Prev: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
Next: curvature of spacetime
From: Len Gaasenbeek on 18 Feb 2006 10:50

"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaasbeek(a)rideau.net> wrote in message
news:kredndyLGfGYUWveRVn-gQ(a)wtccommunications.ca...
>
> "Len Gaasenbeek" <gaasbeek(a)rideau.net> wrote in message
> news:B_2dnafWM9FDVGveRVn-iQ(a)wtccommunications.ca...
> >
> > .......................................................................
> > > Does your paper explain how that corkscrewing critter
> > > illuminates all four of these:
> > > http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/images/vlti-array-smallsize.jpg
> > > http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/
> > > ...so it can add constructivly or destructivly after passing
> > > the four delay lines ?
> > >
> > > Sue...
> > > http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
> > .............................................................

To Sue,

In essence what you are saying is, that the workable size of an
optical telescope is limited and consequently can only project the image
of an observed star on a screen of limited quality.

To improve the sharpness and detail of the projected image of a distant
star, astronomers hit on the idea of using several telescopes and have each
telescope project the image of the observed star on the same spot on the
screen. The resulting improved image is comparable to what one telescope
of the same light gathering capacity as the 4 separate telescopes, would
produce.

The added complication is that the projected images of the four telescopes
have to reach the screen in phase with each other for them to add up
successfully. (Similar to the two slit experiment) To this end the
distance traveled by the light from each telescope to the screen must be
the same for the images to arrive in phase. This way the images will add
to,
rather than subtract from, each other.

This latest development has not come about as a result of a better
understanding exactly what a light beam consists off. It is simply a
practical solution to an old problem.

However the helical photon wave concept does provide for a better
understanding what happens when similar light beams are in or out of phase
with each other.

Enjoy, Len.
...............................................................
> >
> >
>
>


From: Len Gaasenbeek on 18 Feb 2006 11:14

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1140277585.173817.313050(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
> > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:1140247912.685192.79310(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
> > > >
........................................................................
> > > > > Does your paper explain how that corkscrewing critter
> > > > > illuminates all four of these:
> > > > > http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/images/vlti-array-smallsize.jpg
> > > > > http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/
> > > > > ...so it can add constructivly or destructivly after passing
> > > > > the four delay lines ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sue...
> > > > > http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
> > > > .............................................................
> > > > To Sue,
> > > >
> > > > In essence what you are saying is, that the since the workable size
of
> > an
> > > > optical telescope is limited and consequently can only project the
image
> > of
> > > > an observed star on a screen of limited quality.
> > > >
> > > > To improve the sharpness and detail of the projected image of a
distant
> > star
> > > > astronomers hit on the idea of using several telescopes and have
each
> > > > telescope project the image of the observed star on the same spot on
the
> > > > screen. The resulting improved image is comparable to what one
> > telescope of
> > > > the same light gathering capacity as the 4 separate telescopes,
would
> > > > produce.
> > > >
> > > > The added complication is that the projected images of the four
> > telescopes
> > > > have to reach the screen in phase with each other for them to add up
> > > > successfully. (Similar to the two split experiment) To this end the
> > > > distance traveled by the light from each telescope to the screen
must be
> > the
> > > > same for the images to arrive in phase. This way the images will
add
> > to,
> > > > rather than subtract from, each other.
> > > >
> > > > This latest development has not come about as a result of a better
> > > > understanding exactly what a light beam consists off. It is simply
a
> > > > practical solution to an old problem.
> > > >
> > > > However the helical photon wave concept does provide for a better
> > > > understanding what happens when similar light beams are in or out of
> > phase
> > > > with each other.
> > >
> > > Then you have some inclusion of Feynman's path integral ?
> > > http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_programme/highsch/Feynm4.html
> > >
> > > Sue...
> > ................................................................
> > To Sue,
> >
> > First of all, I am not an admirer of Feynman since he was the worst
> > (academic) offender in turning the science of particle physics into a
> > religious magic show and himself into its prophet.
> >
> > Secondly, I think that your above quotation by Feynman confuses the
issue
> > rather than add to our understanding of the use of multiple telescopes.
> >
> > Basically what I was saying in my previous posting was that, if you were
> > giving a slide show in a large hall and wanted to brighten the projected
> > image of the slide projector, you could use a second slide projector on
top
> > of your existing projector to project a copy of the same slide on the
> > screen, making the projected image twice as bright.
> >
> > However for this to work, the second projector would have to be the same
> > distance away from the screen as the first projector. It would have to
be
> > pointed at exactly the same spot on the screen and the second projected
> > image would have to be of the same size as the first image. In so doing
the
> > two projected images should also be in phase and strengthen rather than
> > detract from each other.
> >
> > In today's computer world the television image of the star produced by
each
> > telescope can be digitally added to the television images generated by
any
> > number of other telescopes. This way, the image of the star produced by
> > each telescope can be computer manipulated to make them a near perfect
> > match, before they are digitally added together to form the resultant
image.
> >
> > Len.
>
> Suppose I want to take the emission of a single star-atom
> (photon?) and subtract two of the mirrors from the other two
> to get a complete null ? The light from one projector will not
> destructivly interfer with the light from another as you have
> described the overlay of images. The VLTI however permits
> both constructive and destructive interference.
>
> Does your theory account for the destructive interferrance that
> is observed at VLTI Paranal ?
>
> Sue...
....................................................................
To Sue,

Feynman analysis does not correspond with reality since the vacuum of space
gradually changes into the medium of the world's atmosphere, i.e. there is
no distinct dividing line between the two. Moreover the earth atmosphere is
not homogeneous, as it gets progressively denser the closer you come to
earth. In addition its mixture changes as you go along.

Beyond that, I have said about as much as I wanted to say in my previous
postings, to explain the use of multiple telescopes, especially since I
don't really understand your last question. If you want more from me, I am
afraid I can't help you.

Len.
.....................................................



From: Sue... on 18 Feb 2006 11:22

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1140277585.173817.313050(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
> > > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:1140247912.685192.79310(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
> > > > >
> .......................................................................
> > > > > > Does your paper explain how that corkscrewing critter
> > > > > > illuminates all four of these:
> > > > > > http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/images/vlti-array-smallsize.jpg
> > > > > > http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/
> > > > > > ...so it can add constructivly or destructivly after passing
> > > > > > the four delay lines ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sue...
> > > > > > http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
> > > > > .............................................................
> > > > > To Sue,
> > > > >
> > > > > In essence what you are saying is, that the since the workable size
> of
> > > an
> > > > > optical telescope is limited and consequently can only project the
> image
> > > of
> > > > > an observed star on a screen of limited quality.
> > > > >
> > > > > To improve the sharpness and detail of the projected image of a
> distant
> > > star
> > > > > astronomers hit on the idea of using several telescopes and have
> each
> > > > > telescope project the image of the observed star on the same spot on
> the
> > > > > screen. The resulting improved image is comparable to what one
> > > telescope of
> > > > > the same light gathering capacity as the 4 separate telescopes,
> would
> > > > > produce.
> > > > >
> > > > > The added complication is that the projected images of the four
> > > telescopes
> > > > > have to reach the screen in phase with each other for them to add up
> > > > > successfully. (Similar to the two split experiment) To this end the
> > > > > distance traveled by the light from each telescope to the screen
> must be
> > > the
> > > > > same for the images to arrive in phase. This way the images will
> add
> > > to,
> > > > > rather than subtract from, each other.
> > > > >
> > > > > This latest development has not come about as a result of a better
> > > > > understanding exactly what a light beam consists off. It is simply
> a
> > > > > practical solution to an old problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > However the helical photon wave concept does provide for a better
> > > > > understanding what happens when similar light beams are in or out of
> > > phase
> > > > > with each other.
> > > >
> > > > Then you have some inclusion of Feynman's path integral ?
> > > > http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_programme/highsch/Feynm4.html
> > > >
> > > > Sue...
> > > ................................................................
> > > To Sue,
> > >
> > > First of all, I am not an admirer of Feynman since he was the worst
> > > (academic) offender in turning the science of particle physics into a
> > > religious magic show and himself into its prophet.
> > >
> > > Secondly, I think that your above quotation by Feynman confuses the
> issue
> > > rather than add to our understanding of the use of multiple telescopes.
> > >
> > > Basically what I was saying in my previous posting was that, if you were
> > > giving a slide show in a large hall and wanted to brighten the projected
> > > image of the slide projector, you could use a second slide projector on
> top
> > > of your existing projector to project a copy of the same slide on the
> > > screen, making the projected image twice as bright.
> > >
> > > However for this to work, the second projector would have to be the same
> > > distance away from the screen as the first projector. It would have to
> be
> > > pointed at exactly the same spot on the screen and the second projected
> > > image would have to be of the same size as the first image. In so doing
> the
> > > two projected images should also be in phase and strengthen rather than
> > > detract from each other.
> > >
> > > In today's computer world the television image of the star produced by
> each
> > > telescope can be digitally added to the television images generated by
> any
> > > number of other telescopes. This way, the image of the star produced by
> > > each telescope can be computer manipulated to make them a near perfect
> > > match, before they are digitally added together to form the resultant
> image.
> > >
> > > Len.
> >
> > Suppose I want to take the emission of a single star-atom
> > (photon?) and subtract two of the mirrors from the other two
> > to get a complete null ? The light from one projector will not
> > destructivly interfer with the light from another as you have
> > described the overlay of images. The VLTI however permits
> > both constructive and destructive interference.
> >
> > Does your theory account for the destructive interferrance that
> > is observed at VLTI Paranal ?
> >
> > Sue...
> ...................................................................
> To Sue,
>
> Feynman analysis does not correspond with reality since the vacuum of space
> gradually changes into the medium of the world's atmosphere, i.e. there is
> no distinct dividing line between the two. Moreover the earth atmosphere is
> not homogeneous, as it gets progressively denser the closer you come to
> earth. In addition its mixture changes as you go along.
>
> Beyond that, I have said about as much as I wanted to say in my previous
> postings, to explain the use of multiple telescopes, especially since I
> don't really understand your last question. If you want more from me, I am
> afraid I can't help you.
>
> Len.

I take that to be a negative response to my question.
I encourage you to spend a bit more time with Feynman's
path integral approach because it *does* model the VLTI
in interference mode.

Kind regards,

Sue...

> ....................................................

From: Len Gaasenbeek on 18 Feb 2006 17:41

......................................................................
> I take that to be a negative response to my question.
> I encourage you to spend a bit more time with Feynman's
> path integral approach because it *does* model the VLTI
> in interference mode.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Sue...
...................................................................

To Sue,

I don't want to cut you off as long as we are having a real discussion.
So I will give it one more try.

When we look at a multicoloured light image of a body, the light consists
of many colours and frequencies in a multiple complex phase relationship.

Consequently if we do the two slit experiment with two separate white light
images NO INTERFERENCE PATTERN WILL RESULT! Only if we use one light source
and split it in two by letting it go trough two adjoining slits, will an
interference pattern show on the screen.

On the other hand if we take two separate monochromatic laser light sources
and have one shine on each slit, an interference pattern will once more show
at the screen behind the slits, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOW DEALING WITH TWO
SEPARATE LIGHT SOURCES. This is the case because a pure laser source of a
single colour can only be either in or out of phase with another laser of
exactly the same monochrome colour.

In the case of two separate slide projectors projecting the same image on
the screen at the same location, the light source that illuminates each
slide is NOT the same. Consequently, interference between the two projected
images will not result even though the projected image is the same.
(In addition it is difficult to make two identical copies of a slide.)

In the case of the multiple telescopes, the same star is used as a light
source which means that an interference pattern may result, although not to
the same extend as would have occurred if we had used the star in a two slit
experiment. This is the case because it is much harder to make two
telescopes which are exactly alike than two slits.

I hope this answers your question since I am still not quite sure what was
bothering you about my previous postings.

Good luck, Len.
.................................................


From: Sue... on 18 Feb 2006 18:17

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
> .....................................................................
> > I take that to be a negative response to my question.
> > I encourage you to spend a bit more time with Feynman's
> > path integral approach because it *does* model the VLTI
> > in interference mode.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Sue...
> ..................................................................
>
> To Sue,
>
> I don't want to cut you off as long as we are having a real discussion.
> So I will give it one more try.
>
> When we look at a multicoloured light image of a body, the light consists
> of many colours and frequencies in a multiple complex phase relationship.
>
> Consequently if we do the two slit experiment with two separate white light
> images NO INTERFERENCE PATTERN WILL RESULT! Only if we use one light source
> and split it in two by letting it go trough two adjoining slits, will an
> interference pattern show on the screen.
>
> On the other hand if we take two separate monochromatic laser light sources
> and have one shine on each slit, an interference pattern will once more show
> at the screen behind the slits, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOW DEALING WITH TWO
> SEPARATE LIGHT SOURCES. This is the case because a pure laser source of a
> single colour can only be either in or out of phase with another laser of
> exactly the same monochrome colour.

Get a pair of laser pointers and try it.

>
> In the case of two separate slide projectors projecting the same image on
> the screen at the same location, the light source that illuminates each
> slide is NOT the same. Consequently, interference between the two projected
> images will not result even though the projected image is the same.
> (In addition it is difficult to make two identical copies of a slide.)

They will be twice as bright because it is random light.

>
> In the case of the multiple telescopes, the same star is used as a light
> source which means that an interference pattern may result, although not to
> the same extend as would have occurred if we had used the star in a two slit
> experiment. This is the case because it is much harder to make two
> telescopes which are exactly alike than two slits.

Click on the VLTI delay line to see just how hard it is.
Flying machines are hard too, but I don't discount that
such devices might exist just because the problem is difficult.
>
> I hope this answers your question since I am still not quite sure what was
> bothering you about my previous postings.

You have the photon clocks of Feynman's path integral but
you seem to be lacking the abilty to explore all paths.

Asking about the VLTI is just a convenient way to inquire
about your theory because a real device leaves no ambiguity.

Without ability to explore all paths, your theory predicts that
VLTI does not work in interferometer mode...
but it does work so you need to go break their telescope. ;o)

Sue...


>
> Good luck, Len.
> ................................................

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
Next: curvature of spacetime