> Geometry is mathematics and mathematics is a tool for calculations.
> And calculations follow a theory. In this scheme of things we are
> talking about physical cause. Geometry cannot affect physical changes.
That's where you're wrong. Geometry has definite physical effects.
There is a factor of 3 and 5 that appears in the specific heat capacity of a gas that comes *completely* from geometry. The scaling law for the thickness of limbs in mammals comes DIRECTLY from geometry. The two variations of hexagonal crystal packing and the corresponding effect on the conductivity of the metals with those structures comes DIRECTLY from geometry. Spherical aberration in optical lenses comes DIRECTLY from geometry.
Your declaration that geometry simply cannot have real, physical implications is a basic error of fact, and your insistence on it will blind you to the explanation of literally hundreds of phenomena.
> > On 11/6/12 11/6/12 7:13 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
> > > No amount of geometry can cause two triplets to age differently.
> > How silly! It is the very same geometry [@] that "makes" the path length of two
> > sides of a triangle be larger than the path length of the third side. Do you
> > seriously believe that path length difference in a triangle is something other
> > than geometry?
> The temporal dimension is assumed to be part of the geometry. Any
> pathlength involved with the temporal dimension has to be justified to
> be a proper (not in the sense of proper time, proper length, or proper
> bullshit) measurement of the geometry, and none has been offered as
> so. It is all pure speculation at the silliest level. <shrug>
> > > Differential aging must have a physical cause,
> > Only when you don't understand the underlying physics. Geometry is ESSENTIAL in
> > physics. Geometrical relationships can have clear and obvious physical
> > consequences (e.g. you can carry a ladder through a doorway in some orientations
> > but not others).
> At this stage, the question is not if anyone understands the
> underlying physics or not. It is the justification to use the
> temporal dimension as a pathlength which is just a proposal with
> experimental support. <shrug>
> Granted, these wild speculations do resolve the twins’ paradox, but if
> SR is wrong in the first place, you have no way of ever knowing SR is
> wrong. Without the assumptions, SR can easily be shown as false. So,
> basically SR becomes a religion, if you believe in the messiah, your
> religion prospers. If not, it will die off. <shrug>
> Despite the philosophical points of SR, SR is thoroughly proven to be
> false through mathematical analyses as derived from Larmor’s transform
> and also from the experimental verifications of very predictable
> coherency in interferometers that indicates absolute simultaneity in
> which it falsifies relative simultaneity. <shrug>
> Self-styled physicists would just tune in which experimental
> verifications and tune out certain experiments to amplify their
> religious beliefs. That is not within scientific method but a fvcking
> joke! <shrug>
Path length doesn’t solve twin paradox. For each twin his own
coordinates are orthogonal. Who actually accelerates in immaterial in
this geometry. Therefore, for the travelling twin, coordinates of the
home twin are rotated and path length of the home twin is the mirror
image of the travelling twin.
On the right side, we get path length of the travelling twin as seen
by the stay at home twin and on the left we see the path length of the
home twin as seen by the travelling twin.
In SR, we have equivalent frames and this is not brought out in space-
time diagram. For the stay at home twin, his coordinates are
orthogonal and for the travelling twin his coordinates are orthogonal.
> On Nov 7, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Only when you don't understand the underlying physics. Geometry is ESSENTIAL in
>> physics. Geometrical relationships can have clear and obvious physical
>> consequences (e.g. you can carry a ladder through a doorway in some orientations
>> but not others).
>> [We've been over this many times. It's clear that you just
>> don't get it. And you won't until you STUDY. I won't bother
>> replying until you do.]
>> Tom Roberts
> In my whole life I never encountered such a foolish statement.
Then you do not understand a LOT of physics which comes directly from geometry.
The constant volume and constant pressure specific heats of a monoatomic gas are, respectively, 3R/2 and 5R/2.
I defy you to come up with the explanation of that 3 and 5 without using geometry.
> Path length doesn’t solve twin paradox. For each twin his own
> coordinates are orthogonal. Who actually accelerates in immaterial in
> this geometry. Therefore, for the travelling twin, coordinates of the
> home twin are rotated and path length of the home twin is the mirror
> image of the travelling twin.
> On the right side, we get path length of the travelling twin as seen
> by the stay at home twin and on the left we see the path length of the
> home twin as seen by the travelling twin.
> In SR, we have equivalent frames and this is not brought out in space-
> time diagram. For the stay at home twin, his coordinates are
> orthogonal and for the travelling twin his coordinates are orthogonal.
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:34:03 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 14.11.2012 16:06, Dr Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:36:07 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Light is EM-radiation, the same as radio waves but for the frequency.
>>> It is not.
>>>> Are you claiming that it is open to question what exactly the
>>>> wavelength of a 300 MHZ radio wave in vacuum is?
>>> Are you claiming that the BBC has been broadcasting the same EM quantum for 100 years?
>>> You cannot go on until this question is settled.
>> Doctor Henry Wilson at his very best! :-)
> Well, that is the only possible interpretation one could make of your statement.
> I have asked before, "what is the role of photons in a radio wave?".
> Apparently nobody here can give a sensible answer.
> Can YOU?
> Does an antenna emit photons or does it not?
> Or does it simply project an EM oscillation in Einstein's disguised aether?
Lets start with philosophy! Under classic philosophy that is a valid question. Under the philosophy now underpinning physics it isn't. Under today's philosophy "what is light" is not a valid question because it is assumed "we can never actually "know" what Nature herself is really doing". Under this philosophy the only question allowed is "What does light do". What it requires is a model (mathematical) which predicts what light does. That is the stated aim of physics - not "understanding the natural processes of how nature works" which was what Classical philosophy said was the aim of science. As the model (now described as a "theory) is not purporting to represent reality it doesn't matter that there are two contradictory "theories", one of which says light energy is evenly spaced throughout space, and one which says it definitely isn't. Both are useful in prediction.
I point this out to explain to you why you are not likely to get a sensible answer out of the likes of PBA or TR. They are vehemently defending a physics the essential philosophical basis of which they have totally failed to understand. Defenders of a faith they don't understand.
You are either unaware of the newer philosophy and are still expecting Classical explanations or, if you are aware of it - and I have done my best to make you aware - you have decided to rejected it.
I reject it as being too extreme and because of its central contradiction that on the one had reality is beyond the human mind and on the other that mathematics, invented by that same human mind, is the be-all and end-all of physics.
The only classical answer I can give to your question is the one provided by Waldron. Using the logic of classical philosophy he concluded that if light is made up of photons then photons must have some parameter which gives them frequency, phase and polarisation. In a paper he wrote called "the spinning photon". He concluded that photons have mass. That their energy in the FoR of the source is split equally between forward kinetic energy and internal rotational energy. Their kinetic energy changes if you are moving w.r.t the source, energy equates to frequency = doppler.
His theory is that a photon consists of an equal number of positive and negative x particles which spin forming a dipole. He calculates the radius of a photon of different frequencies. This is an extract from his paper: (OCR'd so there may be the odd mistake I have missed)
-------------------------------------------------------------
" PHOTON PACKING DENSITY
By �photon packing density� is meant the number of photons per unit
volume. If there are n^3 photons per cc, the separation of the centres of neighbouring photons will be (1/n) cm on the average. The power density in a beam �of photons in which the packing density is independent of position is then
n^3 hfc = n^3 mc^3 .
For a beam of light of power density 0.01 watt/cmďż˝ (the sort of power
density value obtaining a few inches from an ordinary electric light bulb), at a wavelength of 5000A, n is about 94 and the separation between photons is about 0.0106 cm. Table 1 shows the photon radius to be of the order of a thousand times smaller than the separation. Thus the photons travel in the same direction, but are well separated. Presumably they do not interact much with one another and would not be expected to be coherent. On the other hand, a laser beam with a power density of 1 Mwatt/cm^2 at frequency 10^14 c/sec has n about 8.10^4, that is a separation of centres of about 1.25.10^-5 cm, while the photon radius a is about 7.5x10^-5 cm.
Thus the centre of one photon lies within the body of its neighbour ďż˝ there is a considerable amount of interpenetration. Since the density of material in these photons is only of the order of 10^-22 gm/cc, it is not difficult to imagine them interpenetrating one another. The interpenetration might be expected to give strong interaction, accounting for the coherence of laser beams, as compared to the previous case of light at ordinary power densities.
If we now consider radio waves at a frequency of 1 Mc/s, with a photon
packing density such that the photons just touch their neighbours, without interpenetration but with no space between, n is found-to be about 1/15100 per cm and the power density of the beam is about 5.8.1O^-30 watt/cm^2. [undetectable].
Clearly in an ordinary radio beam there must be a large number of photons occupying the same space, accounting for the coherence. But under such conditions one wonders how meaningful it is to think in terms of photons. For an x-particle must be much more strongly influenced by the nearby x-particles of photons overlapping its own photon than by x-particles in its own photon that are some distance away.
It would appear that it is appropriate to think in terms of photons when
they are well separated, as is the case with gamma particles and light under normal circumstances. When the photons apparently interpenetrate to a large extent, coherent waves result, as in the case of laser light or radio waves, and then electromagnetic fields may be a more useful concept than photons. This accords with the conclusion reached in �2�, that Maxwell�s equations are valid only when time rates of change are small and velocities of electrodes, coils, etc., used to generate fields are small relative to one another. Thus Maxwell�s
theory is particularly useful for radio waves, but not for gamma particles."
Waldron "The spinning photon" Speculations in science and technology Vol 6 No 2 (1983)
I'm not saying Waldron is right but in the past, in the days when physics was governed by Classical philosophy Waldron's approach of trying to explain things was a valid, essential approach. His Paper would have faced criticism from others trying to come up with something better - picking up on some of his ideas and running with them. Under the current philosophy that is outlawed. Reality is beyond the human mind. We cannot know what light is and we can, using one "theory" [model] or the other, predict what light will do and today that is all that is expected of physics.
I find his idea intriguing. High energy photons are particles because they exist in isolation have high energy and are tiny. Radio frequency photons form a conglomerate where granularity disappears completely, and in what you might call the transition region where the diameter and spacing of photons is about the same order visible light is most likely to show a mixture of wave and particulate properties.
> > On 11/6/12 11/6/12 7:13 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
> > > No amount of geometry can cause two triplets to age differently.
> > How silly! It is the very same geometry [@] that "makes" the path length of two
> > sides of a triangle be larger than the path length of the third side. Do you
> > seriously believe that path length difference in a triangle is something other
> > than geometry?
> The temporal dimension is assumed to be part of the geometry. Any
> pathlength involved with the temporal dimension has to be justified to
> be a proper (not in the sense of proper time, proper length, or proper
> bullshit) measurement of the geometry, and none has been offered as
> so. It is all pure speculation at the silliest level. <shrug>
> > > Differential aging must have a physical cause,
> > Only when you don't understand the underlying physics. Geometry is ESSENTIAL in
> > physics. Geometrical relationships can have clear and obvious physical
> > consequences (e.g. you can carry a ladder through a doorway in some orientations
> > but not others).
> At this stage, the question is not if anyone understands the
> underlying physics or not. It is the justification to use the
> temporal dimension as a pathlength which is just a proposal with
> experimental support. <shrug>
> Granted, these wild speculations do resolve the twins’ paradox, but if
> SR is wrong in the first place, you have no way of ever knowing SR is
> wrong. Without the assumptions, SR can easily be shown as false. So,
> basically SR becomes a religion, if you believe in the messiah, your
> religion prospers. If not, it will die off. <shrug>
> Despite the philosophical points of SR, SR is thoroughly proven to be
> false through mathematical analyses as derived from Larmor’s transform
> and also from the experimental verifications of very predictable
> coherency in interferometers that indicates absolute simultaneity in
> which it falsifies relative simultaneity. <shrug>
> Self-styled physicists would just tune in which experimental
> verifications and tune out certain experiments to amplify their
> religious beliefs. That is not within scientific method but a fvcking
> joke! <shrug>
Path length doesn’t solve twin paradox. For each twin his own
coordinates are orthogonal. Who actually accelerates in immaterial in
this geometry. Therefore, for the travelling twin, coordinates of the
home twin are rotated and path length of the home twin is the mirror
image of the travelling twin.
On the right side, we get path length of the travelling twin as seen
by the stay at home twin and on the left we see the path length of the
home twin as seen by the travelling twin.
In SR, we have equivalent frames and this is not brought out in space-
time diagram. For the stay at home twin, his coordinates are
orthogonal and for the travelling twin his coordinates are orthogonal.
==========================================
Roberts’ theory in crankdom: How silly! It is the very same chronometry that "makes" the path length of two
times of a tritemporal be larger than the path length of the third time. Does Roberts
seriously believe that path length difference in a tritemporal is something other
than chronometry?
Actually the two sides of a triangle are vectors with different directions to the third side, perhaps psychotic Roberts would like to tell us what these other
directions of time are.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
> I'm not saying Waldron is right but in the past, in the days when
> physics was governed by Classical philosophy Waldron's approach of
> trying to explain things was a valid, essential approach. His Paper
> would have faced criticism from others trying to come up with something
> better - picking up on some of his ideas and running with them. Under
> the current philosophy that is outlawed. Reality is beyond the human
> mind. We cannot know what light is and we can, using one "theory"
> [model] or the other, predict what light will do and today that is all
> that is expected of physics.
> I find his idea intriguing. High energy photons are particles because
> they exist in isolation have high energy and are tiny. Radio frequency
> photons form a conglomerate where granularity disappears completely, and
> in what you might call the transition region where the diameter and
> spacing of photons is about the same order visible light is most likely
> to show a mixture of wave and particulate properties.
Thank you John. You have backed up my theory very neatly. Photons must have an effective length and cross section and must interact to some extent when in close contact, whilst still retaining the basic information they carry. We can only speculate on how they interact without total annihilation due to addition of randomly distributed phase relationships. (Or maybe they eventually do...and that explains the darkness of space).
If a radio signal is created out of photons radiated by accelerating electrons in the antenna, those photons would possess a wide range of random wavelengths, totally unrelated to the radio wavelength. My guess is that the modulation of radio waves involves photon density variations and is not related to the properties of individual photons at all. How could it be?
> Few years ago, not being in touch with modern definition of science, I
> asked on the newsgroup, how can there be waves without ether?
I will answer your question.
Part of the answer has to do with a preamble about the interaction between science and math. There's a rather amazing observation that seems to hold true in the world, and it is this: Systems that have completely different physical basis can nevertheless have physical laws that *look alike* in the sense that they can be described in the same way mathematically. This is VERY important, so read it twice: Different physical descriptions, same mathematical description. Why is this valuable? It's because a mathematical description has certain, well-understood solutions. And here is the second remarkable observation: Whenever the mathematical description has a particular solution, we know WITHOUT EXCEPTION that this mathematical solution will be exhibited in nature as a real observed behavior. This has happened time and time again. Then what this means is that though two physical systems can have *completely different* physical basis, if they have a common mathematical description, then the specific solutions of that mathematical description will be exhibited in BOTH systems. This is tremendously powerful in science, because it means we can look at a new physical system and look at the form of the laws that govern its behavior, and we can say, "Hey, look, that form is mathematically identical to this completely different physical system with different physical laws. And that means that the behaviors that we observe in that other system should also be exhibited in this system." And when we check, we find out that in fact those behaviors are there too.
This is NOT saying that mathematics causes the behavior. The physical systems cause the behavior. But it is STILL TRUE that two completely different physical systems with *different* governing laws can exhibit the same observed behaviors, and when we look at what is common between those two systems, it is always the case that the two systems have laws that have common mathematical form. And it is always the case that ALL the solutions of the mathematical form are exhibited in real behaviors. To shun this marvelous happenstance because of some detestation of mathematics would be stupid.
There are lots of cases of this. I will list two. One is the so-called "central force" case. WHENEVER you have a system, of any kind, where the force exerted by a very small object is dependent on the distance from the object only, then you can associate each place around the object with a potential, and depending on what you put at that place, that configuration of two objects will have a potential energy. Moreover, if that central force has a distance dependence that is 1/r^2, then you KNOW the solutions of trajectories of objects due to that force will be conic sections: circles, ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas. AND it means that when you have such a case, you will find cases where all of those solutions are exemplified. We see it in electrostatics, and we see it in solar system bodies.
The second case is simple harmonic motion. The reason why this is critical is that ANY system whatsoever that has a local minimum in potential energy will exhibit it, and the reason is the Taylor expansion. If you have an object sitting down in the bottom of a potential energy well, NO MATTER WHAT shape the potential energy well has, that shape can be approximated to first order with a parabola at the bottom, which is precisely the shape of a simple harmonic oscillator. What this means is that ANY system whatsoever, where you have an object sitting in stable equilibrium (that means, at the bottom of a potential energy well), then a small bump to that object will result in it exhibiting simple harmonic motion -- every freakin' time. This is why SHM is so important a case to study -- it is common to ALL systems with a stable equilibrium.
Now, for waves, I imagine you can predict what I would say here. It is true that there are systems with material basis, where the laws that govern that material are such that they are describable by a mathematical form called the wave equation. And we know that in ANY such system, traveling waves are a solution. What this also means is that any OTHER physical system, regardless of physical basis, that also has laws in this same mathematical form, will also exhibit traveling wave behaviors. And it is pretty easy to find NONmaterial systems, ones that are COMPLETELY different in physical basis from the material systems, that happen to have laws that exhibit the same mathematical form, and -- lo and behold -- waves behaviors are exhibited in those systems too.
There are some here who have insisted that common behaviors MUST have common physical basis, and they have always looked for some theory that has the same underlying physical basis. OK. But we have too many examples that exist now of systems with *completely different* physical basis that have the same behaviors nonetheless, for us to hold that principle to be valid. It just doesn't work.
There are others who find mathematics repellent and insist that nature cannot possibly behave in the manner that I have described. But again, we have way too many examples where this has held true for us to abandon it as a fundamental truth.
> On > Nov 7, 11:12 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On > Nov 6, 9:07 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 11/6/12 > 11/6/12 7:13 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
> > > > No amount of > geometry can cause two triplets to age differently.
> > > How > silly! It is the very same geometry [@] that "makes" the path length of > two
> > > sides of a triangle be larger than the path length of the third > side. Do you
> > > seriously believe that path length difference in a > triangle is something other
> > > than geometry?
> > The > temporal dimension is assumed to be part of the geometry. Any
> pathlength involved with the temporal dimension has to be justified to
> be a proper (not in the sense of proper time, proper length, or proper
> bullshit) measurement of the geometry, and none has been offered as
> so. It is all pure speculation at the silliest level. > <shrug>
> > > > Differential aging must have a physical > cause,
> > > Only when you don't understand the underlying > physics. Geometry is ESSENTIAL in
> > > physics. Geometrical > relationships can have clear and obvious physical
> > > consequences > (e.g. you can carry a ladder through a doorway in some orientations
> but not others).
> > At this stage, the question is not if anyone > understands the
> > underlying physics or not. It is the justification > to use the
> > temporal dimension as a pathlength which is just a proposal > with
> > experimental support. <shrug>
> > Granted, > these wild speculations do resolve the twins’ paradox, but if
> > SR is > wrong in the first place, you have no way of ever knowing SR is
> wrong. Without the assumptions, SR can easily be shown as false. > So,
> > basically SR becomes a religion, if you believe in the messiah, > your
> > religion prospers. If not, it will die off. > <shrug>
> > Despite the philosophical points of SR, SR is > thoroughly proven to be
> > false through mathematical analyses as derived > from Larmor’s transform
> > and also from the experimental verifications of > very predictable
> > coherency in interferometers that indicates absolute > simultaneity in
> > which it falsifies relative simultaneity. > <shrug>
> > Self-styled physicists would just tune in which > experimental
> > verifications and tune out certain experiments to amplify > their
> > religious beliefs. That is not within scientific method but > a fvcking
> > joke! <shrug>
> Path length doesn’t solve > twin paradox. For each twin his own
> coordinates are orthogonal. Who actually > accelerates in immaterial in
> this geometry. Therefore, for the travelling > twin, coordinates of the
> home twin are rotated and path length of the home > twin is the mirror
> image of the travelling twin.
> On the right side, we get > path length of the travelling twin as seen
> by the stay at home twin and on > the left we see the path length of the
> home twin as seen by the travelling > twin.
> In SR, we have equivalent frames and this is not brought out in > space-
> time diagram. For the stay at home twin, his coordinates > are
> orthogonal and for the travelling twin his coordinates are > orthogonal.
>
> ==========================================
> Roberts’ theory in crankdom:
> How silly! It is the very same chronometry that "makes" the > path length of two
> times of a tritemporal be larger than the path length of > the third time. Does Roberts
> seriously believe that path length difference in > a tritemporal is something other
> than chronometry?
>
> Actually the two sides of a triangle are vectors with > different directions to the
> third side, perhaps psychotic Roberts would like to tell us > what these other
> directions of time are.
Roberts firmly believe that all stupidity can be made to disappear by simply quoting it in 4D.
> If a radio signal is created out of photons radiated by accelerating electrons in the antenna, those
> photons would possess a wide range of random wavelengths, totally unrelated to the radio wavelength.
Why would you think that?
(The amusing part here is that you're right -- photons of all different wavelengths are radiated. Now the question you really have to struggle with is, why are only the photons corresponding to the radio wavelength ever observed? There's an answer to that question, and a rather simple one. As a hint, see Fermat's principle.)
> My guess is that the modulation of radio waves involves photon density variations and is not related
> to the properties of individual photons at all. How could it be?
Which kind of modulation are you talking about? AM or FM? The answer is different for each.
> Geometry has definite physical effects.
> There is a factor of 3 and 5 that appears in the specific heat capacity of a gas
> that comes *completely* from geometry. The scaling law for the thickness of
> limbs in mammals comes DIRECTLY from geometry. The two variations of hexagonal
> crystal packing and the corresponding effect on the conductivity of the metals
> with those structures comes DIRECTLY from geometry. Spherical aberration in
> optical lenses comes DIRECTLY from geometry.
> Your declaration that geometry simply cannot have real, physical implications is
> a basic error of fact, and your insistence on it will blind you to the
> explanation of literally hundreds of phenomena.
Yes. But strictly speaking, and this is relevant here, it is not geometry that "causes" these effects, they are "caused" by the aspects of the world that we MODEL with geometry.
One must be careful to not intermix world and model. Your method of speaking is quite common among physicists, but is underpinned by an implicit recognition of this separation; in newsgroups like this, that underpinning is not apparent to many participants. Of course others in this discussion also intermix them in invalid ways.
> On
> Nov 7, 11:12 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On
> Nov 6, 9:07 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 11/6/12
> 11/6/12 7:13 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
> > > > No amount of
> geometry can cause two triplets to age differently.
> > > How
> silly! It is the very same geometry [@] that "makes" the path length of
> two
> > > sides of a triangle be larger than the path length of the third
> side. Do you
> > > seriously believe that path length difference in a
> triangle is something other
> > > than geometry?
> > The
> temporal dimension is assumed to be part of the geometry. Any
> pathlength involved with the temporal dimension has to be justified to
> be a proper (not in the sense of proper time, proper length, or proper
> bullshit) measurement of the geometry, and none has been offered as
> so. It is all pure speculation at the silliest level.
> <shrug>
> > > > Differential aging must have a physical
> cause,
> > > Only when you don't understand the underlying
> physics. Geometry is ESSENTIAL in
> > > physics. Geometrical
> relationships can have clear and obvious physical
> > > consequences
> (e.g. you can carry a ladder through a doorway in some orientations
> but not others).
> > At this stage, the question is not if anyone
> understands the
> > underlying physics or not. It is the justification
> to use the
> > temporal dimension as a pathlength which is just a proposal
> with
> > experimental support. <shrug>
> > Granted,
> these wild speculations do resolve the twins’ paradox, but if
> > SR is
> wrong in the first place, you have no way of ever knowing SR is
> wrong. Without the assumptions, SR can easily be shown as false.
> So,
> > basically SR becomes a religion, if you believe in the messiah,
> your
> > religion prospers. If not, it will die off.
> <shrug>
> > Despite the philosophical points of SR, SR is
> thoroughly proven to be
> > false through mathematical analyses as derived
> from Larmor’s transform
> > and also from the experimental verifications of
> very predictable
> > coherency in interferometers that indicates absolute
> simultaneity in
> > which it falsifies relative simultaneity.
> <shrug>
> > Self-styled physicists would just tune in which
> experimental
> > verifications and tune out certain experiments to amplify
> their
> > religious beliefs. That is not within scientific method but
> a fvcking
> > joke! <shrug>
> Path length doesn’t solve
> twin paradox. For each twin his own
> coordinates are orthogonal. Who actually
> accelerates in immaterial in
> this geometry. Therefore, for the travelling
> twin, coordinates of the
> home twin are rotated and path length of the home
> twin is the mirror
> image of the travelling twin.
> On the right side, we get
> path length of the travelling twin as seen
> by the stay at home twin and on
> the left we see the path length of the
> home twin as seen by the travelling
> twin.
> In SR, we have equivalent frames and this is not brought out in
> space-
> time diagram. For the stay at home twin, his coordinates
> are
> orthogonal and for the travelling twin his coordinates are
> orthogonal.
> ==========================================
> Roberts’ theory in crankdom:
> How silly! It is the very same chronometry that "makes" the
> path length of two
> times of a tritemporal be larger than the path length of
> the third time. Does Roberts
> seriously believe that path length difference in
> a tritemporal is something other
> than chronometry?
> Actually the two sides of a triangle are vectors with
> different directions to the
> third side, perhaps psychotic Roberts would like to tell us
> what these other
> directions of time are.
Roberts firmly believe that all stupidity can be made to disappear by simply quoting it in 4D.
> -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
> Lord
> Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
> Medway
=================================================
Yeah, he's more psychotic than you, but you are catching him up fast.
Wilson firmly believe that all stupidity can be made to disappear by simply
asking even more stupid questions.
What is the role of a raindrop in a river, Wilson?
Nobody round here knows the answer.
When you can answer a fucking stupid question like that I'll tell you the role of a photon in a radio wave.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
> On 11/16/12 11/16/12 1:04 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> Geometry has definite physical effects.
>> There is a factor of 3 and 5 that appears in the specific heat
>> capacity of a gas
>> that comes *completely* from geometry. The scaling law for the
>> thickness of
>> limbs in mammals comes DIRECTLY from geometry. The two variations of
>> hexagonal
>> crystal packing and the corresponding effect on the conductivity of
>> the metals
>> with those structures comes DIRECTLY from geometry. Spherical
>> aberration in
>> optical lenses comes DIRECTLY from geometry.
>> Your declaration that geometry simply cannot have real, physical
>> implications is
>> a basic error of fact, and your insistence on it will blind you to the
>> explanation of literally hundreds of phenomena.
> Yes. But strictly speaking, and this is relevant here, it is not
> geometry that "causes" these effects, they are "caused" by the aspects
> of the world that we MODEL with geometry.
> One must be careful to not intermix world and model. Your method of
> speaking is quite common among physicists, but is underpinned by an
> implicit recognition of this separation; in newsgroups like this, that
> underpinning is not apparent to many participants. Of course others in
> this discussion also intermix them in invalid ways.
While I understand your intent here, one quickly gets into murky ground. In the example of c_v=3R/2, and c_p=5R/2 for a monoatomic gas, for example, one can ask whether c_p/c_v = 5/3 represents anything in "reality" or not. One can opine that 5 and 3 are themselves numbers that represent a model of reality and not reality itself, and go so far as to say that 3 and 5 themselves do not represent anything but an abstract concept we apply to the world, so that the world has no inherent reality associated with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or any other number. But that seems to go too far, in that there certainly seems to be a real difference between one oak tree and two oak trees. OK, one might say, let's back off a little there and ask whether c_v is real, and again one might argue that because it is measurable (and one can certainly arrange things so that it is essentially directly measured), then it is real, even if what we mean by real is an operational definition based on a measurement procedure -- in much the way we would then say momentum or length is real. So there is another place where we might draw a line and say reality is really so. If so, then there is that pesky 5/3 ratio and asking where those measurable numbers come from? Or more importantly, what would have to be different in our universe to make those numbers change? And here it is pretty easy to figure out that they come from the fact that the visible space that atoms in a gas travel has three independent dimensions and that's the parameter that would have to change to make this ratio something other than 5/3. Now, going back and examining the chain, one is hard pressed to say, "On this side lies reality, and on this side lies model." Unless one wants to take a really hard stand and to say that the difference between one oak tree and two oak trees is only in our MODEL of the world. I'm not so inclined to go so strong.
Thank you John. You have backed up my theory very neatly. Photons must have an effective length and cross section and must interact to some extent when in close contact, whilst still retaining the basic information they carry. We can only speculate on how they interact without total annihilation due to addition of randomly distributed phase relationships. (Or maybe they eventually do...and that explains the darkness of space).
If a radio signal is created out of photons radiated by accelerating electrons in the antenna, those photons would possess a wide range of random wavelengths, totally unrelated to the radio wavelength. My guess is that the modulation of radio waves involves photon density variations and is not related to the properties of individual photons at all. How could it be?
If a river is created out of raindrops accelerating out of a shower head...
Listen up, Wilson.
Raindrops are made of water.
Rivers are made of water.
Rivers are not raindrops, but are made of the same stuff.
Rivers are guided water, they are not raindrops.
Photons are made of alternating magnetic and electric fields.
Radio waves are made of alternating magnetic and electric fields.
Radio waves are not photons, but are made of the same stuff.
How much chimpanzee DNA does it take to make a bird-brained Wilson?
Your crackpot "theory" guesses demonstrate your psychosis. Check into a nursing home, raindrops are not rivers and photons are not radio waves, BUT THEY ARE MADE OF THE SAME STUFF!
A 100 MHz FM radio signal that reaches 100 miles from the transmitter is a 100 mile diameter photon, you won't detect it without a million-to-one
amplifier called a "radio receiver". A flash of lightning will swamp it out like a tsunami will make a river flow backwards.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
On Nov 8, 12:37 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/7/2012 12:56 PM, Alfonso wrote:
> The idea of a physical wave in a FIELD, where a field is a property of
> space itself,
Your post reminds me of a person who was treated by uneducated people
(in India) as a god man. Actually he was half witted and would say
something completely incoherent, which nobody understood. After all,
God is defined as somebody who is beyond our imagination. Don’t post
something that will give opportunity to hanson to laugh loudly.
> > On 05/11/12 16:31, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 11/5/12 11/5/12 4:37 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> >>> Under classical philosophy a photon
> >>> is a localised packet of energy which can only occupy one location in
> >>> space.
> >> Under "classical philosophy" there is no such thing as a photon.
> > Oh dear. You really are confused. The "classical" in Classical electrodynamics
> > has nothing to do with Classical philosophy.
> No, it is YOUR confusion. The word "classical" refers to the same set of
> concepts in both usages. In physics, "classical" means "non-quantum". Your
> attempts to discuss your notions of philosophy include essentially the same
> basis as classical physics, with one notable exception: you do not recognize
> geometry.
> > SR has its roots in classical
> > electrodynamics but became accepted as a theory because of a change in the
> > philosophical basis of physics introduced by Heisenburg, Schordinger et al.
> This is just plain not true. Those changes were required to accommodate quantum
> phenomena. There are no quantum phenomena in SR or in classical electrodynamics.
> > In
> > terms of classical philosophy Lorentz's theory ticked the boxes and Einstein's
> > brought noth8ing new to the table. He had failed to come up with an alternative
> > classical, causal explanation to that of Lorentz's he objected to.
> Over the years 1905-1911, Einstein, Minkowski, and Grossman demonstrated the
> geometrical aspects of SR.
> YOUR notion of "classical philosophy" does not take into account geometry, which
> has been part of physics from the beginning. This is YOUR mistake, not that of
> the physicists involved. Your excessively simplistic notions cannot even handle
> the fact that a ladder can be carried through a doorway in some orientations but
> not in others -- those orientation are PURELY GEOMETRY; there is no "physical
> cause" here [#], there is only a "geometrical cause" (a poor phrase generated by
> YOUR insistence on "cause").
> [#] Do not be confused by the ladder physically colliding with
> the doorway; go a level deeper and ask what causes that.
> > The photon, as a particle of light goes back to Newton.
> Not really. What Newton described has no relationship to what "photon" means
> today. YOU are confused. Newton described "particles of light", but that is most
> definitely NOT what photon are; photons are quintessentially quantum objects,
> not "particles" and not "waves".
> As I keep saying: most of what you think you know about physics is WRONG. Only
> YOU can cure this, and that can only happen by STUDY.
> >> A photon is INHERENTLY a quantum object.
> > No a photon is a particle of light.
> You are wrong. Plain and simple, YOU ARE WRONG.
> > It is whatever it is.
> No. This is probably the center of your confusion: misidentifying model and
> world. Photons are part of the MODEL, and they are WHAT THE MODEL SAYS THEY ARE.
> Whether the model accurately corresponds to the world we inhabit is a different
> question. But the model known as the standard model (of particle physics) is
> excellent, and stands unrefuted in a very wide domain, including everything
> discussed in this newsgroup. There is a very large effort searching for "physics
> beyond the standard model", and it has come up with VERY few candidates....
> Google that phrase, and look for EXPERIMENTAL results.
> > [... a lot more nonsense based on profound ignorance]
> Your whole approach is flawed, because the NAIVE causality you espouse (in your
> simplistic "classical philosophy") is not obeyed by the world we inhabit. It is
> hopeless to attempt to make Nature behave according to your wishes.
> Tom Roberts
In one sentence your post can be described as horror of thoughts and
terror of your mental setup.
Tom Robert’s mathematics dictates nature. It is not other way round.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:28:53 -0600, Big Dog wrote:
> > On 11/14/2012 9:06 AM, Dr Henry Wilson wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:36:07 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen
> >> wrote:
> >>> Light is EM-radiation, the same as radio waves but for the frequency.
> >> It is not.
> > Another sample of Ralph's willingness to insist that even the stuff
> > taught in 5th grade science classes should be considered suspect. The
> > more he spouts that we really know nothing at all, you see, the more he
> > can ramble with idle speculations off the top of his head.
> Did you ever seen a light radio?
> --
Are EM and photons different physical entities? I ask this because in
a corner of my mind I suspect, they are not.
> > No you haven't answered the question, pigdog. You are merely rampaging like mad bull Androcles.
> > I'll clarify it.
> > In what form is energy radiated outward from a broadcast antenna? (hint: what happens when a charge accelerates?)
> What radiates outward is a traveling disturbance in the electromagnetic
> field that permeates all of space. The disturbance carries energy and
> momentum (both linear and angular). The disturbance is quantized, which
> means that the total disturbance is comprised of a collection of quanta,
> which are the smallest units of that disturbance.
> > Do individual photons play a part in a radio signal (if so, HOW?) or is it just an E x M wave in Einstein's aether?
> It's not an either-or question. The wave is the macroscopic description
> of the propagating disturbance in the electromagnetic field. The photons
> are the microscopic description of the same disturbance.
> This is true for radio, visible light, microwaves, UV, X-ray radiation
> and all the rest.
> It's like asking whether a living animal consists of organs or consists
> of cells. The answer to both is yes. To ask whether animals are
> *fundamentally* or *really* composed of cells or *fundamentally* or
> *really* composed of organs is a stupid question that misses the point.
> > Surely a girl of your great knowledge and experience can provide a sensible scientific answer to these.
Extremely bad answer. Can you focus 100 Hz EM wave into a beam?
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:53:41 AM UTC+11, Big Dog wrote:
> > On 11/14/2012 3:24 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > > No you haven't answered the question, pigdog. You are merely rampaging like mad bull Androcles.
> > > I'll clarify it.
> > > In what form is energy radiated outward from a broadcast antenna? (hint: what happens when a charge accelerates?)
> > What radiates outward is a traveling disturbance in the electromagnetic
> > field that permeates all of space.
> HAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHHA! THE OLD AETHER CONCEPT.
> YOU really DON'T HAVE A CLUE DO YOU...
> The disturbance carries energy and
> > momentum (both linear and angular). The disturbance is quantized, which
> > means that the total disturbance is comprised of a collection of quanta,
> > which are the smallest units of that disturbance.
> HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA!
> And does each of these 'quanta' just happen to oscillate at the same frequency as the whole wave?
> > > Do individual photons play a part in a radio signal (if so, HOW?) or is it just an E x M wave in Einstein's aether?
> > It's not an either-or question. The wave is the macroscopic description
> > of the propagating disturbance in the electromagnetic field.
> HAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHA!
> WHAT BLOODY EM FIELD MIGHT THAT BE? IS IT THE CLASSICAL AETHER?
> The photons
> > are the microscopic description of the same disturbance.
> HAHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHA! YOU'RE KILLING ME!
> > This is true for radio, visible light, microwaves, UV, X-ray radiation
> > and all the rest.
> > It's like asking whether a living animal consists of organs or consists
> > of cells. The answer to both is yes. To ask whether animals are
> > *fundamentally* or *really* composed of cells or *fundamentally* or
> > *really* composed of organs is a stupid question that misses the point.
> HAHAHAHHAHAHHA! HEY PIGDOG YOU'VE BEN COCKING YOUR LEG ON THE WRONG TREE. RUN AWAY AND STOP MAKING AN ABSOLUTE FOOL OF YOURSELF BY TRYING TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT.
Problem with big dog is that, he treats theories as gospel. He doesn’t
think over them, he loves them and worships them. How sad!
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:28:53 -0600, Big Dog wrote:
> > On 11/14/2012 9:06 AM, Dr Henry Wilson wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:36:07 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen
> >> wrote:
> >>> Light is EM-radiation, the same as radio waves but for the frequency.
> >> It is not.
> > Another sample of Ralph's willingness to insist that even the stuff
> > taught in 5th grade science classes should be considered suspect. The
> > more he spouts that we really know nothing at all, you see, the more he
> > can ramble with idle speculations off the top of his head.
> Did you ever seen a light radio?
> --
Are EM and photons different physical entities? I ask this because in
a corner of my mind I suspect, they are not.
======================================================
That's like asking if a tsunami and a rain storm are different entities --
both are made of water. In the corner of my mind I suspect
they are very different.
Photon-rain. Tsunami-wave.
As for Kesler trying to be a smart-arse, a tv remote control works on the same principle as Marconi's radio telegraph in Morse code
across the Atlantic, so yes, I have seen a light radio.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
> > On Oct 30, 3:34 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 1. Any scientific theory should be logically DEDUCED from previous
> >> concepts, so that there is an inexorable advance in science by pure
> >> deduction. No crazy new ideas are allowed.
> >> 2. Scientific theories ought to pass the intuitiveness test. That is,
> >> the explanation has to seem obviously right and sensible FIRST before
> >> any comparison with experiment is done.
> >> 3. Experimental results are not really a sound measure of the validity
> >> of a scientific theory, because any experimental result whatsoever can
> >> be reinterpreted or made consistent with any theory whatsoever. So
> >> comparing a theory with experiment doesn't prove anything.
> >> 4. Scientific theories that are not taught in high school physics or
> >> freshman physics are too arcane to believe, and they are obvious
> >> attempts to exclude those with general education. The use of mathematics
> >> in the theory only makes this more obvious.
> >> 5. Any scientific theory that does not offer causal explanations in
> >> terms of matter influencing matter by some form of contact, and from
> >> earlier to later in time, simply can't be called a scientific theory,
> >> because ALL decent scientific theories have those characters.
> >> 6. No theory should be allowed to use familiar terms but with
> >> specialized meanings, because that does not properly serve a scientific
> >> theory's objective to EXPLAIN. Instead, such a practice only confuses.
> >> (Classical cases, such as "impulse" or "field" or the distinction
> >> between "heat" and "temperature" are excused. Why? Because they are.)
> > 1. New ideas are allowed, but these should not be crazy. In short
> > these should be based on logical assumptions.
> > 2. All great discoveries are intuitive. But none of them can escape
> > logical scrutiny. Only a mad person will demand not to apply logic.
> > 3. Why not? Newton s gravitation is replaced by GR.
> > 4. Don t feign ignorance. If theory is correct, then a freshman (at
> > least of average intelligence) should be able to understand it.
> > Anything you cannot explain in verbose form is generally flawed.
> > 5. All decent scientific theories are based on logical possibilities.
> > 6. What is that?
> You've just made my point for me.
> I found most interesting the claim you made in your response to (4). You
> really think that if a theory is correct, it should be understandable by
> freshmen? I'd like you to apply that claim to neurobiology,
> international trade law, biochemistry, artificial intelligence, or
> vascular surgery. Really?
> This is a form of entitlement petulance fueled by laziness. It's the
> kind of thinking that say, "I'm interested in this topic, and therefore
> there should be no barrier to my understanding it without investment of
> effort."
> It's generally recognized that expertise in ANY area requires about
> 10,000 hours of invested effort, whether that area is chess or medicine.
> But people like you, Vilas, reject that and want things to be more
> accessible.
You are wrong. Why apple false is taught to a kid. We don’t teach him
equation for gravitational force. Now if the kid is grown up without
education, then there is no alternative but to teach him only first
part, ‘Why apple falls’. Limited to this knowledge, the grown up kid
has freedom to ask any question and if the theory is correct, then
there should be no problem in explaining him.
Questions start with the basics, at the root. If these cannot be
answered, foundation of a theory is shaky.
> > Few years ago, not being in touch with modern definition of science, I
> > asked on the newsgroup, how can there be waves without ether? One
> > gentleman, poisoned by this new philosophy, sent me an email,
> > repeating Maxwell s wave equations. Then he said, look at those
> > equations. How beautiful they are? There is no need for a scaffolding
> > of theory to support these.
> This was not a good response.
> But then again, why do you think that waves ONLY appear where there is a
> material substrate?
> Do you know why waves appear?
> Let me ask you a similar thing: Where do conic section trajectories
> (circles, ellipses, hyperbolas) appear, and WHY do they appear in those
> cases?
> > This is the degree to which rabid physicists have brainwashed gullible
> > followers.
Don’t bring up analogies. These are used to explain and are not
explanations in themselves.
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:53:41 AM UTC+11, Big Dog wrote:
> > On 11/14/2012 3:24 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > > No you haven't answered the question, pigdog. You are merely rampaging > > > like mad bull Androcles.
> > > I'll clarify it.
> > > In what form is energy radiated outward from a broadcast antenna? > > > (hint: what happens when a charge accelerates?)
> > What radiates outward is a traveling disturbance in the electromagnetic
> > field that permeates all of space.
> HAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHHA! THE OLD AETHER CONCEPT.
> YOU really DON'T HAVE A CLUE DO YOU...
> The disturbance carries energy and
> > momentum (both linear and angular). The disturbance is quantized, which
> > means that the total disturbance is comprised of a collection of quanta,
> > which are the smallest units of that disturbance.
> HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA!
> And does each of these 'quanta' just happen to oscillate at the same > frequency as the whole wave?
> > > Do individual photons play a part in a radio signal (if so, HOW?) or > > > is it just an E x M wave in Einstein's aether?
> > It's not an either-or question. The wave is the macroscopic description
> > of the propagating disturbance in the electromagnetic field.
> HAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHA!
> WHAT BLOODY EM FIELD MIGHT THAT BE? IS IT THE CLASSICAL AETHER?
> The photons
> > are the microscopic description of the same disturbance.
> HAHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHA! YOU'RE KILLING ME!
> > This is true for radio, visible light, microwaves, UV, X-ray radiation
> > and all the rest.
> > It's like asking whether a living animal consists of organs or consists
> > of cells. The answer to both is yes. To ask whether animals are
> > *fundamentally* or *really* composed of cells or *fundamentally* or
> > *really* composed of organs is a stupid question that misses the point.
> HAHAHAHHAHAHHA! HEY PIGDOG YOU'VE BEN COCKING YOUR LEG ON THE WRONG TREE. > RUN AWAY AND STOP MAKING AN ABSOLUTE FOOL OF YOURSELF BY TRYING TO TALK > ABOUT SOMETHING YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT.
Problem with big dog is that, he treats theories as gospel. He doesn’t
think over them, he loves them and worships them. How sad!
VT
====================================================
Problem with Wilson is that he invents his own theories. He doesn’t think over them, he loves them and worships them. How sad!
Wilson doesn't understand the magnetic or electric field concept so the bird-brained ozzie chicken farmer immediately starts cackling in capital letters and calls it aether.
This round goes to Pig Dog.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
> > There is nothing wrong in what Alfonso says. If you say that my clock
> > moves slow then there are only two things that are relevant. (1) I
> > should also be able to observe that my clock is running slow (2)
> > Mechanism in my clock must be affected.
> Why do you think so?
> There is someone in a plane who observes you moving where you sit. Do
> you also observe that you are moving where you sit? Or is your
> observation mechanism affected?
> I think the problem you have is that you fundamentally reject any notion
> of an observer-dependent property. You believe, apparently, that any
> property must be absolute and observer-independent, or if there is some
> difference that is noticed between observers, then one of them must be
> wrong.
> So we are back to Galileo, who said that whether something is moving or
> at rest is not an absolute property of that object at all, but is
> completely dependent on the state of the observer. This is 400-year old
> physics, explained to high-school children, and you're having difficulty
> with it.
Relative motion exists in theory, not in practice. Relative motion
predicts apparent change and not real change. Every motion is always
with respect to other. What I mean is it is always the plane that is
moving with respect to earth and not vice versa.
Relative motion is based on ignorance, lack of knowledge about history
of accelerations. If this history is not known, then we cannot predict
something that is velocity dependent.
I think we have gone through all this. On my part I don’t have
inclination to repeat everything.
>> I'm not saying Waldron is right but in the past, in the days when
>> physics was governed by Classical philosophy Waldron's approach of
>> trying to explain things was a valid, essential approach. His Paper
>> would have faced criticism from others trying to come up with something
>> better - picking up on some of his ideas and running with them. Under
>> the current philosophy that is outlawed. Reality is beyond the human
>> mind. We cannot know what light is and we can, using one "theory"
>> [model] or the other, predict what light will do and today that is all
>> that is expected of physics.
>> I find his idea intriguing. High energy photons are particles because
>> they exist in isolation have high energy and are tiny. Radio frequency
>> photons form a conglomerate where granularity disappears completely, and
>> in what you might call the transition region where the diameter and
>> spacing of photons is about the same order visible light is most likely
>> to show a mixture of wave and particulate properties.
> Thank you John. You have backed up my theory very neatly.
I merely point you towards the works of Waldron. Perhaps you should obtain the paper I quote from. I also point out that in today's physics it is an answer to a question which is considered an invalid one.
Alfonso
Photons must have an effective length and cross section and must interact to some extent when in close contact, whilst still retaining the basic information they carry. We can only speculate on how they interact without total annihilation due to addition of randomly distributed phase relationships. (Or maybe they eventually do...and that explains the darkness of space).
> If a radio signal is created out of photons radiated by accelerating electrons in the antenna, those photons would possess a wide range of random wavelengths, totally unrelated to the radio wavelength. My guess is that the modulation of radio waves involves photon density variations and is not related to the properties of individual photons at all. How could it be?
Alfonso
