The similarity between light and wave on string.
Ka-In Yen
by Ka-In Yen,
Chungli city, Taiwan
yen...@yahoo.com.tw
1. Abstract:
Time dilation and length contraction are introduced to explain the
null result of Michelson-Morley experiment. In this paper, light
and wave on string are compared to find their similarity, and a model
of the propagation of light, without time dilation and length contraction,
is suggested.
2. Wave on string:
Example 1: Two equal strings are put on a round table. A shematic
diagram is shown as figure 1(a).
| |
| |
| |
| |
+--------- ---------+
(a) (b)
Figure 1
The length of string is L. The tension on string is tau. The mass
of string is m, and linear density is mu=m/L. Then, the speed of
wave on string is v=sqrt(tau/mu).
Two pulses of wave are simultaneously produced on the connective
node of two strings; One pulse travels along east string, and the
other pulse travels along north string. These two pulses will hit
the end of string and reflect back to the connective node in the
same time, t=2L/v. Then, the round table is turned 90 degrees as
Figure 1(b), the above experiment is repeated, and we will get the
same result, t=2L/v.
In this simple example, time dilation and length contraction are
not required to interpret the result. Comparing example 1 to Michelson-
Morley experiment, the similarity are extracted. Based on their
similarity, a model of the propagation of light, without time dilation
and length contraction, is suggested.
3. The silk of force(distance force):
There are four forces in physic world: gravitational force,
electromagnetic force, strong force, and weak force. Silk is a
abstract description to the distance force between particles.
A silk of force has three components: two elementary particles on
each end of the silk, and the silk itself. A schematic diagram is
shown as figure 2.
(particle 1) *-----------------------* (particle 2)
silk of force
Figure 2.
If there are n electrons, then the electromagnetic force between
electrons can be abstractly described by n(n-1)/2 silks.
Two electrons are separated by a distance R. The repulsive force of
these two electrons is tau=K*e^2/R^2; where K is a constant, and e is
the charge of electron. The potential energy is PE=K*e^2/R, and the
linear density is mu=PE/c^2/R; where c is the speed of light. We can
get the propagation speed of wave on silk is
v=sqrt(tau/mu)=c. (1)
Light wave is a wave on the silk of force. A light wave has frequency f.
The photon energy is E=hf; where h is Plank's constant. The tension
(average force of light wave) is tau=E/landa. The linear density of photon
is mu=E/c^2/landa. Then, the speed of photon is v=sqrt(tau/mu)=c. It is
same to equation (1).
4. Conclusion:
Based on example 1, a model of the propagation of light is suggested
in this paper. Photon is a wave on silk of force. The propagation
speed of wave on silk is c. Based on this model, time dilation and length
contraction are not required to interpret the null result of Michelson-
Morley experiment.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Ka-In Yen" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:9f181401.03101...@posting.google.com...
Now cause one of the string to be moving relative to the other, along its
axis. Repeat your experment. Neither observer will see both waves start
and end at the same time.
A flat space, low speed example is no help here.
Accurately measure the position of any segment of the string, and you will
find the string behaves differently... just as if it knows its orientation
wrt the equator.
> 3. The silk of force(distance force):
> There are four forces in physic world: gravitational force,
> electromagnetic force, strong force, and weak force. Silk is a
> abstract description to the distance force between particles.
> A silk of force has three components: two elementary particles on
> each end of the silk, and the silk itself. A schematic diagram is
> shown as figure 2.
>
> (particle 1) *-----------------------* (particle 2)
> silk of force
This is also known as "distance in curved space". Particle 1 is extended
in space, and so is Particle 2.
> Light wave is a wave on the silk of force. A light wave has frequency f.
> The photon energy is E=hf; where h is Plank's constant. The tension
> (average force of light wave) is tau=E/landa. The linear density of
photon
> is mu=E/c^2/landa. Then, the speed of photon is v=sqrt(tau/mu)=c. It is
> same to equation (1).
Yes, light travels through space. Marvelous.
David A. Smith
Androcles
Isn't that a fifth force to consider in your analogy?
Now, it must be said that I do not accept time dilation/length contraction
either, nor do I accept that photons are a wave, or pulse. A rotating wheel
shows wave-like properties, but it isn't a wave. A photon is a particle of
energy, with an analogy that is more like a wheel than a wave.
Androcles
Androcles
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:Jdzhb.52524$gv5.41240@fed1read05...
[snip as read and answered]
> Yes, light travels through space. Marvelous.
>
> David A. Smith
Yes, it is marvellous. I marvel at it.
When some non-scientist wrote 'And God said "Let there be light" ' he was
clearly marvelled at it and its importance. I'll bet he didn't realize the
can of worms it would open up, though. Until we get to grips with what light
IS, arguments about its nature will continue unabated.
It is energy, carrying off the mass of the stars and spreading it throughout
nothing, unless it collides with something. Even then, the something
re-radiates it into the nothing again.
It is thrown out by electrons in atoms, or at lower frequencies by antennae,
or at higher frequencies by other exotic particles in collision, and it
leaves at speed c.
Consider a radio antenna. It send electrons out to its extremities (ever see
a paper clip spark in a microwave oven?), and a magnetic field is produced,
it expands and collapses. This in turn produces an electric field, 90
degrees out of phase (temporal) and at 90 degrees (spatial) to the magnetic
field.
The electric field doesn't move. It remains at the same distance from the
source throughout its short existence, just as the water only bobs up and
down when we produce a ripple on a pond. Nor does the magnetic field. It too
remains right where it is, created by the electric field. But as it expands,
it also produces another electric field further away, as the sinking water
pushes up the surrounding water. Thus the energy, the ripple, moves across
the pond and the water stays where it is, only moving at right-angles to the
ripples. We can, if we want, think of the electric field as aether. It is
'stationary' relative to the source, and only exists when a magnetic field
is passing through it, creating it. Like the water level in the pond when
there is no ripple, there is an electric field of zero 'height', neither
negative or positive, everywhere.
One electron doesn't produce a wave train like an oscillating antenna. It
produces a photon. The quantum effect now applies. There is (I don't know
why and cannot prove it) a smallest possible quantity of energy. This is not
a strange idea, we think of atoms as the smallest quantity of matter, then
'split' them to look inside. What we find cannot be referred to as 'matter'
(although some do) but a miniature world of forces between things we call
electrons and protons and neutrons for want of a description. Electrons can
be diffracted. Is that 'matter'? Gravity, whatever that is, belongs to whole
atoms, not parts of them. The photon moves, and it has spin. The spin is the
rate at which the electric and magnetic fields alternate in one sense, but
these fields can also tumble. It isn't rolling, like a wheel on a road. Its
spin is independent of its motion. It can spin sideways as it moves
forwards, like a car in a skid, side on to the road, wheels spinning. It can
spin like a frisbee, edge on to its direction. It can travel at any
velocity, because velocity is relative. It can stand still, it can hurtle
though space. What it cannot do is go everywhere at once, like pond ripples,
because that would make the smallest amount of energy divisible. Photons are
not divisible, any more than atoms are. You can divide an apple, and still
have apple. You cannot divide an atom and still have an atom. You cannot
divide a photon and still have a photon. How does this work? I have no idea,
but I can consider a ripple on water, and notice that the water molecules
have inertia. When they reach a crest, they fall and pass through the mean
water level, causing a trough. If we *assume* (yes, I hate assuming
anything) that the electric field has no inertia, it can stop dead when it
reaches zero, then the photon exists as the smallest unit or quantum of
energy. You can reflect a photon, though, and you can have adjacent photons
that effect one another, sharing magnetic fields to produce waves. You can
also reflect waves. Photons have wavelike behaviour. The also have
particle-like behaviour. The wavelike behaviour is evident when the photons
march in step, as in refraction and diffraction. The particle-like behaviour
is evident with the photo-electric effect.
In this author's view, the concept of source independence is absurd, has no
experimental evidence to support it, and doesn't happen anyway. The idea is
as archaic as Ptolemy's perfectly circular epicycles, searching for
perfection in the workings of Nature according to our own ideas of what
perfection is. Einstein's second postulate is just such a search for
perfection, a desire to believe that we can understand Nature according to
our own rules and call it 'science'. All you really have is individuals
trying to make a name for themselves in the eyes of their peers. I don't
share that need for fame, I'll remain
Androcles
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:grdib.85$Yh7...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:Jdzhb.52524$gv5.41240@fed1read05...
> [snip as read and answered]
>
> > Yes, light travels through space. Marvelous.
> >
> Yes, it is marvellous. I marvel at it.
> When some non-scientist wrote 'And God said "Let there be light" ' he was
> clearly marvelled at it and its importance. I'll bet he didn't realize
the
> can of worms it would open up, though. Until we get to grips with what
light
> IS, arguments about its nature will continue unabated.
> It is energy, carrying off the mass of the stars and spreading it
throughout
> nothing, unless it collides with something. Even then, the something
> re-radiates it into the nothing again.
I disagree with "nothing", here. Mach: the Universe makes the water in the
bucket form a parabola. Einstein: bodies are extended in space. There is
no such thing as "nothing" in this Universe. Empty space is not empty.
And don't forget the momentum being transferred with the energy, complete
with direction vector.
> It is thrown out by electrons in atoms, or at lower frequencies by
antennae,
> or at higher frequencies by other exotic particles in collision, and it
> leaves at speed c.
wrt the soure still, right? You are still on teh "ballistic photon"
bandwagon? Just asking...
> Consider a radio antenna. It send electrons out to its extremities (ever
see
> a paper clip spark in a microwave oven?), and a magnetic field is
produced,
> it expands and collapses. This in turn produces an electric field, 90
> degrees out of phase (temporal) and at 90 degrees (spatial) to the
magnetic
> field.
> The electric field doesn't move. It remains at the same distance from the
> source throughout its short existence, just as the water only bobs up and
> down when we produce a ripple on a pond.
This distance extends to the ends of the Universe.
> Nor does the magnetic field. It too
> remains right where it is, created by the electric field. But as it
expands,
> it also produces another electric field further away, as the sinking
water
> pushes up the surrounding water. Thus the energy, the ripple, moves
across
> the pond and the water stays where it is, only moving at right-angles to
the
> ripples.
But dissociated from the source, Androcles. A freely propagating photon
has the E and B field in phase.
> We can, if we want, think of the electric field as aether. It is
> 'stationary' relative to the source, and only exists when a magnetic
field
> is passing through it, creating it. Like the water level in the pond when
> there is no ripple, there is an electric field of zero 'height', neither
> negative or positive, everywhere.
Just as bodies are extended, so would be charge. Makes sense.
> One electron doesn't produce a wave train like an oscillating antenna. It
> produces a photon. The quantum effect now applies. There is (I don't know
> why and cannot prove it) a smallest possible quantity of energy.
I don't agree, but QM is not my speciality. At some point it would be an
engineering problem to detect below any finite threshold.
> This is not
> a strange idea, we think of atoms as the smallest quantity of matter,
then
> 'split' them to look inside. What we find cannot be referred to as
'matter'
> (although some do) but a miniature world of forces between things we call
> electrons and protons and neutrons for want of a description. Electrons
can
> be diffracted. Is that 'matter'?
Momentum describes diffraction. Rest mass describes matter.
> Gravity, whatever that is, belongs to whole
> atoms, not parts of them.
I disgaree. The Sun is a plasma. The electrons don't leave much (if any)
faster than the nucleii. Net charge would tend to assure the two rates are
equal over time. But gravity also holds it together.
> The photon moves, and it has spin. The spin is the
> rate at which the electric and magnetic fields alternate in one sense,
but
> these fields can also tumble.
The spin has no correlation to its frequency. The spin is 1 for all
observers. The frequency is constant for all observers.
> It isn't rolling, like a wheel on a road. Its
> spin is independent of its motion. It can spin sideways as it moves
> forwards, like a car in a skid, side on to the road, wheels spinning. It
can
> spin like a frisbee, edge on to its direction. It can travel at any
> velocity, because velocity is relative.
I disagree. Its velocity is the only other constant in the Universe. I
know we'll continue to disagree.
> It can stand still,
Only as a virutal photon, and as such it has no frequency.
> it can hurtle
> though space. What it cannot do is go everywhere at once, like pond
ripples,
> because that would make the smallest amount of energy divisible.
It *is* everywhere transverse to its path, based on the diffraction
formulae. Distance is the illusion.
> Photons are
> not divisible, any more than atoms are. You can divide an apple, and
still
> have apple. You cannot divide an atom and still have an atom. You cannot
> divide a photon and still have a photon. How does this work? I have no
idea,
> but I can consider a ripple on water, and notice that the water molecules
> have inertia. When they reach a crest, they fall and pass through the
mean
> water level, causing a trough. If we *assume* (yes, I hate assuming
> anything) that the electric field has no inertia,
The electric field has the inertia of the particle that created it.
> it can stop dead when it
> reaches zero, then the photon exists as the smallest unit or quantum of
> energy.
You can always make photons with smaller energies. It is only an
engineering problem to gather enough of them to detect.
> You can reflect a photon, though, and you can have adjacent photons
> that effect one another, sharing magnetic fields to produce waves.
There is no experimental proof of that. Laser beams should be so
"affected", but they disperse anyway.
> You can
> also reflect waves. Photons have wavelike behaviour. The also have
> particle-like behaviour. The wavelike behaviour is evident when the
photons
> march in step, as in refraction and diffraction. The particle-like
behaviour
> is evident with the photo-electric effect.
> In this author's view, the concept of source independence is absurd, has
no
> experimental evidence to support it, and doesn't happen anyway.
Understood. I don't understand how you believe all these photons affect
one another, yet manage to not affect a common speed limit, however.
> The idea is
> as archaic as Ptolemy's perfectly circular epicycles, searching for
> perfection in the workings of Nature according to our own ideas of what
> perfection is.
I liked Pythagoras. He thought he was God.
> Einstein's second postulate is just such a search for
> perfection, a desire to believe that we can understand Nature according
to
> our own rules and call it 'science'. All you really have is individuals
> trying to make a name for themselves in the eyes of their peers. I don't
> share that need for fame, I'll remain
So poetic! You've managed to get your own following too, btw.
David A. Smith
Androcles
perplexed greater minds than my own. I will, however, object to aetherialism
as a theory that has any merit. Inventions of the mind get in the way of the
study of Nature.
>
> > It is thrown out by electrons in atoms, or at lower frequencies by
> antennae,
> > or at higher frequencies by other exotic particles in collision, and it
> > leaves at speed c.
>
> wrt the soure still, right? You are still on teh "ballistic photon"
> bandwagon? Just asking...
Of course. I don't pretend to have all the answers, I just know that source
independence, as if we were studying sound in air, leads to absurdity. All
of Einstein's equations could be applied to sound in air, if we insisted
that its speed was constant in all frames of reference. It clearly isn't for
sound. It is equally as clear for light. At least to me.
>
> > Consider a radio antenna. It send electrons out to its extremities (ever
> see
> > a paper clip spark in a microwave oven?), and a magnetic field is
> produced,
> > it expands and collapses. This in turn produces an electric field, 90
> > degrees out of phase (temporal) and at 90 degrees (spatial) to the
> magnetic
> > field.
> > The electric field doesn't move. It remains at the same distance from
the
> > source throughout its short existence, just as the water only bobs up
and
> > down when we produce a ripple on a pond.
>
> This distance extends to the ends of the Universe.
Define 'ends of the Universe'. I don't know what it means.
However, I have no objection to a photon going onward forever.
>
> > Nor does the magnetic field. It too
> > remains right where it is, created by the electric field. But as it
> expands,
> > it also produces another electric field further away, as the sinking
> water
> > pushes up the surrounding water. Thus the energy, the ripple, moves
> across
> > the pond and the water stays where it is, only moving at right-angles to
> the
> > ripples.
>
> But dissociated from the source, Androcles. A freely propagating photon
> has the E and B field in phase.
Why do you claim that? Did you read it in a book?
If it were so, then there would be a moment when both the B and E fields
were at a maximum, and a moment when both were zero. We know from a study of
electronics, electrics and Maxwell's equations too, that a collapsing
magnetic field produces an electric field, and vice versa. The two are
always phase shifted by 90 degrees. If both the B field and the E field
were zero at the same instant, what would cause them to spring into
existence again? Such an idea violates conservation of energy, and that is a
postulate I'd be reluctant to question. Your idea, wherever you learnt it,
requires inertia of the B and E fields, a mechanical idea. If the E-field
varies as sine, and the B field varies as cosine, then as you know, sine
squared plus cos squared = 1 (squared). The energy contained in the combined
fields is constant at all times, but moves between the fields sinusoidally.
I think the terms you are using, 'rest mass' and 'momentum', are borrowed
from relativity, and don't mean the same thing to me as they mean to you. To
me, momentum remains mv. The integral of that, 1/2 mv^2, is the energy. It's
a measure of the 'damage' caused when an object of mass m moving at velocity
v comes to a complete halt, such as a car hitting a tree.
Rest mass is, to me, simply mass. I do not accept that when I pass a
stationary object with speed v, I cause its mass to change. I accept
Galilean relativity, or, if you prefer, Einstein's 'principle of
relativity'.
>
> > Gravity, whatever that is, belongs to whole
> > atoms, not parts of them.
>
> I disgaree. The Sun is a plasma.
> The electrons don't leave much (if any)
> faster than the nucleii. Net charge would tend to assure the two rates
are
> equal over time. But gravity also holds it together.
At the surface? You surprise me. I'll accept that some nucleii are swimming
in a sea of electrons, but then, that happens in metals too. What is the
difference between a metal and a plasma? Moreover, helium was first
discovered in the sun, and hydrogen is seen there too. Not the atom, the
molecule, observed by spectroscopy. This would imply that there are
electrons along with the nucleii, forming a complete atom, and the complete,
un-ionized atoms form molecules. Are you sure it is a plasma and not a hot
gas?
>
> > The photon moves, and it has spin. The spin is the
> > rate at which the electric and magnetic fields alternate in one sense,
> but
> > these fields can also tumble.
>
> The spin has no correlation to its frequency. The spin is 1 for all
> observers. The frequency is constant for all observers.
>
> > It isn't rolling, like a wheel on a road. Its
> > spin is independent of its motion. It can spin sideways as it moves
> > forwards, like a car in a skid, side on to the road, wheels spinning. It
> can
> > spin like a frisbee, edge on to its direction. It can travel at any
> > velocity, because velocity is relative.
>
> I disagree. Its velocity is the only other constant in the Universe. I
> know we'll continue to disagree.
I don't mind if you disagree, all I ask you to do is prove it. It is
counter-intuitive to accept that the speed of light from a distant star will
slow if I move toward the star, making the speed of light, for me, c again.
I know that if I do, I'll observe doppler shift. That is true if I move
toward a sound source, but we don't claim the speed of sound is constant, we
say that the change in frequency is caused by a change in the relative
speed.
f' = f(m+v)/m, where m is the speed of sound relative to its source.
Since it is your claim that is counter-intuitive, I am unable to understand
it and ask for proof. I'll not accept dogma or assertion.
> > It can stand still,
>
> Only as a virutal photon, and as such it has no frequency.
Again, I ask for proof. Work is currently being done where photons are
slowed to walking speeds.
>
> > it can hurtle
> > though space. What it cannot do is go everywhere at once, like pond
> ripples,
> > because that would make the smallest amount of energy divisible.
>
> It *is* everywhere transverse to its path, based on the diffraction
> formulae. Distance is the illusion.
What are you smoking? :)
> > Photons are
> > not divisible, any more than atoms are. You can divide an apple, and
> still
> > have apple. You cannot divide an atom and still have an atom. You cannot
> > divide a photon and still have a photon. How does this work? I have no
> idea,
> > but I can consider a ripple on water, and notice that the water
molecules
> > have inertia. When they reach a crest, they fall and pass through the
> mean
> > water level, causing a trough. If we *assume* (yes, I hate assuming
> > anything) that the electric field has no inertia,
>
> The electric field has the inertia of the particle that created it.
>
> > it can stop dead when it
> > reaches zero, then the photon exists as the smallest unit or quantum of
> > energy.
>
> You can always make photons with smaller energies. It is only an
> engineering problem to gather enough of them to detect.
Like you can always make smaller atoms than hydrogen? I'm not claiming that
there is no heavy elements, anymore than there are photons of different
energies. Of course there are. I am claiming there is a certain 'size' of
photon that cannot be reduced. Unfortunately I have no word for it. What is
the 'amplitude' of a photon? Perhaps that will do. Amplitude is independent
of frequency. I can have a processor operating at 2 GHz and another at 1MHz,
both from a 5 volt supply.
> > You can reflect a photon, though, and you can have adjacent photons
> > that effect one another, sharing magnetic fields to produce waves.
>
> There is no experimental proof of that. Laser beams should be so
> "affected", but they disperse anyway.
Maybe not. It is intuitive, though. Water molecules will rise and fall in
unison to produce a ripple.
>
> > You can
> > also reflect waves. Photons have wavelike behaviour. The also have
> > particle-like behaviour. The wavelike behaviour is evident when the
> photons
> > march in step, as in refraction and diffraction. The particle-like
> behaviour
> > is evident with the photo-electric effect.
> > In this author's view, the concept of source independence is absurd, has
> no
> > experimental evidence to support it, and doesn't happen anyway.
>
> Understood. I don't understand how you believe all these photons affect
> one another, yet manage to not affect a common speed limit, however.
>
> > The idea is
> > as archaic as Ptolemy's perfectly circular epicycles, searching for
> > perfection in the workings of Nature according to our own ideas of what
> > perfection is.
>
> I liked Pythagoras. He thought he was God.
Even his theorem fails on the surface of a sphere. A triangle with apex at
the pole and base on the equator can have angles totalling 270 degrees, all
angles being 90 degrees. Then we find that x^2 +x^2 = x^2.
>
> > Einstein's second postulate is just such a search for
> > perfection, a desire to believe that we can understand Nature according
> to
> > our own rules and call it 'science'. All you really have is individuals
> > trying to make a name for themselves in the eyes of their peers. I don't
> > share that need for fame, I'll remain
>
> So poetic! You've managed to get your own following too, btw.
thanks.
Androcles
> David A. Smith
>
>
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:F0kib.244$1F....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:mIgib.60770$gv5.56892@fed1read05...
...
I don't offer aether. I offer the Universe as the medium, and all the
"extended bodies" of which it is comprised.
> > > It is thrown out by electrons in atoms, or at lower frequencies by
> > antennae,
> > > or at higher frequencies by other exotic particles in collision, and
it
> > > leaves at speed c.
> >
> > wrt the soure still, right? You are still on teh "ballistic photon"
> > bandwagon? Just asking...
> Of course. I don't pretend to have all the answers, I just know that
source
> independence, as if we were studying sound in air, leads to absurdity.
All
> of Einstein's equations could be applied to sound in air, if we insisted
> that its speed was constant in all frames of reference. It clearly isn't
for
> sound. It is equally as clear for light. At least to me.
If all we are is part of the partnership of the Universe,
and the partnership has both us and light moving,
do the rules of the partnership change?
Are photons part of the Universe, or separate from it?
> > > Consider a radio antenna. It send electrons out to its extremities
(ever
> > see
> > > a paper clip spark in a microwave oven?), and a magnetic field is
> > produced,
> > > it expands and collapses. This in turn produces an electric field, 90
> > > degrees out of phase (temporal) and at 90 degrees (spatial) to the
> > magnetic
> > > field.
> > > The electric field doesn't move. It remains at the same distance from
> the
> > > source throughout its short existence, just as the water only bobs up
> and
> > > down when we produce a ripple on a pond.
> >
> > This distance extends to the ends of the Universe.
> Define 'ends of the Universe'. I don't know what it means.
> However, I have no objection to a photon going onward forever.
We are discussing "virtual photons" or the static field of an individual
charge, or so I thought. I propose the electric field of a single charge
extends across the Universe. Detecting same would be an engineering
exercise.
> > > Nor does the magnetic field. It too
> > > remains right where it is, created by the electric field. But as it
> > expands,
> > > it also produces another electric field further away, as the sinking
> > water
> > > pushes up the surrounding water. Thus the energy, the ripple, moves
> > across
> > > the pond and the water stays where it is, only moving at right-angles
to
> > the
> > > ripples.
> >
> > But dissociated from the source, Androcles. A freely propagating
photon
> > has the E and B field in phase.
> Why do you claim that? Did you read it in a book?
It is a result of Maxwell's equations. If they are not in-phase, the light
doesn't move.
> If it were so, then there would be a moment when both the B and E fields
> were at a maximum, and a moment when both were zero. We know from a study
of
> electronics, electrics and Maxwell's equations too, that a collapsing
> magnetic field produces an electric field, and vice versa. The two are
> always phase shifted by 90 degrees. If both the B field and the E field
> were zero at the same instant, what would cause them to spring into
> existence again? Such an idea violates conservation of energy, and that
is a
> postulate I'd be reluctant to question.
Conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are not concepts that
apply as one might think at the quantum level. Nevertheless, are the
observed minima of diffraction a violation of conservation of M&E? When
you cross two polarizing grids, is *all* the visible light cut off? I
think you'll agree the answer to both is "no". This is why it is so
difficult to work with radio waves. They travel so far before you can
actually "get ahold" of all of them.
Most QM folks believe that a propagating photon is a series of virtual
photons, which would be supported by this on-again-off-again behavour of
light. I find it mighty "convenient" that the virtual community knows how
and when to get in line, but there you go...
> Your idea, wherever you learnt it,
> requires inertia of the B and E fields, a mechanical idea. If the E-field
> varies as sine, and the B field varies as cosine, then as you know, sine
> squared plus cos squared = 1 (squared). The energy contained in the
combined
> fields is constant at all times, but moves between the fields
sinusoidally.
Not true for a propagating wave according to Maxwell. Sorry to disagree.
We are talking the same, for practical purposes. The diffraction pattern
of a stream of buckyballs and of photons is described by the average
momentum of the members of the stream. That and the object geometry that
is causing the diffraction.
> Rest mass is, to me, simply mass. I do not accept that when I pass a
> stationary object with speed v, I cause its mass to change. I accept
> Galilean relativity, or, if you prefer, Einstein's 'principle of
> relativity'.
I was offering non-zero rest mass as a definition for "matter".
> > > Gravity, whatever that is, belongs to whole
> > > atoms, not parts of them.
> >
> > I disgaree. The Sun is a plasma.
> > The electrons don't leave much (if any)
> > faster than the nucleii. Net charge would tend to assure the two rates
> are
> > equal over time. But gravity also holds it together.
>
> At the surface? You surprise me. I'll accept that some nucleii are
swimming
> in a sea of electrons, but then, that happens in metals too. What is the
> difference between a metal and a plasma?
Long range structure. Metals have one. Plasma does not.
> Moreover, helium was first
> discovered in the sun, and hydrogen is seen there too. Not the atom, the
> molecule, observed by spectroscopy.
This is not true. Spectroscopy identifies emission from electrons dropping
into a specific orbital, and absorption bands caused by electrons
scattering absorbed light in those same wavelengths. And this is the
surface of the Sun. 25 million degrees prevents any partnership between
nucleii and electrons other than as ballistic targets and charge sources.
They may dance, but it ain't a rhumba.
> This would imply that there are
> electrons along with the nucleii, forming a complete atom, and the
complete,
> un-ionized atoms form molecules. Are you sure it is a plasma and not a
hot
> gas?
At the surface it is partially (or perhaps frequently) ionized gas.
Beneath that is plasma.
And I am not prepared to argue with you. I can cite TWLS measurements, and
naught else. SR makes good predictions based on the assumption of OWLS
being c (but only verification using TWLS). Maxwell asserts that it
propagates at c. Beyond this is religious discussion.
> > > It can stand still,
> >
> > Only as a virutal photon, and as such it has no frequency.
> Again, I ask for proof. Work is currently being done where photons are
> slowed to walking speeds.
But not stopped. And a great deal of loss. I'm not sure how they are not
sure is is simply not totally internally reflected until released. This is
now lasers are made to "lase". I'm pretty sure the argument would be over
my head, though.
> >
> > > it can hurtle
> > > though space. What it cannot do is go everywhere at once, like pond
> > ripples,
> > > because that would make the smallest amount of energy divisible.
> >
> > It *is* everywhere transverse to its path, based on the diffraction
> > formulae. Distance is the illusion.
> What are you smoking? :)
The diffraction formula. When the angle of the first maxima (or minima) is
exactly zero, is when the distance to the slit/object edge is infinite, or
the wavelength is zero. Geometry as far away as the Andromeda galaxy will
cause diffraction of light passing through my lab. Of course, measuring
the deflection will take me to yet another galaxy still...
Not for photons. You have two choices when pumping power onto an area with
photons. One is the number of photons per second (intensity). The other
is the energy of the average photon (frequency).
> I can have a processor operating at 2 GHz and another at 1MHz,
> both from a 5 volt supply.
You'll fry your 2 GHz processor dude. They usally run around 3 volts. But
I know what you intended to say...
> > > You can reflect a photon, though, and you can have adjacent photons
> > > that effect one another, sharing magnetic fields to produce waves.
> >
> > There is no experimental proof of that. Laser beams should be so
> > "affected", but they disperse anyway.
> Maybe not. It is intuitive, though. Water molecules will rise and fall in
> unison to produce a ripple.
But water waves are not known to "lase". Therefore the attractive forces
of the water molecules only act to provide the nature of this particular
medium. Water waves look like mercury waves. Waves in a gas, which is not
a particularly "attractive" medium, can be described by the same types of
formulae.
> > > You can
> > > also reflect waves. Photons have wavelike behaviour. The also have
> > > particle-like behaviour. The wavelike behaviour is evident when the
> > photons
> > > march in step, as in refraction and diffraction. The particle-like
> > behaviour
> > > is evident with the photo-electric effect.
> > > In this author's view, the concept of source independence is absurd,
has
> > no
> > > experimental evidence to support it, and doesn't happen anyway.
> >
> > Understood. I don't understand how you believe all these photons
affect
> > one another, yet manage to not affect a common speed limit, however.
And I still don't...
> > > The idea is
> > > as archaic as Ptolemy's perfectly circular epicycles, searching for
> > > perfection in the workings of Nature according to our own ideas of
what
> > > perfection is.
> >
> > I liked Pythagoras. He thought he was God.
> Even his theorem fails on the surface of a sphere. A triangle with apex
at
> the pole and base on the equator can have angles totalling 270 degrees,
all
> angles being 90 degrees. Then we find that x^2 +x^2 = x^2.
Isn't that x^2 + (x/2)^2 = x^2? Half the base...
I'm sure he was aware he was not God, by the end.
Good discussion. Trim off whatever you don't need to reply to, or don't
reply at all.
David A. Smith
Androcles
I missed a few points on the first pass.
> > And don't forget the momentum being transferred with the energy,
complete
> > with direction vector.
What do you imagine the total momentum of radiation from a star is?
Might I suggest zero?
> > I don't agree, but QM is not my speciality. At some point it would be
an
> > engineering problem to detect below any finite threshold.
Is your disagreement prejudice then?
> > The spin has no correlation to its frequency. The spin is 1 for all
> > observers. The frequency is constant for all observers.
A convenience used by particle physicists. A wheel can spin (rotate) without
going anywhere. It has a frequency, in this case RPM. There is certainly a
correlation between the spin I mean and the frequency. I can also turn it in
three dimensions, although the gyroscopic effect makes it difficult.
> > The electric field has the inertia of the particle that created it.
I pointed out that it is the magnetic field that created it, not a particle.
> > Understood. I don't understand how you believe all these photons affect
> > one another, yet manage to not affect a common speed limit, however.
Because speed is relative. There has to be a reference, some other frame to
measure speed from. You would prefer a universal frame, I suppose.
As to the interaction, why is that strange? Don't atoms cling together to
form molecules? Don't molecules cling together to form crystals? Try
breaking a diamond. It is one huge molecule. So is sodium chloride, table
salt. What forces are present to make the crystal hold together? Gravity? I
don't think so.
The photon 'crystal' is a lattice of photons that radiate out from the
surface of a star in an 'onion' shell, spreading the total energy over an
ever increasing surface. The further away they get, the lower the 'density'
of the energy. They are also pushed along by the following shell, which also
interacts. Now you have your 'lightwave' of photon particles. And like
ripples on a pond, there is a limit to how far they can reach before coming
to rest relative to their source. But this model is not perfect. A single
photon can escape and go on forever, it is particle-like. However, the
majorty will slow down, produceing what we see as red-shift. The further
away we are from the star, the greater the red-shift. E = h(nu) is the
accepted energy to frequency relationship, but we need to apply it to energy
density and speed.
Anyway, the universe isn't expanding, the red shift we see isn't due to
receding galaxies, but slowing light. The energy density is going down,
while the total energy remains constant. What other sensible explanation can
there be? The expanding universe is an artefact of faulty thinking and
mathematics.
Androcles.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:x%lib.960$aU....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:F0kib.244$1F....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I missed a few points on the first pass.
Never! You also cut off to what I responded, and even my name. You are
not starting the "posture" defense are you? Its a little early in the
game...
> > > And don't forget the momentum being transferred with the energy,
> complete
> > > with direction vector.
> What do you imagine the total momentum of radiation from a star is?
> Might I suggest zero?
I respectfully submit that it is not quite zero. The time average may be,
but I don't see conservation of angular momentum being conserved on
collapse of a red giant to a white dwarf. Maybe they spin off more
"planets" though...
> > > I don't agree, but QM is not my speciality. At some point it would
be
> an
> > > engineering problem to detect below any finite threshold.
> Is your disagreement prejudice then?
Hard to tell, since you cleverly cut off what I was replying too. You who
are quite b*tchy when *I* do this. My expectation is that given a
continuum of velocities of source and observer from (at least) -c to c,
then a continuum of values for observed light energies *must* follow.
Unless you believe that the Universe also allows only quantized velocities
for a body?
> > > The spin has no correlation to its frequency. The spin is 1 for all
> > > observers. The frequency is constant for all observers.
> A convenience used by particle physicists. A wheel can spin (rotate)
without
> going anywhere. It has a frequency, in this case RPM. There is certainly
a
> correlation between the spin I mean and the frequency. I can also turn it
in
> three dimensions, although the gyroscopic effect makes it difficult.
Quantum spin is not physical spin. But you know this.
> > > The electric field has the inertia of the particle that created it.
> I pointed out that it is the magnetic field that created it, not a
particle.
No, you didn't. I would also disagree with this statement. Please review
what you *did* say:
> Photons are
> not divisible, any more than atoms are. You can divide an apple, and
> still
> have apple. You cannot divide an atom and still have an atom. You
> cannot
> divide a photon and still have a photon. How does this work? I have
> no
> idea,
> but I can consider a ripple on water, and notice that the water
> molecules
> have inertia. When they reach a crest, they fall and pass through the
> mean
> water level, causing a trough. If we *assume* (yes, I hate assuming
> anything) that the electric field has no inertia,
No mention of "magnetic".
> > > Understood. I don't understand how you believe all these photons
affect
> > > one another, yet manage to not affect a common speed limit, however.
> Because speed is relative. There has to be a reference, some other frame
to
> measure speed from. You would prefer a universal frame, I suppose.
Or just the local frame. Much more expeditious. Easier to determine, too.
> As to the interaction, why is that strange? Don't atoms cling together to
> form molecules? Don't molecules cling together to form crystals? Try
> breaking a diamond. It is one huge molecule. So is sodium chloride, table
> salt. What forces are present to make the crystal hold together? Gravity?
I
> don't think so.
Electrostatic attraction.
> The photon 'crystal' is a lattice of photons that radiate out from the
> surface of a star in an 'onion' shell, spreading the total energy over an
> ever increasing surface. The further away they get, the lower the
'density'
> of the energy.
A pretty image. Doesn't work for photons, especially laser beams. They
already travel the equivalent of miles before they are allowed out of the
"crystal". It is no wonder their paths are pretty well aligned. And since
geometries, no matter how far away, will have their say, diffusion is the
result.
> They are also pushed along by the following shell, which also
> interacts. Now you have your 'lightwave' of photon particles. And like
> ripples on a pond, there is a limit to how far they can reach before
coming
> to rest relative to their source. But this model is not perfect.
How do they know how fast their source is moving? How do they know they
are at rest wrt it? How fast does this "sub-lumenal" communication need to
travel?
> A single
> photon can escape and go on forever, it is particle-like. However, the
> majorty will slow down, produceing what we see as red-shift. The further
> away we are from the star, the greater the red-shift. E = h(nu) is the
> accepted energy to frequency relationship, but we need to apply it to
energy
> density and speed.
> Anyway, the universe isn't expanding, the red shift we see isn't due to
> receding galaxies, but slowing light. The energy density is going down,
> while the total energy remains constant. What other sensible explanation
can
> there be? The expanding universe is an artefact of faulty thinking and
> mathematics.
The explosion of a type I supernova is a pretty well reseached phenomenon.
It delivers a stream of photons at a certain rate based on when after the
explosion they were released. The stream swells to a maximum, then peters
out over a few days... for a "local" supernova.
For 3 to 5 billion years, the duration of a supernova event (from maximum
down to the limits of dectability) is as time dilated as the light we
receive is red shifted, to within 3 ą 4%.
As for another sensible explanation, try this:
We know that light generated on the surface of the Sun is slightly
red-shifted to light we might create here on Earth. This is because things
run little slower in a gravity well (gravitational time dilation). Now
look back at the ancient Universe. The mass/energy density back then was
*much* higher than now. Hence it is unsurprising that event duration back
then was slower than it is now, even corresponding light frequencies.
Slower time = red shifted light.
Please do a little more circumspect job of snipping, or lighten up if I cut
a little heaver than you like, OK?
David A. Smith
Starblade Darksquall
Well what if we were in a reference frame with respect to the 'silk'?
Is there a reference frame with respect to the silk or not?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Androcles
> > I have no contradictory argument to offer. 'Action at a distance' has
> > perplexed greater minds than my own. I will, however, object to
> aetherialism
> > as a theory that has any merit. Inventions of the mind get in the way of
> the
> > study of Nature.
>
> I don't offer aether. I offer the Universe as the medium, and all the
> "extended bodies" of which it is comprised.
than my own. As best as I can see, 'extended bodies' is another way of
saying that bodies interact at a distance. I really don't care if you call a
spade a shovel or a spoon. I'd prefer you called it a spade, but you have
freedom. Call it what you will. Putting a different name to the phenomenon
doesn't do anything to explain it. Call it 'space-time continuum loaded with
massive bodies' if you want to, it is no more meaningful than 'universe'.
Now say what it is you are offering.
> If all we are is part of the partnership of the Universe,
> and the partnership has both us and light moving,
> do the rules of the partnership change?
Change from what? First we have to find out what the rules are, then you can
tell me about changes in them.
>
> Are photons part of the Universe, or separate from it?
Is a moving picture and the dynamic sound it produces part of a TV, or
separate from it?
Are we interested in transistors, glass tubes, plastic cases with buttons to
push, insulated wires, capacitors, inductors, resistors, or the football
game or symphony concert we are watching?
Can you answer your own question?
> > > This distance extends to the ends of the Universe.
> > Define 'ends of the Universe'. I don't know what it means.
> > However, I have no objection to a photon going onward forever.
>
> We are discussing "virtual photons" or the static field of an individual
> charge, or so I thought.
Not what I thought, but now we see a difference in how we think. I don't
call a static field a virtual photon, I call it a static field. The item I
call a photon has a dynamic property. It oscillates. It exchanges its
magnetic field for its electric field and back again,
North...Positive...South...Negative...N+S-... and so on. It doesn't have to
move to do this. It has energy that is intrinsic, equivalent to what you
would call 'rest mass'.
it is 'spinning' for want of a better word. And, if I allow the 'North' part
if the cycle to sequentially point up, then right, then down, the left, then
up again, it can 'tumble'. If I allow the Positive part of the cycle to
point left, then out of the page, then right, then into the page, it can
'rotate'. this is yet another two parts of the energy it contains. And like
a spinning missile, rotating and tumbling, it can have velocity too. But
velocity is relative. 'Rotate' maps to yaw, 'tumble' maps to pitch and
'turn' maps to roll, 'spin' maps to cycle. Cycle is a temporal change in its
state, N+S-...
> I propose the electric field of a single charge
> extends across the Universe. Detecting same would be an engineering
> exercise.
Why? I proposed the same thing, except I chose the value of the charge to be
zero. Detecting nothing is kinda tough, isn't it?
I have a length of wire, attached to a battery and a switch.
I throw the switch on.
Current passes through the wire.
A magnetic field 'grows' (at speed c, incidentally).
When the magnetic field passes through a point in space that I'll call Q, Q
being a dimensionless point at a fixed distance 'd' from the wire, a
miniature charge of unspecified magnitude will come into existence for an
unspecified period of time.
I turn off the switch.
The electric field is still there, at Q.
It collapses, having nothing to sustain it.
It produces a magnetic field of opposite sign to the first.
The magnetic field extends to P at distance 2d from the wire just as the
electric field reaches zero.
The cycle repeats, the photon moves away at c, relative to the source.
I can ride alongside it, see the oscillations, but to me it isn't moving.
It is the source that is moving away from me at c.
Likewise I can jack up my car and spin the wheels. They are not going
anywhere, but I see them spin. I can do the same by driving along the road.
I see the wheels spin, but they never get any further away from me.
> > > But dissociated from the source, Androcles. A freely propagating
> photon
> > > has the E and B field in phase.
>
> > Why do you claim that? Did you read it in a book?
>
> It is a result of Maxwell's equations. If they are not in-phase, the
light
> doesn't move.
Then Maxwell should look into the work of Faraday, but I rather feel that
you have missed the point. I have already said that the light doesn't have
to move. Motion is relative. Maxwell was the original proponent of aether,
but I don't think his equations claim the photon doesn't move.
Surely you are aware of the simple circuit of a coil connected across a
capacitor? Current passing through coil charges the capacitor, the current
stops (hence the B field is zero), the cap is charged, it commences to
discharge, driving the current through the coil in the opposite direction,
this produces a reversed mag field, the current charges the cap with
opposite polarity, and so on. That is what we hook up to a rod and call an
antenna. We build radios with it, for both transmission and reception. Radio
waves move. They even move at c, relative to the antenna. The B field and
the E field are not in phase. Someone, somewhen, has misguided you. The
someone may be you, or something you read and failed to comprehend, or an
author that didn't compehend what he was saying.
>
> > If it were so, then there would be a moment when both the B and E fields
> > were at a maximum, and a moment when both were zero. We know from a
study
> of
> > electronics, electrics and Maxwell's equations too, that a collapsing
> > magnetic field produces an electric field, and vice versa. The two are
> > always phase shifted by 90 degrees. If both the B field and the E field
> > were zero at the same instant, what would cause them to spring into
> > existence again? Such an idea violates conservation of energy, and that
> is a
> > postulate I'd be reluctant to question.
>
> Conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are not concepts that
> apply as one might think at the quantum level.
They DO apply for radio waves, and they DO apply for photons. See the
derivation of m = E/c^2 in "Evidence Against Emission Theories" J.G. Fox.
American Journal of Physics 1965
> Nevertheless, are the
> observed minima of diffraction a violation of conservation of M&E?
Of course not. Photons are redirected to the maxima. As long as you continue
to think of light as a wave you will continue to fall into this type of
blunder, presenting argument to me that you'll puzzle over, and I think has
a simple and obvious solution.
When
> you cross two polarizing grids, is *all* the visible light cut off? I
> think you'll agree the answer to both is "no".
Of course not. The distribution of photons during diffraction (and electrons
also) is random, with a PROBABILITY that they will arrive at the maxima. If
you send a dozen electrons through a grating, you will only see a random
scatter. Send a couple of thousand, you'll start to see maxima and minima.
Nevertheless some electrons WILL arrive at the minima. So will some photons.
> This is why it is so
> difficult to work with radio waves. They travel so far before you can
> actually "get ahold" of all of them.
I don't consider radio waves as photons, anymore than I would consider
brownian motion (the random bumping of water molecules in motion upon minute
particles) in water as a 'ripple'. Single photons come from electrons and
are random in nature, producing statistical results. Radio waves come from
antenna, whether artificial or natural, and are not random. Ripples on water
are not random. Brownian motion is. Both are water movement.
> Most QM folks believe that a propagating photon is a series of virtual
> photons, which would be supported by this on-again-off-again behavour of
> light. I find it mighty "convenient" that the virtual community knows how
> and when to get in line, but there you go...
I find the virtual brigade about as close to understanding Nature as they
are to understanding how Harry Potter flies a virtual broomstick.
> > Your idea, wherever you learnt it,
> > requires inertia of the B and E fields, a mechanical idea. If the
E-field
> > varies as sine, and the B field varies as cosine, then as you know, sine
> > squared plus cos squared = 1 (squared). The energy contained in the
> combined
> > fields is constant at all times, but moves between the fields
> sinusoidally.
>
> Not true for a propagating wave according to Maxwell. Sorry to disagree.
You can disgree all you want, but I've yet to see you prove anything you've
disagreed on, or even explained your reason for disagreeing. "'Maxwell (or
Einstein or whoever) said such and such" isn't anything you've said, and it
isn't an explanation of why you disagree. If Maxwell were here, I'd debate
with him. He isn't. You are. Either present your case or quit wasting my
time. If all you can do is fall back on authority, then I'll take it you
have nothing to say.
[Remainder snipped unread, I've had enough of your disagreeing without
cause]
Androcles
>
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
>
> > > I have no contradictory argument to offer. 'Action at a distance' has
> > > perplexed greater minds than my own. I will, however, object to
> > aetherialism
> > > as a theory that has any merit. Inventions of the mind get in the way
of
> > the
> > > study of Nature.
> >
> > I don't offer aether. I offer the Universe as the medium, and all the
> > "extended bodies" of which it is comprised.
> As I've already stated, action at a distance has perplexed greater minds
> than my own. As best as I can see, 'extended bodies' is another way of
> saying that bodies interact at a distance. I really don't care if you
call a
> spade a shovel or a spoon. I'd prefer you called it a spade, but you have
> freedom. Call it what you will. Putting a different name to the
phenomenon
> doesn't do anything to explain it. Call it 'space-time continuum loaded
with
> massive bodies' if you want to, it is no more meaningful than 'universe'.
> Now say what it is you are offering.
Place a sheet of paper on your desk. Draw three non-colinear points A, B
and C. Draw a line between the two most distant-from-each-other points
(lets assume this is A and C). In space(time) a photon travelling the
"path" between source (A) and abosorber (C) *always* passes, to some
extent, through all the points in the Universe transverse to its "path".
This includes (B).
The Universe is the medium. Mach knew it (for momentum at least).
Einstein knew it (for curvature/gravity).
> > If all we are is part of the partnership of the Universe,
> > and the partnership has both us and light moving,
> > do the rules of the partnership change?
> Change from what? First we have to find out what the rules are, then you
can
> tell me about changes in them.
You sure do a fine job of hiding to whom you reply, and what the thread of
discussion was.
Your statement, to which I replied was:
> Of course. I don't pretend to have all the answers, I just know that
> source
> independence, as if we were studying sound in air, leads to absurdity.
> All
> of Einstein's equations could be applied to sound in air, if we insisted
> that its speed was constant in all frames of reference. It clearly isn't
> for
> sound. It is equally as clear for light. At least to me.
The rules are clearly not the same for light as it is for sound. Sound is
not transmitted by ballistic particles, but by gross pressure waves. Your
"of course" was indicating that you still believed that photons were
ballistic particles. I don't understand why you apply one models rules, to
your contradictory model.
How does the Universe apply to the photon and to you?
> > Are photons part of the Universe, or separate from it?
> Is a moving picture and the dynamic sound it produces part of a TV, or
> separate from it?
> Are we interested in transistors, glass tubes, plastic cases with buttons
to
> push, insulated wires, capacitors, inductors, resistors, or the football
> game or symphony concert we are watching?
> Can you answer your own question?
Photons are part of the Universe. Mass and energy both curve space.
Therefore, some part of the photon is extended to the ends of the Unvierse.
No big surprise there. The diffraction formula says as much.
I understand. "Spin" is merely "cycle".
I don't like the term "virtual photon" either, Androcles. It is standard
terminology, and the concept was invented to make certain numerical
solutions possible/easier/meaingful.
> > I propose the electric field of a single charge
> > extends across the Universe. Detecting same would be an engineering
> > exercise.
> Why? I proposed the same thing, except I chose the value of the charge to
be
> zero. Detecting nothing is kinda tough, isn't it?
> I have a length of wire, attached to a battery and a switch.
> I throw the switch on.
> Current passes through the wire.
> A magnetic field 'grows' (at speed c, incidentally).
Correct. This is curvature expressing, based on the charge motion.
> When the magnetic field passes through a point in space that I'll call Q,
Q
> being a dimensionless point at a fixed distance 'd' from the wire, a
> miniature charge of unspecified magnitude will come into existence for an
> unspecified period of time.
> I turn off the switch.
> The electric field is still there, at Q.
> It collapses, having nothing to sustain it.
> It produces a magnetic field of opposite sign to the first.
> The magnetic field extends to P at distance 2d from the wire just as the
> electric field reaches zero.
> The cycle repeats, the photon moves away at c, relative to the source.
> I can ride alongside it, see the oscillations, but to me it isn't moving.
> It is the source that is moving away from me at c.
> Likewise I can jack up my car and spin the wheels. They are not going
> anywhere, but I see them spin. I can do the same by driving along the
road.
> I see the wheels spin, but they never get any further away from me.
Imagining yourself travelling at c is well and good. But at c, you cannot
determine the energy of said photon, the energy/mass of any body you might
pass, or any other quantity of scientific interest.
>
> > > > But dissociated from the source, Androcles. A freely propagating
> > photon
> > > > has the E and B field in phase.
> >
> > > Why do you claim that? Did you read it in a book?
> >
> > It is a result of Maxwell's equations. If they are not in-phase, the
> light
> > doesn't move.
>
> Then Maxwell should look into the work of Faraday, but I rather feel that
> you have missed the point. I have already said that the light doesn't
have
> to move. Motion is relative. Maxwell was the original proponent of
aether,
> but I don't think his equations claim the photon doesn't move.
When the photon propagates (as in not a signal bound to a condcutor), the E
and B are in-phase. When the signal is bound to a conductor, and charges
are free to respond to the signal, E and B are 90° out of phase, as you
note.
> Surely you are aware of the simple circuit of a coil connected across a
> capacitor? Current passing through coil charges the capacitor, the
current
> stops (hence the B field is zero), the cap is charged, it commences to
> discharge, driving the current through the coil in the opposite
direction,
> this produces a reversed mag field, the current charges the cap with
> opposite polarity, and so on. That is what we hook up to a rod and call
an
> antenna. We build radios with it, for both transmission and reception.
Radio
> waves move. They even move at c, relative to the antenna. The B field and
> the E field are not in phase. Someone, somewhen, has misguided you. The
> someone may be you, or something you read and failed to comprehend, or an
> author that didn't compehend what he was saying.
Your example implies charges free to make E and B out of phase. Maxwell's
equations describe both scenarios.
> > > If it were so, then there would be a moment when both the B and E
fields
> > > were at a maximum, and a moment when both were zero. We know from a
> study
> > of
> > > electronics, electrics and Maxwell's equations too, that a collapsing
> > > magnetic field produces an electric field, and vice versa. The two
are
> > > always phase shifted by 90 degrees. If both the B field and the E
field
> > > were zero at the same instant, what would cause them to spring into
> > > existence again? Such an idea violates conservation of energy, and
that
> > is a
> > > postulate I'd be reluctant to question.
> >
> > Conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are not concepts
that
> > apply as one might think at the quantum level.
> They DO apply for radio waves, and they DO apply for photons. See the
> derivation of m = E/c^2 in "Evidence Against Emission Theories" J.G. Fox.
> American Journal of Physics 1965
They do apply to radio waves, which are (when detectable) statistical
populations. They do apply to a photon, when a full cycle is considered.
At any finite instant, however, quantum mechanics does not require what you
think. Nor does Maxwell.
> > Nevertheless, are the
> > observed minima of diffraction a violation of conservation of M&E?
> Of course not. Photons are redirected to the maxima. As long as you
continue
> to think of light as a wave you will continue to fall into this type of
> blunder, presenting argument to me that you'll puzzle over, and I think
has
> a simple and obvious solution.
You also falling back to wave mechanics when you argue the behaviour of
light based on the behaviour of sound.
And the answer is that light *is* passing through the minima, but the E and
B fields neutralize one another, such that light there does not provide as
bright an image. You can simply move your target surface a little further
out (say for a diffraction grating image) and require that light have
crossed this "minima" area to build a newly positioned maxima.
> When
> > you cross two polarizing grids, is *all* the visible light cut off? I
> > think you'll agree the answer to both is "no".
> Of course not. The distribution of photons during diffraction (and
electrons
> also) is random, with a PROBABILITY that they will arrive at the maxima.
If
> you send a dozen electrons through a grating, you will only see a random
> scatter. Send a couple of thousand, you'll start to see maxima and
minima.
> Nevertheless some electrons WILL arrive at the minima. So will some
photons.
Very good.
> > This is why it is so
> > difficult to work with radio waves. They travel so far before you can
> > actually "get ahold" of all of them.
> I don't consider radio waves as photons, anymore than I would consider
> brownian motion (the random bumping of water molecules in motion upon
minute
> particles) in water as a 'ripple'. Single photons come from electrons
and
> are random in nature, producing statistical results. Radio waves come
from
> antenna, whether artificial or natural, and are not random. Ripples on
water
> are not random. Brownian motion is. Both are water movement.
Do different physical laws apply to radio waves than for light? When
visible light was generated in the ancient Universe, yet we detect it now
as radio waves, are they now "ordered"? Are the well ordered spectra
created then (and now) not suitable to be called "order"?
You are arguing based on how difficult it is to create radio waves, and
what special circumstances must exist for us to detect them. You are
letting the size of the engineering effort affect your nomenclature. Warm
bodies also radiate radio waves, based on the black body radiation curve
and Compton scattering. Our background for radio is pretty noisy for small
asynchronous sources to be located.
> > Most QM folks believe that a propagating photon is a series of virtual
> > photons, which would be supported by this on-again-off-again behavour
of
> > light. I find it mighty "convenient" that the virtual community knows
how
> > and when to get in line, but there you go...
> I find the virtual brigade about as close to understanding Nature as they
> are to understanding how Harry Potter flies a virtual broomstick.
It has something to do with the scar...
> > > Your idea, wherever you learnt it,
> > > requires inertia of the B and E fields, a mechanical idea. If the
> E-field
> > > varies as sine, and the B field varies as cosine, then as you know,
sine
> > > squared plus cos squared = 1 (squared). The energy contained in the
> > combined
> > > fields is constant at all times, but moves between the fields
> > sinusoidally.
> >
> > Not true for a propagating wave according to Maxwell. Sorry to
disagree.
> You can disgree all you want, but I've yet to see you prove anything
you've
> disagreed on, or even explained your reason for disagreeing. "'Maxwell
(or
> Einstein or whoever) said such and such" isn't anything you've said, and
it
> isn't an explanation of why you disagree. If Maxwell were here, I'd
debate
> with him. He isn't. You are. Either present your case or quit wasting my
> time. If all you can do is fall back on authority, then I'll take it you
> have nothing to say.
> [Remainder snipped unread, I've had enough of your disagreeing without
> cause]
Oh, it is to be like that is it?
Citing a "discussion" earlier this year between Bilge and Franz Heymann:
2003jan28 "Re: On longitudinal electromagnetic waves" (which wasn't
actually being discussed at this point)
<QUOTE>
div E = 0
div B = 0
curl E = -dB/dt
curl B = dE/dt
curl curl E = grad (div E) - grad^2 E = (-d/dt)curl B = -d^2E/dt^2
or
grad^2 E - d^2E/dt^2 = 0
E is a vector and each component satisfies the equation above.
If that isn't sufficient, I refer you to jackson, p. 702, 2nd
ed., where he states:
"By combining the two curl equations and making use of the
vanishing divergences, we find easily that each cartesian
component of E and B satisfies the wave equation:"
grad^2 u - (1/v^2)d^2u/dt^2 = 0 (7.2)
and further below, continuing to p. 703, jackson goes on to state
(all references to eq. (7.1) refer to maxwell's equations as listed
above):
"If the medium is dispersive, that is, the product \mu\epsilon
is a function of frequency, some parts of the above need
modification. By making a fourier integral epansion in w
before combining the equations in (7.1) one is led to the
helmholtz equation:
\grad^2 u + \mu\epsilon (w^2/c^2) = 0 (7.8)"
and further down on the same page:
"Each component of E and B satisfies the wave equation (7.8)
provided:
k^2 n.n = \mu\epsilon (w^2/c^2)"
And finally on that page he states exactly what I first claimed:
"The divergence equations in (7.1) demand that:
n.E_{0} = 0 and n.B_{0} = 0 (7.10)"
---
[note, the conditions on E_{0} and B_{0} are that they are constants.
This condition is also derived on those two pages, but I am not going to
type in page after page. I use E_{0} because I can't write a script E in
ascii. The E_{0} doesn't indicate any initial condition. It appears as:
E(x, t) = E_{0}exp(-ikx-iwt)]
---
continuing with jackson, p. 703:
"This means both E and B are perpendicular to the direction of
propagation. Such a wave is called a transverse wave". The curl
of B provides a further restriction, namely:
B = sqrt(\mu\epsilon) n x E (7.11)
If n is real, then E and B have the same phase."
<END QUOTE>
I guess we are back to spitting at one another. Too bad.
Terminate the thread as you see fit, if you no longer wish to discuss this.
David A. Smith
Androcles
A
B
C
If I agree, for the purpose of debate, that a 'something' passing from A to
C can have an influence of some kind on B, what happens at C to the similar
'something' that passes from B to A?
> The Universe is the medium. Mach knew it (for momentum at least).
> Einstein knew it (for curvature/gravity).
Is angular momentum the same as linear momentum? Take care before you
answer.
Does the centre of the rotating object have any angular momemtum? Does time
pass more slowly at the rim than at the centre? Seems to me that this would
prevent spin entirely. In the extreme, where the rim has a tangential
velocity of c, it wouldn't move because time wouldn't pass, relative to the
centre. Being rigidly attached to points closer to the centre, they couldn't
move either. I fail to see how a body undergoing time dilation while
spinning would spin at all.
Does it matter if a particle follows a straight path in curved space or a
curved path in straight space? Are these not two different ways of saying
the same thing? What new insight do we gain by saying one in preference to
the other? More to the point, you can do a pretty good job of describing an
orbit in terms of curved space, but how does curved space explain my rear
end being glued to this chair?
> > > If all we are is part of the partnership of the Universe,
> > > and the partnership has both us and light moving,
> > > do the rules of the partnership change?
>
> > Change from what? First we have to find out what the rules are, then you
> can
> > tell me about changes in them.
>
> You sure do a fine job of hiding to whom you reply, and what the thread of
> discussion was.
Marvelling that light moves in space, wasn't it? You brought it up, and I
wrote a short essay.
>
> Your statement, to which I replied was:
> > Of course. I don't pretend to have all the answers, I just know that
> > source
> > independence, as if we were studying sound in air, leads to absurdity.
> > All
> > of Einstein's equations could be applied to sound in air, if we insisted
> > that its speed was constant in all frames of reference. It clearly isn't
> > for
> > sound. It is equally as clear for light. At least to me.
>
> The rules are clearly not the same for light as it is for sound. Sound is
> not transmitted by ballistic particles, but by gross pressure waves.
Correct. Sound requires a medium, light (or EM radiation in general) does
not.
Your
> "of course" was indicating that you still believed that photons were
> ballistic particles. I don't understand why you apply one models rules,
to
> your contradictory model.
I do believe that photons are ballistic particles. They are made up of
minute magnetic and electric fields. To describe them, I have employed
analogies. I have attempted to unify the photon model with the wave model,
avoiding contradiction. I once told an aetherialist that if it were truly
necessary to have a medium, then a ball of aether could move along with the
photon, satisfying his personal need to believe in 'something' that 'had' to
be there.
> How does the Universe apply to the photon and to you?
I don't understand the question.
> > > Are photons part of the Universe, or separate from it?
> > Is a moving picture and the dynamic sound it produces part of a TV, or
> > separate from it?
> > Are we interested in transistors, glass tubes, plastic cases with
buttons
> to
> > push, insulated wires, capacitors, inductors, resistors, or the football
> > game or symphony concert we are watching?
> > Can you answer your own question?
>
> Photons are part of the Universe. Mass and energy both curve space.
First you must say what physical space is in terms that are meaningful to
me.
> Therefore, some part of the photon is extended to the ends of the
Unvierse.
> No big surprise there. The diffraction formula says as much.
Photons scatter, just as electrons do, and also steel balls tumbling between
pins in old slot machines. A probability distribution of the familiar bell
curve type is the result. No big surprise there.
Then ripples on a pond are caused by the curvature of water, because they
make circles?
Wow...
and since its clock has stopped, its frequency is zero too, I suppose. Or
would it be infinite? f = 1/t, right? How did Einstein say it? Dover, P 57.
But anyway, you are claiming that the B and E fields are independent.
> When the signal is bound to a conductor, and charges
> are free to respond to the signal, E and B are 90° out of phase, as you
> note.
Uh huh...
and remain so in the absence of a conductor. That's a photon. There is
certainly no requirement for them to be of the same frequency IF they are
independent. Make a photon with slight different frequencies of the E and B
fields, and it'll run round the room for you. Call it curved space.
> > Surely you are aware of the simple circuit of a coil connected across a
> > capacitor? Current passing through coil charges the capacitor, the
> current
> > stops (hence the B field is zero), the cap is charged, it commences to
> > discharge, driving the current through the coil in the opposite
> direction,
> > this produces a reversed mag field, the current charges the cap with
> > opposite polarity, and so on. That is what we hook up to a rod and call
> an
> > antenna. We build radios with it, for both transmission and reception.
> Radio
> > waves move. They even move at c, relative to the antenna. The B field
and
> > the E field are not in phase. Someone, somewhen, has misguided you. The
> > someone may be you, or something you read and failed to comprehend, or
an
> > author that didn't compehend what he was saying.
>
> Your example implies charges free to make E and B out of phase.
How so?
Maxwell's equations describe both scenarios.
Do Maxwell's equations permit the E and B fields to be independent? If so,
they can have different frequencies. If not, if one depends on the other,
then they'll be one quarter of a circle out of phase, and only that.
Yes. As I've said before, I'm trying to unify the wave and particle models,
and use analogy to do so.
> And the answer is that light *is* passing through the minima, but the E
and
> B fields neutralize one another, such that light there does not provide as
> bright an image.
I've never been able to get a charged pith ball to cancel out a horshoe
magnet, no matter how I turn it.
> You can simply move your target surface a little further
> out (say for a diffraction grating image) and require that light have
> crossed this "minima" area to build a newly positioned maxima.
No big surprise there. The photons land in a different place.
No. Nor do they apply differently to boats and planes, but boats don't fly,
atoms cease to be atoms when ionised, and photons are not modulated.
> When
> visible light was generated in the ancient Universe, yet we detect it now
> as radio waves, are they now "ordered"? Are the well ordered spectra
> created then (and now) not suitable to be called "order"?
The order is still there, why wouldn't it be?
> You are arguing based on how difficult it is to create radio waves,
Nonsense. I can do it with a spark. Ligtning does it.
and
> what special circumstances must exist for us to detect them.
Nope. See a paperclip spark in a microwave oven. That's as simple a
detector as I can come up with.
> You are
> letting the size of the engineering effort affect your nomenclature. Warm
> bodies also radiate radio waves, based on the black body radiation curve
> and Compton scattering. Our background for radio is pretty noisy for
small
> asynchronous sources to be located.
I fail to see where you are going. What has noise to do with how nature
works, aside from nature being random and producing noise?
Nope. I was tired after a long days work, and your refusal to respond got
the better of me. I'll meet you halfway and apologise.
I'll discuss it, but not right now, I'm tired. I'll just leave you with this
thought.
There is no medium of Maxwell's to find. Michelson tried. He really tried.
mu and epsilon are properties of aether, and there is no aether. Rather like
my bright green flying elephants eggs, you can discuss them if you wish, but
they don't exist.
Androcles
Androcles
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starb...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.0310...@posting.google.com...
is in the silk, then the model he is using is, in principle, analogous to
emission theory. The velocity of the 'wave' on the 'silk' is source
dependent. Motion of the medium (silk), v, is added to the motion of the
wave, c, in the view of the 'stationary' observer.
This is of course quite logical, and one can only wonder why anyone would
want to adopt a 'sound' model for light, which requires a medium. Now it
must be said that light in a medium is indeed constant with respect to the
medium, as evidenced by refraction. However, it's value is not c. Indeed, it
may just slow down and stop, decelerated to zero. Evidence, you ask? Sure.
Sunset is red, sky is blue, it is dark at the bottom of the ocean.
Androcles
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ujXib.9$qk...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:4hIib.69307$gv5.40989@fed1read05...
...
C is not encountered transverse to a path between A and B. A slit "behind"
the detector has no effect on what is detected.
> > The Universe is the medium. Mach knew it (for momentum at least).
> > Einstein knew it (for curvature/gravity).
> Is angular momentum the same as linear momentum? Take care before you
> answer.
> Does the centre of the rotating object have any angular momemtum?
Yes. A real physcial body, or any molecule thereof, even "at" the center,
will have some rotational energy.
> Does time
> pass more slowly at the rim than at the centre? Seems to me that this
would
> prevent spin entirely. In the extreme, where the rim has a tangential
> velocity of c, it wouldn't move because time wouldn't pass, relative to
the
> centre. Being rigidly attached to points closer to the centre, they
couldn't
> move either. I fail to see how a body undergoing time dilation while
> spinning would spin at all.
Keep in mind that we have not been able to get things to spin terribly
fast. Usually a km/sec at the periphery. And then it shatters
> Does it matter if a particle follows a straight path in curved space or a
> curved path in straight space? Are these not two different ways of saying
> the same thing? What new insight do we gain by saying one in preference
to
> the other? More to the point, you can do a pretty good job of describing
an
> orbit in terms of curved space, but how does curved space explain my rear
> end being glued to this chair?
Regarding curved vs. straight space: one requires force at a distance with
a force carrier that has not yet been identified (straight space), and the
other doesn't have force at a distance (curved space).
Your rear is accelerated into a curved path you don't have energy enough to
maintain on your own. The chair is doing the accelerating, through a
directly applied force. Otherwise, your rear would follow an elliptical
orbit until some other direct force was applied.
> > > > If all we are is part of the partnership of the Universe,
> > > > and the partnership has both us and light moving,
> > > > do the rules of the partnership change?
> >
> > > Change from what? First we have to find out what the rules are, then
you
> > can
> > > tell me about changes in them.
> >
> > You sure do a fine job of hiding to whom you reply, and what the thread
of
> > discussion was.
> Marvelling that light moves in space, wasn't it? You brought it up, and
I
> wrote a short essay.
I copied it in below...
Diffraction indicates that a photon or any other particle extends the width
of the Unvierse transverse to its path.
Mach indicates that the Universe establishes the phenomenon of inertia at
each point within it.
Einstein indicates that space is a "projection" of all the mass/energy in
the Universe.
Light travels through non-empty space, since there is no such thing as
empty space. So c is the default speed, because that is what the Universe
allows.
> > > > Are photons part of the Universe, or separate from it?
> > > Is a moving picture and the dynamic sound it produces part of a TV,
or
> > > separate from it?
> > > Are we interested in transistors, glass tubes, plastic cases with
> buttons
> > to
> > > push, insulated wires, capacitors, inductors, resistors, or the
football
> > > game or symphony concert we are watching?
> > > Can you answer your own question?
> >
> > Photons are part of the Universe. Mass and energy both curve space.
> First you must say what physical space is in terms that are meaningful to
> me.
Space is balance due. Mass and energy are businesses that deal with one
another. Curvature is local "rates of exchange".
> > Therefore, some part of the photon is extended to the ends of the
> Unvierse.
> > No big surprise there. The diffraction formula says as much.
> Photons scatter, just as electrons do, and also steel balls tumbling
between
> pins in old slot machines. A probability distribution of the familiar
bell
> curve type is the result. No big surprise there.
Affected by geometries that do not even (apparently) come into contact with
the electrons or steel balls. Geometries that can be miles away, as long
as you are not looking for a large effect.
...
> > > > I propose the electric field of a single charge
> > > > extends across the Universe. Detecting same would be an
engineering
> > > > exercise.
> >
> > > Why? I proposed the same thing, except I chose the value of the
charge
> to
> > be
> > > zero. Detecting nothing is kinda tough, isn't it?
> > > I have a length of wire, attached to a battery and a switch.
> > > I throw the switch on.
> > > Current passes through the wire.
> > > A magnetic field 'grows' (at speed c, incidentally).
> >
> > Correct. This is curvature expressing, based on the charge motion.
> Then ripples on a pond are caused by the curvature of water, because they
> make circles?
Ripples on a pond are equidistant from the point of application of the
upsetting force. This is usually a curviliner surface. Atomic blasts
created shock waves that were (roughly) spherical.
The curvature I referred to is surfaces that see the length contraction of
the moving charges to have an equivalent value. Like equipotential
surfaces.
...
> > > > > > But dissociated from the source, Androcles. A freely
propagating
> > > > photon
> > > > > > has the E and B field in phase.
> > > >
> > > > > Why do you claim that? Did you read it in a book?
> > > >
> > > > It is a result of Maxwell's equations. If they are not in-phase,
the
> > > light
> > > > doesn't move.
> > >
> > > Then Maxwell should look into the work of Faraday, but I rather feel
> that
> > > you have missed the point. I have already said that the light doesn't
> > have
> > > to move. Motion is relative. Maxwell was the original proponent of
> > aether,
> > > but I don't think his equations claim the photon doesn't move.
> >
> > When the photon propagates (as in not a signal bound to a condcutor),
the
> E
> > and B are in-phase.
> Wow...
> and since its clock has stopped, its frequency is zero too, I suppose. Or
> would it be infinite? f = 1/t, right? How did Einstein say it? Dover, P
57.
The photon's clock has not stopped. Lorentz's equations doe not apply to
photons, since they have no rest mass.
> But anyway, you are claiming that the B and E fields are independent.
No I am saying they are exactly in-phase for a propagating photon, exactly
out of phase for a signal in a conductor, and somewhere in between in the
"near field" (where bizarre things happen).
> > When the signal is bound to a conductor, and charges
> > are free to respond to the signal, E and B are 900 out of phase, as you
> > note.
> Uh huh...
> and remain so in the absence of a conductor. That's a photon. There is
> certainly no requirement for them to be of the same frequency IF they are
> independent. Make a photon with slight different frequencies of the E and
B
> fields, and it'll run round the room for you. Call it curved space.
I provided the derivation. It seems to have little effect on your
arguments, what the phase realationship might be... I guess I don't see
what problem Maxwell's equations are providing you exactly.
...
They are independent in the near field. They are constrained by reality
elsewhere. Maxwell's equations work everywhere but the near field.
...
> > > > Nevertheless, are the
> > > > observed minima of diffraction a violation of conservation of M&E?
> >
> > > Of course not. Photons are redirected to the maxima. As long as you
> > continue
> > > to think of light as a wave you will continue to fall into this type
of
> > > blunder, presenting argument to me that you'll puzzle over, and I
think
> > has
> > > a simple and obvious solution.
> >
> > You also falling back to wave mechanics when you argue the behaviour of
> > light based on the behaviour of sound.
> Yes. As I've said before, I'm trying to unify the wave and particle
models,
> and use analogy to do so.
The problem is you are having information about the location of the
detector propagate to the slits, to tell photons where to land. This
behaviour is much more complex than is required. Maxima is merely photons
that land "in phase". Minima are merely photons that land "out of phase".
This is what a wave model would claim.
> > And the answer is that light *is* passing through the minima, but the E
> and
> > B fields neutralize one another, such that light there does not provide
as
> > bright an image.
> I've never been able to get a charged pith ball to cancel out a horshoe
> magnet, no matter how I turn it.
Rotate it about an axis that joins the N and S poles. One way will try and
stay centered (S to N, N to S), the other will try and eject from the
centered postion.
> > You can simply move your target surface a little further
> > out (say for a diffraction grating image) and require that light have
> > crossed this "minima" area to build a newly positioned maxima.
> No big surprise there. The photons land in a different place.
Big surprise for a wave model. They have waves land everywhere, but the
*amplitudes* provide the maxima and minima.
...
> > > > This is why it is so
> > > > difficult to work with radio waves. They travel so far before you
can
> > > > actually "get ahold" of all of them.
> >
> > > I don't consider radio waves as photons, anymore than I would
consider
> > > brownian motion (the random bumping of water molecules in motion upon
> > minute
> > > particles) in water as a 'ripple'. Single photons come from
electrons
> > and
> > > are random in nature, producing statistical results. Radio waves come
> > from
> > > antenna, whether artificial or natural, and are not random. Ripples
on
> > water
> > > are not random. Brownian motion is. Both are water movement.
> >
> > Do different physical laws apply to radio waves than for light?
>
> No. Nor do they apply differently to boats and planes, but boats don't
fly,
> atoms cease to be atoms when ionised, and photons are not modulated.
Different physical laws apply to boats and planes. The buoyancy has little
to do with how a plane flys.
Photons are modulated in lasers and in lenses.
Given a sufficiently large budget, I could make a lens for radio waves.
Hell, I could accelerate a visble light detector up to some high speed, and
detect them that way. We modulate light production too, Androcles. All
the way up to X-rays.
> > When
> > visible light was generated in the ancient Universe, yet we detect it
now
> > as radio waves, are they now "ordered"? Are the well ordered spectra
> > created then (and now) not suitable to be called "order"?
> The order is still there, why wouldn't it be?
Your comment about "modulation" is making me ask the question. You claim
that light is random, and radio is not. Lasers are not random. IR and
microwave communication are not random. No more random than radio
transmission.
> > You are arguing based on how difficult it is to create radio waves,
> Nonsense. I can do it with a spark. Ligtning does it.
Not modulated. And it produces random radio waves.
> and
> > what special circumstances must exist for us to detect them.
> Nope. See a paperclip spark in a microwave oven. That's as simple a
> detector as I can come up with.
Not really radio waves, now are they?
> > You are
> > letting the size of the engineering effort affect your nomenclature.
Warm
> > bodies also radiate radio waves, based on the black body radiation
curve
> > and Compton scattering. Our background for radio is pretty noisy for
> small
> > asynchronous sources to be located.
> I fail to see where you are going. What has noise to do with how nature
> works, aside from nature being random and producing noise?
Your comment about how radio waves were ordered and light was random.
<QUOTE>
Single photons come from electrons and
are random in nature, producing statistical results. Radio waves come from
antenna, whether artificial or natural, and are not random.
<END QUOTE>
No apology required, but I'll accept it. I have responded to the best of
my ability. Perhaps we need to keep our posts shorter?
> I'll discuss it, but not right now, I'm tired. I'll just leave you with
this
> thought.
> There is no medium of Maxwell's to find. Michelson tried. He really
tried.
> mu and epsilon are properties of aether, and there is no aether. Rather
like
> my bright green flying elephants eggs, you can discuss them if you wish,
but
> they don't exist.
Maxwell ended up not needing an aether.
mu and epsilon are properties of the Universe at large.
Over and out.
David A. Smith
Androcles
> Dear Androcles:
>
> "Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ujXib.9$qk...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> > news:4hIib.69307$gv5.40989@fed1read05...
> ...
[snip no further comment made]
> > >
> > > Place a sheet of paper on your desk. Draw three non-colinear points
A,
> B
> > > and C. Draw a line between the two most distant-from-each-other
points
> > > (lets assume this is A and C). In space(time) a photon travelling the
> > > "path" between source (A) and abosorber (C) *always* passes, to some
> > > extent, through all the points in the Universe transverse to its
> "path".
> > > This includes (B).
> > Very well.
> > A
> >
> >
> > B
> > C
> > If I agree, for the purpose of debate, that a 'something' passing from A
> to
> > C can have an influence of some kind on B, what happens at C to the
> similar
> > 'something' that passes from B to A?
>
> C is not encountered transverse to a path between A and B. A slit
"behind"
> the detector has no effect on what is detected.
Ok, then that's cleared up. So I can place B along any line parallel to AC
anywhere between A' and C', where A' and C' are perpendicular to the line AC
and inticate the corners of a rectangle, without regard to the distance A'A
= C'C, is what you seem to be saying. What experimental evidence do you have
to support this rather strange idea?
>
> > > The Universe is the medium. Mach knew it (for momentum at least).
> > > Einstein knew it (for curvature/gravity).
>
> > Is angular momentum the same as linear momentum? Take care before you
> > answer.
> > Does the centre of the rotating object have any angular momemtum?
>
> Yes. A real physcial body, or any molecule thereof, even "at" the center,
> will have some rotational energy.
Are you claiming that Foucalt's pendulum suspension point has rotational
energy, then?
Well, ok, I'll give you that one molecule does, but when I tie a piece of
string to a pin on my ceiling, part of the string will not swing. We'll only
include the molecule that moves, ok?
>
> > Does time
> > pass more slowly at the rim than at the centre? Seems to me that this
> would
> > prevent spin entirely. In the extreme, where the rim has a tangential
> > velocity of c, it wouldn't move because time wouldn't pass, relative to
> the
> > centre. Being rigidly attached to points closer to the centre, they
> couldn't
> > move either. I fail to see how a body undergoing time dilation while
> > spinning would spin at all.
>
> Keep in mind that we have not been able to get things to spin terribly
> fast. Usually a km/sec at the periphery. And then it shatters
My question is a hypothetical one based on an equation that is part of a
theory,
not an experimental one.
The pendulum, or the rim of the spinning top, undergoes time dilation
relative to the centre,
You may answer hypothetically, and you may make the radius and the rate of
rotation in revolutions per second any value.
Give me an equation to determine when the rigid spinning top will cease to
spin at the rim because its time has reached zero, whilst the interior of
the top is still turning.
Or, if you wish to simplify the problem, use the pendulum hanging on a rigid
rod.
Can you see that there is a point on the rod where the clock is running at
half speed realtive to a clock at the suspension point, and the big red ball
on the end has a clock that is stopped? How does it move?
>
> > Does it matter if a particle follows a straight path in curved space or
a
> > curved path in straight space? Are these not two different ways of
saying
> > the same thing? What new insight do we gain by saying one in preference
> to
> > the other? More to the point, you can do a pretty good job of describing
> an
> > orbit in terms of curved space, but how does curved space explain my
rear
> > end being glued to this chair?
>
> Regarding curved vs. straight space: one requires force at a distance
with
> a force carrier that has not yet been identified (straight space), and the
> other doesn't have force at a distance (curved space).
>
> Your rear is accelerated into a curved path you don't have energy enough
to
> maintain on your own. The chair is doing the accelerating, through a
> directly applied force. Otherwise, your rear would follow an elliptical
> orbit until some other direct force was applied.
Agreed the chair is pushing me up. The direction appears to be along a
straight line toward the centre of the Earth. If I place a rocket under it,
what curve will I be following when I achieve escape velocity? Or are you
saying that the world turned beneath me, so my path is curved? I still have
some sideways momentum left, though. I definitely need a rocket under my
arse to understand curved space.
>
[snip no further comment made]
> Diffraction indicates that a photon or any other particle extends the
width
> of the Unvierse transverse to its path.
Diffraction indicates that electrons passing through a crystal lattice, or
bouncing from its surface, have a probability of arriving at the maxima, but
it isn't a certainty.
The same experiment using pingpong balls bounced off a sinusiodally
undulating surface similar to an egg crate would also reveal they had a
preferred landing point if a large enough number of trials were carried out.
They don't need to extend to the width of the egg crate to explain it.
> Mach indicates that the Universe establishes the phenomenon of inertia at
> each point within it.
> Einstein indicates that space is a "projection" of all the mass/energy in
> the Universe.
>
> Light travels through non-empty space, since there is no such thing as
> empty space. So c is the default speed, because that is what the Universe
> allows.
Then you have a universal frame of reference and a contradiction.
Proof:
Consider a set of stars that have zero relative proper motion (in other
words, they are not moving with respect to each other). Passing by any one
such star, a space going vehicle observes, at right angles, the 'time' of
the clock on the star (this can be a planet orbitting the star, it is an
oscillator). Likewise, the traveller can observe the time on all the other
stars as well. According to Einstein's
f' = f[(1-cos(phi)v/c)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
the frequency (how often the orbit of its planet is completed) of the star
being passed
will be what?
Well, you work it out, it doesn't really matter.
Now, the same effect applies to all the other stars.
Extending this to all matter in the universe, and allowing small motion
between individual stars and galaxies, averaging out to zero, the ship frame
is compared to a universal frame.
This clearly contradicts
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor.... ....possess no properties corresponding to the idea of
absolute rest"
( p 37, Dover.)
Seems to me that someone wants to have his cake and eat it too.
[snip no further comment made]
> > > Photons are part of the Universe. Mass and energy both curve space.
> > First you must say what physical space is in terms that are meaningful
to
> > me.
>
> Space is balance due. Mass and energy are businesses that deal with one
> another. Curvature is local "rates of exchange".
So space is 'flat' except where there is mass. Then the 'influence' of one
mass on another is curvature, not force. I fail to gain any fresh insight by
looking at the other side of the same coin. I'll just call it force. When I
get a rocket under my chair, I'll call that force as well.
>
> > > Therefore, some part of the photon is extended to the ends of the
> > Unvierse.
> > > No big surprise there. The diffraction formula says as much.
>
> > Photons scatter, just as electrons do, and also steel balls tumbling
> between
> > pins in old slot machines. A probability distribution of the familiar
> bell
> > curve type is the result. No big surprise there.
>
> Affected by geometries that do not even (apparently) come into contact
with
> the electrons or steel balls. Geometries that can be miles away, as long
> as you are not looking for a large effect.
I'm not refuting the existence of fields, gravitational, electric or
magnetic. It's just that they play no part in the outcome of the tumbling
balls, except at the atomic level when the surface of the ball meets the
surface of the pin, neither of which are perfectly smooth. That isn't miles
away, and I AM looking for a large effect. We are discussing diffraction,
not the influence of the moon which plays no part in the trial. The outcome
will be the same on Mars as it is here. You are groping at straws now, as
your argument falls down the cliffside.
> ...
> > > > > I propose the electric field of a single charge
> > > > > extends across the Universe. Detecting same would be an
> engineering
> > > > > exercise.
> > >
> > > > Why? I proposed the same thing, except I chose the value of the
> charge
> > to
> > > be
> > > > zero. Detecting nothing is kinda tough, isn't it?
> > > > I have a length of wire, attached to a battery and a switch.
> > > > I throw the switch on.
> > > > Current passes through the wire.
> > > > A magnetic field 'grows' (at speed c, incidentally).
> > >
> > > Correct. This is curvature expressing, based on the charge motion.
>
> > Then ripples on a pond are caused by the curvature of water, because
they
> > make circles?
>
> Ripples on a pond are equidistant from the point of application of the
> upsetting force. This is usually a curviliner surface. Atomic blasts
> created shock waves that were (roughly) spherical.
The force of the blast acts along the radius of the sphere, in all
directions.
So does the force of gravity. What are you saying?
The sphere's surface is a curved one? I think we know that. I don't see any
great revelation in saying space is curved and a satellite follows a
straight path on a surface that is curved. That just comes back to saying it
follows a curved path in 'straight' space, acted on by a force. I really
don't mind which model you use, neither one explains waht the force that is
pushing me out of my chair IS.
>
> The curvature I referred to is surfaces that see the length contraction of
> the moving charges to have an equivalent value. Like equipotential
> surfaces.
Still don't see it.
Yeah... magic. Trouble is, once you put an atom there, it can't react with
another atom. It has real rest mass, so its clock has stopped. No more
chemical reaction. No more atomic reaction, for that matter. Approach a star
at c, and its light will appear of infinite intensity, but it won't emit
any, its clock has stopped.
>
> > But anyway, you are claiming that the B and E fields are independent.
>
> No I am saying they are exactly in-phase for a propagating photon, exactly
> out of phase for a signal in a conductor, and somewhere in between in the
> "near field" (where bizarre things happen).
What keeps them in phase then?
> > > When the signal is bound to a conductor, and charges
> > > are free to respond to the signal, E and B are 900 out of phase, as
you
> > > note.
>
> > Uh huh...
> > and remain so in the absence of a conductor. That's a photon. There is
> > certainly no requirement for them to be of the same frequency IF they
are
> > independent. Make a photon with slight different frequencies of the E
and
> B
> > fields, and it'll run round the room for you. Call it curved space.
>
> I provided the derivation. It seems to have little effect on your
> arguments, what the phase realationship might be... I guess I don't see
> what problem Maxwell's equations are providing you exactly.
Its simple enough. If they are out of phase the energy level is sinusoidal,
and violates conservation.
I don't understand why you think they need to be in phase anyway.
You made the claim earlier that the photon wouldn't move unless they were in
phase.
That isn't something I'll accept. I KNOW radio waves are 90 degrees phase
shifted between the B and E fields, and that doesn't stop them moving at c.
You get "Must try harder" on your report...:)
[snip my example]
> > > Your example implies charges free to make E and B out of phase.
> > How so?
> >
> > Maxwell's equations describe both scenarios.
> > Do Maxwell's equations permit the E and B fields to be independent? If
> so,
> > they can have different frequencies. If not, if one depends on the
other,
> > then they'll be one quarter of a circle out of phase, and only that.
>
> They are independent in the near field. They are constrained by reality
> elsewhere. Maxwell's equations work everywhere but the near field.
Isn't this rather contradictory? You claimed that is was Maxwell's
equations that lead you to believe the photon wouldn't move if the B and E
field were not in phase, now you are saying his equations don't work? To me,
'constrained by reality' means energy is conserved. The B and E fields have
a phase shift of 90. Always. What do you mean by 'near field'? You said
"Light travels though space. Marvelous." Is that the near field?
> ...
[snip]
> > >
> > > You also falling back to wave mechanics when you argue the behaviour
of
> > > light based on the behaviour of sound.
>
> > Yes. As I've said before, I'm trying to unify the wave and particle
> models,
> > and use analogy to do so.
>
> The problem is you are having information about the location of the
> detector propagate to the slits, to tell photons where to land. This
> behaviour is much more complex than is required. Maxima is merely photons
> that land "in phase". Minima are merely photons that land "out of phase".
> This is what a wave model would claim.
Yes, and it works quite well for water waves, as Christian Huyghens showed.
It also works for photons that are 'coupled', sharing their fields with each
other, riding alongside, passing through different slits. But for the lone
photon, the distribution still isn't random. The ping pong balls bouncing
off the egg crate will still show maxima and minima. Same for electrons.
You must decide if diffraction of electrons is caused by electrons being
particles or waves, and which model is consistent with the empirical
evidence. Have a varing mass of ping pong balls and you'll get a spectrum,
heavy balls will land at a different spot to lighter ones. That would make
it quite easy to separate them, and that is how it is done. Drop them on a
45 degree flat surface and let them bounce into boxes. Heavy balls will have
more momentum than lighter ones, travel faster upon hitting the plate, and
overcoming air resistance to a greater extent, move further away.
> > > And the answer is that light *is* passing through the minima, but the
E
> > and
> > > B fields neutralize one another, such that light there does not
provide
> as
> > > bright an image.
>
> > I've never been able to get a charged pith ball to cancel out a horshoe
> > magnet, no matter how I turn it.
>
> Rotate it about an axis that joins the N and S poles. One way will try
and
> stay centered (S to N, N to S), the other will try and eject from the
> centered postion.
As I said, I've never been able to get a charged pith ball to cancel out a
horshoe
magnet, no matter how I turn it. When I approached the magnet with a compass
needle to see if the field vanished, it didn't. I can only change the B
field when I MOVE the pith ball.
>
> > > You can simply move your target surface a little further
> > > out (say for a diffraction grating image) and require that light have
> > > crossed this "minima" area to build a newly positioned maxima.
>
> > No big surprise there. The photons land in a different place.
>
> Big surprise for a wave model. They have waves land everywhere, but the
> *amplitudes* provide the maxima and minima.
Who is using a wave model? Not I.
>
> ...
[snip]
> > > Do different physical laws apply to radio waves than for light?
> >
> > No. Nor do they apply differently to boats and planes, but boats don't
> fly,
> > atoms cease to be atoms when ionised, and photons are not modulated.
>
> Different physical laws apply to boats and planes.
Nope. Physical laws apply to everything.
The buoyancy has little
> to do with how a plane flys.
Correct. But that doesn't mean that physical laws don't apply. When the
plane lands on the water, it will float. When Campbell died in Bluebird, it
was because his boat 'flew'.
> Photons are modulated in lasers and in lenses.
I don't know that I would use the term 'modulated'. That would imply a
change in frequency or amplitude. I will grant you that the photons undergo
a speed change, and the speed of the photon in the lens or laser (or any
medium for that matter) is constant with respect to the medium. I will not
accept that it is constant without a medium, though. It moves with its
ejection velocity from a star, and has the speed of the star added to it,
motion being relative.
>
> Given a sufficiently large budget, I could make a lens for radio waves.
Sure.
> Hell, I could accelerate a visble light detector up to some high speed,
and
> detect them that way.
Yep. Its called doppler shift.
We modulate light production too, Androcles. All
> the way up to X-rays.
Yep. No argument there.
The problem we do have is that I would say your radio waves are doppler
shifted by the equation
f' = f(c+v)/c, where v is your velocity, which would apply to the observer
moving through air toward a sound source, and you would either use
f' = fc/(c-v), which would apply to a sound source moving through air,
observer at rest with respect to the air,
or the relativistic version,
f' = f.sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)] (p 56 of Dover)
all of which will produce approximately the same result for a small v, but
differ greatly when v approaches c.
In my case, the frequency is merely doubles, so you'll have to move your
light detector applied to radio waves at much greater than c. I have no
objection to that. In the aether model, approach at c and the result is a
lumic boom, corresponding to a sonic boom.
It would certainly let you 'see' radio.
In the relativist's version, strange things happen.
Try it.
Here, I've done it for you, tabulated and charted with a spreadsheet.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dark2.htm
The '# div 0' is the lumic boom.
Incidentally, Einstein's equation contradicts Einstein's conclusion on p 57
of Dover, last paragraph of section 7, but there are no inconsistencies in
relativity (for those that cannot see).
When you apply for your funding for your experiment, make sure that you tell
the governing body with all the cash that you'll be using the relativistic
equation, or they'll deny it. Then, when it fails, you weren't able to get a
high enough velocity when you ran out of fuel before you could 'see' the
radio wave optically, you'll have started a century long discussion on ths
ng that parallels the 'failure' of MMX.
If it were up to me, I'd simply mount a laser on Hubble and take potshots at
the moon.
>
> > > When
> > > visible light was generated in the ancient Universe, yet we detect it
> now
> > > as radio waves, are they now "ordered"? Are the well ordered spectra
> > > created then (and now) not suitable to be called "order"?
>
> > The order is still there, why wouldn't it be?
>
> Your comment about "modulation" is making me ask the question. You claim
> that light is random, and radio is not. Lasers are not random. IR and
> microwave communication are not random. No more random than radio
> transmission.
Of course. I was referring to candles, incandescant filaments, the sun...
The devices you mention send out bullets of EM along well defined paths,
they do not radiate in all directions.
> > > You are arguing based on how difficult it is to create radio waves,
>
> > Nonsense. I can do it with a spark. Ligtning does it.
>
> Not modulated. And it produces random radio waves.
>
> > and
> > > what special circumstances must exist for us to detect them.
>
> > Nope. See a paperclip spark in a microwave oven. That's as simple a
> > detector as I can come up with.
>
> Not really radio waves, now are they?
If I detect it on my radio, I call them radio waves. If I detect with my
eyes, I call it 'light'. If it is otherwise invisible, passes through my
body and is detected on a photograph, I call it X-rays. I don't know what
you mean by 'not really'. The paperclip radiates thoughout the spectrum when
it sparks. The Faraday cage of the oven prevents the microwaves and lower
frequencies escaping, but not the visible and higher frequencies.
>
[snip]
> > I fail to see where you are going. What has noise to do with how nature
> > works, aside from nature being random and producing noise?
>
> Your comment about how radio waves were ordered and light was random.
> <QUOTE>
> Single photons come from electrons and
> are random in nature, producing statistical results. Radio waves come from
> antenna, whether artificial or natural, and are not random.
> <END QUOTE>
Ok... I stand by what I said. There are random radio waves too, but they
still have E and M fields that are not in phase, as you seem to think.
[snip no further comment made]
> No apology required, but I'll accept it. I have responded to the best of
> my ability. Perhaps we need to keep our posts shorter?
Good idea.
[snip of equations, comment follows]
Differential equations have solutions that are functions.
The solutions to Maxwell's equations are functions, sine and cosine.
They also have initial conditions.
If you begin with sine(angle)=0, then the corresponding cos(angle) = 1.
If you begin with sin() = 0, cos() = 0, then you are not making sense.
div E = 0
div B = 0
are initial conditions.
[snip]
> Maxwell ended up not needing an aether.
Not so. It was Einstein that declared it superfluous.
Maxwell kept his aether till the day he died.
The model that doesn't need an aether and doesn't need
to play with time either is the ballistic photon.
Emission theory is the simplest explanation of all the phenomena,
and Occam's razor shaves exceedingly fine.
>
> mu and epsilon are properties of the Universe at large.
mu and epsilon are properties of matter.
> Over and out.
>
> David A. Smith
Fine... :)
Androcles.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fBbjb.10616$WR5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:iZ0jb.77949$gv5.26654@fed1read05...
Diffraction formula for one slit. (Eg. for the mth minima: sin(theta) =
m*lambda/width)
Theta is identically zero only for infinite width or zero wavelength.
Geometries up to the size of the Universe have an effect on the path of
particles. The formula submitted requires two edges, but there are similar
formulas for a single edge (none currently to hand).
Near field anomalies in signal emission. (and since I can never find links
to this when I want them, I'll leave this one here.)
...
> > > Is angular momentum the same as linear momentum? Take care before you
> > > answer.
> > > Does the centre of the rotating object have any angular momemtum?
> >
> > Yes. A real physcial body, or any molecule thereof, even "at" the
center,
> > will have some rotational energy.
> Are you claiming that Foucalt's pendulum suspension point has rotational
> energy, then?
> Well, ok, I'll give you that one molecule does, but when I tie a piece of
> string to a pin on my ceiling, part of the string will not swing. We'll
only
> include the molecule that moves, ok?
Agreed. "Points" are imaginary, and don't have any mass to have angular
momentum.
This would in fact not occur with a material wheel. The time at the rim
could only stop at c. And no material particle can achieve c. This is
more than an engineering problem.
> Or, if you wish to simplify the problem, use the pendulum hanging on a
rigid
> rod.
> Can you see that there is a point on the rod where the clock is running
at
> half speed realtive to a clock at the suspension point, and the big red
ball
> on the end has a clock that is stopped? How does it move?
Can't stop. I could, given sufficient engineering effort and lots of cash,
rig a wheel to have a clock at its periphery that was 1/2 time unit slower
per revolution than an equivalent clock at the hub. So the clock at the
hub would have 2*pi*t/omega seconds, and the rim clock would have
pi*t/omega seconds elapsed for each full rotation.
A rim observer, will not see the rim as circular, and will not agree with
the rotational speed you might ascribe to him.
We aren't talking a physical change, so much as an observational change.
There is some sideways motion (due to rotation), and some additional
attraction towards the equator (depends on your POV. "Coriolis forces"
seems to describe all of it.
> [snip no further comment made]
>
>
> > Diffraction indicates that a photon or any other particle extends the
> width
> > of the Unvierse transverse to its path.
> Diffraction indicates that electrons passing through a crystal lattice,
or
> bouncing from its surface, have a probability of arriving at the maxima,
but
> it isn't a certainty.
> The same experiment using pingpong balls bounced off a sinusiodally
> undulating surface similar to an egg crate would also reveal they had a
> preferred landing point if a large enough number of trials were carried
out.
> They don't need to extend to the width of the egg crate to explain it.
What if the walls of the egg crate were moved out to the Andromeda galaxy?
What if you went another 200 million light years along the egg's path and
found that the egg crate's walls had an effect on the observed pattern even
with them moved that far away? This is what the diffraction formula says.
The silly distance you have to travel to detect the variance on the
*stream* of pingpong balls is an engineering problem.
The same duration on all clocks (seconds per orbit in the ship's frame).
The actual clock indication on each clock can be whatever it is. It is the
duration difference per cycle that matters.
> Well, you work it out, it doesn't really matter.
> Now, the same effect applies to all the other stars.
> Extending this to all matter in the universe, and allowing small motion
> between individual stars and galaxies, averaging out to zero, the ship
frame
> is compared to a universal frame.
The "motion" of the CMBR and the motion of all the averaged galaxies agrees
in value and direction to a small percentage. This could be a coincidence,
or it could be our motion wrt the Universe's center of inertia.
> This clearly contradicts
> "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
a
> conductor.... ....possess no properties corresponding to the idea of
> absolute rest"
> ( p 37, Dover.)
> Seems to me that someone wants to have his cake and eat it too.
I cannot identify the quote from the information given (author, title, or
publisher can't tell). Magnetism is length contraction and charge.
> [snip no further comment made]
>
> > > > Photons are part of the Universe. Mass and energy both curve
space.
> > > First you must say what physical space is in terms that are
meaningful
> to
> > > me.
> >
> > Space is balance due. Mass and energy are businesses that deal with
one
> > another. Curvature is local "rates of exchange".
> So space is 'flat' except where there is mass. Then the 'influence' of
one
> mass on another is curvature, not force.
No effect of one mass on another. One mass creates its share of space.
Its effect, like that of the edge of a slit, decreases with distance.
> I fail to gain any fresh insight by
> looking at the other side of the same coin. I'll just call it force. When
I
> get a rocket under my chair, I'll call that force as well.
Understood.
> > > > Therefore, some part of the photon is extended to the ends of the
> > > Unvierse.
> > > > No big surprise there. The diffraction formula says as much.
> >
> > > Photons scatter, just as electrons do, and also steel balls tumbling
> > between
> > > pins in old slot machines. A probability distribution of the familiar
> > bell
> > > curve type is the result. No big surprise there.
> >
> > Affected by geometries that do not even (apparently) come into contact
> with
> > the electrons or steel balls. Geometries that can be miles away, as
long
> > as you are not looking for a large effect.
> I'm not refuting the existence of fields, gravitational, electric or
> magnetic. It's just that they play no part in the outcome of the tumbling
> balls, except at the atomic level when the surface of the ball meets the
> surface of the pin, neither of which are perfectly smooth. That isn't
miles
> away, and I AM looking for a large effect. We are discussing diffraction,
> not the influence of the moon which plays no part in the trial. The
outcome
> will be the same on Mars as it is here. You are groping at straws now, as
> your argument falls down the cliffside.
No. I am trying to show that only an engineering problem prevents us from
seeing the, to me, obvious relationship. You cannot see an issue with the
clocks on the GPS with a pocket watch, unless you are willing to wait
centuries for the time difference to accumulate enough to show. Same with
diffraction through large geometries. You would have to go a very long
ways to *detect* diffraction of 450nm light through a 1 meter slot,
wouldn't you? But diffract it would. Even a laser.
Lithospheric friction. Your arse is accelerated by the chair, the chair by
the floor, the floor by the dirt, the dirt by the mantle, the mantle by the
core. The core is under pressure and pushes back in all directions.
> > The curvature I referred to is surfaces that see the length contraction
of
> > the moving charges to have an equivalent value. Like equipotential
> > surfaces.
> Still don't see it.
I can only wave my hands so fast. Sorry.
...
> > > Wow...
> > > and since its clock has stopped, its frequency is zero too, I
suppose.
> Or
> > > would it be infinite? f = 1/t, right? How did Einstein say it? Dover,
P
> > 57.
> >
> > The photon's clock has not stopped. Lorentz's equations doe not apply
to
> > photons, since they have no rest mass.
> Yeah... magic. Trouble is, once you put an atom there, it can't react
with
> another atom. It has real rest mass, so its clock has stopped. No more
> chemical reaction. No more atomic reaction, for that matter. Approach a
star
> at c, and its light will appear of infinite intensity, but it won't emit
> any, its clock has stopped.
And this is the problem with Lorentz transforms for a frame at "c". No
relevant measurement can be made from this frame. Even an electron would
appear to have infinite energy and hence infinite gravitational pull.
> > > But anyway, you are claiming that the B and E fields are independent.
> >
> > No I am saying they are exactly in-phase for a propagating photon,
exactly
> > out of phase for a signal in a conductor, and somewhere in between in
the
> > "near field" (where bizarre things happen).
> What keeps them in phase then?
The fact that they are propagating, and that Maxwell knew what he was
"talking" about.
> > > > When the signal is bound to a conductor, and charges
> > > > are free to respond to the signal, E and B are 900 out of phase, as
> you
> > > > note.
> >
> > > Uh huh...
> > > and remain so in the absence of a conductor. That's a photon. There
is
> > > certainly no requirement for them to be of the same frequency IF they
> are
> > > independent. Make a photon with slight different frequencies of the E
> and
> > B
> > > fields, and it'll run round the room for you. Call it curved space.
> >
> > I provided the derivation. It seems to have little effect on your
> > arguments, what the phase realationship might be... I guess I don't
see
> > what problem Maxwell's equations are providing you exactly.
> Its simple enough. If they are out of phase the energy level is
sinusoidal,
> and violates conservation.
Doesn't apply to a quantum particle for a fraction of its wavelength. Over
as little as a single cycle nothing is lost.
> I don't understand why you think they need to be in phase anyway.
> You made the claim earlier that the photon wouldn't move unless they were
in
> phase.
> That isn't something I'll accept. I KNOW radio waves are 90 degrees phase
> shifted between the B and E fields, and that doesn't stop them moving at
c.
> You get "Must try harder" on your report...:)
I provided the derivation. It agrees with Maxwell.
> [snip my example]
>
> > > > Your example implies charges free to make E and B out of phase.
> > > How so?
> > >
> > > Maxwell's equations describe both scenarios.
> > > Do Maxwell's equations permit the E and B fields to be independent?
If
> > so,
> > > they can have different frequencies. If not, if one depends on the
> other,
> > > then they'll be one quarter of a circle out of phase, and only that.
> >
> > They are independent in the near field. They are constrained by
reality
> > elsewhere. Maxwell's equations work everywhere but the near field.
> Isn't this rather contradictory? You claimed that is was Maxwell's
> equations that lead you to believe the photon wouldn't move if the B and
E
> field were not in phase, now you are saying his equations don't work?
Not "wouldn't move". Won't propagate. In a conductor, the signal moves
and is 90° out of phase. But it is charges in the metal that let this
happen.
> To me,
> 'constrained by reality' means energy is conserved.
Over a full cycle, yes.
> The B and E fields have
> a phase shift of 90. Always. What do you mean by 'near field'? You said
> "Light travels though space. Marvelous." Is that the near field?
On the order of 1/2 wavelength. By 1 wavelength the in-phase relationship
is fully established.
I'm not understanding your point with this. Perhaps I am the one who is
tired now.
> > > > And the answer is that light *is* passing through the minima, but
the
> E
> > > and
> > > > B fields neutralize one another, such that light there does not
> provide
> > as
> > > > bright an image.
> >
> > > I've never been able to get a charged pith ball to cancel out a
horshoe
> > > magnet, no matter how I turn it.
> >
> > Rotate it about an axis that joins the N and S poles. One way will try
> and
> > stay centered (S to N, N to S), the other will try and eject from the
> > centered postion.
> As I said, I've never been able to get a charged pith ball to cancel out
a
> horshoe
> magnet, no matter how I turn it. When I approached the magnet with a
compass
> needle to see if the field vanished, it didn't. I can only change the B
> field when I MOVE the pith ball.
Rotate the charged ball. The magnetic field will be altered, however
slightly. The ball will displace, which should be indication that
something has changed. Use a smaller compass needle, or a larger horseshoe
and pith ball. Use a tool that is adequate to the job. The failing is
engineering, not physics.
> > > > You can simply move your target surface a little further
> > > > out (say for a diffraction grating image) and require that light
have
> > > > crossed this "minima" area to build a newly positioned maxima.
> >
> > > No big surprise there. The photons land in a different place.
> >
> > Big surprise for a wave model. They have waves land everywhere, but
the
> > *amplitudes* provide the maxima and minima.
> Who is using a wave model? Not I.
Maxima and minima...
> > ...
> [snip]
> > > > Do different physical laws apply to radio waves than for light?
> > >
> > > No. Nor do they apply differently to boats and planes, but boats
don't
> > fly,
> > > atoms cease to be atoms when ionised, and photons are not modulated.
> >
> > Different physical laws apply to boats and planes.
> Nope. Physical laws apply to everything.
Some don't provide a measureable effect in a given experimental setup.
>> The buoyancy has little
> > to do with how a plane flys.
> Correct. But that doesn't mean that physical laws don't apply. When the
> plane lands on the water, it will float. When Campbell died in Bluebird,
it
> was because his boat 'flew'.
Buoyancy is a "physcial law", and it doesn't help the plane to fly
(measurably).
Radio waves and light are the same critter. You are confusing engineering
and physics.
> > Photons are modulated in lasers and in lenses.
> I don't know that I would use the term 'modulated'. That would imply a
> change in frequency or amplitude. I will grant you that the photons
undergo
> a speed change, and the speed of the photon in the lens or laser (or any
> medium for that matter) is constant with respect to the medium. I will
not
> accept that it is constant without a medium, though. It moves with its
> ejection velocity from a star, and has the speed of the star added to it,
> motion being relative.
You have made your belief clear.
> > Given a sufficiently large budget, I could make a lens for radio waves.
> Sure.
> > Hell, I could accelerate a visble light detector up to some high speed,
> and
> > detect them that way.
> Yep. Its called doppler shift.
Did I change something fundamental to the radio wave to make it light? No.
They are the same critters, and only engineering separates your two
definitions.
>> We modulate light production too, Androcles. All
> > the way up to X-rays.
> Yep. No argument there.
> The problem we do have is that I would say your radio waves are doppler
> shifted by the equation
> f' = f(c+v)/c, where v is your velocity, which would apply to the
observer
> moving through air toward a sound source, and you would either use
> f' = fc/(c-v), which would apply to a sound source moving through air,
> observer at rest with respect to the air,
> or the relativistic version,
> f' = f.sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)] (p 56 of Dover)
> all of which will produce approximately the same result for a small v,
but
> differ greatly when v approaches c.
> In my case, the frequency is merely doubles, so you'll have to move your
> light detector applied to radio waves at much greater than c. I have no
> objection to that.
Only if you use the formula that is not supported by experimental evidence
for doppler shift. And if I could move faster than c, I'd wave at you from
Alpha Centauri. Getting a postcard back to you would have to wait.
We bounce X-rays off of high-speed charged nucleii. The wavelength is
shortened by as much as gamma^2 of the particle. No real surprises about
the duration from when the photons are emitted and detected though...
> > > > When
> > > > visible light was generated in the ancient Universe, yet we detect
it
> > now
> > > > as radio waves, are they now "ordered"? Are the well ordered
spectra
> > > > created then (and now) not suitable to be called "order"?
> >
> > > The order is still there, why wouldn't it be?
> >
> > Your comment about "modulation" is making me ask the question. You
claim
> > that light is random, and radio is not. Lasers are not random. IR and
> > microwave communication are not random. No more random than radio
> > transmission.
> Of course. I was referring to candles, incandescant filaments, the sun...
> The devices you mention send out bullets of EM along well defined paths,
> they do not radiate in all directions.
So it *is* an engineering definition, and not something fundamentally
different with the photons themselves. Good.
> > > > You are arguing based on how difficult it is to create radio waves,
> >
> > > Nonsense. I can do it with a spark. Ligtning does it.
> >
> > Not modulated. And it produces random radio waves.
> >
> > > and
> > > > what special circumstances must exist for us to detect them.
> >
> > > Nope. See a paperclip spark in a microwave oven. That's as simple a
> > > detector as I can come up with.
> >
> > Not really radio waves, now are they?
> If I detect it on my radio, I call them radio waves. If I detect with my
> eyes, I call it 'light'. If it is otherwise invisible, passes through my
> body and is detected on a photograph, I call it X-rays. I don't know what
> you mean by 'not really'. The paperclip radiates thoughout the spectrum
when
> it sparks. The Faraday cage of the oven prevents the microwaves and lower
> frequencies escaping, but not the visible and higher frequencies.
The space shuttle radiates across the spectrum too, when it enters the
Earth's atmosphere. But a photon is still a photon, regardless of
wavelength. That is the point I was trying to see come out of your
"mouth". We can drop this line at any time.
> [snip]
>
> > > I fail to see where you are going. What has noise to do with how
nature
> > > works, aside from nature being random and producing noise?
> >
> > Your comment about how radio waves were ordered and light was random.
> > <QUOTE>
> > Single photons come from electrons and
> > are random in nature, producing statistical results. Radio waves come
from
> > antenna, whether artificial or natural, and are not random.
> > <END QUOTE>
> Ok... I stand by what I said. There are random radio waves too, but they
> still have E and M fields that are not in phase, as you seem to think.
This is not documented by experiment. The E and M are in phase for
propagating photons.
> [snip no further comment made]
>
> > No apology required, but I'll accept it. I have responded to the best
of
> > my ability. Perhaps we need to keep our posts shorter?
> Good idea.
We can drop the "radio is different than light" anytime. That will cut
this all in half.
> [snip of equations, comment follows]
> Differential equations have solutions that are functions.
> The solutions to Maxwell's equations are functions, sine and cosine.
> They also have initial conditions.
> If you begin with sine(angle)=0, then the corresponding cos(angle) = 1.
> If you begin with sin() = 0, cos() = 0, then you are not making sense.
Supported by experiment. I have no other case to make on this point
either. I have it on good authority that what I have said is true. We can
agree to disagree, and move on, then this thread will be about 25% of its
current size. Agree to disagree?
> div E = 0
> div B = 0
> are initial conditions.
>
>
> [snip]
>
> > Maxwell ended up not needing an aether.
> Not so. It was Einstein that declared it superfluous.
> Maxwell kept his aether till the day he died.
> The model that doesn't need an aether and doesn't need
> to play with time either is the ballistic photon.
> Emission theory is the simplest explanation of all the phenomena,
> and Occam's razor shaves exceedingly fine.
Yes it does. However not being able to measure an effect does not mean the
effect is not present. It means you've decided to ignore it. Diffraction
by distant objects is a real effect, and one exceedingly hard to measure.
> > mu and epsilon are properties of the Universe at large.
> mu and epsilon are properties of matter.
The matter of the Universe.
> > Over and out.
> Fine... :)
Think about this until the weekend. Don't think you need to reply until it
is convenient. You don't need high blood pressure too.
David A. Smith
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:fBbjb.10616$WR5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
[snip]
> [snip of equations, comment follows]
> Differential equations have solutions that are functions.
Ha, Androcles and differential equations:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
> Dear Androcles:
>
> "Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fBbjb.10616$WR5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> > news:iZ0jb.77949$gv5.26654@fed1read05...
> ...
> > What experimental evidence do you have
> > to support this rather strange idea?
>
> Diffraction formula for one slit. (Eg. for the mth minima: sin(theta) =
> m*lambda/width)
> Theta is identically zero only for infinite width or zero wavelength.
> Geometries up to the size of the Universe have an effect on the path of
> particles. The formula submitted requires two edges, but there are
similar
> formulas for a single edge (none currently to hand).
Oh, I see.
You think that because there are multiple maxima of decreasing intensity as
they spread out from the normal, light is a wave. Gotcha. I agree it is a
good point, well worth investigating, but one shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Electrons diffract too. Are electrons waves or particles?
> Near field anomalies in signal emission. (and since I can never find
links
> to this when I want them, I'll leave this one here.)
Waiting with baited breath...
>
> ...
> > Are you claiming that Foucalt's pendulum suspension point has rotational
> > energy, then?
> > Well, ok, I'll give you that one molecule does, but when I tie a piece
of
> > string to a pin on my ceiling, part of the string will not swing. We'll
> only
> > include the molecule that moves, ok?
>
> Agreed. "Points" are imaginary, and don't have any mass to have angular
> momentum.
Hmm...
I find your description of a point somewhat strange. They are hardly
'imaginary', they have properties called coordinates, (x,y,z, pitch, roll,
yaw). Perhaps you mean the word in the same sense as an imaginary number
such as(0,ix), where i =sqrt(-1). That too isn't really imaginary, unless
negative numbers are also, or for that matter, numbers. We can talk of 1 or
2 apples, but no two apples are truly identical. Perhaps you mean
'abstraction' rather than imaginary? But I'll agree points have no physical
mass.
Of course not. We can observe that. I'm often spinning my wheels :)
> The time at the rim
> could only stop at c.
Ok, that is what I said.
And no material particle can achieve c.
That remains to be seen, but I'll go along with it for the purpose debate,
since it is immaterial to the problem anyway.
> This is more than an engineering problem.
It's a relativity problem. I've asked you to solve it. I've been told by
many that there are no inconsistencies in relativity, so you should be able
to.
> > Or, if you wish to simplify the problem, use the pendulum hanging on a
> rigid
> > rod.
> > Can you see that there is a point on the rod where the clock is running
> at
> > half speed realtive to a clock at the suspension point, and the big red
> ball
> > on the end has a clock that is stopped? How does it move?
>
> Can't stop. I could, given sufficient engineering effort and lots of
cash,
> rig a wheel to have a clock at its periphery that was 1/2 time unit slower
> per revolution than an equivalent clock at the hub. So the clock at the
> hub would have 2*pi*t/omega seconds, and the rim clock would have
> pi*t/omega seconds elapsed for each full rotation.
Uh huh... Would the clock have 'hands', like a grandfather clock? You know,
the big hand points to the 12 and the little hand points to the 4, so it's 4
o'clock?
What would happen if we used the pendulum itself as a hand? After all, that
is what grandfather clocks use, isn't it? Let's suppose that one swing to
the left and one swing to the right is a cycle, and lasts one second.
However, the arc the weight moves through
is I light second long... yes, it is an enormous pendulum. I can reduce it
by 1,000,000th of its length if you like, and make a cycle last one
microsecond, but we are looking at a principle here, so let's keep it one
second. How would the pendulum keep time that matched the tiny clocks you
want on the bobweight and at the suspension point?
Will it agree, or will it bend, refusing to move? Or, if the weight is
moving slightly less than c, will it move just a little? Don't forget to
include length contraction in your calculation. The bob doesn't have to move
far, it is length contracted along the arc, and so is the arc. The same
would apply to the rim of a spinning top.
Strange, isn't it? The faster it goes, the less distance it covers. This is
so that the speed of light, at the rim, is always c.
> A rim observer, will not see the rim as circular, and will not agree with
> the rotational speed you might ascribe to him.
Yep, absolutely right. Travelling at c, we see he doesn't move at all. His
clock has stopped and the distance he moves is length contracted to zero.
Every bit as good as Lewis Carol, isn't it?
>
> We aren't talking a physical change, so much as an observational change.
Ok, so we observe the pendulum swinging at c, with a clock on the end that
has stopped, moving no distance. The guy on the end sees time passing
normally, distance passing by normally, it's his frame of reference he uses.
What do we see of a point halfway (Or 0.866 if you like) down the suspension
wire, and what does he see?
> > > Regarding curved vs. straight space: one requires force at a distance
> > with
> > > a force carrier that has not yet been identified (straight space), and
> the
> > > other doesn't have force at a distance (curved space).
> > >
> > > Your rear is accelerated into a curved path you don't have energy
> enough
> > to
> > > maintain on your own. The chair is doing the accelerating, through a
> > > directly applied force. Otherwise, your rear would follow an
> elliptical
> > > orbit until some other direct force was applied.
>
> > Agreed the chair is pushing me up. The direction appears to be along a
> > straight line toward the centre of the Earth. If I place a rocket under
> it,
> > what curve will I be following when I achieve escape velocity? Or are
you
> > saying that the world turned beneath me, so my path is curved? I still
> have
> > some sideways momentum left, though. I definitely need a rocket under my
> > arse to understand curved space.
>
> There is some sideways motion (due to rotation), and some additional
> attraction towards the equator (depends on your POV. "Coriolis forces"
> seems to describe all of it.
Uh huh... So the curvature of space can be ascribed to Coriolis force, then?
Fine with me. Relative to the stars, and Foucault's pendulum, I'm moving in
a straight line.. well, falling toward the sun, I suppose, and probably the
moon as well, the reference, the Earth, is spinning beneath me. Where does
calling this a straight line in a space that has multiple curvature have an
advantage over saying that I'm curving in Euclidean space? I don't see that
it really matters if we place the Earth at the centre of the universe and
allow the stars to move around us, the calculations will still get the same
answers, but it makes a simpler model if we allow that the Earth turns. What
I'm trying to find out is why straight paths in curved space is a simpler
model than curved paths in straight space and aid in our understanding of
the workings of the Universe.
> > [snip no further comment made]
> >
> >
> > > Diffraction indicates that a photon or any other particle extends the
> > width
> > > of the Unvierse transverse to its path.
>
> > Diffraction indicates that electrons passing through a crystal lattice,
> or
> > bouncing from its surface, have a probability of arriving at the maxima,
> but
> > it isn't a certainty.
> > The same experiment using pingpong balls bounced off a sinusiodally
> > undulating surface similar to an egg crate would also reveal they had a
> > preferred landing point if a large enough number of trials were carried
> out.
> > They don't need to extend to the width of the egg crate to explain it.
>
> What if the walls of the egg crate were moved out to the Andromeda galaxy?
The balls are not thrown in that direction, but you could widen the crate if
you wanted to, I don't mind.
> What if you went another 200 million light years along the egg's path and
> found that the egg crate's walls had an effect on the observed pattern
even
> with them moved that far away? This is what the diffraction formula says.
Yes, but the rule is: mathematics is used to describe physical events.
You seem to think that it is : physical events must obey the rules of
mathematics.
What you are doing is playing your own variation of Zeno's Paradox.
If the half-life of a radioactive substance is one year, how long will a
sample of four atoms take to decay? 3 years? No. the sample is way to small
to give an answer. Yet the half-life rule is accurate if the sample is large
enough. The same applies to your generalized rule for diffraction. It
doesn't work for electrons when just a few electrons are used.
Keep in mind that if you assume light is a wave, create an equation that
applies to wave mechanics, get a result that agrees with your prediction,
then you've proved that your equation is adequate. You have not proved that
light is a wave, that would be circularity at its worst. You cannot prove
what you assumed in the first place, and your equation will fail anyway on
small samples. If it were 100% correct, the maxima would have no spread.
They'd be microscopically thin lines of great intensity.
> The silly distance you have to travel to detect the variance on the
> *stream* of pingpong balls is an engineering problem.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that I can't predict where they will land,
statistically,
and get a result that approximates the prediction. It won't be exact, but no
one will mind. The greater the sample the better the result.
Ok.. All the stars keep the same time. That's universal time.
>
> > Well, you work it out, it doesn't really matter.
> > Now, the same effect applies to all the other stars.
> > Extending this to all matter in the universe, and allowing small motion
> > between individual stars and galaxies, averaging out to zero, the ship
> frame
> > is compared to a universal frame.
>
> The "motion" of the CMBR and the motion of all the averaged galaxies
agrees
> in value and direction to a small percentage. This could be a
coincidence,
> or it could be our motion wrt the Universe's center of inertia.
>
> > This clearly contradicts
> > "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
> a
> > conductor.... ....possess no properties corresponding to the idea of
> > absolute rest"
> > ( p 37, Dover.)
> > Seems to me that someone wants to have his cake and eat it too.
>
> I cannot identify the quote from the information given (author, title, or
> publisher can't tell). Magnetism is length contraction and charge.
"Dover" has been referred to on this ng repeatedly, I apologise for thinking
you would be familiar wth it. My assumption, my bad.
It is a collection of papers under the title " The Principle of Relativity"
and contains "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" along with other
works by Lorentz, Weyl and Minkowski. SBN 486-60081-5. The author I quoted
is Albert Einstein, and "Electrodynamics" is his 1905 paper that started it
all. "Dover" is the publisher. This paper is the authority on SR, all others
are rip-offs of Einstein's work, trying to explain it to the lay public when
they themselves are gullible. Einstein remains the greatest con-artist of
all time, in IMHO. I too used to glorify him, sing his praises, but I have
long since realized that he was perpetrating a confidence trick to promote
himself as a great man. He grabbed a tiger by the tail, and had to hang on.
To admit his errors in Electrodynamics would have been unthinkable, if they
were not deliberate. I think they were deliberate based on the language he
chooses. Ther can be no doubt the man was a genius. So are many criminals.
>
> > [snip no further comment made]
> >
> > > > > Photons are part of the Universe. Mass and energy both curve
> space.
> > > > First you must say what physical space is in terms that are
> meaningful
> > to
> > > > me.
> > >
> > > Space is balance due. Mass and energy are businesses that deal with
> one
> > > another. Curvature is local "rates of exchange".
>
> > So space is 'flat' except where there is mass. Then the 'influence' of
> one
> > mass on another is curvature, not force.
>
> No effect of one mass on another. One mass creates its share of space.
> Its effect, like that of the edge of a slit, decreases with distance.
Same thing, different words.
Hmm... If I put a laser beam through the middle of the gap, it would not. If
I clipped the edge of the slit with the beam, the photon stream will
interact with electrons at the edge, and deflect.
> > I really
> > don't mind which model you use, neither one explains waht the force that
> is
> > pushing me out of my chair IS.
>
> Lithospheric friction. Your arse is accelerated by the chair, the chair
by
> the floor, the floor by the dirt, the dirt by the mantle, the mantle by
the
> core. The core is under pressure and pushes back in all directions.
A rose by any other name would still stink.
>
> > > The curvature I referred to is surfaces that see the length
contraction
> of
> > > the moving charges to have an equivalent value. Like equipotential
> > > surfaces.
> > Still don't see it.
>
> I can only wave my hands so fast. Sorry.
No problem, I'm as thick as two short planks anyway.
> ...
> > > > Wow...
> > > > and since its clock has stopped, its frequency is zero too, I
> suppose.
> > Or
> > > > would it be infinite? f = 1/t, right? How did Einstein say it?
Dover,
> P
> > > 57.
> > >
> > > The photon's clock has not stopped. Lorentz's equations doe not apply
> to
> > > photons, since they have no rest mass.
>
> > Yeah... magic. Trouble is, once you put an atom there, it can't react
> with
> > another atom. It has real rest mass, so its clock has stopped. No more
> > chemical reaction. No more atomic reaction, for that matter. Approach a
> star
> > at c, and its light will appear of infinite intensity, but it won't emit
> > any, its clock has stopped.
>
> And this is the problem with Lorentz transforms for a frame at "c". No
> relevant measurement can be made from this frame. Even an electron would
> appear to have infinite energy and hence infinite gravitational pull.
Yep... move at c and the entire universal frame of the universe collapses.
And of course, applying the principle of relativity, Eisntein's first
postulate, the rest of the universe has infinite mass in the 'eyes' of the
electron, because the universe is really moving. The electron is stationary.
Einstein has a universal frame, and universal frames are denied by Einstein.
> > > > But anyway, you are claiming that the B and E fields are
independent.
> > >
> > > No I am saying they are exactly in-phase for a propagating photon,
> exactly
> > > out of phase for a signal in a conductor, and somewhere in between in
> the
> > > "near field" (where bizarre things happen).
>
> > What keeps them in phase then?
>
> The fact that they are propagating, and that Maxwell knew what he was
> "talking" about.
Hero worship isn't a reply. Explain why they have to be in phase to
propagate, when I have already shown that a coil and capacitor will
propagate radio frequencies, and the E and M fields are not in phase.
Then you've both made error.
>
> Rotate the charged ball. The magnetic field will be altered, however
> slightly. The ball will displace, which should be indication that
> something has changed. Use a smaller compass needle, or a larger
horseshoe
> and pith ball. Use a tool that is adequate to the job. The failing is
> engineering, not physics.
(sigh)... I was kidding when I said a pith ball. Do you really believe that
a magnetic field can be canceled by a static charge, no relative motion
between (say) a 200kV 500 Farad capacitor and a weak refrigerator magnet?
I'd like to see it.
> > > > > You can simply move your target surface a little further
> > > > > out (say for a diffraction grating image) and require that light
> have
> > > > > crossed this "minima" area to build a newly positioned maxima.
> > >
> > > > No big surprise there. The photons land in a different place.
> > >
> > > Big surprise for a wave model. They have waves land everywhere, but
> the
> > > *amplitudes* provide the maxima and minima.
>
> > Who is using a wave model? Not I.
>
> Maxima and minima...
Photons land...
> Radio waves and light are the same critter.
Agreed. Make a low frequency radio wave violate conservation.
You are confusing engineering
> and physics.
LOL. You are confusing Nature with mathematics.
>
> > > Photons are modulated in lasers and in lenses.
>
> > I don't know that I would use the term 'modulated'. That would imply a
> > change in frequency or amplitude. I will grant you that the photons
> undergo
> > a speed change, and the speed of the photon in the lens or laser (or any
> > medium for that matter) is constant with respect to the medium. I will
> not
> > accept that it is constant without a medium, though. It moves with its
> > ejection velocity from a star, and has the speed of the star added to
it,
> > motion being relative.
>
> You have made your belief clear.
Not just belief. Look at the empirical data. Explain what you see.
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/stardial/variables/mira.html
>
> > > Given a sufficiently large budget, I could make a lens for radio
waves.
> > Sure.
> > > Hell, I could accelerate a visble light detector up to some high
speed,
> > and
> > > detect them that way.
> > Yep. Its called doppler shift.
>
> Did I change something fundamental to the radio wave to make it light?
No.
> They are the same critters,
Yep. I haven't done or said anything to disagree.
> and only engineering separates your two
> definitions.
>
> >> We modulate light production too, Androcles. All
> > > the way up to X-rays.
> > Yep. No argument there.
> > The problem we do have is that I would say your radio waves are doppler
> > shifted by the equation
> > f' = f(c+v)/c, where v is your velocity, which would apply to the
> observer
> > moving through air toward a sound source, and you would either use
> > f' = fc/(c-v), which would apply to a sound source moving through air,
> > observer at rest with respect to the air,
> > or the relativistic version,
> > f' = f.sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)] (p 56 of Dover)
> > all of which will produce approximately the same result for a small v,
> but
> > differ greatly when v approaches c.
> > In my case, the frequency is merely doubles, so you'll have to move your
> > light detector applied to radio waves at much greater than c. I have no
> > objection to that.
>
> Only if you use the formula that is not supported by experimental evidence
> for doppler shift.
Oh, but is. It certainly applies for sound, that's experimental evidence,
and I've already stated the values are approximately the same for all three
equations at low velocities. Wanna see?
v f' = f(c+v)/c f' = fc/(c-v) f' = f.sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]
0 1 1 1
0.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
0.02 1.02 1.02 1.02
0.03 1.03 1.03 1.03
0.04 1.04 1.04 1.04
0.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
0.06 1.06 1.06 1.06
0.07 1.07 1.08 1.07
0.08 1.08 1.09 1.08
0.09 1.09 1.10 1.09
0.10 1.10 1.11 1.11
0.11 1.11 1.12 1.12
0.12 1.12 1.14 1.13
0.13 1.13 1.15 1.14
0.14 1.14 1.16 1.15
0.15 1.15 1.18 1.16
0.16 1.16 1.19 1.18
0.17 1.17 1.20 1.19
0.18 1.18 1.22 1.20
0.19 1.19 1.23 1.21
0.20 1.20 1.25 1.22
Fairly close agreement right up to 0.2c.
When did you last measure doppler shift with a relative velocity of 135
*million* mph?
Until you do, I'll claim the formulae (all of them) are supported by
experimental evidence. Now disprove it.
That's the problem with you relativists. You claim imaginary experimental
evidence and think that will convince any one. Doesn't convince me. If you
have any evidence, produce it.
Don't just claim it and expect me to believe it. All you did by that remark
is showed your prejudice.
I've produced evidence to show you are wrong. Check it, all it takes is a
spreadsheet.
And if I could move faster than c, I'd wave at you from
> Alpha Centauri. Getting a postcard back to you would have to wait.
You'd never get there, your clock runs faster than mine and you'd die first.
Measured under conditions that do not replicate even interplanetary space,
loaded with
gravity, magnetic fields, electric fields.
Too many variables, sorry.
If it were up to me, I'd simply mount a laser on Hubble and take potshots
at the moon. Probably cheaper than your charged particles, certainly
simpler, and a direct test.
> > > Your comment about "modulation" is making me ask the question. You
> claim
> > > that light is random, and radio is not. Lasers are not random. IR and
> > > microwave communication are not random. No more random than radio
> > > transmission.
>
> > Of course. I was referring to candles, incandescant filaments, the
sun...
> > The devices you mention send out bullets of EM along well defined paths,
> > they do not radiate in all directions.
>
> So it *is* an engineering definition, and not something fundamentally
> different with the photons themselves. Good.
I'm surprised you thought I imagined otherwise.
Summarizing, photons are 'bullets' made of tiny E/M fields that alternate,
phase shifted 90 degrees. Radio waves are E/m radiation of ENORMOUS photons,
so huge they can be considered a wave when you slice through them. The B
field expands as water ripples, the E field is represented by a cork bobbing
up and down on the water. The speed at which photons are ejected is c. The
speed of radio waves is c.
That is my position.
Your position:
Light is a wave of E-M with the E-M fields in phase, Maxwell said so, and
Maxwell used aether as the carrier. The aether isn't needed. The phase
relationship means energy isn't conserved, but it is over a complete cycle.
>
> The space shuttle radiates across the spectrum too, when it enters the
> Earth's atmosphere. But a photon is still a photon, regardless of
> wavelength. That is the point I was trying to see come out of your
> "mouth". We can drop this line at any time.
> > Ok... I stand by what I said. There are random radio waves too, but they
> > still have E and M fields that are not in phase, as you seem to think.
>
> This is not documented by experiment. The E and M are in phase for
> propagating photons.
Name the experiment. You've already claimed that experimental evidence
showed I used the wrong doppler shift, and your integrity is beginning to
come into question. I think you are groping at straws to make your point.
If you have an experiment to show that E and B fields are in phase, I'll
withdraw that remark.
>
> We can drop the "radio is different than light" anytime. That will cut
> this all in half.
Ok.
> > [snip of equations, comment follows]
> > Differential equations have solutions that are functions.
> > The solutions to Maxwell's equations are functions, sine and cosine.
> > They also have initial conditions.
> > If you begin with sine(angle)=0, then the corresponding cos(angle) = 1.
> > If you begin with sin() = 0, cos() = 0, then you are not making sense.
>
> Supported by experiment.
Name the experiment.
> I have no other case to make on this point
> either. I have it on good authority that what I have said is true. We
can
> agree to disagree, and move on, then this thread will be about 25% of its
> current size. Agree to disagree?
>
> > div E = 0
> > div B = 0
> > are initial conditions.
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Maxwell ended up not needing an aether.
>
> > Not so. It was Einstein that declared it superfluous.
> > Maxwell kept his aether till the day he died.
> > The model that doesn't need an aether and doesn't need
> > to play with time either is the ballistic photon.
> > Emission theory is the simplest explanation of all the phenomena,
> > and Occam's razor shaves exceedingly fine.
>
> Yes it does. However not being able to measure an effect does not mean
the
> effect is not present. It means you've decided to ignore it. Diffraction
> by distant objects is a real effect, and one exceedingly hard to measure.
If you have the evidence, present it.
Otherwise there is only a pantomime of
'oh yes it is',
'oh no it isn't'.
>
> > > mu and epsilon are properties of the Universe at large.
>
> > mu and epsilon are properties of matter.
>
> The matter of the Universe.
>
> > > Over and out.
>
> > Fine... :)
>
> Think about this until the weekend. Don't think you need to reply until
it
> is convenient. You don't need high blood pressure too.
>
> David A. Smith
This isn't high blood pressure stuff, this is relaxing. But if you need a
break...
Androcles
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
Read through before you reply. I need to know if I'm off to the library...
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:seDjb.41$wA2...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:5injb.82451$gv5.57971@fed1read05...
> > Dear Androcles:
> >
> > "Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:fBbjb.10616$WR5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> > > news:iZ0jb.77949$gv5.26654@fed1read05...
> > ...
> > > [snip to the new stuff]
> > > What experimental evidence do you have
> > > to support this rather strange idea?
> >
> > Diffraction formula for one slit. (Eg. for the mth minima: sin(theta) =
> > m*lambda/width)
> > Theta is identically zero only for infinite width or zero wavelength.
> > Geometries up to the size of the Universe have an effect on the path of
> > particles. The formula submitted requires two edges, but there are
> similar
> > formulas for a single edge (none currently to hand).
>
> Oh, I see.
> You think that because there are multiple maxima of decreasing intensity
as
> they spread out from the normal, light is a wave. Gotcha. I agree it is a
> good point, well worth investigating, but one shouldn't jump to
conclusions.
D edge
E
T
E
<--- laser source
C
T
O
R edge
Each letter in detector is 10 cm tall. The two edges are ~60 cm apart.
The wavelength from the source is 450 nm. The value for theta is non-zero
(damned small , but non-zero). How wide is a photon and/or where exactly
are the edges for these ballistic particles to still be affected by these
distant edges?
> Electrons diffract too. Are electrons waves or particles?
All particles have the same characteristic wave behaviour (neutrons,
buckyballs too). Look at the current scientific definition of particle
now:
<URLhttp://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/75/p0087500.htm
l>
"A body whose spatial extent and internal motion and structure, if any, are
irrelevant in a specific problem."
Sounds pretty "wavelike" already...
And hence no angular momentum.
We have a series of issues here:
- show me the money,
- what exaclty am I supposed to solve?
The formulae and solutions are on the web. The ability to create such a
wheel is an engineering problem, because no matter can withstand the
internal stresses. So I'll have to create a "magic force field" first, and
tehn make your wheel.
Besides, I am quite satisfied that "more power" is not the way to get to
the stars. c is truly the limit. Investigating the surprising
relationship between *here* and *not here* is the way to the stars.
> > > Or, if you wish to simplify the problem, use the pendulum hanging on
a
> > rigid
> > > rod.
> > > Can you see that there is a point on the rod where the clock is
running
> > at
> > > half speed realtive to a clock at the suspension point, and the big
red
> > ball
> > > on the end has a clock that is stopped? How does it move?
> >
> > Can't stop. I could, given sufficient engineering effort and lots of
> cash,
> > rig a wheel to have a clock at its periphery that was 1/2 time unit
slower
> > per revolution than an equivalent clock at the hub. So the clock at
the
> > hub would have 2*pi*t/omega seconds, and the rim clock would have
> > pi*t/omega seconds elapsed for each full rotation.
> Uh huh... Would the clock have 'hands', like a grandfather clock? You
know,
> the big hand points to the 12 and the little hand points to the 4, so
it's 4
> o'clock?
How about a chemical reaction that turns a surface a certain color? At
least something that would survive the acceleration...
> What would happen if we used the pendulum itself as a hand? After all,
that
> is what grandfather clocks use, isn't it? Let's suppose that one swing to
> the left and one swing to the right is a cycle, and lasts one second.
> However, the arc the weight moves through
> is I light second long... yes, it is an enormous pendulum. I can reduce
it
> by 1,000,000th of its length if you like, and make a cycle last one
> microsecond, but we are looking at a principle here, so let's keep it one
> second. How would the pendulum keep time that matched the tiny clocks
you
> want on the bobweight and at the suspension point?
Can't be the same kind of clock, since the rotational acceleration would
affect the pendulum rate. You'd have to do even more math, and I'll need
another magic force field.
> Will it agree, or will it bend, refusing to move? Or, if the weight is
> moving slightly less than c, will it move just a little? Don't forget to
> include length contraction in your calculation. The bob doesn't have to
move
> far, it is length contracted along the arc, and so is the arc. The same
> would apply to the rim of a spinning top.
> Strange, isn't it? The faster it goes, the less distance it covers. This
is
> so that the speed of light, at the rim, is always c.
It isn't a requirement for an accelerating frame for c to be constant. And
the rim is certainly accelerating. c parallel to the rim might be, but
likely no other direction.
> > A rim observer, will not see the rim as circular, and will not agree
with
> > the rotational speed you might ascribe to him.
> Yep, absolutely right. Travelling at c, we see he doesn't move at all.
His
> clock has stopped and the distance he moves is length contracted to zero.
> Every bit as good as Lewis Carol, isn't it?
We are not travelling at c. The rim would appear circular to us. Without
a magic force field, it is not possible. And it is not a valid setup for
SR, so your comment is only your opinion. SR doesn't sit well with
acceleration. There is a *lot* more energy than linear translation in the
setup.
> > We aren't talking a physical change, so much as an observational
change.
> Ok, so we observe the pendulum swinging at c, with a clock on the end
that
> has stopped, moving no distance. The guy on the end sees time passing
> normally, distance passing by normally, it's his frame of reference he
uses.
> What do we see of a point halfway (Or 0.866 if you like) down the
suspension
> wire, and what does he see?
Get me a magic force field. Don't expect SR to solve a GR problem.
Correctly anyway.
Not what I said. We ascribe different names to the strange behaviours we
see when looking with flatlander's eyes at curved space. It is all part of
the orbit you arse would have followed... an ellipse.
> Fine with me. Relative to the stars, and Foucault's pendulum, I'm moving
in
> a straight line.. well, falling toward the sun, I suppose, and probably
the
> moon as well, the reference, the Earth, is spinning beneath me. Where
does
> calling this a straight line in a space that has multiple curvature have
an
> advantage over saying that I'm curving in Euclidean space? I don't see
that
> it really matters if we place the Earth at the centre of the universe and
> allow the stars to move around us, the calculations will still get the
same
> answers, but it makes a simpler model if we allow that the Earth turns.
What
> I'm trying to find out is why straight paths in curved space is a simpler
> model than curved paths in straight space and aid in our understanding of
> the workings of the Universe.
Fewer special rules. Agreement with experiment. Seems like a slam dunk,
unless Newton is all that special to you that you can't move on...
They obey the rules, which is the point. The model is handy to predict by
how much.
> What you are doing is playing your own variation of Zeno's Paradox.
> If the half-life of a radioactive substance is one year, how long will a
> sample of four atoms take to decay? 3 years? No. the sample is way to
small
> to give an answer. Yet the half-life rule is accurate if the sample is
large
> enough. The same applies to your generalized rule for diffraction. It
> doesn't work for electrons when just a few electrons are used.
The stream of particles knows where the walls are, even if they are
millions of light years away. And they respond to those positions. How
can they do this? Because *here* and *there* are not quite black and
white.
> Keep in mind that if you assume light is a wave, create an equation that
> applies to wave mechanics, get a result that agrees with your prediction,
> then you've proved that your equation is adequate. You have not proved
that
> light is a wave, that would be circularity at its worst. You cannot prove
> what you assumed in the first place, and your equation will fail anyway
on
> small samples. If it were 100% correct, the maxima would have no spread.
> They'd be microscopically thin lines of great intensity.
Understood.
> > The silly distance you have to travel to detect the variance on the
> > *stream* of pingpong balls is an engineering problem.
> Sure, but that doesn't mean that I can't predict where they will land,
> statistically,
> and get a result that approximates the prediction. It won't be exact, but
no
> one will mind. The greater the sample the better the result.
Agreed. And no matter how far away the walls are, some diffraction pattern
will result. So the "stream" knows where the walls are, and so does every
single particle of the stream.
Stars at the same speed keep the same time, yes. Neglecting expansion
effects, of course.
Thanks for a more complete reference. I don't see it as being germaine to
this point in the thread, however.
Your opinion on Einstein notwithstanding, the body of work holds up to
experiment. Newton does not. That is the problem with teaching outdated
theory to students. Sooner or later they think it is gospel, defines
"common sense". Today's teachers of grades below college do not present
physics much later than the early 1800s. So anything more current ends up
looking like black magic (or bull). Worse yet, has to be unlearned, in
order to allow someone to be able to actually understand current work.
> > > [snip no further comment made]
> > >
> > > > > > Photons are part of the Universe. Mass and energy both curve
> > space.
> > > > > First you must say what physical space is in terms that are
> > meaningful
> > > to
> > > > > me.
> > > >
> > > > Space is balance due. Mass and energy are businesses that deal
with
> > one
> > > > another. Curvature is local "rates of exchange".
> >
> > > So space is 'flat' except where there is mass. Then the 'influence'
of
> > one
> > > mass on another is curvature, not force.
> >
> > No effect of one mass on another. One mass creates its share of space.
> > Its effect, like that of the edge of a slit, decreases with distance.
> Same thing, different words.
Be careful what you say. If space is the product of the mass in it, then
the light that travels through that space does so on the "backs" of the
masses of the Universe. That means they can conceivably control its speed.
It would. It does. Why does a laser beam aimed at the Moon spread to 1
mile in diameter at the LLR reflectors. Any other distributed masses in
this Universe?
> > > I really
> > > don't mind which model you use, neither one explains waht the force
that
> > is
> > > pushing me out of my chair IS.
> >
> > Lithospheric friction. Your arse is accelerated by the chair, the
chair
> by
> > the floor, the floor by the dirt, the dirt by the mantle, the mantle by
> the
> > core. The core is under pressure and pushes back in all directions.
> A rose by any other name would still stink.
Yet no need for a "force at a distance" called gravity.
> > > > The curvature I referred to is surfaces that see the length
> contraction
> > of
> > > > the moving charges to have an equivalent value. Like equipotential
> > > > surfaces.
> > > Still don't see it.
> >
> > I can only wave my hands so fast. Sorry.
> No problem, I'm as thick as two short planks anyway.
You have kept your sense of humor. You are not "thick". I choose the word
"demanding".
No such conundrum exists. Frames at c are not valid. They are disallowed
at one point in the derivation. So assumptions that you can just "stick it
in" are not correct.
> > > > > But anyway, you are claiming that the B and E fields are
> independent.
> > > >
> > > > No I am saying they are exactly in-phase for a propagating photon,
> > exactly
> > > > out of phase for a signal in a conductor, and somewhere in between
in
> > the
> > > > "near field" (where bizarre things happen).
> >
> > > What keeps them in phase then?
> >
> > The fact that they are propagating, and that Maxwell knew what he was
> > "talking" about.
> Hero worship isn't a reply. Explain why they have to be in phase to
> propagate, when I have already shown that a coil and capacitor will
> propagate radio frequencies, and the E and M fields are not in phase.
Satan worship is a reply for you, at least in some cases. You are just
sure that Einstein is a criminal.
You have not investigated the phenomenon thoughly. You give it lip
service.
I guess it will be "agree to disagree" then. If the model, math , and
experiment don't convince you...
> > Rotate the charged ball. The magnetic field will be altered, however
> > slightly. The ball will displace, which should be indication that
> > something has changed. Use a smaller compass needle, or a larger
> horseshoe
> > and pith ball. Use a tool that is adequate to the job. The failing is
> > engineering, not physics.
> (sigh)... I was kidding when I said a pith ball. Do you really believe
that
> a magnetic field can be canceled by a static charge, no relative motion
> between (say) a 200kV 500 Farad capacitor and a weak refrigerator magnet?
> I'd like to see it.
It wouldn't be "static" now would it, if it were rotating?
Don't go changing the problem definition. You know quite well that large
capacitors are wrapped and no motion I am aware of will create an external
magnetic field with them. They do this to minimize material and inductive
losses.
> > > > > > You can simply move your target surface a little further
> > > > > > out (say for a diffraction grating image) and require that
light
> > have
> > > > > > crossed this "minima" area to build a newly positioned maxima.
> > > >
> > > > > No big surprise there. The photons land in a different place.
> > > >
> > > > Big surprise for a wave model. They have waves land everywhere,
but
> > the
> > > > *amplitudes* provide the maxima and minima.
> >
> > > Who is using a wave model? Not I.
> >
> > Maxima and minima...
> Photons land...
> > Radio waves and light are the same critter.
> Agreed. Make a low frequency radio wave violate conservation.
Show me how to measure a single radio frequency photon. Oh wait, we're
back at the engineering defines science defense again, aren't we?
> > You are confusing engineering
> > and physics.
> LOL. You are confusing Nature with mathematics.
No. You are ignoring nature and looking to Newton.
> > > > Photons are modulated in lasers and in lenses.
> >
> > > I don't know that I would use the term 'modulated'. That would imply
a
> > > change in frequency or amplitude. I will grant you that the photons
> > undergo
> > > a speed change, and the speed of the photon in the lens or laser (or
any
> > > medium for that matter) is constant with respect to the medium. I
will
> > not
> > > accept that it is constant without a medium, though. It moves with
its
> > > ejection velocity from a star, and has the speed of the star added to
> it,
> > > motion being relative.
> >
> > You have made your belief clear.
> Not just belief. Look at the empirical data. Explain what you see.
> http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/stardial/variables/mira.html
About the same thing as at:
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/stardial/variables/twy_aqr.html
And the spiky one is an image defect. The variables they are picturing are
around it.
> > > > Given a sufficiently large budget, I could make a lens for radio
> waves.
> > > Sure.
> > > > Hell, I could accelerate a visble light detector up to some high
> speed,
> > > and
> > > > detect them that way.
> > > Yep. Its called doppler shift.
> >
> > Did I change something fundamental to the radio wave to make it light?
> No.
> > They are the same critters,
> Yep. I haven't done or said anything to disagree.
> > and only engineering separates your two
> > definitions.
Okay, then we can drop it. "It" being "radio waves are fundamentally
different than light".
But is doesn't for light, based on experimental evidence.
Done with Compton scattering of X-rays from charged particles all the time.
> Until you do, I'll claim the formulae (all of them) are supported by
> experimental evidence. Now disprove it.
Done.
> That's the problem with you relativists. You claim imaginary experimental
> evidence and think that will convince any one. Doesn't convince me. If
you
> have any evidence, produce it.
> Don't just claim it and expect me to believe it. All you did by that
remark
> is showed your prejudice.
> I've produced evidence to show you are wrong. Check it, all it takes is a
> spreadsheet.
You have proven nothing except you know how to program a spreadsheet. You
ignore experimental evidence to the contrary.
> > And if I could move faster than c, I'd wave at you from
> > Alpha Centauri. Getting a postcard back to you would have to wait.
> You'd never get there, your clock runs faster than mine and you'd die
first.
Wrong sign.
A true cop out. And a spreadsheet is reality. Right.
> If it were up to me, I'd simply mount a laser on Hubble and take potshots
> at the moon. Probably cheaper than your charged particles, certainly
> simpler, and a direct test.
Not cheaper. The Moon is shot daily (or nightly) by laser.
You've read me wrong. The EM field of the photon is a red herring.
Neutrons diffract based on their momentum. Buckyballs diffract based on
their momentum. The EM field of a photon has *zero* to do with
diffraction. It diffracts based on it momentum too.
The E and M fields of a propagating photon are in phase because *there are
no charges present to make them out of phase*. It is charge motion that
plays the kinetic-potential energy dance. The photon could care less.
Maxwell was wrong about a ponderable aether. There is no separate
substance with bizarre local properties. The Universe *is* the aether.
And the properties are then no longer local.
The phase relationship means that as the E field is maximized, so is the
distortion of space (the M field) assocaited with the photon's passing. No
big deal.
> > The space shuttle radiates across the spectrum too, when it enters the
> > Earth's atmosphere. But a photon is still a photon, regardless of
> > wavelength. That is the point I was trying to see come out of your
> > "mouth". We can drop this line at any time.
> > > Ok... I stand by what I said. There are random radio waves too, but
they
> > > still have E and M fields that are not in phase, as you seem to
think.
> >
> > This is not documented by experiment. The E and M are in phase for
> > propagating photons.
> Name the experiment. You've already claimed that experimental evidence
> showed I used the wrong doppler shift, and your integrity is beginning to
> come into question. I think you are groping at straws to make your point.
> If you have an experiment to show that E and B fields are in phase, I'll
> withdraw that remark.
I'll do you one better. I'll ask you for any experiment that shows E and M
out of phase for a propagating photon, other than your experimental
spreadsheet, when I'm done. Are you still game?
> > We can drop the "radio is different than light" anytime. That will cut
> > this all in half.
> Ok.
Just answer the question above. Are you willing to leave it lie, or are we
going to match your research skills against mine? I *know* the evidence is
on my side.
> > > [snip of equations, comment follows]
> > > Differential equations have solutions that are functions.
> > > The solutions to Maxwell's equations are functions, sine and cosine.
> > > They also have initial conditions.
> > > If you begin with sine(angle)=0, then the corresponding cos(angle) =
1.
> > > If you begin with sin() = 0, cos() = 0, then you are not making
sense.
> >
> > Supported by experiment.
> Name the experiment.
Name the experiment that shows otherwise. I'm ready to play if you are.
The weekend is coming and the college library is open both days.
> > I have no other case to make on this point
> > either. I have it on good authority that what I have said is true. We
> can
> > agree to disagree, and move on, then this thread will be about 25% of
its
> > current size. Agree to disagree?
I thought perhaps we were, but we'll see.
> > > div E = 0
> > > div B = 0
> > > are initial conditions.
> > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > Maxwell ended up not needing an aether.
> >
> > > Not so. It was Einstein that declared it superfluous.
> > > Maxwell kept his aether till the day he died.
> > > The model that doesn't need an aether and doesn't need
> > > to play with time either is the ballistic photon.
> > > Emission theory is the simplest explanation of all the phenomena,
> > > and Occam's razor shaves exceedingly fine.
> >
> > Yes it does. However not being able to measure an effect does not mean
> the
> > effect is not present. It means you've decided to ignore it.
Diffraction
> > by distant objects is a real effect, and one exceedingly hard to
measure.
> If you have the evidence, present it.
> Otherwise there is only a pantomime of
> 'oh yes it is',
> 'oh no it isn't'.
Together then? You show me your cards, and I'll show you mine. No
spreadsheets, unless you want to tally all your citations...
> > > > mu and epsilon are properties of the Universe at large.
> >
> > > mu and epsilon are properties of matter.
> >
> > The matter of the Universe.
> >
> > > > Over and out.
> >
> > > Fine... :)
> >
> > Think about this until the weekend. Don't think you need to reply
until
> it
> > is convenient. You don't need high blood pressure too.
> >
> This isn't high blood pressure stuff, this is relaxing. But if you need a
> break...
Are we off to the library?
I personally find it very stressful. I am doing this because I think I am
helping. Because I think that if I shine enough light, that knowledge will
be found. I just don't realize how much dirt is available to throw back
over it.
David A. Smith
Dirk Van de moortel
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message news:SJIjb.86409$gv5.7298@fed1read05...
> Dear Androcles:
[snip]
> I personally find it very stressful. I am doing this because I think I am
> helping. Because I think that if I shine enough light, that knowledge will
> be found. I just don't realize how much dirt is available to throw back
> over it.
David, Androcles does not need or accept any help.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndArg.html
It will not work...
Dirk Vdm
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:3f8fb6a7$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
I know he has an agenda.
I know he has a set work of anti-knowledge (labelled by him as "common
sense") that he feels he has to defend.
He is, however, an honorable person. IMHO.
I figure discussions with him and others purveyors of "common sense" have
gotten my science books from a dusty shelf somewhere, to the top of my
desk.
Now if I have done the same with them... or even planted a single truth in
the minds of their followers.
Call *me* Don Quixote, I guess...
David A. Smith
Dirk Van de moortel
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message news:CPSjb.86453$gv5.1188@fed1read05...
> Dear Dirk Van de moortel:
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:3f8fb6a7$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> >
> > "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:SJIjb.86409$gv5.7298@fed1read05...
> > > Dear Androcles:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I personally find it very stressful. I am doing this because I think I
> am
> > > helping. Because I think that if I shine enough light, that knowledge
> will
> > > be found. I just don't realize how much dirt is available to throw
> back
> > > over it.
> >
> > David, Androcles does not need or accept any help.
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndArg.html
> > It will not work...
>
> I know he has an agenda.
> I know he has a set work of anti-knowledge (labelled by him as "common
> sense") that he feels he has to defend.
> He is, however, an honorable person. IMHO.
Here - iMho - we differ ;-)
> I figure discussions with him and others purveyors of "common sense" have
> gotten my science books from a dusty shelf somewhere, to the top of my
> desk.
> Now if I have done the same with them... or even planted a single truth in
> the minds of their followers.
>
> Call *me* Don Quixote, I guess...
Welcome to the club :-)
Enjoy.
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
I'll tells ya, buddy, only if I hits one of the posts. If I miss 'em, I'm
going straight on.
You can push a mathematical model only so far.
Err... yes they do. They are mathematical abstractions that I can assign
that property too, and I have done something similar. I was responsible for
the interface between a host computer (not just a server, it calculated
flight parameters as well) that passed data to another machine that drove a
visual display system on a flight simulator. The aircraft was modelled as a
point.
The data for the point was x,y,z, pitch, roll, yaw, dx/dt,dy/dt,dz/dt,
dpitch/dt, droll/dt,dyaw/dt. Twelve parameters in all. In the event of a
missing update, the slave computer extrapolated the first six from the
second, and I was the programmer. The problem had been that the host
computer wasn't always on time with its updates, and and the image would
flicker if it wasn't given regular time intervals for the display. As such,
dpitch/dt is equivalent to angular momentum, or at least rate of change of
angle. The real angular momentum was calculated in the host. Incidentally,
the point was the aircraft's centre of gravity. The scene was generated
using another hypothetical point, the position of the pilot's eye (he only
had one, on the bridge of his nose). This offset was calculated in the
slave, the engineers responsible for the host weren't interested in the
display, only the flight dynamics. When the aircraft rotates about the
centre of gravity, the pilot moves in x,y and/or z.
[snip]
> > > This is more than an engineering problem.
> > It's a relativity problem. I've asked you to solve it. I've been told by
> > many that there are no inconsistencies in relativity, so you should be
> able
> > to.
>
> We have a series of issues here:
> - show me the money,
> - what exaclty am I supposed to solve?
Give me an equation to determine when the rigid spinning top will cease to
spin at the rim because its time has reached zero, whilst the interior of
the top is still turning.
Once I have the equation, you can leave the engineering to me. We engineers
are quite good at solving physical problems, but we need help at times in
setting up equations to describe the impossible. It should look something
like
tau = d(r, theta) /dt * gamma /[ (grandma's penny whistle)+
pink_elephant^0.5], wrapped in a ((([:::]))) <========band aid.
> The formulae and solutions are on the web. The ability to create such a
> wheel is an engineering problem, because no matter can withstand the
> internal stresses. So I'll have to create a "magic force field" first,
and
> tehn make your wheel.
>
> Besides, I am quite satisfied that "more power" is not the way to get to
> the stars. c is truly the limit. Investigating the surprising
> relationship between *here* and *not here* is the way to the stars.
Complacency becomes you.
Sure. But how could we tell what the color was, with all that red shift?
Well, that'll do, won't it?
Ok, so SR doesn't work. At least that's settled. Why are we bothering with
it?
I can't do any engineering if you won't tell me what the equations are.
Correct. Except when I drive my car betwen fence posts, and you seem to
think I'll be diffracted because that is what the math predicts.
>
> > What you are doing is playing your own variation of Zeno's Paradox.
> > If the half-life of a radioactive substance is one year, how long will a
> > sample of four atoms take to decay? 3 years? No. the sample is way to
> small
> > to give an answer. Yet the half-life rule is accurate if the sample is
> large
> > enough. The same applies to your generalized rule for diffraction. It
> > doesn't work for electrons when just a few electrons are used.
>
> The stream of particles knows where the walls are, even if they are
> millions of light years away. And they respond to those positions. How
> can they do this? Because *here* and *there* are not quite black and
> white.
My car doesn't know where the fence posts are. If it hits one, it will be
deflected.
I can add a sensor, so that it knows, I suppose. Plus a computer to steer
it. Then it will go straight though, no diffraction.
A universal frame is a contradiction of electromagnetics, as described by
good ol' Albert on p37 Dover.. That is germaine.
>
> Your opinion on Einstein notwithstanding, the body of work holds up to
> experiment. Newton does not.
According to the mental model employed...
>That is the problem with teaching outdated
> theory to students. Sooner or later they think it is gospel, defines
> "common sense".
Yes... so why teach outmoded and outdated SR? It isn't gospel. It doesn't
work.
GPS satellite clocks run fast, yet according to SR they should run slow.
> Today's teachers of grades below college do not present
> physics much later than the early 1800s. So anything more current ends up
> looking like black magic (or bull). Worse yet, has to be unlearned, in
> order to allow someone to be able to actually understand current work.
Good idea. Go back to first principles. Then the one doing the current work
might realize the pickle he's in. It doesn't matter how you cut it, if the
same light seen in one frame takes a longer path than in the other, and from
that you can infer time dilation, then it is equally viable to infer time
contraction when the path lengths are reversed.
I can't say it any simpler.
Prove to me the principle of time dilation. Never mind the algebra. Just
show the principle. The light that takes a v-shaped path has a greater
distance to go than the same light that takes a vertical path. Right? And it
is c in both frames, right?
> > > No effect of one mass on another. One mass creates its share of
space.
> > > Its effect, like that of the edge of a slit, decreases with distance.
>
> > Same thing, different words.
>
> Be careful what you say. If space is the product of the mass in it, then
> the light that travels through that space does so on the "backs" of the
> masses of the Universe. That means they can conceivably control its
speed.
The 'if' at the beginning says it all. If pigs could fly, they'd be
pig-eons.
>
> > Hmm... If I put a laser beam through the middle of the gap, it would
not.
> If
> > I clipped the edge of the slit with the beam, the photon stream will
> > interact with electrons at the edge, and deflect.
>
> It would. It does. Why does a laser beam aimed at the Moon spread to 1
> mile in diameter at the LLR reflectors. Any other distributed masses in
> this Universe?
I think I have an answer to that. See my reply to Peter, "Tetrahedral
photons."
(Peter is an aetherialist, not a relativist or an emissionist. )
> > > core. The core is under pressure and pushes back in all directions.
> > A rose by any other name would still stink.
>
> Yet no need for a "force at a distance" called gravity.
Can't see it. Too thick.
>
> > > > > The curvature I referred to is surfaces that see the length
> > contraction
> > > of
> > > > > the moving charges to have an equivalent value. Like
equipotential
> > > > > surfaces.
> > > > Still don't see it.
> > >
> > > I can only wave my hands so fast. Sorry.
>
> > No problem, I'm as thick as two short planks anyway.
>
> You have kept your sense of humor. You are not "thick". I choose the
word
> "demanding".
I accept action at a distance. I can't explain it. Magnets don't 'curve'
space, though. Whatever properties are there, it belongs to the magnet, not
the space.
As to demanding... Yes.
In civil law, preponderance of the evidence is enough to sway a judgment.
This is where 'experimental evidence' is often thrown at me, often without
any citation as the the experiment.
In criminal law, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is enough to convict.
In mathematics, proof beyond any doubt whatsoever is required.
Most physicists are content with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Note
"reasonable", because what is reasonable is what is convincing to the
physicist.
I demand proof absolute.
You claim that the space surrounding the magnet has properties. Ok... prove
it.
> No such conundrum exists. Frames at c are not valid. They are disallowed
> at one point in the derivation. So assumptions that you can just "stick
it
> in" are not correct.
Once again, a special case is made for light. Prove it.
> > Hero worship isn't a reply. Explain why they have to be in phase to
> > propagate, when I have already shown that a coil and capacitor will
> > propagate radio frequencies, and the E and M fields are not in phase.
>
> Satan worship is a reply for you, at least in some cases. You are just
> sure that Einstein is a criminal.
My personal belief doesn't mean I wouldn't convict on the preponderance of
the evidence.
>
> You have not investigated the phenomenon thoughly. You give it lip
> service.
Do I?
> > > I provided the derivation. It agrees with Maxwell.
>
> > Then you've both made error.
>
> I guess it will be "agree to disagree" then. If the model, math , and
> experiment don't convince you...
Correct. Wrong model. No aether.
No, we are back to what you claim but cannot prove.
>
> > > You are confusing engineering
> > > and physics.
> > LOL. You are confusing Nature with mathematics.
>
> No. You are ignoring nature and looking to Newton.
No, I accept empirical evidence, I do not accept theoretical interpretation
of that evidence based on an incorrect model.
>
>
> About the same thing as at:
> http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/stardial/variables/twy_aqr.html
>
> And the spiky one is an image defect. The variables they are picturing
are
> around it.
Fair enough.
You have a detector that moves at high velocities?
Produce the evidence.
>
> > Until you do, I'll claim the formulae (all of them) are supported by
> > experimental evidence. Now disprove it.
>
> Done.
Nope. Show me.
>
> > That's the problem with you relativists. You claim imaginary
experimental
> > evidence and think that will convince any one. Doesn't convince me. If
> you
> > have any evidence, produce it.
> > Don't just claim it and expect me to believe it. All you did by that
> remark
> > is showed your prejudice.
> > I've produced evidence to show you are wrong. Check it, all it takes is
a
> > spreadsheet.
>
> You have proven nothing except you know how to program a spreadsheet. You
> ignore experimental evidence to the contrary.
Don't just say it, produce it.
>
> > > And if I could move faster than c, I'd wave at you from
> > > Alpha Centauri. Getting a postcard back to you would have to wait.
>
> > You'd never get there, your clock runs faster than mine and you'd die
> first.
>
> Wrong sign.
Nope. Either sign is valid.
>
> > Measured under conditions that do not replicate even interplanetary
> space,
> > loaded with
> > gravity, magnetic fields, electric fields.
> > Too many variables, sorry.
>
> A true cop out. And a spreadsheet is reality. Right.
You rely on math, why shouldn't I?
>
> > If it were up to me, I'd simply mount a laser on Hubble and take
potshots
> > at the moon. Probably cheaper than your charged particles, certainly
> > simpler, and a direct test.
>
> Not cheaper. The Moon is shot daily (or nightly) by laser.
Yep. To find the distance. Since that isn't finding the velocity of light
from a moving source, it makes no test on source dependence or independence.
Shooting from Hubble would test it.
I've already made a mathematical case for them being out of phase, and I
rest on it. Antennae designs rely upon it. When the magnetic field induces a
current of electrons in the conductor of the antenna, your 'in phase' idea
would cancel the current. I wouldn't get any tv pictures. We've agreed they
are the same animal.
The burden of proof is upon the claimant. If you want to show they are in
phase, prove it. Show that at any instant, the energy is varying. I uphold
that a recieving antenna is experimental proof that the fields are out of
phase, as they were transmitted.
>
> > > We can drop the "radio is different than light" anytime. That will
cut
> > > this all in half.
> > Ok.
>
> Just answer the question above. Are you willing to leave it lie, or are
we
> going to match your research skills against mine? I *know* the evidence
is
> on my side.
Go ahead.
Show that a receiving antenna has its E and B fields in phase, not as as
they were transmitted.
[snip]
Androcles
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:byTjb.7606$tW2....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
You yourself pointed out that diffraction is not a phenomenon well "fleshed
out" by one particle. I personally drive differently when passing between
close posts, but I do not ascribe consciousness to particles.
To (mis)quote tadchem: Analogies are like ropes, you can only push them so
far.
A point has no mass. A point has no r. Look up the formula for angular
momentum. That is two strikes.
No formula. Doesn't happen. The formula has had the possibility of v=c
removed from it in its derivation. v+delta=c is possible with vanishingly
small delta. Time is slowed on the rim, but we all still see it
approaching c.
> Once I have the equation, you can leave the engineering to me. We
engineers
> are quite good at solving physical problems, but we need help at times in
> setting up equations to describe the impossible. It should look something
> like
> tau = d(r, theta) /dt * gamma /[ (grandma's penny whistle)+
> pink_elephant^0.5], wrapped in a ((([:::]))) <========band aid.
I am also an engineer. I know the limitations of the formulae.
> > The formulae and solutions are on the web. The ability to create such
a
> > wheel is an engineering problem, because no matter can withstand the
> > internal stresses. So I'll have to create a "magic force field" first,
> and
> > tehn make your wheel.
> >
> > Besides, I am quite satisfied that "more power" is not the way to get
to
> > the stars. c is truly the limit. Investigating the surprising
> > relationship between *here* and *not here* is the way to the stars.
> Complacency becomes you.
Denial *doesn't* become you.
If we read it when it was purely transverse motion, that should do.
It won't do for your purposes, no. A magic force field still doesn't
exist. The wheel still flys a part long before 0.0001c
It's not engineering. It is very close to masturbation. "Oh ho, look SR
fails!" Big flipping deal. SR applies to non-accelerating frames. What
is non-accelerating about a spinning disk, except a very small line of
points through its axis?
... snip stuff to which you made no comment
You or one of your trillion other selves in their cars. A pattern of
deflected "paths" could be observed.
> > > What you are doing is playing your own variation of Zeno's Paradox.
> > > If the half-life of a radioactive substance is one year, how long
will a
> > > sample of four atoms take to decay? 3 years? No. the sample is way to
> > small
> > > to give an answer. Yet the half-life rule is accurate if the sample
is
> > large
> > > enough. The same applies to your generalized rule for diffraction. It
> > > doesn't work for electrons when just a few electrons are used.
> >
> > The stream of particles knows where the walls are, even if they are
> > millions of light years away. And they respond to those positions.
How
> > can they do this? Because *here* and *there* are not quite black and
> > white.
> My car doesn't know where the fence posts are. If it hits one, it will be
> deflected.
> I can add a sensor, so that it knows, I suppose. Plus a computer to steer
> it. Then it will go straight though, no diffraction.
Yea. Photons with sensors and self-correcting computers. You have the
strangest sense of physics. Do you have any literature references for the
sensors and on-board computers, by the way?
Are we going to stick with apples, or are we going to compare apples with
Apples?
...snip more stuff to which you had no comment
The concept of absolute rest (your quote) does not imply no motion wrt to
some averaged null point in the Universe at large. There is unlikely to be
any particular frame at rest wrt the entire Universe.
> > Your opinion on Einstein notwithstanding, the body of work holds up to
> > experiment. Newton does not.
> According to the mental model employed...
GPS clocks. Magnetism. Decrease in nuclear decay with increase in
temperature.
Newton fails when you don't measure with just a tape and stop watch.
> >That is the problem with teaching outdated
> > theory to students. Sooner or later they think it is gospel, defines
> > "common sense".
> Yes... so why teach outmoded and outdated SR? It isn't gospel. It doesn't
> work.
> GPS satellite clocks run fast, yet according to SR they should run slow.
Stepping stones I suppose. Newton occasionally works too, as long as you
don't "step" off the Earth. As long as you go really slow, which you will
as long as you practice "more power" technology.
> > Today's teachers of grades below college do not present
> > physics much later than the early 1800s. So anything more current ends
up
> > looking like black magic (or bull). Worse yet, has to be unlearned, in
> > order to allow someone to be able to actually understand current work.
>
> Good idea. Go back to first principles. Then the one doing the current
work
> might realize the pickle he's in. It doesn't matter how you cut it, if
the
> same light seen in one frame takes a longer path than in the other, and
from
> that you can infer time dilation, then it is equally viable to infer time
> contraction when the path lengths are reversed.
> I can't say it any simpler.
> Prove to me the principle of time dilation. Never mind the algebra. Just
> show the principle. The light that takes a v-shaped path has a greater
> distance to go than the same light that takes a vertical path. Right? And
it
> is c in both frames, right?
The evidence is plain, and written anywhere you might choose to look.
> > > > No effect of one mass on another. One mass creates its share of
> space.
> > > > Its effect, like that of the edge of a slit, decreases with
distance.
> >
> > > Same thing, different words.
> >
> > Be careful what you say. If space is the product of the mass in it,
then
> > the light that travels through that space does so on the "backs" of the
> > masses of the Universe. That means they can conceivably control its
> speed.
> The 'if' at the beginning says it all. If pigs could fly, they'd be
> pig-eons.
Cute. No logical response at all, but cute.
> > > Hmm... If I put a laser beam through the middle of the gap, it would
> not.
> > If
> > > I clipped the edge of the slit with the beam, the photon stream will
> > > interact with electrons at the edge, and deflect.
> >
> > It would. It does. Why does a laser beam aimed at the Moon spread to
1
> > mile in diameter at the LLR reflectors. Any other distributed masses
in
> > this Universe?
> I think I have an answer to that. See my reply to Peter, "Tetrahedral
> photons."
> (Peter is an aetherialist, not a relativist or an emissionist. )
Sorry.
> > > > core. The core is under pressure and pushes back in all
directions.
> > > A rose by any other name would still stink.
> >
> > Yet no need for a "force at a distance" called gravity.
> Can't see it. Too thick.
No answer.
> > > > > > The curvature I referred to is surfaces that see the length
> > > contraction
> > > > of
> > > > > > the moving charges to have an equivalent value. Like
> equipotential
> > > > > > surfaces.
> > > > > Still don't see it.
> > > >
> > > > I can only wave my hands so fast. Sorry.
> >
> > > No problem, I'm as thick as two short planks anyway.
> >
> > You have kept your sense of humor. You are not "thick". I choose the
> word
> > "demanding".
> I accept action at a distance. I can't explain it. Magnets don't 'curve'
> space, though. Whatever properties are there, it belongs to the magnet,
not
> the space.
It belongs to charge, actually.
> As to demanding... Yes.
> In civil law, preponderance of the evidence is enough to sway a judgment.
> This is where 'experimental evidence' is often thrown at me, often
without
> any citation as the the experiment.
> In criminal law, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is enough to convict.
> In mathematics, proof beyond any doubt whatsoever is required.
> Most physicists are content with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Note
> "reasonable", because what is reasonable is what is convincing to the
> physicist.
> I demand proof absolute.
> You claim that the space surrounding the magnet has properties. Ok...
prove
> it.
Prove that there was a yesterday. Some things have to be taken on faith.
You have faith in what you were taught long ago. Have a good life.
> > No such conundrum exists. Frames at c are not valid. They are
disallowed
> > at one point in the derivation. So assumptions that you can just
"stick
> it
> > in" are not correct.
> Once again, a special case is made for light. Prove it.
A special case is not made for light. A special case is made during the
derivation, and a velocity of c cannot be used. Another operation is
performed and values greater than c cannot be used. If you bothered to
look at the derivation, you'd agree with the operation.
> > > Hero worship isn't a reply. Explain why they have to be in phase to
> > > propagate, when I have already shown that a coil and capacitor will
> > > propagate radio frequencies, and the E and M fields are not in phase.
> >
> > Satan worship is a reply for you, at least in some cases. You are just
> > sure that Einstein is a criminal.
> My personal belief doesn't mean I wouldn't convict on the preponderance
of
> the evidence.
Newton fails. Show me your conviction.
> > You have not investigated the phenomenon thoughly. You give it lip
> > service.
> Do I?
Yeat again, no answer.
> > > > I provided the derivation. It agrees with Maxwell.
> >
> > > Then you've both made error.
> >
> > I guess it will be "agree to disagree" then. If the model, math , and
> > experiment don't convince you...
> Correct. Wrong model. No aether.
Excellent. Your opinion.
...snip more stuff to which you did not comment
> > > > Radio waves and light are the same critter.
> > > Agreed. Make a low frequency radio wave violate conservation.
> >
> > Show me how to measure a single radio frequency photon. Oh wait, we're
> > back at the engineering defines science defense again, aren't we?
> No, we are back to what you claim but cannot prove.
Show me how to measure a single radio frequency photon, engineer. Put up
or shut up.
> > > > You are confusing engineering
> > > > and physics.
> > > LOL. You are confusing Nature with mathematics.
> >
> > No. You are ignoring nature and looking to Newton.
> No, I accept empirical evidence, I do not accept theoretical
interpretation
> of that evidence based on an incorrect model.
Show me how to measure a single radio frequency photon, engineer. Put up
or shut up.
wrt to the charged particle, it is moving at at 0.9999c
And the time of flight over the "path" is l/c. Go figure.
> > > Until you do, I'll claim the formulae (all of them) are supported by
> > > experimental evidence. Now disprove it.
> >
> > Done.
> Nope. Show me.
http://bc1.lbl.gov/CBP_pages/ACP/gamma.html
http://cdms.brown.edu/report.html
do your own search on "LEP".
Newton fails. Show me your conviction.
> > > That's the problem with you relativists. You claim imaginary
> experimental
> > > evidence and think that will convince any one. Doesn't convince me.
If
> > you
> > > have any evidence, produce it.
> > > Don't just claim it and expect me to believe it. All you did by that
> > remark
> > > is showed your prejudice.
> > > I've produced evidence to show you are wrong. Check it, all it takes
is
> a
> > > spreadsheet.
> >
> > You have proven nothing except you know how to program a spreadsheet.
You
> > ignore experimental evidence to the contrary.
> Don't just say it, produce it.
Newton fails. Show me your conviction.
> > > > And if I could move faster than c, I'd wave at you from
> > > > Alpha Centauri. Getting a postcard back to you would have to wait.
> >
> > > You'd never get there, your clock runs faster than mine and you'd die
> > first.
> >
> > Wrong sign.
> Nope. Either sign is valid.
"Deer crossing".
That one OK?
> > > Measured under conditions that do not replicate even interplanetary
> > space,
> > > loaded with
> > > gravity, magnetic fields, electric fields.
> > > Too many variables, sorry.
> >
> > A true cop out. And a spreadsheet is reality. Right.
> You rely on math, why shouldn't I?
I rely on experiment. Math allows us to take the next step *forward*.
Not backward.
> > > If it were up to me, I'd simply mount a laser on Hubble and take
> potshots
> > > at the moon. Probably cheaper than your charged particles, certainly
> > > simpler, and a direct test.
> >
> > Not cheaper. The Moon is shot daily (or nightly) by laser.
> Yep. To find the distance. Since that isn't finding the velocity of light
> from a moving source, it makes no test on source dependence or
independence.
> Shooting from Hubble would test it.
We bounce stuff off very high speed charged particles. Still get c.
Guess again.
... snip more stuff to which you did not reply
Then I do not need to proceed to the library.
Show me how you polarize a conducted signal:
<http://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg232/lab3-polarization.pdf>
poynting vector, polarization
Show me how you explain dipole oscillation
<http://www.atsweb.neu.edu/physics/b.barbiellini/phy1302/waves.htm>
induced dipole oscillation
Let your math fail on these things that only work for E and B perpendicular
to the signal path, and in phase.
Have a great weekend.
David A. Smith
Androcles
> diffract?
> > I'll tells ya, buddy, only if I hits one of the posts. If I miss 'em,
> I'm
> > going straight on.
> > You can push a mathematical model only so far.
>
> You yourself pointed out that diffraction is not a phenomenon well
"fleshed
> out" by one particle. I personally drive differently when passing between
> close posts, but I do not ascribe consciousness to particles.
>
> To (mis)quote tadchem: Analogies are like ropes, you can only push them
so
> far.
subject to the equation for diffraction, just as the electron is. If I
passed a few billion cars through the posts, all the same size and velocity
, some of them will collide with the posts. Statistically, I can expect to
find two maxima, left and right, other than the one directly ahead as the
cars glance off the concrete posts. However, this would not reveal the
wavelength of the car.
>
> A point has no mass. A point has no r. Look up the formula for angular
> momentum. That is two strikes.
A point does have mass if I assign mass to it. If I model a planet orbiting
the sun, or a satellite orbiting the earth, I model a point with mass.
Assigning mass is no different to assigning a z coordinate, or, for that
matter, polar coordinates and that include r and theta. How can you say it
has no r?
The point is (pun intended) that points are mathematical constructs that can
have properties assigned to them. They represent physical entities by
modelling them as abstractions. The point that describes motion of a planet
is inadequate to explain tidal effects, but it still has mass assigned to
it. So does the point at the tip of the pendulum.
No strike. Griffindor catches the snitch. Slitherin loses 10 house points
for a foul bludgeon. The game is quidditch. Get up to date :)
>
> No formula. Doesn't happen. The formula has had the possibility of v=c
> removed from it in its derivation. v+delta=c is possible with vanishingly
> small delta. Time is slowed on the rim, but we all still see it
> approaching c.
Fine. I'll accept your limitation if it applies to you.
>
> > Once I have the equation, you can leave the engineering to me. We
> engineers
> > are quite good at solving physical problems, but we need help at times
in
> > setting up equations to describe the impossible. It should look
something
> > like
> > tau = d(r, theta) /dt * gamma /[ (grandma's penny whistle)+
> > pink_elephant^0.5], wrapped in a ((([:::]))) <========band aid.
>
> I am also an engineer. I know the limitations of the formulae.
Ok, so describe mathematically what happens to the pendulum when delta is
infinitessimally small. Why are you wriggling and squirming away from it?
Can it be because it leads to a contradiction, and you don't want to admit
it?
That's the only conclusion I can think of.
Can you not see that without time, there can be no frequency? f = 1/t,
unless t = 0, when f cannot be defined. For the spinning top, the rim of
which is tangentially approaching c as I look at it, the frequency (RPM)
approaches infinity according to relativity, timed by a revolution, yet a
clock at the rim cannot record this, having slowed to almost a stop, again
according to relativity. So light that I see from the rim coming toward me
at c, looking along the tangent, is doppler shifted to an enormous
frequency, delivered by a source that it barely 'ticking' at all, and stops
altogether in the limit when delta decreases. Note that Einstein does state
(p 57, Dover): "It follows from these results that to an observer
approaching a source of light with the velocity c, this source of light must
appear of infinite intensity." He clearly doesn't mind extrapolating to the
limit of your delta = 0, so why should you?
By the PoR, it doesn't matter if the source approaches me or I approach the
source. In the case of the spinning top, the source is approaching me. By
experiment, I can determine that a light at the rim shone in my direction
will be doppler-shifted toward the blue. That means its frequency increases,
wavelength shortened, and that means either that its clock is running
faster, or I can add the velocity of the light to the tangential velocity of
the rim, and the clock at the rim ticks with the same rate as my own. On the
diametrically opposite side of the rim, I expect red shift, of course. That
I can ascribe to the clock having almost stopped, which is fine, of course,
or I can ascribe it to c-v. What I cannot do is resolve both with one
equation. The third choice is aether, but that model doesn't prevent me
from spinning the top with a tangential velocity greater than c, and it
doesn't exist anyway.
Now, if you want to, you can educate me by showing me equations that permit
the frequency (say the rotation of the hands of the clock on the rim, which
have stopped)
has increased to infinity from a source that has stopped.
The alternative is that I've educated you, and the third choice is that you
walk away from the problem, pretending it doesn't exist, as so many others
have done.
This isn't an engineering problem, it is a theoretical construct problem, a
thought experiment.
> > > How about a chemical reaction that turns a surface a certain color?
At
> > > least something that would survive the acceleration...
> > Sure. But how could we tell what the color was, with all that red shift?
>
> If we read it when it was purely transverse motion, that should do.
Einstein's equation for this application is
f' = f[1-cos(phi).v/c]/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
for phi = pi/2, this reduces to
f' = f/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and for v almost c, f' = almost infinity.
with t = 1/f',
t approaches zero, so the reaction happens very slowly.
If the reaction can't happen, the chemical cannot change color.
Oh... I see. That is what you wanted. Ok. We'll paint fresh chemical on the
rim as its spinning and notice no change, or a change that takes a long time
to complete.
In order to see the color, we'll look down on the spinning top. Opps, that
doesn't work, either. The frequency if the light has increased to almost
infinity at the rim, by the equation above, so there is an enormous color
change, not made by the stopped reaction. Looks as if that idea doesn't
work. I can't tell if the clock has stopped ot not.
And of course we'll keep in mind that in order to see the color, we'll be
shining a light on the pigment, that will be absorbed, with only the pigment
color reflected. The molecules in the pigment having stopped vibrating...
hmmm.... that means the temperature at the rim has fallen to almost 0
Kelvin, so we could stop the wheel and measure its temperature, I doubt it
will have changed by much if we stop it quickly enough.Nah... they'd start
up again as quickly as they stopped, the stop was only faked anyway by time
dilation. Got any more ideas? I'm fresh out.
> It won't do for your purposes, no. A magic force field still doesn't
> exist. The wheel still flys a part long before 0.0001c
The spinning top is only a theoretical construct, like relativity itself,
which is also magical in its nature. Practical considerations are of no
importance. If you can pretend to have time dilation, I can overcome
practicality be pretending the force is there.
> > > Get me a magic force field. Don't expect SR to solve a GR problem.
> > > Correctly anyway.
Ok, you have it. Imagine it to be there.
>
> > Ok, so SR doesn't work. At least that's settled. Why are we bothering
> with
> > it?
> > I can't do any engineering if you won't tell me what the equations are.
>
> It's not engineering. It is very close to masturbation. "Oh ho, look SR
> fails!" Big flipping deal. SR applies to non-accelerating frames. What
> is non-accelerating about a spinning disk, except a very small line of
> points through its axis?
A point that is moving tangentially to the rim can be considered
unaccelarated for an instant. The jerk-offs that get a thrill out of
promoting time dilation are the near-masturbators. Such crap I've just
witnessed as my grandson, aged 6, was watching cartoons and the words "time
dilation accelerator" wafted across my living room, catching my attention as
I was writing. I recognize fiction when I hear it. Wrapping it up in
mathematics to quantify it doesn't make it non-fiction.
> > > They obey the rules, which is the point. The model is handy to
predict
> by
> > > how much.
> > Correct. Except when I drive my car betwen fence posts, and you seem to
> > think I'll be diffracted because that is what the math predicts.
>
> You or one of your trillion other selves in their cars. A pattern of
> deflected "paths" could be observed.
Agreed, so we conclude that the 'wavelength' of the car is determined?
Now that IS mental masturbation, when it is quite clear that the deflection
would be a result of some cars striking the posts, some cars needing
steering adjustment, some drivers asleep at the wheel, some that had a burst
tyre, and a host of other reasons that are explicable, including some that
have real but unknown cause.
>
> > According to the mental model employed...
>
> GPS clocks.
Do not obey SR.
Magnetism.
I fail to see how magnetism is germaine. Empirical data cannot be denied,
its interpretation can be.
Decrease in nuclear decay with increase in temperature.
That's a new one on me. I've always understood that such decay couldn't be
affected, period, but I may be out of date with the lastest results. Got a
reference?
>
> Newton fails when you don't measure with just a tape and stop watch.
>
> > >That is the problem with teaching outdated
> > > theory to students. Sooner or later they think it is gospel, defines
> > > "common sense".
>
> > Yes... so why teach outmoded and outdated SR? It isn't gospel. It
doesn't
> > work.
> > GPS satellite clocks run fast, yet according to SR they should run slow.
>
> Stepping stones I suppose. Newton occasionally works too, as long as you
> don't "step" off the Earth. As long as you go really slow, which you will
> as long as you practice "more power" technology.
Stepping stones lead us across water, with the hope that we'll cross the
river.
Sometimes they lead downstream and peter out. I'm following a different path
to you, and I may not find the the opposite bank either. Sometimes it helps
to grasp hands as we slip and slide on their slippery surface, and other
times we can get so far apart such aid becomes impossible. Then it usually
become advisable to retrace our steps, checking if the path is the right
one. We've been walking the stones for 400 years now, since Galileo, father
of the scientific method, and in my opinion the majority of sheep are
following a leader, Einstein, that missed the path. Lone scouts such as
myself are asking the majority to look where they are going instead of where
they've been. For every stepping stone there are two others to jump to, and
finding the easiest step may also lead in the wrong direction.
>
> The evidence is plain, and written anywhere you might choose to look.
The evidence of a stick in water is that the stick is bent. That is
empirical evidence.
The statement just made needs correction, it should be:
The evidence of a stick in water is that the stick APPEARS bent. That is
empirical evidence.
How we express ourselves betrays our understanding of our perceptions of
Nature.
The evidence is THERE, it isn't plain, it must be interpreted according to
our mental model. If you think the stick is bent because it is plain to see
it is, you are treading on the wrong stone. You need to investigate why it
appears bent, few ever bother, they leap to a conclusion. How many people
think a rainbow is a sign from God, miraculous? The evidence is plain,
right? It certainly was to my poor, simple-minded mother, that was what she
thought a rainbow was, until the day she died. Clear evidence of the
existence of God, but only according to her mental model. No argument would
way her.
Yes, it is a glorious sight, but the physicist explains it, using a mental
model that doesn't resort to miracles.
The evidence is there, if you'll only see it without prejudice you might
explain it.
> > The 'if' at the beginning says it all. If pigs could fly, they'd be
> > pig-eons.
>
> Cute. No logical response at all, but cute.
We can "if" about anything, I didn't see that I needed to reply in any other
vein. Nothing illogical about that, and certainly a response.
> > > You have kept your sense of humor. You are not "thick". I choose the
> > word
> > > "demanding".
>
> > I accept action at a distance. I can't explain it. Magnets don't 'curve'
> > space, though. Whatever properties are there, it belongs to the magnet,
> not
> > the space.
>
> It belongs to charge, actually.
Really?
Actually, it belongs to more than charge. Charge alone doesn't provide
magnetism, the charge has to be moving. A stationary charge doesn't. By the
PoR, the charge can also be passed to produce the field in the object that
passes it. Also, a magnetic field will move a charge. In the absence of even
an electron (charged particle), the moving magnetic field will produce a
potential that will move a particle if it were there. A non- moving magnetic
field will not.
> > As to demanding... Yes.
> > In civil law, preponderance of the evidence is enough to sway a
judgment.
> > This is where 'experimental evidence' is often thrown at me, often
> without
> > any citation as the the experiment.
> > In criminal law, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is enough to convict.
> > In mathematics, proof beyond any doubt whatsoever is required.
> > Most physicists are content with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Note
> > "reasonable", because what is reasonable is what is convincing to the
> > physicist.
> > I demand proof absolute.
> > You claim that the space surrounding the magnet has properties. Ok...
> prove
> > it.
>
> Prove that there was a yesterday.
As with all proofs, there are certain minimal axioms that are accepted
without proof.
I cannot prove there was a yesterday to you, unless we agree on those
axioms.
One of them would be our mutual understanding of the passage of time.
> Some things have to be taken on faith.
I agree. I don't agree that the space surrounding the magnet has properties.
It isn't a faith I have, although I have no objection to you believing it.
Faith isn't something that can be proven or disproven. The difference
between us is that I consider axioms that are testable aren't axioms, but
deductions. For instance, I would be testing Einstein's second postulate by
sending a laser pulse to the moon and and back from Hubble and measuring the
time of the trip, then comparing that time to the time predicted by three
models. I might deduce that Einstein was correct, and I might not. I cannot
say without the experiment. What I can say, however, is that his second
postulate isn't an axiom at all, it is testable. If it were an axiom, I
would both be unable to test it or question it. You, on the other hand, will
accept it without proof. To you, it doesn't require testing. That isn't
faith, that is BLIND faith. Some would call it stupidity, but I recognize
that it is the workings of a mental model that you are unable to overcome.
What will you do when the experiment actually is performed? It will be,
someday. Right now, you already predict its outcome, you are certain of it.
I cannot change that. Just remember that MMX had a predicted outcome, and it
nobody got it right. I'm not bothered about what you think now, I'm curious
about what you'll think when it doesn't produce the result you think it
will, or does, as the case may be. If it does, well, you'll say "I told you
so". Many relativists will gloat, and I'll eat crow. I'm prepared for it,
I'm enough of a man to admit when I'm wrong, even if I can't understand it.
It doesn't really matter to what happens to my ego, what is important is
that the test is made for the benefit of science.
> You have faith in what you were taught long ago. Have a good life.
No, I don't. I was taught long ago in the existence of a God.
I do not accept that today.
There are some things I accept without proof, of course.
>
> > > No such conundrum exists. Frames at c are not valid. They are
> disallowed
> > > at one point in the derivation. So assumptions that you can just
> "stick
> > it
> > > in" are not correct.
>
> > Once again, a special case is made for light. Prove it.
>
> A special case is not made for light. A special case is made during the
> derivation, and a velocity of c cannot be used. Another operation is
> performed and values greater than c cannot be used. If you bothered to
> look at the derivation, you'd agree with the operation.
Axioms I do not accept and you do. Ever noticed that Einstein had only two
'postulates'? The fewer the better. If you ever bothered to look at the
original derivation of time dilation and length contraction... but you
weren't aware of Dover or Einstein's paper until this thread, were you?
>
> > > > Hero worship isn't a reply. Explain why they have to be in phase to
> > > > propagate, when I have already shown that a coil and capacitor will
> > > > propagate radio frequencies, and the E and M fields are not in
phase.
> > >
> > > Satan worship is a reply for you, at least in some cases. You are
just
> > > sure that Einstein is a criminal.
>
> > My personal belief doesn't mean I wouldn't convict on the preponderance
> of
> > the evidence.
>
> Newton fails. Show me your conviction.
I said I would NOT convict. There is insufficent evidence for a criminal
trial. There is insufficient evidence for civil trial either. My own belief
in his culpability
> > > You have not investigated the phenomenon thoughly. You give it lip
> > > service.
>
> > Do I?
>
> Yeat again, no answer.
Sure, I'll answer, since you push it. You've not so much as read Einstein's
paper, take all that you are told on the word of other copycat authors, and
pretend you are an authority on relativity yourself. All you do is give it
lip service.
>
> > > > > I provided the derivation. It agrees with Maxwell.
> > >
> > > > Then you've both made error.
> > >
> > > I guess it will be "agree to disagree" then. If the model, math , and
> > > experiment don't convince you...
>
> > Correct. Wrong model. No aether.
>
> Excellent. Your opinion.
Seems like you are quarreling with my assertion of no aether. That would
lead to the presumption of your acceptance of aether. But no matter. If you
want to accept part of Maxwell's ideas but reject the rest, that's your
prerogative. It isn't convincing to others, is it?
[snip]
> Show me how to measure a single radio frequency photon, engineer. Put up
> or shut up.
Now who is losing his temper? But if you like, I'll shut up.
[remainder snipped, unread.]
Androcles
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Uldkb.116$GY5...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > So when I drive my car through a couple of fence posts, I'm gonna
> > diffract?
> > > I'll tells ya, buddy, only if I hits one of the posts. If I miss
'em,
> > I'm
> > > going straight on.
> > > You can push a mathematical model only so far.
> >
> > You yourself pointed out that diffraction is not a phenomenon well
> "fleshed
> > out" by one particle. I personally drive differently when passing
between
> > close posts, but I do not ascribe consciousness to particles.
> >
> > To (mis)quote tadchem: Analogies are like ropes, you can only push
them
> so
> > far.
> Correct, but the point is, my car isn't analogy. It is a mass, directly
> subject to the equation for diffraction, just as the electron is.
The electron does not have a driver. The electron does not have lane
markers to whcih it constantly adjusts its path. The analogy of the car is
invalid if we consider these things.
> If I
> passed a few billion cars through the posts, all the same size and
velocity
> , some of them will collide with the posts. Statistically, I can expect
to
> find two maxima, left and right, other than the one directly ahead as the
> cars glance off the concrete posts. However, this would not reveal the
> wavelength of the car.
Without drivers, and inferring that the posts were replaced after each
collision, it would in fact tell you the momentum of the cars. You could
adjust vehicle speed to maintain a constant momentum.
You know they have repeated the diffraction experiment with buckyballs,
right? And you know they diffracted, right? These are 60 atom molecules,
with (presumably) net zero charge. Far from a car, but not that far. Just
increase the degrees of freedom (which is noise in the diffraction pattern)
by 4 or 5 orders of magnitude.
> > A point has no mass. A point has no r. Look up the formula for
angular
> > momentum. That is two strikes.
> A point does have mass if I assign mass to it.
The electron is supposedly a point particle with mass. A free electron
does not have angular momentum, but it does have magnetic moment.
> If I model a planet orbiting
> the sun, or a satellite orbiting the earth, I model a point with mass.
> Assigning mass is no different to assigning a z coordinate, or, for that
> matter, polar coordinates and that include r and theta. How can you say
it
> has no r?
Even a black hole has r. Your model is denser than a BH, which is an
artifact of a theory you deplore. Does this not bother you?
> The point is (pun intended) that points are mathematical constructs that
can
> have properties assigned to them. They represent physical entities by
> modelling them as abstractions. The point that describes motion of a
planet
> is inadequate to explain tidal effects, but it still has mass assigned to
> it. So does the point at the tip of the pendulum.
> No strike. Griffindor catches the snitch. Slitherin loses 10 house points
> for a foul bludgeon. The game is quidditch. Get up to date :)
The bludger (not bludgeon) has an r as well.
We are talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The
key words are "model" and "assign". Mistakes a human can make. Can we
move on?
> > No formula. Doesn't happen. The formula has had the possibility of
v=c
> > removed from it in its derivation. v+delta=c is possible with
vanishingly
> > small delta. Time is slowed on the rim, but we all still see it
> > approaching c.
> Fine. I'll accept your limitation if it applies to you.
It applies to the derivation. The formulae will not support putting in a
value fo c or greater for v. The "limitation" applies to all who would
take the formulae where they cannot go. This includes you. Are you
statisfied with this constraint? Use one negative mass in Kepler's 3rd law
formula, and you also get an invalid result for orbital period.
Since I don't know where to put a word in edgewise, I'll go down here.
Time stoppage applies to events occuring at a single point (frame is too
strong a word) on the rim, as a reult of the motion of the point. If you
believe that motion of the point is not permitted because the time is
dilated, then you have made a BIG mistake. What it says is that *nothing
else* will happen if that velocity hits c. No aging. No pendular swing.
No chemical process proceeding. But the point is proceeding at c.
And you will undoubtedly raise other spectres, since you have a plethora,
but remember:
1) SR does not apply,
2) physical objects cannot go there.
You are a self-proclaimed engineer. What are you doing going into this
place? Who gives a sh*t if a model that doesn't apply, applied to a
situation that cannot occur, causes you confusion? Who's fault is that?
> > > > How about a chemical reaction that turns a surface a certain color?
> At
> > > > least something that would survive the acceleration...
> > > Sure. But how could we tell what the color was, with all that red
shift?
> >
> > If we read it when it was purely transverse motion, that should do.
> Einstein's equation for this application is
> f' = f[1-cos(phi).v/c]/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> for phi = pi/2, this reduces to
> f' = f/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> and for v almost c, f' = almost infinity.
> with t = 1/f',
> t approaches zero, so the reaction happens very slowly.
> If the reaction can't happen, the chemical cannot change color.
> Oh... I see. That is what you wanted. Ok. We'll paint fresh chemical on
the
> rim as its spinning and notice no change, or a change that takes a long
time
> to complete.
I was looking to time events in a way not affected by "apparent" g. A
pendulum would not take us there.
> In order to see the color, we'll look down on the spinning top. Opps,
that
> doesn't work, either. The frequency if the light has increased to almost
> infinity at the rim, by the equation above, so there is an enormous color
> change, not made by the stopped reaction. Looks as if that idea doesn't
> work. I can't tell if the clock has stopped ot not.
Not true. Red and blue shift apply when a component of velocity is away
from or towards you. There are two places on the rim, where velocity is
exactly perpendicular to your line-of-sight.
Ever wonder why policemen don't clock your speed shooting directly across
the roadway? They wouldn't have to be visible at all ahead of you...
> And of course we'll keep in mind that in order to see the color, we'll be
> shining a light on the pigment, that will be absorbed, with only the
pigment
> color reflected. The molecules in the pigment having stopped vibrating...
> hmmm.... that means the temperature at the rim has fallen to almost 0
> Kelvin, so we could stop the wheel and measure its temperature, I doubt
it
> will have changed by much if we stop it quickly enough.Nah... they'd
start
> up again as quickly as they stopped, the stop was only faked anyway by
time
> dilation. Got any more ideas? I'm fresh out.
You have one that will work. Additionally, a photoluminescent chemical
could be used, so no external source would be required.
Again I ask, why are you beating a horse that is already dead?
> > It won't do for your purposes, no. A magic force field still doesn't
> > exist. The wheel still flys a part long before 0.0001c
> The spinning top is only a theoretical construct, like relativity itself,
> which is also magical in its nature. Practical considerations are of no
> importance. If you can pretend to have time dilation, I can overcome
> practicality be pretending the force is there.
No pretend to it. Muons are detected at the surface of the Earth. And no
more outliers are detected at altitude than at the surface of the Earth,
therefore suplerlumenal propagation is out.
> > > > Get me a magic force field. Don't expect SR to solve a GR problem.
> > > > Correctly anyway.
> Ok, you have it. Imagine it to be there.
The formulae don't apply to an accelerated frame. Dead horse.
> > > Ok, so SR doesn't work. At least that's settled. Why are we bothering
> > with
> > > it?
> > > I can't do any engineering if you won't tell me what the equations
are.
> >
> > It's not engineering. It is very close to masturbation. "Oh ho, look
SR
> > fails!" Big flipping deal. SR applies to non-accelerating frames.
What
> > is non-accelerating about a spinning disk, except a very small line of
> > points through its axis?
> A point that is moving tangentially to the rim can be considered
> unaccelarated for an instant. The jerk-offs that get a thrill out of
> promoting time dilation are the near-masturbators. Such crap I've just
> witnessed as my grandson, aged 6, was watching cartoons and the words
"time
> dilation accelerator" wafted across my living room, catching my attention
as
> I was writing. I recognize fiction when I hear it. Wrapping it up in
> mathematics to quantify it doesn't make it non-fiction.
It is misinformation that I fight as well.
"Considered unaccelerated" and unaccelerated are two different things.
There is more energy in the spinning disk that can be represented by linear
approximations, Mr. Engineer. Use of SR formulae is unwarranted.
> > > > They obey the rules, which is the point. The model is handy to
> predict
> > by
> > > > how much.
> > > Correct. Except when I drive my car betwen fence posts, and you seem
to
> > > think I'll be diffracted because that is what the math predicts.
> >
> > You or one of your trillion other selves in their cars. A pattern of
> > deflected "paths" could be observed.
> Agreed, so we conclude that the 'wavelength' of the car is determined?
> Now that IS mental masturbation, when it is quite clear that the
deflection
> would be a result of some cars striking the posts, some cars needing
> steering adjustment, some drivers asleep at the wheel, some that had a
burst
> tyre, and a host of other reasons that are explicable, including some
that
> have real but unknown cause.
The "variances" you cite are noise that blurs the pattern, not a cause of
the pattern. Microscopic objects have been made to diffract. You are
shooting blanks. Grab a different clip of ammo.
> > > According to the mental model employed...
> >
> > GPS clocks.
> Do not obey SR.
Curved space, SR doesn't apply. Blanks again.
> > Magnetism.
> I fail to see how magnetism is germaine. Empirical data cannot be denied,
> its interpretation can be.
All that is common to magnetism is charge and motion. Electro"statics" and
length contraction. Empirical data support Lorentz length contraction, no
matter how distasteful you find it to be. Hell even the QM folks still
look for "magnetic monpoles", so don't feel all alone.
> > Decrease in nuclear decay with increase in temperature.
> That's a new one on me. I've always understood that such decay couldn't
be
> affected, period, but I may be out of date with the lastest results. Got
a
> reference?
Heard only rumors here for quite some time. 25,000,000 degrees equates to
a gamma of about 1.01.
You might get a kick out of this one though...
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0005282
Very poetic.
For one that missed the path, Einstein sure does a better job of predicting
experimental results than you.
She already told us we would not find her in the Universe. We find her in
the heart.
What we find in the Universe is "predictability" and "agreement with
experiment". Appeals to "common sense" or Newton will keep us bound to the
surface of the planet.
> > > The 'if' at the beginning says it all. If pigs could fly, they'd be
> > > pig-eons.
> >
> > Cute. No logical response at all, but cute.
> We can "if" about anything, I didn't see that I needed to reply in any
other
> vein. Nothing illogical about that, and certainly a response.
What is the point in discussing the subject with you, if you put no thought
in your responses?
> > > > You have kept your sense of humor. You are not "thick". I choose
the
> > > word
> > > > "demanding".
> >
> > > I accept action at a distance. I can't explain it. Magnets don't
'curve'
> > > space, though. Whatever properties are there, it belongs to the
magnet,
> > not
> > > the space.
> >
> > It belongs to charge, actually.
> Really?
>
> Actually, it belongs to more than charge. Charge alone doesn't provide
> magnetism, the charge has to be moving. A stationary charge doesn't. By
the
> PoR, the charge can also be passed to produce the field in the object
that
> passes it. Also, a magnetic field will move a charge. In the absence of
even
> an electron (charged particle), the moving magnetic field will produce a
> potential that will move a particle if it were there. A non- moving
magnetic
> field will not.
Right. Charge and length contraction = "magnetism". Thanks for the
assist.
We have bounced light off of moving charges, rather than the Moon. From
emission to detection, there were no superlumenal photons.
> > You have faith in what you were taught long ago. Have a good life.
> No, I don't. I was taught long ago in the existence of a God.
> I do not accept that today.
> There are some things I accept without proof, of course.
More than you should.
> > > > No such conundrum exists. Frames at c are not valid. They are
> > disallowed
> > > > at one point in the derivation. So assumptions that you can just
> > "stick
> > > it
> > > > in" are not correct.
> >
> > > Once again, a special case is made for light. Prove it.
> >
> > A special case is not made for light. A special case is made during
the
> > derivation, and a velocity of c cannot be used. Another operation is
> > performed and values greater than c cannot be used. If you bothered to
> > look at the derivation, you'd agree with the operation.
> Axioms I do not accept and you do. Ever noticed that Einstein had only
two
> 'postulates'? The fewer the better. If you ever bothered to look at the
> original derivation of time dilation and length contraction... but you
> weren't aware of Dover or Einstein's paper until this thread, were you?
You poke fun at the concept of reality, because the mathematical model has
limitations. You need to understand that there are limitaitons, just as
there are with Newton. If you have more than an "emotional appeal"
argument, it seems to be limited to misapplication of the math. You only
show your own ignroance.
> > > > > Hero worship isn't a reply. Explain why they have to be in phase
to
> > > > > propagate, when I have already shown that a coil and capacitor
will
> > > > > propagate radio frequencies, and the E and M fields are not in
> phase.
> > > >
> > > > Satan worship is a reply for you, at least in some cases. You are
> just
> > > > sure that Einstein is a criminal.
> >
> > > My personal belief doesn't mean I wouldn't convict on the
preponderance
> > of
> > > the evidence.
> >
> > Newton fails. Show me your conviction.
> I said I would NOT convict. There is insufficent evidence for a criminal
> trial. There is insufficient evidence for civil trial either. My own
belief
> in his culpability
No. You did not. "My personal belief doesn't mean I wouldn't convict on
the preponderance of the evidence." Do you see the double negative in your
sentence? This means exactly "My personal belief doest mean I wouldt
convict on the preponderance of the evidence."
Game. Set. Match.
Convict Newton.
> > > > You have not investigated the phenomenon thoughly. You give it lip
> > > > service.
> >
> > > Do I?
> >
> > Yeat again, no answer.
> Sure, I'll answer, since you push it. You've not so much as read
Einstein's
> paper, take all that you are told on the word of other copycat authors,
and
> pretend you are an authority on relativity yourself. All you do is give
it
> lip service.
Read some of it. Just not in a Dover publication. Never said I was an
expert, not hinted same. Which makes being able to correct the ignorant an
extra joy for me. The lip service I give you has a tongue involved, and
makes a sound like "Plllllt!"
> > > > > > I provided the derivation. It agrees with Maxwell.
> > > >
> > > > > Then you've both made error.
> > > >
> > > > I guess it will be "agree to disagree" then. If the model, math ,
and
> > > > experiment don't convince you...
> >
> > > Correct. Wrong model. No aether.
> >
> > Excellent. Your opinion.
> Seems like you are quarreling with my assertion of no aether. That would
> lead to the presumption of your acceptance of aether. But no matter. If
you
> want to accept part of Maxwell's ideas but reject the rest, that's your
> prerogative. It isn't convincing to others, is it?
A do not believe in an aether as Maxwell imagined it. I know that there is
no such thing as empty space, so photons are always travelling through the
medium known as the "Universe". Not just "contained in".
> [snip]
>
> > Show me how to measure a single radio frequency photon, engineer. Put
up
> > or shut up.
> Now who is losing his temper? But if you like, I'll shut up.
Show me how to measure a single radio frequency photon, engineer.
David A. Smith
Androcles
> > Correct, but the point is, my car isn't analogy. It is a mass, directly
> > subject to the equation for diffraction, just as the electron is.
>
> The electron does not have a driver.
>The electron does not have lane markers to whcih it constantly adjusts its
path.
> The analogy of the car is
> invalid if we consider these things.
Very good. Wasn't that MY point?
That particles such as the electron are not waves and yet are diffracted.
>
> > If I
> > passed a few billion cars through the posts, all the same size and
> velocity
> > , some of them will collide with the posts. Statistically, I can expect
> to
> > find two maxima, left and right, other than the one directly ahead as
the
> > cars glance off the concrete posts. However, this would not reveal the
> > wavelength of the car.
>
> Without drivers, and inferring that the posts were replaced after each
> collision, it would in fact tell you the momentum of the cars. You could
> adjust vehicle speed to maintain a constant momentum.
>
> You know they have repeated the diffraction experiment with buckyballs,
> right? And you know they diffracted, right? These are 60 atom molecules,
> with (presumably) net zero charge. Far from a car, but not that far.
Just
> increase the degrees of freedom (which is noise in the diffraction
pattern)
> by 4 or 5 orders of magnitude.
Very good. Wasn't that MY point?
Good ol' Buckminster-Fuller's balls are not waves and yet are diffracted.
So how does your equation for diffraction of waves apply?
> > > A point has no mass. A point has no r. Look up the formula for
> angular
> > > momentum. That is two strikes.
> > A point does have mass if I assign mass to it.
>
> The electron is supposedly a point particle with mass. A free electron
> does not have angular momentum, but it does have magnetic moment.
Your point being?
> > If I model a planet orbiting
> > the sun, or a satellite orbiting the earth, I model a point with mass.
> > Assigning mass is no different to assigning a z coordinate, or, for that
> > matter, polar coordinates and that include r and theta. How can you say
> it
> > has no r?
>
> Even a black hole has r. Your model is denser than a BH, which is an
> artifact of a theory you deplore. Does this not bother you?
See above, you claimed a point has no r, not I.
I don't find a BH to be an artefact of relativity. The concept of gravity
FORCING all the matter to a high density is simple enough.
> The bludger (not bludgeon) has an r as well.
Wasn't me that said a point has no r.
>
> We are talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
LOL. Of course we are. That's all we've been doing. That's the whole purpose
of this newsgroup. Relativity = "how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin".
The
> key words are "model" and "assign". Mistakes a human can make. Can we
> move on?
>
> > > No formula. Doesn't happen. The formula has had the possibility of
> v=c
> > > removed from it in its derivation. v+delta=c is possible with
> vanishingly
> > > small delta. Time is slowed on the rim, but we all still see it
> > > approaching c.
>
> > Fine. I'll accept your limitation if it applies to you.
>
> It applies to the derivation. The formulae will not support putting in a
> value fo c or greater for v. The "limitation" applies to all who would
> take the formulae where they cannot go. This includes you. Are you
> statisfied with this constraint? Use one negative mass in Kepler's 3rd
law
> formula, and you also get an invalid result for orbital period.
So you are just ducking the points I raised, then, and want to discuss me
instead instead of angels dancing on the head of a pin? I'm not playing that
diversion. This is fun. I don't want to discuss me, or you. I'll keep
raising a plethora of spectres until you resolve them or quit. They are here
for all to read, along with your replies.
Now you are using Newtonian concepts. You cannot just switch when it suits
you.
Stay with relativity, please. You've said Newton doesn't work. I agree that
what you said is common sense, but you must use the relativistic result.
f' = f[1-cos(phi).v/c]/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
What happens to the frequency where the velocity is perpendicular to the
line of sight?
Have you forgotten the denominator? Here, I'll do it for you,
v = 0.999 999 999c,
f = 1,
phi = pi/2
c =1
f' = 1/sqrt(1-0.999 999 999^2) = 22,360.67978
That's pretty big shift, and it isn't away from or toward you.
Rounding, I count 22,000 angels dancing in the rim of the head of a pin, how
say you?
To be quite honest, I don't think you understand relativity at all.
How are you going to teach it to me if you don't understand it yourself?
What are you doing going into this place? Who gives a sh*t if a model that
doesn't apply, applied to a situation that cannot occur, causes you
confusion? Who's fault is that?
>
> Ever wonder why policemen don't clock your speed shooting directly across
> the roadway? They wouldn't have to be visible at all ahead of you...
Use relativity, please.
>
> > And of course we'll keep in mind that in order to see the color, we'll
be
> > shining a light on the pigment, that will be absorbed, with only the
> pigment
> > color reflected. The molecules in the pigment having stopped
vibrating...
> > hmmm.... that means the temperature at the rim has fallen to almost 0
> > Kelvin, so we could stop the wheel and measure its temperature, I doubt
> it
> > will have changed by much if we stop it quickly enough.Nah... they'd
> start
> > up again as quickly as they stopped, the stop was only faked anyway by
> time
> > dilation. Got any more ideas? I'm fresh out.
>
> You have one that will work. Additionally, a photoluminescent chemical
> could be used, so no external source would be required.
>
> Again I ask, why are you beating a horse that is already dead?
Because YOU used a Newtonian concept to make it work, and that is cheating.
So I'll ask again. Got any more ideas? I'm fresh out.
I'm cutting this short. I've presented enough that you've failed to answer,
and when you have you've used common sense. Common sense doesn't apply to
relativity, so there is little point in continuing, I'm getting bored with
it.
Androcles
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40vkb.132$5b...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> > > Correct, but the point is, my car isn't analogy. It is a mass,
directly
> > > subject to the equation for diffraction, just as the electron is.
> >
> > The electron does not have a driver.
> The car doesn't have to have one either. The wheeles can be rigidly
aligned.
> >The electron does not have lane markers to whcih it constantly adjusts
its
> path.
> I constantly cross lane-markers :)
>
> > The analogy of the car is
> > invalid if we consider these things.
>
> Very good. Wasn't that MY point?
> That particles such as the electron are not waves and yet are diffracted.
How I understood your point, was how can I say you driving between posts
would diffract. Driving includes self-correcting the path, unless
inebriation is involved.
It correctly predicts the noted distribution of many particles; photons,
electrons, buckyballs, and (someday) Mercedes Benz. All particles are
extended. The vacuum has been filled (and you can't empty the bag).
> > > > A point has no mass. A point has no r. Look up the formula for
> > angular
> > > > momentum. That is two strikes.
> > > A point does have mass if I assign mass to it.
> >
> > The electron is supposedly a point particle with mass. A free electron
> > does not have angular momentum, but it does have magnetic moment.
> Your point being?
A point cannot have angular momentum. A point-like particle can have
linear momentum.
> > > If I model a planet orbiting
> > > the sun, or a satellite orbiting the earth, I model a point with
mass.
> > > Assigning mass is no different to assigning a z coordinate, or, for
that
> > > matter, polar coordinates and that include r and theta. How can you
say
> > it
> > > has no r?
> >
> > Even a black hole has r. Your model is denser than a BH, which is an
> > artifact of a theory you deplore. Does this not bother you?
> See above, you claimed a point has no r, not I.
> I don't find a BH to be an artefact of relativity. The concept of gravity
> FORCING all the matter to a high density is simple enough.
Zero r?
> > The bludger (not bludgeon) has an r as well.
> Wasn't me that said a point has no r.
By definition, the point has no r. Assuming we are talking English...
"A dimensionless geometric object having no properties except location."
> > We are talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
> LOL. Of course we are. That's all we've been doing. That's the whole
purpose
> of this newsgroup. Relativity = "how many angels can dance on the head of
a
> pin".
42!
What is delta?
> Can it be because it leads to a contradiction, and you don't want to
> admit
> it?
I cannot see what your point is. Supply a definition of delta. Remind me
what conundrum you would raise.
> Can you not see that without time, there can be no frequency?
Correct.
> He clearly doesn't mind extrapolating to
> the
> limit of your delta = 0, so why should you?
Motion of the edge of the disk is seen to be v->c. Chemical action at the
edge of the disk is seen to be reduced to stasis. Any references to motion
will invoke the fact that English is slippery, and we have not created a
little labeled sketch with names for the types of motions we would discuss.
Happy?
SR does not apply.
The result is consistent with relativity.
> f' = f[1-cos(phi).v/c]/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> What happens to the frequency where the velocity is perpendicular to the
> line of sight?
Nothing.
> Have you forgotten the denominator? Here, I'll do it for you,
> v = 0.999 999 999c,
> f = 1,
> phi = pi/2
> c =1
> f' = 1/sqrt(1-0.999 999 999^2) = 22,360.67978
> That's pretty big shift, and it isn't away from or toward you.
> Rounding, I count 22,000 angels dancing in the rim of the head of a pin,
how
> say you?
Is the light emitted from the rim? I thought we were reflecting it. Your
dilation determination does not apply.
> To be quite honest, I don't think you understand relativity at all.
> How are you going to teach it to me if you don't understand it yourself?
> What are you doing going into this place? Who gives a sh*t if a model
that
> doesn't apply, applied to a situation that cannot occur, causes you
> confusion? Who's fault is that?
Your teacher's apparently. Because you argue from a position of ignorance.
> > Ever wonder why policemen don't clock your speed shooting directly
across
> > the roadway? They wouldn't have to be visible at all ahead of you...
> Use relativity, please.
Done. Claiming "it doesn't work" means only that you argue with your
ignorance.
Then learn something.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qJAkb.107$SY...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
If you are going to continue violating the usenet charter, I am done with
you. Attachments are not allowed. Posture all you wish.
<plonk>
David A. Smith
Dirk Van de moortel
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message news:erBkb.95748$gv5.72472@fed1read05...
David, just curious, what did he post?
My regular text groups server filters above a certain size.
So I tried our binary groups server and it shows a 335 Kb (sic!)
post. When I open it, I get "Message could not be displaid".
What's in it?
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:vRBkb.90280$bK3.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
A pendulum graphic, a couple of simple formulae. Size is 242kb, because
the ninny did not save it in a compressed format like JPEG, GIF, or TIFF.
I can save it up on my space at AOL, if you need to see it? Or simply
email it to you (assuming your "public" web address is decipherable).
Turns out you were right, by the way. He does have no honor. After he
assured me he "had no axe to grind", he posted with an attachment after
all.
David A. Smith
Dirk Van de moortel
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message news:QTFkb.97395$gv5.83201@fed1read05...
> Dear Dirk Van de moortel:
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:vRBkb.90280$bK3.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:erBkb.95748$gv5.72472@fed1read05...
> > > Dear Androcles:
> > >
> > > "Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:qJAkb.107$SY...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > >
> > > If you are going to continue violating the usenet charter, I am done
> with
> > > you. Attachments are not allowed. Posture all you wish.
> > >
> > > <plonk>
> >
> > David, just curious, what did he post?
> > My regular text groups server filters above a certain size.
> > So I tried our binary groups server and it shows a 335 Kb (sic!)
> > post. When I open it, I get "Message could not be displaid".
> > What's in it?
>
> A pendulum graphic, a couple of simple formulae. Size is 242kb, because
> the ninny did not save it in a compressed format like JPEG, GIF, or TIFF.
> I can save it up on my space at AOL, if you need to see it? Or simply
> email it to you (assuming your "public" web address is decipherable).
Thanks but I have seen it now on yet another server.
A tear sprang to my left eye.
>
> Turns out you were right, by the way. He does have no honor. After he
> assured me he "had no axe to grind", he posted with an attachment after
> all.
Told you so ;-p
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
>
> David A. Smith
>
>
Ka-In Yen
> Isn't that a fifth force to consider in your analogy?
Dear Androcles:
Sorry for the late reply. Your questions are very interesting,
but I have no answer to that. I wish I know everything, than I
will be the most power one in the universe, the God. :)
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> > Yes, light travels through space. Marvelous.
> >
> > David A. Smith
> Yes, it is marvellous. I marvel at it.
> Androcles
Thank you. It's my honor, and your comments are highly appreciated.
Ka-In Yen
yen...@yahoo.com.tw
Ka-In Yen
> Is there a reference frame with respect to the silk or not?
Dear Starblade Riven Darksquall,
First you have to prove the existence of the inertial reference
frame. The whole Milky way gallaxy is a rotating frame, and everything
in gallaxy is attracted by forces. I am not sure that you can find
inertial reference frames in Milky way gallaxy.
Ka-In Yen
yen...@yahoo.com.tw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------