Radio Interferometry Proves Wilson's 'Photon Density Wave' Theory
Henry Wilson DSc
hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're all too stupid here
to ask important questions like that.
Clearly radio astronomy relies on the fact that EM behaves like a giant
spherical wave, moving at c wrt its source. BUT A SINGLE PHOTON CANNOT
POSSIBLY EXPAND TO SUCH A SIZE.
The obvious explanation is that the 'waveform' and 'phase' of all long
wavelength EM is a consequence of photon density variations. In a medium, the
wave moves at c/n wrt that medium, as per Maxwell.
To generate an RF signal, an antenna emits a very large number of energy quanta
that may or may not be identical. The density of these 'photons' is varied to
create the waveform, which then propagates away at c wrt the antenna, in
various directions. A question arises as to whether or not the individual
photons end up 'synchronized' in some way.
The amplitude variations and whistles we hear on short wave radio are due to
interference in this density wave as the signals take different paths to a
receiver.
Henry Wilson...
.......provider of free physics lessons
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:3d95p5pbpsk42bb3d...@4ax.com...
> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio receivers
> hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're all too stupid
> here
> to ask important questions like that.
>
> Clearly radio astronomy relies on the fact that EM behaves like a giant
> spherical wave, moving at c wrt its source. BUT A SINGLE PHOTON CANNOT
> POSSIBLY EXPAND TO SUCH A SIZE.
Awilson cannot possibly be quite that stupid. But he is.
A photon is an electromagnetic energy pulse.
A single photon:
http://dgsphysics.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/solar-flare-magnetic.jpg
eric gisse
> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio receivers
> hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're all too stupid
> here to ask important questions like that.
Since radio receivers hundreds of kilometers apart are well over the
horizon, how do you intend for them to interfere with one another?
>
> Clearly radio astronomy relies on the fact that EM behaves like a giant
> spherical wave, moving at c wrt its source.
Did you finally open an optics textbook, Henri? "Clearly" is the correct
word, because telescopes have been assuming these basic facts for about 400
years now.
Strictly speaking, telescopes assume the wave fronts are planar in shape.
Not spherical.
> BUT A SINGLE PHOTON CANNOT
> POSSIBLY EXPAND TO SUCH A SIZE.
Why not?
Even though nobody has made this claim, nor can you explain how it is
relevant, I still ask the question.
>
> The obvious explanation is that the 'waveform' and 'phase' of all long
> wavelength EM is a consequence of photon density variations. In a medium,
> the wave moves at c/n wrt that medium, as per Maxwell.
Let's see you derive Maxwell's equations from your 'obvious explanation'
then. We'll wait.
>
> To generate an RF signal, an antenna emits a very large number of energy
> quanta that may or may not be identical. The density of these 'photons' is
> varied to create the waveform, which then propagates away at c wrt the
> antenna, in various directions. A question arises as to whether or not the
> individual photons end up 'synchronized' in some way.
>
> The amplitude variations and whistles we hear on short wave radio are due
> to interference in this density wave as the signals take different paths
> to a receiver.
Congratulations, you've graduated to masterfully misunderstanding classical
E&M. Right after you post a nice fat whine about how there's a 'conspiracy'
to keep Einstein at the top.
Has it ever occurred to you that you just might be fuckin' stupid?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
yES? now TELL US ALL ABOUT IT....
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio receivers
>> hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're all too stupid
>> here to ask important questions like that.
>
>Since radio receivers hundreds of kilometers apart are well over the
>horizon, how do you intend for them to interfere with one another?
The technique is commonly used in radio astronomy, little eric.
>> Clearly radio astronomy relies on the fact that EM behaves like a giant
>> spherical wave, moving at c wrt its source.
>
>Did you finally open an optics textbook, Henri? "Clearly" is the correct
>word, because telescopes have been assuming these basic facts for about 400
>years now.
>
>Strictly speaking, telescopes assume the wave fronts are planar in shape.
>Not spherical.
Poor little eric has finally learnt that an arc -> a straight line is R
increases.
>
>> BUT A SINGLE PHOTON CANNOT
>> POSSIBLY EXPAND TO SUCH A SIZE.
>
>Why not?
Because you cannot tell ius how and why.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
What part of "electromagnetic energy pulse" did you not understand, Flea?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Henry Wilson...
xxein
xxein: You don't even understand how to tie your shoelaces. Go f-off.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:7qe8o59a5eei3iq6j...@4ax.com
BURT
> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in messagenews:k9g5p5h47s5abdgqd...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 20:30:17 -0000, "Androcles"
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> >>news:86e5p5h0fm7479u21...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 19:29:25 -0000, "Androcles"
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you sure it's not a ray andro?
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:45:42 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio
>>> receivers hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're
>>> all too stupid here to ask important questions like that.
>>
>>Since radio receivers hundreds of kilometers apart are well over the
>>horizon, how do you intend for them to interfere with one another?
>
> The technique is commonly used in radio astronomy, little eric.
Except there is no interference between radio _receivers_, Ralph. If you
read what you wrote, that is the direct implication.
Plus, there is no actual interfering in radio interferometry anyway. The
"interfering" is done in post-processing after the individual telescopes
have performed their observations. Perhaps you could bother to look up how
this shit works before yapping?
>
>>> Clearly radio astronomy relies on the fact that EM behaves like a giant
>>> spherical wave, moving at c wrt its source.
>>
>>Did you finally open an optics textbook, Henri? "Clearly" is the correct
>>word, because telescopes have been assuming these basic facts for about
>>400 years now.
>>
>>Strictly speaking, telescopes assume the wave fronts are planar in shape.
>>Not spherical.
>
> Poor little eric has finally learnt that an arc -> a straight line is R
> increases.
I corrected your latest misconception and all you can do is say something
stupid in response. Nice.
>
>
>>
>>> BUT A SINGLE PHOTON CANNOT
>>> POSSIBLY EXPAND TO SUCH A SIZE.
>>
>>Why not?
>
> Because you cannot tell ius how and why.
It isn't up to me to teach you basic electromagnetic theory. I have no
obligation to teach you anything - especially since you won't learn or even
participate honestly.
Henry Wilson DSc
Andro has rays shining out of his arse.
>Mitch Raemsch
Henry Wilson DSc
...we thank you for your polite and intelligent contribution to this important
discussion.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:45:42 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio
>>>> receivers hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're
>>>> all too stupid here to ask important questions like that.
>>>
>>>Since radio receivers hundreds of kilometers apart are well over the
>>>horizon, how do you intend for them to interfere with one another?
>>
>> The technique is commonly used in radio astronomy, little eric.
>
>Except there is no interference between radio _receivers_, Henry. If you
>read what you wrote, that is the direct implication.
>
>Plus, there is no actual interfering in radio interferometry anyway. The
>"interfering" is done in post-processing after the individual telescopes
>have performed their observations. Perhaps you could bother to look up how
>this shit works before yapping?
I worked with the bloke who invented it, you dopey little shit.
>>>> Clearly radio astronomy relies on the fact that EM behaves like a giant
>>>> spherical wave, moving at c wrt its source.
>>>
>>>Did you finally open an optics textbook, Henri? "Clearly" is the correct
>>>word, because telescopes have been assuming these basic facts for about
>>>400 years now.
>>>
>>>Strictly speaking, telescopes assume the wave fronts are planar in shape.
>>>Not spherical.
>>
>> Poor little eric has finally learnt that an arc -> a straight line is R
>> increases.
>
>I corrected your latest misconception and all you can do is say something
>stupid in response. Nice.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> BUT A SINGLE PHOTON CANNOT
>>>> POSSIBLY EXPAND TO SUCH A SIZE.
>>>
>>>Why not?
>>
>> Because you cannot tell ius how and why.
>
>It isn't up to me to teach you basic electromagnetic theory. I have no
>obligation to teach you anything - especially since you won't learn or even
>participate honestly.
I'm a hunded years ahead of you.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
yes, the sun shines out of my arse. May all your camels have
three humps, effendi.
eric gisse
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:23:03 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:45:42 -0800, eric gisse
>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio
>>>>> receivers hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're
>>>>> all too stupid here to ask important questions like that.
>>>>
>>>>Since radio receivers hundreds of kilometers apart are well over the
>>>>horizon, how do you intend for them to interfere with one another?
>>>
>>> The technique is commonly used in radio astronomy, little eric.
>>
>>Except there is no interference between radio _receivers_, Henry. If you
>>read what you wrote, that is the direct implication.
>>
>>Plus, there is no actual interfering in radio interferometry anyway. The
>>"interfering" is done in post-processing after the individual telescopes
>>have performed their observations. Perhaps you could bother to look up how
>>this shit works before yapping?
Notice how you can't explain how, or even if, I am wrong.
>
> I worked with the bloke who invented it, you dopey little shit.
Really, in what capacity? You faked your degrees, and have no publications,
so academic involvement can be immediately ruled out. You don't understand
the subject, so you weren't a consultant or involved in any technical
capacity. Were you the janitor?
>
>>>>> Clearly radio astronomy relies on the fact that EM behaves like a
>>>>> giant spherical wave, moving at c wrt its source.
>>>>
>>>>Did you finally open an optics textbook, Henri? "Clearly" is the correct
>>>>word, because telescopes have been assuming these basic facts for about
>>>>400 years now.
>>>>
>>>>Strictly speaking, telescopes assume the wave fronts are planar in
>>>>shape. Not spherical.
>>>
>>> Poor little eric has finally learnt that an arc -> a straight line is R
>>> increases.
>>
>>I corrected your latest misconception and all you can do is say something
>>stupid in response. Nice.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> BUT A SINGLE PHOTON CANNOT
>>>>> POSSIBLY EXPAND TO SUCH A SIZE.
>>>>
>>>>Why not?
>>>
>>> Because you cannot tell ius how and why.
>>
>>It isn't up to me to teach you basic electromagnetic theory. I have no
>>obligation to teach you anything - especially since you won't learn or
>>even participate honestly.
>
> I'm a hunded years ahead of you.
You mean "behind". You don't understand any of modern physics.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:23:03 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio
>>>>>> receivers hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're
>>>>>> all too stupid here to ask important questions like that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Since radio receivers hundreds of kilometers apart are well over the
>>>>>horizon, how do you intend for them to interfere with one another?
>>>>
>>>> The technique is commonly used in radio astronomy, little eric.
>>>
>>>Except there is no interference between radio _receivers_, Henry. If you
>>>read what you wrote, that is the direct implication.
>>>
>>>Plus, there is no actual interfering in radio interferometry anyway. The
>>>"interfering" is done in post-processing after the individual telescopes
>>>have performed their observations. Perhaps you could bother to look up how
>>>this shit works before yapping?
>
>Notice how you can't explain how, or even if, I am wrong.
You aren't wrong. You are just stating the obvious.
I am questioning how a spherical wave can have the same phase at points 100s of
km apart.
>> I worked with the bloke who invented it, you dopey little shit.
>
>Really, in what capacity?
Have you heard of Bernie Mills...inventor of the Mills Cross radio
interferometer.
Our solar telescope was right next door at Fleurs, west of Sydney.
eric gisse
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:08:20 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:23:03 -0800, eric gisse
>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio
>>>>>>> receivers hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't.
>>>>>>> You're all too stupid here to ask important questions like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Since radio receivers hundreds of kilometers apart are well over the
>>>>>>horizon, how do you intend for them to interfere with one another?
>>>>>
>>>>> The technique is commonly used in radio astronomy, little eric.
>>>>
>>>>Except there is no interference between radio _receivers_, Henry. If you
>>>>read what you wrote, that is the direct implication.
>>>>
>>>>Plus, there is no actual interfering in radio interferometry anyway. The
>>>>"interfering" is done in post-processing after the individual telescopes
>>>>have performed their observations. Perhaps you could bother to look up
>>>>how this shit works before yapping?
>>
>>Notice how you can't explain how, or even if, I am wrong.
>
> You aren't wrong. You are just stating the obvious.
>
> I am questioning how a spherical wave can have the same phase at points
> 100s of km apart.
What you are really questioning is how come Maxwell's equations are
observationally true in astronomy even though you've been spending years
upon years screaming about how wrong they are.
A spherical wave has the same phase at all points. Do you have reason to
think otherwise, especially given the successes of radio astronomy?
>
>>> I worked with the bloke who invented it, you dopey little shit.
>>
>>Really, in what capacity?
>
> Have you heard of Bernie Mills...inventor of the Mills Cross radio
> interferometer.
> Our solar telescope was right next door at Fleurs, west of Sydney.
Really, 'our solar telescope'? What was your job there? What did you do on a
day to day basis?
How long ago was this? Mills did his work over fifty years ago.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
I'm two hundred years ahead of Maxwell...five hundred ahead of YOU.
WHAT IS A FIELD MADE OF?
>A spherical wave has the same phase at all points. Do you have reason to
>think otherwise, especially given the successes of radio astronomy?
I just fucking well told you that.
Im asking HOW that can happen, given that light is not a simple wave in an
imaginary aether.
>d with the bloke who invented it, you dopey little shit.
>>>
>>>Really, in what capacity?
>>
>> Have you heard of Bernie Mills...inventor of the Mills Cross radio
>> interferometer.
>> Our solar telescope was right next door at Fleurs, west of Sydney.
>
>Really, 'our solar telescope'? What was your job there? What did you do on a
>day to day basis?
Photographed the sun's surface and corona.
By taking time exposures we could see changes in the granulation of the
surface.
>How long ago was this? Mills did his work over fifty years ago.
That's right. I'm not a raw young fool like you.
I've worked in science for fifty-five years. That's why I'm always right.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Check the date you gave us on your forged diploma.
"A forged diploma is not a 'forged diploma'...
hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson
news:mu2nm3d6urgddt8jg...@4ax.com
eric gisse
Yet you can't convince anyone that you are right. Not a single solitary
person. Not even Androcles believes you anymore.
>
> WHAT IS A FIELD MADE OF?
Fields are mathematical constructs that model what is observed. Do you have
a deeper answer?
>
>>A spherical wave has the same phase at all points. Do you have reason to
>>think otherwise, especially given the successes of radio astronomy?
>
> I just fucking well told you that.
>
> Im asking HOW that can happen, given that light is not a simple wave in an
> imaginary aether.
Why ask the question when you already know the answer? It has been
repeatedly explained to you that Maxwell's equations do not require an
aether. In fact, this question was settled over a hundred years ago.
Perhaps when you said '500 years ahead of me' you meant magnitude and not
sign.
>
>>d with the bloke who invented it, you dopey little shit.
>>>>
>>>>Really, in what capacity?
>>>
>>> Have you heard of Bernie Mills...inventor of the Mills Cross radio
>>> interferometer.
>>> Our solar telescope was right next door at Fleurs, west of Sydney.
>>
>>Really, 'our solar telescope'? What was your job there? What did you do on
>>a day to day basis?
>
> Photographed the sun's surface and corona.
> By taking time exposures we could see changes in the granulation of the
> surface.
And how did you spring from this to realizing there's an "Einstein
conspiracy"?
>
>>How long ago was this? Mills did his work over fifty years ago.
>
> That's right. I'm not a raw young fool like you.
> I've worked in science for fifty-five years.
55 years?
How come you still haven't had anything published? Or had a SINGLE THING
with you as nth author?
How is it that the sum of your life's work amounts to the crap you post on
USENET and your homepage?!
> That's why I'm always right.
Always? Henri, you still don't even understand relativity. Yet you insist it
is wrong for reasons that constantly change.
Hell, you think light is ballistic and there's a Doppler effect that's a
function of acceleration. Both these theories are massively contradicted by
observation, to which you can only make shit up about conspiracies,
willusions, and other such nonsensical bullshit.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
......silly old pommie bastard...
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:48:07 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>
>>>What you are really questioning is how come Maxwell's equations are
>>>observationally true in astronomy even though you've been spending years
>>>upon years screaming about how wrong they are.
>>
>> I'm two hundred years ahead of Maxwell...five hundred ahead of YOU.
>
>Yet you can't convince anyone that you are right. Not a single solitary
>person. Not even Androcles believes you anymore.
Androcles has been in cuckoo land for twenty years...
>> WHAT IS A FIELD MADE OF?
>
>Fields are mathematical constructs that model what is observed. Do you have
>a deeper answer?
YES
Fields are PHYSICAL entities.
>>>A spherical wave has the same phase at all points. Do you have reason to
>>>think otherwise, especially given the successes of radio astronomy?
>>
>> I just fucking well told you that.
>>
>> Im asking HOW that can happen, given that light is not a simple wave in an
>> imaginary aether.
>
>Why ask the question when you already know the answer? It has been
>repeatedly explained to you that Maxwell's equations do not require an
>aether. In fact, this question was settled over a hundred years ago.
Of course they require a fucking medium of some kind. Pure 'vacuum' has no e or
mu.
>Perhaps when you said '500 years ahead of me' you meant magnitude and not
>sign.
>
>>
>>>d with the bloke who invented it, you dopey little shit.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really, in what capacity?
>>>>
>>>> Have you heard of Bernie Mills...inventor of the Mills Cross radio
>>>> interferometer.
>>>> Our solar telescope was right next door at Fleurs, west of Sydney.
>>>
>>>Really, 'our solar telescope'? What was your job there? What did you do on
>>>a day to day basis?
>>
>> Photographed the sun's surface and corona.
>> By taking time exposures we could see changes in the granulation of the
>> surface.
>
>And how did you spring from this to realizing there's an "Einstein
>conspiracy"?
I saw the light years ago...
>>>How long ago was this? Mills did his work over fifty years ago.
>>
>> That's right. I'm not a raw young fool like you.
>> I've worked in science for fifty-five years.
>
>55 years?
>
>How come you still haven't had anything published? Or had a SINGLE THING
>with you as nth author?
>
>How is it that the sum of your life's work amounts to the crap you post on
>USENET and your homepage?!
How come you can't say anything intelligent?
>> That's why I'm always right.
>
>Always? Henri, you still don't even understand relativity. Yet you insist it
>is wrong for reasons that constantly change.
>
>Hell, you think light is ballistic and there's a Doppler effect that's a
>function of acceleration.
That's one of my world shattering discoveries, yes.
>Both these theories are massively contradicted by
>observation, to which you can only make shit up about conspiracies,
>willusions, and other such nonsensical bullshit.
....what a moron...
Paul B. Andersen
> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio receivers
> hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're all too stupid here
> to ask important questions like that.
>
> Clearly radio astronomy relies on the fact that EM behaves like a giant
> spherical wave, moving at c wrt its source. BUT A SINGLE PHOTON CANNOT
> POSSIBLY EXPAND TO SUCH A SIZE.
>
> The obvious explanation is that the 'waveform' and 'phase' of all long
> wavelength EM is a consequence of photon density variations. In a medium, the
> wave moves at c/n wrt that medium, as per Maxwell.
Some of the radiation observed this way is the 21 cm Hydrogen line.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:03:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
| So if we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna,
| photon density variations is used for waveform definition,
| but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there
| is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect
| of the photons.
On 22.12.2009 11:49, Henry Wilson DSc responded:
| correct...
:-)
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Well, as I stated in the part you snipped, there can be individual photons with
an intrinsic 'wavelength' of 21cm or there can be generated microwaves that
consist of periodic 21cm photon density variations.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
"Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive" -- Walter Scott
eric gisse
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:52:55 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:48:07 -0800, eric gisse
>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>What you are really questioning is how come Maxwell's equations are
>>>>observationally true in astronomy even though you've been spending years
>>>>upon years screaming about how wrong they are.
>>>
>>> I'm two hundred years ahead of Maxwell...five hundred ahead of YOU.
>>
>>Yet you can't convince anyone that you are right. Not a single solitary
>>person. Not even Androcles believes you anymore.
>
> Androcles has been in cuckoo land for twenty years...
So you've managed to convince nobody that you are right. What does that tell
you?
>
>>> WHAT IS A FIELD MADE OF?
>>
>>Fields are mathematical constructs that model what is observed. Do you
>>have a deeper answer?
>
> YES
> Fields are PHYSICAL entities.
Then how come a charge at rest has no magnetic field, but a charge that is
moving does?
>
>>>>A spherical wave has the same phase at all points. Do you have reason to
>>>>think otherwise, especially given the successes of radio astronomy?
>>>
>>> I just fucking well told you that.
>>>
>>> Im asking HOW that can happen, given that light is not a simple wave in
>>> an imaginary aether.
>>
>>Why ask the question when you already know the answer? It has been
>>repeatedly explained to you that Maxwell's equations do not require an
>>aether. In fact, this question was settled over a hundred years ago.
>
> Of course they require a fucking medium of some kind. Pure 'vacuum' has no
> e or mu.
That doesn't mean there's an aether.
>
>>Perhaps when you said '500 years ahead of me' you meant magnitude and not
>>sign.
>>
>>>
>>>>d with the bloke who invented it, you dopey little shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really, in what capacity?
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you heard of Bernie Mills...inventor of the Mills Cross radio
>>>>> interferometer.
>>>>> Our solar telescope was right next door at Fleurs, west of Sydney.
>>>>
>>>>Really, 'our solar telescope'? What was your job there? What did you do
>>>>on a day to day basis?
>>>
>>> Photographed the sun's surface and corona.
>>> By taking time exposures we could see changes in the granulation of the
>>> surface.
>>
>>And how did you spring from this to realizing there's an "Einstein
>>conspiracy"?
>
> I saw the light years ago...
Yet even today you still admit you do not understand relativity. How does
that work?
>
>>>>How long ago was this? Mills did his work over fifty years ago.
>>>
>>> That's right. I'm not a raw young fool like you.
>>> I've worked in science for fifty-five years.
>>
>>55 years?
>>
>>How come you still haven't had anything published? Or had a SINGLE THING
>>with you as nth author?
>>
>>How is it that the sum of your life's work amounts to the crap you post on
>>USENET and your homepage?!
>
> How come you can't say anything intelligent?
>
>>> That's why I'm always right.
>>
>>Always? Henri, you still don't even understand relativity. Yet you insist
>>it is wrong for reasons that constantly change.
>>
>>Hell, you think light is ballistic and there's a Doppler effect that's a
>>function of acceleration.
>
> That's one of my world shattering discoveries, yes.
For which you have zero observational evidence. You've convinced nobody of
this, and you can't even consistently write down the mathematics that
describes these phenomena.
>
>>Both these theories are massively contradicted by
>>observation, to which you can only make shit up about conspiracies,
>>willusions, and other such nonsensical bullshit.
>
> ....what a moron...
Yet nobody agrees with you.
PD
> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio receivers
> hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're all too stupid here
> to ask important questions like that.
>
> spherical wave, moving at c wrt its source. BUT A SINGLE PHOTON CANNOT
> POSSIBLY EXPAND TO SUCH A SIZE.
>
> The obvious explanation is that the 'waveform' and 'phase' of all long
> wavelength EM is a consequence of photon density variations. In a medium, the
> wave moves at c/n wrt that medium, as per Maxwell.
>
> that may or may not be identical. The density of these 'photons' is varied to
> create the waveform, which then propagates away at c wrt the antenna, in
> various directions. A question arises as to whether or not the individual
> photons end up 'synchronized' in some way.
>
> The amplitude variations and whistles we hear on short wave radio are due to
> interference in this density wave as the signals take different paths to a
> receiver.
>
>
> .......provider of free physics lessons
Henri, you seem to think that light that consists of more than one
photon cannot possibly exhibit interference, and that photonic light
can only exhibit interference in apparatuses that are comparable in
size to a single photon.
But then again, you're an idiot.
Paul B. Andersen
Quite.
According to Ralph Rabbidge:
<<
If we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there
is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect
of the photons.
>>
All the 21 cm radiation we receive from space is emitted from
hydrogen, there are no radio transmitters in deep space.
Ralph Rabbidge wrote:
<<
Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio
receivers hundreds of kilometres apart?
Clearly radio astronomy relies on the fact that EM behaves like a giant
spherical wave, moving at c wrt its source.
BUT A SINGLE PHOTON CANNOT POSSIBLY EXPAND TO SUCH A SIZE.
The obvious explanation is that the 'waveform' and 'phase' of all long
wavelength EM is a consequence of photon density variations.
>>
Ralph Rabbidge never contradicts himself.
Or does he? :-)
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
The fact that you cannot understand the question somehow makes ME an idiot?????
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On 08.03.2010 22:21, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:55:13 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"<som...@somewhere.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Some of the radiation observed this way is the 21 cm Hydrogen line.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:03:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>>> | So if we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna,
>>> | photon density variations is used for waveform definition,
>>> | but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there
>>> | is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect
>>> | of the photons.
>>>
>>> On 22.12.2009 11:49, Henry Wilson DSc responded:
>>> | correct...
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yax3kbm
>>
>> Well, as I stated in the part you snipped, there can be individual photons with
>> an intrinsic 'wavelength' of 21cm or there can be generated microwaves that
>> consist of periodic 21cm photon density variations.
>
>Quite.
>According to Henry Wilson :
><<
> If we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there
> is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect
> of the photons.
> >>
>
>All the 21 cm radiation we receive from space is emitted from
>hydrogen, there are no radio transmitters in deep space.
>Henry Wilson wrote:
><<
> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio
> receivers hundreds of kilometres apart?
> Clearly radio astronomy relies on the fact that EM behaves like a giant
> spherical wave, moving at c wrt its source.
> BUT A SINGLE PHOTON CANNOT POSSIBLY EXPAND TO SUCH A SIZE.
> The obvious explanation is that the 'waveform' and 'phase' of all long
> wavelength EM is a consequence of photon density variations.
> >>
>
>Henry Wilson never contradicts himself.
>Or does he? :-)
I don't think you are trying to seriously answer the question.
Radio astronomy relies on and appears to support the principle that light from
a distant source ...take 21cm if you like...spreads out from that source like a
spherical wave in a medium, that medium being at rest wrt Earth.
I am pointing out that individual 21 cm photons could hardly spread out to
become 100s of kilometres wide. Therefore another process must be involved.
I put forward the concept of a 'photon density wave', moving outwards from the
source at c wrt that source....as though the photons themselves carry with them
the kind of 'aether' that Maxwell envisaged.
Can you comment on THAT instead of raving like a dyslexic baboon?
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
That is an unkind comment about dyslexic baboons.
eric gisse
Thus confirming you do not understand classical electrodynamics.
Paul B. Andersen
There was no question.
You made a confused and ridiculous claim:
<<
The obvious explanation is that the 'waveform' and 'phase' of all long
wavelength EM is a consequence of photon density variations.
>>
> Radio astronomy relies on and appears to support the principle that light from
> a distant source ...take 21cm if you like...spreads out from that source like a
> spherical wave in a medium, that medium being at rest wrt Earth.
> I am pointing out that individual 21 cm photons could hardly spread out to
> become 100s of kilometres wide. Therefore another process must be involved.
> I put forward the concept of a 'photon density wave', moving outwards from the
> source at c wrt that source....as though the photons themselves carry with them
> the kind of 'aether' that Maxwell envisaged.
>
> Can you comment on THAT instead of raving like a dyslexic baboon?
I just did comment on your ridiculous 'density wave', but I can repeat it.
According to Ralph Rabbidge :
<<
If we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there
is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect
of the photons.
>>
Yet Ralph Rabbidge:
<<
puts forward the concept of a 'photon density wave', moving outwards
from the source at c wrt that source.
>>
So there is no photon density variation, but the obvious explanation
is that the 'waveform' and 'phase' of all long wavelength EM is
a consequence of photon density variations.
Right? :-)
--
Paul, the dyslectic baboon having fun
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Yes...I'm sorry if I offended any baboons....
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
fuck off
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 09.03.2010 23:17, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:47:44 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"<som...@somewhere.no>
>> wrote:
>>> Henry Wilson never contradicts himself.
>>> Or does he? :-)
>>
>> I don't think you are trying to seriously answer the question.
>
>There was no question.
>You made a confused and ridiculous claim:
><<
> The obvious explanation is that the 'waveform' and 'phase' of all long
> wavelength EM is a consequence of photon density variations.
>>>
>
>
>> Radio astronomy relies on and appears to support the principle that light from
>> a distant source ...take 21cm if you like...spreads out from that source like a
>> spherical wave in a medium, that medium being at rest wrt Earth.
>> I am pointing out that individual 21 cm photons could hardly spread out to
>> become 100s of kilometres wide. Therefore another process must be involved.
>> I put forward the concept of a 'photon density wave', moving outwards from the
>> source at c wrt that source....as though the photons themselves carry with them
>> the kind of 'aether' that Maxwell envisaged.
>>
>> Can you comment on THAT instead of raving like a dyslexic baboon?
>
>I just did comment on your ridiculous 'density wave', but I can repeat it.
>
>According to Henry Wilson :
><<
> If we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there
> is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect
> of the photons.
> >>
>
>Yet Henry Wilson:
><<
> puts forward the concept of a 'photon density wave', moving outwards
> from the source at c wrt that source.
> >>
>
>So there is no photon density variation, but the obvious explanation
>is that the 'waveform' and 'phase' of all long wavelength EM is
>a consequence of photon density variations.
>
>Right? :-)
Paul, let me explain.
There are two ways to produce an EM signal.
There are single photons that have intrinsic 'wavelengths', as described by my
'serated bullet' or 'ball chain' models.
There are antennae generated EM waves that are created out of density
variations in bulk emitted 'white photons'.
I'm more interested in investigating the possible interactions between photons
in such a stream. Do they become somehow synchronized with the wave itself?
eric gisse
[....]
> There are single photons that have intrinsic 'wavelengths', as described
> by my 'serated bullet' or 'ball chain' models.
> There are antennae generated EM waves that are created out of density
> variations in bulk emitted 'white photons'.
>
> I'm more interested in investigating the possible interactions between
> photons in such a stream. Do they become somehow synchronized with the
> wave itself?
So when are you going to develop the theory, or is this just more idle navel
plucking?
eric gisse
[...]
> fuck off
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......provider of free physics lessons
Now that we've firmly established you respect literally not a single person
here, why do you persist in posting here?
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Ahenry Awilson, let me explain.
'Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their
having received it from some person who has their entire confidence,
impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of
their heads.'- Galileo Galilei
Galileo was referring to idiot you and your fucking crazy headless
crocodiles.
'Faced with changing one's mind, or proving that there is no need to do so,
most people get busy on the proof.'- John Kenneth Galbraith
You are blind to reality because you have your head up your own arse AFTER
you've seen one of these squiggles:
http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/light/cds_photocell.jpg
http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/light/laser_transmitter.gif
The squiggles are called "poetic license", they are not literal.
Galbraith was referring to stupid you and your fucking crazy headless
crocodiles.
'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with
reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Cicero was referring to ridiculous you and your fucking crazy headless
crocodiles.
You are totally insane, or, to put it more appropriately, a fucking
DICKHEAD!
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
When are you going to say something intelligent?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:pl2gp5ds21qk99hfv...@4ax.com...
>'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with
>reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero
>Cicero was referring to ridiculous you and your fucking crazy headless
>crocodiles.
>You are totally insane, or, to put it more appropriately, a fucking
>DICKHEAD!
When are you going to say something intelligent?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
When are you going to say something intelligent?
Henry Wilson...
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:12:09 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_v>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:pl2gp5ds21qk99hfv...@4ax.com...
>
>>'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it
>>with
>>reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero
>>Cicero was referring to ridiculous you and your fucking crazy headless
>>crocodiles.
>>You are totally insane, or, to put it more appropriately, a fucking
>>DICKHEAD!
>
> When are you going to say something intelligent?
>
shithead?
eric gisse
Why aren't you ashamed of posting forged degrees?
Paul B. Andersen
So the chicken is running again? :-)
http://tinyurl.com/yjhsoqx
The subject line is:
"Radio Interferometry Proves Wilson's 'Photon Density Wave' Theory"
And you wrote:
"Radio astronomy relies on and appears to support the principle
that light from a distant source ...take 21cm if you like...spreads
out from that source like a spherical wave in a medium, that medium
being at rest wrt Earth."
There are no antennae in deep space. So we are talking about
EM signals emitted from atoms, that is photons emitted by electrons
at energy transitions.
There are no other sources of EM-radiation in deep space.
In the case of 21 cm radiation, the atom is hydrogen.
According to Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson:
<<
If we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there
is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect
of the photons.
>>
So according to Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson there is
no 'photon density variation' in the radiation observed
by radio telescopes.
Yet Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson claims:
"Radio Interferometry Proves Wilson's 'Photon Density Wave' Theory"
The Doctor is contradicting himself again!
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Let's assume that is correct.
>There are no other sources of EM-radiation in deep space.
>In the case of 21 cm radiation, the atom is hydrogen.
>
>According to Henry Wilson:
><<
> If we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there
> is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect
> of the photons.
> >>
>
>So according to Henry Wilson there is
>no 'photon density variation' in the radiation observed
>by radio telescopes.
Let's assume that.
>
>Yet Henry Wilson claims:
>"Radio Interferometry Proves Wilson's 'Photon Density Wave' Theory"
Paul, if the incoming radiation consists of many individual '21cm' photons, how
is it that each single on can be in phase WITH ITSELF over hundreds of
kilometres?
Are you suggesting that each photon spreads out to that kind of size?
I think the onus is on you to tell us all how radio interferometry works with
21cm hyrogen photons.
>
>The Doctor is contradicting himself again!
Inertial
BAHAHAH
See in context blow in section marked with ======
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:puflp5pcbdqu4cqch...@4ax.com...
======
> Paul, if the incoming radiation consists of many individual '21cm'
> photons, how
> is it that each single on can be in phase WITH ITSELF over hundreds of
> kilometres?
======
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:puflp5pcbdqu4cqch...@4ax.com...
How can a photon NOT be in phase with itself? Why do you need an
explanation of the trivially obvious that cannot possible be false. Gees.
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:puflp5pcbdqu4cqch...@4ax.com...
>>>Yet Henry Wilson claims:
>>>"Radio Interferometry Proves Wilson's 'Photon Density Wave' Theory"
>>
>> Paul, if the incoming radiation consists of many individual '21cm'
>> photons, how
>> is it that each single on can be in phase WITH ITSELF over hundreds of
>> kilometres?
>
>How can a photon NOT be in phase with itself? Why do you need an
>explanation of the trivially obvious that cannot possible be false. Gees.
moron....
eric gisse
According to you, everyone here is a moron. Yet you keep posting.
What does this say about you?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
when are you going to say something intelligent?
eric gisse
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:05:14 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:05:26 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>>>news:puflp5pcbdqu4cqch...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>>>Yet Henry Wilson claims:
>>>>>>"Radio Interferometry Proves Wilson's 'Photon Density Wave' Theory"
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul, if the incoming radiation consists of many individual '21cm'
>>>>> photons, how
>>>>> is it that each single on can be in phase WITH ITSELF over hundreds of
>>>>> kilometres?
>>>>
>>>>How can a photon NOT be in phase with itself? Why do you need an
>>>>explanation of the trivially obvious that cannot possible be false.
>>>>Gees.
>>>
>>> moron....
>>
>>According to you, everyone here is a moron. Yet you keep posting.
>>
>>What does this say about you?
>
> when are you going to say something intelligent?
When are you going to realize that you aren't going to learn anything from
here and aren't going to teach anyone?
Edward Green
> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio receivers
> hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're all too stupid here
> to ask important questions like that.
Way to engage the reader.
Henry Wilson DSc
So? Did you read on?
eric gisse
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:44:35 -0700 (PDT), Edward Green
> <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 6, 3:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio
>>> receivers hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're
>>> all too stupid here to ask important questions like that.
>>
>>Way to engage the reader.
>
> So? Did you read on?
What would be the point?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:44:35 -0700 (PDT), Edward Green
>> <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 6, 3:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio
>>>> receivers hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're
>>>> all too stupid here to ask important questions like that.
>>>
>>>Way to engage the reader.
>>
>> So? Did you read on?
>
>What would be the point?
To see if he could make an intelligent comment.
YOU obvously cannot.
eric gisse
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:01:51 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:44:35 -0700 (PDT), Edward Green
>>> <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mar 6, 3:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever wondered how interference can occur between radio
>>>>> receivers hundreds of kilometres apart? Of course you haven't. You're
>>>>> all too stupid here to ask important questions like that.
>>>>
>>>>Way to engage the reader.
>>>
>>> So? Did you read on?
>>
>>What would be the point?
>
> To see if he could make an intelligent comment.
So your only purpose here is to troll?
Makes sense.
Paul B. Andersen
I am suggesting that your naive idea of a photon is ridiculous.
What's the diameter of an electron? I think we can agree that
it must be considerably less than the diameter of an atom,
which is a few Angstroms.
In a double slit experiment with electrons, the two slits
may be 40 nm apart.
http://tinyurl.com/ylyxcfy
That's more than 100 atomic diameters.
So using your way of reasoning:
I am pointing out that individual electrons could hardly spread out to
become 100 atomic diameters wide. Therefore another process must be involved.
I put forward the concept of an 'electron density wave', moving outwards
from the source.
But the source can send one electron at a time, and the interference
pattern will still build up. So the explanation cannot be an 'electron
density wave', each electron must have a wavelike quality so that it
- loosely expressed - interfere with itself.
It is however quite ridiculous to claim that the 'size' of the particle
must be several times the wavelength of the associated wave.
Quantum effects are weird stuff.
You naive 19th century 'clockwork physics' won't work.
> I think the onus is on you to tell us all how radio interferometry works with
> 21cm hyrogen photons.
Since it only is the wave-like aspect of the radiation that is
of interest in interferometry, you can safely forget the photons.
The telescopes are receiving sinusoidal waves with 21cm wavelength.
Record them, bring the records together and compare the phases.
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
I thought we were talking about light and photons.
de Broglie wavelengths of matter are inversely proportional to the momentum of
a particle. The associated 'frequency'...whatever that implies... is
proportional to the particle's kinetic energy.
...hardly comparable with light....
>It is however quite ridiculous to claim that the 'size' of the particle
>must be several times the wavelength of the associated wave.
>
>Quantum effects are weird stuff.
>You naive 19th century 'clockwork physics' won't work.
You have a naive way of changing the subject when cornered.
>> I think the onus is on you to tell us all how radio interferometry works with
>> 21cm hyrogen photons.
>
>Since it only is the wave-like aspect of the radiation that is
>of interest in interferometry, you can safely forget the photons.
Hahahhaha! You originally stressed the photonic nature of 21cm EM. Now you want
to ignore it. Hahahhahhaa!
>The telescopes are receiving sinusoidal waves with 21cm wavelength.
That appears to be true. Now, the question is, since the sources are emitting
individual photons of 21cm wavelength, how is it that they all appear to be 'in
phase' when they arrive here?
>Record them, bring the records together and compare the phases.
Remember the phasing and interference is actually used to locate the source(s).
it is assumed to be constant over large distances and that appears to be
correct.
Paul B. Andersen
We are talking about the wave-particle duality.
>
> de Broglie wavelengths of matter are inversely proportional to the momentum of
> a particle. The associated 'frequency'...whatever that implies... is
> proportional to the particle's kinetic energy.
>
> ...hardly comparable with light....
Sure it is.
You can perform the dual slit experiment with electrons as well
as photons, the result is exactly the same. The interference
pattern is determined by the wavelike quality of both.
My point was:
To say that the photon must be so 'wide' that it spans over both slits
in order to 'interfere with itself' is exactly as idiotic as to state
that the electron must be so 'wide' that it spans over both slits.
Generally:
>> It is however quite ridiculous to claim that the 'size' of the particle
>> must be several times the wavelength of the associated wave.
>>
>> Quantum effects are weird stuff.
>> You naive 19th century 'clockwork physics' won't work.
>
> You have a naive way of changing the subject when cornered.
I havent changed the subject.
It is:
It is ridiculous to claim, as you do, that the 'size' of the photon
must be several times the wavelength of the associated wave.
Photons are quantum entities.
Quantum effects are weird stuff.
You naive 19th century 'clockwork physics' won't work.
You have no clue, and your speculations are nonsensical drivel.
>
>>> I think the onus is on you to tell us all how radio interferometry works with
>>> 21cm hyrogen photons.
>>
>> Since it only is the wave-like aspect of the radiation that is
>> of interest in interferometry, you can safely forget the photons.
>
> Hahahhaha! You originally stressed the photonic nature of 21cm EM. Now you want
> to ignore it. Hahahhahhaa!
Indeed.
The sources of the 21 cm radiation are electrons changing energy,
and they emit one quantum of energy - one single photons - as they do so.
But you must have a hell of a lot of those photons to detect them
with a radio telescope, and the radio telescope will only experience
the wavelike qualities of the photons.
Good ol' Maxwell describes those wavelike qualities very well.
>> The telescopes are receiving sinusoidal waves with 21cm wavelength.
>
> That appears to be true. Now, the question is, since the sources are emitting
> individual photons of 21cm wavelength, how is it that they all appear to be 'in
> phase' when they arrive here?
No simple question.
As I said, quantum effects are weird stuff.
But if you are asking how a lot of arbitrarily phased photons
combine, QED will give you an answer.
But I can give you an analogy with waves.
Suppose you have a high number of sources radiating spherical waves.
The phases of the sources are not correlated, but their frequencies
are the same.
* * *
* * * O distant observer
* *
What do you think the observer will observe?
The sources cannot cancel - energy cannot simply disappear.
So seen from a distance they will combine to sinusoidal wave.
If the sources are exactly stationary to each other, and
the frequencies are exactly the same, the intensity (amplitude) will
be different in different directions, but in any particular direction
it will be a stable sinusoidal with constant frequency and amplitude.
It is however more realistic to assume that the sources may move
a little relative to each other, which will make the frequencies
slightly different due to Doppler. The amplitude and instant frequency
will then change a little with time, we will observe a (very) narrow band
noise signal. This is what the radio telescopes observe.
If you don't know what narrow band noise look like, try this applet:
http://www.falstad.com/dfilter/index.html
Leave "sound on" (to see the wave)
Input = noise
Select a bandpass filter
Set bandwidth to minimum
You will see a sinusoidal wave which is varying in amplitude
and instant frequency.
This is - more or less - what a radio telescope will see.
>
>> Record them, bring the records together and compare the phases.
>
> Remember the phasing and interference is actually used to locate the source(s).
> it is assumed to be constant over large distances and that appears to be
> correct.
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......provider of free physics lessons
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 15.03.2010 23:26, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:11:44 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>>
>>> So using your way of reasoning:
>>>
>>> I am pointing out that individual electrons could hardly spread out to
>>> become 100 atomic diameters wide. Therefore another process must be involved.
>>> I put forward the concept of an 'electron density wave', moving outwards
>>> from the source.
>>>
>>> But the source can send one electron at a time, and the interference
>>> pattern will still build up. So the explanation cannot be an 'electron
>>> density wave', each electron must have a wavelike quality so that it
>>> - loosely expressed - interfere with itself.
>>
>> I thought we were talking about light and photons.
>
>We are talking about the wave-particle duality.
......My 'oscillating particle' theory??
>> de Broglie wavelengths of matter are inversely proportional to the momentum of
>> a particle. The associated 'frequency'...whatever that implies... is
>> proportional to the particle's kinetic energy.
>>
>> ...hardly comparable with light....
>
>Sure it is.
>You can perform the dual slit experiment with electrons as well
>as photons, the result is exactly the same. The interference
>pattern is determined by the wavelike quality of both.
Insomuch as there is movement and there is a 'spatial periodicity'.
You actually have no idea of what either 'wavelength' or 'frequency' might
imply in the case of light.
>My point was:
>To say that the photon must be so 'wide' that it spans over both slits
>in order to 'interfere with itself' is exactly as idiotic as to state
>that the electron must be so 'wide' that it spans over both slits.
Different electrons go through the slits. No single one goes through BOTH.
Each diffracts according to a probability function related to its 'phase' when
it arrives at whichever slit.
The same principle probably applies to light although if the slit separation is
small, it might be possible for one photon to pass through both. Photons have
'cross sections' and lengths, you know. Electrons behave like small but finite
particles.
>Generally:
>>> It is however quite ridiculous to claim that the 'size' of the particle
>>> must be several times the wavelength of the associated wave.
>>>
>>> Quantum effects are weird stuff.
>>> You naive 19th century 'clockwork physics' won't work.
>>
>> You have a naive way of changing the subject when cornered.
>
>I havent changed the subject.
>It is:
>It is ridiculous to claim, as you do, that the 'size' of the photon
>must be several times the wavelength of the associated wave.
What 'wave'?
>Photons are quantum entities.
>Quantum effects are weird stuff.
Only becasue the physics establishment let in a lot of statisticians.
>You naive 19th century 'clockwork physics' won't work.
>
>You have no clue, and your speculations are nonsensical drivel.
They usually work.
>>>> I think the onus is on you to tell us all how radio interferometry works with
>>>> 21cm hyrogen photons.
>>>
>>> Since it only is the wave-like aspect of the radiation that is
>>> of interest in interferometry, you can safely forget the photons.
>>
>> Hahahhaha! You originally stressed the photonic nature of 21cm EM. Now you want
>> to ignore it. Hahahhahhaa!
>
>Indeed.
>The sources of the 21 cm radiation are electrons changing energy,
>and they emit one quantum of energy - one single photons - as they do so.
>
>But you must have a hell of a lot of those photons to detect them
>with a radio telescope, and the radio telescope will only experience
>the wavelike qualities of the photons.
Why are they in spherical phase by the time they reach Earth?
Are you claiming that all the individual 21 cm photons that were emitted from
the same source millions of Lys away managed to become 'synched' as they
traveled?
>Good ol' Maxwell describes those wavelike qualities very well.
He does...for an 'aether'.....but there isn't one....
>>> The telescopes are receiving sinusoidal waves with 21cm wavelength.
>>
>> That appears to be true. Now, the question is, since the sources are emitting
>> individual photons of 21cm wavelength, how is it that they all appear to be 'in
>> phase' when they arrive here?
>
>No simple question.
>As I said, quantum effects are weird stuff.
that's an easy way out.....I want the physical facts not some obscure
probabilistic theory.
>But if you are asking how a lot of arbitrarily phased photons
>combine, QED will give you an answer.
It wontIt wont tell you a bloody thing.
Do you think the magic word QED is some kind of universal panacea?
>But I can give you an analogy with waves.
>Suppose you have a high number of sources radiating spherical waves.
that is no analogy with your agreed photon emission theory.
>The phases of the sources are not correlated, but their frequencies
>are the same.
>
> * * *
> * * * O distant observer
> * *
>
>What do you think the observer will observe?
>The sources cannot cancel - energy cannot simply disappear.
>So seen from a distance they will combine to sinusoidal wave.
>If the sources are exactly stationary to each other, and
>the frequencies are exactly the same, the intensity (amplitude) will
>be different in different directions, but in any particular direction
>it will be a stable sinusoidal with constant frequency and amplitude.
You seem to have suddenly become an aetherist. Do you now admit that Einstein
was a fake?
>It is however more realistic to assume that the sources may move
>a little relative to each other, which will make the frequencies
>slightly different due to Doppler. The amplitude and instant frequency
>will then change a little with time, we will observe a (very) narrow band
>noise signal. This is what the radio telescopes observe.
>
>If you don't know what narrow band noise look like, try this applet:
>http://www.falstad.com/dfilter/index.html
>Leave "sound on" (to see the wave)
>Input = noise
>Select a bandpass filter
>Set bandwidth to minimum
>
>You will see a sinusoidal wave which is varying in amplitude
>and instant frequency.
>This is - more or less - what a radio telescope will see.
There are different types of radio telescopes. I was under the impression that
the incoming signals were modulated with a known frequency. By varying that
frequency and filtering out a particular tuned one, the effective viewing angle
can be accurately adjusted over a wide 2D range.
Paul B. Andersen
Thanks for confirming that you do state one of those equally
idiotic statements. :-)
That IS what I am trying to explain below.
But with your reading comprehension problems you probably
won't even notice that.
>
>> Good ol' Maxwell describes those wavelike qualities very well.
>
> He does...for an 'aether'.....but there isn't one....
You are babbling again.
Even you know that Maxwell works perfectly for radio signals.
The radio telescopes we are discussing were designed according
to Maxwell, and they work. And a lot of the equipment which makes
it possible for you to read this was designed according to Maxwell.
You can read it, can't you?
>
>>>> The telescopes are receiving sinusoidal waves with 21cm wavelength.
>>>
>>> That appears to be true. Now, the question is, since the sources are emitting
>>> individual photons of 21cm wavelength, how is it that they all appear to be 'in
>>> phase' when they arrive here?
>>
>> No simple question.
>> As I said, quantum effects are weird stuff.
>
> that's an easy way out.....I want the physical facts not some obscure
> probabilistic theory.
Quite.
You want a 19th century 'clockwork explanation'.
Where were you the last century, Ralph?
In Wonderland?
>
>> But if you are asking how a lot of arbitrarily phased photons
>> combine, QED will give you an answer.
>
> It wontIt wont tell you a bloody thing.
> Do you think the magic word QED is some kind of universal panacea?
>
>> But I can give you an analogy with waves.
>> Suppose you have a high number of sources radiating spherical waves.
>
> that is no analogy with your agreed photon emission theory.
>
>> The phases of the sources are not correlated, but their frequencies
>> are the same.
>>
>> * * *
>> * * * O distant observer
>> * *
>>
>> What do you think the observer will observe?
>> The sources cannot cancel - energy cannot simply disappear.
>> So seen from a distance they will combine to sinusoidal wave.
>> If the sources are exactly stationary to each other, and
>> the frequencies are exactly the same, the intensity (amplitude) will
>> be different in different directions, but in any particular direction
>> it will be a stable sinusoidal with constant frequency and amplitude.
>
> You seem to have suddenly become an aetherist. Do you now admit that Einstein
> was a fake?
Good grief!
Why are you constantly uttering mindless babble like this?
If you claim that it isn't mindless babble, then explain exactly
what in the above has any reference to an 'ether', and what is
incompatible with relativity.
You can't?
So it was mindless babble.
>
>> It is however more realistic to assume that the sources may move
>> a little relative to each other, which will make the frequencies
>> slightly different due to Doppler. The amplitude and instant frequency
>> will then change a little with time, we will observe a (very) narrow band
>> noise signal. This is what the radio telescopes observe.
>>
>> If you don't know what narrow band noise look like, try this applet:
>> http://www.falstad.com/dfilter/index.html
>> Leave "sound on" (to see the wave)
>> Input = noise
>> Select a bandpass filter
>> Set bandwidth to minimum
>>
>> You will see a sinusoidal wave which is varying in amplitude
>> and instant frequency.
>> This is - more or less - what a radio telescope will see.
>
> There are different types of radio telescopes. I was under the impression that
> the incoming signals were modulated with a known frequency. By varying that
> frequency and filtering out a particular tuned one, the effective viewing angle
> can be accurately adjusted over a wide 2D range.
What the hell is this?
Is it a reference to the heterodyne principle, or what is it?
In any case your comment is utterly irrelevant to the statement
you are commenting on.
Your question which I have tried to answer, was:
| Now, the question is, since the sources are emitting
| individual photons of 21cm wavelength, how is it that they all
| appear to be 'in phase' when they arrive here?
The answer is that since the frequencies of the sources are within
a narrow band, and energy can't disappear, they are bound to combine
to a narrow band noise signal, which on an oscilloscope will look
like a sinusoidal with varying amplitude and instant frequency.
A radio telescope can but receive one signal at the time,
and this is the nature of the signal it will receive.
(It may of course simultaneously receive signals in different
frequency bands, but now we are talking about the 21 cm signal.
So it is tuned to this particular frequency.)
The intensity of the signal will give the brightness of the source
in the direction the telescope is pointing.
To make an image of the source, the telescope has to change
the direction it is pointing, and record the brightness in different
directions. But the resolution of this image can be no better than
the resolution of the telescope, which is in the order of one arc
minute - of the same order as the human eye. Not impressive.
Thus interferometry.
To give an (over) simplified explanation of the principle:
Imagine we have a source consisting of two bright spots
which are so close that one telescope can't resolve them.
We have two telescopes separated by some distance.
When both telescopes are pointing at one of the bright
spots, the signals from the two telescopes will be in phase,
so when we combine them, we will get a high intensity signal.
When both telescopes point at a point midway between the two
spots, each signal will still be equally strong (or more, since
they will contain signals from both the spots). But now
the signals from the two telescopes will be out of phase,
so when we combine them, we get a less intense signal.
When both telescopes point at the other bright spot, the signals
will be in phase again, and when we combine them we will get
a more intense signal.
So now we can resolve the two spots.
If you really want to learn about radio interferometry, read this:
http://tinyurl.com/yevlpno
But you won't contaminate your mind with knowledge, will you?
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 16.03.2010 22:22, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:14:45 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>> Sure it is.
>>> You can perform the dual slit experiment with electrons as well
>>> as photons, the result is exactly the same. The interference
>>> pattern is determined by the wavelike quality of both.
>>
>> Insomuch as there is movement and there is a 'spatial periodicity'.
>>
>> You actually have no idea of what either 'wavelength' or 'frequency' might
>> imply in the case of light.
>>
>>> My point was:
>>> To say that the photon must be so 'wide' that it spans over both slits
>>> in order to 'interfere with itself' is exactly as idiotic as to state
>>> that the electron must be so 'wide' that it spans over both slits.
>>
>> Different electrons go through the slits. No single one goes through BOTH.
>> Each diffracts according to a probability function related to its 'phase' when
>> it arrives at whichever slit.
>> The same principle probably applies to light although if the slit separation is
>> small, it might be possible for one photon to pass through both. Photons have
>> 'cross sections' and lengths, you know. Electrons behave like small but finite
>> particles.
>
>Thanks for confirming that you do state one of those equally
>idiotic statements. :-)
Can you prove me wrong? Please demonstrate...
...and Maxwell designed his theory for an aether....and there is none..
So what does that tell you?
>>>>> The telescopes are receiving sinusoidal waves with 21cm wavelength.
>>>>
>>>> That appears to be true. Now, the question is, since the sources are emitting
>>>> individual photons of 21cm wavelength, how is it that they all appear to be 'in
>>>> phase' when they arrive here?
>>>
>>> No simple question.
>>> As I said, quantum effects are weird stuff.
>>
>> that's an easy way out.....I want the physical facts not some obscure
>> probabilistic theory.
>
>Quite.
>
>>
All your claims require an absolute aether.
>>> You will see a sinusoidal wave which is varying in amplitude
>>> and instant frequency.
>>> This is - more or less - what a radio telescope will see.
>>
>> There are different types of radio telescopes. I was under the impression that
>> the incoming signals were modulated with a known frequency. By varying that
>> frequency and filtering out a particular tuned one, the effective viewing angle
>> can be accurately adjusted over a wide 2D range.
>
>What the hell is this?
>Is it a reference to the heterodyne principle, or what is it?
>In any case your comment is utterly irrelevant to the statement
>you are commenting on.
>
>Your question which I have tried to answer, was:
>| Now, the question is, since the sources are emitting
>| individual photons of 21cm wavelength, how is it that they all
>| appear to be 'in phase' when they arrive here?
>
>The answer is that since the frequencies of the sources are within
>a narrow band, and energy can't disappear, they are bound to combine
>to a narrow band noise signal, which on an oscilloscope will look
>like a sinusoidal with varying amplitude and instant frequency.
What is this 'frequency' you talk about so freely..as if you know what it
is....?
What is actually oscillating in a '21cm photon'?
Come on! Tell the world what oscillates...
>A radio telescope can but receive one signal at the time,
>and this is the nature of the signal it will receive.
>(It may of course simultaneously receive signals in different
> frequency bands, but now we are talking about the 21 cm signal.
> So it is tuned to this particular frequency.)
I said there are different types of radio telescopes. Some have rows of dishes
that track with the Earth's rotation. Others use fixed arrays and wave
modulation to scan the skies and determine a source's position.
>The intensity of the signal will give the brightness of the source
>in the direction the telescope is pointing.
>To make an image of the source, the telescope has to change
>the direction it is pointing, and record the brightness in different
>directions. But the resolution of this image can be no better than
>the resolution of the telescope, which is in the order of one arc
>minute - of the same order as the human eye. Not impressive.
>
>Thus interferometry.
>
>To give an (over) simplified explanation of the principle:
>Imagine we have a source consisting of two bright spots
>which are so close that one telescope can't resolve them.
>We have two telescopes separated by some distance.
>When both telescopes are pointing at one of the bright
>spots, the signals from the two telescopes will be in phase,
>so when we combine them, we will get a high intensity signal.
>When both telescopes point at a point midway between the two
>spots, each signal will still be equally strong (or more, since
>they will contain signals from both the spots). But now
>the signals from the two telescopes will be out of phase,
>so when we combine them, we get a less intense signal.
>When both telescopes point at the other bright spot, the signals
>will be in phase again, and when we combine them we will get
>a more intense signal.
Hahahahahhahaha! What kind of nonsense is this?
You seem to believe that the two receivers are always perfectly aligned normal
to the LOS.
You really don't have a clue, do you Paul?
>So now we can resolve the two spots.
>
>If you really want to learn about radio interferometry, read this:
>http://tinyurl.com/yevlpno
>
>But you won't contaminate your mind with knowledge, will you?
hahahhahha!
You haven't explained how the resolution can be vastly improved by separating
three receivers in a large triangle.
Paul B. Andersen
That you can't read this because the transmission equipment
is designed according to a wrong theory?
Why do I never learn?
Goodbye.
--
Paul
Jerry
Androcles
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cd31b3c2-32d0-42cb...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Likewise.
Jerry
==========================================
Because you are both more stupid than Awilson, and he's a fruitcake.
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 17.03.2010 22:43, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:56:09 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> You actually have no idea of what either 'wavelength' or 'frequency' might
>>>> imply in the case of light.
>>>>
>>>>> My point was:
>>>>> To say that the photon must be so 'wide' that it spans over both slits
>>>>> in order to 'interfere with itself' is exactly as idiotic as to state
>>>>> that the electron must be so 'wide' that it spans over both slits.
>>>>
>>>> Different electrons go through the slits. No single one goes through BOTH.
>>>> Each diffracts according to a probability function related to its 'phase' when
>>>> it arrives at whichever slit.
>>>> The same principle probably applies to light although if the slit separation is
>>>> small, it might be possible for one photon to pass through both. Photons have
>>>> 'cross sections' and lengths, you know. Electrons behave like small but finite
>>>> particles.
>>>
>>> Thanks for confirming that you do state one of those equally
>>> idiotic statements. :-)
>>
>> Can you prove me wrong? Please demonstrate...
>>
Readers please note: NO REPLY FROM ANDERSEN SO FAR.
Transmission equipment works on the principle that its signal moves at c wrt
IT.
Do you disagree that a broadcast signal moves at c wrt its antenna?
Readers please note: NO REPLY FROM ANDERSEN.
>Goodbye.
Have a nice day...
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
You keep out of this please..
Andersen has made a blatant error in his purile sagnac diagram and is doing
everything he can to try to wriggle out....
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
so its no wonder he'd goof, they build their roads underground. What
else can you expect from Norwegian community college schoolmarms
teaching macramé and pottery?
58° 8'55.47"N, 7°59'19.67"E
Paul B. Andersen
> You can see Kristiansand where he lives on Google Earth (well, some of it),
> so its no wonder he'd goof, they build their roads underground. What
> else can you expect from Norwegian community college schoolmarms
> teaching macramé and pottery?
> 58° 8'55.47"N, 7°59'19.67"E
I live in Grimstad:
Old campus: 58°20'30"N, 8°34'38"E
New campus: 58°20'16"N, 8°34'50"E
--
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote in message
news:ho00sd$10o6$1...@news01.tp.hist.no...
> On 19.03.2010 00:22, Androcles wrote:
>> You can see Kristiansand where he lives on Google Earth (well, some of
>> it),
>> so its no wonder he'd goof, they build their roads underground. What
>> else can you expect from Norwegian community college schoolmarms
>> 58� 8'55.47"N, 7�59'19.67"E
>
> I live in Grimstad:
> Old campus: 58�20'30"N, 8�34'38"E
> New campus: 58�20'16"N, 8�34'50"E
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yjh52vw
Oh yeah, he's definitely got troll ears, that Andreas Prinz guy...
I thought you lived in a cave, Tusseladd?
Can't make up your minds how to spell "Depart(e)ment", I see.
http://www.uia.no/en/portals/about_the_university/engineering_and_science/researchThat shuld reaaly atract the briter stoodents.Rocky road, E18... reminds me of the Canadian shore of Lake Erie, whichI've driven around. I see you are plagued with graffiti like the rest of us.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
......but they have this to keep the brass monkeys away...
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
photography...
http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2008/09/05/fool-your-neighbors/
What is it really?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Kristiansand
lat 58.090784 N, 7.967686E
Grimstad has a more modern way
www.scisite.info/monkey2.jpg
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message