MIT Lunar reflector experiment

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

The Apollo lander cannot be viewed using the Hubble telescope; consequently, a laser beam, that originates from the earth and reflected by the lunar reflector that has a surface area of approximately one square meter cannot form a measurable intensity viewed by the Hubble since using the Hubble space telescope would require a illuminated object, on the surface of the moon, that has a diameter of 200 meters! A 3mW laser forms a beam width of 3 mm that width increases to 4 mm after propagating a distance of 10 meters; consequently, a 30 W laser with a beam with of 4 mm, pointed at the new moon, would form a beam width of more than 50 km at the surface of the moon yet only a one square meter of intensity is reflected back, by the MIT lunar reflector, to the earth. The reflected intensity would not form a threshold intensity of a photomultiplier of the Hubble which proves the lunar reflector experiment is a scientific hoax but the MIT lunar laser ranging experiment is the closest physicists have come to measuring the velocity of light but the result is no different from Newton's lanterns. Also, the distance to the moon is determine by the angular velocity of the moon and the period; consequently, the distance to the moon was determine before the MIT lunar reflector experiment was initiated.

[Michael Moroney]

numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

>The Apollo lander cannot be viewed using the Hubble telescope; consequently
>, a laser beam, that originates from the earth and reflected by the lunar
>reflector that has a surface area of approximately one square meter cannot
>form a measurable intensity viewed by the Hubble since using the Hubble
>space telescope would require a illuminated object, on the surface of the
>moon, that has a diameter of 200 meters!

Nope. The Hubble could not _image_ the reflector. It will be seen as a
featureless point of light, just like the stars in the night sky, which
are dozens or hundreds of light years distant but have a diameter only
on the order of a million km. Obviously, if photons are reflected from
the mirror and reach the Hubble, they will trigger the photosensors.

[dlzc]

Dear Michael Moroney:

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 6:54:25 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
...

> Nope. The Hubble could not _image_ the reflector. It
> will be seen as a featureless point of light, just
> like the stars in the night sky, which are dozens or
> hundreds of light years distant but have a diameter
> only on the order of a million km. Obviously, if
> photons are reflected from the mirror and reach the
> Hubble, they will trigger the photosensors.

Those mirrors are very special. They only reflect incident light back *exactly* along the line the light came in from. So Hubble, since it has no "flash attachment" would see only the equipment package with incident solar radiation, nothing off the mirrors proper.

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=77&cat=topten

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
... NOT taken by Hubble ...

David A. Smith

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

Dlzc...
>> ... > Nope. The Hubble could not _image_ the reflector. It > will be seen as a featureless point of light, just > like the stars in the night sky, which are dozens or > hundreds of light years distant but have a diameter > only on the order of a million km. Obviously, if > photons are reflected from the mirror and reach >>he > Hubble, they will trigger the photosensors.

>those mirrors are very special. They only reflect incident light back *exactly* along the line the light came in from. So Hubble, since it has no "flash >attachment" would see only the equipment package with incident solar radiation, nothing off the mirrors proper.

Interesting thanks. Makes sense. Do you know how they time the light? Is it a very
short millisecond pulse? I cant see how a constant beam could be timed.
Its an interesting experiment as supposedly it contradicted predictions by SR.
SR predicted light would travel in the comoving frame. Equivelent to
the lab frame in Sagnac where the light source and detector rotate.
These being duplicated by the source and reflector in the lunar ranging
experiment. But measurements showed that light in the lunar ranging
experiment traveled at c in the source reflector frame. In sagnac this would
be the rotating source reflector frame. Which is impossible under SR.

[dlzc]

Dear jaymo...:

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:31:48 AM UTC-7, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
...

> Interesting thanks. Makes sense. Do you know how
> they time the light? Is it a very short millisecond
> pulse? I cant see how a constant beam could be timed.

It is a very short, intense pulse. See this very good paper, hopefully detailed enough:
https://www.iers.org/SharedDocs/Publikationen/EN/IERS/Publications/tn/TechnNote34/tn34_097.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1

Please note that with each pulse, a fraction of a single photon is detected (several pulses are required to be sure they are getting the return pulse).

David A. Smith

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

For most of the LLR facilities, that would be the case. However, the Apache
Point observatory in New Mexico has exceptionally clear "seeing". That combined
with the large 3.5 meter mirror means that it can typically capture a return
photon or two with every pulse (depending on which retroreflector it aims at).
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/

Some interesting highlights are on this page
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/highlights.html

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Obviously, if photons are reflected from

the mirror and reach the Hubble, they will trigger the photosensors.

-----------------------------------------------

Not if the reflected ray is below the threshold intensity of a photomultipler.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Those mirrors are very special. They only reflect incident light back *exactly* along the line the light came in from.

_____________________________________________________


Maybe in your wet dreams.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

those mirrors are very special. They only reflect incident light back *exactly* along the line the light came in from. So Hubble, since it has no "flash >attachment" would see only the equipment package with incident solar radiation, nothing off the mirrors proper.

____________________________________


Interesting thanks. Makes sense. jaymo...@hotmail.com

______________________________________


Have you ever heard of dispersion or does SR eliminate that to?

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

For most of the LLR facilities, that would be the case. However, the Apache
Point observatory in New Mexico has exceptionally clear "seeing". That combined
with the large 3.5 meter mirror means that it can typically capture a return
photon or two with every pulse (depending on which retroreflector it aims at).

_____________________________________________________________


Another nocturnal dreamer. A single photon (per second) is not going to set off the photomultiplier.

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/9/16 9/9/16 6:36 PM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Obviously, if photons are reflected from
> the mirror and reach the Hubble, they will trigger the photosensors.

But the LLR light never reaches Hubble. The geometry is completely wrong.

> Not if the reflected ray is below the threshold intensity of a photomultipler.

Photomultipliers count individual photons. There is no "threshold intensity", as
long as there are some photons in the light ray (and if there aren't then it
isn't a light ray).


Tom Roberts

[Michael Moroney]

dlzc <dl...@cox.net> writes:

>Those mirrors are very special. They only reflect incident light back
>*exactly* along the line the light came in from.

You are right, they are corner reflectors. Of course *exactly* depends on
the preciseness of manufacture. For example, reflectors on cars and
bicycles have little corner reflectors molded in plastic. They don't
reflect exactly back which is fine since a driver's eyeballs aren't
where the headlights are.

[Michael Moroney]

numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

>Another nocturnal dreamer. A single photon (per second) is not going to
>set off the photomultiplier.

Sure it can. With the old kind of photomultiplier, the photoelectric
effect means one photon produces one electron. The "multiplier" part of
the photomultiplier means that the electron cascades into a pulse of
electrons over several steps.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

__________________________________________________


Dispersion

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

electrons over several steps. Michael Moroney


_________________________________________________________


Are you being seriously stupid or What! A photomultiplier is based on the photoelectric effect which is reliant on a threshold intensity which is the reason solar cell do not function at night unless of course you are stupid or having another nocturnal dream.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 09.09.2016 19:31, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Interesting thanks. Makes sense. Do you know how they time the light? Is it a very
> short millisecond pulse? I cant see how a constant beam could be timed.
> Its an interesting experiment as supposedly it contradicted predictions by SR.
> SR predicted light would travel in the comoving frame. Equivelent to
> the lab frame in Sagnac where the light source and detector rotate.
> These being duplicated by the source and reflector in the lunar ranging
> experiment. But measurements showed that light in the lunar ranging
> experiment traveled at c in the source reflector frame. In sagnac this would
> be the rotating source reflector frame. Which is impossible under SR.
>

https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

Wrong. Diffraction and inaccuracies of manufacture result in spread of the
return beam.

For auto reflectors, the inaccuracies of manufacture are intentional and
carefully computed so that a headlight beam does not reflect directly back to
the headlights, but shines a significant fraction of the light back to a
driver's eyes.

Diffraction depends on the size of the corner reflector. The reflectors set out
by the Apollo astronauts and the Lunokhod rovers were as large as the available
technology allowed back then. Next-generation corner reflectors will be
considerably larger, so that a single reflector will do the work of a sheet of
reflectors. A major source of inaccuracy in current measurements to the Moon
comes from the large areas of the sheets of reflectors. Use of monolithic
corner reflectors will allow future distance measurements to be better than
0.1 mm

Other future possibilities include, not passive corner reflectors, but use of
active transponders. This would enable each pulse to trigger the return of
thousands of photons.

Dispersion is only a factor with non-monochromatic light, and yes, it is true
that you can see a bit of a rainbow effect in a bicycle reflector, but our
concern here is with the lunar *laser* ranging experiment. Dispersion is
insignificant using lasers.

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

Paul B Anderson...

>https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf

I couldnt open the pdf but looked at your webpages.

In sagnac the source rotates and lightspeed c is assumed
to be only in the lab frame in which the source rotates according
to SR. In the lunar ranging experiment the lab frame is equivelent
to the "co-moving" frame in which the earth bound source rotates
and moves relative to an external inertial frame. Defined presumably by
the galaxy or the solar system as a whole.
Yet when this logic is applied to the lunar ranging experiment, where
the source rotates and moves through the "co-moving" frame. It turns
out that contrary to predictions made by SR, light travels at c in the
rotating source frame. Invariance doesnt apply.

[Michael Moroney]

Wrong. Read Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect. He explicitly
disproved of your threshold idea. A single photon (of sufficient energy)
produces exactly one electron. The multiplier effect is that there is
a positively charged plate in the photomultiplier tube where that
electron, being accelerated, slams into a different type of substance
which releases more electrons. There may be further stages of this.
But the net result is a pulse of current (electrons) from a single
photon.

As to solar cells, I don't know the physics behind them, but I suspect
that at the fundamental level it is still one photon == one electron
of current. It may be that there are internal losses such that all
current below a point gets lost internally. Or maybe not, solar cells
do work via starlight but produce so little current it is not at all
useful.

I also don't know the physics of a CCD device in the Hubble imager.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Dispersion is insignificant using lasers.----------Prokaryotic

_____________________________________________________________________



Using a 3mW laser beam, the initial diameter, of the beam, is 3mm. At a distance of 20 ft the diameter of the beam increases to 3.5 mm. At the surface of the moon the beam's width would be over 5,000 miles!

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Read Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect. He explicitly
disproved of your threshold idea. A single photon (of sufficient energy)

produces exactly one electron.---------Michael Moroney

_________________________________________________________


Don't believe everything you read, ex Einstein. Also, a single electron cannot form a detectable current that is required in forming a signal.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 3:38:36 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Read Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect. He explicitly
> disproved of your threshold idea. A single photon (of sufficient energy)
> produces exactly one electron.---------Michael Moroney
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
>
> Don't believe everything you read, ex Einstein.

The photoelectric effect is well-established, and Einstein just explained
why the experimental results (which he did NOT perform) came out contrary
to the way you falsely believe the effect works.

> Also, a single electron cannot form a detectable current that is required
> in forming a signal.

I'm running a long-term experiment right now that uses a photomultiplier
tube to detect very short light PULSES and I get nice pulses of electrons
out of it. It works just fine, thank you.

"The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person
doing it." --Chinese proverb

Assertive people who don't know what they're talking about are trolls.

[Michael Moroney]

numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

>Read Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect. He explicitly
>disproved of your threshold idea. A single photon (of sufficient energy)
>produces exactly one electron.---------Michael Moroney

>_________________________________________________________


>Don't believe everything you read, ex Einstein.

However, the photoelectric effect has been repeated over and over again
so this is definitely a case where Einstein can be believed.

> Also, a single electron
>cannot form a detectable current that is required in forming a signal.

But a photomultiplied electron can easily be detected as a signal.

The lunar ranging people detect single photons all the time. Betcha
it starts out as a single electron.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

It is not possible to detect a single photon because of the threshold intensity that is required in the production of the photoelectric effect. There are thousand of books regarding the photoelectric effect that describes a threshold intensity. The lunar lander experiment is a hoax since for the Hubble telescope to recognize an object requires an object of 200 meter in diameter and the MIT lunar lander reflector has a surface area of 1 m squared.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

I'm running a long-term experiment right now that uses a photomultiplier
tube to detect very short light PULSES and I get nice pulses of electrons
out of it. It works just fine, thank you.

__________________________________________________________


Hi Troll. What is the length of the light pulse and the distance the light pulse travels less than 138,900 miles?

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 6:41:33 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> It is not possible to detect a single photon because of the threshold
> intensity that is required in the production of the photoelectric effect.

Repeating stupidity doesn't make you smart.

> There are thousand of books regarding the photoelectric effect that
> describes a threshold intensity.

And lying doesn't do anything except proving your dishonesty. Of course,
if you REALLY believed your blather, then you would be an ignoramus.
Take your pick.

> The lunar lander experiment is a hoax since for the Hubble telescope to
> recognize an object requires an object of 200 meter in diameter and the
> MIT lunar lander reflector has a surface area of 1 m squared.

Repeating bullshit doesn't improve its smell.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

That is DIFFRACTION, not DISPERSION.

Two different terms, two different effects.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 7:41:33 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is not possible to detect a single photon because of the threshold intensity that is required in the production of the photoelectric effect. There are thousand of books regarding the photoelectric effect that describes a threshold intensity. The lunar lander experiment is a hoax since for the Hubble telescope to recognize an object requires an object of 200 meter in diameter and the MIT lunar lander reflector has a surface area of 1 m squared.

You are confused about the photoelectric effect.

There is no threshold INTENSITY.

There *IS* a threshold FREQUENCY, or energy per photon.

A photon must have a certain minimum energy before it is capable of knocking
an electron out of its orbit around an atom.

All it takes is ONE photon of sufficient energy.

However, the intensity of the return beam can be arbitrarily low, meaning that
there is no lower limit to the number of return photons per second, minute, or
hour. A single photon of sufficient energy is all that it takes.

[Michael Moroney]

numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

>It is not possible to detect a single photon because of the threshold
>intensity

Threshold FREQUENCY, not intensity. This was well known a hundred years
ago. Einstein was able to explain WHY there was no threshold intensity
(until you reach 1 photon, anyway) and WHY there was a threshold
frequency.

>There are thousand of books regarding the photoelectric effect
>that describes a threshold intensity.

Threshold FREQUENCY. You need to READ some of those books some day.

> The lunar lander experiment is a
>hoax since for the Hubble telescope to recognize an object requires an
>object of 200 meter in diameter and the MIT lunar lander reflector has a
>surface area of 1 m squared.

The lunar range scientists never try to image the lunar lander reflector.
There is no need to. They only get back only about 1 photon per laser
pulse on average anyway.

The fact that Hubble can not image the reflector is irrelevant. Do
you know the size of the lens needed to image the disk of Sirius? Yet
we can still see it!

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 10.09.2016 15:53, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Paul B Anderson...

Paul B. Andersen

>> https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf
>
> I couldnt open the pdf but looked at your webpages.

Why not?
You can download pdf-readers, e.g. Adobe reader, for free.

> In sagnac the source rotates and lightspeed c is assumed
> to be only in the lab frame in which the source rotates according
> to SR. In the lunar ranging experiment the lab frame is equivelent
> to the "co-moving" frame in which the earth bound source rotates
> and moves relative to an external inertial frame. Defined presumably by
> the galaxy or the solar system as a whole.
> Yet when this logic is applied to the lunar ranging experiment, where
> the source rotates and moves through the "co-moving" frame. It turns
> out that contrary to predictions made by SR, light travels at c in the
> rotating source frame. Invariance doesnt apply.

Get a pdf reader and try again!

https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/09/2016 3:03 AM, dlzc wrote:
> Dear Michael Moroney:
>
> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 6:54:25 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney
> wrote: ...
>> Nope. The Hubble could not _image_ the reflector. It will be seen
>> as a featureless point of light, just like the stars in the night
>> sky, which are dozens or hundreds of light years distant but have a
>> diameter only on the order of a million km. Obviously, if photons

>> are reflected from the mirror and reach the Hubble, they will
>> trigger the photosensors.
>

> Those mirrors are very special. They only reflect incident light

> back *exactly* along the line the light came in from. So Hubble,
> since it has no "flash attachment" would see only the equipment
> package with incident solar radiation, nothing off the mirrors
> proper.

They're subject to the same limitations as other optical devices. For
example, a 10cm retroreflector on the moon, even if it is optically
perfect, will scatter the reflected photons over a circle of radius of
around one kilometre back on the Earth.

So one need only choose a point on Earth that at some moment will lie on
the extended line between Hubble and the retroreflector, and some of the
returning light will be intercepted by the telescope.

Sylvia.

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

Paul B. Andersen...

>> https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf >
>> I couldnt open the pdf but looked at your webpages.

>Why not? You can download pdf-readers, e.g. Adobe reader, for free.

Not if your android browser and operating system are out of date. Something I
discovered too late, unfortunately.
But I am rectifying the problem. Until then maybe rather than post links that
dont have answers even theycould be opened you could answer the point with
relevent quotes.
Your webpages certainly dont explain why SR incorrectly predicted the observations
made by the lunar ranging experiment.

>> In sagnac the source rotates and lightspeed c is assumed > to be only in the lab frame in which the source rotates according > to SR. In the lunar ranging experiment the lab frame is equivelent > to the "co-moving" frame in which the earth bound source rotates > and moves relative to an external inertial frame. Defined presumably by > the galaxy or the solar system as a whole. > Yet when this logic is applied to the lunar ranging experiment, where > the source rotates and moves through the "co-moving" frame. It turns > out that contrary to predictions made by SR, light travels at c in the > rotating source frame. >Invariance doesnt apply.

>Get a pdf reader and try again!

Get some facts and quote them on your posts for a change.
The lunar ranging experiment has light at c in a rotating frame.
Something that is not compatible with SR.

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/11/16 9/11/16 7:57 AM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen...
>>> https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf >

> Your webpages certainly dont explain why SR incorrectly predicted the
> observations made by the lunar ranging experiment.

Of course not! Nobody would expect SR to model the orbit of the moon, because SR
does not include gravitation.

The lunar laser ranging experiments are ongoing. They compare their measurements
to a complicated and detailed model based on GR. They report no significant
deviation from the predictions of their model, with an accuracy of a few
centimeters (and improving).

> The lunar ranging experiment has light at c in a rotating frame.

Not true. You need to read their reports more carefully.


Tom Roberts

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

Tom Roberts..

>> > Your webpages certainly dont explain why SR incorrectly predicted the > observations made by the lunar ranging experiment.

>Of course not! Nobody would expect SR to model the orbit of the moon, because SR does not include gravitation.

Predictions were made assuming under SR that light would travel to the
moon and back in an external frame where the earth and moon travelled
through the local ISM at speed. In the same way that SR
assumes light travels in a similar external frame to the rotating source in
Sagnac. Called lab frame in sagnac and co moving in the lunar ranging
experiment. Unfortunately for SR, this prediction failed and it was
observed that light travelled at c in the rotating earth based source frame.
Relativists, like yourself, desperate to cover up yet another failure of relativity
changed their predictions and said that in fact SR did predict this and called
it the stationary frame. Nonetheless light is observed to travel at c
in a rotating frame in the lunar ranging experiment and so far neither
you nor Paul has been able to refute this with any quoted reference.

>The lunar laser ranging experiments are ongoing. They compare their measurements to a complicated and detailed model based on GR. They report no >significant deviation from the predictions of their model, with an accuracy of a few centimeters (and improving).

I notice you carefully avoid mentioning the failed prediction of
SR where light was to supposed to have travelled at c in a co
moving frame.

>> The lunar ranging experiment has light at c in a rotating frame.

>Not true. You need to read their reports more carefully.

So light does not travel between the source, the moon and back at
c relative to the source? Not what Ive read.
Can you cite a reference and supply a quote.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog Sep 10 (16 hours ago)

____________________________________________________

A 3mW laser beam, the initial diameter, of the beam, is 3 mm after propagating a distance of 20 ft the diameter of the beam increases to 3.5 mm and also does not produce fringes a is representative of diffraction; consequently, a 30 W laser beam that has an initial diameter of 4mm form a beam with of over 59 km at the surface of the moon and is also not a diffraction effect since the little beam does not produce a diffraction effect after propagating the distance of 30 ft. To from a diffraction effect require the interaction of light with a diffraction object without the diffraction object there is not diffraction effect. In the case of the 3 mW laser there in no diffraction object between the laser apparatus and the screen that the laser beam is projected onto to measure the dispersion of a laser beam. If you think that a laser beam does not disperse maybe you should go see a doctor or better yet go to a massage parlor.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

The term "dispersion" has a precise technical meaning in optics.
It does not mean what you think it means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics)

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Like gravity waves and the velocity of light?

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

New meaning for a new physics. Yours is an old an broken one.

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/11/16 9/11/16 - 12:32 PM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Tom Roberts..
>>>> Your webpages certainly dont explain why SR incorrectly predicted the >
>>>> observations made by the lunar ranging experiment.
>> Of course not! Nobody would expect SR to model the orbit of the moon,
>> because SR does not include gravitation.
>

> Predictions were made assuming under SR [...]

No. Read what I wrote. They use GR, not SR.

> I notice you carefully avoid mentioning the failed prediction of SR where
> light was to supposed to have travelled at c in a co moving frame.

There is nothing to "mention" as there is no such "prediction". They used GR,
not SR.

> So light does not travel between the source, the moon and back at c relative
> to the source?

The physical situation is MUCH more complicated than that. Light follows a null
geodesic from source (on earth) to retro-reflector (on moon), and another null
geodesic from retro-reflector (on moon) back to detector (on earth, co-located
with the source). One MUST use GR for the analysis, not SR. Read their papers.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/10/16 9/10/16 - 4:35 PM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Using a 3mW laser beam, the initial diameter, of the beam, is 3mm. At a
> distance of 20 ft the diameter of the beam increases to 3.5 mm. At the
> surface of the moon the beam's width would be over 5,000 miles!

Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? Your "numbers" are
completely wrong.

Tom Roberts

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

>> So light does not travel between the source, the moon and back at c relative > to the source?

>The physical situation is MUCH more complicated than that. Light follows a null geodesic from source (on earth) to retro-reflector (on moon), and another null geodesic from retro-reflector (on moon) back to detector (on earth, co-located with the source). One MUST use GR for the analysis, not SR. Read their >paper

The point I make is not about GR, but of path length which, like in sagnac, is
of central importance for calculating time of travel in SR or a classical model.
I remember distinctly on the lunar ranging page in wiki it used to say that the initial
predictions for the time of flight/ distance travelled by light were that light would
travel from the source to the moon and back in a "co moving" frame. This was a frame,
like the lab frame in sagnac. Which the source moves through and path length
is calculated. As defined in SR. Because in SR in sagnac, the path length is longer
on one path. Which allows for SR to calculate different time lengths for both
paths and thus explain offset of interference pattern.
The assumption was that because the earth moon system moved through this
frame, presumably heliocentric, the earth had moved a great distance relative to the
sun by the time the light had returned from the lunar reflection. So the path
calculation was not straight out and back on the same path but two sides of
a triangle. Making the predicted path length longer in this relativistic co moving
frame. But results contradicted this and according to the wikipage a few years
ago, predictions were changed and the path length was calculated in the sourceframe
instead. And renamed a stationary frame. Unfortunately I never copied
this page and now, no mention of an initial incorrect prediction for SR
is mentioned on wiki.
Seperately, you ignore the fact that the source frame, in which the path
length is calculated, is rotating. Yet according to SR, light does not
travel at c or isotropically in non inertial rotating frames.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

You can (almost) always go back in Wikipedia to locate a previous version of a
page. I see no version to support your statements. Are you sure about where you
read this about "an initial incorrect prediction for SR"?

2015-12-14 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment&oldid=695212605
2014-12-31 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment&oldid=640391011
2013-12-08 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment&oldid=584775721
2012-12-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment&oldid=529662409
2011-11-04 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment&oldid=459033602
2010-12-05 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment&oldid=400615259
prior to 2010, the article is hardly more than a stub

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog...

>You can (almost) always go back in Wikipedia to locate a previous version of a page. I see no version to support your statements. Are you sure about where you read this about "an initial incorrect prediction for SR"?

Its true its not there as of 2010. In fact 2010 seems pretty close to now. But Ive been
referencing this page since longer than that. Going back to early wiki days. So thats
2005 maybe?. I definitely remember a clear reference to initial predictions
being in the co moving frame. And unfortunately this claim like soviet history, gets
rewritten by relativists. Take for instance sagnac pages. Going back ten years or
so I remember early pages saying sagnac is not explainable under any classical
model. And a dodgy illustration was used to show how light at c+- v gave no path
difference under classical. I argued many times here against that interpretation
and uploaded simulations for viewing here on sci.physics. Now you go to
the wiki page and the incorrect interpretation is gone, and the page says...
that it IS consistent with pre relativistic classical models!!!

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

(sigh)
I was *HOPING* that, having shown you that it was possible to go back in time,
that you would do so *YOURSELF*.

Since you are an Android user, go to the "Desktop" view. "View History" is a
tab near the top. Going back to the very beginnings of the LLR article, I find
no such assertions about the initial results of LLR measurements being against
theoretical expectation.

Likewise, spot-checking the article on "Sagnac effect" all the way back to the
original contribution by User:Cleonis, I see no claim that Sagnac is consistent
with c ± v, nor that it is inconsistent with classical physics. If there had
ever been such a claim, it would have been a temporary aberration by a crackpot
contributor that would have been reverted within hours.
18 December 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagnac_effect&oldid=403078254
22 March 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagnac_effect&oldid=11433982

Wikipedia has many deficiencies as a resource, but your claims are, so far as I
can see, unjustified.

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog

>(sigh)

Ohh! Cheer up!

>I was *HOPING* that, having shown you that it was possible to go back in time, that you would do so *YOURSELF*.

What? Rewrite wiki history?. Im afraid I wouldnt be allowed to do that.
Thats the preserve of relativists.

>Since you are an Android user, go to the "Desktop" view. "View History" is a tab near the top. Going back to the very beginnings of the LLR article, I find no >such assertions about the initial results of LLR measurements being against theoretical expectation.

Obviously you are not aware of how android is marketed and sold. You
imagine tabs. Each android device is different. Thats google for you. My
android device wont even let me see the messages deleted, let alone
any history tabs. Thats why Im ditching it as soon as possible.

>Likewise, spot-checking the article on "Sagnac effect" all the way back to the original contribution by User:Cleonis, I see no claim that Sagnac is consistent with c ± v, nor that it is inconsistent with classical physics. If there had ever been such a claim, it would have been a temporary aberration by a crackpot contributor that would have been reverted within hours. 18 December 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagnac_effect&oldid=403078254 22 >
>March 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagnac_effect&oldid=11433982

Right, and if a relativist wanted to delete an erroneous claim about
classical theory that other relativists have made. They'd leave the
ridiculous claim in other earlier versions?

>Wikipedia has many deficiencies

Definitely. It can be rewritten.

But lets see you back up your side of events.
You say relativists have always accepted sagnac can be explained classically.
(sigh). So you accept that light can travel isotropically at c relative to
a rotating source as classical theory predicts?
If so then whats all this relativists stuff about light not being possible
travelling at c in a non inertial rotating frame?
Or have relativists now changed their mind and allowed this to happen?

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:05:28 AM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
>
> >(sigh)
>
> Ohh! Cheer up!
>
> >I was *HOPING* that, having shown you that it was possible to go back in time, that you would do so *YOURSELF*.
>
>
> What? Rewrite wiki history?. Im afraid I wouldnt be allowed to do that.
> Thats the preserve of relativists.
>
> >Since you are an Android user, go to the "Desktop" view. "View History" is a tab near the top. Going back to the very beginnings of the LLR article, I find no >such assertions about the initial results of LLR measurements being against theoretical expectation.
>
> Obviously you are not aware of how android is marketed and sold. You
> imagine tabs. Each android device is different. Thats google for you. My
> android device wont even let me see the messages deleted, let alone
> any history tabs. Thats why Im ditching it as soon as possible.

(sigh)
Wikipedia by default sends the Android a mobile presentation of its web pages.
You can override this default view.
At the bottom of the screen there will be an option to switch to a Desktop view.
The desktop view may be awkward and cramped on your tablet/phone, but it will
have all of the features that I have mentioned.

> >Likewise, spot-checking the article on "Sagnac effect" all the way back to the original contribution by User:Cleonis, I see no claim that Sagnac is consistent with c ± v, nor that it is inconsistent with classical physics. If there had ever been such a claim, it would have been a temporary aberration by a crackpot contributor that would have been reverted within hours. 18 December 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagnac_effect&oldid=403078254 22 >
> >March 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagnac_effect&oldid=11433982
>
> Right, and if a relativist wanted to delete an erroneous claim about
> classical theory that other relativists have made. They'd leave the
> ridiculous claim in other earlier versions?
>
> >Wikipedia has many deficiencies
>
> Definitely. It can be rewritten.
>
> But lets see you back up your side of events.
> You say relativists have always accepted sagnac can be explained classically.

Sagnac devices are normally low speed devices. At low speed, there is very
little difference between the predictions of relativity and classical theory.

> (sigh). So you accept that light can travel isotropically at c relative to
> a rotating source as classical theory predicts?

Very imprecise wording. I have no idea what you mean. Classical theory does
not state what you think it states, so your question is equivalent to "When
did you stop beating your wife?"

So when did you stop beating your wife?
And how long were you incarcerated?

> If so then whats all this relativists stuff about light not being possible
> travelling at c in a non inertial rotating frame?
> Or have relativists now changed their mind and allowed this to happen?

You are very confused.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

The ostensible general and special relativity assumptions are based on Maxwell's equations that represent a dispersing electromagnetic field; henceforth, the reflected laser beam, of the MIT lunar reflector experiment, represented with Maxwell's dispersing EM field structure cannot produce an detectable intensity using the Hubble's photomultiplier detector since for the Hubble to detect an object on the surface of the moon requires an illuminated object that has a diameter of at least 200 meters; consequently, since the lunar reflector has a surface area of approximately one square meter it is diametrical that an intensity cannot be observed using a land based or Hubble telescope since the Hubble's photomultiplier requires a threshold intensity and an object with the diameter of at least 200 meter to form a detectable intensity of the object observed using the Hubble since the Hubble space telescope cannot view the lunar lander on the surface of the moon. Example, in a completely darken airplane hanger a photomultiplier is placed at the end of the hanger 25 meters from a photomultiplier. The laser beam is adjusted to produce a minimum intensity to form a signal of the photomultiplier. Next, a Kerr shutter is used with the said minimum laser beam intensity to produce an single pulsed beam; the single pulsed beam produced by the Kerr shutter cannot form the threshold intensity of the photoelectric effect of the photomultiplier which is experimental proof MIT is perpetuating a fraud since two physical requirements, a minimum size and intensity, of the object observed, is required in the formation a detectable intensity using a telescope that are ignore by MIT and NASA scientists that competence is in question. In addition, as the laser beam propagates to the moon the dispersion of the laser beam would form a beam width of over 50 km at the surface of the moon and only one square meter of this beam is reflected. Physicists completely ignore the dispersion of the laser beam's width and assume that the laser beam's width is unaffected after propagating a distance of 180,000 miles then completely reflected by the lunar reflected, without dispersion, and propagates another 180,000 miles back to the earth without the beam's width dispersing, to the earth forming an intensity that is detected by a land base telescope which is a completely ludicrous scientific hoax. It's no wonder that the USA space rockets blowup 50% of the times in their launches in the past year.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Don't be a college professor that drolls!!????????

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

Prokoryatic Caspase Homolog...

>> So you accept that light can travel isotropically at c relative to
>> a rotating source as classical theory predicts?

>Very imprecise wording. I have no idea what you mean. Classical theory does not state what you think it states, so your question is equivalent to "When did >you stop beating your wife?"

Whats imprecise about my above question? Its clear and unambiguous.
But I knew that as a relativist and a true hypocrite you wouldnt be able to answer it.
Because on the one hand you pretend, as the revised wiki pages rewritten by dishonest
relativists do, that sagnac is now consistent with classical theory and its predictions. The reason
being that the old relativist argument that light travels at c+-v in the labframe in sagnac
for classical has been shown to be mathematically incorrect. As you know, if classical
theory dictates light is always at c relative to a rotating source, it is not possible to
have this light travel at a constant speed c+-v in the *lab frame* if one does the maths
correctly. Because this erroneous assumption means it will be a VARIABLE speed in the
source frame for a classical model.
Yet when pressed, you are unable to admit that light can travel isotropically at c relative to a
rotating source. Because that is not consistent with special relativity. Even though, hypocritically,
you accept that light can travel at c relative to a rotating source as classical theory dictates.
I know this because your very own sagnac wiki pages admit that sagnac is consistent
with a classical model where light is always at c relative to a source only. True schizoid
hypocrisy from relativists. And you try to get out of this by trying to make it sound like
I am a wife beater?!!! You are sick.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

You are indeed very mixed up. The Wikipedia article on the Sagnac effect has
never stated what you claim it once stated, and I have explained to you how,
on a mobile device, can check this out for yourself. Classical theory does
not state what you claim that it states, although you are unclear because
you refuse to specify from what frame light travels at c relative to the
source. Relativity is perfectly consistent with the Sagnac effect. So is
classical theory, because Sagnac devices operate at low speed where v << c.
The wife beating analogy was to explain how your questions begin with such
misguided premises, that there is no way to answer them directly.

You are confused.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:05:28 AM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Right, and if a relativist wanted to delete an erroneous claim about
> classical theory that other relativists have made. They'd leave the
> ridiculous claim in other earlier versions?

The earlier versions CANNOT BE MODIFIED.

There are only certain items in the historical record that will not be
retrievable. For example, a copyrighted image deleted for lack of permission
by the copyright holders cannot be undeleted except by an administrator.
These are exceptional cases, and do not apply to text.

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog...

>You are indeed very mixed up. The Wikipedia article on the Sagnac effect has never stated what you claim it once stated, and I have explained to you how, >on a mobile device, can check this out for yourself.

That is unprovable on a platform that allows rewrites. But that doesnt address the
current claim on wiki that sagnac is consistent with a classical model. Currently
and historically, light was assumed to travel at c relative to the source and that
was and still is true for a classical model. As MMX shows. And incidentally
there are no sagnac setups that rotate at near c , so the pretense that classical
cannot explain these imaginary experiments is bogus pseudoscience on your part.

> Classical theory does not state what you claim that it states,

Show me a link or reference that states that a classical model
predicts that light travels at variable non c speeds relative to its
source.

>although you are unclear because you refuse to specify from what frame light travels at c >relative to the source.

You must have reading problems. I have said numerous times...relative to the
source. If you need a frame. Then try to imagine a frame where the source
doesnt move relative to an imaginary grid reference. Dont forget, classical
theory is not SR. Classical theory is modeled on observation only. Not false assumptions
like SR.

>Relativity is perfectly consistent with the Sagnac effect. So is classical theory, because Sagnac devices operate at low speed where v << c. The wife beating >analogy was to explain how your questions begin with such misguided premises, that there is no way to answer them directly.

( You are obsessed with this subject. But your analogy was a deliberate smear
from a sicko, apart from any suspicious sounding obsession you have with it.
Obviously you havent forgotten the political truth that when mud is slung ,
mud sticks, however unjustified)

If classical theory is consistent with sagnac then how do you explain
the interference shift "classically" when sagnac rotates?
Up till now relativists like yourself said light leaving the source was
shifted in speed at c+-v and therefore the path difference was nullified
by the difference of speed on each path. Hence, till recently, the relativistic
claptrap was that classical predicts a null shift in sagnac when rotating.
Which as we all know isnt observed.
Now, you guys have realized you got the maths wrong. And youve changed
your tune pretending that in fact classical does predict a fringe shift
in sagnac. Yet you havent explained how you think this happens.

So how does classical theory predict a fringe shift in sagnac if you also now pretend
that classical theory cannot have light at c relative to a source? ( another bullshit claim
from relativists that is unsubstantiated.)

Which reminds me. Youd better hurry up and delete all those erroneous
claims on wiki based on incorrect maths regarding the de sitter argument about
how light *supposedly* piles up as it travels towards earth from a rotating
source, in a classical model.
Once again your maths is incorrect. You have light leaving a source
and propagating away from it at constant speed in the earth frame as you
relativists like to claim. But this is bad maths; as if its at a constant speed in the
earth frame, as you relativist wackos on wiki like to pretend, then it will
HAVE TO BE travelling away from the source at a variable speed. Which is neither
claimed nor predicted in any classical model. Nor observed in any experiment.
Pre or post SR.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 7:48:37 AM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog...
>
> >You are indeed very mixed up. The Wikipedia article on the Sagnac effect has never stated what you claim it once stated, and I have explained to you how, >on a mobile device, can check this out for yourself.
>
> That is unprovable on a platform that allows rewrites.

The current text may be rewritten.
The history maintains a permanent record of all rewrites.
The history cannot be rewritten.

> But that doesnt address the
> current claim on wiki that sagnac is consistent with a classical model.

Of course it is, for v << c

> Currently
> and historically, light was assumed to travel at c relative to the source and that
> was and still is true for a classical model.

NO. In the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether, light was assumed to travel at c
relative to the aether.

> As MMX shows. And incidentally
> there are no sagnac setups that rotate at near c , so the pretense that classical
> cannot explain these imaginary experiments is bogus pseudoscience on your part.
>
>
> > Classical theory does not state what you claim that it states,
>
> Show me a link or reference that states that a classical model
> predicts that light travels at variable non c speeds relative to its
> source.

NO. In the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether, light was assumed to travel at c
relative to the aether. So yes, this constant c relative to the the aether
implied non-c speeds relative to the source.

> >although you are unclear because you refuse to specify from what frame light travels at c >relative to the source.
>
> You must have reading problems. I have said numerous times...relative to the
> source.

In the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether, light was assumed to travel at c
relative to the aether.

Classical theory did not predict that light traveled at c relative to the
source. Your statements do not compute.

> If you need a frame. Then try to imagine a frame where the source
> doesnt move relative to an imaginary grid reference. Dont forget, classical
> theory is not SR. Classical theory is modeled on observation only. Not false assumptions
> like SR.

Classical theory postulated an unobservable aether.

> >Relativity is perfectly consistent with the Sagnac effect. So is classical theory, because Sagnac devices operate at low speed where v << c. The wife beating >analogy was to explain how your questions begin with such misguided premises, that there is no way to answer them directly.
> ( You are obsessed with this subject. But your analogy was a deliberate smear
> from a sicko, apart from any suspicious sounding obsession you have with it.
> Obviously you havent forgotten the political truth that when mud is slung ,
> mud sticks, however unjustified)
>
> If classical theory is consistent with sagnac then how do you explain
> the interference shift "classically" when sagnac rotates?

Because classical theory is not what you state that it is.

> Up till now relativists like yourself said light leaving the source was
> shifted in speed at c+-v and therefore the path difference was nullified
> by the difference of speed on each path. Hence, till recently, the relativistic
> claptrap was that classical predicts a null shift in sagnac when rotating.
> Which as we all know isnt observed.
> Now, you guys have realized you got the maths wrong. And youve changed
> your tune pretending that in fact classical does predict a fringe shift
> in sagnac. Yet you havent explained how you think this happens.

You are totally mixed up in all of your premises.

> So how does classical theory predict a fringe shift in sagnac if you also now pretend
> that classical theory cannot have light at c relative to a source? ( another bullshit claim
> from relativists that is unsubstantiated.)

Classical theory was never what you claim it to have been.

> Which reminds me. Youd better hurry up and delete all those erroneous
> claims on wiki based on incorrect maths regarding the de sitter argument about
> how light *supposedly* piles up as it travels towards earth from a rotating
> source, in a classical model.
> Once again your maths is incorrect. You have light leaving a source
> and propagating away from it at constant speed in the earth frame as you
> relativists like to claim. But this is bad maths; as if its at a constant speed in the
> earth frame, as you relativist wackos on wiki like to pretend, then it will
> HAVE TO BE travelling away from the source at a variable speed. Which is neither
> claimed nor predicted in any classical model. Nor observed in any experiment.
> Pre or post SR.

Apparently, you don't even understand emission theory.
You misrepresent all sides.

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

Prokoryatic caspase homo...

>In the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether, light was assumed to travel at c relative to the aether.

>Classical theory did not predict that light traveled at c relative to the source. Your statements do not compute.

> classical theory postulated an unobservable aether.

Some theorists postulated that the aether/ vacuum was a medium like air
or water that effected emr speed relative to the source such as glass or
water do. But they werent making predictions of different emission
speeds for light. They were speculating on what properties the vacuum
had. And MMX only proved the vacuum did not effect lightspeed. What
MMX did for classical was confirm that light indeed did always leave
and propagate away from a source at c. Regardless of the motion of
the source. You see your problem is you dont know any physics.
You cant tell the difference between light and a vacuum.

And you still cant explain how the relativist page on how light travels
from a rotating star to earth can "pile up" when for the last 100 years
classical physics has known that the vacuum cannot effect light speed.
How in your untutored brain does a classical model have light leaving
a source at a variable speed, as your erroneous wiki de sitter page
incorrectly claims. When in fact currently, classical physics predicts, and
has observations to back it up, that light always travels at c relative
to the source?

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Dispersion

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 3:42:49 PM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Prokoryatic caspase homo...
> >In the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether, light was assumed to travel at c relative to the aether.
>
> >Classical theory did not predict that light traveled at c relative to the source. Your statements do not compute.
> > classical theory postulated an unobservable aether.
>
> Some theorists postulated that the aether/ vacuum was a medium like air
> or water that effected emr speed relative to the source such as glass or
> water do. But they werent making predictions of different emission
> speeds for light. They were speculating on what properties the vacuum
> had. And MMX only proved the vacuum did not effect lightspeed. What
> MMX did for classical was confirm that light indeed did always leave
> and propagate away from a source at c.

What in ***heck*** do you mean by the word "classical"?

The pre-Michelson luminiferous aether predicted no such thing.

Neither did the FitzGerald-Lorentz aether.

Ritz emission theory would have predicted such, but Ritz emission theory is not
"classical".

> Regardless of the motion of
> the source. You see your problem is you dont know any physics.
> You cant tell the difference between light and a vacuum.
>
> And you still cant explain how the relativist page on how light travels
> from a rotating star to earth can "pile up" when for the last 100 years
> classical physics has known that the vacuum cannot effect light speed.
> How in your untutored brain does a classical model have light leaving
> a source at a variable speed, as your erroneous wiki de sitter page
> incorrectly claims. When in fact currently, classical physics predicts, and
> has observations to back it up, that light always travels at c relative
> to the source?

Again, your concept of what "classical physics" predicts does not correspond
with what practically anybody else would call "classical physics."

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Stick with the topic which is the MIT reflector experiment. Certainly, used SR but related it to the LLRE.



For a laser beam to propagate the distance of 180,000 mile to the moon, the laser beam's width expands and at the surface of the moon is more than 500 mile wide which would result in a large reduce in the intensity that is reflected. Someone on this section stated that a laser beam's width does not disperse which is the justification of the lunar reflector experiment. That is just one of the problem with this experiment, the second problem is that to view an object on the surface of the moon require that the object has a diameter of 200 meter, using the Hubble; therefore, it would not be possible to view a one square meter reflector's intensity using the Hubble.

[Michael Moroney]

numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

>For a laser beam to propagate the distance of 180,000 mile to the moon, the
>laser beam's width expands and at the surface of the moon is more than 500
>mile wide which would result in a large reduce in the intensity that is
>reflected.

And the same thing happens on the return trip, so that is why the LLRE
scientists have to deal with a signal of only one or two photons with every
laser burst.

>That is just one of the problem with this experiment, the second problem is
>that to view an object on the surface of the moon require that the object
>has a diameter of 200 meter, using the Hubble; therefore, it would not be
>possible to view a one square meter reflector's intensity using the Hubble.

No, to _image_ the reflector would require a lens much larger than what the
Hubble has. But the LLRE scientists have no need to image the reflector,
they just want to receive photons from it to measure the distance.

I can easily see the star Sirius with the small lenses in my eyes. Lots of
photons are arriving here from Sirius. But there is no way for me to
_image_ the star as a disk.

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog...

>>>In the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether, light was assumed to travel at c relative to the aether. > > >Classical theory did not predict that light traveled at c relative to the source. Your statements do not compute. > > classical theory postulated an unobservable aether. >

>>Some theorists postulated that the aether/ vacuum was a medium like air > or water that effected emr speed relative to the source such as glass or > water do. But they werent making predictions of different emission > speeds for light. They were speculating on what properties the vacuum > had. And MMX only proved the vacuum did not effect lightspeed. What > MMX did for classical was confirm that light indeed did always leave > and propagate away from a source at c.

>What in ***heck*** do you mean by the word "classical"?

What in the **** do you think it means? Its not SR, and its not GR.
Nor is it religious text written by one person as is SR&GR . Its a cumulative
model based on observation over the centuries. So its whatever
observation has shown us, as for example wave nature of light, refraction,
dispersion, polarization etc. Its not aether theory, because those specific
speculations didnt match MMX Sagnac etc. It is emmission theory but
not a ballistic version because it is a wave based model. Alberts
particle fantasy is not consistent with a wave model of light.
Most importantly, it didnt get preserved in amber pre 1880 like relativists
such as yourself and that lousy mathematician de sitter would like to
pretend. Because it is only by ignoring MMX and sagnac does SR get
to pretend that light piles up etc in examples like de sitters.
And to erroneously conclude that light travels at a variable speed away
from a source.

And incidentally, maybe relativists have deleted c+-v references from wiki,
but its still there in places like math pages on google.
This is a deliberate false claim made by relativists desperate to
remove any competition for relativistic dogma. The fact is that we know
from experiments like MMX and sagnac that a classical model always has
light at c isotropically relative to any rotating source. Hence any relativists
claim that classically light has to be at c+-v in the lab frame in sagnac or
at c+-v in the earth frame in de sitter is not only ignoring experimental
evidence and utilizing bad maths. But a deliberate rewriting of history to falsify
an erroneous claim made by relativity.



>the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether predicted no such thing.

>Neither did the FitzGerald-Lorentz aether.

>Ritz emission theory would have predicted such, but Ritz emission theory is not "classical".

Classical theory is based on observation accumulated over centuries. Classical
theory was not owned by any one individual theorist. Classical theory is not
based on one specific set of assumptions like aether. Especially when those
particular assumptions are not consistent with observation.
A classical model of light did not predict interference or any wave like
properties. They were observed and reobserved and accepted as properties
of light in a classical model. SR on the other makes up predictions that
are not observed. It is an unsubstantiated religious model, unlike clasical theory
which is BASED on observation only.

> Regardless of the motion of > the source. You see your problem is you dont know any physics. > You cant tell the difference between light and a vacuum. > > And you still cant explain how the relativist page on how light travels > from a rotating star to earth can "pile up" when for the last 100 years > classical physics has known that the vacuum cannot effect light speed. > How in your untutored brain does a classical model have light leaving > a source at a variable speed, as your erroneous wiki de sitter page > incorrectly claims. When in fact currently, classical physics predicts, and > has observations to back it up, that light always travels at c relative > to the source?

>Again, your concept of what "classical physics" predicts does not correspond with what practically anybody else would call "classical physics."

Thats because relativists like yourself make up versions of classical physics that ignore
certain experimental observation to create a falsified version designed deliberately to
fail. To prop up a relativity model that itself cannot explain MMX and Sagnac. Light travels
at c in the source frame only. No experiment has been made to show otherwise. This
is inconsistent with SR.

[Odd Bodkin]

I think you were asked a legitimate question and you didn't do a good
job of answering it.

If you are declaring anything that is not relativity or quantum
mechanics is classical, then I would dispute that. Had you said that
classical physics comprises the Newtonian mechanics of material bodies,
the thermodynamics of Gibbs and Carnot and Boltzmann, the
electrodynamics of Faraday and Maxwell, and the optics of Huygens and
Young, then this might have been a starting point. But I don't think you
would even say this is right, in your view. I think you have a mixture
of your own hodgepodge, plus some aspirations of what classical physics
MIGHT HAVE been had others pursued it more aggressively.

One other point. "Albert's particle" view of light is indeed not
consistent with the wave notion of light. However, the modern
understanding of light as a quantum field -- that's post-Einstein and
post-Maxwell -- is consistent with BOTH observed wavelike phenomena and
particlelike phenomena. It is not consistent with wave mental models or
particle mental models, but it IS consistent with the measured phenomena.


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

"And the same thing happens on the return trip, so that is why the LLRE
scientists have to deal with a signal of only one or two photons with every
laser burst.

No, to _image_ the reflector would require a lens much larger than what the
Hubble has. But the LLRE scientists have no need to image the reflector,
they just want to receive photons from it to measure the distance."

______________________________________________________________________


The Hubble produces a signal using a photomultiplier but the photomultiplier of the Hubble cannot detect the intensity of a few photons. Example, in a completely darken room a photomultiplier is placed at the end of the room 25 meters from a photomultiplier. The laser beam is adjusted to produce a minimum intensity to form a signal of the photomultiplier. Next, a Kerr shutter is used with the described minimum laser beam intensity to produce an single pulse; the few photons of the laser pulse produced by the laser and Kerr shutter cannot form the threshold intensity of the photomultiplier required in forming an intensity which proves your argument is physically invalid.



=========================================================================

"I can easily see the star Sirius with the small lenses in my eyes. Lots of
photons are arriving here from Sirius. But there is no way for me to
_image_ the star as a disk."

____________________________________


Good.

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/15/16 9/15/16 4:57 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> [to someone else] What in ***heck*** do you mean by the word "classical"?

For the record, when PHYSICISTS use the word "classical", we mean "pre-quantum".

In particular, all of these theories are classical ones:
Newtonian mechanics
Special Relativity
General Relativity
Thermodynamics
classical electrodynamics
classical statistical mechanics
big-bang cosmological models; the standard model of cosmology

These theories are not classical:
quantum mechanics
QED
the standard model of particle physics
BCS theory of superconductivity
various models of solid state / condensed matter physics


Tom Roberts

[Ned Latham]

Tom Roberts wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > [to someone else] What in ***heck*** do you mean
> > by the word "classical"?
>
> For the record, when PHYSICISTS use the word "classical",
> we mean "pre-quantum".

Oh? You claim to be a physicist? Why is it then, that you
need to lie when "arguing" physics?

----snup----

Ned

[Ned Latham]

I aplogise for that baseless accusation, Mr Roberts.
In making it, I was guilty of a grievous error.

Med Lartham

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

Odd Bodkin...

>I think you were asked a legitimate question and you didn't do a good job of answering it.

That you didnt like my answer doesnt mean I did a bad job. In fact
I would say I did a goodjob if you didnt like it.

>If you are declaring anything that is not relativity or quantum mechanics is classical, then I would dispute that.

You misunderstood that part of my answer. I was simply emphasizing
that GR and SR definitely arent part of what I would call the classical
canon. Its interesting that Tom Roberts seems to be suggesting they are?
Its funny that, because over the years I have read relativists specifically
saying that a classical physics cannot explain things like sagnac but SR
can.
Why make the distinction and then say there isnt one?

>Had you said that classical physics comprises the Newtonian mechanics of material bodies, the thermodynamics of Gibbs and Carnot and Boltzmann, the electrodynamics of Faraday and Maxwell, and the optics of Huygens and Young, then this might have been a starting point. But I don't think you would even say this is right, in your view. I think you have a mixture of your own hodgepodge, plus some aspirations of what classical physics MIGHT HAVE been had >others pursued it more aggressively.

I think I was quite specific in that I specify observed phenomena is probably
the most important aspect in defining classical physics. Whereas assumption
isnt. So for instance, the WMAP cmdb observations are part of classical. But
not the relativistic influenced assumption of a big bang. Or, Sagnac is
part of classical but not the relativistic assumption that light is at c in the lab frame.
And thats primarily because MMX shows light at c in the source frame, which
conflicts with the relativistic assumption that it cant be.
Regarding aspirations,.. whats wrong with that? It wasnt pursued, but it
should have been. If theorists had realized that proving the vacuum didnt
effect lightspeed was only what MMX had shown. Then they wouldnt have
needed SR. They could have accepted the truth that light was only at c
relative to a source ( in a vacuum) and gone on to explain other experiments
classicaly without a problem, like sagnac. But for some reason they were so
obsessed with needing a particulate aether they couldnt see the wood for the trees.
The vacuum never needed to be a " baryonic" medium. It certainly would have
slowed the planetary orbits noticeably if it had slowed light. Something the late
victorian physicists should have realized.

>One other point. "Albert's particle" view of light is indeed not consistent with the wave notion of light. However, the modern understanding of light as a quantum field -- that's post-Einstein and post-Maxwell -- is consistent with BOTH observed wavelike phenomena and particlelike phenomena. It is not >consistent with wave mental models or particle mental models, but it IS consistent with the measured phenomena.

Thats another argument. But you ignore the fact that its also true that all measured
phenomena is consistent with a wave only model. You and I have disagreed on this
numerous times. But I still have yet to see a credible argument for any phenomena
not being explainable as wave based. Take the photoelectric effect. Not only can
it be explained as wave energy quantized at the detector atom. But I have shown that
the famous grangier coincidence experiment can not only be modelled classically.
Itis more consistent with a classical model. I explained this years ago on sci.physics
in the 'what evidence photon' thread. QT predicts a drop off to zero below a threshold.
My modelling indicates it gradually moved to zero to infinity. Experimental evidence
supports my argument. QT gets out of jail clause is..." unexplainable accidentals"

In fact if ever I got any funding to investigate my claims I would hire a supercomputer
and trained staff to do a peer reviewed simulation to prove beyond a doubt that
my classical modelling matches the observations.

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/17/16 9/17/16 4:21 AM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I was simply emphasizing that GR
> and SR definitely arent part of what I would call the classical canon. Its
> interesting that Tom Roberts seems to be suggesting they are?

Yes. To physicists, SR and GR are both classical theories.

> Its funny that,
> because over the years I have read relativists specifically saying that a
> classical physics cannot explain things like sagnac but SR can. Why make the
> distinction and then say there isnt one?

Probably because what you read was not written by a modern physicist.

Note that some pre-SR theories can explain Sagnac, and others cannot.
Specifically: ballistic theories of light can, while aether theories cannot;
Fresnel's ad-hoc guess about aether drag can, but with the puzzle that the
aether seems to always be at rest relative to a lab on the rotating earth.
Remember that before ~ 1900 the by far dominant theory of electromagnetism and
light was Maxwell's theory [#], which is explicitly based on aether. But there
were then-recent unresolved puzzles, such as the MMX, blackbody radiation, the
photoelectric effect, etc. -- change was in the air back then.

[#] His original theory, not the modern evolution of it called
Maxwell's equations (or classical electrodynamics) which involves
no aether.

> the WMAP cmdb observations are part of
> classical. But not the relativistic influenced assumption of a big bang.

Where do you get this nonsense? The COBE, WMAP, and Planck observations of the
CMBR are major observations supporting big-bang cosmology, which is based on GR.

Note also that NONE of these observations would have been possible without
modern electronics, which is all based on quantum (non-classical) theory.

> Or,
> Sagnac is part of classical but not the relativistic assumption that light is
> at c in the lab frame.

Again, this is nonsense. SR provides a simple and natural explanation for the
Sagnac effect. In a rotating Sagnac interferometer of course, the light does NOT
travel at c in the lab frame. But SR models such interferometers very accurately
(including a vacuum Sagnac interferometer in which the light does travel at c
relative to the lab).

> And thats primarily because MMX shows light at c in
> the source frame, which conflicts with the relativistic assumption that it
> cant be.

More nonsense. MMX shows no such thing. It shows that the fringe positions are
independent of orientation, nothing more. Several models can explain this,
including SR.


> [... completely nonsensical speculations about history that never happened]

> But you ignore the fact that its also true that all
> measured phenomena is consistent with a wave only model.

This is just plain not true. Look up the photoelectric effect, the many EPR
tests using light, the many aspects of quantum optics, and the myriad tests of
QED in particle physics.

Like so many others around here, you merely display your personal ignorance of
the experimental record. So it is HOPELESS for you to attempt to "model" the
world using your "classical" notions. Thinking you can just "Make it up as you
go along" is also HOPELESS -- there is a lot of knowledge about physics, and we
KNOW it is very subtle; you haven't a hope of contributing to the field without
a thorough understanding of what is known today, ESPECIALLY about the
experiments that have been performed. IOW you need to STUDY. But doing it on
your own will probably fail -- you need an EDUCATION.


Tom Roberts

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 10:37:56 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/17/16 9/17/16 4:21 AM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I was simply emphasizing that GR
> > and SR definitely arent part of what I would call the classical canon. Its
> > interesting that Tom Roberts seems to be suggesting they are?
>
> Yes. To physicists, SR and GR are both classical theories.

(to Jay)
Note that Tom's dividing line lumps into "classical" theories that are
considered valid (within specified domains of applicability) and theories which
are not valid.
- Newton's theories of motion and of gravitation are valid despite having been
superseded by SR and GR
- SR is valid despite being only applicable when the curvature of spacetime due
to gravity is negligible
- GR is valid despite its well-known incompatibilities with QM
- Ritz's emission theory of light is invalid
- Tolman's and Stewart's emission theories of light are invalid
- Le Sage's theory of gravitation is invalid
- Descartes' Theory of Vortices is invalid
- Theories of the luminiferous aether are invalid
- Caloric theory is invalid
- Scholastic philosophers' theory that each heavenly sphere is associated with
a soul that is moved by an unmoved separate intelligence (angel) is invalid
- Ptolemy's theory of epicycles is invalid
- Aristotelian dynamics is invalid
- The extramission theory of vision is invalid

> > Its funny that,
> > because over the years I have read relativists specifically saying that a
> > classical physics cannot explain things like sagnac but SR can. Why make the
> > distinction and then say there isnt one?
>
> Probably because what you read was not written by a modern physicist.
>
> Note that some pre-SR theories can explain Sagnac, and others cannot.
> Specifically: ballistic theories of light can

Some can, most can't

> while aether theories cannot;

Some can, some can't

> Fresnel's ad-hoc guess about aether drag can, but with the puzzle that the
> aether seems to always be at rest relative to a lab on the rotating earth.
> Remember that before ~ 1900 the by far dominant theory of electromagnetism and
> light was Maxwell's theory [#], which is explicitly based on aether. But there
> were then-recent unresolved puzzles, such as the MMX, blackbody radiation, the
> photoelectric effect, etc. -- change was in the air back then.
>
> [#] His original theory, not the modern evolution of it called
> Maxwell's equations (or classical electrodynamics) which involves
> no aether.
>
>
> > the WMAP cmdb observations are part of
> > classical. But not the relativistic influenced assumption of a big bang.
>
> Where do you get this nonsense? The COBE, WMAP, and Planck observations of the
> CMBR are major observations supporting big-bang cosmology, which is based on GR.
>
> Note also that NONE of these observations would have been possible without
> modern electronics, which is all based on quantum (non-classical) theory.
>
>
> > Or,
> > Sagnac is part of classical but not the relativistic assumption that light is
> > at c in the lab frame.
>
> Again, this is nonsense. SR provides a simple and natural explanation for the
> Sagnac effect. In a rotating Sagnac interferometer of course, the light does NOT
> travel at c in the lab frame.

Note that modern Sagnac interferometers include fiber optic interferometers,
where light travels at c/n within the fibers, and ring laser gyroscopes, where
light travels at slightly less than c within the laser medium.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

"And the same thing happens on the return trip, so that is why the LLRE
scientists have to deal with a signal of only one or two photons with every
laser burst.

No, to _image_ the reflector would require a lens much larger than what the
Hubble has. But the LLRE scientists have no need to image the reflector,

they just want to receive photons from it to measure the distance." Moroneny

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

Tom Roberts...

>> > Or, > Sagnac is part of classical but not the relativistic assumption that light is > at c in the lab frame.

>Again, this is nonsense. SR provides a simple and natural explanation for the Sagnac effect. In a rotating Sagnac interferometer of course, the light does NOT travel at c in the lab frame. But SR models such interferometers very accurately (including a vacuum Sagnac interferometer in which the light does travel at >c > c relative to the lab).

I wasnt disputing the SR explanation vis a vis sagnac. Thats your cross to bear.
All I meant was that the relativistic assumption of c in the lab frame be it in a vacuum
is not acceptable in a classical model. Currently, classical physics models light
*only* at c isotropically relative to the rotating sagnac source. MMX proves this.
Mathematical calculations using c isotropic in the rotating frame do also
give fringe shift. Meaning that sagnac is consistent with classical theory of light

>> And thats primarily because MMX shows light at c in > the source frame, which conflicts with the relativistic assumption that it > cant be.

>More nonsense. MMX shows no such thing. It shows that the fringe positions are independent of orientation, nothing more. Several models can explain this, > including SR.

You couldnt get the null result in MMX if light wasnt travelling at the same speed
isotropically relative to the source and the setup.
And the setup rotates around the earths axis. Which means in MMX, light is
travelling isotropically relative to a rotating source. Which is impossible
under SR. Unless youve just rewritten the rules.

>> But you ignore the fact that its also true that all > measured phenomena is consistent with a wave only model.

>This is just plain not true. Look up the photoelectric effect, the many EPR tests using light, the many aspects of quantum optics, and the myriad tests of QED >n particle physics.

The photoelectric effect can be modelled by quantization of wave energy
at the detector atom. Using resonance, which is a classical effect.
And any quantum properties are in fact fantasies and can be explained
by various classical effects like polarization.
For instance classical eraser experiments, ( sometimes erroneously called
quantum eraser experiments) can be explained solely by polarization
of the various beam paths and selective matching of various polarized states
by a coincidence counter. A purely classical effect.

[jaymo...@hotmail.com]

>For instance classical eraser experiments, ( sometimes erroneously called quantum eraser experiments) can be explained solely by polarization of the various beam paths and selective matching of various polarized states by a coincidence counter. A purely classical effect..


http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html?m=1

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

"And the same thing happens on the return trip, so that is why the LLRE
scientists have to deal with a signal of only one or two photons with every
laser burst.

No, to _image_ the reflector would require a lens much larger than what the
Hubble has. But the LLRE scientists have no need to image the reflector,
they just want to receive photons from it to measure the distance." Moroneny

______________________________________________________________________

The Hubble produces a signal using a photomultiplier but the photomultiplier of the Hubble cannot detect the intensity of a few photons since the photomultiplier is based on the photoelectric effect that requires a threshold intensity. Example, in a completely large darken room a photomultiplier is placed at the end of the room 25 meters from a photomultiplier. The laser beam is adjusted to produce a minimum intensity to form a signal of the photomultiplier. Next, a Kerr shutter is used with the described minimum laser beam intensity to produce an single pulse; the few photons of the laser pulse produced by the laser and Kerr shutter does not produce a signal of the photomultiplier since the fews photons that reach the p-multiplier cannot form the threshold intensity required in forming a detectable signal which proves your argument, based on the assumption that a few photons can form an signal of the light reflect by the MIT lunar reflector, is physically invalid.

[Michael Moroney]

numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

>"And the same thing happens on the return trip, so that is why the LLRE
>scientists have to deal with a signal of only one or two photons with every
>laser burst.

>No, to _image_ the reflector would require a lens much larger than what the
>Hubble has. But the LLRE scientists have no need to image the reflector,
>they just want to receive photons from it to measure the distance." Moroneny


>______________________________________________________________________


>The Hubble produces a signal using a photomultiplier but the photomultiplier
>of the Hubble cannot detect the intensity of a few photons.

First as others have pointed out, the Hubble wouldn't receive photons from
the LLRE lunar reflector as it is out of line of the return beam. However,
the Hubble uses something called a digicon detector, which uses the
photoelectric effect and silicon diodes to count individual photons. This
type of detector was used for especially faint image sources. More modern
instruments use CMOS pixel detectors to record individual photons.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:22:21 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

> The Hubble produces a signal using a photomultiplier but the photomultiplier of the Hubble cannot detect the intensity of a few photons since the photomultiplier is based on the photoelectric effect that requires a threshold intensity. Example, in a completely large darken room a photomultiplier is placed at the end of the room 25 meters from a photomultiplier. The laser beam is adjusted to produce a minimum intensity to form a signal of the photomultiplier. Next, a Kerr shutter is used with the described minimum laser beam intensity to produce an single pulse; the few photons of the laser pulse produced by the laser and Kerr shutter does not produce a signal of the photomultiplier since the fews photons that reach the p-multiplier cannot form the threshold intensity required in forming a detectable signal which proves your argument, based on the assumption that a few photons can form an signal of the light reflect by the MIT lunar reflector, is physically invalid.

Has anybody ever told you that HST is not used for lunar laser ranging? Its
position is not known to sufficient accuracy. Only ground stations can have
their positions evaluated to millimeter accuracy.

Again, there is no threshold *intensity* for the reflected light. Ground-based
photomultipliers *easily* detect single photons of reflected laser light. They
use narrow bandpass filters to reject all light that does not match the expected
wavelength, they attempt ranging only for retroreflectors that are on nighttime
regions of the Moon, and after many years of experience, they know to within fractional nanoseconds when a return photon *should* be arriving. All of these
factors enable scientists to distinguish photons returning from a retroreflector
from background noise.

Your posts are based on ignorance.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

First as others have pointed out, the Hubble wouldn't receive photons from
the LLRE lunar reflector as it is out of line of the return beam. However,
the Hubble uses something called a digicon detector, which uses the
photoelectric effect and silicon diodes to count individual photons.

________________________________________________________________________



I'm extremely sorry but I cannot understand what you are saying since the statement that you are making implies that light from Mars is forming the light that is used in the Lunar lander experiment. Is this your attempt at abstract experimental physics?

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

How in the world do you conclude THAT from Michael's statement that you have
quoted above the horizontal line?

BTW. It would be nice if you followed standard indentation practices...

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

OK, in a experiment a Kerr shutter is used to form an intensity but after the light pulse propagates a distance of 8 km no intensity is detected. If one thousand pulses are formed using the Kerr shutter, separated by the time of say 38 minutes eventually a single photon would have interacted with the photomultipler detector yet no intensity is ever detected which proves the photoelectric effect has a threshold intensity. This is experimental physics not theoretical physics. Would you like some citations regarding the threshold intensity regarding the photoelectric effect? I will gladly supple them to you if you would like but if I do then will you agree that the photoelectric effect is based on the threshold intensity?

[Michael Moroney]

You're babbling gibberish. I never mentioned Mars. I described a device
used on the Hubble that was able to detect single photons so as to be
able to image very dim sources with long exposure.

[Michael Moroney]

numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

<snip babbling>

I'm sorry, but it's been over 100 years since the puzzle why the
photoelectric effect doesn't have any intensity threshold (but does have a
frequency threshold) was solved by Einstein with his concept of the
photon.

The puzzle was that Red light, no matter the intensity, could not knock
out a single electron from the photosensor, yet the dimmest violet light,
down to a single photon of it, could.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

In a experiment a Kerr shutter is used to form an intensity but after the light pulse propagates a distance of 8 km no intensity is detected. If one thousand pulses are formed using the Kerr shutter, separated by the time of say 38 minutes eventually a single photon would have interacted with the photomultipler detector yet no intensity is ever detected which proves the photoelectric effect has a threshold intensity. This is experimental physics not theoretical physics. Would you like some citations regarding the threshold intensity regarding the photoelectric effect? I will gladly supple them to you if you would like but if I do then will you agree that the photoelectric effect is based on the threshold intensity?

[Michael Moroney]

numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

<snip same old false statement>

We already know the photoelectric limit is one photon producing one electron,
which can be multiplied by a variety of methods. The photographic limit of
the Hubble telescope is about magnitude -30, which requires an 18 hour
exposure and detecting incoming photons one by one until it has enough to
form a clear image.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 9/17/2016 5:36 PM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I wasnt disputing the SR explanation vis a vis sagnac. Thats your cross to bear.
> All I meant was that the relativistic assumption of c in the lab frame be it in a vacuum
> is not acceptable in a classical model.

So you don't consider Maxwell's equations to be classical physics, or
you don't consider Maxwell's equations to be applicable in the lab
frame. Which?

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

"It is also possible, on the same view, that when the intensity of the light drops below a certain value, the electric force in the wave fronts is insufficient to break the bonds holding the electron to its equilibrium position, indicating a kind of a photoelectric "threshold" in intensity." (Hughes, p. 29).

[Michael Moroney]

Now read the next two sentences (after the phrase in parentheses).

"The conclusion to which the most reliable experiments all lead is that
the photoelectric current is accurately proportional to the intensity of
the light. Moreover, there is not the slightest trace of any evidence for
any deviation from this relation, either for the weakest light that can be
used (so weak that the eye cannot detect it) or for the strongest light
available (sunlight)."

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Read this "threshold intensity".

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:15:57 AM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Read this "threshold intensity".

Got it! YOU can't read.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

In a experiment a Kerr shutter is used to form an intensity but after the light pulse propagates a distance of 8 km no intensity is detected. If one thousand pulses are formed using the Kerr shutter, separated by the time of say 38 minutes eventually a single photon would have interacted with the photomultipler detector yet no intensity is ever detected which proves the photoelectric effect has a threshold intensity. A very small intensity light beam does not produce the photoelectric effect since the threshold intensity is not produced.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

"History shows us examples of scientists who were able to make a great leap forward specifically because they were not limited by the data. One of the most dramatic examples occurs at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. It was precisely in this way that Dalton proceeded in developing his atomic theory. Some scientists do not like examples of this sort, because they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, p. 300).

[Michael Moroney]

numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

<snip false crap>

Go ahead and babble the same crap over and over again.
Meanwhile, the Hubble will continue to collect really cool
photographs of extremely dim objects, one photon at a time.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

The Hubble cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon. For the Hubble to view a object requires that the illuminated object has a diameter of 200 meters. The lunar reflected has a surface area of one square meter. If Hubble can see the lunar lander using one photon emitted over an extended period then show me a picture of the lunar lander using the Hubble without a computer enhancement.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Are you licking your wounds with Tom. You know what's coming next. Tell your friends at MIT I said Hello.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:22:38 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The Hubble cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon.

Irrelevant. The HST has more important things to look at.

> [Remaining babbling deleted for sanitary reasons]

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/17/16 9/17/16 5:36 PM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> All I meant was that the relativistic assumption of c in the lab frame
> be it in a vacuum is not acceptable in a classical model. Currently,
> classical physics models light *only* at c isotropically relative to the
> rotating sagnac source.

You seem to think that "classical physics" means something as a model for light
propagation. It doesn't, and there are several quite different models of light
that fit your unusual meaning of "classical" (meaning pre-SR).


> MMX proves this.

Nonsense.

> You couldnt get the null result in MMX if light wasnt travelling at the same
> speed isotropically relative to the source and the setup. And the setup
> rotates around the earths axis. Which means in MMX, light is travelling
> isotropically relative to a rotating source. Which is impossible under SR.
> Unless youve just rewritten the rules.

You need to learn about QUANTITATIVE analysis of experiments, analysis of their
resolution, and analysis of their errors. Here you merely display your personal
ignorance of basic experimental physics.

For the MMX, the relevant time for establishing the fringe positions is the time
light takes to traverse the apparatus, about 35 nanoseconds -- that is, every 35
ns one can consider a new light ray emerging from the source and painting the
fringes on the observer's eyeball (which then reacts far more slowly). The point
is, the non-inertial motions you mention, as well as the effect of gravity, are
all completely unobservable, as they are thousands to millions of times smaller
than the resolution of the measurement.

To well within the experimental resolution, the MMX can be considered at rest in
an inertial frame, separately at each orientation.

>>> But you ignore the fact that its also true that all > measured phenomena
>>> is consistent with a wave only model.
>
>> This is just plain not true. Look up the photoelectric effect, the many EPR
>> tests using light, the many aspects of quantum optics, and the myriad tests
>> of QED >n particle physics.
>
> The photoelectric effect can be modelled by quantization of wave energy at
> the detector atom. Using resonance, which is a classical effect.

Nope. That is well known not to work (except by you).

> And any
> quantum properties are in fact fantasies and can be explained by various
> classical effects like polarization.

Nope. Polarization cannot begin to cope with phenomena like frequency doubling
crystals.

Claiming that sort of thing is quantum mechanics applied to
atoms, not light, is hopeless, because quantum transitions
cannot possibly emit classical waves. For instance, the
radiation emitted by Cs133 used to define the second has a
wavelength almost a billion times larger than the atom.


> [... further fantasies even more disconnected from the real world]

Stop wasting your time posting nonsense to the net and go STUDY. All you will
achieve by posting GUESSES is to demonstrate how ignorant and stupid you are.


Tom Roberts

[akasha...@gmail.com]

Dear Mr or Ms Morney

[akasha...@gmail.com]

https://www.google.com/search?q=hubble+telescope+pictures+of+the+moon&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ-6TJ2qPPAhUC-2MKHQCRB1cQ_AUICSgC&biw=1024&bih=726#imgrc=xT2VB-SL16RiFM%3A

[akasha...@gmail.com]

This is a photo by the Apollo



https://www.google.com/search?q=hubble+telescope+pictures+of+the+moon&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ-6TJ2qPPAhUC-2MKHQCRB1cQ_AUICSgC&biw=1024&bih=726#imgrc=4eq_kQWONC1u2M%3A

[akasha...@gmail.com]

Those little spots on the Apollo photos do not even appear on the Hubble photos.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Moroney got is butt kicked similar to when Trump kick that FL senator in the debate when he stated that he didn't vote in the last 4 elections.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Tell me what's it like getting a face rub?

[Michael Moroney]

numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

>Moroney got is butt kicked similar to when Trump kick that FL senator in
>the debate when he stated that he didn't vote in the last 4 elections.

I am not going to play your stupid game where you post some false crap,
I reply how it's wrong, and you autistically repost the exact same
discredited statement in response, over and over, again and again.

Bye.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

I'm so sorry that you feel that way. I find it productive when one is not feel well to take a break and take deep breaths. Please do not take what I say personally but I have an addition argument that makes your previous argument moot since this argument is much more easier to understand or maybe I been tricking you since it is closed to Halloween and its so funny to play with you. This new assessment is based on the fact that there is a limit to the power of the Hubble. Example, if one was to climb a large mountain and from the top of the mountain with a pair of binocular one cannot read the words of a book 200 miles away since a pair of binocular has a finite power that limits the range. Now for the Hubble regarding the lunar lander experiment one cannot tell based on your one photon assumption if that one photon originated from the lunar lander or the lunar reflector since the view a detectable point on the surface of the moon, using the Hubble, would require a illuminated object that has a diameter of more than 200 meters. I hope this answers your question and you are more happy because of it. Your thoughtful and compassionate comments are appreciated and adored. Love, hugs and kisses--- Big Ben.