GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 26 Aug 2007 22:09 On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:53:48 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:hga1d311k6r5e9f9118l90dq1euli5l315(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>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 brilliant...now I'm a lot wiser .... >>>>>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. Do you have a better description of what happens inside a microwav oven? >>>> 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? Its general nature should be pretty obvious to any engineer. Here's an experiment. Set up a vibrating wire. Move it towards a fixed point. Check the phase of the wire's amplitude when it arrives. Repeat 1000000 times. Plot the histogram of arrival phase. Use this data to predict how the 'wave' would diffract. >>>>>> 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. Sagnac requires that the rays move at c+/-v wrt the source. Sagnac proves SR wrong. >> >> 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. No george. The loctation is NOT random. There was a perfectly sound and unique physical reason why the arrow landed exactly where it did. You are talking stats. I am talking physics.... not philosophy. >>>> 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 That's a big 'IF'. You are attributing all the properties of 'fields' to photons. Do you include gravity and magnetism in this? >> 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. Physicists have traditionally been way ahead of engineers... >> 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. No, Planck and Kramer produced sound laws....ie., not based on willusions. >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. Willusions don't occur in the lab...in fact they are virtually negligible o Earth. >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. George, theories are usually considered 'right' if they come up with the previously known answer....even if they are completely wrong. >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. George, we don't know much at all about the radius change, if any. >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. Sorry, Not so 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.
From: bz on 27 Aug 2007 05:20 HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:5u54d3ht5ugbq6uss5u5n5cgsoihkbbbjm(a)4ax.com: > 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? When you blow a flute, does your breath oscillate at the resonant frequency of the flute? Of course not. The air column inside the flute oscillates. In the magnetron, the applied field no more oscillates than the air in your mouth oscillates when blowing the flute. The electric and magnetic fields in the series of cavities in the anode is the 'WHAT' that oscillates at 1 gig. ..... >>> 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. Think again. > What oscillates at 1 gig Bob? The electric and magnetic fields in the resonant cavities. The emf and current in the coupling loop. The electric and magnetic fields in the wave guide and antenna, the electro-magnetic fields of the space traversed by the photons emitted by the antenna, the electric dipoles of the molecules of water in the food being irradiated. All of these oscillate at 1 gig. The thing that does NOT oscillate at 1 gig is the voltage applied to the magnetron. -- 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 27 Aug 2007 06:38 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:0964d39tjr4cp4lpetdfmk8lbrf0fm3bcc(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:53:48 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:hga1d311k6r5e9f9118l90dq1euli5l315(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>>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 > > brilliant...now I'm a lot wiser .... :-) >>>>>>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. > > Do you have a better description of what happens inside a microwav oven? You can use QED to analyse the behaviour of the photons but given the very large numbers involved (due to the small value of h) it is easier to treat the statistical averages. Farther down the postI explained the connection between photons and their averaged effect we describe as a field, and Maxwell's Equations characterise the relationships between those averages. Using Maxwell's Equations and the 'field' representation of the photon flow is the easier method. >>>>> 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? > > Its general nature should be pretty obvious to any engineer. Maxwell's Equations are obvious to any engineer, but it took Maxwell to write them in the first place. Until you write them down in a form that others can use, you don't have a theory. > Here's an experiment. > Set up a vibrating wire. Move it towards a fixed point. Check the phase of > the > wire's amplitude when it arrives. > Repeat 1000000 times. > Plot the histogram of arrival phase. > Use this data to predict how the 'wave' would diffract. That would not give you equations that could be used in general, and it remains a classical wave model. >>>>>>> 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. > > Sagnac requires that the rays move at c+/-v wrt the source. > Sagnac proves SR wrong. Wrong, SR predicts the difference in speed should be c+/-v so it is compatible with SR. Ballistic theory predicts no fringe shift so is falsified. >>> 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. > > No george. The loctation is NOT random. Don't waste your time repeating dogma Henry, many QM tests have proved that it _is_ random and can _only_ be described statistically in real physics. > There was a perfectly sound and unique > physical reason why the arrow landed exactly where it did. > > You are talking stats. I am talking physics.... not philosophy. No, you are stating a religious belief, experiments show that the stats can be predicted mathematically, which is physics, but individual instances cannot. >>>>> 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 > > That's a big 'IF'. No, it is in the sense of "for example", not an "if" in the conditional sense at all. You also claim your theory is particulate so you should be agreeing with me. > You are attributing all the properties of 'fields' to photons. Do you > include > gravity and magnetism in this? No, you read to much into it, electric and magnetic fields obviously are described by photons as above. The same general comments are true for the weak nuclear force but the carrier particles in that case are the W+, W-, and Z bosons, not photons. The characteristics of the particle that would be needed to be the equivalent for gravity (the "graviton") can be calculated but its effects are too small to be detected yet. >>> 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. > > Physicists have traditionally been way ahead of engineers... You seem to be neither. >>> 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. > > No, Planck and Kramer produced sound laws....ie., not based on willusions. Exactly, and Cepheid models are built on those and other similar lab-based laws. >>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. > > Willusions don't occur in the lab...in fact they are virtually negligible > o > Earth. Exactly, so the Cepheid acoustic models are robust. >>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. > > George, theories are usually considered 'right' if they come up with the > previously known answer....even if they are completely wrong. If they give the right answer, they are "right" by definition. >>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. > > George, we don't know much at all about the radius change, if any. We know quite precisely what it is, and the values given by other methods are now being confirmed directly by interferometry. If you want to try to provide a valid theory, you have to show you can predict the interferometric observations as well as the spectral line shift and luminosity. >>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. > > Sorry, Not so George. Yes so Henry, you cannot get a valid fit for the ballistic element until you eliminate the effects of radius and temperature changes. That should be obvious to anyone and your denial of it says more about your state of mind than your technical understanding. George
From: George Dishman on 27 Aug 2007 06:46 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:aq54d3tovsrqebv16f0qtk9uej8haoohjh(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:34:31 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > >>On Aug 24, 12:45 am, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> All evidence. Not likely . Most if not all evidence points >>> to light being a wave only. >> >>You mean all those photon detectors aren't real? > > George assures us that all photon behavior can be explained with classical > wave > theory. Wrong way round Henry, I say all wave characteristics can be explained by QED. There are many quantum effects that can only be explained using the particulate model. George
From: bz on 27 Aug 2007 07:38
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:c664d3pcd4ijfpa92vj7p7nl90s2valm2t(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:37:58 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>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. > > The electric current in an antenna is already a 'wave'. It is NOT an _electromagnetic wave_ (which is what I was discussing) until it has been launched into 'free space'. Before that, it is simply an electric current with a waveform that can be observed with an oscilliscope or as standing waves on feed lines, etc. >>Nearfield and Farfield play a part in answering the question. >> >>Ask Maxwell to have his daemons explain it. > > You don't know the answers, do you Bob. Right. Unlike some, I do not claim absolute knowledge of anything that can not be directly observed or measured. -- 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 |