GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Aug 2007 18:26 On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:46:56 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. Changed your mind again, eh, 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: Henri Wilson on 27 Aug 2007 18:39 On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:20:27 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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: >> >>>> >>>> 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. OK, I accept that. A DC electron flow sets up VHF secondary oscillations in the tuned cavities. >>>> 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. I'm still trying to discover the exact role of 'photons' in all of this. There is no evidence in anything you said that photons themselves possess a 'frequency'. >The thing that does NOT oscillate at 1 gig is the voltage applied to the >magnetron. I know. I once made an elementary microwave cooker using an old radar valve (a Klystron) running on 10000V DC. 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 27 Aug 2007 18:40 On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:38:09 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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. That's a good attitude 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.
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Aug 2007 19:17 On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:38:06 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:0964d39tjr4cp4lpetdfmk8lbrf0fm3bcc(a)4ax.com... >>>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. Now wait a miinute. We have established that vigorous VHF AC fields are set up in the array of cavities. Presumably, 'photons' are emitted by the rapidly accelerating electrons in those cavities. ...and these find their way down the guide into the main cavity. There is still not even the slightest inference that these photons possess a 'frequency' themselves. > >>>> 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. The physics behind Maxwell's equations is pretty obvious and simple....even if the equations appear formidable. >> 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. that's what I wanted. A particle model that includes classical waves. All evidence points to photons behaving like that. >>>>>>>> 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. Ah! You finally accept that the speeds are c+/-v.... Now maybe you will also accept my variable star theory...since it relies on the same principle. >>>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. George, it is theoretically possible to precisely model an arrow's flight through the air, taking into account such things as the initial aim, wind direction and variation, air temperature, etc. That's how physicists try to model mechanical behavior. Stats is a relatively new player in the physical arena. >>> 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. Hahahahohohohohha! George, PHOTONS are described by FIELDS, a la Maxwell. How can FIELDS be described by PHOTONS? Is this just another example of circular relativist logic? >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. George, stop making up stories... Admit that nobody has a clue....except for me of course. >>>> 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. More BOTH than Neither. Physicists can be engineers but engineers can't be physicists. >> 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. But George, everyone still believes that light speed is unimportant in astronomical observations and measurements...just as it is in the lab. This is not true and shows how primative and ignorant most humans are...even the scientists. When relative light speed is included, as it should be, the whole picture changes. >>>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. Are you under the impression that there are cepheids in your lab? .........maybe you will even find some under your bed george. >>>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. George, I can easily 'fiddle' my above statistical diffraction theory to match the QM results, by introducing a few other likely factors. Would that make it correct in your mind? >>>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. If one has enough faith, one will find evidence for it everywhere one looks.... >>>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. My program can already almost do just that. It makes provision for a 'tidal bulge', which effectively sinusoidally varies the size of the star twice per orbit.The brightness can also be varied using the Lum ratio combo box. If I change this to make the bulge occur ONCE per orbit instead of twice, it will do what you want. >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: Henri Wilson on 28 Aug 2007 21:42
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 05:16:19 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:12:05 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:b6b1d3p5p0n7bvbp584bbgo01nehsr1pug(a)4ax.com... >> >>> >> >>>Right, nice to see you admit it. >> >>> >> >>>> for a constant a. >> >>> >> >>>No. It is for the value of a at that point, just >> >>>as the 'v' in the equation is the value of the >> >>>velocity at that point. For any other point, v, >> >>>a, and even the distance have different values >> >>>but the equation holds good for each point. >> >> >> >> It might... >> > >> >It does, it is simple schoolboy calculus as >> >you said. >> > >> >> but it doesn't achieve much. It turns out that when an orbit is >> >> considered, the phasing of maximum ADoppler depends on distance... >> > >> >You know the equation I get: >> > >> > f_r/f_t = c(c+v)/(c^2-da) >> > >> >so distance is in the demonimator. >> > >> >> and NOT due >> >> to the VDoppler contribution. >> > >> >The (c+v) term in the numerator takes care of VDoppler. >> >> Sure.... > >Thank again, you are finally getting to the point >where you will admit my equation is correct. It might be correct ...but it's just kid's stuff.... >> but you are only considering one point. > >Yes Henry, that's how people write equations, it >is general and applies to any single point. Now try applying it generally George. Don't forget to include yaw angle, eccentricity and observer distance as well as source velocity versus time. I wish you well. >> >> It is due to the emission time delay and da/dt. >> > >> >Nope, da/dt has no effect. Do the little problem >> >I set you elsewhere and you will find that out for >> >yourself, simple schoolboy calculus as you said. >> >> Yourequation is kid's stuff. > >I know, schoolboy algebra as we said before, so why >do you keep trying to say it is wrong when you know >it isn't. > >> I'm talking about the complete luminosity curve >> over a whole orbit...of any eccentricity and yaw angle.. >> The shape depends on da/dt and the emission delay as well as observer distance. > >You are just trying to back-pedal to cover up the fact >that I am right, the term da/dt does not affect the >luminosity and should not appear in the equation >for it. George, you are just skimming the surface. >> >> In my program, I replace 'a' with finite values of deltaV at equi-spaced >> >> (timewise) points around the orbit, then observe the way the 'bunching >> >> factor' >> >> varies with time at the observer distance.. >> > >> >Sure, now define >> > >> > deltaV = a * dt >> > >> >and you should reproduce my equation. >> >> You equation is just a starting point. > >Yes, but it is complete for what it seeks to achieve. It tells you the total doppler shift at a particular distance in terms of a single source velocity AND acceleration...or it would EXCEPT FOR ONE THING. THE FACTOR K. >It is a tool which you then apply to the particular >circumstances. That means you work out your >own equations to define the motion of the source >and then apply mine to find the effect on the >surface brightness due to ballistic theory. You >also need to use other laws to find the effect of >area changes and temperature as we said before >to find the total luminosity change. Give up George. This is way beyond you. My advice is that you should try to master my very comprehensive program and make suggestions with regard to how it might be refined. >> >> George, you do it your way. I'll do it mine. >> >> >> >> We can meet up in 1000000 years when you finish. >> > >> >I have finished, the answer is the equation >> >shown above. To apply that to a binary system, >> >use Kepler's equations to find the location >> >and velocity and Newton's equation for gravity >> >to find the acceleration and just plug them into >> >my equation to get the observed values. >> >> Simple isn't it...why don't you do it then George? > >Because ballistic theory is proven wrong and I feel >no need to waste my time any farther. BaTh has never been proven wrong. All evidence points to it being correct...at least in 'empty' space. My program uses the same principle that SR relies on to explain Sagnac. >The suggestion >that Cepheids were unvarying stars in Keplerian orbits >is simple to simulate but since they are actually what >you describe as "huff-puff" stars, there would be a lot >of work to do to take account of temperature variation >in particular. All it would do is show that the conventional >theory accounts for all the observed change so the whole >excercise would be pointless. It turns out that the temperaturre curve should be approximately in phase with the BaTh brightness curve....so it shouldn't make much difference even if it does occur. >I had intended to do it for the Keplerian case to deal >with the pulsars but you finally realised that the Shapiro >delay provided the orbital phase reference and that the >pulses were subject to VDoppler only. We have a saying >over here - charging an open door. It is a waste of effort >trying to convince someone ofsomething they have already >accepted, so there was no longer a need for me to spend >the time. I didn't need the 'shapiro delay' to tell me that George. I have a perfectly sound explanation as to why some stars and pulsars exhibit only VDoppler. >> >For a >> >Cepheid, you need either the acoustic model >> >for true velocity (or calculate back by fitting >> >an observed velocity) and use the derivative of >> >the true velocity for the acceleration. For a >> >laser bounched off a mirror glued to a >> >loudspeaker, you need to differentiate the audio >> >waveform to get the cone position, speed and >> >acceleration. My equation is entirely general. >> >> ..and entirely inadequate.... > >No Henry, it is entirely adequate. It is a tool and >it is _your_ job to wield it, not mine. George, my pogram includes two independent methods of producing star curves. One is based on YOUR equation. It produces the same curves as my other method. So instead of arguing you should be trying to apply it generally...just as I have done. >> >> >Now we are looking >> >at Cepheids and we have seen that again the spectral >> >shift is only VDoppler and that the variable radius >> >and temperature fully account for the luminosity so >> >there appears to be no ADoppler there either. The >> >whole of astronomy remains unchanged. >> >> George, we certainly have NOT seen that. >> Published temperature curves have entirely the wrong charactristics for one >> thing. > >The published temperature curves are as OBSERVED, >and ballistic theory doesn't change the conversion >from multi-band luminosity to temperature because >both VDoppler and ADopler apply equally to the bands >so the temperature values remain valid. ADoppler has the potential to shift a whole Planck curve sideways and give an entirely whole impression of the true temperatue of the star. >> >In fact the only effect we found at all was in the >> >Shapiro effect and that confirms GR and falsifies >> >ballistic theory so tough luck, "BaTh loses again" >> >to use your phrase. >> >> I have provided a perfectly sound theory to explain the Shapiro delay in BaTh. > >No you haven't you waved your hands and got it wrong. >Radiation pressure doesn't affect light and for a >spacecraft on the far side of Jupiter, it would act in the >wrong direction anyway, the change would make the >arrival time even earlier than that due to the gravitational >effect. It doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse. Wrong George. It would make the average speed less than c. A radar pulse fired at Venus when it between Earth and Sun takes lomger than one when the planet is in the opposite direction. ....and I'm not just talking about 'radiation pressure'. I'm sugesting forces unknown....maybe associated with the gravity field. >> BaTh also matches the curves of at least ONE pulsar. > >It matched all the ones we checked that had detectable >Shapiro delays or an eclipse as long as you have the >speed equalisation so short that there is no ADoppler. >(Without an orbital phase reference you cannot reach an >unambiguous conclusion.) That's not true. The curve of PSR1913+16 is mainly an ADoppler one. >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. |