Prev: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
Next: curvature of spacetime
From: John Kennaugh on 20 Feb 2006 10:36
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
>THE CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT.
>
>If we look at the electromagnetic spectrum which shows the frequency of
>electromagnetic waves (such as x-rays, visible light, micro-waves,
>television waves, fm waves and long radio waves etc.) versus their
>wavelength, we notice a direct relationship between the two.
>
>If we multiply any given frequency with its corresponding wavelength, we get
>the speed of light c, providing the electromagnetic wave travels through a
>vacuum. That is to say, the speed at which all electromagnetic waves travel
>through a vacuum is constant (c), and is the product of their frequency and
>wavelength.
>
>If we accept the fact that electromagnetic waves consists of photons that
>follow a helical trajectory, it is easy to understand why this should be so.
>Because the frequency of a helical photon wave is the number of times each
>photon completes one helical spiral per second, during which time it travels
>the same number of wavelengths.

Why not a double helix? If a photon consisted of a pair of massless
positive and negative charges rotating about a common centre then one
might get around to explaining how alternating em fields are somehow
involved e.g. Maxwell? You also have the angle between the axis of
rotation and the direction of motion to give a concept of polarisation.

[snip]
--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal
From: Hexenmeister on 20 Feb 2006 14:11

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1140304657.450755.62950(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Get a pair of laser pointers and try it.

Fair enough.
>>
>> 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.

Err... Holography. Check your driver's license or credit card.
Laser light is not "random".


>
>>
>> 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)

Hmmm...
I'll make a gif of that.
Androcles.



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


From: Len Gaasenbeek on 20 Feb 2006 15:05

"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OqYLeoJYIe+DFwlu(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
> >THE CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT.
> >
> >If we look at the electromagnetic spectrum which shows the frequency of
> >electromagnetic waves (such as x-rays, visible light, micro-waves,
> >television waves, fm waves and long radio waves etc.) versus their
> >wavelength, we notice a direct relationship between the two.
> >
> >If we multiply any given frequency with its corresponding wavelength, we
get
> >the speed of light c, providing the electromagnetic wave travels through
a
> >vacuum. That is to say, the speed at which all electromagnetic waves
travel
> >through a vacuum is constant (c), and is the product of their frequency
and
> >wavelength.
> >
> >If we accept the fact that electromagnetic waves consists of photons that
> >follow a helical trajectory, it is easy to understand why this should be
so.
> >Because the frequency of a helical photon wave is the number of times
each
> >photon completes one helical spiral per second, during which time it
travels
> >the same number of wavelengths.
>
> Why not a double helix? If a photon consisted of a pair of massless
> positive and negative charges rotating about a common centre then one
> might get around to explaining how alternating em fields are somehow
> involved e.g. Maxwell? You also have the angle between the axis of
> rotation and the direction of motion to give a concept of polarisation.
>
> [snip]
> --
> John Kennaugh
> to email convert the number from hex to decimal
...........................................................
To John,

All photons are alike and don't carry a charge. This is not to say that
multiple colour photon waves can't exist of concentric helical photon waves
of different frequencies and amplitudes. Helical photon waves can also
become squeezed flat in which case they become polarized in any given plane.

The beauty of my proposed helical wave theory is that ALL particles which
are accelerated to close to the speed of light turn into helical wave
particles, even if they don't carry an electric charge such as a neutron.
This is the case because the sideways gyroscopic force, which turns the
relativistic particles into helical wave particles, is MECHANICALLY
generated.

However to accelerate neutrons (as compared to negatively charged electrons
or positively charged protons) in a particle accelerator is another matter.

The whole of the magnetic spectrum consists of electromagnetic waves.
We also know that for example in the case of radio waves, they can be
amplitude or frequency modulated and as such can carry information.

Exactly what the magnetic field lines of a permanent magnet look like I am
not sure, although I am sure that they consist of some kind of standing
helical photon waves. However this is another subject, which I did not
explore in any detail, when I first developed my theories some 25 years ago.

One possibility is that magnetic waves consist of double or triple etc.
helical photon waves, but since I never had access to a laboratory, I could
not check out the various possibilities and/or alternatives.

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


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