How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
Henri Wilson
to a different energy level. The package moves away from the atom in a
particular direction and continues on through space as ONE single unit.
We could just as easily replace the single 'photon' with a brief pulse of laser
light...or a sudden burst of light from a star.
We know that such a pulse retains its character as it travels across vast
distances. Its eventual target, if any, is unknown. We also know that we could
set up an experiment to show that it takes a finite amount of time to travel
between any two points in space.
In fact, the pulse behaves exactly like any other missile. It is ballistic.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of its electrons moves
> to a different energy level. The package moves away from the atom in a
> particular direction and continues on through space as ONE single unit.
>
> We could just as easily replace the single 'photon' with a brief pulse of laser
> light...or a sudden burst of light from a star.
>
> We know that such a pulse retains its character as it travels across vast
> distances. Its eventual target, if any, is unknown. We also know that we could
> set up an experiment to show that it takes a finite amount of time to travel
> between any two points in space.
>
> In fact, the pulse behaves exactly like any other missile. It is ballistic.
Except it doesn't, and you know it.
Photons are not ballistic - a vast body of experiment and observations
disproves the ballistic theory.
Jerry
> A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of
> its electrons moves to a different energy level. The package
> moves away from the atom in a particular direction and continues
> on through space as ONE single unit.
Right away, you commit a fundamental error. Emission of a photon
"here" and detection "there" does not imply the continuous
existence of the photon as a discrete entity between "here" and
"there". There is no "package" that moves away from the atom
"in a particular direction and continues on through space as ONE
single unit."
Jerry
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of its electrons moves
>> to a different energy level. The package moves away from the atom in a
>> particular direction and continues on through space as ONE single unit.
>>
>> We could just as easily replace the single 'photon' with a brief pulse of laser
>> light...or a sudden burst of light from a star.
>>
>> We know that such a pulse retains its character as it travels across vast
>> distances. Its eventual target, if any, is unknown. We also know that we could
>> set up an experiment to show that it takes a finite amount of time to travel
>> between any two points in space.
>>
>> In fact, the pulse behaves exactly like any other missile. It is ballistic.
>
>Except it doesn't, and you know it.
So did you find something wrong with what I said above?
>
>Photons are not ballistic - a vast body of experiment and observations
>disproves the ballistic theory.
poor deluded fool....
Hexenmeister
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:a6tn42hee67ujih9q...@4ax.com...
Light is not ballistic when it passes through a medium.
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1145857468.8...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| > A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of
| > its electrons moves to a different energy level. The package
| > moves away from the atom in a particular direction and continues
| > on through space as ONE single unit.
|
| Right away, you commit a fundamental error. Emission of a photon
| "here" and detection "there" does not imply the continuous
| existence of the photon as a discrete entity between "here" and
| "there".
Right away, you commit a fundamental error. Emission of a photon
"here" and detection "there" implies the continuous exchange between
magnetic and electric fields of the photon as an entity between
"here" and "there", or energy is not conserved.
| There is no "package" that moves away from the atom
| "in a particular direction and continues on through space as ONE
| single unit."
Idiot. Energy is conserved.
Androcles.
|
| Jerry
|
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1145857468.8...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Henri Wilson wrote:
>> A remote atom in space emits a package of energy,
>> as one of its electrons moves to a different energy
>> level. The package moves away from the atom in a
>> particular direction and continues on through space
>> as ONE single unit.
>
> Right away, you commit a fundamental error.
> Emission of a photon "here" and detection "there"
> does not imply the continuous existence of the
> photon as a discrete entity between "here" and
> "there".
It doesn't preclude such a possibility either. In fact quantum
theory has nothing less than an "infinite series" of such
creations/absorptions of virtual photons for a "real propagating
photon".
> There is no "package" that moves away from the
> atom "in a particular direction and continues on
> through space as ONE single unit."
Anything you would ascribe to a propagating photon, can be said
equally well of any physical particle with "breadth". Except
maybe for the E and B field in phase and at right angles... ;>)
Reflection, refraction, and self-interference... all quantum
objects can display these.
David A. Smith
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
> A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of its electrons moves
> to a different energy level. The package moves away from the atom in a
> particular direction and continues on through space as ONE single unit.
>
> We could just as easily replace the single 'photon' with a brief pulse of laser
> light...or a sudden burst of light from a star.
>
> We know that such a pulse retains its character as it travels across vast
> distances.
And what do you think constitutes its "character"?
> Its eventual target, if any, is unknown. We also know that we could
> set up an experiment to show that it takes a finite amount of time to travel
> between any two points in space.
>
> In fact, the pulse behaves exactly like any other missile. It is ballistic.
I don't know why on earth you would assume that.
PD
Jerry
No arguments with anything you wrote here.
The $64,000 question is, does -Henri- understand?
Jerry
Whoops, I meant "the $0.00064 question"...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:a6tn42hee67ujih9q...@4ax.com...
> its electrons moves to a different energy level.
Do you think that an imbecile who doesn't understand the
first page of special relativity, would be able to understand
the fist page of quantum theory?
[appropriate snip in order to ease the pain of having to comment]
> Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Dirk Vdm
Hexenmeister
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Wj73g.389599$No2.11...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:a6tn42hee67ujih9q...@4ax.com...
| > A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of
| > its electrons moves to a different energy level.
|
| Do you think that an imbecile who doesn't understand the
| first page of special relativity, would be able to understand
| the fist page of quantum theory?
|
| [appropriate snip in order to ease the pain of having to comment]
Is it burn, local village idiot? What a shame...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/classic.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/closingspeed.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/closingspeed2.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/trojan.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/human.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/zeroone.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/falsetrue.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/sloppy.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/badevents.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/inertialacc.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/insignificantgravity.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/PartialDerivative.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/mumble.htm
Androcles.
Igor
Henri Wilson wrote:
> A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of its electrons moves
> to a different energy level. The package moves away from the atom in a
> particular direction and continues on through space as ONE single unit.
And just who delivers this package? Fed EX or UPS?
> We could just as easily replace the single 'photon' with a brief pulse of laser
> light...or a sudden burst of light from a star.
Nothing wrong there.
> We know that such a pulse retains its character as it travels across vast
> distances. Its eventual target, if any, is unknown. We also know that we could
> set up an experiment to show that it takes a finite amount of time to travel
> between any two points in space.
> In fact, the pulse behaves exactly like any other missile. It is ballistic.
Except that the wave will spread out as it moves. I haven't seen too
many missiles lately that do this.
Sue...
Henri Wilson wrote:
> A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of its electrons moves
> to a different energy level. The package moves away from the atom in a
> particular direction and continues on through space as ONE single unit.
>
> We could just as easily replace the single 'photon' with a brief pulse of laser
> light...or a sudden burst of light from a star.
>
> We know that such a pulse retains its character as it travels across vast
> distances. Its eventual target, if any, is unknown. We also know that we could
> set up an experiment to show that it takes a finite amount of time to travel
> between any two points in space.
>
> In fact, the pulse behaves exactly like any other missile. It is ballistic.
Missiles that split four ways ?
http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/
<<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply
that the Academy recognised the particle
nature of light? The Nobel Committee says
that Einstein had found that the energy exchange
between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting
or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv .
As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta
(in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the
law that an electron emitted from a substance by
monochromatic light with the frequency has to have
a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to
remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews
Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a
period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this
law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however,
found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange.
The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html
Sue...
Paul Cardinale
Anti-reflection coatings say you're an idiot.
Holograms say you're an idiot.
Eyeglasses say you're an idiot.
The double-slit experiment says you're an idiot.
The entire field of interferometry says you're an idiot.
The entire field of optics says you're an idiot.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:1145905059.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Every sane person on this forum says he's an idiot.
But idiots are the last ones to understand that kind
of language, so he can't really blamed, can he?
Dirk Vdm
PD
Sure I can. Being idiotic is excusable. I do that all the time.
Being aggressively idiotic is inexcusable.
Henri insists that you run his code but doesn't want to show you the
code.
Henri insists that experiments support his results but also insists
that the results of the experiments have been cooked to feed a
conspiracy.
Henri insists that SR is wrong and for reasons that he can cite but
also insists that he can do that without having read anything about SR.
PD
Hexenmeister
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1145903924.5...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| Except that the wave will spread out as it moves. I haven't seen too
| many missiles lately that do this.
Missiles and photons are waves?
I don't know so...
Get yourself a laser pointer and stand under a shower. Let me know
what the wavelength of each is.
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145906548.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:1145905059.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > Diffraction gratings say you're an idiot.
> > > Anti-reflection coatings say you're an idiot.
> > > Holograms say you're an idiot.
> > > Eyeglasses say you're an idiot.
> > > The double-slit experiment says you're an idiot.
> > > The entire field of interferometry says you're an idiot.
> > > The entire field of optics says you're an idiot.
> >
> > Every sane person on this forum says he's an idiot.
> > But idiots are the last ones to understand that kind
> > of language, so he can't really blamed, can he?
Ow, I forgot to mention that even sub-idiots like Ken Seto
and sub-retards like Androcles say that he is an idiot :-)
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Sure I can. Being idiotic is excusable. I do that all the time.
> Being aggressively idiotic is inexcusable.
> Henri insists that you run his code but doesn't want to show you the
> code.
Never mind. I ran his program on a sandbox system a few
years ago. It produced this:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/WilsonComputerGenious.gif
> Henri insists that experiments support his results but also insists
> that the results of the experiments have been cooked to feed a
> conspiracy.
Yes of course. The Big One.
> Henri insists that SR is wrong and for reasons that he can cite but
> also insists that he can do that without having read anything about SR.
But he *is* a qualified applied physicist, mathematician with an
extra degree in psychology and genetics:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d5ce726868bc0c07
Dirk Vdm
batang
Paul Cardinale wrote:
> Diffraction gratings say you're an idiot.
misunderstod
> Anti-reflection coatings say you're an idiot.
false
> Holograms say you're an idiot.
inexistent, unreal image formed by braind'
> Eyeglasses say you're an idiot.
> The double-slit experiment says you're an idiot.
misunderstod
> The entire field of interferometry says you're an idiot.
basically misunderstod phenomena
> The entire field of optics says you're an idiot.
fundamentally basically misunderstod phenomena
Hexenmeister
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1145904011.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| > A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of its electrons moves
| > to a different energy level. The package moves away from the atom in a
| > particular direction and continues on through space as ONE single unit.
| >
| > We could just as easily replace the single 'photon' with a brief pulse of laser
| > light...or a sudden burst of light from a star.
| >
| > We know that such a pulse retains its character as it travels across vast
| > distances. Its eventual target, if any, is unknown. We also know that we could
| > set up an experiment to show that it takes a finite amount of time to travel
| > between any two points in space.
| >
| > In fact, the pulse behaves exactly like any other missile. It is ballistic.
|
| Missiles that split four ways ?
Nah... seven.
You are way out of date (as usual).
Russia Crosses Warheads
Kommersant, Russia - 8 hours ago
... a post-boost platform, on which up to six nuclear warheads can be
http://tinyurl.com/nunhl
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:1145905059.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I didn't know diffraction gratings could talk, local village idiot.
[drool snipped]
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Fe93g.389777$Yn5.11...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:1145905059.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > Diffraction gratings say you're an idiot.
| > Anti-reflection coatings say you're an idiot.
| > Holograms say you're an idiot.
| > Eyeglasses say you're an idiot.
| > The double-slit experiment says you're an idiot.
| > The entire field of interferometry says you're an idiot.
| > The entire field of optics says you're an idiot.
|
| Every sane person on this forum says he's an idiot.
You surely don't imagine you are sane, do you, local village idiot?
Do you have talking diffraction gratings too?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/classic.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/closingspeed.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/closingspeed2.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/trojan.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/human.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/zeroone.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/falsetrue.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/sloppy.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/badevents.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/inertialacc.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/insignificantgravity.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/PartialDerivative.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/mumble.htm
| But idiots are the last ones to understand that kind
| of language, so he can't really blamed, can he?
Especially "alt.local.village.idiot: Dirk Vdm".
|
| Dirk Vdm
|
|
Hexenmeister
Hexenmeister
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:FQ93g.389833$GT2.11...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145906548.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| > > "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:1145905059.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > > > Diffraction gratings say you're an idiot.
| > > > Anti-reflection coatings say you're an idiot.
| > > > Holograms say you're an idiot.
| > > > Eyeglasses say you're an idiot.
| > > > The double-slit experiment says you're an idiot.
| > > > The entire field of interferometry says you're an idiot.
| > > > The entire field of optics says you're an idiot.
| > >
| > > Every sane person on this forum says he's an idiot.
| > > But idiots are the last ones to understand that kind
| > > of language, so he can't really blamed, can he?
|
| Ow, I forgot to mention that even sub-idiots like Ken Seto
| and sub-retards like Androcles say that he is an idiot :-)
|
| > >
| > > Dirk Vdm
| >
| > Sure I can. Being idiotic is excusable. I do that all the time.
| > Being aggressively idiotic is inexcusable.
| > Henri insists that you run his code but doesn't want to show you the
| > code.
|
| Never mind.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/stooges.htm
I ran his program on a sandbox system a few
| years ago. It produced this:
| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/WilsonComputerGenious.gif
ohohoho... HOHOHO... hohohoho... "Genious"
|
| > Henri insists that experiments support his results but also insists
| > that the results of the experiments have been cooked to feed a
| > conspiracy.
|
| Yes of course. The Big One.
|
| > Henri insists that SR is wrong and for reasons that he can cite but
| > also insists that he can do that without having read anything about SR.
|
| But he *is* a qualified applied physicist, mathematician with an
| extra degree in psychology and genetics:
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d5ce726868bc0c07
|
Thus uttered the local village idiot:
| Dirk Vdm
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:a6tn42hee67ujih9q...@4ax.com...
>
>Light is not ballistic when it passes through a medium.
With that I would probably agree.
...but in remote and empty space....?
>Androcles.
Henri Wilson
I understand perfectly well that probability theory doesn't operate very well
with a sample size of ONE.
>
>Jerry
>
>Whoops, I meant "the $0.00064 question"...
Henri Wilson
Oh? So you know for certain that the energy package emittd during a SINGLE
electron transition spreads out as it travels?
How did you discover that please?
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Seto says YOU are an idiot...and he should know..
Henri Wilson
Draper is such a mindless moron that he could not even recognize an animation
of the second postulate when he saw it actually happening.
His only comment was, "show me the code".
Hahahahahahhahah!
The knowlegde that all SRians are complete dickheads is what keeps me going.
>
>PD
Jerry
Single photons are capable of self-interference in a double-slit
experiment. As you should know, having been informed of such
many, many, many times...
Jerry
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of
>> its electrons moves to a different energy level. The package
>> moves away from the atom in a particular direction and continues
>> on through space as ONE single unit.
>
>Right away, you commit a fundamental error. Emission of a photon
>"here" and detection "there" does not imply the continuous
>existence of the photon as a discrete entity between "here" and
>"there". There is no "package" that moves away from the atom
>"in a particular direction and continues on through space as ONE
>single unit."
What a strange thing to say..
Hyothetically, it is quite feasible to follow the movement of a light pulse as
it moves across space. Why shouldn't that apply to a single photon?
...yes, I know, observing it would destroy it.....but identical photons could
be used in a series of experiments.
There is no evidence that a photon disappears and miraculoulsly turns up
somewhere else. All evidence suggests it remains perfectly intact and moves at
c wrt its source.
>
>Jerry
Jerry
Explain self-interference of SINGLE photons in the double-slit
experiment.
Jerry
Eric Gisse
We are merely representatives of what we are forced to deal with.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2006 11:57:39 -0700, "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Diffraction gratings say you're an idiot.
> >Anti-reflection coatings say you're an idiot.
> >Holograms say you're an idiot.
> >Eyeglasses say you're an idiot.
> >The double-slit experiment says you're an idiot.
> >The entire field of interferometry says you're an idiot.
> >The entire field of optics says you're an idiot.
>
> Seto says YOU are an idiot...and he should know..
You can't even explain the precession of Mercury's orbit without
handwaving, much less anything else.
goodbye...@yahoo.dk
> Get yourself a laser pointer and stand under a shower. Let me know
> what the wavelength of each is.
This comment reminds me of one of my all time favorite physics
experiments... measuring the wavelength of a laser pointer using *only*
a metallic ruler. I hereby pose it as a challenge to anyone unfamiliar
with the method.
Henri Wilson
Totaly unrelated to the topic.
Henri Wilson
How about a plastic ruler with 0.1 mm graduations?
Henri Wilson
Please stick to the subject...
>
>Jerry
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 24 Apr 2006 11:57:39 -0700, "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Diffraction gratings say you're an idiot.
>> >Anti-reflection coatings say you're an idiot.
>> >Holograms say you're an idiot.
>> >Eyeglasses say you're an idiot.
>> >The double-slit experiment says you're an idiot.
>> >The entire field of interferometry says you're an idiot.
>> >The entire field of optics says you're an idiot.
>>
>> Seto says YOU are an idiot...and he should know..
>
>You can't even explain the precession of Mercury's orbit without
>handwaving, much less anything else.
Gord! Not Mercury again.....
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2006 18:14:35 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 24 Apr 2006 11:57:39 -0700, "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Diffraction gratings say you're an idiot.
> >> >Anti-reflection coatings say you're an idiot.
> >> >Holograms say you're an idiot.
> >> >Eyeglasses say you're an idiot.
> >> >The double-slit experiment says you're an idiot.
> >> >The entire field of interferometry says you're an idiot.
> >> >The entire field of optics says you're an idiot.
> >>
> >> Seto says YOU are an idiot...and he should know..
> >
> >You can't even explain the precession of Mercury's orbit without
> >handwaving, much less anything else.
>
> Gord! Not Mercury again.....
Hah! You never even managed to explain it the first time!
Whats the matter, Henri? Can't make your magical theory explain
something as simple as a planetary orbit?
I'd do it myself, but since you refuse to explain what exactly your
theory is beyond the Galilean transforms and c+v, I am forced to ask
you again and again.
Hexenmeister
Sure.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PHOTONSLICER.PNG
Androcles.
|
| Jerry
|
Jerry
Bzzzt!!! Completely related to the topic!
How does the photon "remain perfectly intact" going through
both slits at once?
Jerry
Jerry
> On 24 Apr 2006 16:01:12 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 24 Apr 2006 11:38:44 -0700, "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Except that the wave will spread out as it moves. I haven't seen too
> >> >many missiles lately that do this.
> >>
> >> Oh? So you know for certain that the energy package emittd during a SINGLE
> >> electron transition spreads out as it travels?
> >>
> >> How did you discover that please?
> >
> >Single photons are capable of self-interference in a double-slit
> >experiment. As you should know, having been informed of such
> >many, many, many times...
>
> Please stick to the subject...
Bzzzt!!! Completely related to the subject!
How does the photon go through both slits at once without
"spreading out"?
Jerry
Hexenmeister
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:34:30 GMT, "Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey_c>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:a6tn42hee67ujih9q...@4ax.com...
| >
| >Light is not ballistic when it passes through a medium.
|
| With that I would probably agree.
| ...but in remote and empty space....?
Then its ballistic, of course. Ritz said so, and so do I.
Fox fucked up with his extinction theory, you don't get
extinction without a medium as empirical data shows.
Bob is as good a programmer as you.
See d-cephei.exe
"Subscript out of range" when you enter H = 3000.
Hexenmeister
<goodbye...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1145928351.9...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Measure the wavelength of my car any way you can.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
Measure the frequency of the road any way you can.
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
He has advanced Alzheimer's disease.
He can't remember what he said from one line to the next.
He thinks his clock has slowed down 1.6 seconds in 10 years compared
to Cassini and he hasn't aged as much as Cassini. His god said so.
He calls that
"talking about *reality* and *measurement* ", even stressing reality.
It's a laugh, though.
Androcles.
Jerry
How about, bounce the light from the pointer at grazing
incidence off the grooves of the metallic ruler. The angular
separation in radians between the diffracted spots should
be equal to the ratio of wavelength to groove spacing, around
half a milliradian for a ruler scribed in millimeters?
Jerry
Hexenmeister
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On 24 Apr 2006 11:57:39 -0700, "Paul Cardinale"
<pcard...@volcanomail.com>
| wrote:
|
| >Diffraction gratings say you're an idiot.
| >Anti-reflection coatings say you're an idiot.
| >Holograms say you're an idiot.
| >Eyeglasses say you're an idiot.
| >The double-slit experiment says you're an idiot.
| >The entire field of interferometry says you're an idiot.
| >The entire field of optics says you're an idiot.
|
| Seto says YOU are an idiot...and he should know..
Talking holograms might be worth something if they sing too,
they'd make good birthday cards.
"Happy birthday dear idiot, happy birthday to you".
We seem to be down to the stooges, H. Who's left?
Tusselad, proven liar.
Humpty Roberts, discussing the meaning of words.
Dork Van de merde, self-confessed local village idiot.
Silly Goose, still not taken his math course he's going to fail.
Phuckwit Duck, Alzheimer's disease.
Cardinale, talking eyeglasses.
Bilewacky, "Einstein's sync may be vacuous." (a chink in the armour there,
might be worth opening it up with a can opener).
Seto, MMX goes the wrong way, it should be up.
Bilge, arse up in the air five times a day.
Dishwanker, muzzle velocity is 8 pixels a frame.
Blind Poe, "Where in that equation does c+v occur?"
Jeery, general shithead.
Who did I miss?
Androcles
Hexenmeister
About as useful as weighing a bright green flying elephant.
Since it doesn't exist except in your imagination, pointless.
| Jerry
|
Paul B. Andersen
> A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of its electrons moves
> to a different energy level. The package moves away from the atom in a
> particular direction and continues on through space as ONE single unit.
>
> light...or a sudden burst of light from a star.
>
> distances. Its eventual target, if any, is unknown. We also know that we could
> set up an experiment to show that it takes a finite amount of time to travel
> between any two points in space.
>
> In fact, the pulse behaves exactly like any other missile. It is ballistic.
>
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
How does Nature behave?
Let's see. Hm.
I think the speed of light must be source dependent.
How could it not be?
So it's proven.
The speed of light IS source dependent.
Experimental evidence?
No trustworthy experiment is ever done.
Experiments proving my blind faith wrong CANNOT be
trustworthy, because there is no way I can be wrong.
How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
See?
So it MUST be ballistic.
And since light IS ballistic, any experiment showing
otherwise must obviously be faulty.
Amen.
Paul, finally converted to the True Belief
Paul B. Andersen
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:34:30 GMT, "Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey_c>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:a6tn42hee67ujih9q...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Light is not ballistic when it passes through a medium.
>
>
> With that I would probably agree.
Does that mean that everything you have said about the speed
of light in an I-FOG is wrong?
So what IS the speed of light in a fibre?
Relative to what?
Paul
PD
That's right. That way I'll know if you're animating it correctly.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
PD
PD
Actually, I haven't said any such thing.
I believe, Androcles, that you have become ... what do you call it? ...
a lying cunt.
PD
goodbye...@yahoo.dk
You win a cookie, Jerry. You may collect your prize anytime you come to
Copenhagen. :-)
Igor
Hexenmeister wrote:
> "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1145903924.5...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> | Except that the wave will spread out as it moves. I haven't seen too
> | many missiles lately that do this.
>
> I don't know so...
> Get yourself a laser pointer and stand under a shower. Let me know
> what the wavelength of each is.
>
Photons are the quantized form of electromagnetic waves. Wavelength is
inversely proportional to the photon's momentum. But since you're
still stuck in the 19th century, I guess none of this will ever make
any sense to you.
Igor
batang wrote:
> Paul Cardinale wrote:
> > Diffraction gratings say you're an idiot.
>
>
> > Anti-reflection coatings say you're an idiot.
>
>
> > Holograms say you're an idiot.
>
>
> > Eyeglasses say you're an idiot.
> > The double-slit experiment says you're an idiot.
>
>
> > The entire field of interferometry says you're an idiot.
>
>
> > The entire field of optics says you're an idiot.
>
...came out of a well wearing lady's shoes, didn't know what milk was,
took him to the Swiss picnic where he chocked to death on a piece of
cheese.
Igor
> >> A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of its electrons moves
> >> to a different energy level. The package moves away from the atom in a
> >> particular direction and continues on through space as ONE single unit.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> We could just as easily replace the single 'photon' with a brief pulse of laser
> >> light...or a sudden burst of light from a star.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> We know that such a pulse retains its character as it travels across vast
> >> distances. Its eventual target, if any, is unknown. We also know that we could
> >> set up an experiment to show that it takes a finite amount of time to travel
> >> between any two points in space.
> >
> >> In fact, the pulse behaves exactly like any other missile. It is ballistic.
> >
> >many missiles lately that do this.
>
> electron transition spreads out as it travels?
>
> How did you discover that please?
It's called EM wave theory. You might want to learn it before you make
such ridiculous statements about these things. Critiques of existing
physical theories are best undertaken when one fully understands
current existing theory. Photons are quanta of EM waves and they obey
the rules of quantum physics, not Newtonian physics. Until you
understand this, any ideas you have will probably be dead in the water.
.
Igor
It's very much related to the topic. Missiles do not interfere with
themselves. Photons can.
Hexenmeister
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145980712.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Not in exact words, I agree. You said "about".
Verbatim:
and "Gamma for a beta of 1E-4 is 1.000000005.
This corresponds to a desynchronization of about 0.16 seconds/year."
--STUPID lying cunt Paul Draper, aka Phuckwit Duck for his comment
" I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear]"
About 0.16 seconds/year is exactly 1.6 seconds for the about 10 years
since Cassini left Earth.
You got that from your tin god Einstein.
| I believe, Androcles, that you have become ... what do you call it? ...
| a lying cunt.
Well, Henri and I know you are suffering from Alzheimer's. You go
ahead and believe it, you'll have forgotten by tomorrow. Henri reckons
you are a mindless moron, I think you are just mindless.
Moron automatically follows.
Androcles.
"PS. Please do not mistake your *presumptions* for reality. What you
*presume* to be the case is not necessarily real. What makes *sense* to
you is not necessarily what is real." -- Phuckwit Duck.
PD
Actually, the verbatim conversation went a little like this:
==============================================
Androcles:
> | > Oh look, a clock near Saturn to compare to.
> |
PD:
> | Yes, not one stationary relative to Saturn, but one nearby.
> | What's your point?
Androcles:
> *reality* and *measurements*, of course. Forgotten already?
> It's a clock the Earth is currently receding from at 18.5 km/sec.
PD:
Currently, yes.
PD:
> |
> | Gamma for a beta of 1E-4 is 1.000000005.
Androcles:
> Is it? What's your point?
PD:
> |
Androcles:
> Does it? What's your point?
PD:
> | I'm sorry, what was your point again?
Androcles:
> *reality* and *measurements*, of course. Forgotten already?
> Alzheimer's really has got you, hasn't it? I suppose you would be sorry.
> So Earth clocks have slowed down compared to Cassini's clock
> by about 1.6 seconds in the about ten years since Cassini was
> launched, according to Phuckwit Duck.
PD:
Uh, no. Funny how you should take the *current state* of motion and
extrapolate to be identical and constant over the last 10 years.
Oh look! You made me laugh! Now I see why hanson laughs at you.
==========================================
You'll note that when you said "So Earth clocks have slowed down
compared to Cassini's clock by about 1.6 seconds in the about ten years
since Cassini was launched," my direct answer was "Uh, no."
Furthermore, my statement that "Gamma for a beta of 1E-4 is
1.000000005. This corresponds to a desynchronization of about 0.16
seconds/year," is a completely correct statement. Nowhere in there did
I say that this applies to Cassini. And in fact, when you
misinterpreted that statement to be about Cassini, I corrected it, and
laughed at your rationale for arriving at that number.
Androcles, you are a proven liar.
Furthermore, you are a demonstrated coward, since you snipped an
extract from another thread and inserted it with the lie in this
thread.
Since you are a proven liar and a coward, I think I'll stop responding
to you. Ta ta.
PD
Hexenmeister
ROFLMAO!
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| > "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1145903924.5...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > | Except that the wave will spread out as it moves. I haven't seen too
| > | many missiles lately that do this.
| >
| > Missiles and photons are waves?
| > I don't know so...
| > Get yourself a laser pointer and stand under a shower. Let me know
| > what the wavelength of each is.
| >
| > Androcles.
|
| Photons are the quantized form of electromagnetic waves.
Only the frequency is quantized, and then only for a particular
ion/atom/molecule.
Wavelength is
| inversely proportional to the photon's momentum.
Nonsense. E = hf and f means frequency.
But since you're
| still stuck in the 19th century, I guess none of this will ever make
| any sense to you.
No, it doesn't, and since you have your head up your arse, produce
a fuckin' wavelength out of my car or a frequency out of the road.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
Androcles
Henri Wilson
A 'photon' has a length and cross section. It might have an intrinsic traveling
wave or some kind of rotation that gives rise to fixed 'nodes' along its entire
length. Naturally it will pass through both slits and intterfere. Where's the
problem?
>
>Jerry
eleaticus
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:8blq421n7gdq77btr...@4ax.com...
>| On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:34:30 GMT, "Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey_c>
>| wrote:
>|
>| >
>| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:a6tn42hee67ujih9q...@4ax.com...
>| >
>| >Light is not ballistic when it passes through a medium.
>|
>| With that I would probably agree.
>| ...but in remote and empty space....?
>
>Then its ballistic, of course. Ritz said so, and so do I.
I say there is a critical density of matter and fields (Wilson's Threshold)
below which light behaves ballistically. Above that, it behaves like a wave in
a medium.
I can only speculate about what happens as the threshold is approached.
>Fox fucked up with his extinction theory, you don't get
>extinction without a medium as empirical data shows.
I say there will be a degree of light speed unification whenever the density
exceeds the threshold.
>Bob is as good a programmer as you.
Probably.. ..but his is DOS. Mine is more user friendly. You should try the
latest simplified version.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
We must standardize yaw angles.
My zero yaw has major axis normal to LOS and perihelion to the right.
Yaw increases as ph is moved away.
What is the official view if any?
Henri Wilson
That's how a conventional reflection grating works. Didn't you know that?
>
>Jerry
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 24 Apr 2006 11:38:44 -0700, "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of its electrons moves
>> >> to a different energy level. The package moves away from the atom in a
>> >> particular direction and continues on through space as ONE single unit.
>> >
>> >
>> >And just who delivers this package? Fed EX or UPS?
>> >
>> >
>> >> We could just as easily replace the single 'photon' with a brief pulse of laser
>> >> light...or a sudden burst of light from a star.
>> >
>> >
>> >Nothing wrong there.
>> >
>> >
>> >> We know that such a pulse retains its character as it travels across vast
>> >> distances. Its eventual target, if any, is unknown. We also know that we could
>> >> set up an experiment to show that it takes a finite amount of time to travel
>> >> between any two points in space.
>> >
>> >> In fact, the pulse behaves exactly like any other missile. It is ballistic.
>> >
>> >Except that the wave will spread out as it moves. I haven't seen too
>> >many missiles lately that do this.
>>
>> Oh? So you know for certain that the energy package emittd during a SINGLE
>> electron transition spreads out as it travels?
>>
>> How did you discover that please?
>
>It's called EM wave theory.
We don't support wave theory.
>You might want to learn it before you make
>such ridiculous statements about these things. Critiques of existing
>physical theories are best undertaken when one fully understands
>current existing theory. Photons are quanta of EM waves and they obey
>the rules of quantum physics, not Newtonian physics. Until you
>understand this, any ideas you have will probably be dead in the water.
Funny? They appear to work already.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Seeing the stupidity of the second postulate first hand is too much them, A.
....But they will never admit to being the victims of undoubtedly the greatest
hoax since jesus christ.
>Androcles.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 24 Apr 2006 18:14:35 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> On 24 Apr 2006 11:57:39 -0700, "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Diffraction gratings say you're an idiot.
>> >> >Anti-reflection coatings say you're an idiot.
>> >> >Holograms say you're an idiot.
>> >> >Eyeglasses say you're an idiot.
>> >> >The double-slit experiment says you're an idiot.
>> >> >The entire field of interferometry says you're an idiot.
>> >> >The entire field of optics says you're an idiot.
>> >>
>> >> Seto says YOU are an idiot...and he should know..
>> >
>> >You can't even explain the precession of Mercury's orbit without
>> >handwaving, much less anything else.
>>
>> Gord! Not Mercury again.....
>
>Hah! You never even managed to explain it the first time!
>
>Whats the matter, Henri? Can't make your magical theory explain
>something as simple as a planetary orbit?
>
>I'd do it myself, but since you refuse to explain what exactly your
>theory is beyond the Galilean transforms and c+v, I am forced to ask
>you again and again.
The precession of mercury is influenced by many factors.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Hobba is pretty painful these days.
Henri Wilson
I see you have no real criticism of my above statements.
I have qualified my theory by pointing out that light is only 100% ballistic
when the density of 'matter and fields' lies below the Wilson Threshold.
Above that, light behaves more like a wave in a medium.
This concept conforms with all known data and completely explains the role of
the BaTh in the determination of variable star brightness curves. For a large
part of its journey, starlight travels through space below the WiTh.
Eric Gisse
Then why does general relativity get it right?
If there are so many factors that you cannot even tell me what they are
after how many years, why should your explanation be thought of as
anything other than handwaving bullshit?
Why should I have to ask you to get a prediction out of your theory?
Einstein is dead, we don't need him to know what GR says.
Henri Wilson
So is jesus christ...and look at the mess he created.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>Y'all do know that there is another possibility besides wave and BB/bullet?
Whatever the alternative, we can be sure it moves ballistically in empty space.
>
>eleaticus
>ee-lee-AT-i-cus
Eric Gisse
Why are you dodging the questions, Henri?
Why should I have to ask you to get a prediction out of your theory?
Why can't you make a simple prediction about a planetary orbit?
What, not enough data to massage? Mercury is within this star system,
so no specious arguments about extinction effects after an indetermine
number of light years.
I guess your theory is wrong if you cannot even predict a planetary
orbit with it. Hell, you have a 2500+ page thread that talks about
simple effects of emitted light among others and you cannot even get
THAT right.
Hexenmeister
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:43:36 GMT, "Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey_c>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:8blq421n7gdq77btr...@4ax.com...
| >| On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:34:30 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
<vanq...@broom.Mickey_c>
| >| wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:a6tn42hee67ujih9q...@4ax.com...
| >| >
| >| >Light is not ballistic when it passes through a medium.
| >|
| >| With that I would probably agree.
| >| ...but in remote and empty space....?
| >
| >Then its ballistic, of course. Ritz said so, and so do I.
|
| I say there is a critical density of matter and fields (Wilson's
Threshold)
| below which light behaves ballistically. Above that, it behaves like a
wave in
| a medium.
|
| I can only speculate about what happens as the threshold is approached.
I say that you have no evidence to support your crackpot hunches.
If you wish to provide the evidence I'll take a look, otherwise I'm not
interested in your weird speculations.
I don't need to speculate on you being listed at crank.net, it's known.
| >Fox fucked up with his extinction theory, you don't get
| >extinction without a medium as empirical data shows.
|
| I say there will be a degree of light speed unification whenever the
density
| exceeds the threshold.
You can say whatever you like, you have freedom of speech. Others
have freedom to ignore morons listed at crank.net.
If you want to be taken seriously, provide the evidence.
|
| >Bob is as good a programmer as you.
|
| Probably.. ..but his is DOS.
I was being polite. You are both fucking terrible, writing code
that crashes on out-of-range data.
| Mine is more user friendly.
Not what I see isn't. This is user friendly:
http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php
You should try the
| latest simplified version.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
Ok... I opened it to a page of text. I closed it immediately without
reading it and deleted it, it's user unfriendly.
See Bob's d-cephei.exe, text is optional.
There is no need to embed text in a program, no fucking downloading
either, the text can stay on your web page. That's user friendly.
It's a program, not a history book. Your audience will decide what is
user friendly, not you.
You get on stage and tell people you are funny and they forget to laugh,
leaving you the only one that thinks you are a comedian.
You are the only one that thinks you can write a program, too, and as
a programmer you make a good comedian. I don't want to put you
down but you are too fucking stubborn to take advice.
|
| We must standardize yaw angles.
Good idea. I did it years ago.
| My zero yaw has major axis normal to LOS and perihelion to the right.
| Yaw increases as ph is moved away.
| What is the official view if any?
Nothing in math is "official", there is no "Officer of Math";
mathematicians
do as they damn please and so do astronomers. That's why we have so many
units of distance -- metres, miles, Astronomical Units, light years,
parsecs.
I'll take "official" to mean conventional.
x-axis horizontal, y-axis vertical. Major axis along x-axis. Example:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ellipse.html
This maintains the 2D conventional cartesian coordinate system everyone
is used to and is the projection onto the celestial plane as you normally
see it.
That automatically means LOS is along z-axis. z means "up" to most people
anyway, and "up" is the direction you look at a star. +z is away.
The conventional view is face on, which real orbits seldom are.
Pitch - rotation around x-axis, angle omega.
Yaw - rotation around y-axis, angle phi.
Roll - rotation around z-axis, angle theta (not used much, same as standing
upside down like an aussie or sideways like a yank).
Periastron (not perihelion, that's only for our sun) is then as you say,
(x,y,z) = (1,0,0).
omega = 90 degree (pitch) - orbit is then edge on, horizontal, periastron
doesn't move.
phi = 90 (yaw) - orbit is then edge on, vertical. Periastron is then away
from you (0,0,1)
theta = 90 (roll) - projection of orbit remains an ellipse, periastron moves
to (0,1,0)
Direction of rotation (increasing angle) counterclockwise.
For ease of use and speed, a rotation matrix is employed.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RotationMatrix.html
There you'll notice the angles are alpha, beta, gamma and not omega, phi,
theta.
It is conventional to use greek letters for angle, but the choice of letter
is
very optional.
By means of matrix multiplication a single matrix is first created
and then ALL points in the object can be processed quickly.
Matrix multiplication is not commutative (A * B ) NOT equal (B * A)
so order is important and roll must be last. Computing sin(A)
over and over again slows programs and is unnecessary.
Here is a nice array of dots.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Rotation.html
Here is an even nicer array of dots.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm
All whole frame of dots were computed through the same rotation matrix
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equations/RotationMatrix/equation5.gif
and then a new matrix was created for the next frame.
You can paste this almost exactly as it is into VB.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equations/OrthogonalTransformation/inline7.gif
You can call yourself a programmer when you can do this as I can.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatx.gif
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmaty.gif
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/rotmatz.gif
Until then you'll just be jealous.
The direction to the orbit from Earth is given by angles too, Right
Ascension
and Declination. Notice that 'roll' is completely ignored.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/coordinates.html
RA is an angle given in (of all things) time, adding to the general
confusion, and astronomers still use Julian dates. You'll see J.D.
on brit astro light curves, that's a Julian date in days.
The reason being, of course, astronomy is the oldest science
and astrology the oldest religion, the basis of all religions. Heaven
is where the stars are and the planets are gods. Telling the future
stems from prediction of astronomical events such as eclipses
and the priesthood capitalized on it. Relativists do the same today,
shrouding everything in mystery that only they understand, or so
they pretend.
Any shithead who tells me he has a theory without a shred of
evidence to support it can kiss my arse with his "Wilson Threshold".
You can't be a high priest to me, shove your over-inflated ego where it
belongs.
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
An 'mercury droplet' has a length and cross section. It might grow into a
fully fledged bright green flying elephant or some kind of rotation that
gives
rise to fixed 'nodes' along its entire cross section. Naturally it won't
pass through
both slits and interfere. Beats the shit out of Jeery how it becomes a
droplet again
when cut it in half. Are you fucking mad, where's the problem? Your fucking
nodes
are the problem.
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
Oh yeah.. He's been on my killfile for so long I forgot about him.
Ghost can show glimmerings of sense when he isn't being sarcastic,
but prat O'Barre is totally lost. He still pops in from time to time with
his <deletes by O'Barre> "Thanks for reading" (as if anybody does).
At least the aetherialists are now thin on the ground.
Hexenmeister
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On 25 Apr 2006 02:48:26 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
wrote:
|
| >goodbye...@yahoo.dk wrote:
| >> Hexenmeister wrote:
| >> > Get yourself a laser pointer and stand under a shower.
| >> > Let me know what the wavelength of each is.
| >>
| >> This comment reminds me of one of my all time favorite
| >> physics experiments... measuring the wavelength of a laser
| >> pointer using *only* a metallic ruler. I hereby pose it as a
| >> challenge to anyone unfamiliar with the method.
| >
| >How about, bounce the light from the pointer at grazing
| >incidence off the grooves of the metallic ruler. The angular
| >separation in radians between the diffracted spots should
| >be equal to the ratio of wavelength to groove spacing, around
| >half a milliradian for a ruler scribed in millimeters?
|
| That's how a conventional reflection grating works. Didn't you know that?
Photons do not have bumps in space. Didn't you know that?
Androcles
Paul B. Andersen
> I have qualified my theory by pointing out that light is only 100% ballistic
> when the density of 'matter and fields' lies below the Wilson Threshold.
>
> Above that, light behaves more like a wave in a medium.
I suppose this means that you now claim that
light in glass behaves like a wave in a medium.
Then the question is, how does a wave in a medium behave?
Please consider the following scenario, and answer my question:
A glass fibre with index of refraction n is moving
with the speed v in the stationary frame.
------------------------
* -> c/n wrt fibre -> v
------------------------
What is the speed of the light in the fibre in the stationary frame?
Is it (c/n + v), or is it something else?
Paul
Hexenmeister
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
Hmm... I'm not sure which was the greater hoax, a walking dead guy with
holes
in his paws floating off up to heaven in a cloud without a solid rocket
booster,
"He was raised up and a cloud received Him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9)
or Ptolemy's epicycles.
Maybe it was an SBR, they leave a cloud of poisonous shit behind. I was told
to get out if it drifted over to us when I saw a launch close up in Florida.
http://www.space.com/images/ig204_01_02.jpg
Great photography, that.
The first can be put down to wishful thinking of anti-gravity, but epicycles
have a ring of plausibility to them even if the mechanism wasn't understood
and Newton wasn't around to think it through.
Ptolemy pissed Newton off the way Einstein pisses me off, but without him
we'd be stuck with epicycles, they lasted 1400 years.
Good thing Galileo spotted the Moons of Jupiter orbiting something that
wasn't the Earth, epicycles are as stupid as wavelengths. Oh well,
it takes time for dumbshits to catch on.
Igor
Hexenmeister wrote:
> "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1145984305.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Hexenmeister wrote:
> | > "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1145903924.5...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> | >
> | > | Except that the wave will spread out as it moves. I haven't seen too
> | > | many missiles lately that do this.
> | >
> | > Missiles and photons are waves?
> | > I don't know so...
> | > Get yourself a laser pointer and stand under a shower. Let me know
> | > what the wavelength of each is.
> | >
> | > Androcles.
> |
> | Photons are the quantized form of electromagnetic waves.
>
> Only the frequency is quantized, and then only for a particular
> ion/atom/molecule.
In what alternative universe?
>
> Wavelength is
> | inversely proportional to the photon's momentum.
>
> Nonsense. E = hf and f means frequency.
That's true. But you keep demonstrating over and over that you don't
even understand what it means.
>
>
> But since you're
> | still stuck in the 19th century, I guess none of this will ever make
> | any sense to you.
>
> No, it doesn't, and since you have your head up your arse, produce
> a fuckin' wavelength out of my car or a frequency out of the road.
More proof that you don't know what you're talking about. These are
simple ideas found in even the most basic popular books on the subject.
Please don't attempt to criticize something you know absolutely
nothing about.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
>
> Androcles
I'm done with you. You have a persistant ignorance that nothing or no
one could ever cure. What you know about physics could be written in
10 point type on a dust grain. There may be hope for Henri someday,
but Androcles will always be an ineducable ignoramus.
Igor
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2006 10:09:31 -0700, "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 24 Apr 2006 11:38:44 -0700, "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> >> A remote atom in space emits a package of energy, as one of its electrons moves
> >> >> to a different energy level. The package moves away from the atom in a
> >> >> particular direction and continues on through space as ONE single unit.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >And just who delivers this package? Fed EX or UPS?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> We could just as easily replace the single 'photon' with a brief pulse of laser
> >> >> light...or a sudden burst of light from a star.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Nothing wrong there.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> We know that such a pulse retains its character as it travels across vast
> >> >> distances. Its eventual target, if any, is unknown. We also know that we could
> >> >> set up an experiment to show that it takes a finite amount of time to travel
> >> >> between any two points in space.
> >> >
> >> >> In fact, the pulse behaves exactly like any other missile. It is ballistic.
> >> >
> >> >Except that the wave will spread out as it moves. I haven't seen too
> >> >many missiles lately that do this.
> >>
> >> Oh? So you know for certain that the energy package emittd during a SINGLE
> >> electron transition spreads out as it travels?
> >>
> >> How did you discover that please?
> >
> >It's called EM wave theory.
>
> We don't support wave theory.
Then don't even begin to talk about photons. They are a derivative of
wave theory.
> >You might want to learn it before you make
> >such ridiculous statements about these things. Critiques of existing
> >physical theories are best undertaken when one fully understands
> >current existing theory. Photons are quanta of EM waves and they obey
> >the rules of quantum physics, not Newtonian physics. Until you
> >understand this, any ideas you have will probably be dead in the water.
>
> Funny? They appear to work already.
>
The problem is that photons don't work the way you think they do.
They're quantizations of the EM field. Maybe what you're talking about
is the traditional Newtonian corpuscles of light, but you shouldn't
call them photons. You've always claimed that your so-called ballistic
particles of light explain a particular phenomenon involving binary
star systems. Fine, but what about other areas? A well-rounded
theoretician should always try to pick his own pet theories apart
before someone else can. Frankly, I don't think you've put enough
thought into this and are just trying to rest on one so-called success,
when you're ideas are built on sand and sinking fast in the light of
everything else.
Igor
So, what are they? It's not that you're limited by space here.
Hexenmeister
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| > "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
| > news:1145984305.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Hexenmeister wrote:
| > | > "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
| > news:1145903924.5...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| > | >
| > | > | Except that the wave will spread out as it moves. I haven't seen
too
| > | > | many missiles lately that do this.
| > | >
| > | > Missiles and photons are waves?
| > | > I don't know so...
| > | > Get yourself a laser pointer and stand under a shower. Let me know
| > | > what the wavelength of each is.
| > | >
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | Photons are the quantized form of electromagnetic waves.
| >
| > Only the frequency is quantized, and then only for a particular
| > ion/atom/molecule.
|
| In what alternative universe?
There is only one universe by definition. You didn't know that, huh?
You really are stupid, aren't you?
| >
| > Wavelength is
| > | inversely proportional to the photon's momentum.
| >
| > Nonsense. E = hf and f means frequency.
|
| That's true.
I know it is.
| But you keep demonstrating over and over that you don't
| even understand what it means.
Oh... sorry. Explain it to me then.
| > But since you're
| > | still stuck in the 19th century, I guess none of this will ever make
| > | any sense to you.
| >
| > No, it doesn't, and since you have your head up your arse, produce
| > a fuckin' wavelength out of my car or a frequency out of the road.
|
| More proof that you don't know what you're talking about.
Oh, sorry... explain the wavelength of my car to me then.
| These are
| simple ideas found in even the most basic popular books on the subject.
| Please don't attempt to criticize something you know absolutely
| nothing about.
Oh, sorry... explain what the wavelength of my cat is then, he oscillates
too.
|
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
| >
| > Androcles
|
| I'm done with you.
Aww... I was hoping a dumb cunt like you would explain what the
frequency of a road is. I wanted a good laugh.
| You have a persistant ignorance that nothing or no
| one could ever cure. What you know about physics could be written in
| 10 point type on a dust grain. There may be hope for Henri someday,
| but Androcles will always be an ineducable ignoramus.
Well, educate me then, stupid cunt. Explain what the frequency of a road is.
You can't, can you? Why is that, phuckwit? So you babble on about things
you have no understanding of and then blame others for your failings.
Go on, run away with your tail between your legs, then turn and yap defiance
like the little puppy you are. Come back and I'll kick your dumb arse again.
Androcles
Eric Gisse
Thats a good question, Igor. One I have asked many, many times.
Hexenmeister
Photons are a derivative of wave theory...
d(photon)
c = ---------- ?
d(wave)
| > >You might want to learn it before you make
| > >such ridiculous statements about these things. Critiques of existing
| > >physical theories are best undertaken when one fully understands
| > >current existing theory. Photons are quanta of EM waves and they obey
| > >the rules of quantum physics, not Newtonian physics. Until you
| > >understand this, any ideas you have will probably be dead in the water.
| >
| > Funny? They appear to work already.
| >
|
| The problem is that photons don't work the way you think they do.
I'm sure they work the way you think they do.
| They're quantizations of the EM field.
Oh really?
Is that a quantization length, a quantization time or a quantization Igor?
Maybe what you're talking about
| is the traditional Newtonian corpuscles of light, but you shouldn't
| call them photons.
Aww.. Maybe you should shut the fuck up, but you don't, you arrogant cunt.
| You've always claimed that your so-called ballistic
| particles of light explain a particular phenomenon involving binary
| star systems.
What binary star system are you ranting about, shithead?
| Fine, but what about other areas?
What other areas?
| A well-rounded
| theoretician should always try to pick his own pet theories apart
| before someone else can.
Start then. What the fuck is the wavelength of a photon, cunt?
| Frankly, I don't think
We know that already. Now fuck off.
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
Predominantly Jupiter. Mercury's precession of longitude of
perihelion is quite small but entirely Newtonian.
| It's not that you're limited by space here.
Here's a precession of 90 degrees per orbit, modelled using NM,
ignorant shithead.
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html - example 5.
Androcles.
Jerry
> "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1146076986.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Henri Wilson wrote:
> | > The precession of mercury is influenced by many factors.
> |
> | So, what are they?
>
> Predominantly Jupiter. Mercury's precession of longitude of
> perihelion is quite small but entirely Newtonian.
Venus, Earth, and Jupiter have the biggest influence on Mercury's
orbit. Newtonian Mechanics predicts 5557 arc seconds per century
precession. The observed precession is 5600 arc seconds per
century. The discrepancy between 5557 predicted and 5600 observed
is the ANOMALOUS precession, unexplainable by Newtonian mechanics.
Jerry
Eric Gisse
[snip]
> Predominantly Jupiter. Mercury's precession of longitude of
> perihelion is quite small but entirely Newtonian.
Nice to see you don't understand what was known over a century ago.
[snip]
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:hbat42lhlnq6ntbq1...@4ax.com...
>| On 25 Apr 2006 02:17:44 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>| >
>| >Bzzzt!!! Completely related to the topic!
>| >How does the photon "remain perfectly intact" going through
>| >both slits at once?
>|
>| A 'photon' has a length and cross section. It might have an intrinsic
>traveling
>| wave or some kind of rotation that gives rise to fixed 'nodes' along its
>entire
>| length. Naturally it will pass through both slits and intterfere. Where's
>the
>| problem?
>
>An 'mercury droplet' has a length and cross section. It might grow into a
>fully fledged bright green flying elephant or some kind of rotation that
>gives
>rise to fixed 'nodes' along its entire cross section. Naturally it won't
>pass through
>both slits and interfere. Beats the shit out of Jeery how it becomes a
>droplet again
>when cut it in half. Are you fucking mad, where's the problem? Your fucking
>nodes
>are the problem.
>Androcles.
You're prematurely aging like Andersen....fixed in your ways...losing all your
imagination....
Hexenmeister
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
You asked where the problem was.
The main problem is you are throwing insults instead of discussing physics.
"maybe"... "imagine"... "a physicist for 45 years" ... and doesn't know
how to use Kepler's equation.
Maybe Santa Claus will bring you a clue, childish cunt. Where's the problem?
Fucking "nodes"...
You don't have any imagination, Wilson, any cunt can draw this:
http://webphysics.davidson.edu/physlet_resources/bu_semester2/c22_EM.html
which is identical to your "photon" when "AM" is selected.
The idiot that drew that is hopelessly wrong too.
"Maxwell predicted that electromagnetic waves consist of electric and
magnetic fields that oscillate in phase ".
Maxwell said nothing of the kind, those of the words of a shithead.
"Predicted in phase" my arse.
Androcles
Hexenmeister
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1146093855.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| > "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
| > news:1146076986.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Henri Wilson wrote:
|
| > | > The precession of mercury is influenced by many factors.
| > |
| > | So, what are they?
| >
| > Predominantly Jupiter. Mercury's precession of longitude of
| > perihelion is quite small but entirely Newtonian.
|
| Venus, Earth, and Jupiter have the biggest influence on Mercury's
| orbit.
Agreed, but not in that order.
Jupiter (12 year period), Venus (275 day period), Earth (365 day period)
is the order. The period of Mercury is 88 days.
Jupiter has the mass, Venus has the proximity. Least of all are Mars
(too small) and Saturn (too far).
| Newtonian Mechanics predicts 5557 arc seconds per century
| precession.
Show your calculations please.
The observed precession is 5600 arc seconds per
| century.
"Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars. " -- Humpty
Roberts.
|The discrepancy between 5557 predicted and 5600 observed
| is the ANOMALOUS precession, unexplainable by Newtonian mechanics.
Show your calculations. Also show Einstein's calculations for comparison.
It should be easy enough for you, you have the luxury of a computer,
he only had bullshit.
You can start here:
http://nso0.livjm.ac.uk/uninow/orrery/
Put your calculations on a spreadsheet as I do
(http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave.htm)
Sun, Jupiter and Mercury should be sufficient as a first attempt,
let others check it out (and stuff your handwaving bullshit up your arse).
Androcles, jeering at Jeery.
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> |The discrepancy between 5557 predicted and 5600 observed
> | is the ANOMALOUS precession, unexplainable by Newtonian mechanics.
>
> Show your calculations.
Not my calculations, but Simon Newcomb's calculations, which
confirmed and refined Le Verrier's earlier figure of 38 arc seconds
per century.
Androcles, you know and I know perfectly well what would
happen if I took the trouble to request his 1882 paper through
interlibrary loan, scan it, and post on my web site.
You wouldn't bother to read it, and you'd dismiss it with an
obscenity. You're very tedious and predictable.
Jerry
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 25 Apr 2006 10:09:31 -0700, "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >It's called EM wave theory.
>>
>> We don't support wave theory.
>
>Then don't even begin to talk about photons. They are a derivative of
>wave theory.
Oh? So you know exactly what a photon looks like eh? Clever fellow!
>
>> >You might want to learn it before you make
>> >such ridiculous statements about these things. Critiques of existing
>> >physical theories are best undertaken when one fully understands
>> >current existing theory. Photons are quanta of EM waves and they obey
>> >the rules of quantum physics, not Newtonian physics. Until you
>> >understand this, any ideas you have will probably be dead in the water.
>>
>> Funny? They appear to work already.
>>
>
>The problem is that photons don't work the way you think they do.
But when I try the way I think they do, I come up with results that match the
evidence.
Funny eh?
>They're quantizations of the EM field.
Do you have any more meaningless statementsd today?
>Maybe what you're talking about
>is the traditional Newtonian corpuscles of light, but you shouldn't
>call them photons.
Listen idiot, I'm talking about what is emitted when a single electron changes
to another energy level.
It is obviously finite in length and time...and it travels across (empty) space
intact.
> You've always claimed that your so-called ballistic
>particles of light explain a particular phenomenon involving binary
>star systems. Fine, but what about other areas? A well-rounded
>theoretician should always try to pick his own pet theories apart
>before someone else can. Frankly, I don't think you've put enough
>thought into this and are just trying to rest on one so-called success,
>when you're ideas are built on sand and sinking fast in the light of
>everything else.
What about all the other successes?
Henri Wilson
wrote:
What happens to the energy package that a single electron transition produces
in remote empty space?
If there is no matter around, why should it change?...and we know it moves
.....therefore it is ballistic.
If there IS enough matter to fill the empty space with 'fields' then it behaves
differently.
>| >Fox fucked up with his extinction theory, you don't get
>| >extinction without a medium as empirical data shows.
>|
>| I say there will be a degree of light speed unification whenever the
>density
>| exceeds the threshold.
>
>You can say whatever you like, you have freedom of speech. Others
>have freedom to ignore morons listed at crank.net.
>If you want to be taken seriously, provide the evidence.
You're certainly in crank.net
>
>|
>| >Bob is as good a programmer as you.
>|
>| Probably.. ..but his is DOS.
>
>I was being polite. You are both fucking terrible, writing code
>that crashes on out-of-range data.
Mine doesn't crash.
>
>| Mine is more user friendly.
>
>Not what I see isn't. This is user friendly:
> http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php
Get a decent computer...
Don't spill your whisky in the keyboard this time.
>You should try the
>| latest simplified version.
>| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
>
>Ok... I opened it to a page of text. I closed it immediately without
>reading it and deleted it, it's user unfriendly.
Why the fuck would you want to open it as text? It is a executable program.
Just run the fucking thing.
>See Bob's d-cephei.exe, text is optional.
>There is no need to embed text in a program, no fucking downloading
>either, the text can stay on your web page. That's user friendly.
>It's a program, not a history book. Your audience will decide what is
>user friendly, not you.
>You get on stage and tell people you are funny and they forget to laugh,
>leaving you the only one that thinks you are a comedian.
>You are the only one that thinks you can write a program, too, and as
>a programmer you make a good comedian. I don't want to put you
>down but you are too fucking stubborn to take advice.
Out comes the professional jealousy again......
We don't have to worry about rotation about the LOS, (z axis) in our programs.
That simplifies things considerably.
I have no need to do it.
>
>The direction to the orbit from Earth is given by angles too, Right
>Ascension
>and Declination. Notice that 'roll' is completely ignored.
> http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/coordinates.html
>
>RA is an angle given in (of all things) time, adding to the general
>confusion, and astronomers still use Julian dates. You'll see J.D.
>on brit astro light curves, that's a Julian date in days.
>The reason being, of course, astronomy is the oldest science
>and astrology the oldest religion, the basis of all religions. Heaven
>is where the stars are and the planets are gods. Telling the future
>stems from prediction of astronomical events such as eclipses
>and the priesthood capitalized on it. Relativists do the same today,
>shrouding everything in mystery that only they understand, or so
>they pretend.
> Any shithead who tells me he has a theory without a shred of
>evidence to support it can kiss my arse with his "Wilson Threshold".
>You can't be a high priest to me, shove your over-inflated ego where it
>belongs.
What about the 'threshold' for superconductivity? Is that bullshit too?
Henri Wilson
1) the way the planet was captured in the first place.
2) interaction between magnetic fields of Mercury and Sun.
3) electric charge effects.
4) radiation pressure.
5) Einstein's fairies.
Henri Wilson
Why don't you run water down one arm of an interferometer to find the answer?
>
>Paul
Henri Wilson
wrote:
> http://webphysics.davidson.edu/physlet_resources/bu_semester2/c22_EM.html
That's good.
He is on the right track.
Eric Gisse
General relativity gets it right and it doesn't need to take into
account any of your delusions to do it.