 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / March 2005Winds of change
An atmospheric wind will decrease the trip frequency of an oscillating aircraft and pin a dragonfly to the grill of a moving automobile. An dielectric wind will decrease the bounce frequency of an oscillating light beam and pin charges to the collector of a Van De Graff generator. So why should we claim great scientific achievement when a gravity wind causes an oscillating mass in a cesium atom to drop in frequency and pins an apple to the ground beneath a tree? Sue... http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS00006 8000002000115000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes > An atmospheric wind will decrease the trip frequency of an > oscillating aircraft and pin a dragonfly to the grill of a moving [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Sue... And what is the "oscillating mass in a cesium atom" which a gravity wind causes to drop in frequency? Paul > > An atmospheric wind will decrease the trip frequency of an > > oscillating aircraft and pin a dragonfly to the grill of a moving [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Paul Eagle eye! I shudda said oscillating mass *component.* Likely it exist only as an imhomogentiy in mass distribution that moves... like a fractional charge or a quark. It does exist, or fountain clocks would be unnecessary. NPL NIST USNO and Agilient have quite a collection of online papers about fountain clocks where you might find somthing more specific. Or... they didn't put a purdy polish on GB-B spheres just so it would bring a higer price at Christie's. They can't point to any particular atom that might turn off a high bidder. In the case of the atoms, HUP has to be a consideration in identifying the gremlin. Sue... > > > An atmospheric wind will decrease the trip frequency of an > > > oscillating aircraft and pin a dragonfly to the grill of a moving [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Sue... Are you on the same stuff as Tucker? Dirk Vdm > > > > An atmospheric wind will decrease the trip frequency of an > > > > oscillating aircraft and pin a dragonfly to the grill of a moving [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Dirk Vdm LOL, I'll have to put ya in for 3 medals of freedom and 12 puple hearts for that observaton. Actually "Ken S. Tucker" keeps his *stuff* in a kettle and I keep mine in a pot. That makes all the difference in the world as I am sure you know/ Sue... ... > > > In the case of the atoms, HUP has to be a consideration > > > in identifying the gremlin. > > > Sue... > > Are you on the same stuff as Tucker? > > Dirk Vdm > LOL, I'll have to put ya in for 3 medals of freedom > and 12 puple hearts for that observaton. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I am sure you know/ > Sue... Usually, I lurk, name came up so, inspite of posting from BC,canada I don't *toke*, I'm dopey enough!, that probably explains why I don't understand 1/2 the posts I read. I smoke tobacco (too much), rarely cigarettes. In my area "marijuana" is cheaper than tobacco, because the government taxes tobacco. "Weed" grows everywhere, and it's cheaper than booze, again because booze is highly taxed in BC. I don't find a problem with adults using marijuana, as a matter of choice, but I do think it does impair students from learning so I think it's best not to include it in my agenda. Regards Ken S. Tucker PS: Did I mention Grain Alcohol and Rain Water, to protect my precious bodily fluids? > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> > wrote in message news:Y7iXd.1235$sc2.675@news.cpqcorp.net... [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > PS: Did I mention Grain Alcohol and Rain Water, > to protect my precious bodily fluids? I think perhaps Dirk was more thinking of the haluncenigens and delucenigen familys. ;-) Sue... > > I don't find a problem with adults using > > marijuana, as a matter of choice, but I do think [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > PS: Did I mention Grain Alcohol and Rain Water, > > to protect my precious bodily fluids? > I think perhaps Dirk was more thinking of > the haluncenigens and delucenigen familys. ;-) > Sue... Using "Dirk" and "thinking" in the same sentence is oxymoronic. Ken... >>>An atmospheric wind will decrease the trip frequency of an >>>oscillating aircraft and pin a dragonfly to the grill of a moving [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Sue... I see you have no clue of the basic principle of atomic clocks. None whatsoever. :-) Does the energy h*9,192,631,770 Hz tell you something? You > >>>An atmospheric wind will decrease the trip frequency of an > >>>oscillating aircraft and pin a dragonfly to the grill of a moving [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > You Omygawd! Did Einstein predict that too? Well... that's another publication I'll have to ask you for the name and date of. Sue... >>>>>An atmospheric wind will decrease the trip frequency of an >>>>>oscillating aircraft and pin a dragonfly to the grill of a moving [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Sue... Which confirms your ignorance. There is nothing in the atom oscillating at the frequency 9,192,631,770 Hz. But the energy difference of the hyperfine transition associated with spin reversal of an electron in the Cs 133 atom in ground state is h*9,192,631,770 Hz. The frequency of the photon emitted/absorbed when this transition is made is thus 9,192,631,770 Hz. In other words, it is a spectral line in principle no different from other spectral lines of an atom. But since the frequency is so low (compared to other spectral lines) it is feasible to use it as a reference in an oscillator using RF techniques. The 21 cm spectral line of hydrogen is the same basic phenomenon. http://www.4physics.com/phy_demo/at_clock/at_clock.htm Paul > >>>>>An atmospheric wind will decrease the trip frequency of an > >>>>>oscillating aircraft and pin a dragonfly to the grill of a moving [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Paul Oh! It is energy transitions and not mass transitions. Yeah, I remember Einstein predicting something about how mass and energy are different. What he is really famous for, 'tho is predicting causality violations, like when falling EM radiation blueshifts or one twin occupies a space before the other vacates it. Thanks for clearing all that up. Sue... >>>>>>>An atmospheric wind will decrease the trip frequency of an >>>>>>>oscillating aircraft and pin a dragonfly to the grill of a moving [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > Yeah, I remember Einstein predicting something about > how mass and energy are different. Evading the issue, as usual? :-) Don't defend you statement, flee, talk about something else, eh? Did I say that the mass of the atom does not change at this transition? Of course it does. The mass of the atom changes by h*9,192,631,770Hz/c^2 The point is not whether you call it energy transition or "mass transition", or whatever you might wish. The point is that there is nothing in the atom oscillating at 9,192,631,770Hz neither before nor after the transition. Your statement: "a gravity wind causes an oscillating mass in a cesium atom to drop in frequency" is incredfible naive. And quite funny. :-) Paul > >>>>>>>An atmospheric wind will decrease the trip frequency of an > >>>>>>>oscillating aircraft and pin a dragonfly to the grill of a moving [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > Paul Funny? I'll take my compliments where I can get them but doubt I'm a serous threat to Stephanie Cole. Eh! We can't all be right, but we can all keep our sense of humor. If you are sharp with tensor notation then maybe this thread states it better than I can tho' I can't honestly say is says the same thing. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/750 bd3dce3eadac5/8f3bad2f006cdf5a#8f3bad2f006cdf5a Is the Assumption Of Consistent Proper Time Throughout The Universe In GR Valid? Sue... >>>>>>>>>An atmospheric wind will decrease the trip frequency of an >>>>>>>>>oscillating aircraft and pin a dragonfly to the grill of a moving [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > maybe this thread states it better than I can > tho' I can't honestly say is says the same thing. The same as: "a gravity wind causes an oscillating mass in a cesium atom to drop in frequency" ? :-) > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/750 bd3dce3eadac5/8f3bad2f006cdf5a#8f3bad2f006cdf5a > Is the Assumption Of Consistent Proper Time Throughout The Universe In GR Valid? > > Sue... You have indeed kept your sense of humour! :-) Paul > >>>>>>>>>An atmospheric wind will decrease the trip frequency of an > >>>>>>>>>oscillating aircraft and pin a dragonfly to the grill of a moving [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > "a gravity wind causes an oscillating mass in > a cesium atom to drop in frequency" ? :-) They set 'em low before launch don't they ? Sue... > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/750 bd3dce3eadac5/8f3bad2f006cdf5a#8f3bad2f006cdf5a > > Is the Assumption Of Consistent Proper Time Throughout The Universe In GR Valid? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Paul To jahn and Paul [......] Have you come across the idea of Snipping?  SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal > To jahn and Paul > [......] > Have you come across the idea of Snipping? What could that possibly contribute to a spirited debate about the semantics of semantics? ;-) Point taken. :o) Sue... > -- > John Kennaugh > to email convert the number from hex to decimal >>>Does the energy h*9,192,631,770 Hz tell you something? >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >is so low (compared to other spectral lines) it is feasible to >use it as a reference in an oscillator using RF techniques. So, actually WHAT does the clock count? >The 21 cm spectral line of hydrogen is the same basic phenomenon. > >http://www.4physics.com/phy_demo/at_clock/at_clock.htm > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Paul B. Andersen writes >There is nothing in the atom oscillating at the frequency 9,192,631,770 Hz. >But the energy difference of the hyperfine transition associated >with spin reversal of an electron in the Cs 133 atom in ground state >is h*9,192,631,770 Hz. The frequency of the photon emitted/absorbed >when this transition is made is thus 9,192,631,770 Hz. Please explain what you mean by the frequency of a photon? SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal >Paul B. Andersen writes >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Please explain what you mean by the frequency of a photon? They can't. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. > >Paul B. Andersen writes > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Henri, The designers of GP-B's drag free capsule have come up with a new device specially for you. It is a glass and ferrite capsule surrounded by an ablative Cherenkov shield that protects ballistic light for paths up to 300,000 light years. With the optional two stage shield the range can be extended to 400,000 light years. So it looks you were right all along. ;-) Sue... >> >Paul B. Andersen writes >> >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >With the optional two stage shield the range can be extended >to 400,000 light years. So it looks you were right all along. ;-) Of course! It is obvous that all starlight in the universe does not leave its source at exactly c wrt planet Earth. >Sue... HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:24:00 GMT <sp49315as4rrvkooq5mcnt42gi5dl83583@4ax.com>: >>Paul B. Andersen writes >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > They can't. Correct, we cannot. There's no real difference between the frequency of a photon and the energy contained therein, except for a conversion factor (namely, Planck's Constant), in SR (or, for that matter, in GR). All you have to do is propose an experiment where one can in fact generate monofrequency photons with different energies (or, if you prefer, photons with the same energy but with different frequencies), and you'll have disproved SR nicely... > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) > <H@> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > you prefer, photons with the same energy but with different > frequencies), and you'll have disproved SR nicely... What does Plancks constant have to do with the propagation of light? Please be specific. There seeems to be much confusion about this. Sue... > > HW. > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net > It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >>>Please explain what you mean by the frequency of a photon? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >except for a conversion factor (namely, Planck's Constant), >in SR (or, for that matter, in GR). Ghost, the only known relationship is E=hc/lambda 'Frequency' of light is an inferred property relating to the 'number of wave crests passing an observer per second'. The question remains, "WHAT IS A WAVECREST OF AN INDIVIDUAL PHOTON?" >All you have to do is propose an experiment where one can in fact >generate monofrequency photons with different energies (or, if >you prefer, photons with the same energy but with different >frequencies), and you'll have disproved SR nicely... ...'wavelengths', Ghost. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:45:42 GMT <d61c31p5lat5jsum1hg4pghd7tdej4689d@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ghost, the only known relationship is E=hc/lambda I'm not sure about that. One problem is that the only way I know of to measure lambda is to use an interferometer, although for the longer wavelengths one might try using an adjustable dipole antenna and measure the impedance or something. The problem is that an interferometer requires a steady stream of lightwaves (two, actually), and wouldn't work all that well with a single photon. There's also the issue of the variable velocity of photons -- in your theory, anyway -- and since the standard kinetic formula is E = 1/2 m v^2, the velocity must factor in somehow; one possible transformation is along the lines of E = h nu v^2/c^2 = (hc/(lambda * v/c)) v^2/c^2 = hv/lambda but a number of others are possible. (This problem does not occur in SR, of course.) It is quite clear that E is velocity-dependent in Newtonian/emissive/ballistic theory, with a v^2/c^2 component. (In SR E varies according to 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). For small v this is approximately 1+v^2/(2c^2). This appears to be very testable and has probably already been verified.) > 'Frequency' of light is an inferred property relating to the > 'number of wave crests passing an observer per second'. > > The question remains, "WHAT IS A WAVECREST OF AN INDIVIDUAL PHOTON?" A good question, that. The best answer I can give relates to a mostly theoretical resolution of the ultraviolet catastrophe. In short, photons exist to resolve the catastrophe, and are purely theoretical entities. Of course these "theoretical entities" tend to do the oddest things, like knock out electrons from a suitable material dependent on photon wavelength and not intensity. >>All you have to do is propose an experiment where one can in fact >>generate monofrequency photons with different energies (or, if >>you prefer, photons with the same energy but with different >>frequencies), and you'll have disproved SR nicely... > > ...'wavelengths', Ghost. That would also work. So...do you have such an experiment handy? > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >for the longer wavelengths one might try using an adjustable dipole >antenna and measure the impedance or something. ...and what does a 'wavelength' represent? It is the distance between moving wave crests. 'Frequency' is the rate at which these wavecrests move past a point. >The problem is that an interferometer requires a steady stream >of lightwaves (two, actually), and wouldn't work all that well >with a single photon. ...Is there such a thing as an individual photon? >There's also the issue of the variable >velocity of photons -- in your theory, anyway -- and since the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >E = h nu v^2/c^2 = (hc/(lambda * v/c)) v^2/c^2 = hv/lambda We haven't the faintest idea about the structure of a photon or whether it possesses intrinsic oscillations. If it does, the chances are that these have nothing to do with E=h.nu. >but a number of others are possible. (This problem does not occur >in SR, of course.) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >this is approximately 1+v^2/(2c^2). This appears to be very >testable and has probably already been verified.) I doubt it. >> 'Frequency' of light is an inferred property relating to the >> 'number of wave crests passing an observer per second'. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >things, like knock out electrons from a suitable material >dependent on photon wavelength and not intensity. So how many 'photons' might make up a gamma particle? How many photons make up an 1000hz ULF radio signal? >>>All you have to do is propose an experiment where one can in fact >>>generate monofrequency photons with different energies (or, if [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >So...do you have such an experiment handy? No HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:27:53 GMT <f3ph31t5ru5pfopnhb5ni8mpkpt1s776nd@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > It is the distance between moving wave crests. > 'Frequency' is the rate at which these wavecrests move past a point. Hence the interferometer. With the interferometer one can find the nullpoints as two waves interfere with one another. These nullpoints don't move (unless the light changes frequency). >>The problem is that an interferometer requires a steady stream >>of lightwaves (two, actually), and wouldn't work all that well >>with a single photon. > > ...Is there such a thing as an individual photon? There is. It knocks out the individual electron. >>There's also the issue of the variable >>velocity of photons -- in your theory, anyway -- and since the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I doubt it. Of course you do. You doubt anything that even hints at a violation of LET. >>> 'Frequency' of light is an inferred property relating to the >>> 'number of wave crests passing an observer per second'. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > So how many 'photons' might make up a gamma particle? One, of course. > How many photons make up an 1000hz ULF radio signal? Depends on the signal. A single quantum doesn't convey that much information -- though one might be able to see whether a polarized quantum is oriented in a certain fashion. Of course, in the case of your radio signal the quantum is probably on the order of 300 km in width -- twice the Airy radius, if I'm not mistaken. >>>>All you have to do is propose an experiment where one can in fact >>>>generate monofrequency photons with different energies (or, if [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > No Well don't look at me. I can't even measure lightspeed properly. :-) I need a longer cable. [.sigsnip] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:27:53 GMT >>>> Ghost, the only known relationship is E=hc/lambda >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >the nullpoints as two waves interfere with one another. These >nullpoints don't move (unless the light changes frequency). Ghost, please reconsider that statement. I don't think light from two separate beams of different wavelength ever give rise to interference patterns. The null points move when the path length of one half of a split beam changes. >>>The problem is that an interferometer requires a steady stream >>>of lightwaves (two, actually), and wouldn't work all that well [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >There is. It knocks out the individual electron. So we are led to believe. Where does it go afterwards? >>>There's also the issue of the variable >>>velocity of photons -- in your theory, anyway -- and since the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Of course you do. You doubt anything that even hints at >a violation of LET. I am certainly more inclined towards LET than SR, Ghost. There could conceiveably be 'local EM reference frames' around large mass centres. SR is plain rubbish. >>>> 'Frequency' of light is an inferred property relating to the >>>> 'number of wave crests passing an observer per second'. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >One, of course. That's not what Bilgey says! What kind of particle needs TWO photons, Ghost? >> How many photons make up an 1000hz ULF radio signal? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >probably on the order of 300 km in width -- twice the Airy >radius, if I'm not mistaken. So should we call it a 'quantum' or a 'photon', Ghost? Or should we admit we don't have much of a clue? >>>>>All you have to do is propose an experiment where one can in fact >>>>>generate monofrequency photons with different energies (or, if [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Well don't look at me. I can't even measure lightspeed properly. :-) >I need a longer cable. You will get 'c' if your source and observer are at rest. >[.sigsnip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:23:28 GMT <620k31trn8i9lnatluc9u9itia0n7n1t2o@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I don't think light from two separate beams of different > wavelength ever give rise to interference patterns. Correct. Of course, if they are the same wavelength the nullpoints are quite apparent. > The null points move when the path length of one half of > a split beam changes. Also correct. >>>>The problem is that an interferometer requires a steady stream >>>>of lightwaves (two, actually), and wouldn't work all that well [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So we are led to believe. > Where does it go afterwards? Which, the electron or the photon? The electron travels through space to a collector plate presumably, and becomes part of a (small) electric current, ultimately ending up back at its starting point. The photon, with a longer wavelength, bounces off. With enough foresight a measurement device might pick up that photon, or it might simply be absorbed and become low-grade heat. >>>>There's also the issue of the variable >>>>velocity of photons -- in your theory, anyway -- and since the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > SR is plain rubbish. Of course it is. That's why LET is in such widespread use today. >>>>> 'Frequency' of light is an inferred property relating to the >>>>> 'number of wave crests passing an observer per second'. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > What kind of particle needs TWO photons, Ghost? I have no idea. Of course, one problem is that the annihilation of two leptons (electron + positron) will produce two gamma photons, shooting off in opposing direction. Presumably, the creation of a pair of leptons would require two gamma rays approaching each other. >>> How many photons make up an 1000hz ULF radio signal? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So should we call it a 'quantum' or a 'photon', Ghost? > Or should we admit we don't have much of a clue? We? AFAIK both terms are in use. >>>>>>All you have to do is propose an experiment where one can in fact >>>>>>generate monofrequency photons with different energies (or, if [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You will get 'c' if your source and observer are at rest. And I have good enough timer resolution in my ping command. [.sigsnip] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:23:28 GMT >>>Hence the interferometer. With the interferometer one can find >>>the nullpoints as two waves interfere with one another. These [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >enough foresight a measurement device might pick up that >photon, or it might simply be absorbed and become low-grade heat. I wonder exactly how that happens? >>>>>but a number of others are possible. (This problem does not occur >>>a violation of LET. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Of course it is. That's why LET is in such widespread use today. It is. But it is wrong too. >>>>>Of course these "theoretical entities" tend to do the oddest >>>>>things, like knock out electrons from a suitable material [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >the creation of a pair of leptons would require two gamma >rays approaching each other. The question remains, if a gamma particle is ONE photon and an RF signal consists of a great many, when does the transformaion from one to more than one occur? >>>> How many photons make up an 1000hz ULF radio signal? >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >AFAIK both terms are in use. What does it look like? I know, we cannot see it. >>>>>> ...'wavelengths', Ghost. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >And I have good enough timer resolution in my ping command. good luck then. >[.sigsnip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Henri Wilson writes >>> I am certainly more inclined towards LET than SR, Ghost. There could >>> conceiveably be 'local EM reference frames' around large mass centres. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >It is. But it is wrong too. I am with Henri on this. SR is a fudge. Either there is an ether or there isn't. Light is real physical energy and requires a real physical process to get from A to B. Its speed must be the result of a physical process. If there is no ether then the source is surrounded by nothing which can affect the progress of light therefore the speed of light must be source dependent because there is nothing else physical it can be dependent upon. If there is an ether then Lorentz has the copyright on the only version which works. Einstein never found one. The idea that SR is not an ether based theory is absurd. There is a continuous link Wave-ether theory - Maxwell ether theory - Lorentz ether theory - SR. Einstein's starting point was Lorentz. "Lorentz ... brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved .. the most important advance in the theory of electricity since Maxwell. AE Lecture 1920. It was not the ether concept which Einstein objected to. On the contrary he made no attempt to justify the assumption of source independence in his 1905 paper, the basis of his second postulate, He like Lorentz took that for granted because light was a wave propagating IN something and that something, and not the source is what determined its speed. Where he disagreed with Lorentz was the "absolutely stationary space" of Lorentz's ether. "For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable." - 1920 lecture. Lorentz's theory says that light travels at c in the ether but because of the interaction of the ether and matter (Lorentz transforms) an observers measurement was distorted so that it always appeared to the observer that he is stationary w.r.t the ether. Einstein could no accept that asymmetry in the theoretical structure so assumed symmetry which in effect means assuming that what appeared to be the case was the case. i.e. that it appeared to an observer that he was stationary w.r.t the ether because he was. This is what is described in the second postulate. If you are stationary w.r.t the propagating medium then you see the speed of light as always propagating at the same speed. If you are moving w.r.t a propagating medium you will see a wave propagate away from you more slowly in your direction of motion and more quickly in the opposite direction. Einstein never solved the conceptual problem of what 'every observer being stationary w.r.t his own ether' means. The maths is simple enough the observers FoR has the properties of the observers own personal ether. A FoR is not physical. It is a mathematical abstraction. All FoR map out the same physical space. "It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility." 1920 lecture. His lecture ends in vagueness. How can the one physical space contain a 'mobile' ether whereby each and every observer finds himself stationary w.r.t it? It is impossible. If you take the modern view that space is empty. contains no ether at all it is even more impossible because the physical space mapped by the mathematical abstraction (the FoR) cannot have any properties at all never mind those most singular properties it is assumed exist in the FoR. In the end Einstein declared that his theory is a 'principle theory' a sort of mathematical model which does not attempt to address questions relating to physical processes so has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of whether there is or isn't an ether. As I say Lorentz has the copyright on the only physical description consistent with SR. Einstein did not come up with an alternative and declaring his theory a 'principle theory' seems to be the only alternative to admitting there was no difference between his theory and LET. The choice is between LET ether theory, OR no ether, source dependent ballistic, theory. You can of course join the majority and indulge in self deception believing that Einstein came up with a third way. A non ether, ether theory when there is no absolutely no evidence to suggest he did. SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal >Henri Wilson writes >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Einstein's starting point was Lorentz. >As I say Lorentz has the copyright on the only physical description >consistent with SR. Einstein did not come up with an alternative and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >believing that Einstein came up with a third way. A non ether, ether >theory when there is no absolutely no evidence to suggest he did. Yes John, very well expressed. I think you should emphasize the importance of Einstein's velocity addition equation. If O moves at u in frame A and frame B moves at v wrt frame A then O moves at: w = (c+v)/(1+uv/c^2) in frame B. If O happens to be light moving at c in frame A, then the equation reduces to: w = c. So if light moves at c in any one frame it will also move at c in all others. Lorentz achieved the same result by assuming ONE absolute frame and letting rod lengths and clock rates 'physically' contract in all frames moving relative to it. Einstein derived his addition equation using Lorentz's formulae. But he needed not to have done so for the limit case, where u=c. Since: w = c = c(c+v)/(c+v) = (c+v)/(1+v/c) It is just a simple maths trick. Einstein's clock synch definition is also vital to the disguise of SR. It makes the 'contractions' observational rather than REAL PHYSICAL ones. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. In sci.physics.relativity, John Kennaugh <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote on Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:05:13 +0000 <DzFYIzDpjVPCFw5W@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk>: > Henri Wilson writes >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I am with Henri on this. SR is a fudge. Either there is an ether or > there isn't. SR/GR works from a math standpoint. SR/GR is consistent with known observations thus far (AFAIK!) from a physics standpoint. Personally, I believe there *is* a luminferous aether -- but that aether is not the one the classicists assumed. It is, instead, merely the sum total of all the matter and energy currently running around in the Universe, and therefore a slightly extraneous concept. So in a way we have an aether, and we don't have an aether. :-) I"m not sure I care as long as the math works. > Light is real physical energy and requires a real physical process to > get from A to B. And takes no time at all (in its reference frame) to get from A to B, whether A and B are separated by a few inches or tens of billions of lightyears, at least, according to SR theory. Studying the Lorentz: xi = (x - vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) tau = (t - vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) suggests that, if one takes the limit v->c, that a photon is everywhere on its travel path at once, as both xi and tau reduce to 0/0 if x=ct. All we can tell is xi/tau = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2) = c * (x-vt)/(ct-vx/c) and if we substitute v = c, we get xi/tau = c * (x-ct)/(ct-cx/c) = c * (x-ct)/(ct-x) = -c. In a way, it's a bit like QM -- we know exactly how fast that photon is going but have no clue at all as to precisely where it is. > Its speed must be the result of a physical process. If > there is no ether then the source is surrounded by nothing which can > affect the progress of light therefore the speed of light must be source > dependent because there is nothing else physical it can be dependent > upon. But the source is not surrounded by nothing. It is surrounded by matter, defining a space-time metric. I'll admit I'm not entirely certain as to the details at this point, though. > If there is an ether then Lorentz has the copyright on the only version > which works. Einstein never found one. The idea that SR is not an ether [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > ether. A FoR is not physical. It is a mathematical abstraction. All FoR > map out the same physical space. I'm not sure what you mean by "map out" here. Of course one can define an arbitrary "absolute reference frame" and then use the Lorentz mapping (or a more involved counterpart if one wants to get into GR tensor space). > "It may be added that the whole change in the conception of > the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > The choice is between LET ether theory, OR no ether, source dependent > ballistic, theory. And what are the transformation equations between two reference frames in all of these theories? > You can of course join the majority and indulge in self deception > believing that Einstein came up with a third way. A non ether, ether > theory when there is no absolutely no evidence to suggest he did. As long as the math works, I'm not sure I care whether there's a luminiferous aether, or not. MMX showed that the luminiferous aether cannot be likened to river water, though (unless one wants to assume the canoe compresses therein!). I'm still a little dark regarding dark energy (dark matter may or may not be explainable by simply assuming that there's a lot of rocks out there :-) ). However, I for one don't think c' = c+v can be proven anytime soon; there are too many experiments suggesting otherwise. (MMX is not among them, however, although it did disprove that light is c relative to a fixed origin somewhere deep in space.) Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, John Kennaugh ><JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote >>>>> SR is plain rubbish. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >running around in the Universe, and therefore a slightly >extraneous concept. Hey Ghost, you have stolen my H-aether theory. >So in a way we have an aether, and we don't have an aether. :-) >I"m not sure I care as long as the math works. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >whether A and B are separated by a few inches or tens of billions >of lightyears, at least, according to SR theory.] Ghost, I was recently informed by a noted SRian that light cannot have a reference frame. >Studying the Lorentz: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >xi/tau = c * (x-ct)/(ct-cx/c) = c * (x-ct)/(ct-x) = -c. Ghost, we are talking about what we observe in OUR frame. >In a way, it's a bit like QM -- we know exactly how fast >that photon is going but have no clue at all as to precisely >where it is. The trouble with any statistical theory like QM is that it doesn't work too well with a sample size of one. >> Its speed must be the result of a physical process. If >> there is no ether then the source is surrounded by nothing which can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >matter, defining a space-time metric. I'll admit I'm not entirely >certain as to the details at this point, though. The source CAN be surrounded by nothing. >> If there is an ether then Lorentz has the copyright on the only version >> which works. Einstein never found one. The idea that SR is not an ether [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >And what are the transformation equations between two reference frames >in all of these theories? There are no transformations in the BaT. All frames are equal in an instantaneous universe. An IU can be achieved if all measurements are made with array of E-synched clocks or by compensating for light travel time (using c+v, of course) . >> You can of course join the majority and indulge in self deception >> believing that Einstein came up with a third way. A non ether, ether [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >otherwise. (MMX is not among them, however, although it did disprove >that light is c relative to a fixed origin somewhere deep in space.) Ghost, the MMX fully supports the BaT. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:53:57 GMT <ep9s319r56uj3qr424dsja9gvdt5q69v5l@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, John Kennaugh >><JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Hey Ghost, you have stolen my H-aether theory. Perhaps. However, *my* variant is fully in compliance with SR and is not disprovable anyway. Let's just say it's a working hypothesis. :-) >>So in a way we have an aether, and we don't have an aether. :-) >>I"m not sure I care as long as the math works. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Ghost, I was recently informed by a noted SRian that light cannot have a > reference frame. This is one reason why. >>Studying the Lorentz: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ghost, we are talking about what we observe in OUR frame. And what we observe is downright peculiar. All we know is that we got hit by a photon and might make a guess as to from whence it came. However, the double-slit experiment munges things horribly. That photon can interfere with *itself*. While not properly part of SR, there's no inherent invalidation thereof. >>In a way, it's a bit like QM -- we know exactly how fast >>that photon is going but have no clue at all as to precisely >>where it is. > > The trouble with any statistical theory like QM is that it > doesn't work too well with a sample size of one. True! Hence we make measurements on quadrillions or quintillions of photons. (For a 500 nm photon, E = hc / lamda = 3.973 * 10^-19 J. 1 quintillion = 10^18.) >>> Its speed must be the result of a physical process. If >>> there is no ether then the source is surrounded by nothing which can [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The source CAN be surrounded by nothing. Not around here it can't. The space-density is about 6 atoms per cubic centimeter near the vicinity of Earth. >>> If there is an ether then Lorentz has the copyright on the only version >>> which works. Einstein never found one. The idea that SR is not an ether [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > There are no transformations in the BaT. All frames are equal in an > instantaneous universe. And all inertial frames are equal in SR. Is there a problem here? > An IU can be achieved if all measurements are made with array > of E-synched clocks or by compensating for light travel time > (using c+v, of course). And how, precisely, do the clocks remain in sync? >>> You can of course join the majority and indulge in self deception >>> believing that Einstein came up with a third way. A non ether, ether [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ghost, the MMX fully supports the BaT. That it does, which is why one must modify it. The simplest mod I can think of is to aim it at Venus. We've aimed radar waves at Venus but I'm not sure if it's quite the same thing, although I suspect a large array of radiotelescopes picked up the return. [.sigsnip] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >>>Personally, I believe there *is* a luminferous aether -- but that >>>aether is not the one the classicists assumed. It is, instead, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >and is not disprovable anyway. Let's just say it's a working >hypothesis. :-) I think there is a lot of sense in my version (not yours) Space might be almost empty of matter but will always contain a little EM. EM will most probably interact with other EM in some way over long distances.. >>>So in a way we have an aether, and we don't have an aether. :-) >>>I"m not sure I care as long as the math works. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >That photon can interfere with *itself*. While not properly >part of SR, there's no inherent invalidation thereof. The double slit experiment merely shows that the fields of an individual photon (if such exists) extends to infinity...just like it would if it was made of two rotating opposite charges. >>>In a way, it's a bit like QM -- we know exactly how fast >>>that photon is going but have no clue at all as to precisely [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >of photons. (For a 500 nm photon, E = hc / lamda = 3.973 * 10^-19 J. >1 quintillion = 10^18.) Then we apply the probabilities to one photon. Absolutely stupid, eh! >>>> Its speed must be the result of a physical process. If >>>> there is no ether then the source is surrounded by nothing which can [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Not around here it can't. The space-density is about 6 atoms >per cubic centimeter near the vicinity of Earth. Which might be enough to cause some extinction. Does that space rotate with the Earth? >>>> The choice is between LET ether theory, OR no ether, source dependent >>>> ballistic, theory. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >And all inertial frames are equal in SR. Is there a problem here? No they are not. The BaT uses NM for velocity addition. All frames will agree on the speed of any object wrt any frame. In SR, relative speed in any frame depends on the observer speed relative to that frame. >> An IU can be achieved if all measurements are made with array >> of E-synched clocks or by compensating for light travel time >> (using c+v, of course). > >And how, precisely, do the clocks remain in sync? They are all mutually at rest so tey can be E-synched at any time. ..and as we now know, E-synching is 'absolute synching'. >>>> You can of course join the majority and indulge in self deception >>>> believing that Einstein came up with a third way. A non ether, ether [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >the same thing, although I suspect a large array of radiotelescopes >picked up the return. This is why I like arguing with you Ghost, you come up with the most outrageous if irrelevant ideas. >[.sigsnip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:22:38 GMT <grls319i7mivj70108qjvindl3oe7f896r@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > a little EM. EM will most probably interact with other EM in > some way over long distances.. Considering both EM's are bosons that's somewhat unlikely. >>>>So in a way we have an aether, and we don't have an aether. :-) >>>>I"m not sure I care as long as the math works. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > infinity...just like it would if it was made of two > rotating opposite charges. Interesting notion. Are you stating that photons do not exist, then? How do you explain the Compton and photoelectric effects, then? (Qualitatively will do.) >>>>In a way, it's a bit like QM -- we know exactly how fast >>>>that photon is going but have no clue at all as to precisely [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Which might be enough to cause some extinction. > Does that space rotate with the Earth? Yes it does, as it turns out. Just not very fast. :-) I'd have to look for the exact value, but Gravity Probe B will run for 2 years and should show some results, if GR is correct (either way, it will be interesting). >>>>> The choice is between LET ether theory, OR no ether, source dependent >>>>> ballistic, theory. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No they are not. > The BaT uses NM for velocity addition. And that means ... ? > All frames will agree on the speed of any object wrt any frame. What about lightspeed? > In SR, relative speed in any frame depends on the observer > speed relative to that frame. You need to be more specific. With frames K_0, K_1, and K_2, K_0 can deduce frame K_1's velocity relative to frame K_2's; however, the calculation must be done carefully, as it's not a simple subtraction. >>> An IU can be achieved if all measurements are made with array >>> of E-synched clocks or by compensating for light travel time [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They are all mutually at rest so tey can be E-synched at any time. > ..and as we now know, E-synching is 'absolute synching'. Ah, so if we put a clock on a very tall pedestal and synchronize it with a clock on the base -- oh, wait, the Earth's rotating. Not that it matters; even if the Earth were completely still and suspended in otherwise free space, the clocks would still drift out of sync. This is of course a GR effect. But even with no gravitational anomalies (other than the extremely small ones caused by the mass of the clocks) they won't stay in sync if they are moving relative to one another. >>>>> You can of course join the majority and indulge in self deception >>>>> believing that Einstein came up with a third way. A non ether, ether [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > This is why I like arguing with you Ghost, you come up with the > most outrageous if irrelevant ideas. Ah, so the radar waves aimed at Venus are proof of the BaT, despite the stated conclusion at the time that they confirm GR? You'll have to show the math on that. (And I'll probably have to find the actual data. Grump.) >>[.sigsnip] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Considering both EM's are bosons that's somewhat unlikely. well, they are both 'fields' too Ghost. Fields can interact. >>>>>So in a way we have an aether, and we don't have an aether. :-) >>>>>I"m not sure I care as long as the math works. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >How do you explain the Compton and photoelectric effects, then? >(Qualitatively will do.) I said 'IF'. But until somebody comes up with a decent model of a photon, how can it be possible to fully accept the concept? >>>> The source CAN be surrounded by nothing. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Yes it does, as it turns out. Just not very fast. :-) Ah! Aether drag! >I'd have to look for the exact value, but Gravity Probe B >will run for 2 years and should show some results, if >GR is correct (either way, it will be interesting). GR isn't correct. But it sometimes gives the same answer as the correct model. >> The BaT uses NM for velocity addition. > >And that means ... ? w=u+v >> All frames will agree on the speed of any object wrt any frame. > >What about lightspeed? Light moving at c in one frame will move at c+v in a frame moving at v wrt the first one. All observers in all frames will agree on this. >> In SR, relative speed in any frame depends on the observer >> speed relative to that frame. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >however, the calculation must be done carefully, as it's >not a simple subtraction. Just use Einstein's equation. w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) >>>> An IU can be achieved if all measurements are made with array >>>> of E-synched clocks or by compensating for light travel time [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >were completely still and suspended in otherwise free space, >the clocks would still drift out of sync. You got me Ghost. E-synching can only be done in flat gravity. That is because light slows down on the way up and speeds up on the way down. The effect is usually very small though. A correction can probably be easily made. >This is of course a GR effect. But even with no gravitational >anomalies (other than the extremely small ones caused by the >mass of the clocks) they won't stay in sync if they are >moving relative to one another. They are all held in a giant 3D array with identical rods. >>>> Ghost, the MMX fully supports the BaT. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >You'll have to show the math on that. (And I'll probably have to >find the actual data. Grump.) Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to here Ghost. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:46:34 GMT <42ct31tkq6cid6gej42v4kkhefqvql14q9@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Fields can interact. Actually, pairs of fields. I'll admit I have no idea how an electric field and a magnetic field can combine to produce a photon that then doesn't react with electric fields or magnetic fields. But then, I'm not up on electrodynamics. >>>>>>So in a way we have an aether, and we don't have an aether. :-) >>>>>>I"m not sure I care as long as the math works. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > But until somebody comes up with a decent model of a photon, > how can it be possible to fully accept the concept? So photons don't exist yet light can behave as though it were a wave and a particle? >>>>> The source CAN be surrounded by nothing. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > w=u+v Which is of course the correct formula. No Einsteinia need apply. (Despite the evidence.) >>> All frames will agree on the speed of any object wrt any frame. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > moving at v wrt the first one. > All observers in all frames will agree on this. They all agree anyway. >>> In SR, relative speed in any frame depends on the observer >>> speed relative to that frame. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Just use Einstein's equation. > w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) No, can't do that; Einstein's Theory has been discredited. Or haven't you heard about the new results relating PSR J1141-6545 and PSR B1913+16 that prove BaT? </sarcasm> >>>>> An IU can be achieved if all measurements are made with array >>>>> of E-synched clocks or by compensating for light travel time [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > They are all held in a giant 3D array with identical rods. Sort of like http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/lattice.html then. >>>>> Ghost, the MMX fully supports the BaT. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to here Ghost. Most likely it's: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v26/i18/p1132_1 or, more formally, Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result Irwin I. Shapiro, Michael E. Ash, Richard P. Ingalls, and William B. Smith, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02319 Donald B. Campbell, Rolf B. Dyce, Raymond F. Jurgens, and Gordon H. Pettengill, Arecibo Observatory, Arecibo, Puerto Rico Received 15 March 1971 Unfortunately I'm not a subscriber. [.sigsnip] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:46:34 GMT ><42ct31tkq6cid6gej42v4kkhefqvql14q9@4ax.com>: >>>> I think there is a lot of sense in my version (not yours) >>>> Space might be almost empty of matter but will always contain [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >fields or magnetic fields. But then, I'm not up >on electrodynamics. Makes one realise how primative physics really is at present. I would like to be around in 200 years time to see if some of these big questions have been resolved. >>>> The double slit experiment merely shows that the fields >>>> of an individual photon (if such exists) extends to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >So photons don't exist yet light can behave as though it >were a wave and a particle? That, in itself, raises huge unanswered questions. It is fair to assume that a quantity of energy is released when an electron transition occurs. It is NOT fair to assume that this entire amount of energy constitutes ONE 'photon'. >>>>>> The source CAN be surrounded by nothing. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >They all agree anyway. but with a different value. >>>> In SR, relative speed in any frame depends on the observer >>>> speed relative to that frame. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >haven't you heard about the new results relating PSR J1141-6545 >and PSR B1913+16 that prove BaT? ></sarcasm> They probably do.... but nobody will consider it. >>>> They are all mutually at rest so tey can be E-synched at any time. >>>> ..and as we now know, E-synching is 'absolute synching'. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >then. Very similar. Mine has an infinite number of clocks and infinitesimal spacing between them. >>>>>> Ghost, the MMX fully supports the BaT. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result My theory also predicts an increased delay because both planets are smaller than Earth. Thus, the average light speed will be less than c in both directions. Simple eh? No big equations, either. > Irwin I. Shapiro, Michael E. Ash, Richard P. Ingalls, and William > B. Smith, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >[.sigsnip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. >>Paul B. Andersen writes >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >They can't. I note I did not get a response from Paul. Neither did you with your similar question. "So, actually WHAT does the clock count?" There is a tie up between frequency and energy. This would suggest one of the following. 1/ That a photon rotates and the faster it rotates the more energy it contains. 2/ A photon vibrates and the faster it vibrates the more energy it contains. 3/ A photon does not have a frequency, only energy and when it comes into contact with matter some fundamental property of matter makes it vibrate at different frequencies depending on the energy you hit it with. SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal > In message <sp49315as4rrvkooq5mcnt42gi5dl83583@4ax.com>, Henri Wilson > <H@?.?.?.invalid> writes > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > 1/ That a photon rotates and the faster it rotates the more energy it > contains. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 3/ A photon does not have a frequency, only energy and when it comes > into contact with matter some fundamental property of matter makes it > vibrate at different frequencies depending on the energy you hit it > with. > -- We can rule out #1: A photon is not a rigid body and therefore does not rotate in the usual sense. We can rule out #3: photons have measurable frequency bands, percieved as color to the eye. We are left with #2... but this is an oversimplification. Remember that when you talk about photons, you are talking about discrete packets of wave radiation from electronic transitions in atoms. The more energy in the transition, the faster the jump - and the faster the frequency of the emitted radiation. Maybe that helps? Cheers - >> In message <sp49315as4rrvkooq5mcnt42gi5dl83583@4ax.com>, Henri Wilson > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >We can rule out #3: photons have measurable frequency bands, percieved >as color to the eye. How naive can one get! >We are left with #2... but this is an oversimplification. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Maybe that helps? Not at all. There is no known periodicity associated with an individual photon. >Cheers - HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. > >> In message <sp49315as4rrvkooq5mcnt42gi5dl83583@4ax.com>, Henri Wilson > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There is no known periodicity associated with an individual photon. OK Henri, what about the periodicity associated with the fluctuating electric field? Each photon has an envelope in frequency space of fluctuating field, perhaps you are claiming that there is not only a single periodicity? You can tell the differnece between photons emitted by excited neon and argon atoms just by looking. The difference is the frequency. >> >> In message <sp49315as4rrvkooq5mcnt42gi5dl83583@4ax.com>, Henri >Wilson [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >You can tell the differnece between photons emitted by excited neon and >argon atoms just by looking. The difference is the frequency. To exhibit a 'frequency' something must go 'boom', 'boom', boom', 'boom', 'boom'.......... at regular intervals. What aspect of a single photon does this? The only property of light that has ever been measured is its 'wavelength'...and nobody is quite sure what that entails either. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. > >> >> In message <sp49315as4rrvkooq5mcnt42gi5dl83583@4ax.com>, Henri > >Wilson [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > To exhibit a 'frequency' something must go 'boom', 'boom', boom', 'boom', > 'boom'.......... at regular intervals. The only photons I have ever identified had an atom in the middle of them. When you put your ear up close, the 'boom', boom', 'boom' just barely sounds like a 'peep', 'peep', 'peep' . With some digitial siginal processing, steerable tail fins and ordinance payloads the 'boom', boom', 'boom' of a GPS clock is clearly audible. > What aspect of a single photon does this? The spin reversal of the single electrons of the atom in the center of the photon does this. It requires more energy to flip a toy gyroscope at sea-level than at altitude. ;-) > The only property of light that has ever been measured is its > 'wavelength'...and nobody is quite sure what that entails either. Oh ? When the electric field reverses polarity [periodically :-) ] at a point, the change in electric field propagates at the speed of light for the permeability and permittivity in the neighborhood of the change. Sue... > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. >> >> >> In message <sp49315as4rrvkooq5mcnt42gi5dl83583@4ax.com>, Henri >> >Wilson [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >It requires more energy to flip a toy gyroscope at sea-level >than at altitude. ;-) :) >> The only property of light that has ever been measured is its >> 'wavelength'...and nobody is quite sure what that entails either. >Oh ? >When the electric field reverses polarity [periodically :-) ] at a point, >the change in electric field propagates at the speed of light for >the permeability and permittivity in the neighborhood of the change. That's OK in theory. In fact I have made an animation of it: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/E-field.exe Is that what you had in mind? Is that your idea of an individual photon? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. > >> >> >> In message <sp49315as4rrvkooq5mcnt42gi5dl83583@4ax.com>, Henri > >> >Wilson [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Is that your idea of an individual photon? If the atom is moving left to right that might be a fair representation.. The spatial distribution doesn't look Gaussian to me tho' ;-) My point was: I can think of only two reasons to refer to photons without their associated atom.. 1 So you can account for energy statistically 2 To avoid learning EM propagation modes. Imagine the electric field of a hydrogen atom's electron sticking out from a surface. Then flip the atom over so the pr[r]oton is sticking out. You should see a single ripple spread over the surface at about SoL . You don't how much energy it took to flip the atom so you can't call it a a ph[h]oton. Sue... > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. >> >> The only property of light that has ever been measured is its >> >> 'wavelength'...and nobody is quite sure what that entails either. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >a fair representation.. The spatial distribution doesn't >look Gaussian to me tho' ;-) No I cheated. I think it is a sine curve...much easier! >My point was: I can think of only two reasons to refer >to photons without their associated atom.. >1 So you can account for energy statistically >2 To avoid learning EM propagation modes. But it DOES propagate somehow. >Imagine the electric field of a hydrogen atom's electron >sticking out from a surface. Then flip the atom over so >the pr[r]oton is sticking out. You should see a single ripple >spread over the surface at about SoL . You don't how >much energy it took to flip the atom so you can't call it a >a ph[h]oton. Hmmm! >Sue... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. > >> >> In message <sp49315as4rrvkooq5mcnt42gi5dl83583@4ax.com>, Henri > >Wilson [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Some more clock stuff: << The electron spin resonance spectrum of a free radical or coordination complex with one unpaired electron is the simplest of all forms of spectroscopy. The degeneracy of the electron spin states characterized by the quantum number, mS = ±1/2, is lifted by the application of a magnetic field and transitions between the spin levels are induced by radiation of the appropriate frequency, as shown in Figure 1.1. If unpaired electrons in radicals were indistinguishable from free electrons, the only information content of an ESR spectrum would be the integrated intensity, proportional to the radical concentration. Fortunately, an un-paired electron interacts with its environment, and the details of ESR spectra depend on the nature of those interactions. >> http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/emr/Phil/Phil_1/p_1.html ============================================= Atomic Number: 55 Atomic Symbol: Cs Atomic Weight: 132.9054 Electron Configuration: 2-8-18-18-8-1 Atomic Number: 37 Atomic Symbol: Rb Atomic Weight: 85.4678 Electron Configuration: 2-8-18-8-1 Atomic Number: 80 Atomic Symbol: Hg Atomic Weight: 200.59 Electron Configuration: 2-8-18-32-18-2 ============================================= http://www.corrosionsource.com/handbook/periodic/perd_pg.htm Magnetic Interactions and the Lande' g-Factor http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/lande.html << NPL researchers have demonstrated a new kind of atomic clock that has the potential to be up to 1,000 times more accurate than today's best clock. The new clock is based on an energy transition in a single trapped mercury ion (a mercury atom that is missing one electron). Building a clock based on such a high-frequency transition was previously impractical because it requires both "capturing" the ion and holding it very still to get accurate readings, and having a mechanism that can "count" the ticks accurately at such a high frequency. >> http://www.atomic-clock.galleon.eu.com/atomic-clock/atomic-clock.htm Characterization of a cold cesium source for PARCS: http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/1487.pdf http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/parcs.htm http://www.4physics.com/phy_demo/at_clock/at_clock.htm Sue... >> To exhibit a 'frequency' something must go 'boom', 'boom', boom', 'boom', >> 'boom'.......... at regular intervals. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > >Sue... I'll look them up. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. > To exhibit a 'frequency' something must go 'boom', 'boom', boom', 'boom', > 'boom'.......... at regular intervals. > > What aspect of a single photon does this? The electric field goes "boom, boom, boom" - where each "boom" represents a peak strength in the field. > The only property of light that has ever been measured is its > 'wavelength'...and nobody is quite sure what that entails either. What's new? (scroll down) c/lamda Dear shevek: >> To exhibit a 'frequency' something must go >> 'boom', 'boom', boom', 'boom', 'boom'.......... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > where each "boom" represents a peak strength > in the field. Sorry to step in. A single photon propagates at c. The E field is therefore constant. Only for a sub-c frame does the E-field change, and then only for a bunch of photons (aka. a signal). >> The only property of light that has ever been >> measured is its 'wavelength'...and nobody is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > c/lamda We can't measure wavelength or frequency for a single photon. Only energy. Any structures raised up to infer wavelength, can only do so for a large statistical population. David A. Smith > Dear shevek: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is therefore constant. Only for a sub-c frame does the E-field > change, and then only for a bunch of photons (aka. a signal). OK, thanks for the caveat. Yes, for any wave there exists a reference frame in which the oscillating quantity is constant. I was speaking in the lab frame. Why is light emitted from a single atom not a signal? Because it cannot be detected? > >> The only property of light that has ever been > >> measured is its 'wavelength'...and nobody is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Only energy. Any structures raised up to infer wavelength, can > only do so for a large statistical population. We can infer wavelength and frequency for a single photon, by using a large population as you said. For example, a laer. Of course, there isn't really a single frequency.. rather a bandwidth in frequency space. No such thing as pure monochromatic radiation. Cheers - Dear shevek: >> Dear shevek: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > there exists a reference frame in which the > oscillating quantity is constant. Can't really use the word "frame" here. Rather say that the maxima of the signal propagates as fast as the photons. So E could in fact be representative of photon intensity. > I was speaking in > the lab frame. Why is light emitted from a > single atom not a signal? > Because it cannot be detected? It doesn't carry much information. You cannot tell from any single photon anything more than *perhaps* its minimal energy. You can't tell what process created it, how far way (or long ago) it was emitted, or how fast that source was moving. A signal implies something is being conveyed *other* than "Boom". >> >> The only property of light that has ever been >> >> measured is its 'wavelength'...and nobody is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > a bandwidth in frequency space. No such > thing as pure monochromatic radiation. Reality is nothing if not *interesting* and "anti plain". Over and out. David A. Smith > Dear shevek: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > it was emitted, or how fast that source was moving. A signal > implies something is being conveyed *other* than "Boom". Well, you can tell if you know something already about the system. If |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message