GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 25 Aug 2007 18:27 On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:37:26 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:ttluc31rf6kk2ns4j0u9243tafsdlterrs(a)4ax.com... >> I assumed you would have known that microwaves don't operate in the >> millihertz >> region. > >Of course, but you have previously said that low >frequency signals had to be different to high >frequencies like light and microwaves. Since >you posted, there has been an article relating >to detecting the influence of Solar g-modes in >the Earth where frequncies are in the micro-hertz >range. That radiation is still quantised. That's OK....but what is the relatoinship between the 'quanta' and the signal frequency? >>> >>>Photons constitute those fields, yes. >> >> No, read Bob's message. > >I think Bob needs to think again about how >he replied. I thought it was one of his better messages. >> The photon 'shower' is emitted as a result of the electron excitation. >> There is >> no indication of any 'frequency' directly associated with the individual >> photons. > >Sorry Henry, again a low level light source >shone onto a grating and then detected with >a photo-multiplier shows maxima and minima >in the distribution pattern of photon detection >events. An individual photon obeys exactly the >same rule for a grating as you showed in your >grating diagram except that the parameter >affected ids the probability of its landing at >a given location. It is having a mathematical >model for that probability for a _single_ >particle that defines a particle-based theory. I provided such a model. It is the arrival phase of the 'intrinsic photon oscillation' that is subject to probability. >>>> Where is the connection between the field 'frequency' and the photon >>>> 'wavelength'? >>> >>>wavelength = speed / frequency >> >> 'frequency' is the 'rate of occurrence (or arrival)' of a repetitive >> event. In >> the case of a photon PARTICLE, what might that imply? > >It implies a cyclical nature to the probabilistic >calculation for the particle, what is know as the >wavefunction in QM. I have a physical model George. Nobody else has one. >>>> You dont even have a model that can define 'frequency of a photon'. >>> >>>Q.E.D. >>> >>>Q.E.D. >> >> Q.E is not 'D', at all. > >You said I "dont even have a model that can >define 'frequency of a photon'." but Q.E.D. is >such a model so I do have one, hence the Q. is >definitively D.. George, you can mathematically describe the probability of an arrow striking a particular ring on a target. ...but that doesn't tell us anything about the actual physics behind what causes a particular arrow to land where it does. >>>> See neother you nor anyone else really knows anything about the >>>> relationship >>>> between photons and generated electric 'waves'.. >>> >>>The electric field is defined by the force on a >>>particle compared to its charge. Force is rate >>>of change of momentum so the field strength is >>>a measure of the rate at which momentum is >>>transferred to a particle by the photons. >> >> What photons? You said 'field'... > >Yes, I told you what the word "field" means in this >context (not something containing sheep), it is a >word describing the statistical mean effect of a >flux of photons. very vague, George..very vague.... I don't feel at all enlightened by your reply. >>>Yes, you imagine "c+v in the third frame" is the >>>same as "c in the third frame". In your fantasy >>>world I guess anything is possible. >> >> Does the outside of a star heat up or cool as it expands, George? > >Good question, you have expansion which causes >cooling and you also have the force causing that >expansion which is the radiation pressure of the >light rising from the He++ layer which increases >the temperature so the combination will vary >through the cycle. When fully modelled, the total >of the various effects matches the observations. I would interpret that differently. I would say that astronomers who have been totally misled by Einsteiniana have for years been manufacturing all kinds of ridiculous theories to try to explain what they observe. >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 25 Aug 2007 21:28 HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:8v91d3tuv6a09tfd2qhnbsaj7krtklhhn5(a)4ax.com: > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:36:25 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:9nluc3lg12i91ffql385pvkdc70papdm69(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:55:38 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>>>> So what is a 'field' made of bob? >>>> >>>>Energy. >>> >>> What is energy made of Bob?......and please don't say, "fields". >> >>Fields. What are fields made of? >> >>Depends on what you plant in them. :) >>Then there was the farmer that was outstanding in his field. Not >>really. >>:) >> >>E fields are made of 'lines of electrical force'. >>B fields are made of 'lines of magnetic force'. >> >>Don't ask me what lines of force are made of, I don't know. All I know >>is that they exert force on (depending on the kind of line) either a >>test charge or a magnet. >> >>let me try again. >>> What is energy made of Bob?......and please don't say, "fields". >> >>I don't know what it is made of [I never claimed to know everything, in >>fact I admit that what I don't know is an infinite set], only what >>energy can do. >> >>It can do work. > > The fact is Bob, this highlights how primative physics really is at the > present time. It has many equations that explain 'HOW' but no physical > models to explain most fundamental phenomena. > > I think it's quite disgusting that nobody has made any progress in > linking 'fields' to other physical entities. > > >>>>Or relative velocity of the source; >>>>a 1 GHz Microwave source moving toward us at a sufficient velocity >>>>would be Doppler shifted so as to appear to be a gamma source. >>> >>> So far, you have only associated 'frequency' with the electric field >>> driving the electrons at 1GHz. >> >>The electric field driving the electrons is not really associated with >>any frequency. >>It just supplies the energy to drive 'the electron wind' that 'blows' >>the 'flute'. > > It is. The field is 1GHz AC. NO! In most microwave ovens, it is 60 Hz AC (the magnetron only produces microwaves when the cathode is negative and the anode is positive) or 60 Hz pulsating DC if there is a diode in the circuit. > >>> There is no connection between that >>> frequency and the shower of photon PARTICLES that is produced. >> >>Correct. The magnetron's operation doesn't depend on quantum phenomena >>any more than playing a flute depends on the fact that the air consists >>of molecules. <aside> there ARE probably photons produced inside the >>magnetron in the form of synchrotron radiation but those photons are >>probably in the uv or soft xray region and just serve to heat up the >>anode. <end aside> >> >>The faster the electrons move, the 'stronger the wind' that 'blows the >>flute'. >>The magnetic fields from the moving electrons induce currents in the >>anode walls. Those currents oscillate at the resonant frequency of the >>cavity. The oscillating current causes the electrons to 'bunch up' as >>they spiral outward from the cathode. There are no 'photons particles' >>inside the magnetron at the microwave frequencies. There is not enough >>room for them. > > What happened to all those 'photons' emitted from the wave guide. They are absorbed. By the food, or by the various materials in the oven. Or they leak out around the door seals. > I say their 'density' varies at 1 gig but they don't possess that kind > of 'intrinsic frequency'. What you say would be wrong. -- 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: bz on 25 Aug 2007 21:37 HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:hga1d311k6r5e9f9118l90dq1euli5l315@ 4ax.com: >>>>Photons constitute those fields, yes. >>> >>> No, read Bob's message. >> >>I think Bob needs to think again about how >>he replied. The question of when an electric field in an antenna becomes a 'wave' aka 'photon' is answered somewhere between 'the antenna' and 'free space'. Not inside the signal generator or the feed line. Nearfield and Farfield play a part in answering the question. Ask Maxwell to have his daemons explain it. -- 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 26 Aug 2007 08:53 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:hga1d311k6r5e9f9118l90dq1euli5l315(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:37:26 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:ttluc31rf6kk2ns4j0u9243tafsdlterrs(a)4ax.com... > >>> I assumed you would have known that microwaves don't operate in the >>> millihertz >>> region. >> >>Of course, but you have previously said that low >>frequency signals had to be different to high >>frequencies like light and microwaves. Since >>you posted, there has been an article relating >>to detecting the influence of Solar g-modes in >>the Earth where frequncies are in the micro-hertz >>range. That radiation is still quantised. > > That's OK....but what is the relatoinship between the 'quanta' and the > signal > frequency? h >>>>Photons constitute those fields, yes. >>> >>> No, read Bob's message. >> >>I think Bob needs to think again about how >>he replied. > > I thought it was one of his better messages. He mixed fields and particles which is fine when talking to people who know the difference but may result in confusion when trying to help laymen like yourself. >>> The photon 'shower' is emitted as a result of the electron excitation. >>> There is >>> no indication of any 'frequency' directly associated with the individual >>> photons. >> >>Sorry Henry, again a low level light source >>shone onto a grating and then detected with >>a photo-multiplier shows maxima and minima >>in the distribution pattern of photon detection >>events. An individual photon obeys exactly the >>same rule for a grating as you showed in your >>grating diagram except that the parameter >>affected ids the probability of its landing at >>a given location. It is having a mathematical >>model for that probability for a _single_ >>particle that defines a particle-based theory. > > I provided such a model. No, you have never written a probabilistic equation in any of our conversations. > It is the arrival phase of the 'intrinsic photon oscillation' that is > subject > to probability. So where is the equation for that probability? >>>>> Where is the connection between the field 'frequency' and the photon >>>>> 'wavelength'? >>>> >>>>wavelength = speed / frequency >>> >>> 'frequency' is the 'rate of occurrence (or arrival)' of a repetitive >>> event. In >>> the case of a photon PARTICLE, what might that imply? >> >>It implies a cyclical nature to the probabilistic >>calculation for the particle, what is know as the >>wavefunction in QM. > > I have a physical model George. Nobody else has one. You have two equations, nothing more, and those don't work, they tell me the Sagnac experiment should give no shift. >>>>> You dont even have a model that can define 'frequency of a photon'. >>>> >>>>Q.E.D. >>>> >>>>Q.E.D. >>> >>> Q.E is not 'D', at all. >> >>You said I "dont even have a model that can >>define 'frequency of a photon'." but Q.E.D. is >>such a model so I do have one, hence the Q. is >>definitively D.. > > George, you can mathematically describe the probability of an arrow > striking a > particular ring on a target. Exactly, that is what science is, mathematics that allows accurate predictions. > ...but that doesn't tell us anything about the > actual physics behind what causes a particular arrow to land where it > does. Since the location is intrinsically random, all you can hope to find is what causes the statistical distribution to be what it is, but I'm not going to start discussing the philosophy of QM, take that to a particle physics group if you like. >>>>> See neother you nor anyone else really knows anything about the >>>>> relationship >>>>> between photons and generated electric 'waves'.. >>>> >>>>The electric field is defined by the force on a >>>>particle compared to its charge. Force is rate >>>>of change of momentum so the field strength is >>>>a measure of the rate at which momentum is >>>>transferred to a particle by the photons. >>> >>> What photons? You said 'field'... >> >>Yes, I told you what the word "field" means in this >>context (not something containing sheep), it is a >>word describing the statistical mean effect of a >>flux of photons. > > very vague, George..very vague.... It is not vague in the slightest Henry. The definition of the electric field for example is: E = f / q and the definition of force is: f = dp/dt hence E = 1/q * dp/dt so if a stream of similar photons each carrying momentum P hit charge q at a mean rate of r photons per second, the field is: E = rP/q > I don't feel at all enlightened by your reply. That doesn't surprise me at all, you seem incapable of learning anything, even accepted terminology. >>>>Yes, you imagine "c+v in the third frame" is the >>>>same as "c in the third frame". In your fantasy >>>>world I guess anything is possible. >>> >>> Does the outside of a star heat up or cool as it expands, George? >> >>Good question, you have expansion which causes >>cooling and you also have the force causing that >>expansion which is the radiation pressure of the >>light rising from the He++ layer which increases >>the temperature so the combination will vary >>through the cycle. When fully modelled, the total >>of the various effects matches the observations. > > I would interpret that differently. > I would say that astronomers who have been totally misled by Einsteiniana > have > for years been manufacturing all kinds of ridiculous theories to try to > explain > what they observe. Astronomers didn't 'manufacture' Planck's Law or Kramer's Law or the laws governing hydrostatics or acoustics. The majority of Cepheid modelling is based on laws previously found from other fields and which themselves have been solidly confirmed in the lab and many other areas of science. Cepheid modelling did call into question the early numbers for He++ ionisation and when they were checked it was found that the astronomers were right which further supports the modelling. The bottom line for you though is much simpler, you don't need to worry about building complete acoustic models of the stars. All you need to do is note certain aspects empirically. We know that the radius of the star changes so you need to take that into account in converting luminosity to brightness, and we know the temperature changes so you need to remove the resulting luminosity variation before using your program to fit what remains. You can treat both those curves as empirical and subject to the 'willusion' effect caused by the variable time the light takes to reach us which distorts the orbital phase, but trying to do a fit without taking those factors into account is pointless, they are both much larger than any ballistic effect. George
From: Henri Wilson on 26 Aug 2007 22:09
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:28:18 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:8v91d3tuv6a09tfd2qhnbsaj7krtklhhn5(a)4ax.com: > >>>> So far, you have only associated 'frequency' with the electric field >>>> driving the electrons at 1GHz. >>> >>>The electric field driving the electrons is not really associated with >>>any frequency. >>>It just supplies the energy to drive 'the electron wind' that 'blows' >>>the 'flute'. >> >> It is. The field is 1GHz AC. > >NO! In most microwave ovens, it is 60 Hz AC (the magnetron only produces >microwaves when the cathode is negative and the anode is positive) or 60 Hz >pulsating DC if there is a diode in the circuit. ....so WHAT oscillates at 1 gig? >>>> There is no connection between that >>>> frequency and the shower of photon PARTICLES that is produced. >>> >>>Correct. The magnetron's operation doesn't depend on quantum phenomena >>>any more than playing a flute depends on the fact that the air consists >>>of molecules. <aside> there ARE probably photons produced inside the >>>magnetron in the form of synchrotron radiation but those photons are >>>probably in the uv or soft xray region and just serve to heat up the >>>anode. <end aside> >>> >>>The faster the electrons move, the 'stronger the wind' that 'blows the >>>flute'. >>>The magnetic fields from the moving electrons induce currents in the >>>anode walls. Those currents oscillate at the resonant frequency of the >>>cavity. The oscillating current causes the electrons to 'bunch up' as >>>they spiral outward from the cathode. There are no 'photons particles' >>>inside the magnetron at the microwave frequencies. There is not enough >>>room for them. >> >> What happened to all those 'photons' emitted from the wave guide. > >They are absorbed. By the food, or by the various materials in the oven. Or >they leak out around the door seals. > >> I say their 'density' varies at 1 gig but they don't possess that kind >> of 'intrinsic frequency'. > >What you say would be wrong. I don't think you know what you are talking about. What oscillates at 1 gig Bob? 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. |