Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A Particle Model of Light
791 views
Skip to first unread message
Ned Latham
Sep 3, 2015, 4:55:59 AM9/3/15
to
Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
See the original at
http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to
gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
behaviours and attributes; in particular:
¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the
number of revolutions it makes per unit time.
¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi
linearly while revolving once about its axis.
The model works as follows:
Constancy
As with any other massive object, a moving photon travels with
unvarying speed, spin and direction until and unless some force
acts upon it.
Mass
Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle
Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2), from which the
photon's mass will be calculable if:
1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength
of photons from a source are measured, allowing
numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w;
2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf replaces Planck's
constant to adjust for the difference in speed from
the value assumed in Planck's Law;
3 The correct assumptions are made about the shape andi
density of the photon, allowing the correct formula
to be substituted for I and the equation rearranged
to solve for m.
Speed
The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on
the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection.
It follows from that and the principle of determinism that
the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular
fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the
same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any
particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always
the same. Similarly with other types of light emission; eg,
electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same
cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same
set of energy levels[2].
The energy of emission is carried in the photon's speed and
spin and is apparent to human observers as colour.
¤ Again from the principle of determinism, it follows
that because the set of energies of any particular
type of emission is always the same, so too are its
sets of speed and spin.
¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
light, is relative to the source.
Colour Shift
Since the speed of light is relative to the source, its speed
as apparent to an observer will depend on any relative motion
between them. And since such motion can have no effect on the
photons' angular velocity, so too will its energy, or colour.
If source and observer are approaching each other, the speed
as apparent to the observer is increased by delta v, the energy
transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon is increased
in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength as apparent to
the observer is decreased in proportion to delta v. The light
undergoes a blue shift.
Similarly, if source and observer are receding from each other,
the speed as apparent to the observer is decreased by delta v,
the energy transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon
is decreased in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength
as apparent to the observer is increased in proportion to
delta v. The light undergoes a red shift.
Gravitational Effects
Light is accelerated towards every massive body in the universe,
including the body that emits it. If that body's gravity is so
strong that its escape velocuty is higher than its emission
speed, an observer sees a "black hole". If not, its acceleration
slows the light, producing a red shift.
Light falling on a massive body is sped up by the acceleration:
an observer in such a location sees a blue shift in the light.
Light passing by a massive body is centripetally accelerated,
changing its direction to produce the "gravitational lense" effect.
Absorption, reflection, refraction
When light encounters a material substance, the photons are
affected individually. Each is subject to gravitational
attraction to particles making up the substance; some or
all of them collide with particles making up the substance.
Collision sometimes results in capture; the photon is absorbed
and the substance gains its energy. Collision sometimes results
in reflection; it depends on the nature of the substance, the
arrangement of its particles and any resonance between the
movement of its particles and the movement of the incoming
photons whether the reflection is differential or
undistinguished and orderly or scattered. Differential
reflection colours visible objects; orderly reflection
produces a mirror effect.
Those photons that do not collide with particles making up
the substance are accelerated into it by gravitational
attraction on both entry and exit, producing greater speed
within the substance, and changes of direction at the
interfaces: toward the normal on entry and away from it on
exit.
Dispersion
Dispersion is a special case of refraction. When the entry
and exit interfaces are parallel the change in direction on
exit is opposite in direction to that on entry, and the beam
appears to be the same thickness in pre-entry and post-exit.
When the substance is prismatic, however, both changes are
in the same direction, and if the light is a mixture of
colours the beam is seen to be wider on exit than it was on
entry. It has undergone a differential dispersion, with the
amount of change in its direction being proportional to the
energy of its individual photons; ie, the direction of the
least energetic photons (red) changes least and the direction
of the most energetic photons (violet) changes most.
The proportionality of the photon's change of direction to
its energy is also apparent in the gravitational lense effect
and in refractive lenses, where the spread is called chromatic
aberration. A mapping of change of direction versus wavelength
in the chromatic abberration of refractive lenses shows a
regular but non-linear relationship.
The Photoelectric Effect
The photoelectric effect is a special case of absorption. With
some metals, when an incoming photon's energy level is high
enough, the electron it strikes is dislodged, producing a
usable electric charge in the metal.
Polarization
Polarization is a special case of mixed absorption, reflection
and refraction. Some substances absorb or re-orient some photons
whose spin axes lie outside a particular orientation. Those
photons not absorbed either reflect from the material or pass
through it refractively, and the emergent light, having
uniformly-oriented spin axes, is aptly described as polarized.
Diffraction
Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond
it are gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend
towards it. The screen shows a smear of diminishing brightness
at the end of the pattern closest to the barrier and extending
beyond where it would reach if the photons passing close to
the barrier had travelled in a straight line.
With two barriers placed end-to-end (the single slit experiment),
the courses of photons in the stream bend toward the closer
barrier. The light emerging from the slit is brightest at the
centre, where the photons stream straight ahead, diminishing
in brightness towards the edges at each side.
Gravitational attraction to the barrier implies some collisions
with it, which in turn implies some reflection from it, which
in turn implies some scattering of light from it.
Interference
With two closely-placed parallel slits, the pattern on the
screen looks like the interference pattern of waves from
dual sources. That, however, is an illusion. Repeating the
experiment with larger particles produces the same result.
And repeating it with very low rates of emission, of any
usable type of particle, shows the individual particles
hitting the screen at discrete spots which aggregate into
the interference-like pattern.
The spotting proves that each particle behaved like a
particle for the whole of its journey, and the aggregation
of hits implies a probabilistic element in the course
changes the particles undergo. Because the pattern looks
wave-like, that probabilistic element is predicted to be
an effect of their spin.
It's clear that the spin of the individual photons in a stream is a
significant factor in polarization and in gravitational lenses,
refractive lenses and prisms. Diligent investigation will reveal
its significance in diffraction and interference too.
--------
1 In the case of incandescence, for example, one of the
circumstances is temperature.
2 Specifically, one emission energy level for each electron
energy level.
--------
Ned
See the original at
http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to
gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
behaviours and attributes; in particular:
¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the
number of revolutions it makes per unit time.
¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi
linearly while revolving once about its axis.
The model works as follows:
Constancy
As with any other massive object, a moving photon travels with
unvarying speed, spin and direction until and unless some force
acts upon it.
Mass
Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle
Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2), from which the
photon's mass will be calculable if:
1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength
of photons from a source are measured, allowing
numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w;
2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf replaces Planck's
constant to adjust for the difference in speed from
the value assumed in Planck's Law;
3 The correct assumptions are made about the shape andi
density of the photon, allowing the correct formula
to be substituted for I and the equation rearranged
to solve for m.
Speed
The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on
the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection.
It follows from that and the principle of determinism that
the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular
fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the
same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any
particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always
the same. Similarly with other types of light emission; eg,
electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same
cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same
set of energy levels[2].
The energy of emission is carried in the photon's speed and
spin and is apparent to human observers as colour.
¤ Again from the principle of determinism, it follows
that because the set of energies of any particular
type of emission is always the same, so too are its
sets of speed and spin.
¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
light, is relative to the source.
Colour Shift
Since the speed of light is relative to the source, its speed
as apparent to an observer will depend on any relative motion
between them. And since such motion can have no effect on the
photons' angular velocity, so too will its energy, or colour.
If source and observer are approaching each other, the speed
as apparent to the observer is increased by delta v, the energy
transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon is increased
in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength as apparent to
the observer is decreased in proportion to delta v. The light
undergoes a blue shift.
Similarly, if source and observer are receding from each other,
the speed as apparent to the observer is decreased by delta v,
the energy transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon
is decreased in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength
as apparent to the observer is increased in proportion to
delta v. The light undergoes a red shift.
Gravitational Effects
Light is accelerated towards every massive body in the universe,
including the body that emits it. If that body's gravity is so
strong that its escape velocuty is higher than its emission
speed, an observer sees a "black hole". If not, its acceleration
slows the light, producing a red shift.
Light falling on a massive body is sped up by the acceleration:
an observer in such a location sees a blue shift in the light.
Light passing by a massive body is centripetally accelerated,
changing its direction to produce the "gravitational lense" effect.
Absorption, reflection, refraction
When light encounters a material substance, the photons are
affected individually. Each is subject to gravitational
attraction to particles making up the substance; some or
all of them collide with particles making up the substance.
Collision sometimes results in capture; the photon is absorbed
and the substance gains its energy. Collision sometimes results
in reflection; it depends on the nature of the substance, the
arrangement of its particles and any resonance between the
movement of its particles and the movement of the incoming
photons whether the reflection is differential or
undistinguished and orderly or scattered. Differential
reflection colours visible objects; orderly reflection
produces a mirror effect.
Those photons that do not collide with particles making up
the substance are accelerated into it by gravitational
attraction on both entry and exit, producing greater speed
within the substance, and changes of direction at the
interfaces: toward the normal on entry and away from it on
exit.
Dispersion
Dispersion is a special case of refraction. When the entry
and exit interfaces are parallel the change in direction on
exit is opposite in direction to that on entry, and the beam
appears to be the same thickness in pre-entry and post-exit.
When the substance is prismatic, however, both changes are
in the same direction, and if the light is a mixture of
colours the beam is seen to be wider on exit than it was on
entry. It has undergone a differential dispersion, with the
amount of change in its direction being proportional to the
energy of its individual photons; ie, the direction of the
least energetic photons (red) changes least and the direction
of the most energetic photons (violet) changes most.
The proportionality of the photon's change of direction to
its energy is also apparent in the gravitational lense effect
and in refractive lenses, where the spread is called chromatic
aberration. A mapping of change of direction versus wavelength
in the chromatic abberration of refractive lenses shows a
regular but non-linear relationship.
The Photoelectric Effect
The photoelectric effect is a special case of absorption. With
some metals, when an incoming photon's energy level is high
enough, the electron it strikes is dislodged, producing a
usable electric charge in the metal.
Polarization
Polarization is a special case of mixed absorption, reflection
and refraction. Some substances absorb or re-orient some photons
whose spin axes lie outside a particular orientation. Those
photons not absorbed either reflect from the material or pass
through it refractively, and the emergent light, having
uniformly-oriented spin axes, is aptly described as polarized.
Diffraction
Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond
it are gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend
towards it. The screen shows a smear of diminishing brightness
at the end of the pattern closest to the barrier and extending
beyond where it would reach if the photons passing close to
the barrier had travelled in a straight line.
With two barriers placed end-to-end (the single slit experiment),
the courses of photons in the stream bend toward the closer
barrier. The light emerging from the slit is brightest at the
centre, where the photons stream straight ahead, diminishing
in brightness towards the edges at each side.
Gravitational attraction to the barrier implies some collisions
with it, which in turn implies some reflection from it, which
in turn implies some scattering of light from it.
Interference
With two closely-placed parallel slits, the pattern on the
screen looks like the interference pattern of waves from
dual sources. That, however, is an illusion. Repeating the
experiment with larger particles produces the same result.
And repeating it with very low rates of emission, of any
usable type of particle, shows the individual particles
hitting the screen at discrete spots which aggregate into
the interference-like pattern.
The spotting proves that each particle behaved like a
particle for the whole of its journey, and the aggregation
of hits implies a probabilistic element in the course
changes the particles undergo. Because the pattern looks
wave-like, that probabilistic element is predicted to be
an effect of their spin.
It's clear that the spin of the individual photons in a stream is a
significant factor in polarization and in gravitational lenses,
refractive lenses and prisms. Diligent investigation will reveal
its significance in diffraction and interference too.
--------
1 In the case of incandescence, for example, one of the
circumstances is temperature.
2 Specifically, one emission energy level for each electron
energy level.
--------
Ned
Paul B. Andersen
Sep 3, 2015, 6:32:56 AM9/3/15
to
On 03.09.2015 10:55, Ned Latham wrote:
> Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
> See the original at
> http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
> Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
> See the original at
> http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
"The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the light,
is relative to the source."
is relative to the source."
"If source and observer are approaching each other,
the speed as apparent to the observer is increased by δv,"
What's the point in introducing a theory which is falsified
by a number of previously performed experiments?
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
underante
Sep 3, 2015, 7:18:29 AM9/3/15
to
Ned Latham
Sep 3, 2015, 9:15:57 AM9/3/15
to
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
> > See the original at
> > http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
>
> > "The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the light,
> > is relative to the source."
>
> > "If source and observer are approaching each other,
> > the speed as apparent to the observer is increased by ??v,"
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
> > See the original at
> > http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
>
> > "The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the light,
> > is relative to the source."
>
> > "If source and observer are approaching each other,
>
> What's the point in introducing a theory which is falsified
> by a number of previously performed experiments?
What's the point of asking a question based on a false premise?
> What's the point in introducing a theory which is falsified
> by a number of previously performed experiments?
> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
wave functions and Einstein's formulae are the tools of interpretation.
FYI, slow boy, that's circular reasoning.
As I said in the cover article "Particles and Theory":
> > Do feel free to read them with your eyes open and your intelligence,
> > if any, turned on.
Tch.
Ned Latham
Sep 3, 2015, 9:30:58 AM9/3/15
to
underante wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> > Diffraction
> > Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond
> > it are gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend
> > towards it. The screen shows a smear of diminishing brightness
> > at the end of the pattern closest to the barrier and extending
> > beyond where it would reach if the photons passing close to
> > the barrier had travelled in a straight line.
>
> but if gravitational attraction were involved in diffraction, would
> not one expect that a barrier made from some lightweight material,
> such as say, card, and a barrier made from a high density material,
> such as say steel, would produce different diffraction patterns?
Why?
The effect is *predicted* to be an effect of particulate spin; as yet,
there's no information on just what it is, and thus no way to make
quantitative statements other than to point out the relationship between
energy abd course deviation. See "Interference", below.
> > With two barriers placed end-to-end (the single slit experiment),
> > the courses of photons in the stream bend toward the closer
> > barrier. The light emerging from the slit is brightest at the
> > centre, where the photons stream straight ahead, diminishing
> > in brightness towards the edges at each side.
> >
> > Gravitational attraction to the barrier implies some collisions
> > with it, which in turn implies some reflection from it, which
> > in turn implies some scattering of light from it.
> >
> > Interference
> > With two closely-placed parallel slits, the pattern on the
> > screen looks like the interference pattern of waves from
> > dual sources. That, however, is an illusion. Repeating the
> > experiment with larger particles produces the same result.
> > And repeating it with very low rates of emission, of any
> > usable type of particle, shows the individual particles
> > hitting the screen at discrete spots which aggregate into
> > the interference-like pattern.
> >
> > The spotting proves that each particle behaved like a
> > particle for the whole of its journey, and the aggregation
> > of hits implies a probabilistic element in the course
> > changes the particles undergo. Because the pattern looks
> > wave-like, that probabilistic element is predicted to be
> > an effect of their spin.
See also the article "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for
Research", which points out the sameness of the barriers used in
experiments so far and suggests some variation.
> > It's clear that the spin of the individual photons in a stream is a
> > significant factor in polarization and in gravitational lenses,
> > refractive lenses and prisms. Diligent investigation will reveal
> > its significance in diffraction and interference too.
THIS is what's needed: diligent investigation.
Ned
> Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> > Diffraction
> > Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond
> > it are gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend
> > towards it. The screen shows a smear of diminishing brightness
> > at the end of the pattern closest to the barrier and extending
> > beyond where it would reach if the photons passing close to
> > the barrier had travelled in a straight line.
>
> but if gravitational attraction were involved in diffraction, would
> not one expect that a barrier made from some lightweight material,
> such as say, card, and a barrier made from a high density material,
> such as say steel, would produce different diffraction patterns?
The effect is *predicted* to be an effect of particulate spin; as yet,
there's no information on just what it is, and thus no way to make
quantitative statements other than to point out the relationship between
energy abd course deviation. See "Interference", below.
> > With two barriers placed end-to-end (the single slit experiment),
> > the courses of photons in the stream bend toward the closer
> > barrier. The light emerging from the slit is brightest at the
> > centre, where the photons stream straight ahead, diminishing
> > in brightness towards the edges at each side.
> >
> > Gravitational attraction to the barrier implies some collisions
> > with it, which in turn implies some reflection from it, which
> > in turn implies some scattering of light from it.
> >
> > Interference
> > With two closely-placed parallel slits, the pattern on the
> > screen looks like the interference pattern of waves from
> > dual sources. That, however, is an illusion. Repeating the
> > experiment with larger particles produces the same result.
> > And repeating it with very low rates of emission, of any
> > usable type of particle, shows the individual particles
> > hitting the screen at discrete spots which aggregate into
> > the interference-like pattern.
> >
> > The spotting proves that each particle behaved like a
> > particle for the whole of its journey, and the aggregation
> > of hits implies a probabilistic element in the course
> > changes the particles undergo. Because the pattern looks
> > wave-like, that probabilistic element is predicted to be
> > an effect of their spin.
Research", which points out the sameness of the barriers used in
experiments so far and suggests some variation.
> > It's clear that the spin of the individual photons in a stream is a
> > significant factor in polarization and in gravitational lenses,
> > refractive lenses and prisms. Diligent investigation will reveal
> > its significance in diffraction and interference too.
Ned
kenseto
Sep 3, 2015, 10:08:44 AM9/3/15
to
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:55:59 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote:
> Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
> See the original at
> http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
>
> Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
> have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to
> gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
> behaviours and attributes; in particular:
> ¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the
> number of revolutions it makes per unit time.
> ¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi
> linearly while revolving once about its axis.
In my model of light:
> Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
> See the original at
> http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
>
> Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
> have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to
> gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
> behaviours and attributes; in particular:
> ¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the
> number of revolutions it makes per unit time.
> ¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi
> linearly while revolving once about its axis.
A photon is a wave-packet being transmitted at a constant speed in a stationary, structured and elastic ether called the E-Matix. A photon is generated by the absolute motion of the source in the E-Matrix. A schematic diagram of a source generating three consecutive photons is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
Paul B. Andersen
Sep 3, 2015, 1:38:55 PM9/3/15
to
On 03.09.2015 15:15, Ned Latham wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
>>> See the original at
>>> http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
>>
>>> "The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the light,
>>> is relative to the source."
>>
>>> "If source and observer are approaching each other,
>>> the speed as apparent to the observer is increased by \delta v,"
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
>>> See the original at
>>> http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
>>
>>> "The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the light,
>>> is relative to the source."
>>
>>> "If source and observer are approaching each other,
So your theory is a ballistic theory where the speed of light
depend on the state of motion of the source.
>>
>> What's the point in introducing a theory which is falsified
>> by a number of previously performed experiments?
>
> What's the point of asking a question based on a false premise?
>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>
> None of those is relevant: in every case, wave motion is assumed and
> wave functions and Einstein's formulae are the tools of interpretation.
> FYI, slow boy, that's circular reasoning.
Your theory is falsified.
> As I said in the cover article "Particles and Theory":
>
>>> Do feel free to read them with your eyes open and your intelligence,
>>> if any, turned on.
>
> Tch.
>
A crank who are ignoring experimental evidence.
plonk
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Ned Latham
Sep 3, 2015, 4:06:16 PM9/3/15
to
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > "The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the light,
> > > > is relative to the source."
> > > >
> > > > "If source and observer are approaching each other,
> > > > the speed as apparent to the observer is increased by delta v,"
>
> So your theory is a ballistic theory where the speed of light
> depend on the state of motion of the source.
Pity he hasn't quite got the meaning worked out.
> > > What's the point in introducing a theory which is falsified
> > > by a number of previously performed experiments?
> >
> > What's the point of asking a question based on a false premise?
> >
> > > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> > > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> > > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> > > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> >
> > None of those is relevant: in every case, wave motion is
> > assumed and wave functions and Einstein's formulae are the
> > tools of interpretation.
> >
> > FYI, slow boy, that's circular reasoning.
>
> In every case they show that the speed of light is invariant.
> Your theory is falsified.
Sad that the slow boy doesn't understand how circular reasoning
defeats itself.
> > As I said in the cover article "Particles and Theory":
> >
> > > > Do feel free to read them with your eyes open and your
> > > > intelligence, if any, turned on.
> >
> > Tch.
>
> I get the message loud and clear.
> A crank
Oh look. The dogmatist's favourite term of abuse.
> who are ignoring experimental evidence.
> plonk
And there's the dogmatist's favourite reaction to actual thought.
Ned Latham
Sep 3, 2015, 4:16:23 PM9/3/15
to
kenseto wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> > Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
> > have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to
> > gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
> > behaviours and attributes; in particular:
> > ¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the
> > number of revolutions it makes per unit time.
> > ¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi
> > linearly while revolving once about its axis.
>
> In my model of light:
> A photon is a wave-packet
You do understand that wave "theory" is utterly broken abd all that
> > have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to
> > gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
> > behaviours and attributes; in particular:
> > ¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the
> > number of revolutions it makes per unit time.
> > ¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi
> > linearly while revolving once about its axis.
>
> In my model of light:
> A photon is a wave-packet
stems from it is invalid, right?
And that "wave packet" is a nonsense term unless you construe it
as a synonym of "particle"?
----snip----
Ned
al...@interia.pl
Sep 3, 2015, 4:24:26 PM9/3/15
to
especially for students and housewives, of course...
but today? write such nonsense... publically!
That's a slight exaggeration...
or maybe you're the Beny Hill? :)
kenseto
Sep 3, 2015, 5:29:04 PM9/3/15
to
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:16:23 PM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > > Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
> > > have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to
> > > gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
> > > behaviours and attributes; in particular:
> > > ¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the
> > > number of revolutions it makes per unit time.
> > > ¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi
> > > linearly while revolving once about its axis.
> >
> > In my model of light:
> > A photon is a wave-packet
>
> You do understand that wave "theory" is utterly broken abd all that
> stems from it is invalid, right?
You do understand that wave packets for light is completeely agree with all observations, Right?
> kenseto wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > > Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
> > > have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to
> > > gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
> > > behaviours and attributes; in particular:
> > > ¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the
> > > number of revolutions it makes per unit time.
> > > ¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi
> > > linearly while revolving once about its axis.
> >
> > In my model of light:
> > A photon is a wave-packet
>
> You do understand that wave "theory" is utterly broken abd all that
> stems from it is invalid, right?
>
> And that "wave packet" is a nonsense term unless you construe it
> as a synonym of "particle"?
>
>
> Ned
Henry Wilson DSc.
Sep 4, 2015, 5:04:41 PM9/4/15
to
On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 03:55:55 -0500, Ned Latham <nedl...@internode.on.net>
wrote:
>Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
>See the original at
>http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
I'm glad to see that there is one person here besides myself that wants to
have a serious discussion about light.
>Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
>have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to
>gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
>behaviours and attributes; in particular:
>¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the
> number of revolutions it makes per unit time.
>¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi
> linearly while revolving once about its axis.
Stop right there!
That definition of wavelenghth is refuted by the Sagnac effect.
A photon cannot be regarded as a simple oscillator. In a ring gyro for
instance, the travel times of both beams are identical irrespective of
rotation speed according to the partical theory and therefore could never
produce a phase shift.
My model of a photon is that it initial appearance is something like a section
of a jet of fluid (I call it 'aether') along which a standing wave exists. It
is oscillating vigorously and is moving at c relative to its source 'aether',
in conformity with Maxwell's equations. It has been ejected by the field in
which it originated. The wavelength is that of the standing wave, and is
absolute, ie., the same in all frames.
I am using the word aether for convenience. It is not the same as the
universal classical aether imagined by many.
>The model works as follows:
>
>Constancy
> As with any other massive object, a moving photon travels with
> unvarying speed, spin and direction until and unless some force
> acts upon it.
Speeds are always frame dependent by definition.
>Mass
> Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle
> Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2), from which the
> photon's mass will be calculable if:
> 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength
> of photons from a source are measured, allowing
> numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w;
> 2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf replaces Planck's
> constant to adjust for the difference in speed from
> the value assumed in Planck's Law;
> 3 The correct assumptions are made about the shape andi
> density of the photon, allowing the correct formula
> to be substituted for I and the equation rearranged
> to solve for m.
I don't believe an individual photon can remain individual for very long,
particularly in high vacuum. I have good reason to believe that all photons in
transit interact and coalesce such that their particular modes of vibration
add vectorily. Photons are made of fields and we know what happens to fields
in high vacuum by observing gas discharges. All photons moving in or near a
particular direction will tend towards a common speed over long periods of
time. That speed has no particular value and is always relative to the
observer. Photons more or less create their own 'local aether', which varies
in strength throughout the universe. It is like a vast turbulent gas with
widely varying densities...nothing like classical aether.
Until physics learns more about the PHYSICAL nature of fields, it wont
progress much further at all.
A lot of what you say below is fairly trivial and does make some sense in
places.
>Speed
> The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on
> the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection.
> It follows from that and the principle of determinism that
> the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular
> fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the
> same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any
> particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always
> the same. Similarly with other types of light emission; eg,
> electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same
> cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same
> set of energy levels[2].
>
> The energy of emission is carried in the photon's speed and
> spin and is apparent to human observers as colour.
>--------
>
>Ned
__
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
>See the original at
>http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
have a serious discussion about light.
>Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
>have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to
>gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
>behaviours and attributes; in particular:
>¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the
> number of revolutions it makes per unit time.
>¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi
> linearly while revolving once about its axis.
That definition of wavelenghth is refuted by the Sagnac effect.
A photon cannot be regarded as a simple oscillator. In a ring gyro for
instance, the travel times of both beams are identical irrespective of
rotation speed according to the partical theory and therefore could never
produce a phase shift.
My model of a photon is that it initial appearance is something like a section
of a jet of fluid (I call it 'aether') along which a standing wave exists. It
is oscillating vigorously and is moving at c relative to its source 'aether',
in conformity with Maxwell's equations. It has been ejected by the field in
which it originated. The wavelength is that of the standing wave, and is
absolute, ie., the same in all frames.
I am using the word aether for convenience. It is not the same as the
universal classical aether imagined by many.
>The model works as follows:
>
>Constancy
> As with any other massive object, a moving photon travels with
> unvarying speed, spin and direction until and unless some force
> acts upon it.
>Mass
> Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle
> Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2), from which the
> photon's mass will be calculable if:
> 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength
> of photons from a source are measured, allowing
> numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w;
> 2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf replaces Planck's
> constant to adjust for the difference in speed from
> the value assumed in Planck's Law;
> 3 The correct assumptions are made about the shape andi
> density of the photon, allowing the correct formula
> to be substituted for I and the equation rearranged
> to solve for m.
particularly in high vacuum. I have good reason to believe that all photons in
transit interact and coalesce such that their particular modes of vibration
add vectorily. Photons are made of fields and we know what happens to fields
in high vacuum by observing gas discharges. All photons moving in or near a
particular direction will tend towards a common speed over long periods of
time. That speed has no particular value and is always relative to the
observer. Photons more or less create their own 'local aether', which varies
in strength throughout the universe. It is like a vast turbulent gas with
widely varying densities...nothing like classical aether.
Until physics learns more about the PHYSICAL nature of fields, it wont
progress much further at all.
A lot of what you say below is fairly trivial and does make some sense in
places.
>Speed
> The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on
> the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection.
> It follows from that and the principle of determinism that
> the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular
> fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the
> same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any
> particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always
> the same. Similarly with other types of light emission; eg,
> electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same
> cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same
> set of energy levels[2].
>
> The energy of emission is carried in the photon's speed and
> spin and is apparent to human observers as colour.
>
>Ned
__
Henry Wilson DSc.
John Heath
Sep 4, 2015, 6:52:26 PM9/4/15
to
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:55:59 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote:
Leaving this aside it is not a bad photon model. Your photon is rolling over itself leading to a sine wave somewhat like a tire rolling down the road. What is it that is rolling over itself? What is it made of? Or the reverse of that question if light is a wave then what is it that is waving?
Henry Wilson DSc.
Sep 5, 2015, 5:02:55 AM9/5/15
to
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:52:23 -0700 (PDT), John Heath <heath...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> 1 In the case of incandescence, for example, one of the
>> circumstances is temperature.
>> 2 Specifically, one emission energy level for each electron
>> energy level.
>>
>> --------
>>
>> Ned
>
> " The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
> light, is relative to the source. "
>
>The speed of light is c period relative to the observer not the source. I know it sounds
>crazy
it is...and so are you
>but it has been tested many times and found to be true.
Absolute crap. OWLS from a moving source has never been measured.
>I understand this is a
>bitter pill to take but better to be confused than wrong yes / no ?
Shove your pill where it belongs, idiot!
>Leaving this aside it is not a bad photon model. Your photon is rolling over itself leading to
>a sine wave somewhat like a tire rolling down the road. What is it that is rolling over itself?
>What is it made of? Or the reverse of that question if light is a wave then what is it that is waving?
It is not a good model.
__
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>>
>> 1 In the case of incandescence, for example, one of the
>> circumstances is temperature.
>> 2 Specifically, one emission energy level for each electron
>> energy level.
>>
>> --------
>>
>> Ned
>
> " The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
> light, is relative to the source. "
>
>The speed of light is c period relative to the observer not the source. I know it sounds
>crazy
>but it has been tested many times and found to be true.
>I understand this is a
>bitter pill to take but better to be confused than wrong yes / no ?
>Leaving this aside it is not a bad photon model. Your photon is rolling over itself leading to
>a sine wave somewhat like a tire rolling down the road. What is it that is rolling over itself?
>What is it made of? Or the reverse of that question if light is a wave then what is it that is waving?
__
Henry Wilson DSc.
Alan Folmsbee
Sep 5, 2015, 6:39:13 AM9/5/15
to
Dear Ned Latham, I read your essay on photons as particles. Your effort is not completed, yet. In my theory of photons, the 4 Dimensional Electricity Continuum is relative to the usual Gravity Continuum. So I use 8 dimensions. Unless you recognize the 8 dimensions, the red shift and blue shift can have no reference to be different in different galaxies.
Photons use one space and one time dimension qx and qt. The velocity c is the ratio qx/qt where qt is time of the inverse frequency. Since energy is not two dimensional, photons have no energy, photons deliver a fraction of energy to an atomic orbital. When the photon is absorbed by an atom, energy is changed by the photon by using the momentum of the atom to fill an orbital with energy that matched the photon's fraction of energy.
Energy Units : meter^4 * second^-2
photon units: meter * second
The meter*second of a photon is emitted from an atom's orbital, which has an electron of 3 dimension: qx qy qt. Those dimensions allow two spins to be defined .
Yes, Ned, the photon is spinning, but time becomes space during each cycle of spin. The photon qx dimension grows away from its source atom at c, while that photon's time dimension loops back and makes a spin. Then the time is swapped with space and the loop continues to beam away.
Photons use one space and one time dimension qx and qt. The velocity c is the ratio qx/qt where qt is time of the inverse frequency. Since energy is not two dimensional, photons have no energy, photons deliver a fraction of energy to an atomic orbital. When the photon is absorbed by an atom, energy is changed by the photon by using the momentum of the atom to fill an orbital with energy that matched the photon's fraction of energy.
Energy Units : meter^4 * second^-2
photon units: meter * second
The meter*second of a photon is emitted from an atom's orbital, which has an electron of 3 dimension: qx qy qt. Those dimensions allow two spins to be defined .
Yes, Ned, the photon is spinning, but time becomes space during each cycle of spin. The photon qx dimension grows away from its source atom at c, while that photon's time dimension loops back and makes a spin. Then the time is swapped with space and the loop continues to beam away.
kefischer
Sep 5, 2015, 11:17:28 AM9/5/15
to
the ones you eat must be kind of poison.
Ned Latham
Sep 5, 2015, 11:43:40 AM9/5/15
to
John Heath wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> > ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
> Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> > light, is relative to the source.
>
> The speed of light is c period relative to the observer not the source.
That is one of the silliest hypotheses ever put.
>
> The speed of light is c period relative to the observer not the source.
> I know it sounds crazy but it has been tested many times and found to
> be true.
speed of light from colour-shifted sources is measured. See the article
"A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research".
----snip----
> Leaving this aside it is not a bad photon model. Your photon is rolling
> over itself leading to a sine wave somewhat like a tire rolling down
> the road.
> What is it that is rolling over itself?
sun.
> What is it made of?
> Or the reverse of that question if light is a wave then what is it
> that is waving?
of that is what broke wave theory.
Ned
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Sep 5, 2015, 12:26:49 PM9/5/15
to
Ned Latham wrote:
> In hard vacuum there's no medium for wave propagation. The realisation
> of that is what broke wave theory.
Utter nonsense.
> In hard vacuum there's no medium for wave propagation. The realisation
> of that is what broke wave theory.
PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.
(from: WolframAlpha)
John Heath
Sep 5, 2015, 10:11:43 PM9/5/15
to
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 11:43:40 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote:
> John Heath wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > > ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
> > > light, is relative to the source.
> >
> > The speed of light is c period relative to the observer not the source.
>
> That is one of the silliest hypotheses ever put.
>
Welcome to the club. You just made your first step to understanding special relativity.
> John Heath wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > > ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
> > > light, is relative to the source.
> >
> > The speed of light is c period relative to the observer not the source.
>
> That is one of the silliest hypotheses ever put.
>
> > I know it sounds crazy but it has been tested many times and found to
> > be true.
>
> Nope. It has never been tested. And it will never *be* tested unless the
> speed of light from colour-shifted sources is measured. See the article
> "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research".
>
> ----snip----
>
> > Leaving this aside it is not a bad photon model. Your photon is rolling
> > over itself leading to a sine wave somewhat like a tire rolling down
> > the road.
>
> You'd do better to picture it as it's modelled: a particle in free fall.
>
> > What is it that is rolling over itself?
>
> It's rotating is all: like a planet rotates as it revolves around its
> sun.
>
> > What is it made of?
>
> Read the article "A Particle Theory".
>
> > Or the reverse of that question if light is a wave then what is it
> > that is waving?
>
> In hard vacuum there's no medium for wave propagation. The realisation
> of that is what broke wave theory.
>
> Ned
Ned Latham
Sep 5, 2015, 10:38:08 PM9/5/15
to
John Heath wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > John Heath wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
> > > > light, is relative to the source.
> > >
> > > The speed of light is c period relative to the observer not the source.
> >
> > That is one of the silliest hypotheses ever put.
>
> Welcome to the club. You just made your first step to understanding
> special relativity.
Did that in High School.
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > John Heath wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
> > > > light, is relative to the source.
> > >
> > > The speed of light is c period relative to the observer not the source.
> >
> > That is one of the silliest hypotheses ever put.
>
> Welcome to the club. You just made your first step to understanding
> special relativity.
> > > I know it sounds crazy but it has been tested many times and found to
> > > be true.
> >
> > Nope. It has never been tested. And it will never *be* tested unless the
> > speed of light from colour-shifted sources is measured. See the article
> > "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research".
>
> Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it
> not to be c.
understanding of the meaning of the term "colour-shifted", and
the consequences for theory of meansuring the speed of light
emanating from (here come that term again!) colour-shifted
sources.
----snip----
> > > What is it made of?
> >
> > Read the article "A Particle Theory".
> >
> > > Or the reverse of that question if light is a wave then what is it
> > > that is waving?
> >
> > In hard vacuum there's no medium for wave propagation. The realisation
> > of that is what broke wave theory.
>
You should get yourself into a Remedial English programme.
> What is your photon made of?
> I am not asking to turn
> around and trash your theory.
----snip----
Henry Wilson DSc.
Sep 6, 2015, 4:48:35 AM9/6/15
to
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:11:42 -0700 (PDT), John Heath <heath...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 11:43:40 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote:
>> Nope. It has never been tested. And it will never *be* tested unless the
>> speed of light from colour-shifted sources is measured. See the article
>> "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research".
>
>Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it not to be c.
Idiot! TWLS is always c, as expected according to ballistic theory. Nobody has
convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source because it has been virtually
impossible to do so until very recently.
Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the physics
establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too many reputations are
at stake.
__
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 11:43:40 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote:
>> Nope. It has never been tested. And it will never *be* tested unless the
>> speed of light from colour-shifted sources is measured. See the article
>> "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research".
>
>Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it not to be c.
convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source because it has been virtually
impossible to do so until very recently.
Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the physics
establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too many reputations are
at stake.
__
Henry Wilson DSc.
Paul B. Andersen
Sep 6, 2015, 7:05:51 AM9/6/15
to
On 06.09.2015 10:48, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:11:42 -0700 (PDT), John Heath <heath...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 11:43:40 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote:
>
>>> Nope. It has never been tested. And it will never *be* tested unless the
>>> speed of light from colour-shifted sources is measured. See the article
>>> "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research".
>>
>> Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it not to be c.
>
> Idiot! Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:11:42 -0700 (PDT), John Heath <heath...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 11:43:40 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote:
>
>>> Nope. It has never been tested. And it will never *be* tested unless the
>>> speed of light from colour-shifted sources is measured. See the article
>>> "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research".
>>
>> Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it not to be c.
>
.. and found it to be different from c.
The speed of light from moving sources has however
been measured and found to be c.
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the physics
> establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too many reputations are
> at stake.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Anton Shepelev
Sep 6, 2015, 7:54:44 AM9/6/15
to
John Heath:
> Name one person who measured the speed of light in
> a vacuum and found it not to be c.
Eugene Shtyrkov claims to have done so in his "Ether
Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites":
http://bourabai.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
> Name one person who measured the speed of light in
> a vacuum and found it not to be c.
Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites":
http://bourabai.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Ned Latham
Sep 6, 2015, 11:54:32 AM9/6/15
to
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> The speed of light from moving sources has however
> been measured and found to be c.
False.
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
Larf. The second criticises the first. And they don't use a base line
long enough to measure the speed of EM radiatiuon.
> > Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the
> > physics establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too
> > many reputations are at stake.
>
> How did Alveger and Filippas get their experiments funded?
El cheapo "experiments".
> Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> > John Heath wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> > John Heath wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> > > > Nope. It has never been tested. And it will never *be* tested
> > > > unless the speed of light from colour-shifted sources is
> > > > measured. See the article "A Particle Theory addendum:
> > > > Suggestions for Research".
> > >
> > > Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and
> > > found it not to be c.
> >
> > Idiot! Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source
>
> .. and found it to be different from c.
Because they've never measured it at all.
> > > > unless the speed of light from colour-shifted sources is
> > > > measured. See the article "A Particle Theory addendum:
> > > > Suggestions for Research".
> > >
> > > Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and
> > > found it not to be c.
> >
> > Idiot! Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source
>
> .. and found it to be different from c.
> The speed of light from moving sources has however
> been measured and found to be c.
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
Larf. The second criticises the first. And they don't use a base line
long enough to measure the speed of EM radiatiuon.
> > Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the
> > physics establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too
> > many reputations are at stake.
>
> How did Alveger and Filippas get their experiments funded?
Gary Harnagel
Sep 6, 2015, 12:19:32 PM9/6/15
to
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 2:48:35 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:11:42 -0700 (PDT), John Heath <heath...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it
> > not to be c.
>
> Idiot! TWLS is always c, as expected according to ballistic theory.
So says the math-challenged nincompoop who can't even derive an equation
>
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:11:42 -0700 (PDT), John Heath <heath...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it
> > not to be c.
>
> Idiot! TWLS is always c, as expected according to ballistic theory.
describing either ballistic or invariant c :-)))
> Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source because it
> has been virtually impossible to do so until very recently.
differentiate between ballistic and invariant c. Only math-challenged
nincompoops fail to understand this and lying weasels refuse to admit it.
> Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the physics
> establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too many reputations are
> at stake.
>
Stupid conspiracy theorist nonsense.
Gary
al...@interia.pl
Sep 6, 2015, 12:26:53 PM9/6/15
to
W dniu niedziela, 6 września 2015 10:48:35 UTC+2 użytkownik Henry Wilson DSc.
> TWLS is always c, as expected according to ballistic theory. Nobody has
> convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source because it has been virtually
> impossible to do so until very recently.
It is always measured for moving source only,
because the Earth moves without any doubt.
The result is just c, because the one-way speed is:
c(f) = 1/gamma / 1 - vcosf
therefore the TWLS is simply a harmonic mean:
c(f) and c(f+180), which is just c * (1-v^2) = c / gamma
then your local clock slows down gamma times,
thus you must measure just that: c / gamma * gamma = c.
> TWLS is always c, as expected according to ballistic theory. Nobody has
> convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source because it has been virtually
> impossible to do so until very recently.
because the Earth moves without any doubt.
The result is just c, because the one-way speed is:
c(f) = 1/gamma / 1 - vcosf
therefore the TWLS is simply a harmonic mean:
c(f) and c(f+180), which is just c * (1-v^2) = c / gamma
then your local clock slows down gamma times,
thus you must measure just that: c / gamma * gamma = c.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Sep 6, 2015, 4:52:00 PM9/6/15
to
Anton Shepelev wrote:
> John Heath:
>> Name one person who measured the speed of light in
>> a vacuum and found it not to be c.
>
> Eugene Shtyrkov claims to have done so in his "Ether
> Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites":
>
> http://bourabai.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
Have you read this?
> John Heath:
>> Name one person who measured the speed of light in
>> a vacuum and found it not to be c.
>
> Eugene Shtyrkov claims to have done so in his "Ether
> Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites":
>
> http://bourabai.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
The abstract starts with:
“The ether drift due to motion of the Earth has been discovered in the
process of tracking of a geostationary satellite. […]”
And the paper starts as follows:
“Introduction
In earlier, and unsuccessful, attempts to detect motion of the Earth, the
issue of entrainment of the luminiferous medium (ether) by moving bodies was
not properly taken into account. Ether was supposed to pass freely through
any body, and through the Earth itself, and it was assumed that the velocity
of ether drift is equal and opposite in direction to that of the Earth. […]”
See also:
<https://books.google.com/books?id=KnzBDjnGIgYC&pg=PA1113&lpg=PA1113&dq=Observation+of+Ether+Drift+in+Experiments+with+Geostationary+Satellites&source=bl&ots=7RrohYLsDG&sig=_pVlG3YyVGVKazPto1w2b3GRPqg&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAmoVChMInYPFsJzjxwIVQ1wUCh09twMQ#v=onepage&q=Observation%20of%20Ether%20Drift%20in%20Experiments%20with%20Geostationary%20Satellites&f=false>
It should not be too surprising that someone who believes in the existence
of a luminiferous ether, despite the many experiments in the past 195 years
that *all* yielded a null result [1], and who denies relativistic redshift,
despite its usefulness in astrophysics and cosmology [2], claims to have
observed a different speed of light as well. Given the only *two*
references of that paper (of 1926 and 1929, respectively), I blame
dysfunctional brain cells due to prolonged exposure to Siberian climate.
Almost needless to say that this 2005 paper, of the “Proceedings of the NPA”
(Natural Philosophy Alliance, “a group that believes mainstream physics and
cosmology are wrong”¹), Vol. 2, No. 1, apparently has never passed any peer
review of any scientific journal to be taken seriously, if it has even been
submitted to one.
So perhaps the challenge should be reworded into “Name one person who does
not believe in the existence of a luminiferous ether and measured the speed
of light in a vacuum and found it to be not c.” Or something similar.
PointedEars
___________
¹ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPA>, “Organizations”
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science_organizations#Natural_Philosophy_Alliance>
“an organization that advocates the position that some ideas thought
well-settled in contemporary science (particularly physics and
cosmology) are fundamentally flawed” (substantiated by the reference,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science_organizations#cite_note-web-9>)
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Negative_aether-drift_experiments>
[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift>
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Sep 6, 2015, 4:55:52 PM9/6/15
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Anton Shepelev wrote:
>> http://bourabai.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
>
> […]
<https://web.archive.org/web/20140413131646/http://www.worldnpa.org/site/about/>
PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.
(from: WolframAlpha)
> Anton Shepelev wrote:
>> http://bourabai.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
>
> […]
> Almost needless to say that this 2005 paper, of the “Proceedings of the
> NPA” (Natural Philosophy Alliance, “a group that believes mainstream
> physics and cosmology are wrong”¹), Vol. 2, No. 1, apparently has never
> passed any peer review of any scientific journal to be taken seriously, if
> it has even been submitted to one.
> […]
> NPA” (Natural Philosophy Alliance, “a group that believes mainstream
> physics and cosmology are wrong”¹), Vol. 2, No. 1, apparently has never
> passed any peer review of any scientific journal to be taken seriously, if
> it has even been submitted to one.
> ___________
> ¹ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPA>, “Organizations”
>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science_organizations#Natural_Philosophy_Alliance>
> “an organization that advocates the position that some ideas thought
> well-settled in contemporary science (particularly physics and
> cosmology) are fundamentally flawed” (substantiated by the reference,
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science_organizations#cite_note-web-9>)
I meant to refer to the reference, not the footnote (which may be modified):
> ¹ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPA>, “Organizations”
>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science_organizations#Natural_Philosophy_Alliance>
> “an organization that advocates the position that some ideas thought
> well-settled in contemporary science (particularly physics and
> cosmology) are fundamentally flawed” (substantiated by the reference,
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science_organizations#cite_note-web-9>)
<https://web.archive.org/web/20140413131646/http://www.worldnpa.org/site/about/>
PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.
(from: WolframAlpha)
Henry Wilson DSc.
Sep 6, 2015, 6:10:27 PM9/6/15
to
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:05:38 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relat...@paulba.no>
wrote:
>On 06.09.2015 10:48, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it not to be c.
>>
>> Idiot! Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source
>
>.. and found it to be different from c.
>
>The speed of light from moving sources has however
>been measured and found to be c.
>
>https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
Gawd! the silly list again. Sorry Paul I'm not in the mood for laughter at
present.
>> Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the physics
>> establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too many reputations are
>> at stake.
>
>How did Alveger and Filippas get their experiments funded?
From other dingleberries I suppose.
__
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>On 06.09.2015 10:48, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it not to be c.
>>
>> Idiot! Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source
>
>.. and found it to be different from c.
>
>The speed of light from moving sources has however
>been measured and found to be c.
>
>https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
present.
>> Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the physics
>> establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too many reputations are
>> at stake.
>
>How did Alveger and Filippas get their experiments funded?
__
Henry Wilson DSc.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Sep 6, 2015, 6:13:08 PM9/6/15
to
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 09:19:29 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 2:48:35 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:11:42 -0700 (PDT), John Heath <heath...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it
>> > not to be c.
>>
>> Idiot! TWLS is always c, as expected according to ballistic theory.
>
>So says the math-challenged nincompoop who can't even derive an equation
>describing either ballistic or invariant c :-)))
>
>> Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source because it
>> has been virtually impossible to do so until very recently.
>
>Complete bullshit and irrelevant anyway. TWLS measurements do indeed
>differentiate between ballistic and invariant c. Only math-challenged
>nincompoops fail to understand this and lying weasels refuse to admit it.
Hahahha! The religious fanatic speaks again. Hey Gary, when you say your
prayers tonight, don't forget toi ask your god for just one experiment that
supports Einstein.
>> Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the physics
>> establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too many reputations are
>> at stake.
>>
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>Stupid conspiracy theorist nonsense.
>
>Gary
The Dingleberry Motto:
"The best way to cure stupidity is to keep on preaching it"
wrote:
>On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 2:48:35 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:11:42 -0700 (PDT), John Heath <heath...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it
>> > not to be c.
>>
>> Idiot! TWLS is always c, as expected according to ballistic theory.
>
>So says the math-challenged nincompoop who can't even derive an equation
>describing either ballistic or invariant c :-)))
>
>> Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source because it
>> has been virtually impossible to do so until very recently.
>
>Complete bullshit and irrelevant anyway. TWLS measurements do indeed
>differentiate between ballistic and invariant c. Only math-challenged
>nincompoops fail to understand this and lying weasels refuse to admit it.
prayers tonight, don't forget toi ask your god for just one experiment that
supports Einstein.
>> Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the physics
>> establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too many reputations are
>> at stake.
>>
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>Stupid conspiracy theorist nonsense.
>
>Gary
"The best way to cure stupidity is to keep on preaching it"
Henry Wilson DSc.
Sep 6, 2015, 6:14:33 PM9/6/15
to
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 09:26:51 -0700 (PDT), al...@interia.pl wrote:
>W dniu niedziela, 6 wrze?nia 2015 10:48:35 UTC+2 u?ytkownik Henry Wilson DSc.
Idiot! Chronic incurable idiot!
Don't you know what a TWLS experiment is?
__
Henry Wilson DSc.
>W dniu niedziela, 6 wrze?nia 2015 10:48:35 UTC+2 u?ytkownik Henry Wilson DSc.
Don't you know what a TWLS experiment is?
__
Henry Wilson DSc.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Sep 6, 2015, 6:19:41 PM9/6/15
to
__
Henry Wilson DSc.
Gary Harnagel
Sep 6, 2015, 6:49:51 PM9/6/15
to
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 4:13:08 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 09:19:29 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 2:48:35 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> > >
> > > Idiot! TWLS is always c, as expected according to ballistic theory.
> >
> > So says the math-challenged nincompoop who can't even derive an equation
> > describing either ballistic or invariant c :-)))
> >
> > > Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source because it
> > > has been virtually impossible to do so until very recently.
> >
> > Complete bullshit and irrelevant anyway. TWLS measurements do indeed
> > differentiate between ballistic and invariant c. Only math-challenged
> > nincompoops fail to understand this and lying weasels refuse to admit it.
>
> Hahahha! The religious fanatic speaks again.
Hahaha! The bullshit spewer who can't even derive a valid equation to
>
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 09:19:29 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 2:48:35 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> > >
> > > Idiot! TWLS is always c, as expected according to ballistic theory.
> >
> > So says the math-challenged nincompoop who can't even derive an equation
> > describing either ballistic or invariant c :-)))
> >
> > > Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source because it
> > > has been virtually impossible to do so until very recently.
> >
> > Complete bullshit and irrelevant anyway. TWLS measurements do indeed
> > differentiate between ballistic and invariant c. Only math-challenged
> > nincompoops fail to understand this and lying weasels refuse to admit it.
>
> Hahahha! The religious fanatic speaks again.
describe either ballistic light or invariant c.
> Hey Gary, when you say your prayers tonight, don't forget toi ask your
> god for just one experiment that supports Einstein.
become an honest person. What's your real name, huh? :-)
> > > Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the
> > > physics establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too
> > > many reputations are at stake.
> > >
> > > Henry Wilson DSc.
> >
> > Stupid conspiracy theorist nonsense.
> >
> > Gary
>
> The Dingleberry Motto:
> "The best way to cure stupidity is to keep on preaching it"
preach nonsense.
Gary Harnagel
Sep 6, 2015, 6:59:24 PM9/6/15
to
No, he doesn't. Just like you can't understand meaningful equations for
a TWLS experiment. It's really, really funny to see two delusional
nincompoops arguing with each other about their defective and
contradictory "theories" -- each of them shouting at each other and
calling each other idiots. They are both right when they do that :-)
Anton Shepelev
Sep 6, 2015, 9:01:10 PM9/6/15
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn to Anton Shepelev:
> > John Heath:
> >
> > > Name one person who measured the speed of
> > > light in a vacuum and found it not to be c.
> >
> > Eugene Shtyrkov claims to have done so in his
> > "Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary
> > Satellites":
> >
> > http://bourabai.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
> >
> Have you read this?
thing beyond the introduction, have you?
> The abstract starts with:
>
> The ether drift due to motion of the Earth has
> been discovered in the process of tracking of a
>
> And the paper starts as follows:
>
> And the paper starts as follows:
>
> In earlier, and unsuccessful, attempts to detect
> motion of the Earth, the issue of entrainment of
> the luminiferous medium (ether) by moving bodies
> was not properly taken into account. Ether was
> supposed to pass freely through any body, and
> through the Earth itself, and it was assumed
> that the velocity of ether drift is equal and
> opposite in direction to that of the Earth. [???]???
> motion of the Earth, the issue of entrainment of
> the luminiferous medium (ether) by moving bodies
> was not properly taken into account. Ether was
> supposed to pass freely through any body, and
> through the Earth itself, and it was assumed
> that the velocity of ether drift is equal and
>
> It should not be too surprising that someone who
> believes in the existence of a luminiferous ether,
> despite the many experiments in the past 195 years
> that *all* yielded a null result[1] ->
> It should not be too surprising that someone who
> believes in the existence of a luminiferous ether,
> despite the many experiments in the past 195 years
This is a misinformation for those who never care to
read the original papers. Dayton Miller consistent-
ly observed a small effect, unconnected with any
earthly factors but well-correlated with the orbital
motion of the Earth:
http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Miller_1933/Miller1933_ocr.pdf
See mr. Miller's address at the Mt. Wilson confer-
ence for details on the hardware and the procedure:
http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Conference_1927/Conference_1927.pdf
If you will carefully read just these two documents
you shall see that the "null result" is a falsifica-
tion and that Shankland's analysis fails to explain
Miller's positive result. They also tell why numer-
ous other repetitions failed.
There are other positive ether-wind experiments,
which no one to my knowledge has refuted.
> -> and who denies relativistic redshift, despite
> its usefulness in astrophysics and cosmolo-
> gy[2], ->
Redshift is accounted in all ether theories mostly
through photons' loss of enery as they move though
viscous either. Since gravitation is thought to be
caused by either a pressure or a density gradient in
the ether, gravitational redshift and lensing are
also explainable.
> -> claims to have observed a different speed of
> light as well. Given the only *two* references of
> that paper (of 1926 and 1929, respectively), I
> blame dysfunctional brain cells due to prolonged
> exposure to Siberian climate.
So you have read the introduction and the refer-
> that paper (of 1926 and 1929, respectively), I
> blame dysfunctional brain cells due to prolonged
> exposure to Siberian climate.
ences, skipping that optional part in between?
> Almost needless to say that this 2005 paper, of
> Alliance, ???a group that believes mainstream
> physics and cosmology are wrong?????), Vol. 2, No. 1,
> apparently has never passed any peer review of any
> scientific journal to be taken seriously, if it
> has even been submitted to one.
That is an appeal to authority -- a very unscien-
> scientific journal to be taken seriously, if it
> has even been submitted to one.
tistly sort of conduct, especially if one has not
read the content of the paper one so fiercely at-
tacks.
> So perhaps the challenge should be reworded into
> tence of a luminiferous ether and measured the
> speed of light in a vacuum and found it to be not
> c.??? Or something similar.
> speed of light in a vacuum and found it to be not
Useless question, for absolute motion is incompati-
ble a lack of the ether. This is why Einstein
wrote:
I believe that I have really found the relation-
ship between gravitation and electricity, assuming
that the Miller experiments are based on a funda-
mental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity the-
ory collapses like a house of cards.
Gary Harnagel
Sep 6, 2015, 10:42:39 PM9/6/15
to
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 7:01:10 PM UTC-6, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>
> Dayton Miller consistently observed a small effect, unconnected
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
"This paper presents a complete explanation for his anomalous result by:
a) showing that his results are not statistically significant,
b) describing in detail how flaws in his analysis procedure produced a
false signal with precisely the properties he expected, and
c) presenting a quantitative model of his systematic drift that shows
there is no real signal in his data."
> There are other positive ether-wind experiments,
> which no one to my knowledge has refuted.
"Michelson and Morley (1887) analyzed their data using a data reduction
algorithm quite similar to Miller's, and therefore their result suffers
from the same serious flaws discussed above. They did, however, have a
smaller systematic error, and they contented themselves with putting an
upper bound on the earth's speed relative to the ether of 7.5 km/s."
These "other" experiments you refer to but don't specify will most likely
be found to have the same defects as Miller's analysis.
>
> Dayton Miller consistently observed a small effect, unconnected
> with any earthly factors but well-correlated with the orbital motion
> of the Earth:
>
> http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Miller_1933/Miller1933_ocr.pdf
>
> See mr. Miller's address at the Mt. Wilson confer-
> ence for details on the hardware and the procedure:
>
> http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Conference_1927/Conference_1927.pdf
>
> If you will carefully read just these two documents
> you shall see that the "null result" is a falsifica-
> tion and that Shankland's analysis fails to explain
> Miller's positive result. They also tell why numer-
> ous other repetitions failed.
Miller unintentionally introduced errors which he didn't account for:
> of the Earth:
>
> http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Miller_1933/Miller1933_ocr.pdf
>
> See mr. Miller's address at the Mt. Wilson confer-
> ence for details on the hardware and the procedure:
>
> http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Conference_1927/Conference_1927.pdf
>
> If you will carefully read just these two documents
> you shall see that the "null result" is a falsifica-
> tion and that Shankland's analysis fails to explain
> Miller's positive result. They also tell why numer-
> ous other repetitions failed.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
"This paper presents a complete explanation for his anomalous result by:
a) showing that his results are not statistically significant,
b) describing in detail how flaws in his analysis procedure produced a
false signal with precisely the properties he expected, and
c) presenting a quantitative model of his systematic drift that shows
there is no real signal in his data."
> There are other positive ether-wind experiments,
> which no one to my knowledge has refuted.
algorithm quite similar to Miller's, and therefore their result suffers
from the same serious flaws discussed above. They did, however, have a
smaller systematic error, and they contented themselves with putting an
upper bound on the earth's speed relative to the ether of 7.5 km/s."
These "other" experiments you refer to but don't specify will most likely
be found to have the same defects as Miller's analysis.
Paul B. Andersen
Sep 7, 2015, 7:28:26 AM9/7/15
to
On 07.09.2015 00:10, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
You can kick an scream and call the experimental
evidence 'silly', but you can't make it go away.
Here is more experimental evidence you can't make go away:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
> Sorry Paul I'm not in the mood for laughter at
> present.
I can understand that.
I will do the laughing. :-D
>>> Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the physics
>>> establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too many reputations are
>>> at stake.
>>
>> How did Alveger and Filippas get their experiments funded?
>
>
> From other dingleberries I suppose.
I see.
From the dingleberries who run the physics establishment and who
are not likely to provide funding of experiments testing SR/GR
because too many reputations are at stake.
So they did risk to provide funding of the experiments it after all!
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:05:38 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
>> On 06.09.2015 10:48, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>
>>> Idiot! Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source
>>
>> .. and found it to be different from c.
>>
>> The speed of light from moving sources has however
>> been measured and found to be c.
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>
> Gawd! the silly list again.
Indeed.
>
>> On 06.09.2015 10:48, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>
>>> Idiot! Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source
>>
>> .. and found it to be different from c.
>>
>> The speed of light from moving sources has however
>> been measured and found to be c.
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>
> Gawd! the silly list again.
You can kick an scream and call the experimental
evidence 'silly', but you can't make it go away.
Here is more experimental evidence you can't make go away:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
> Sorry Paul I'm not in the mood for laughter at
> present.
I will do the laughing. :-D
>>> Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the physics
>>> establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too many reputations are
>>> at stake.
>>
>> How did Alveger and Filippas get their experiments funded?
>
>
> From other dingleberries I suppose.
From the dingleberries who run the physics establishment and who
are not likely to provide funding of experiments testing SR/GR
because too many reputations are at stake.
So they did risk to provide funding of the experiments it after all!
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Henry Wilson DSc.
Sep 7, 2015, 4:34:50 PM9/7/15
to
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 15:59:22 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>> Idiot! Chronic incurable idiot!
>>
>> Don't you know what a TWLS experiment is?
>>
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>No, he doesn't. Just like you can't understand meaningful equations for
>a TWLS experiment. It's really, really funny to see two delusional
>nincompoops arguing with each other about their defective and
>contradictory "theories" -- each of them shouting at each other and
>calling each other idiots. They are both right when they do that :-)
>
wrote:
>> Idiot! Chronic incurable idiot!
>>
>> Don't you know what a TWLS experiment is?
>>
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>No, he doesn't. Just like you can't understand meaningful equations for
>a TWLS experiment. It's really, really funny to see two delusional
>nincompoops arguing with each other about their defective and
>contradictory "theories" -- each of them shouting at each other and
>calling each other idiots. They are both right when they do that :-)
>
al...@interia.pl
Sep 9, 2015, 1:31:24 PM9/9/15
to
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 września 2015 00:14:33 UTC+2 użytkownik Henry Wilson
> >It is always measured for moving source only,
> >because the Earth moves without any doubt.
> >
> >The result is just c, because the one-way speed is:
> >
> >c(f) = 1/gamma / 1 - vcosf
> >
> >therefore the TWLS is simply a harmonic mean:
> >c(f) and c(f+180), which is just c * (1-v^2) = c / gamma
> >
> >then your local clock slows down gamma times,
> >thus you must measure just that: c / gamma * gamma = c.
>
> Idiot! Chronic incurable idiot!
>
> Don't you know what a TWLS experiment is?
The pseudoscience doesn't care, nor use any experiment,
therefore you are fully justified. :)
> >It is always measured for moving source only,
> >because the Earth moves without any doubt.
> >
> >The result is just c, because the one-way speed is:
> >
> >c(f) = 1/gamma / 1 - vcosf
> >
> >therefore the TWLS is simply a harmonic mean:
> >c(f) and c(f+180), which is just c * (1-v^2) = c / gamma
> >
> >then your local clock slows down gamma times,
> >thus you must measure just that: c / gamma * gamma = c.
>
> Idiot! Chronic incurable idiot!
>
> Don't you know what a TWLS experiment is?
therefore you are fully justified. :)
Anton Shepelev
Sep 11, 2015, 6:05:03 PM9/11/15
to
Gary Harnagel to Anton Shepelev:
> > Dayton Miller consistently observed a small ef-
> > ference for details on the hardware and the pro-
> > cedure:
> >
> > http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Conference_1927/Conference_1927.pdf
> >
> > If you will carefully read just these two docu-
> cally significant,
> b. describing in detail how flaws in his anal-
used his article in arguments with me about the
Miller experiments. His paper is primarily based on
Miller's large 1933 article referenced above, so I
wonder why he states that "because of the 180 degree
symmetry of the interferometer, any real signal can
depend only on orientation modulo 180 degrees," when
a full-period, first-order effect was detected by
Miller and explained by Hicks, whose calculations I
have at hand should you need them.
To be concise, the interferometer can't be perfectly
symmetrical if any interference is to be observed
because fringes of finite width appear when the two
wavefronts are slightly non-parallel. This asymme-
try causes a full-period effect from the ether wind,
which Roberts assumes does not exists ascibing it to
the systematic error. Miller summarizes:
In the theory of Hicks it is shown that when the
periodic variation in the relative phases of the
two beams of light in the inter-ferometer takes
place with the mirrors adjusted as in actual
practice, there is introduced an additional
effect which is periodic in a full turn of the
instrument. The amplitude of this full-period
effect, which varies inversely as the width of
the fringes being used at the time of observa-
tion, is about equal to the amplitude of the
ether-drift effect when there are eight fringes
in the field of view; with the adjustment usually
secured for six fringes in the field of view, the
full-period effect is smaller than the half-
period effect.
That may explain the deviation of the marker-9
points from the line between markers 1 and 17 in
fig. 3, in which Roberts sees evidence for a non-
linear systematic drift. Note how the majority of
the marker-9 measurements are above the linear drift
graph showing the postive half-wave of the full-pe-
riod effect.
His other careless statement that Miller arbitrarily
chose the linear model of the systematic drift is
also wrong, for in that same 1933 paper Miller ex-
plains that from the many tests he found temperature
effects to maintain a constant influence though each
50-second turn due to the high thermal capacity of
the interferometer, and a constant derivative calls
for a linear function, which may not affect the
clarity of any harmonic signal. Therefore Roberts
is wrong in calculating the error bars before sub-
tracting the linear model. The error would have
been several times lower if had done so after the
subtraction, which may be thought an essential part
of the measurement procedure. One should calculate
the dispersion of the measured signal, which is the
difference of the fringe shift from the linear tem-
prerature drift.
Quoth Miller:
The observation is a differential one and can be
made with considerable certainty under all condi-
tions. Disturbances, due to temperature or other
causes lasting for a few seconds or for a few
minutes, might affect the actual amount of the
observed displacement and give less certain val-
ues for the velocity of the ether-drift while, at
the same time, the position of maximum displace-
ment is not altered.
I would add that rapid disturbances will be reduced
during the averaging, as well as any additive noise
originating outside the interferometer and therefore
unperiodic in its turn.
Neither does Roberts explain the way that his hypo-
thetical instrumental error could produce a sinu-
soidal pseudosignal with a constant galactic orien-
tantion:
The curves for the three epochs were simply aver-
aged and it was found that when plotted in rela-
tion to local civil time, the curves are in such
phase relations that they nearly neutralize each
other; the average effect for the three epochs
thus plotted is very small and unsystematic. The
curves of observation were then plotted with
respect to sidereal time and a very striking con-
sistency of their principal characteristics was
shown to exist, not only among the three curves
for azimuth and those for magnitude, but, what
was more impressive, there was a consistency
between the two sets of curves, as though they
were related to a common cause. The average of
the curves, on sidereal time, showed conclusively
that the observed effect is dependent upon side-
real time and is independent of diurnal and sea-
sonal changes of temperature and other terres-
trial causes and that it is a cosmical phe-
nomenon.
How can an instumental error track the time of day
and the season of the year in precisely the way to
neutralize them, maintaining a constant galactic di-
rection in *all* the experiments over the years?
Roberts does not care to anwer that.
He is also wrong about Miller's averaging of half-
turns as part of data analysis. Miller did no such
thing and employed harmonic analysis to his full-pe-
riod curves. He explains:
These charted ???curves??? of the actual observations
contain not only the second-order, half-period
ether-drift effect, but also a first-order, full-
period effect, any possible effects of higher
orders, together with all instrumental and acci-
dental errors of observation.
Why does Roberts misinform us, presenting Miller's
visualisation procedure intended for "a preliminary
study of the observations" for the one he used in
"the definitive study of the ether-drift effect?"
The 1933 article describes both procedures and re-
veals Roberts's confusion.
One of Miller's errors in Roberts's opinion is the
averaging of data, so I wonder why he has retained
the supposed averaging of the half-turns in his re-
analysis, while Miller himself did not employ it.
Was it not the easier to impose his hypothesis of
the second harmonic's emerging from the Brownian
spectrum of the instrumental drift? I would he had
practised as he preaches and had analysed the uncom-
pressed, full-period measurements, even as Miller
did finding that both the first and the third har-
monics were always smaller than the second one (fig.
21 in his article). Or you may look at the full-pe-
riod graph in the picture of Miller's sample record.
Might Roberts have intentionally analyzed the wrong
algorithm to hide the uncomfortably small first har-
monic? Under his hypothesis it should dominate the
full-period spectrum, and if Miller's original pro-
cedure had been applied to the full turns he would
have detected an apparent full-period nearly-sinu-
soidal singal with a magnitude twice as high as that
of the purported ether drift. But, as shown above,
this is simply not the case, and Roberts's drift
model fails to account for the prevalence of the
second harmonic in the full-period spectrum.
Therefore, his explanation of "how flaws in
[Miller's] analysis procedure produced a false sig-
nal with precisely the properties he expected" is
invalid, because it is based on a wrong assumption
about the original procedure:
This is a simple consequence of the fact that the
1???2-turn Fourier component is the lowest fre-
quency retained by the algorithm, and it will
dominate because of the falling spectrum. When a
single frequency bin dominates the Fourier spec-
trum, the signal itself looks approximately like
a sinusoid with that period. Using this data
reduction algorithm, any noise with a falling
spectrum will end up looking like an approxi-
mately sinusoidal ???signal??? with a period of 1???2
turn -- precisely what Miller was looking for.
Roberts claims to have found a model of the system-
atic drift in Miller's experiment, but he has not
revealed this model even for a single twenty-turn
set so that readers might study it by themselves. I
for one should subtract it from the raw data and
look at the result, because Roberts did it in fre-
quency domain which is rather unituitive and con-
tains quantization and other errors of the discrete
Fourier transformation.
Roberts's only precaution against unintentional in-
clusion of the real signal into the systematic drift
is the subtraction of the first turn from all the
other turns. It does not seem a statistically right
operation when the noise is many times more powerful
than the signal, as it is in our case. The noise
may have conspired completely to mask any singal in
this turn. To attain any degree of certainty one
would have to repeat the subtraction with the other
turns as the subtrahend and compare the results. If
they would be very different then the procedure is
wrong.
That being said, I am not sure that the half-period-
ic component belongs to the systematic drift rather
than to the actual signal. The result of his re-
analysis may be a mere consequence his data-process-
ing procedure, just as he thinks about Miller's own
result.
Leaving the nature of the instrumental drift unex-
plained and uncommented upon, Roberts's "explana-
tion" seems but an abstract mathematical excercize
with little physical value because it offers no in-
sight into the physical cause of this drift.
> > There are other positive ether-wind experiments,
> > which no one to my knowledge has refuted.
>
> "Michelson and Morley (1887) analyzed their data
> using a data reduction algorithm quite similar to
> Miller's, and therefore their result suffers from
> the same serious flaws discussed above. They did,
> however, have a smaller systematic error, and they
> contented themselves with putting an upper bound
> on the earth's speed relative to the ether of 7.5
> km/s."
Which is close to Miller's result but somewhat
smaller because the experiment was performed closer
to the ground.
> These "other" experiments you refer to but don't
> specify will most likely be found to have the same
> defects as Miller's analysis.
I don't think so, but would postpone this subject
till another post, for this one is already big
enough.
P.S.: Do read Miller's 1933 article linked above and
preferable his address at the conference as
well.
> > Dayton Miller consistently observed a small ef-
> > fect, unconnected with any earthly factors but
> > well-correlated with the orbital motion of the
> > Earth:
> >
> > http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Miller_1933/Miller1933_ocr.pdf
> >
> > See mr. Miller's address at the Mt. Wilson con-
> > well-correlated with the orbital motion of the
> > Earth:
> >
> > http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Miller_1933/Miller1933_ocr.pdf
> >
> > ference for details on the hardware and the pro-
> > cedure:
> >
> > http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Conference_1927/Conference_1927.pdf
> >
> > If you will carefully read just these two docu-
> > ments you shall see that the "null result" is a
> > falsification and that Shankland's analysis
> > fails to explain Miller's positive result. They
> > also tell why numerous other repetitions failed.
>
> Miller unintentionally introduced errors which he
> didn't account for:
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
>
> "This paper presents a complete explanation for
> his anomalous result by:
>
> a. showing that his results are not statisti-
> Miller unintentionally introduced errors which he
> didn't account for:
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
>
> "This paper presents a complete explanation for
> his anomalous result by:
>
> cally significant,
> b. describing in detail how flaws in his anal-
> ysis procedure produced a false signal with
> precisely the properties he expected, and
> c. presenting a quantitative model of his sys-
> precisely the properties he expected, and
> tematic drift that shows there is no real
> signal in his data."
Thomas J. Roberts must be famous, for others have
> signal in his data."
used his article in arguments with me about the
Miller experiments. His paper is primarily based on
Miller's large 1933 article referenced above, so I
wonder why he states that "because of the 180 degree
symmetry of the interferometer, any real signal can
depend only on orientation modulo 180 degrees," when
a full-period, first-order effect was detected by
Miller and explained by Hicks, whose calculations I
have at hand should you need them.
To be concise, the interferometer can't be perfectly
symmetrical if any interference is to be observed
because fringes of finite width appear when the two
wavefronts are slightly non-parallel. This asymme-
try causes a full-period effect from the ether wind,
which Roberts assumes does not exists ascibing it to
the systematic error. Miller summarizes:
In the theory of Hicks it is shown that when the
periodic variation in the relative phases of the
two beams of light in the inter-ferometer takes
place with the mirrors adjusted as in actual
practice, there is introduced an additional
effect which is periodic in a full turn of the
instrument. The amplitude of this full-period
effect, which varies inversely as the width of
the fringes being used at the time of observa-
tion, is about equal to the amplitude of the
ether-drift effect when there are eight fringes
in the field of view; with the adjustment usually
secured for six fringes in the field of view, the
full-period effect is smaller than the half-
period effect.
That may explain the deviation of the marker-9
points from the line between markers 1 and 17 in
fig. 3, in which Roberts sees evidence for a non-
linear systematic drift. Note how the majority of
the marker-9 measurements are above the linear drift
graph showing the postive half-wave of the full-pe-
riod effect.
His other careless statement that Miller arbitrarily
chose the linear model of the systematic drift is
also wrong, for in that same 1933 paper Miller ex-
plains that from the many tests he found temperature
effects to maintain a constant influence though each
50-second turn due to the high thermal capacity of
the interferometer, and a constant derivative calls
for a linear function, which may not affect the
clarity of any harmonic signal. Therefore Roberts
is wrong in calculating the error bars before sub-
tracting the linear model. The error would have
been several times lower if had done so after the
subtraction, which may be thought an essential part
of the measurement procedure. One should calculate
the dispersion of the measured signal, which is the
difference of the fringe shift from the linear tem-
prerature drift.
Quoth Miller:
The observation is a differential one and can be
made with considerable certainty under all condi-
tions. Disturbances, due to temperature or other
causes lasting for a few seconds or for a few
minutes, might affect the actual amount of the
observed displacement and give less certain val-
ues for the velocity of the ether-drift while, at
the same time, the position of maximum displace-
ment is not altered.
I would add that rapid disturbances will be reduced
during the averaging, as well as any additive noise
originating outside the interferometer and therefore
unperiodic in its turn.
Neither does Roberts explain the way that his hypo-
thetical instrumental error could produce a sinu-
soidal pseudosignal with a constant galactic orien-
tantion:
The curves for the three epochs were simply aver-
aged and it was found that when plotted in rela-
tion to local civil time, the curves are in such
phase relations that they nearly neutralize each
other; the average effect for the three epochs
thus plotted is very small and unsystematic. The
curves of observation were then plotted with
respect to sidereal time and a very striking con-
sistency of their principal characteristics was
shown to exist, not only among the three curves
for azimuth and those for magnitude, but, what
was more impressive, there was a consistency
between the two sets of curves, as though they
were related to a common cause. The average of
the curves, on sidereal time, showed conclusively
that the observed effect is dependent upon side-
real time and is independent of diurnal and sea-
sonal changes of temperature and other terres-
trial causes and that it is a cosmical phe-
nomenon.
How can an instumental error track the time of day
and the season of the year in precisely the way to
neutralize them, maintaining a constant galactic di-
rection in *all* the experiments over the years?
Roberts does not care to anwer that.
He is also wrong about Miller's averaging of half-
turns as part of data analysis. Miller did no such
thing and employed harmonic analysis to his full-pe-
riod curves. He explains:
These charted ???curves??? of the actual observations
contain not only the second-order, half-period
ether-drift effect, but also a first-order, full-
period effect, any possible effects of higher
orders, together with all instrumental and acci-
dental errors of observation.
Why does Roberts misinform us, presenting Miller's
visualisation procedure intended for "a preliminary
study of the observations" for the one he used in
"the definitive study of the ether-drift effect?"
The 1933 article describes both procedures and re-
veals Roberts's confusion.
One of Miller's errors in Roberts's opinion is the
averaging of data, so I wonder why he has retained
the supposed averaging of the half-turns in his re-
analysis, while Miller himself did not employ it.
Was it not the easier to impose his hypothesis of
the second harmonic's emerging from the Brownian
spectrum of the instrumental drift? I would he had
practised as he preaches and had analysed the uncom-
pressed, full-period measurements, even as Miller
did finding that both the first and the third har-
monics were always smaller than the second one (fig.
21 in his article). Or you may look at the full-pe-
riod graph in the picture of Miller's sample record.
Might Roberts have intentionally analyzed the wrong
algorithm to hide the uncomfortably small first har-
monic? Under his hypothesis it should dominate the
full-period spectrum, and if Miller's original pro-
cedure had been applied to the full turns he would
have detected an apparent full-period nearly-sinu-
soidal singal with a magnitude twice as high as that
of the purported ether drift. But, as shown above,
this is simply not the case, and Roberts's drift
model fails to account for the prevalence of the
second harmonic in the full-period spectrum.
Therefore, his explanation of "how flaws in
[Miller's] analysis procedure produced a false sig-
nal with precisely the properties he expected" is
invalid, because it is based on a wrong assumption
about the original procedure:
This is a simple consequence of the fact that the
1???2-turn Fourier component is the lowest fre-
quency retained by the algorithm, and it will
dominate because of the falling spectrum. When a
single frequency bin dominates the Fourier spec-
trum, the signal itself looks approximately like
a sinusoid with that period. Using this data
reduction algorithm, any noise with a falling
spectrum will end up looking like an approxi-
mately sinusoidal ???signal??? with a period of 1???2
turn -- precisely what Miller was looking for.
Roberts claims to have found a model of the system-
atic drift in Miller's experiment, but he has not
revealed this model even for a single twenty-turn
set so that readers might study it by themselves. I
for one should subtract it from the raw data and
look at the result, because Roberts did it in fre-
quency domain which is rather unituitive and con-
tains quantization and other errors of the discrete
Fourier transformation.
Roberts's only precaution against unintentional in-
clusion of the real signal into the systematic drift
is the subtraction of the first turn from all the
other turns. It does not seem a statistically right
operation when the noise is many times more powerful
than the signal, as it is in our case. The noise
may have conspired completely to mask any singal in
this turn. To attain any degree of certainty one
would have to repeat the subtraction with the other
turns as the subtrahend and compare the results. If
they would be very different then the procedure is
wrong.
That being said, I am not sure that the half-period-
ic component belongs to the systematic drift rather
than to the actual signal. The result of his re-
analysis may be a mere consequence his data-process-
ing procedure, just as he thinks about Miller's own
result.
Leaving the nature of the instrumental drift unex-
plained and uncommented upon, Roberts's "explana-
tion" seems but an abstract mathematical excercize
with little physical value because it offers no in-
sight into the physical cause of this drift.
> > There are other positive ether-wind experiments,
> > which no one to my knowledge has refuted.
>
> "Michelson and Morley (1887) analyzed their data
> using a data reduction algorithm quite similar to
> Miller's, and therefore their result suffers from
> the same serious flaws discussed above. They did,
> however, have a smaller systematic error, and they
> contented themselves with putting an upper bound
> on the earth's speed relative to the ether of 7.5
> km/s."
smaller because the experiment was performed closer
to the ground.
> These "other" experiments you refer to but don't
> specify will most likely be found to have the same
> defects as Miller's analysis.
till another post, for this one is already big
enough.
P.S.: Do read Miller's 1933 article linked above and
preferable his address at the conference as
well.
Tom Roberts
Sep 12, 2015, 8:25:42 PM9/12/15
to
I have ignored your webpage, as it seems to the the same as your article. I will
comment only on a few aspects of your notions, omitting text in between.
On 9/3/15 9/3/15 3:55 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
> have constant mass and variable spin.
The word "photon" is already taken, and means something QUITE different from
what you have in mind. All that will do is confuse your reader. I will attempt
to keep your UNUSUAL meaning in mind, but that is quite difficult.
It's as if you said "I will use the word 'red' to mean
the color of the clear sky during the day". It is
UNREASONABLE to expect a reader to keep that straight.
> Having mass, they are subject to
> gravitational attraction.
It's rather remarkable (and rather sad) that you clearly have no understanding
of electromagnetism and its role in light. Nor do you have any QUANTITATIVE feel
for these forces. This makes your attempt to "model" light simply ludicrous.
The gravitational force between two electrons is about 10^-42
time smaller than the electromagnetic force between them.
Gravitation is UTTERLY too small to have any effect on
light, except on astronomical scales. And even then, it is
INCREDIBLY tiny compared to EM effects.
Moreover, every measurement of the photon mass has yielded a value consistent
with zero. At present the upper bound on the photon mass is 10^-18 eV/c^2 --
that is INCREDIBLY small.
So while you mean something else by "photon", still the
carriers of light have at most that INCREDIBLY small mass.
> Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
> behaviours and attributes;
Apparently you heard somewhere that photons have spin, and you ASSUMED that
means they are like "little bullets" that spin as they travel. THIS IS FLAT-OUT
WRONG. The "spin" of a photon (the usual sense) is an inherently quantum effect,
and has little relationship to an object rotating on an axis.
> Mass
> Taking Planck's Law
I suppose you mean his E=hf for photons.
REMEMBER THAT HE MEANT SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT BY THAT
WORD THAN YOU DO.
> and the second postulate of the Particle
> Theory
What is that???
> together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2),
What do those other symbols mean?
I'll go out on a limb and suppose your I is some sort of
moment of inertia, and w is some sort of angular velocity
(but then why do you ALSO use f???).
I haven't a clue what you mean by n. I suppose h is
Planck's constant and m is the "photon's" mass.
You don't seem to realize that the energy of a photon is proportional to its
frequency. NONE of that other stuff is involved. This is known with an accuracy
of a few parts per billion (spectroscopy is one of the most accurate and precise
measurement techniques). If any of that other stuff were involved, we would know
it....
> from which the
> photon's mass will be calculable if:
> 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength
> of photons from a source are measured, allowing
> numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w;
Look at your formula. To compute mass from it you need to know the value of
EVERY symbol, not just those you mentioned.
> The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on
> the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection.
This is just word salad. HOW does it "depend" on all that?
> It follows from that and the principle of determinism
What is that "principle"? How do you know that "determinism" applies? -- after
all, we observe considerable randomness in essentially all process involving
light; it's just that the statistics of extremely large numbers mask it for many
observations.
Fundamentally, one cannot predict when an excited atom will
emit a photon while relaxing to a lower-energy state. There
are literally zillions of observations that conclusively show
that "determinism" simply does not apply at atomic and sub-
atomic scales....
> the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular
> fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the
> same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any
> particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always
> the same.
You are VERY confused about these processes. Mostly they do not emit gammas at
all; when they do, it is from an excited nucleus cascading down to its ground
state, and thus is essentially unrelated to the fusion or fission.
> Similarly with other types of light emission; eg,
> electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same
> cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same
> set of energy levels[2].
Except, of course, for those that don't. Yes, when a system emits a photon while
transitioning from one energy state to another, the photon is necessarily equal
to the energy difference between the states, and thus for states with definite
energies it always has the same energy. But for other methods of photon emission
this simply does not hold: bremsstrahlung, Compton scattering, synchrotron
radiation, ....
How do you think an incandescent light emits WHITE light?
It's because the energy of the emitted photons is NOT
always the same; the emitted photons have an energy
distribution that looks white to our eyes. Yes, the
filament has a definite temperature, but that
corresponds to an energy DISTRIBUTION.
> ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
> light, is relative to the source.
This is KNOWN to be wrong. You are not alone around here in believing this, but
there are lots of experiments that show that the vacuum speed of light is c,
INDEPENDENT of the motion of its source. Some experiments involve sources moving
> 0.9 c relative to the lab, for which c and c+v would be easily distinguished;
the result is c. EVERY TIME.
> Colour Shift
> Since the speed of light is relative to the source, its speed
> as apparent to an observer will depend on any relative motion
> between them. And since such motion can have no effect on the
> photons' angular velocity, so too will its energy, or colour.
>
> If source and observer are approaching each other, the speed
> as apparent to the observer is increased by delta v, the energy
> transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon is increased
> in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength as apparent to
> the observer is decreased in proportion to delta v. The light
> undergoes a blue shift.
So you claim the Doppler shift from a source moving relative to the observer
with speed v would be proportional to v^2. This is refuted by just about every
measurement of Doppler shift. For v << c it is linear in v.
> Absorption, reflection, refraction
> When light encounters a material substance, the photons are
> affected individually. Each is subject to gravitational
> attraction to particles making up the substance;
This is just hopeless. Gravitational force is billions and billions of times too
small to do this.
> Those photons that do not collide with particles making up
> the substance are accelerated into it by gravitational
> attraction on both entry and exit, producing greater speed
> within the substance,
This is just plain wrong. Light travels more slowly in a transparent material
than in vacuum.
And you seem not to realize that some materials are transparent to visible
light, and some are opaque. Yes the "gravitational attraction" to the "particles
that make up the substance" is very similar.
> [...]
Well, I've had enough. This is not worth any more of my time. You seem to think
that fuzzy descriptions and word salad are sufficient to model light. NOBODY
cares, because we already have a good, QUANTITATIVE theory of light that
provides one the ability to calculate what will happen in most physical
situations of interest.
Actually we have two such theories: classical electrodynamics
for when quantum phenomena are not important, and QED for
when they are. The former is an approximation to the latter.
To actually model light requires one to understand ALL aspects of light that are
known. I have not touched on the many aspects of quantum optics, but your
"model" is woefully inadequate to address them (including spin). And as pointed
out above, there are many parts of your "model" that simply do not agree with
experiments -- that is the kiss of death for any physical theory or model. Your
model fails to account for some very basic observations about light, such as
transparent and opaque materials, the universality of its speed in vacuum, and
the actual relationship between energy and frequency for photons (the usual
meaning, not yours).
Tom Roberts
comment only on a few aspects of your notions, omitting text in between.
On 9/3/15 9/3/15 3:55 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
> have constant mass and variable spin.
The word "photon" is already taken, and means something QUITE different from
what you have in mind. All that will do is confuse your reader. I will attempt
to keep your UNUSUAL meaning in mind, but that is quite difficult.
It's as if you said "I will use the word 'red' to mean
the color of the clear sky during the day". It is
UNREASONABLE to expect a reader to keep that straight.
> Having mass, they are subject to
> gravitational attraction.
It's rather remarkable (and rather sad) that you clearly have no understanding
of electromagnetism and its role in light. Nor do you have any QUANTITATIVE feel
for these forces. This makes your attempt to "model" light simply ludicrous.
The gravitational force between two electrons is about 10^-42
time smaller than the electromagnetic force between them.
Gravitation is UTTERLY too small to have any effect on
light, except on astronomical scales. And even then, it is
INCREDIBLY tiny compared to EM effects.
Moreover, every measurement of the photon mass has yielded a value consistent
with zero. At present the upper bound on the photon mass is 10^-18 eV/c^2 --
that is INCREDIBLY small.
So while you mean something else by "photon", still the
carriers of light have at most that INCREDIBLY small mass.
> Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
> behaviours and attributes;
Apparently you heard somewhere that photons have spin, and you ASSUMED that
means they are like "little bullets" that spin as they travel. THIS IS FLAT-OUT
WRONG. The "spin" of a photon (the usual sense) is an inherently quantum effect,
and has little relationship to an object rotating on an axis.
> Mass
> Taking Planck's Law
I suppose you mean his E=hf for photons.
REMEMBER THAT HE MEANT SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT BY THAT
WORD THAN YOU DO.
> and the second postulate of the Particle
> Theory
What is that???
> together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2),
What do those other symbols mean?
I'll go out on a limb and suppose your I is some sort of
moment of inertia, and w is some sort of angular velocity
(but then why do you ALSO use f???).
I haven't a clue what you mean by n. I suppose h is
Planck's constant and m is the "photon's" mass.
You don't seem to realize that the energy of a photon is proportional to its
frequency. NONE of that other stuff is involved. This is known with an accuracy
of a few parts per billion (spectroscopy is one of the most accurate and precise
measurement techniques). If any of that other stuff were involved, we would know
it....
> from which the
> photon's mass will be calculable if:
> 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength
> of photons from a source are measured, allowing
> numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w;
Look at your formula. To compute mass from it you need to know the value of
EVERY symbol, not just those you mentioned.
> The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on
> the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection.
This is just word salad. HOW does it "depend" on all that?
> It follows from that and the principle of determinism
What is that "principle"? How do you know that "determinism" applies? -- after
all, we observe considerable randomness in essentially all process involving
light; it's just that the statistics of extremely large numbers mask it for many
observations.
Fundamentally, one cannot predict when an excited atom will
emit a photon while relaxing to a lower-energy state. There
are literally zillions of observations that conclusively show
that "determinism" simply does not apply at atomic and sub-
atomic scales....
> the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular
> fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the
> same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any
> particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always
> the same.
You are VERY confused about these processes. Mostly they do not emit gammas at
all; when they do, it is from an excited nucleus cascading down to its ground
state, and thus is essentially unrelated to the fusion or fission.
> Similarly with other types of light emission; eg,
> electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same
> cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same
> set of energy levels[2].
Except, of course, for those that don't. Yes, when a system emits a photon while
transitioning from one energy state to another, the photon is necessarily equal
to the energy difference between the states, and thus for states with definite
energies it always has the same energy. But for other methods of photon emission
this simply does not hold: bremsstrahlung, Compton scattering, synchrotron
radiation, ....
How do you think an incandescent light emits WHITE light?
It's because the energy of the emitted photons is NOT
always the same; the emitted photons have an energy
distribution that looks white to our eyes. Yes, the
filament has a definite temperature, but that
corresponds to an energy DISTRIBUTION.
> ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
> light, is relative to the source.
there are lots of experiments that show that the vacuum speed of light is c,
INDEPENDENT of the motion of its source. Some experiments involve sources moving
> 0.9 c relative to the lab, for which c and c+v would be easily distinguished;
the result is c. EVERY TIME.
> Colour Shift
> Since the speed of light is relative to the source, its speed
> as apparent to an observer will depend on any relative motion
> between them. And since such motion can have no effect on the
> photons' angular velocity, so too will its energy, or colour.
>
> If source and observer are approaching each other, the speed
> as apparent to the observer is increased by delta v, the energy
> transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon is increased
> in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength as apparent to
> the observer is decreased in proportion to delta v. The light
> undergoes a blue shift.
So you claim the Doppler shift from a source moving relative to the observer
with speed v would be proportional to v^2. This is refuted by just about every
measurement of Doppler shift. For v << c it is linear in v.
> Absorption, reflection, refraction
> When light encounters a material substance, the photons are
> affected individually. Each is subject to gravitational
> attraction to particles making up the substance;
This is just hopeless. Gravitational force is billions and billions of times too
small to do this.
> Those photons that do not collide with particles making up
> the substance are accelerated into it by gravitational
> attraction on both entry and exit, producing greater speed
> within the substance,
This is just plain wrong. Light travels more slowly in a transparent material
than in vacuum.
And you seem not to realize that some materials are transparent to visible
light, and some are opaque. Yes the "gravitational attraction" to the "particles
that make up the substance" is very similar.
> [...]
Well, I've had enough. This is not worth any more of my time. You seem to think
that fuzzy descriptions and word salad are sufficient to model light. NOBODY
cares, because we already have a good, QUANTITATIVE theory of light that
provides one the ability to calculate what will happen in most physical
situations of interest.
Actually we have two such theories: classical electrodynamics
for when quantum phenomena are not important, and QED for
when they are. The former is an approximation to the latter.
To actually model light requires one to understand ALL aspects of light that are
known. I have not touched on the many aspects of quantum optics, but your
"model" is woefully inadequate to address them (including spin). And as pointed
out above, there are many parts of your "model" that simply do not agree with
experiments -- that is the kiss of death for any physical theory or model. Your
model fails to account for some very basic observations about light, such as
transparent and opaque materials, the universality of its speed in vacuum, and
the actual relationship between energy and frequency for photons (the usual
meaning, not yours).
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Sep 13, 2015, 12:14:56 AM9/13/15
to
On 9/6/15 9/6/15 7:59 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Dayton Miller consistent-
> ly observed a small effect, unconnected with any
> earthly factors but well-correlated with the orbital
> motion of the Earth[...]
> Dayton Miller consistent-
> ly observed a small effect, unconnected with any
> earthly factors but well-correlated with the orbital
> If you will carefully read just these two documents
> you shall see that the "null result" is a falsifica-
> tion and that Shankland's analysis fails to explain
> Miller's positive result. They also tell why numer-
> ous other repetitions failed.
Miller's "signal" was statistically insignificant [#]. It is essentially his
> you shall see that the "null result" is a falsifica-
> tion and that Shankland's analysis fails to explain
> Miller's positive result. They also tell why numer-
> ous other repetitions failed.
instrument's (thermal ?) drift aliased into the same bin where any signal would
be, because he used a FLAWED analysis algorithm. It is sinusoidal and LOOKED
like a signal would look, because of the properties of his noise and the comb
filter he (inadvertently) applied.
In his day, before Shannon, he could not have known this.
But today, with modern DSP techniques it is obvious.
Moreover, back then they did not routinely perform an
error analysis. Today we do, and the basic error analysis
of his data shows that the errorbars are MUCH larger than
the variations in his data -- his "signal" is NOT
statistically significant [#]. And since he averaged his data
down to just a few frequency bins (in DSP-speak this is a
comb filter), the aliased ~ 1/f noise looks like a sinusoid
with frequency corresponding to the lowest bin (where any
signal would be).
[#] this is bulletproof, because we know how averaging affects
the errorbars on the mean.
> [quoting Einstein]
> I believe that I have really found the relation-
> ship between gravitation and electricity, assuming
> that the Miller experiments are based on a funda-
> mental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity the-
> ory collapses like a house of cards.
Miller's experiments WERE based on a fundamental error (actually several of
> ship between gravitation and electricity, assuming
> that the Miller experiments are based on a funda-
> mental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity the-
> ory collapses like a house of cards.
them). Einstein and relativity are vindicated.
See my paper about this: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
It discusses the above criticisms. It also applies a model of his instrument's
drift plus an orientation-dependent signal. The signal is consistent with zero
in all runs in my dataset, and exactly zero in all reliable runs. The drift is
HIGHLY nonlinear, negating the basic assumption of Miller's analysis algorithm.
I used some of Miller's original data sheets (amazingly, copies are still
available from the CWRU archives).
In a following article you said:
> Thomas J. Roberts must be famous, for others have
> used his article in arguments with me about the
> Miller experiments.
his original data sheets from the CWRU archives).
> I
> wonder why he states that "because of the 180 degree
> symmetry of the interferometer, any real signal can
> depend only on orientation modulo 180 degrees," when
> a full-period, first-order effect was detected by
> Miller and explained by Hicks, whose calculations I
> have at hand should you need them.
was statistically not significant by a VERY large margin, I have no doubt that
the "full-period first-order effect" is likewise not statistically significant.
For instance, if a linear drift was assumed the whole thing is useless, because
the drift of that instrument is HIGHLY nonlinear.
Similarly, if data were averaged then the implicit comb filter and aliasing
destroy any usefulness in the result.
> To be concise, the interferometer can't be perfectly
> symmetrical
asymmetries are SIGNIFICANT. They surely are not.
on it. That's hardly decisive.
Look at Figure 5 -- the errorbars are ~ 0.8 fringe, which is MUCH larger than
the difference point-to-line of any turn in Fig 3. So that IN-decisive
"half-wave" you think you see is NOT significant.
Amateurs look for patterns, professionals look at errorbars.
You see a pattern, I see errorbars that show that it is in your imagination, not
the data.
Humans are extremely good pattern-finding machines, and often
find patterns where none are present. Some people see "the
Virgin Mary" in water stains and burnt toast, while you (and
Miller) see a "signal" here.
> His other careless statement that Miller arbitrarily
> chose the linear model of the systematic drift is
> also wrong,
HIGHLY nonlinear, for every orientation.
> for in that same 1933 paper Miller ex-
> plains that from the many tests he found temperature
> effects to maintain a constant influence though each
> 50-second turn due to the high thermal capacity of
> the interferometer, and a constant derivative calls
> for a linear function, which may not affect the
> clarity of any harmonic signal.
10, and also figs 2 and 3). Look at figure 4 of my paper -- the variation in the
data at this particular orientation is CLEARLY dominated by the systematic drift.
I challenge ANYBODY to look at figure 2 (which is just Miller's raw data with
his adjustments restored), and claim that the drift is "linear"!
(at the level of ~0.5 fringe one could claim that for turns
1-3 and 14-18, but most turns are nowhere close to linear.)
> Therefore Roberts
> is wrong in calculating the error bars before sub-
> tracting the linear model. The error would have
> been several times lower if had done so after the
> subtraction, which may be thought an essential part
> of the measurement procedure. One should calculate
> the dispersion of the measured signal, which is the
> difference of the fringe shift from the linear tem-
> prerature drift.
difference in that the errorbars are MUCH larger than the variation in the
means. IOW the drift is HIGHLY NONLINEAR, and subtracting a linear drift does
not affect much.
> Quoth Miller:
>
> The observation is a differential one and can be
> made with considerable certainty under all condi-
> tions. Disturbances, due to temperature or other
> causes lasting for a few seconds or for a few
> minutes, might affect the actual amount of the
> observed displacement and give less certain val-
> ues for the velocity of the ether-drift while, at
> the same time, the position of maximum displace-
> ment is not altered.
>
> I would add that rapid disturbances will be reduced
> during the averaging, as well as any additive noise
> originating outside the interferometer and therefore
> unperiodic in its turn.
completely hid from him what was really going on. Had he just plotted out my
Figure 2, he would KNOW that his assumptions were simply not valid. All you need
to do is LOOK AT FIGURE 2 to see your claims are nonsense.
To claim to find a "signal" in Fig 2, with amplitude ~ 0.1
fringe is just LUDICROUS.
[Had he been able to make the instrument perform like turns 1-3
all the time, then he might have had something. But out of the
~1,000 data runs that I have looked at, whenever he did so it
CLEARLY had no signal at all, just a smooth drift (see my final
two paragraphs below).]
> Neither does Roberts explain the way that his hypo-
> thetical instrumental error could produce a sinu-
> soidal pseudosignal with a constant galactic orien-
> tantion:
one INSISTS on interpreting them as "signal" then it must have some orientation.
> How can an instumental error track the time of day
> and the season of the year in precisely the way to
> neutralize them, maintaining a constant galactic di-
> rection in *all* the experiments over the years?
Re-plot with errorbars, and you will find that there is a point in one
direction, with errorbars that span the sky!
> He is also wrong about Miller's averaging of half-
> turns as part of data analysis. Miller did no such
> thing and employed harmonic analysis to his full-pe-
> riod curves.
> Why does Roberts misinform us, presenting Miller's
> visualisation procedure intended for "a preliminary
> study of the observations" for the one he used in
> "the definitive study of the ether-drift effect?"
> The 1933 article describes both procedures and re-
> veals Roberts's confusion.
significant. Nothing can change that. Including your attempts to dismiss it.
> One of Miller's errors in Roberts's opinion is the
> averaging of data, so I wonder why he has retained
> the supposed averaging of the half-turns in his re-
> analysis, while Miller himself did not employ it.
his original data sheets.
> I would he had
> practised as he preaches and had analysed the uncom-
> pressed, full-period measurements,
> Might Roberts have intentionally analyzed the wrong
> algorithm to hide the uncomfortably small first har-
> monic?
discuss in parts II and III of the paper, but did not use in any way in part IV).
The first harmonic, and any other harmonic, is IRRELEVANT in my analysis.
> Roberts claims to have found a model of the system-
> atic drift in Miller's experiment, but he has not
> revealed this model even for a single twenty-turn
> set so that readers might study it by themselves.
obtained. The algorithm has to be applied to each data run individually, because
the drift is HIGHLY idiosyncratic to each run.
Basically the signal must be the same at each orientation,
while the drift happens sequentially. The technique I
used cleanly and rigorously separates out the orientation-
dependent part from the data, presenting just the drift in
Fig. 10.
> I
> for one should subtract it from the raw data and
> look at the result,
not what I did.
I fit the sum of
an arbitrary orientation-dependent function
plus
the systematic drift (determined as described in the text)
to the data for each of my 67 runs. Ignoring 11 clearly unstable runs, the
result for the orientation-dependent signal is ZERO (Fig 11).
> because Roberts did it in fre-
> quency domain which is rather unituitive and con-
> tains quantization and other errors of the discrete
> Fourier transformation.
(really orientation over 20 turns).
My discussion of "frequency domain" was in part III, where I used DSP techniques
to explain where Miller's "signal" came from (his noise), and why it looks
sinusoidal (it is 1/f noise aliased into the lowest frequency bin, where any
real signal would be; when one Fourier bin dominates, the time-domain plot looks
sinusoidal with that frequency).
> Roberts's only precaution against unintentional in-
> clusion of the real signal into the systematic drift
> is the subtraction of the first turn from all the
> other turns. It does not seem a statistically right
> operation when the noise is many times more powerful
> than the signal, as it is in our case.
orientation-dependent part of the data from the drift. And it does so
INDEPENDENT of whatever noise was present in the first turn.
> The noise
> may have conspired completely to mask any singal in
> this turn.
A) the subtraction removes any orientation dependence REGARDLESS of
whatever noise was present in the first turn,
and
B) the fit will find any orientation-dependent, because it uses all
20 turns.
You REALLY need to READ THE PAPER and understand what I actually did. Your
GUESSES are wrong.
> Leaving the nature of the instrumental drift unex-
> plained and uncommented upon, Roberts's "explana-
> tion" seems but an abstract mathematical excercize
> with little physical value because it offers no in-
> sight into the physical cause of this drift.
GUESSES are wrong.
Yes, my analysis does not identify the source of the drift. But it DOES extract
whatever orientation-dependent signal is present in the data, and that signal is
ZERO.
THINK ABOUT IT: no analysis of his data sheets can possibly
identify sources of drift -- that requires examining and
operating the instrument and its environment.
>> "Michelson and Morley (1887) analyzed their data
>> using a data reduction algorithm quite similar to
>> Miller's, and therefore their result suffers from
>> the same serious flaws discussed above. They did,
>> however, have a smaller systematic error, and they
>> contented themselves with putting an upper bound
>> on the earth's speed relative to the ether of 7.5
>> km/s."
>
> Which is close to Miller's result but somewhat
> smaller because the experiment was performed closer
> to the ground.
either. Again, these errorbars are an UNDERESTIMATE, as they include ONLY the
portion due to the averaging; they are therefore unassailable.
Your last sentence is just factually wrong: much of Miller's data was taken IN
THE BASEMENT at CWRU (but in a different basement than Michelson and Morley used
30 years earlier). Later a special "interferometer house" was built with glass
windows and the interferometer at ground level (in Cleveland). Later still he
made the heroic trek to carry it up to a lab near the top of Mt. Wilson (which
is probably what you are thinking of). Then he brought it back to CWRU and took
still more data. The basement of the physics building at CWRU has special
pillars for the interferometer -- they are isolated from the building and go
down to bedrock. Miller was, of course, the chairman of the physics department
when the building was built.
After writing the paper, I was of course aware that one of the major problems
with Miller's technique was his "adjustments" to the interferometer to keep the
central fringe visible [#]. Basically the drift was too large. When I was at
CWRU (presenting a colloquium on this), Prof. Fickinger and I spent a few hours
in the archives selecting data runs which had no adjustments. We had time to
look at more than half of his >2,000 data sheets. That criteria of course
preferentially selects runs with small drift. To no great surprise, most of
these runs clearly had no "signal" at all. Many of them were simple progressions
like
+1 +1 +1 ... +2 +2 +2 ... +3 +3 +3 ... +4 +4 +4 ...
for all 20 turns. Many had a total drift less than one fringe, and all had
drifts less than 3 fringes.
Miller never mentioned these runs with no signal (probably because they were
only a few percent of his runs [@]). Nor do the people like you who so
desperately want his "signal" to be real. But it isn't.
[#] He would place a small weight on one arm to distort the
instrument and move the central fringe toward the center of his
field of view.
[@] This is more a statement about the (lack of) stability of
his instrument than anything else.
Tom Roberts
Anton Shepelev
Sep 13, 2015, 8:39:52 AM9/13/15
to
Thanks for reply, Tom.
I shall address your comments when time permists,
which is unlikely to happen before the next weekend.
I shall address your comments when time permists,
which is unlikely to happen before the next weekend.
Ned Latham
Sep 13, 2015, 9:01:13 AM9/13/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> I have ignored your webpage,
You've ignored more than that.
>
> I have ignored your webpage,
> as it seems to the the same as your
> article.
----snip----
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
> > have constant mass and variable spin.
>
> The word "photon" is already taken, and means something QUITE different
> from what you have in mind.
the wave packet photon and the quantum object photon are not the
same thing either.
> All that will do is confuse your reader.
entity every time a new hypothesis on its nature is formed.
> I will attempt to keep your UNUSUAL meaning in mind, but that is quite
> difficult.
> It's as if you said "I will use the word 'red' to mean
> the color of the clear sky during the day". It is
> UNREASONABLE to expect a reader to keep that straight.
experience; the nature of subatomic particles is hypothetical.
> > Having mass, they are subject to gravitational attraction.
>
> It's rather remarkable (and rather sad) that you clearly have
> no understanding of electromagnetism and its role in light.
I do not accept the *hypothesis* that light is an electromagnetic
phenomenon.
And I reject at all points your, and others', attempts to use
hypotheses as facts.
> Nor do you have any QUANTITATIVE feel for these forces. This
> makes your attempt to "model" light simply ludicrous.
>
> The gravitational force between two electrons is about 10^-42
> time smaller than the electromagnetic force between them.
is no evidence for any such with photons.
> Gravitation is UTTERLY too small to have any effect on
> light, except on astronomical scales.
> And even then,
> it is INCREDIBLY tiny compared to EM effects.
> Moreover, every measurement of the photon mass has yielded a value
> consistent with zero.
energy is locked up in frequency.
> At present the upper bound on the photon
> mass is 10^-18 eV/c^2 -- that is INCREDIBLY small.
trajectory is, er ... what's the term? ... Oh, yes:
"INCREDIBLY small".
> So while you mean something else by "photon", still the
> carriers of light have at most that INCREDIBLY small mass.
> > Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like behaviours and attributes;
>
> Apparently you heard somewhere that photons have spin,
> and you
> ASSUMED that means they are like "little bullets" that spin as
> they travel.
> THIS IS FLAT-OUT WRONG.
No. It contradicts your assumptions.
> The "spin" of a photon
> (the usual sense) is an inherently quantum effect,
the word "spin", which "is already taken, and means something
QUITE different from what you have in mind".
> and has
> little relationship to an object rotating on an axis.
Wrong. That *is* its "usual meaning".
> little relationship to an object rotating on an axis.
> > Mass
> > Taking Planck's Law
>
> I suppose you mean his E=hf for photons.
> REMEMBER THAT HE MEANT SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT BY THAT
> WORD THAN YOU DO.
> > and the second postulate of the Particle
> > Theory
>
> What is that???
incomplete. The article you originally read was clear that the theory
is presented in *three* articles, not one.
> > together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2),
>
> What do those other symbols mean?
> I'll go out on a limb and suppose your I is some sort of
> moment of inertia, and w is some sort of angular velocity
> (but then why do you ALSO use f???).
> I haven't a clue what you mean by n.
> I suppose h is
> Planck's constant and m is the "photon's" mass.
> You don't seem to realize that the energy of a photon is proportional
> to its frequency.
While it fits such observations as have been made, so does the
particle theory definition that it's proportional to mass, speed,
frequency and moment of inertia.
> NONE of that other stuff is involved.
> This is known
> with an accuracy of a few parts per billion (spectroscopy is one of
> the most accurate and precise measurement techniques). If any of that
> other stuff were involved, we would know it....
speed other than cx.
> > from which the
> > photon's mass will be calculable if:
> > 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength
> > of photons from a source are measured, allowing
> > numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w;
>
> Look at your formula. To compute mass from it you need to know the
> value of EVERY symbol, not just those you mentioned.
> > The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on
> > the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection.
>
> This is just word salad.
> HOW does it "depend" on all that?
the energy of the sling at the moment of release; ie, directly.
> > It follows from that and the principle of determinism
>
> What is that "principle"?
determines their state at any subsequent time.
> How do you know that "determinism" applies?
> -- after all, we observe considerable randomness in essentially all
> process involving light;
failures of prediction feel less threatening.
> it's just that the statistics of extremely
> large numbers mask it for many observations.
>
> Fundamentally, one cannot predict when an excited atom will
> emit a photon while relaxing to a lower-energy state.
> There
> are literally zillions of observations that conclusively show
> that "determinism" simply does not apply at atomic and sub-
> atomic scales....
> > the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular
> > fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the
> > same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any
> > particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always
> > the same.
>
> You are VERY confused about these processes. Mostly they do not emit
> gammas at all; when they do, it is from an excited nucleus cascading
> down to its ground state, and thus is essentially unrelated to the
> fusion or fission.
show where it is that you think I said anything about gamma emissions.
> > Similarly with other types of light emission; eg,
> > electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same
> > cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same
> > set of energy levels[2].
>
> Except, of course, for those that don't. Yes, when a system emits
> a photon while transitioning from one energy state to another,
> the photon is necessarily equal to the energy difference between
> the states, and thus for states with definite energies it always
> has the same energy.
> But for other methods of photon emission
> this simply does not hold: bremsstrahlung, Compton scattering,
> synchrotron radiation, ....
> How do you think an incandescent light emits WHITE light?
> It's because the energy of the emitted photons is NOT
> always the same; the emitted photons have an energy
> distribution that looks white to our eyes. Yes, the
> filament has a definite temperature, but that
> corresponds to an energy DISTRIBUTION.
> > ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
> > light, is relative to the source.
>
> This is KNOWN to be wrong. You are not alone around here in believing
> this, but there are lots of experiments that show that the vacuum
> speed of light is c, INDEPENDENT of the motion of its source.
results, see the article "A Particle Theory". With your eyes open.
> Some experiments involve sources moving 0.9 c relative to the lab,
----snip----
> > Colour Shift
> > Since the speed of light is relative to the source, its speed
> > as apparent to an observer will depend on any relative motion
> > between them. And since such motion can have no effect on the
> > photons' angular velocity, so too will its energy, or colour.
> >
> > If source and observer are approaching each other, the speed
> > as apparent to the observer is increased by delta v, the energy
> > transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon is increased
> > in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength as apparent to
> > the observer is decreased in proportion to delta v. The light
> > undergoes a blue shift.
>
> So you claim the Doppler shift from a source moving relative to the
> observer with speed v would be proportional to v^2.
delta v.
----patronisong idiocy snipped----
> > Absorption, reflection, refraction
> > When light encounters a material substance, the photons are
> > affected individually. Each is subject to gravitational
> > attraction to particles making up the substance;
>
> This is just hopeless. Gravitational force is billions and billions
> of times too small to do this.
> > Those photons that do not collide with particles making up
> > the substance are accelerated into it by gravitational
> > attraction on both entry and exit, producing greater speed
> > within the substance,
>
> This is just plain wrong. Light travels more slowly in a transparent
> material than in vacuum.
it is not an observation.
> And you seem not to realize that some materials are transparent
> to visible light, and some are opaque.
> Yes the "gravitational
< attraction" to the "particles that make up the substance" is
> very similar.
mostly empty space.
> Well, I've had enough. This is not worth any more of my time.
I did have the idea that you might be rational, but you've dispelled
*that* notion very convincingly.
----idiotic peroration snipped----
Ignorant Raving Crackpot
Sep 13, 2015, 12:14:10 PM9/13/15
to
On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 11:14:56 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> Miller's "signal" was statistically insignificant [#]. It is essentially his
> instrument's (thermal ?) drift aliased into the same bin where any signal would
> be, because he used a FLAWED analysis algorithm. It is sinusoidal and LOOKED
> like a signal would look, because of the properties of his noise and the comb
> filter he (inadvertently) applied.
>
> In his day, before Shannon, he could not have known this.
> But today, with modern DSP techniques it is obvious.
> Moreover, back then they did not routinely perform an
> error analysis. Today we do, and the basic error analysis
> of his data shows that the errorbars are MUCH larger than
> the variations in his data -- his "signal" is NOT
> statistically significant [#]. And since he averaged his data
> down to just a few frequency bins (in DSP-speak this is a
> comb filter), the aliased ~ 1/f noise looks like a sinusoid
> with frequency corresponding to the lowest bin (where any
> signal would be).
>
> [#] this is bulletproof, because we know how averaging affects
> the errorbars on the mean.
Since you had access to the original data, perhaps you could confirm
> Miller's "signal" was statistically insignificant [#]. It is essentially his
> instrument's (thermal ?) drift aliased into the same bin where any signal would
> be, because he used a FLAWED analysis algorithm. It is sinusoidal and LOOKED
> like a signal would look, because of the properties of his noise and the comb
> filter he (inadvertently) applied.
>
> In his day, before Shannon, he could not have known this.
> But today, with modern DSP techniques it is obvious.
> Moreover, back then they did not routinely perform an
> error analysis. Today we do, and the basic error analysis
> of his data shows that the errorbars are MUCH larger than
> the variations in his data -- his "signal" is NOT
> statistically significant [#]. And since he averaged his data
> down to just a few frequency bins (in DSP-speak this is a
> comb filter), the aliased ~ 1/f noise looks like a sinusoid
> with frequency corresponding to the lowest bin (where any
> signal would be).
>
> [#] this is bulletproof, because we know how averaging affects
> the errorbars on the mean.
or dispel a suspicion of mine. I *suspect* that many or perhaps even
most of Miller's data runs lasted about 24 hours. It does not seem
humanly possible for Miller to have performed multiple-day runs, and
I am reasonably certain that Miller would not have wanted to piece
together data from shorter periods of data analysis.
If Miller performed harmonic analysis on data collected over a 24 hour
period, he would necessarily have introduced artifactual signals with
a 24 hour periodicity.
Also, I do not believe that he would always have started a run at 0:00
sidereal time and ended it at 23:59 sidereal time, but would have
started and finished at some more humanly reasonable times. So when I
look at figures like Fig 22 or 26 from Miller's 1933 paper, I wonder,
where are the "splice points" where he "looped" the actual beginning
of a data run with the end point of the the same data run?
http://www.anti-relativity.com/Miller1933.pdf
Anton Shepelev
Sep 13, 2015, 1:41:43 PM9/13/15
to
Ignorant Raving Crackpot:
> Since you had access to the original data, perhaps
> you could confirm or dispel a suspicion of mine.
> I *suspect* that many or perhaps even most of
> Miller's data runs lasted about 24 hours.
No, they didn't.
> It does not seem humanly possible for Miller to
> have performed multiple-day runs, ->
It is unnecessary, for one may combine measurements
performed at different times of the day though the
course of several days, so that a 24-hour period can
be covered by three eight-hour sessions or by six
four-hour ones.
> and I am reasonably certain that Miller would not
> have wanted to piece together data from shorter
> periods of data analysis.
The piecing together was performed for each epoch by
plotting single "momentary" observations against
sidereal time:
A "set" of readings which corresponds to a "sin-
gle observation," represented by one point on the
charts of the original observations, usually con-
sists of twenty turns, involving three hundred
and twenty readings, made in about eighteen min-
utes. The time midway between the beginning and
ending of the set of readings is taken as the
time of the observation.
> If Miller performed harmonic analysis on data col-
interferometer was sensitive to the rotation of the
Earth, which contradicts the hypothesis of a lack of
the aether. Whece else could this periodic singal
come, assuming a constant velocity of light with re-
spect to the interferometer?
But anyway, Miller applied harmonic analysis to his
single "observations", containing twenty turns of
the interferometer effected in about eighty minutes
whereof he extracted the magnuitude and the azimuth
of the aether drift at the time of the corresponding
observation. Note that second harmonic is clearly
the strongest one.
> Also, I do not believe that he would always have
> started a run at 0:00 sidereal time and ended it
> at 23:59 sidereal time, but would have started and
> finished at some more humanly reasonable times. So
> when I look at figures like Fig 22 or 26 from
> Miller's 1933 paper, I wonder, where are the
> "splice points" where he "looped" the actual be-
cle:
The procedure adopted in 1925 makes it necessary
to have observations equally distributed over the
twentyfour hours of the day to determine the
curve of diurnal variation. Allowing a few min-
utes for reading thermometers and for making
readjust ments of fringes and also a few minutes
for relaxation, two sets of readings may be made
in each hour through a working day, or night, of
eight hours. The accumulation of a hundred sets
of readings, distributed over the twenty-four
hours of the day will, under favorable weather
conditions, occupy a period of six or eight days.
Such a series of observations is finally reduced
to one group, corresponding to the mean date of
the epoch;
Have not you read it?
> Since you had access to the original data, perhaps
> you could confirm or dispel a suspicion of mine.
> I *suspect* that many or perhaps even most of
> Miller's data runs lasted about 24 hours.
> It does not seem humanly possible for Miller to
It is unnecessary, for one may combine measurements
performed at different times of the day though the
course of several days, so that a 24-hour period can
be covered by three eight-hour sessions or by six
four-hour ones.
> and I am reasonably certain that Miller would not
> have wanted to piece together data from shorter
> periods of data analysis.
plotting single "momentary" observations against
sidereal time:
A "set" of readings which corresponds to a "sin-
gle observation," represented by one point on the
charts of the original observations, usually con-
sists of twenty turns, involving three hundred
and twenty readings, made in about eighteen min-
utes. The time midway between the beginning and
ending of the set of readings is taken as the
time of the observation.
> If Miller performed harmonic analysis on data col-
> lected over a 24 hour period, he would necessarily
> have introduced artifactual signals with a 24 hour
> periodicity.
Why "artifactual"? This signal would mean that the
> have introduced artifactual signals with a 24 hour
> periodicity.
interferometer was sensitive to the rotation of the
Earth, which contradicts the hypothesis of a lack of
the aether. Whece else could this periodic singal
come, assuming a constant velocity of light with re-
spect to the interferometer?
But anyway, Miller applied harmonic analysis to his
single "observations", containing twenty turns of
the interferometer effected in about eighty minutes
whereof he extracted the magnuitude and the azimuth
of the aether drift at the time of the corresponding
observation. Note that second harmonic is clearly
the strongest one.
> Also, I do not believe that he would always have
> started a run at 0:00 sidereal time and ended it
> at 23:59 sidereal time, but would have started and
> finished at some more humanly reasonable times. So
> when I look at figures like Fig 22 or 26 from
> Miller's 1933 paper, I wonder, where are the
> ginning of a data run with the end point of the
> the same data run?
Miller answers your question in the very 1933 arti-
> the same data run?
cle:
The procedure adopted in 1925 makes it necessary
to have observations equally distributed over the
twentyfour hours of the day to determine the
curve of diurnal variation. Allowing a few min-
utes for reading thermometers and for making
readjust ments of fringes and also a few minutes
for relaxation, two sets of readings may be made
in each hour through a working day, or night, of
eight hours. The accumulation of a hundred sets
of readings, distributed over the twenty-four
hours of the day will, under favorable weather
conditions, occupy a period of six or eight days.
Such a series of observations is finally reduced
to one group, corresponding to the mean date of
the epoch;
Have not you read it?
Ignorant Raving Crackpot
Sep 13, 2015, 3:38:38 PM9/13/15
to
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 12:41:43 PM UTC-5, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Miller answers your question in the very 1933 arti-
> cle:
>
> The procedure adopted in 1925 makes it necessary
> to have observations equally distributed over the
> twentyfour hours of the day to determine the
> curve of diurnal variation. Allowing a few min-
> utes for reading thermometers and for making
> readjust ments of fringes and also a few minutes
> for relaxation, two sets of readings may be made
> in each hour through a working day, or night, of
> eight hours. The accumulation of a hundred sets
> of readings, distributed over the twenty-four
> hours of the day will, under favorable weather
> conditions, occupy a period of six or eight days.
> Such a series of observations is finally reduced
> to one group, corresponding to the mean date of
> the epoch;
>
> Have not you read it?
Look at Figure 22.
> Miller answers your question in the very 1933 arti-
> cle:
>
> The procedure adopted in 1925 makes it necessary
> to have observations equally distributed over the
> twentyfour hours of the day to determine the
> curve of diurnal variation. Allowing a few min-
> utes for reading thermometers and for making
> readjust ments of fringes and also a few minutes
> for relaxation, two sets of readings may be made
> in each hour through a working day, or night, of
> eight hours. The accumulation of a hundred sets
> of readings, distributed over the twenty-four
> hours of the day will, under favorable weather
> conditions, occupy a period of six or eight days.
> Such a series of observations is finally reduced
> to one group, corresponding to the mean date of
> the epoch;
>
> Have not you read it?
24 hour graphs of partially reduced data are displayed for mean dates
1926-02-08, 1925-08-01, 1925-04-01, and 1925-09-15.
The assumption was made that the data was periodic with period of one
sidereal day. The accumulated data was combined and graphed under the
assumption that a 24 sidereal hour periodicity existed. Therefore, a
24 sidereal hour periodicity was observed in the combined data, even
though the data consisted of random noise.
Anton Shepelev
Sep 13, 2015, 4:48:27 PM9/13/15
to
Discussing http://www.anti-relativity.com/Miller1933.pdf ,
sulting curves, or how different the curves would be
without it.
> The accumulated data was combined and graphed un-
> der the assumption that a 24 sidereal hour period-
> icity existed.
No. Each point on those graphs corresponds to a
single observation consisting of twenty turns. Its
coordinates are determined solely by the data of the
corresponding observation and are independent on the
a priori 24-hour periodicity or on the data of any
other observation. That the graphs are largely pe-
riodic with the left and right ends having approxi-
mately equal ordinates is the result of the measure-
ment which was *not* assumed in the calculation.
What are your arguments to the contrary?
Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> Look at Figure 22.
>
> 24 hour graphs of partially reduced data are dis-
> Look at Figure 22.
>
> played for mean dates 1926-02-08, 1925-08-01,
> 1925-04-01, and 1925-09-15.
>
> The assumption was made that the data was periodic
> with period of one sidereal day.
How do you think this assumption affected the re-
> 1925-04-01, and 1925-09-15.
>
> The assumption was made that the data was periodic
> with period of one sidereal day.
sulting curves, or how different the curves would be
without it.
> The accumulated data was combined and graphed un-
> der the assumption that a 24 sidereal hour period-
> icity existed.
No. Each point on those graphs corresponds to a
single observation consisting of twenty turns. Its
coordinates are determined solely by the data of the
corresponding observation and are independent on the
a priori 24-hour periodicity or on the data of any
other observation. That the graphs are largely pe-
riodic with the left and right ends having approxi-
mately equal ordinates is the result of the measure-
ment which was *not* assumed in the calculation.
What are your arguments to the contrary?
Tom Roberts
Sep 13, 2015, 5:16:28 PM9/13/15
to
On 9/13/15 9/13/15 11:14 AM, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 11:14:56 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> [...]
> On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 11:14:56 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> Since you had access to the original data, perhaps you could confirm
> or dispel a suspicion of mine. I *suspect* that many or perhaps even
> most of Miller's data runs lasted about 24 hours.
No. Most runs consisted of 20 turns and took about 20 minutes. He started the
> Since you had access to the original data, perhaps you could confirm
> or dispel a suspicion of mine. I *suspect* that many or perhaps even
> most of Miller's data runs lasted about 24 hours.
interferometer rotating by hand, and walked around it with his eye glued to the
telescope while an assistant recorded the numbers he called out at every "click"
(marker) around the circumference (16 of them). Once started (about 1 RPM), it
would keep rotating for more than an hour (several runs). (This is based on his
writings; he did not record when he rotated the instrument, or sped it up; he
also did not record the duration of each run, just its start time -- there are
LOTS of runs that start about 20 minutes apart.)
In his data sheets, marker 1 is recorded at the beginning and end of each turn;
except when he made an adjustment the last value in a row (turn) is the same as
the first value in the next row, as they are the same data point. I believe each
adjustment took an unrecorded turn of the instrument, but it's possible that he
sometimes did it "on the fly" -- his writings are not clear on this point.
> It does not seem
> humanly possible for Miller to have performed multiple-day runs, and
> I am reasonably certain that Miller would not have wanted to piece
> together data from shorter periods of data analysis.
long. The run he displayed in his 1933 paper was taken at 3 am and is by no
means unique in that -- he was REALLY dedicated!
> Also, I do not believe that he would always have started a run at 0:00
> sidereal time and ended it at 23:59 sidereal time, but would have
> started and finished at some more humanly reasonable times. So when I
> look at figures like Fig 22 or 26 from Miller's 1933 paper, I wonder,
> where are the "splice points" where he "looped" the actual beginning
> of a data run with the end point of the the same data run?
~20-minute separation, and also the fact that they are not aligned with sidereal
hours. (They are not aligned with local hours, either.)
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Sep 13, 2015, 5:29:59 PM9/13/15
to
On 9/13/15 9/13/15 2:38 PM, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> The assumption was made that the data was periodic with period of one
> sidereal day. The accumulated data was combined and graphed under the
> assumption that a 24 sidereal hour periodicity existed. Therefore, a
> 24 sidereal hour periodicity was observed in the combined data, even
> though the data consisted of random noise.
Yes. This is known as experimenter's bias, and is a VERY BAD THING. Back in
> The assumption was made that the data was periodic with period of one
> sidereal day. The accumulated data was combined and graphed under the
> assumption that a 24 sidereal hour periodicity existed. Therefore, a
> 24 sidereal hour periodicity was observed in the combined data, even
> though the data consisted of random noise.
Miller's day they did not understand it, and LOTS of experiments back then were
tainted by it.
Note that Miller recorded the sidereal time of each run before he started it --
bias is virtually guaranteed.
Today we would INSIST on a blind measurement protocol, to avoid bias.
Fortunately with a computer-controlled data acquisition system, this is usually
quite easy.
A kiss of death for an experiment: "Well, we kept finding
corrections to make to the data until we got the answer we
expected, then we stopped."
Did you notice in the Higgs discovery papers they talked about "opening the
box"? This is a modern implementation of a blind measurement protocol -- some
test data are taken and the analysis is tuned up on it, with no possibility of
discovering anything; once the analysis cuts are determined (e.g. what
constitutes a "good track", various calibrations, etc.), then "the box is
opened" and the same analysis is applied to the real data. This prevents
"fudging" or "tweaking" the analysis to "find" something.
One of the important discussions early on in the design of a modern experiment
is how to avoid such bias. And how to prove to reviewers and critics that it was
avoided.
Tom Roberts
Gary Harnagel
Sep 13, 2015, 7:41:58 PM9/13/15
to
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 3:29:59 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> One of the important discussions early on in the design of a modern
> experiment is how to avoid such bias.
Hi Tom,
>
> One of the important discussions early on in the design of a modern
> experiment is how to avoid such bias.
Well, it's too late for that for my Cs-137 decay experiment, unless I
start over. I have 10 months of data so far with a couple of hours
when no data was recorded. I see some really strange behavior and need
some way to verify if its real. Most variations are in the three to
five sigma range. If you have any interest in critiquing the experiment,
you can contact me by email.
Gary
Ignorant Raving Crackpot
Sep 14, 2015, 1:07:09 AM9/14/15
to
results of dozens of individual, highly noisy runs taken over multiple
days, assembled together with the assumption that a 24 sidereal hour
periodicity existed. Harmonic analysis therefore inevitably revealed
a 24 sidereal hour periodicity in the cumulative data.
Systematic errors with a 24 solar hour periodicity would not, of
course, be distinguishable from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period.
Miller's contemporaries had plenty of reason to doubt the celestial
origin of the apparent signals in Miller's data. For example,
Thirring noted that the apparent daily variation in the direction of
aether drift, rather than moving "equally to the east and to the
west during a sidereal day", instead pointed "towards the north-west
quadrant of the compass in about ninety-five percent of all
observations. This fact seems to be fatal to the assumption of an
aether drift of constant direction towards a certain point of the
heavens."
Thirring, Hans. "Prof. Miller's Ether Drift Experiments"
Nature 118:81-82 (1926)
Ignorant Raving Crackpot
Sep 14, 2015, 7:16:12 AM9/14/15
to
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 12:07:09 AM UTC-5, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
Accidentally deleted a phrase from my response.
...on the basis of their period differences. Rather, they are
distinguishable by consideration of other factors.
Accidentally deleted a phrase from my response.
I wrote:
"Systematic errors with a 24 solar hour periodicity would not, of
course, be distinguishable from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period."
I accidentally chopped out:
"Systematic errors with a 24 solar hour periodicity would not, of
course, be distinguishable from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period."
...on the basis of their period differences. Rather, they are
distinguishable by consideration of other factors.
Anton Shepelev
Sep 14, 2015, 8:43:52 AM9/14/15
to
Ignorant Raving Crackpot:
> Accidentally deleted a phrase from my response. I
> wrote:
>
> Systematic errors with a 24 solar hour period-
> tion of other factors.
Yes, like the phase, which in case of a true effect
would point to a constant galactic azimuth in all
observations in all seasons, with a small variation
due to the orbital motion, assuming the latter much
slower than the galactic motion.
> Accidentally deleted a phrase from my response. I
> wrote:
>
> icity would not, of course, be distinguishable
> from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period.
>
> I accidentally chopped out:
>
> ...on the basis of their period differences.
> Rather, they are distinguishable by considera-
> from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period.
>
> I accidentally chopped out:
>
> ...on the basis of their period differences.
> tion of other factors.
Yes, like the phase, which in case of a true effect
would point to a constant galactic azimuth in all
observations in all seasons, with a small variation
due to the orbital motion, assuming the latter much
slower than the galactic motion.
Anton Shepelev
Sep 14, 2015, 8:43:52 AM9/14/15
to
Ignorant Raving Crackpot:
> Accidentally deleted a phrase from my response. I
> wrote:
>
> Systematic errors with a 24 solar hour period-
> Accidentally deleted a phrase from my response. I
> wrote:
>
> icity would not, of course, be distinguishable
> from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period.
>
> I accidentally chopped out:
>
> ...on the basis of their period differences.
> from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period.
>
> I accidentally chopped out:
>
> ...on the basis of their period differences.
> Rather, they are distinguishable by considera-
> tion of other factors.
Yes, like the phase, which in case of a true effect
would point to a constant galactic azimuth in all
observations in all seasons, with a small variation
due to the orbital motion, assuming the latter much
slower than the galactic motion.
> tion of other factors.
Yes, like the phase, which in case of a true effect
would point to a constant galactic azimuth in all
observations in all seasons, with a small variation
due to the orbital motion, assuming the latter much
slower than the galactic motion.
Anton Shepelev
Sep 14, 2015, 8:43:52 AM9/14/15
to
Ignorant Raving Crackpot:
> Accidentally deleted a phrase from my response. I
> wrote:
>
> Systematic errors with a 24 solar hour period-
> Accidentally deleted a phrase from my response. I
> wrote:
>
> icity would not, of course, be distinguishable
> from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period.
>
> I accidentally chopped out:
>
> ...on the basis of their period differences.
> from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period.
>
> I accidentally chopped out:
>
> ...on the basis of their period differences.
> Rather, they are distinguishable by considera-
> tion of other factors.
Yes, like the phase, which in case of a true effect
would point to a constant galactic azimuth in all
observations in all seasons, with a small variation
due to the orbital motion, assuming the latter much
slower than the galactic motion.
> tion of other factors.
Yes, like the phase, which in case of a true effect
would point to a constant galactic azimuth in all
observations in all seasons, with a small variation
due to the orbital motion, assuming the latter much
slower than the galactic motion.
Anton Shepelev
Sep 14, 2015, 8:43:53 AM9/14/15
to
Ignorant Raving Crackpot:
> Accidentally deleted a phrase from my response. I
> wrote:
>
> Systematic errors with a 24 solar hour period-
> Accidentally deleted a phrase from my response. I
> wrote:
>
> icity would not, of course, be distinguishable
> from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period.
>
> I accidentally chopped out:
>
> ...on the basis of their period differences.
> from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period.
>
> I accidentally chopped out:
>
> ...on the basis of their period differences.
> Rather, they are distinguishable by considera-
> tion of other factors.
Yes, like the phase, which in case of a true effect
would point to a constant galactic azimuth in all
observations in all seasons, with a small variation
due to the orbital motion, assuming the latter much
slower than the galactic motion.
> tion of other factors.
Yes, like the phase, which in case of a true effect
would point to a constant galactic azimuth in all
observations in all seasons, with a small variation
due to the orbital motion, assuming the latter much
slower than the galactic motion.
Anton Shepelev
Sep 14, 2015, 8:43:53 AM9/14/15
to
Ignorant Raving Crackpot:
> Accidentally deleted a phrase from my response. I
> wrote:
>
> Systematic errors with a 24 solar hour period-
> Accidentally deleted a phrase from my response. I
> wrote:
>
> icity would not, of course, be distinguishable
> from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period.
>
> I accidentally chopped out:
>
> ...on the basis of their period differences.
> from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period.
>
> I accidentally chopped out:
>
> ...on the basis of their period differences.
> Rather, they are distinguishable by considera-
> tion of other factors.
Yes, like the phase, which in case of a true effect
would point to a constant galactic azimuth in all
observations in all seasons, with a small variation
due to the orbital motion, assuming the latter much
slower than the galactic motion.
> tion of other factors.
Yes, like the phase, which in case of a true effect
would point to a constant galactic azimuth in all
observations in all seasons, with a small variation
due to the orbital motion, assuming the latter much
slower than the galactic motion.
al...@interia.pl
Sep 14, 2015, 3:02:00 PM9/14/15
to
W dniu poniedziałek, 14 września 2015 07:07:09 UTC+2 użytkownik Ignorant Raving
> Systematic errors with a 24 solar hour periodicity would not, of
> course, be distinguishable from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period.
It's easily distinguishable... so you are
just another pseudoscientists, babe,
which has nothing to say.
> Miller's contemporaries had plenty of reason to doubt the celestial
> origin of the apparent signals in Miller's data. For example,
> Thirring noted that the apparent daily variation in the direction of
> aether drift, rather than moving "equally to the east and to the
> west during a sidereal day", instead pointed "towards the north-west
> quadrant of the compass in about ninety-five percent of all
> observations. This fact seems to be fatal to the assumption of an
> aether drift of constant direction towards a certain point of the
> heavens."
Bhehehe!
> Systematic errors with a 24 solar hour periodicity would not, of
> course, be distinguishable from a signal of 24 sidereal hour period.
just another pseudoscientists, babe,
which has nothing to say.
> Miller's contemporaries had plenty of reason to doubt the celestial
> origin of the apparent signals in Miller's data. For example,
> Thirring noted that the apparent daily variation in the direction of
> aether drift, rather than moving "equally to the east and to the
> west during a sidereal day", instead pointed "towards the north-west
> quadrant of the compass in about ninety-five percent of all
> observations. This fact seems to be fatal to the assumption of an
> aether drift of constant direction towards a certain point of the
> heavens."
Anton Shepelev
Sep 14, 2015, 3:07:00 PM9/14/15
to
Tom Roberts:
> Note that Miller recorded the sidereal time of
> each run before he started it -- bias is virtually
> guaranteed.
Miller's unawareness of the sidereal time during the
measurements was one of my arguments against his ex-
perimenter's bias. Where is the sidereal time on
the sample page from his journal? Can't he have
added it at a later time, during the calculation?
> Note that Miller recorded the sidereal time of
> each run before he started it -- bias is virtually
> guaranteed.
measurements was one of my arguments against his ex-
perimenter's bias. Where is the sidereal time on
the sample page from his journal? Can't he have
added it at a later time, during the calculation?
Tom Roberts
Sep 14, 2015, 5:16:37 PM9/14/15
to
On 9/14/15 9/14/15 - 2:07 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Tom Roberts:
>> Note that Miller recorded the sidereal time of
>> each run before he started it -- bias is virtually
>> guaranteed.
>
> Miller's unawareness of the sidereal time during the
> measurements was one of my arguments against his ex-
> perimenter's bias.
That's an argument based on incorrect information.
> Tom Roberts:
>> Note that Miller recorded the sidereal time of
>> each run before he started it -- bias is virtually
>> guaranteed.
>
> Miller's unawareness of the sidereal time during the
> measurements was one of my arguments against his ex-
> perimenter's bias.
> Where is the sidereal time on
> the sample page from his journal?
> Can't he have
> added it at a later time, during the calculation?
only looking at his Fig 8 (1933 RMP paper).
Tom Roberts
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Sep 18, 2015, 1:19:00 AM9/18/15
to
Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn to Anton Shepelev:
>> > John Heath:
>> > > Name one person who measured the speed of
>> > > light in a vacuum and found it not to be c.
>> >
>> > Eugene Shtyrkov claims to have done so in his
>> > "Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary
>> > Satellites":
>> >
>> > http://bourabai.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
>> >
>> Have you read this?
>
> I have, though I misdoubt me
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YGCIB.
> that you have read any-thing beyond the introduction, have you?
I have scanned the "paper". That was enough for me to see that it is a
crackpot theory, not worth investing more time into it. The premise is
wrong, and /ex falso quodlibet/.
> [tl;dr]
PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...
(from: WolframAlpha)
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn to Anton Shepelev:
>> > John Heath:
>> > > Name one person who measured the speed of
>> > > light in a vacuum and found it not to be c.
>> >
>> > Eugene Shtyrkov claims to have done so in his
>> > "Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary
>> > Satellites":
>> >
>> > http://bourabai.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
>> >
>> Have you read this?
>
> I have, though I misdoubt me
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YGCIB.
> that you have read any-thing beyond the introduction, have you?
I have scanned the "paper". That was enough for me to see that it is a
crackpot theory, not worth investing more time into it. The premise is
wrong, and /ex falso quodlibet/.
> [tl;dr]
PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...
(from: WolframAlpha)
Tom Roberts
Sep 19, 2015, 2:21:33 PM9/19/15
to
On 9/13/15 9/13/15 8:01 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> I do not accept the *hypothesis* that light is an electromagnetic
> phenomenon.
It's VASTLY stronger than a mere "hypothesis". The behavior of light is
> I do not accept the *hypothesis* that light is an electromagnetic
> phenomenon.
accurately modeled by the models of electrodynamics that we have. This includes
literally zillions of experiments and observations.
It is only your appalling ignorance of experiments that permits you to make such
silly claims.
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Nor do you have any QUANTITATIVE feel for these forces. This
>> makes your attempt to "model" light simply ludicrous.
>> Gravitation is UTTERLY too small to have any effect on
>> light, except on astronomical scales.
>
> That assumption has never been tested.
NONSENSE! The entire mass of the sun is able to deflect a light ray by merely a
>> light, except on astronomical scales.
>
> That assumption has never been tested.
few arc-seconds. Yet you implicitly ASSUME that the gravitation FROM A SINGLE
ATOM is able to deflect light 180 degrees (in a mirror).
Yes the distances are different. Work it out QUANTITATIVELY
and you'll find gravitation is still too weak by an ENORMOUS
factor. Hint: the Newtonian gravitational force on a given
particle from spherical objects of mass M at radius R is
proportional to M/R^2. At grazing incidence (MKS units):
sun: M/R^2 = 4E12 deflection = 1.7 arc-seconds
Al: M/R^2 = 3E3 deflection ~ MUCH smaller [@]
(Of course the ACTUAL electromagnetic nature of the atom
completely negates this estimate.)
[@] Aluminum is representative of common mirrors; value here is
for its nucleus. Other materials are within a factor of 3.
Of course your "theory" also has the problem of how individual "light particles"
scattering from individual atoms in a mirror can conspire to make Snell's law
valid....
Physics has QED, which models this well, but you reject that.
> [...]
There's no point in continuing until you explain one of the the central dogmas
of your "theory":
How does gravitation reflect "light particles" from a mirror?
(Explain it here, don't claim "I already did so" -- if you
did then you can cut-and-paste quite easily. If you reference
some web site, make it specific to a page or two of text. [#])
[#] most discussions like this devolve into "I already explained
that", presumably thinking of some specific place, but nobody
else can find it. So make any references SPECIFIC. Much better
is to copy into your reply.
Tom Roberts
Ned Latham
Sep 20, 2015, 12:44:02 AM9/20/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > I do not accept the *hypothesis* that light is an electromagnetic
> > phenomenon.
>
> It's VASTLY stronger than a mere "hypothesis".
If it's testable, it's theory: if it's not, it's hypothesis.
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > I do not accept the *hypothesis* that light is an electromagnetic
> > phenomenon.
>
> It's VASTLY stronger than a mere "hypothesis".
Tell me of a valid (and definitve, of course) test and I'll
call it "theory".
> The behavior of light
> is accurately modeled by the models of electrodynamics that we have.
It doesn't model the results of extremely lowlight digital
photography.
It doesn't model the results of the low-emission-rate variants
of Young's experiment.
> This includes literally zillions of experiments and observations.
> It is only your appalling ignorance of experiments that permits you
> to make such silly claims.
are set up, and later, interpreted.
If you're objective about it, you'll see the circular reasoning.
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > Nor do you have any QUANTITATIVE feel for these forces. This
> > > makes your attempt to "model" light simply ludicrous.
> > > Gravitation is UTTERLY too small to have any effect on
> > > light, except on astronomical scales.
> >
> > That assumption has never been tested.
>
> NONSENSE! The entire mass of the sun is able to deflect a light
> ray by merely a few arc-seconds.
Do keep in mind that a photon has somewhat less mass than the sun.
Just a teeny bit.
It might seem insignificant to you, but given that the force is
proportional to the multiple of the two masses, I suggest that
you reconsider.
> Yet you implicitly ASSUME that
> the gravitation FROM A SINGLE ATOM is able to deflect light 180
> degrees (in a mirror).
----snip----
> Of course your "theory" also has the problem of how individual
> "light particles" scattering from individual atoms in a mirror
> can conspire to make Snell's law valid....
of light in refractive media (*any* so-called "refractive
medium" other than air) has never been measured. It is
assumed, as a *consequence* of Snell's Law. Using that to
assert the validity of Snell's Law is circular reasoning.
You are routinely guilty of that particular flaw.
In fact, given QED, air, glass, water, etc aren't light-propagating
media at all. So Snell's Law is nothing but a rather useless
mathematical exercise.
----plug for QED snipped---
> There's no point in continuing until you explain one of the the
> central dogmas of your "theory":
an ass?
> How does gravitation reflect "light particles" from a mirror?
Maybe it's a consequence of the arrangement of the atoms in the
mirror.
Maybe it's a consequence of a resonance between the movements of
the photons and the movements of the particles in the mirror.
Maybe if you lot knuckled down and did some real research instead
of jerking off over particle colliders and fudging the results,
we'd have some information to answer more questions than we can
at present.
----prejudicial bullshit about possible responses snipped----
Gary Harnagel
Sep 20, 2015, 7:34:55 AM9/20/15
to
On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 10:44:02 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> > How does gravitation reflect "light particles" from a mirror?
>
> Maybe it doesn't. Maybe collision does. Ever heard of collision?
>
> Maybe it's a consequence of the arrangement of the atoms in the
> mirror.
>
> Maybe it's a consequence of a resonance between the movements of
> the photons and the movements of the particles in the mirror.
>
> Maybe if you lot knuckled down and did some real research instead
> of jerking off over particle colliders and fudging the results,
> we'd have some information to answer more questions than we can
> at present.
Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe followed by crank bullshit. You definitely are
the ass.
> ----prejudicial bullshit about possible responses snipped----
And you have a hermetically-sealed mind.
>
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> > There's no point in continuing until you explain one of the the
> > central dogmas of your "theory":
>
> Do you honestly expect to be treated civilly while behaving like
> an ass?
YOU seem to be the one behaving like an ass, hypocrite.
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> > There's no point in continuing until you explain one of the the
> > central dogmas of your "theory":
>
> Do you honestly expect to be treated civilly while behaving like
> an ass?
> > How does gravitation reflect "light particles" from a mirror?
>
> Maybe it doesn't. Maybe collision does. Ever heard of collision?
>
> Maybe it's a consequence of the arrangement of the atoms in the
> mirror.
>
> Maybe it's a consequence of a resonance between the movements of
> the photons and the movements of the particles in the mirror.
>
> Maybe if you lot knuckled down and did some real research instead
> of jerking off over particle colliders and fudging the results,
> we'd have some information to answer more questions than we can
> at present.
the ass.
> ----prejudicial bullshit about possible responses snipped----
Tom Roberts
Sep 20, 2015, 1:37:17 PM9/20/15
to
On 9/6/15 9/6/15 6:54 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Eugene Shtyrkov claims to have done so in his "Ether
> Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites":
> http://bourabai.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
I finally had time to read this paper. In short: he did NOT "find the ether".
> Eugene Shtyrkov claims to have done so in his "Ether
> Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites":
> http://bourabai.kz/shtyrkov/shtyrkov.pdf
He makes a big deal of the fact that the angle of aberration is the same FOR ALL
STARS, independent of their individual velocities relative to the sun (which is
correct). He then makes the unwarranted leap that this same aberration also
applies to the signal from a geostationary satellite, WHICH IS WRONG.
He forgot to ask: what is the aberration for a source at rest in the lab? -- the
answer, of course, is ZERO. Here the geostationary satellite is essentially at
rest in the lab, because the rotation of satellite+earth is negligible for the
fraction of a second it takes for the signal to go from source (satellite) to
detector (on earth's surface).
Yes, he found an "ether velocity" equal to the earth's orbital velocity, and
pointed in the opposite direction of its motion wrt the sun. Because he
"corrected" for a NON-EXISTENT aberration. Fix that mistake and his "answer" is
zero -- no "ether drift" at all.
So he basically made the unsurprising "discovery" that a geostationary satellite
is not moving relative to the surface of the earth!
And like most amateurs who don't understand the REAL issues,
He compared to the "positive results" of measurements by
Miller, Michelson, etc. Clearly he is unaware that their
measurements were insignificant (writing in 2005 he can be
excused for that, but it does negate his claim).
Tom Roberts
al...@interia.pl
Sep 20, 2015, 1:39:16 PM9/20/15
to
W dniu sobota, 19 września 2015 20:21:33 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> NONSENSE! The entire mass of the sun is able to deflect a light ray by merely a
> few arc-seconds. Yet you implicitly ASSUME that the gravitation FROM A SINGLE
> ATOM is able to deflect light 180 degrees (in a mirror).
Indeed.
> NONSENSE! The entire mass of the sun is able to deflect a light ray by merely a
> few arc-seconds. Yet you implicitly ASSUME that the gravitation FROM A SINGLE
> ATOM is able to deflect light 180 degrees (in a mirror).
Just the electric field alone can deflects the light.
A simply numerical test:
campare the electric field od the Sun with an atom - proton!
And you just get the correct result!
BTW. The deflection of light is proportional to distance too,
not to the force alone, thus you get:
df ~ M/r, exactyly what is observed,
never any force-dependent your idiocy: M/r^2, babe!
simply: m/r^2 x r = m/r, because an effective force x path of light
is here just r again, so it is just energy... E ~ Fs;
Ned Latham
Sep 20, 2015, 4:25:30 PM9/20/15
to
Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > There's no point in continuing until you explain one of the the
> > > central dogmas of your "theory":
> >
> > Do you honestly expect to be treated civilly while behaving like
> > an ass?
>
> YOU seem to be the one behaving like an ass, hypocrite.
Wrong again, retard. I wouldn't behave like you in a fit.
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > There's no point in continuing until you explain one of the the
> > > central dogmas of your "theory":
> >
> > Do you honestly expect to be treated civilly while behaving like
> > an ass?
>
> YOU seem to be the one behaving like an ass, hypocrite.
> > > How does gravitation reflect "light particles" from a mirror?
> >
> > Maybe it doesn't. Maybe collision does. Ever heard of collision?
> >
> > Maybe it's a consequence of the arrangement of the atoms in the
> > mirror.
> >
> > Maybe it's a consequence of a resonance between the movements of
> > the photons and the movements of the particles in the mirror.
> >
> > Maybe if you lot knuckled down and did some real research instead
> > of jerking off over particle colliders and fudging the results,
> > we'd have some information to answer more questions than we can
> > at present.
>
> Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe followed by crank bullshit.
> You definitely are the ass.
> > ----prejudicial bullshit about possible responses snipped----
>
> And you have a hermetically-sealed mind.
Look at what it did to you.
al...@interia.pl
Sep 20, 2015, 5:09:12 PM9/20/15
to
W dniu niedziela, 20 września 2015 19:37:17 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> He then makes the unwarranted leap that this same aberration also
> applies to the signal from a geostationary satellite, WHICH IS WRONG.
It's prety correct, babe.
> He then makes the unwarranted leap that this same aberration also
> applies to the signal from a geostationary satellite, WHICH IS WRONG.
Just there is always a compound of two simple effects,
not the aberration alone only:
angular deflection of an observed image = aberration of light + a time delay,
due to the c < inf.
And only because that simple fact, you never observe
a shift of image in a local conditions:
Your dick-------> v
|
| light signals
|
You ------------> v
and thus the deflection = 0, so you can assume
the idiocy called populary as 'a relativity principle'.
> Yes, he found an "ether velocity" equal to the earth's orbital velocity, and
> pointed in the opposite direction of its motion wrt the sun. Because he
> "corrected" for a NON-EXISTENT aberration. Fix that mistake and his "answer" is
> zero -- no "ether drift" at all.
>
> So he basically made the unsurprising "discovery" that a geostationary satellite
> is not moving relative to the surface of the earth!
>
> And like most amateurs who don't understand the REAL issues,
> He compared to the "positive results" of measurements by
> Miller, Michelson, etc. Clearly he is unaware that their
> measurements were insignificant (writing in 2005 he can be
> excused for that, but it does negate his claim).
>
>
> Tom Roberts
500 km/s of the 'ether drift'.
Tom Roberts
Sep 20, 2015, 6:34:49 PM9/20/15
to
On 9/20/15 9/20/15 4:09 PM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> [... much nonsense]
> Michelson, Miller and any other in this story found just this:
> 500 km/s of the 'ether drift'.
A simple examination of their papers shows this to be completely incorrect.
Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
Tom Roberts
> [... much nonsense]
> Michelson, Miller and any other in this story found just this:
> 500 km/s of the 'ether drift'.
Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Sep 21, 2015, 1:02:17 PM9/21/15
to
On 9/19/15 9/19/15 - 11:44 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> I do not accept the *hypothesis* that light is an electromagnetic
>>> phenomenon.
>> It's VASTLY stronger than a mere "hypothesis".
>
> If it's testable, it's theory: if it's not, it's hypothesis.
Current theories of electrodynamics are indeed testable and have been tested,
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> I do not accept the *hypothesis* that light is an electromagnetic
>>> phenomenon.
>> It's VASTLY stronger than a mere "hypothesis".
>
> If it's testable, it's theory: if it's not, it's hypothesis.
zillions of times. Including with visible light.
By your own standard, of course, you don't have a theory. (As you admit below,
your notions cannot model light reflecting from a mirror.)
> Tell me of a valid (and definitve, of course) test and I'll
> call it "theory".
model light accurately.
A "definitive test" for which classical electrodynamics is sufficient: the
emission of EM waves from an antenna energized by electromagnetic currents -- we
call this "radio". The EM spectrum extends seamlessly in frequency from radio
through visible light and beyond.
A "definitive test" for which QED is required: the emission of synchrotron
radiation from fast-moving electrons; this has been observed zillions of times
in the infrared, visible, and ultraviolet regions, as well as other portions of
the EM spectrum (millimeter wave, X-Ray, ...) -- indeed large facilities
dedicated to USING such light are now common.
Like "photon", you use a rather unusual meaning for the
word "theory". Using standard usage, the notion "light is an
electromagnetic phenomenon" is not a theory at all; classical
electrodynamics and QED are theories. Your set of vague notions
and "maybes" (see below) is also not a theory.
It's rather sad that you spent the time and effort to formulate "a particle
model of light" without bothering to educate yourself on the important
experiments. That's just a colossal waste of time and effort.
> [... much nonsense and ignorance displayed]
>> Of course your "theory" also has the problem of how individual
>> "light particles" scattering from individual atoms in a mirror
>> can conspire to make Snell's law valid....
>
> Snell's Law is an example of your flawed reasoning: the speed
> of light in refractive media (*any* so-called "refractive
> medium" other than air) has never been measured. It is
> assumed, as a *consequence* of Snell's Law. Using that to
> assert the validity of Snell's Law is circular reasoning.
"Not very good at reading, are you?"
This merely an example of your appalling ignorance: the speed of light in
optical fibers is well known, easily measured, and is generally 0.8 - 0.9 c
(depends in detail on the composition of the fiber and the wavelength of the light).
That is just one instance; lots of other measurements of
the speed of light in optical media have been made. Just
look in the CRC handbook for page after page of lists
-- thousands of measurements in different materials.
And, of course, that is not why Snell's law is considered to be valid. It is
considered to be valid because of the ZILLIONS of measurements that confirm it.
And the lack of any that refute it. Of course I mean BOTH of Snell's laws.
You REALLY need to learn what science actually is. Your
GUESSES are wrong.
> In fact, given QED, air, glass, water, etc aren't light-propagating
> media at all. So Snell's Law is nothing but a rather useless
> mathematical exercise.
Hmmmm, that includes just about everything about light,
doesn't it?
>> How does gravitation reflect "light particles" from a mirror?
>
> Maybe it doesn't. Maybe collision does. Ever heard of collision?
> Maybe it's a consequence of the arrangement of the atoms in the
> mirror.
> Maybe it's a consequence of a resonance between the movements of
> the photons and the movements of the particles in the mirror.
So all you have is some vague notions and a bunch of "maybes". That's not a
theory in any sense of the word, including your own (quoted above).
Tom Roberts
Jimmie Wynne
Sep 21, 2015, 1:37:25 PM9/21/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> A "definitive test" for which classical electrodynamics is sufficient:
> the emission of EM waves from an antenna energized by electromagnetic
> currents -- we call this "radio".
You just broke my bullshit-meter. "Electromagnetic currents"!! You mean
> A "definitive test" for which classical electrodynamics is sufficient:
> the emission of EM waves from an antenna energized by electromagnetic
> currents -- we call this "radio".
Electromagnetic Fields, not currents.
> The EM spectrum extends seamlessly in
> frequency from radio through visible light and beyond.
instance coming from celestial bodies.
Tom Roberts
Sep 21, 2015, 11:17:19 PM9/21/15
to
On 9/21/15 9/21/15 12:02 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/19/15 9/19/15 - 11:44 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
>> [...]
> On 9/19/15 9/19/15 - 11:44 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
>> Snell's Law is an example of your flawed reasoning: the speed
>> of light in refractive media (*any* so-called "refractive
>> medium" other than air) has never been measured. It is
>> assumed, as a *consequence* of Snell's Law. Using that to
>> assert the validity of Snell's Law is circular reasoning.
>
> I was discussing Snell's law FOR A MIRROR.
> "Not very good at reading, are you?"
>
> This merely an example of your appalling ignorance: the speed of light in
> optical fibers is well known, easily measured, and is generally 0.8 - 0.9 c
> (depends in detail on the composition of the fiber and the wavelength of the
> light).
>
> That is just one instance; lots of other measurements of
> the speed of light in optical media have been made. Just
> look in the CRC handbook for page after page of lists
> -- thousands of measurements in different materials.
>
> And, of course, that is not why Snell's law is considered to be valid. It is
> considered to be valid because of the ZILLIONS of measurements that confirm it.
> And the lack of any that refute it. Of course I mean BOTH of Snell's laws.
I just realized this could be misconstrued, due to mis-editing on my part. My
>> of light in refractive media (*any* so-called "refractive
>> medium" other than air) has never been measured. It is
>> assumed, as a *consequence* of Snell's Law. Using that to
>> assert the validity of Snell's Law is circular reasoning.
>
> I was discussing Snell's law FOR A MIRROR.
> "Not very good at reading, are you?"
>
> This merely an example of your appalling ignorance: the speed of light in
> optical fibers is well known, easily measured, and is generally 0.8 - 0.9 c
> (depends in detail on the composition of the fiber and the wavelength of the
> light).
>
> That is just one instance; lots of other measurements of
> the speed of light in optical media have been made. Just
> look in the CRC handbook for page after page of lists
> -- thousands of measurements in different materials.
>
> And, of course, that is not why Snell's law is considered to be valid. It is
> considered to be valid because of the ZILLIONS of measurements that confirm it.
> And the lack of any that refute it. Of course I mean BOTH of Snell's laws.
"that" in the last paragraph is referring to Ned Latham's silly claim about
"circular reasoning"; it does not refer to my text in between.
Tom Roberts
Ned Latham
Sep 22, 2015, 9:18:33 AM9/22/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> > "Not very good at reading, are you?"
Try getting the reference right before you go smartarse on me, Mr
Roberts.
> > This merely an example of your appalling ignorance: the speed of
> > light in optical fibers is well known, easily measured, and is
> > generally 0.8 - 0.9 c (depends in detail on the composition of
> > the fiber and the wavelength of the light).
Those measurements are not of the speed of light: they are measurements
of its *apparent* speed over a journey that includes unknown numbers of
reflections.
I missed your post previous to this one I'm respomding to: not that it
matters, I suppose: the "reasoning" you depend on is flawed; backwards,
sideways, and every which way. All in all, it's not worth bothering with,
and I'm not going to bother myself with pointing out in detail the
individual flaws in each and every one of the supposed confirmations
of current theory and contradictions of particle theory that you deploy.
If I respond at all to your nonsense in future, I'll do what you do:
cherrypick.
----snip----
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Snell's Law is an example of your flawed reasoning: the speed
> > > of light in refractive media (*any* so-called "refractive
> > > medium" other than air) has never been measured. It is
> > > assumed, as a *consequence* of Snell's Law. Using that to
> > > assert the validity of Snell's Law is circular reasoning.
> >
> > I was discussing Snell's law FOR A MIRROR.
Irrelevant. This is about Snell's Law in general.
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Snell's Law is an example of your flawed reasoning: the speed
> > > of light in refractive media (*any* so-called "refractive
> > > medium" other than air) has never been measured. It is
> > > assumed, as a *consequence* of Snell's Law. Using that to
> > > assert the validity of Snell's Law is circular reasoning.
> >
> > I was discussing Snell's law FOR A MIRROR.
> > "Not very good at reading, are you?"
Roberts.
> > This merely an example of your appalling ignorance: the speed of
> > light in optical fibers is well known, easily measured, and is
> > generally 0.8 - 0.9 c (depends in detail on the composition of
> > the fiber and the wavelength of the light).
of its *apparent* speed over a journey that includes unknown numbers of
reflections.
I missed your post previous to this one I'm respomding to: not that it
matters, I suppose: the "reasoning" you depend on is flawed; backwards,
sideways, and every which way. All in all, it's not worth bothering with,
and I'm not going to bother myself with pointing out in detail the
individual flaws in each and every one of the supposed confirmations
of current theory and contradictions of particle theory that you deploy.
If I respond at all to your nonsense in future, I'll do what you do:
cherrypick.
----snip----
al...@interia.pl
Sep 22, 2015, 9:40:23 AM9/22/15
to
The reason is very simple:
I can calculate effectively a few things,
what is in a drastic opposition to all of the so-called
standardised naked imbeciles, in which you believe unconditionally.
A one simple example - an improved Michelson type experiment,
which gives the 1-st order result: v/c, instead of the second: (v/c)^2,
ie. milion of times better!
Simply: the phases difference in the standard MM should be (according to the Michelson... and to many other orangutans):
df = (v/c)^2, yes?
But in the improved version the difference is just:
df = v/c (n1^2 - n2^2);
what means millions times better visibility in a practical realisation!
n1 and n2 are refractive indices of the used media:
n1 for forth, and in backward path we use just n2, means an other media,
not the same for the both directions.
...
The result is:
v =~ 500 km/s, with a nice sidereal cycle...
Ned Latham
Sep 22, 2015, 10:07:56 AM9/22/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I do not accept the *hypothesis* that light is an electromagnetic
> > > > phenomenon.
> > >
> > > It's VASTLY stronger than a mere "hypothesis".
> >
> > If it's testable, it's theory: if it's not, it's hypothesis.
>
> Current theories of electrodynamics are indeed testable and have
> been tested,
Oh, dear. I should have specified: VALID tests.
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I do not accept the *hypothesis* that light is an electromagnetic
> > > > phenomenon.
> > >
> > > It's VASTLY stronger than a mere "hypothesis".
> >
> > If it's testable, it's theory: if it's not, it's hypothesis.
>
> Current theories of electrodynamics are indeed testable and have
> been tested,
> zillions of times. Including with visible light.
> By your own standard, of course, you don't have a theory.
reasoning: That a model doesn't yet explain something in exhaustive
detail isn't evidence that it never will, and isn't evidence that
the theory underlying the model is untestable.
And had you bothered to read with any attention at all the
article "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research",
you'd know for a fact that particle theory's testable, and how
to test it.
That raises a question: were you lying with the claim to have
read mu work? Or were you just posturinhg in a attemot to
score some sort of cheap point?
> (As you admit below, your notions cannot model light
> reflecting from a mirror.)
> > Tell me of a valid (and definitve, of course) test and I'll
> > call it "theory".
>
> Look in any textbook on electrodynamics. Our current theories
> of electrodynamics model light accurately.
The photovoltaic effect is not explained; the low-emission-rate
variants of Young's experiment are not explained; the results of
extremely low-light digital photography are not explaqined ...
If you bother to conduct the experiments outlined in the article
named above, you won't have QED explasnations for those results,
either.
But of course, you won't do those tests, will you?
----snop----
> > > Of course your "theory" also has the problem of how individual
> > > "light particles" scattering from individual atoms in a mirror
> > > can conspire to make Snell's law valid....
----oh well----
> > > How does gravitation reflect "light particles" from a mirror?
> >
> > Maybe it doesn't. Maybe collision does. Ever heard of collision?
> > Maybe it's a consequence of the arrangement of the atoms in the
> > mirror.
> >
> > Maybe it's a consequence of a resonance between the movements of
> > the photons and the movements of the particles in the mirror.
> >
> > Maybe [...]
> >
> * Maybe if you lot knuckled down and did some real research instead
> * of jerking off over particle colliders and fudging the results,
> * we'd have some information to answer more questions than we can
< * at present.
>
> So all you have is
The results of pre-1840 scientifc enquiry, and since then almost
> So all you have is
nothing, because physics went, in the 1840's, from science to
wishful thinking and dogma.
The 20th century did give us digital photography and the
low-emission-rate and large-particle versions of Young's
experiment, but that's about it. You've wasted over 150
years on your la-la delusions.
> some vague notions
A photon is a particle with constant mass and angular and linear
velocities varying upward from zero.
Vague? Maybe you should enrol in Remedial English.
> and a bunch of "maybes".
be known as "fact".
> That's not a theory in any sense of the word,
> including your
> own (quoted above).
Jimmie Wynne
Sep 22, 2015, 11:45:19 AM9/22/15
to
Errorbar, will suffice and conclude the theory. Any other theory,
explaining the same by other means, it requires sigma-5 certainty.
Let me see your Errorbars in "The stars behind the Sun" story. LOL
al...@interia.pl
Sep 22, 2015, 12:15:44 PM9/22/15
to
W dniu wtorek, 22 września 2015 17:45:19 UTC+2 użytkownik Jimmie Wynne napisał:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > On 9/20/15 9/20/15 4:09 PM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> >> [... much nonsense]
> >
> >> Michelson, Miller and any other in this story found just this:
> >> 500 km/s of the 'ether drift'.
> >
> > A simple examination of their papers shows this to be completely
> > incorrect. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
>
> If it were to be Relativity, then even an allusion, far away from any
> Errorbar, will suffice and conclude the theory. Any other theory,
> explaining the same by other means, it requires sigma-5 certainty.
Don't get so insane, stupid babe.
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > On 9/20/15 9/20/15 4:09 PM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> >> [... much nonsense]
> >
> >> Michelson, Miller and any other in this story found just this:
> >> 500 km/s of the 'ether drift'.
> >
> > A simple examination of their papers shows this to be completely
> > incorrect. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
>
> If it were to be Relativity, then even an allusion, far away from any
> Errorbar, will suffice and conclude the theory. Any other theory,
> explaining the same by other means, it requires sigma-5 certainty.
After all You never used any statistics
in the relativity... maybe a pseudostatistics only.
ie. something like that:
<a> = 0, because the measured <a^2> >= <a>; :)
Jimmie Wynne
Sep 22, 2015, 12:19:37 PM9/22/15
to
understand due to my limitations.
Jimmie Wynne
Sep 22, 2015, 12:25:08 PM9/22/15
to
alsor wrote:
>> If it were to be Relativity, then even an allusion, far away from any
>> Errorbar, will suffice and conclude the theory. Any other theory,
>> explaining the same by other means, it requires sigma-5 certainty.
>
> Don't get so insane, stupid babe.
> After all You never used any statistics in the relativity... maybe a
> pseudostatistics only. ie. something like that:
> <a> = 0, because the measured <a^2> >= <a>;
In which case would be correct. The "Stars behind the Sun" story was
>> If it were to be Relativity, then even an allusion, far away from any
>> Errorbar, will suffice and conclude the theory. Any other theory,
>> explaining the same by other means, it requires sigma-5 certainty.
>
> Don't get so insane, stupid babe.
> After all You never used any statistics in the relativity... maybe a
> pseudostatistics only. ie. something like that:
> <a> = 0, because the measured <a^2> >= <a>;
merely a mathematical expectation, no errorbars performed. Remember that a
"Mathematical expectation, also known as the expected value, is the
summation or integration of a possible values from a random variable. It
is also known as the product of the probability of an event occurring,
denoted P(x), and the value corresponding with the actual observed
occurrence of the event."
Jimmie Wynne
Sep 22, 2015, 12:28:04 PM9/22/15
to
al...@interia.pl
Sep 22, 2015, 1:27:18 PM9/22/15
to
where the errors, in the air conditions, are just commparable to the measured quantity.
formally:
mean <= sigma
thus the orangutans science deduced directly from this:
mean = 0;
Ask the orangutan named here: 137, about more details in the subiect...
he is an expert in such pseudostatistics.
The deflection of light is nominal: 100% for any wave...
the 50% is only for pseudonewtonian model,
ie. for orangutans, which avoid the math -
they use still the so-called interpretational methodology instead. :)
Tom Roberts
Sep 22, 2015, 8:14:23 PM9/22/15
to
On 9/22/15 9/22/15 8:40 AM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 21 września 2015 00:34:49 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137
> napisał:
>> On 9/20/15 9/20/15 4:09 PM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>>> [... much nonsense]
>>> Michelson, Miller and any other in this story found just this: 500 km/s
>>> of the 'ether drift'.
>>
>> A simple examination of their papers shows this to be completely
>> incorrect.
>>
>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
>
> Why? The reason is very simple: [...]
> W dniu poniedziałek, 21 września 2015 00:34:49 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137
> napisał:
>> On 9/20/15 9/20/15 4:09 PM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>>> [... much nonsense]
>>> Michelson, Miller and any other in this story found just this: 500 km/s
>>> of the 'ether drift'.
>>
>> A simple examination of their papers shows this to be completely
>> incorrect.
>>
>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
>
You give no reason at all, and discuss something completely unrelated.
I repeat: Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
> [apparently a description of an experiment using a round-trip
> light beam in media with two different indices of refraction]
> The result is: v =~ 500 km/s, with a nice sidereal cycle...
Again: Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
I KNOW you just made that up, because such an experiment has been done:
Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of
propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.
A “one-way” test that is bidirectional with the outgoing ray in glass and the
return ray in air. The interferometer is by design particularly robust against
mechanical perturbations, and temperature controlled. The limit on the
anisotropy of c is 0.13 m/s.
Tom Roberts
al...@interia.pl
Sep 23, 2015, 12:17:29 PM9/23/15
to
W dniu środa, 23 września 2015 02:14:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> I repeat: Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
Simply: I just don't use improvisations, interpretations, act.
> I repeat: Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
but only the strongest, because explicite,
thus reasonable, indestructible the pure math.
What is in opposition to the Your pseudotheries;
btw. not accidentally called: non-classical theories,
because these are based mainly on improvisations,
believes, primitive math tricks, ect.
Thus there is nothing sure, strong, correct in such pseudoscience.
> > [apparently a description of an experiment using a round-trip
> > light beam in media with two different indices of refraction]
> > The result is: v =~ 500 km/s, with a nice sidereal cycle...
>
> Again: Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
> I KNOW you just made that up, because such an experiment has been done:
> Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of
> propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.
>
> A “one-way” test that is bidirectional with the outgoing ray in glass and the
> return ray in air. The interferometer is by design particularly robust against
> mechanical perturbations, and temperature controlled. The limit on the
> anisotropy of c is 0.13 m/s.
c'(f) = k(c-vcosf(f));
thus if you assume - normalise this to the c, then you just discovery the SR,
because for c = unit = inv,
you must to transforma a time: t' = ...,
due to the:
r' = c't, what in c = inv is eq. ct',
because it must be still preserved,
so, it's just named as an SR.. it's a sketch, trick only..
a stupid conventionalism, nothing more.
And more:
even when you write explicitly: c = 1
don't means in the SR that c = const...
What this means... in an operational sense?
Just that you use the light speed as an unit of a speed,
nothing more... but the unit can still change!
Tom Roberts
Sep 24, 2015, 10:39:36 AM9/24/15
to
On 9/23/15 9/23/15 - 11:17 AM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 23 września 2015 02:14:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
>> I repeat: Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
>
> Simply: I just don't use improvisations, interpretations, act.
Apparently you are pathologically unable to answer simple questions.
> W dniu środa, 23 września 2015 02:14:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
>> I repeat: Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
>
> Simply: I just don't use improvisations, interpretations, act.
There's no point in continuing, because discussion simply is not possible with
someone who just makes stuff up and pretends it is true. Goodbye.
Tom Roberts
Maciej Woźniak
Sep 24, 2015, 11:38:24 AM9/24/15
to
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:E8qdnenVptq4lpnL...@giganews.com...
On 9/23/15 9/23/15 - 11:17 AM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 23 września 2015 02:14:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
>> I repeat: Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
>
> Simply: I just don't use improvisations, interpretations, act.
|Apparently you are pathologically unable to answer simple questions.
|There's no point in continuing, because discussion simply is not possible
with
|someone who just makes stuff up and pretends it is true. Goodbye.
al...@interia.pl
Sep 24, 2015, 1:54:45 PM9/24/15
to
After all You don't understand the smplest algebra,
and the standard statistics is just a magics for you.
For example - a simple test of your competence:
compute the MM type setup, but for any refractive media:
n <> 1, ie. for non-vacuum conditions.
JanPB
Sep 24, 2015, 2:36:16 PM9/24/15
to
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 10:54:45 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 24 września 2015 16:39:36 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > On 9/23/15 9/23/15 - 11:17 AM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu środa, 23 września 2015 02:14:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > >> I repeat: Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
> > >
> > > Simply: I just don't use improvisations, interpretations, act.
> >
> > Apparently you are pathologically unable to answer simple questions.
> >
> > There's no point in continuing, because discussion simply is not possible with
> > someone who just makes stuff up and pretends it is true. Goodbye.
>
> You are to young, to stupid, to ask me for... anything.
>
> After all You don't understand the smplest algebra,
> and the standard statistics is just a magics for you.
...said an ant to the dragon, hahaha!
> W dniu czwartek, 24 września 2015 16:39:36 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > On 9/23/15 9/23/15 - 11:17 AM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu środa, 23 września 2015 02:14:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > >> I repeat: Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
> > >
> > > Simply: I just don't use improvisations, interpretations, act.
> >
> > Apparently you are pathologically unable to answer simple questions.
> >
> > There's no point in continuing, because discussion simply is not possible with
> > someone who just makes stuff up and pretends it is true. Goodbye.
>
> You are to young, to stupid, to ask me for... anything.
>
> After all You don't understand the smplest algebra,
> and the standard statistics is just a magics for you.
Priceless.
--
Jan
al...@interia.pl
Sep 24, 2015, 2:54:59 PM9/24/15
to
some debils are called dragons. :)
Tom Roberts
Sep 25, 2015, 12:55:01 AM9/25/15
to
On 9/13/15 9/13/15 6:41 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 3:29:59 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>>
>> One of the important discussions early on in the design of a modern
>> experiment is how to avoid such bias.
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Well, it's too late for that for my Cs-137 decay experiment, unless I
> start over. I have 10 months of data so far with a couple of hours
> when no data was recorded. I see some really strange behavior and need
> some way to verify if its real. Most variations are in the three to
> five sigma range. If you have any interest in critiquing the experiment,
> you can contact me by email.
On 9/15 I sent you such an email, but have not heard back from you. Please check
your yahoo.com email address.
Tom Roberts
> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 3:29:59 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>>
>> One of the important discussions early on in the design of a modern
>> experiment is how to avoid such bias.
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Well, it's too late for that for my Cs-137 decay experiment, unless I
> start over. I have 10 months of data so far with a couple of hours
> when no data was recorded. I see some really strange behavior and need
> some way to verify if its real. Most variations are in the three to
> five sigma range. If you have any interest in critiquing the experiment,
> you can contact me by email.
On 9/15 I sent you such an email, but have not heard back from you. Please check
your yahoo.com email address.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Sep 26, 2015, 10:06:26 AM9/26/15
to
On 9/22/15 9/22/15 9:07 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>> I do not accept the *hypothesis* that light is an electromagnetic
>>>>> phenomenon.
>>>> It's VASTLY stronger than a mere "hypothesis".
>>> If it's testable, it's theory: if it's not, it's hypothesis.
>>
>> Current theories of electrodynamics are indeed testable and have
>> been tested,
>
> Oh, dear. I should have specified: VALID tests.
Oh, dear, another arrogant fool who thinks all physicists are stupid. You just
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>> I do not accept the *hypothesis* that light is an electromagnetic
>>>>> phenomenon.
>>>> It's VASTLY stronger than a mere "hypothesis".
>>> If it's testable, it's theory: if it's not, it's hypothesis.
>>
>> Current theories of electrodynamics are indeed testable and have
>> been tested,
>
> Oh, dear. I should have specified: VALID tests.
don't have a clue about how physicists ACTUALLY behave.
>> zillions of times. Including with visible light.
>
> "Zillions"? Again?
>> By your own standard, of course, you don't have a theory.
>
> Wrong.
such as reflection from a mirror, you do NOT have a theory of light.
As Kuhn has pointed out, any new theory, if it is to have any chance of
replacing a current theory, must explain all phenomena that the current theory
explains, and either explain more phenomena, explain them more accurately, or
provide a demonstrably better explanation. In physics, his "explain" means
QUANTITATIVE predictions that are numerically compared to experiments.
But he was talking about real theories, not the hodge-podge of rather vague
guesses, hopes, and dreams that you have.
> Wrong. It's testable. VALIDLY testable.
prove Snell's law for mirrors in your "theory". When I asked you this before you
just came up with a bunch of "maybe-s".
Tom Roberts
Ned Latham
Sep 26, 2015, 1:14:52 PM9/26/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > >`>
> > > > > > I do not accept the *hypothesis* that light is an
> > > > > > electromagnetic phenomenon.
> > > >`>
> > > > > It's VASTLY stronger than a mere "hypothesis".
> > >`>
> > > > If it's testable, it's theory: if it's not, it's
> > > > hypothesis.
> > >
> > > Current theories of electrodynamics are indeed testable and have
> > > been tested,
> >
> > Oh, dear. I should have specified: VALID tests.
>
> Oh, dear, another arrogant fool who thinks all physicists are stupid.
If you think that, you should get out of the field.
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > >`>
> > > > > > I do not accept the *hypothesis* that light is an
> > > > > > electromagnetic phenomenon.
> > > >`>
> > > > > It's VASTLY stronger than a mere "hypothesis".
> > >`>
> > > > If it's testable, it's theory: if it's not, it's
> > > > hypothesis.
> > >
> > > Current theories of electrodynamics are indeed testable and have
> > > been tested,
> >
> > Oh, dear. I should have specified: VALID tests.
>
> Oh, dear, another arrogant fool who thinks all physicists are stupid.
> You just don't have a clue about how physicists ACTUALLY behave.
from collider data, and pretend that the results confirm SR.
> > > zillions of times. Including with visible light.
> >
> > "Zillions"? Again?
>
> Yes. Literally.
> > > By your own standard, of course, you don't have a theory.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> No, I'm right.
> When your "theory" does not explain very basic
> aspects of light,
> such as reflection from a mirror, you do NOT
> have a theory of light.
> As Kuhn has pointed out, any new theory, if it is to have any
> chance of replacing a current theory, must explain all phenomena
> that the current theory explains, and either explain more
> phenomena, explain them more accurately, or provide a demonstrably
> better explanation. In physics, his "explain" means QUANTITATIVE
> predictions that are numerically compared to experiments.
Oops, that's GR. And Particle Theory.
Well okay, I like its explanation of the spotting in extremely
low light digital photography.
Oops, that's Particle Theory.
Oh dear.
> But he was talking about real theories, not the hodge-podge of
> rather vague guesses, hopes, and dreams that you have.
> > Wrong. It's testable. VALIDLY testable.
>
> What aspect of your "theory" is "tested" when I look in a mirror?
> For instance, prove Snell's law for mirrors in your "theory".
never-tested assumption that light is slowed in dense media,
and is no more than a useless mathematical exercise.
> When I asked you this before you just came up with a bunch of
> "maybe-s".
"light particles" from a mirror?'.
And I stand by my answer, sarcasm and all. Until you lot get
your heads out of your arses and do some real research,
physics will continue to stagnate.
Maciej Woźniak
Sep 26, 2015, 3:32:01 PM9/26/15
to
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
|explains, and either explain more phenomena, explain them more accurately,
or
|provide a demonstrably better explanation. In physics, his "explain" means
|QUANTITATIVE predictions that are numerically compared to experiments.
is yelling, that reality is not standard one.
HGW
Sep 26, 2015, 6:37:19 PM9/26/15
to
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:06:22 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>Oh, dear, another arrogant fool who thinks all physicists are stupid. You just
>don't have a clue about how physicists ACTUALLY behave.
They certainly don't behave like narrow minded religious fanatics.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
>No, I'm right. When your "theory" does not explain very basic aspects of light,
>such as reflection from a mirror, you do NOT have a theory of light.
What does Einstein's theory have to do with that? Nothing! Classical aether
theory provids a mathematical explanation but hardly physical one.
>As Kuhn has pointed out, any new theory, if it is to have any chance of
>replacing a current theory, must explain all phenomena that the current theory
>explains, and either explain more phenomena, explain them more accurately, or
>provide a demonstrably better explanation. In physics, his "explain" means
>QUANTITATIVE predictions that are numerically compared to experiments.
Tom why don't you accept that Einstein's theories have never been validated by
ANY believable experiment. The one's that purport to do so are written by die
hard relativists FOR die hard relativists and published in journals EDITED by
die hard relativists. Not one of those experiments is worth the paper it is
written on.
>But he was talking about real theories, not the hodge-podge of rather vague
>guesses, hopes, and dreams that you have.
>
>
>> Wrong. It's testable. VALIDLY testable.
>
>What aspect of your "theory" is "tested" when I look in a mirror? For instance,
>prove Snell's law for mirrors in your "theory". When I asked you this before you
>just came up with a bunch of "maybe-s".
Aether theory, Tom.
>Tom Roberts
wrote:
>Oh, dear, another arrogant fool who thinks all physicists are stupid. You just
>don't have a clue about how physicists ACTUALLY behave.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
>No, I'm right. When your "theory" does not explain very basic aspects of light,
>such as reflection from a mirror, you do NOT have a theory of light.
theory provids a mathematical explanation but hardly physical one.
>As Kuhn has pointed out, any new theory, if it is to have any chance of
>replacing a current theory, must explain all phenomena that the current theory
>explains, and either explain more phenomena, explain them more accurately, or
>provide a demonstrably better explanation. In physics, his "explain" means
>QUANTITATIVE predictions that are numerically compared to experiments.
ANY believable experiment. The one's that purport to do so are written by die
hard relativists FOR die hard relativists and published in journals EDITED by
die hard relativists. Not one of those experiments is worth the paper it is
written on.
>But he was talking about real theories, not the hodge-podge of rather vague
>guesses, hopes, and dreams that you have.
>
>
>> Wrong. It's testable. VALIDLY testable.
>
>What aspect of your "theory" is "tested" when I look in a mirror? For instance,
>prove Snell's law for mirrors in your "theory". When I asked you this before you
>just came up with a bunch of "maybe-s".
>Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Sep 28, 2015, 12:14:23 AM9/28/15
to
On 9/26/15 9/26/15 5:37 PM, HGW wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:06:22 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> When your "theory" does not explain very basic aspects of light,
>> such as reflection from a mirror, you do NOT have a theory of light.
>
> What does Einstein's theory have to do with that? Nothing!
Sure. And I never said Einstein's theories had anything to do with this. Because
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:06:22 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> When your "theory" does not explain very basic aspects of light,
>> such as reflection from a mirror, you do NOT have a theory of light.
>
> What does Einstein's theory have to do with that? Nothing!
they don't. But OTHER theories of modern physics model light exquisitely well,
and have never been refuted. Specifically, QED.
> Classical aether
> theory provids a mathematical explanation but hardly physical one.
The failure to find "the aether frame" is a serious problem for such theories,
and I have never seen an aether theory that even attempts to model the observed
quantum aspects of light.
> Tom why don't you accept that Einstein's theories have never been validated by
> ANY believable experiment.
zillions of experiments and refuted by none within its domain. GR has been
verified in many experiments, and while there are puzzles, there are no clear
refutations of it.
> The one's that purport to do so are written by die
> hard relativists FOR die hard relativists and published in journals EDITED by
> die hard relativists. Not one of those experiments is worth the paper it is
> written on.
I do not know where so many people around here get such notions. Every physicist
would be ECSTATIC to perform an experiment that refuted either SR or GR. Fame
and fortune would be assured, and more important: recognition by one's peers.
The difficulty, of course, is that NATURE makes this impossible, or at least
very, very difficult. So difficult that to date nobody has succeeded, despite
many people smarter than you trying to do it.
The other difficulty, of course, is that such an experiment
must actually refute SR or GR. This necessarily requires
that the author actually understands the theory, and applies
it correctly to the experiment. That eliminates most
contributors around here, almost surely including you.
Yes, a paper presenting such an experiment would be subject to serious and
careful review. But if it was solid, it would most definitely get published in a
mainstream journal. After all, there are many published articles challenging SR
and GR.
> Aether theory, Tom.
You may be enamored with aether theory, but today no physicist is, because no
aether theory has survived contact with experiments (except for the infinite set
of useless aether theories which are experimentally indistinguishable from SR,
and even they are incomplete).
Today no aether theory could possibly gain any traction without:
a) a QUANTITATIVE explanation of how SR is able to model the world so
well.
b) a plausible, quantitative mechanism for the observed quantum aspects
of light (if you don't know what these are, then you must educate
yourself -- I have yet to meet an aether advocate who has any inkling
of this).
Tom Roberts
JanPB
Sep 28, 2015, 4:41:17 AM9/28/15
to
On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 9:14:23 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/26/15 9/26/15 5:37 PM, HGW wrote:
> >
> > The one's that purport to do so are written by die
> > hard relativists FOR die hard relativists and published in journals EDITED by
> > die hard relativists. Not one of those experiments is worth the paper it is
> > written on.
>
> Oh. You're another arrogant fool who thinks all physicists are stupid.
>
> I do not know where so many people around here get such notions.
There is a PhD in mental disorders in there somewhere. Nothing terribly serious,
> On 9/26/15 9/26/15 5:37 PM, HGW wrote:
> >
> > The one's that purport to do so are written by die
> > hard relativists FOR die hard relativists and published in journals EDITED by
> > die hard relativists. Not one of those experiments is worth the paper it is
> > written on.
>
> Oh. You're another arrogant fool who thinks all physicists are stupid.
>
> I do not know where so many people around here get such notions.
more like graphomania.
"Scientomania" perhaps?
--
Jan
Gary Harnagel
Sep 28, 2015, 11:15:33 AM9/28/15
to
Yes, I received your email and sent one back to you with an attached
docx file the same day (on September 15th). If you didn't get it, let
me know and I'll try again.
Gary
HGW
Sep 28, 2015, 6:11:57 PM9/28/15
to
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:14:21 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>> Tom why don't you accept that Einstein's theories have never been validated by
>> ANY believable experiment.
>
>I don't "accept that" because it is just plain not true. SR has been verified in
>zillions of experiments and refuted by none within its domain. GR has been
>verified in many experiments, and while there are puzzles, there are no clear
>refutations of it.
Name one that anyone with any intelligence would take seriously.
>> The one's that purport to do so are written by die
>> hard relativists FOR die hard relativists and published in journals EDITED by
>> die hard relativists. Not one of those experiments is worth the paper it is
>> written on.
>
>Oh. You're another arrogant fool who thinks all physicists are stupid.
I would certainly assume that of Brian Cox, after seeing his lightclock
documentary....and no other 'eminent' physicists complained about its obvious
error.
>I do not know where so many people around here get such notions. Every physicist
>would be ECSTATIC to perform an experiment that refuted either SR or GR. Fame
>and fortune would be assured, and more important: recognition by one's peers.
>The difficulty, of course, is that NATURE makes this impossible, or at least
>very, very difficult. So difficult that to date nobody has succeeded, despite
>many people smarter than you trying to do it.
>
> The other difficulty, of course, is that such an experiment
> must actually refute SR or GR. This necessarily requires
> that the author actually understands the theory, and applies
> it correctly to the experiment. That eliminates most
> contributors around here, almost surely including you.
>
>Yes, a paper presenting such an experiment would be subject to serious and
>careful review. But if it was solid, it would most definitely get published in a
>mainstream journal. After all, there are many published articles challenging SR
>and GR.
This is solid but I am sure it would be thrown away very promptly because it
refutes Einstein.
http://www.scisite.info/the_new_ballistic_theory_of_light.html
>Tom Roberts
wrote:
>> Tom why don't you accept that Einstein's theories have never been validated by
>> ANY believable experiment.
>
>I don't "accept that" because it is just plain not true. SR has been verified in
>zillions of experiments and refuted by none within its domain. GR has been
>verified in many experiments, and while there are puzzles, there are no clear
>refutations of it.
>> The one's that purport to do so are written by die
>> hard relativists FOR die hard relativists and published in journals EDITED by
>> die hard relativists. Not one of those experiments is worth the paper it is
>> written on.
>
>Oh. You're another arrogant fool who thinks all physicists are stupid.
documentary....and no other 'eminent' physicists complained about its obvious
error.
>I do not know where so many people around here get such notions. Every physicist
>would be ECSTATIC to perform an experiment that refuted either SR or GR. Fame
>and fortune would be assured, and more important: recognition by one's peers.
>The difficulty, of course, is that NATURE makes this impossible, or at least
>very, very difficult. So difficult that to date nobody has succeeded, despite
>many people smarter than you trying to do it.
>
> The other difficulty, of course, is that such an experiment
> must actually refute SR or GR. This necessarily requires
> that the author actually understands the theory, and applies
> it correctly to the experiment. That eliminates most
> contributors around here, almost surely including you.
>
>Yes, a paper presenting such an experiment would be subject to serious and
>careful review. But if it was solid, it would most definitely get published in a
>mainstream journal. After all, there are many published articles challenging SR
>and GR.
refutes Einstein.
http://www.scisite.info/the_new_ballistic_theory_of_light.html
>Tom Roberts
Gary Harnagel
Sep 28, 2015, 9:53:35 PM9/28/15
to
On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 4:11:57 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:14:21 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Tom why don't you accept that Einstein's theories have never been
> > > validated by ANY believable experiment.
> >
> > I don't "accept that" because it is just plain not true. SR has been
> > verified in zillions of experiments and refuted by none within its
> > domain. GR has been verified in many experiments, and while there are
> > puzzles, there are no clear refutations of it.
>
> Name one that anyone with any intelligence would take seriously.
Well, that qualification certainly leave YOU out.
>
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:14:21 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Tom why don't you accept that Einstein's theories have never been
> > > validated by ANY believable experiment.
> >
> > I don't "accept that" because it is just plain not true. SR has been
> > verified in zillions of experiments and refuted by none within its
> > domain. GR has been verified in many experiments, and while there are
> > puzzles, there are no clear refutations of it.
>
> Name one that anyone with any intelligence would take seriously.
> > > The one's that purport to do so are written by die hard relativists
> > > FOR die hard relativists and published in journals EDITED by die
> > > hard relativists. Not one of those experiments is worth the paper
> > > it is written on.
> >
> > Oh. You're another arrogant fool who thinks all physicists are stupid.
>
> I would certainly assume that of Brian Cox, after seeing his lightclock
> documentary....and no other 'eminent' physicists complained about its obvious
> error.
been discussed ad nauseam, but you still believe your sophistry about
vertical light beams refutes the FACT that short pulses of light travel
diagonally in the stationary frame? How weird!
> > I do not know where so many people around here get such notions. Every
> > physicist would be ECSTATIC to perform an experiment that refuted
> > either SR or GR. Fame and fortune would be assured, and more important:
> > recognition by one's peers. The difficulty, of course, is that NATURE
> > makes this impossible, or at least very, very difficult. So difficult
> > that to date nobody has succeeded, despite many people smarter than you
> > trying to do it.
> >
> > The other difficulty, of course, is that such an experiment
> > must actually refute SR or GR. This necessarily requires
> > that the author actually understands the theory, and applies
> > it correctly to the experiment. That eliminates most
> > contributors around here, almost surely including you.
> >
> > Yes, a paper presenting such an experiment would be subject to serious
> > and careful review. But if it was solid, it would most definitely get
> > published in a mainstream journal. After all, there are many published
> > articles challenging SR and GR.
>
> This is solid but I am sure it would be thrown away very promptly because
> it refutes Einstein.
> http://www.scisite.info/the_new_ballistic_theory_of_light.html
Delusional twaddle.
Gary
Tom Roberts
Sep 29, 2015, 11:24:53 AM9/29/15
to
On 9/28/15 9/28/15 - 5:11 PM, HGW wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:14:21 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>>> Tom why don't you accept that Einstein's theories have never been validated by
>>> ANY believable experiment.
>>
>> I don't "accept that" because it is just plain not true. SR has been verified in
>> zillions of experiments and refuted by none within its domain. GR has been
>> verified in many experiments, and while there are puzzles, there are no clear
>> refutations of it.
>
> Name one that anyone with any intelligence would take seriously.
For SR there are literally hundreds:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:14:21 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>>> Tom why don't you accept that Einstein's theories have never been validated by
>>> ANY believable experiment.
>>
>> I don't "accept that" because it is just plain not true. SR has been verified in
>> zillions of experiments and refuted by none within its domain. GR has been
>> verified in many experiments, and while there are puzzles, there are no clear
>> refutations of it.
>
> Name one that anyone with any intelligence would take seriously.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Perhaps the most obvious is the fact that pion beams almost a kilometer long
exist at both Fermilab and CERN. The pions in them travel with speed
indistinguishable from c, and if the pions decayed in the lab with their
characteristic lifetime they could travel an average of only 7.8 meters before
decaying. But >90% survive after a kilometer, directly demonstrating the "time
dilation" of SR.
(I believe both beamlines happen to have been dismantled, but
the point remains.)
Another obvious result is the fact that high-energy accelerators around the
world actually work. The application of SR in their design is absolutely
essential, and has major implications throughout the design. In particular, the
phasing of the RF cavities depends directly on the speed of the particles, and
if 7000 GeV protons did not travel at 0.999999991 c then the LHC simply would
not work. We KNOW they have that energy because a) they make it around the ring
and thus are bent by the correct angle by the magnets, and b) they produce
secondaries with up to that total energy.
>>> The one's that purport to do so are written by die
>>> hard relativists FOR die hard relativists and published in journals EDITED by
>>> die hard relativists. Not one of those experiments is worth the paper it is
>>> written on.
>>
>> Oh. You're another arrogant fool who thinks all physicists are stupid.
>
You directly implied it of all physicists, not just one. This of course says
more about you than about any physicist.
> This is solid but I am sure it would be thrown away very promptly because it
> refutes Einstein.
> http://www.scisite.info/the_new_ballistic_theory_of_light.html
results (e.g. quantum optics, and a host of others including those in section
3.3 of the above link).
Since "HGW" is just another nym for Henry Wilson, I know from past experience
there is no point in continuing. Good bye.
Tom Roberts
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages