetron may peak in the KV, the >>'photons' at 1 GHz have only 4.136E-6 eV of energy. >>The magnetron does not depend on the field being AC. The microwave just >>uses the magnetron as both a rectifier and a microwave oscillator. The >>magnetron just depends on a high voltage to drive the electrons along >>the spiral path from the cathode to the anode and the motion of the >>electron along that path excites oscillatory currents in the ring of >>cavities around the outside of the magnetron. Output is tapped off from >>one of those cavities. >> >>Semi conductors can generate the same wavelength while using a very low >>voltage. >> >>By the way, the path the electron takes, the fact that microwaves are >>generated by the motion of the electrons, and the length of time it >>takes for the electrons to spiral out from cathode to anode are all >>inconsistent with BaTH. > > I was asking what role PHOTONS play, not electrons... You missed the answer that was given, "the photons at 1 GHz have only 4.136e-6 eV of energy." That is the role they play. If you want more about those photons, Each one carries a small amount of the energy (about 1 KW) out of the magnetron. The oscillating field in that resonant cavity mentioned earlier is coupled into the waveguide that leads to the 'heating area' where those photons excite vibrations in the water molecules in the food, heating the food. And as I said, the path the electrons take, the fact that microwaves are gnerated by the motions of the electrons and the length of time it takes for the electrons to spiral out from the cathode to the anode are all inconsistent with BaTH. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: George Dishman on 22 Aug 2007 02:52 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:35:36 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:ptfhc3pa7593cf68abm3qdgoj29if09ftn(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:26:21 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:b6qec3dg4nkf9lses1v3stns1acfrq338c(a)4ax.com... > >>>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:01:01 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>>>>> You haven't examined many at all George. I've looked at hundreds... > >>>>> > >>>>>You have looked at hundreds - and always modelled > >>>>>the temperature variation wrongly thinking it was > >>>>>that caused by ballistic effects. > >>>> > >>>> YOU certainly do not know the true temperature variation. > >>> > >>>I'm not a professional astronomer, but they DO know > >>>and I can understand the papers. Typically the > >>>variation is ~1000K. > >> > >> :) > >> Calculated from brightness changes and Planck curve mode shift. > > > >Calculated from _relative_ changes hence any > >ballistic effects cancel, the temperature > >determine by that method is equally valid for > >ballistic theory. > > No they are not. Yes they are Henry, all your ballistic effects are frequency independent, and you know that or you would have attempt to say _why_ not. Don't waste our time by staling with knee-jerk denials. > >>>You're the one claiming to be able to model the > >>>curve Henry, I'll just keep pointing out that > >>>you cannot do so without proving that the cause > >>>is VDoppler, not ADoppler which is why you always > >>>refuse to make the attempt. > >> > >> George, if I thought it would be of any use, I would try to explain > >> ADoppler to > >> you..... but I see you mind is closed. > > > >You forget it was I who had to tell you the > >ADoppler equation, you couldn't work it out > >for yourself. I know the effects far better > >than you. > > You don't even understand the role of emission delay time. Yes I do, but you told me you omitted it from your program because it is negligible. > You don't include da/dt... If you understood schoolboy calculus, you would know that da/dt has no effect. George
From: George Dishman on 22 Aug 2007 03:04
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:50:15 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:19:26 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:vfqec31dbiumolbb3uig9i0l5gmcaf8a3h(a)4ax.com... > >> > >> >>>In fact I have been allowing you to infer a wave-like > >> >>>nature for the signal but pedantically your equations > >> >>>don't even describe that so technically you don't have > >> >>>a model that can even explain simple interference. One > >> >>>day you should try that, you'll find it harder than > >> >>>you expect. > >> >> > >> >> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe > >> > > >> >I'm not interested in exe files - where do I see > >> >your mathematical derivation? > >> > >> This is an animation. > >> The computer does the maths.That's what computers are for George. > > > >The computer can only calulate the equation you type in. > >I repeat, there is nothing that describes a wave in your > >equation so writing a program that draws a sine wave > >proves nothing. Solving Maxwell's equations would give > >you a sine wave but as you know they do not apply in > >ballistic theory, and in QED you have the wave equation > >but in ballistic theory you have no equivalent so my point > >stands. > > George, I know this is all far too hard for you but that's no excuse for your > constant whinging. Just pointing out yet another area where you know so little physics, you cannot even understand the problem let alone attempt to answer it. > >> None of my old programs will run on Windows Vista...it needs > >> msvbvm50.dll...which I will place on he website. > > > >I will continue to use XP for some time, at least until they > >fix the networking problems or I buy a new router for other > >reasons. > > I've been having all kinds of trouble with my new laptop and Vista. . > Now the bloody battery charger has packed it in... I have a Netgear router and a 100Mb network on cat5 cable. Vista is incompatible with the router (less than a year old) and someone I know got 400kb when he tried it. The solution on the Microsoft site is "buy a more modern router". No chance. George |