|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#931
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ... : On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:33:40 GMT, "Androcles" : wrote: : : : "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message : .. . : : On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 05:31:46 -0800 (PST), Jerry : : : wrote: : : : : On Dec 9, 2:28 am, "Androcles" wrote: : : "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in : messagenews:dv2nl3pccam5mq0dk3ue6c90pea8ekv003@4a x.com... : : : : : He/she/it has dropped out of the Sagnac argument....apparently : defeated.th : : : : Maybe the bozo took up my challenge and is trying desperately : : to model Sagnac to run on our non-relativistic computers. : : That ****ing idiot Tusseladd's latest attempt is to model : : satellites and change numbers to suit his clocks, but he can't : : change the computer's clock. : : : : I've long since -won- the argument in the opinions of the : : individuals on this newsgroup who actually know anything : : about the subject. Certainly not you two Bozos, whose : : ability to follow rational argument is nil. : : : : Please don't ever categorise me with Androcles. : : Yes, I agree with that, you are the bozo that claims : : "In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" : : : Only a real idiot would keep on quoting typos. Still waiting for the real idiot to 'fess up his blunder. : "There is NO WAVELENGTH SHIFT at the observer." : : : That is correct according to my established definition. Your definition is not established. BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? : Your photon model doesn't even possess a 'wavelength'. Correct. Wavelength is relative velocity dependent. w = (c-v)/f, an equation you don't understand and deny. Your cigar-shaped photons are STOOOPID and you have no equation for them. : : : Meanwhile, my priority is to maintain my 3.87+ GPA in : : medical school. Arguing with arrogant crackpots is not : : a priority. : : : : There are plenty of those here...preaching the nonsense called relativty. : : : 3.87 (out of 4.0) for a medic means the patient is only slightly : dead. Jeery gets high marks for bed pans and folding neat corners : on the sheets. It looks nice when the relatives come to identify : the body. |
#932
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:17:43 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message .. . : : I've long since -won- the argument in the opinions of the : : individuals on this newsgroup who actually know anything : : about the subject. Certainly not you two Bozos, whose : : ability to follow rational argument is nil. : : : : Please don't ever categorise me with Androcles. : : Yes, I agree with that, you are the bozo that claims : : "In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" : : : Only a real idiot would keep on quoting typos. Still waiting for the real idiot to 'fess up his blunder. ....and how's the COMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION coming along? : "There is NO WAVELENGTH SHIFT at the observer." : : : That is correct according to my established definition. Your definition is not established. BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? Listen you silly old pommie engineer, a spinning wheel does NOT have a wavelength. : Your photon model doesn't even possess a 'wavelength'. Correct. Wavelength is relative velocity dependent. Not so. All lengths are absolute.....unless you believe in Einstein or Lorentz .. w = (c-v)/f, an equation you don't understand and deny. ....for a continuous wave.. Your cigar-shaped photons are STOOOPID and you have no equation for them. Do you know why a violin string is stroked where it is? Do you know the equation of a standing wave. How about its harmonics? Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#933
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ... : On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:17:43 GMT, "Androcles" : wrote: : : : "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message : .. . : : : : I've long since -won- the argument in the opinions of the : : : individuals on this newsgroup who actually know anything : : : about the subject. Certainly not you two Bozos, whose : : : ability to follow rational argument is nil. : : : : : : Please don't ever categorise me with Androcles. : : : : Yes, I agree with that, you are the bozo that claims : : : : "In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" : : : : : : Only a real idiot would keep on quoting typos. : : Still waiting for the real idiot to 'fess up his blunder. : : ...and how's the COMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION coming along? : : : "There is NO WAVELENGTH SHIFT at the observer." : : : : : : That is correct according to my established definition. : : Your definition is not established. : BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? : : Listen you silly old pommie engineer, a spinning wheel does NOT have a : wavelength. Listen you idiotic old ozzie imbecile, physicists do NOT have a brain. Listen you stupid old ozzie cretin, birds do NOT have fishscales. BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? : : : Your photon model doesn't even possess a 'wavelength'. : : Correct. Wavelength is relative velocity dependent. : : Not so. Listen you idiotic old ozzie imbecile, physicists do NOT have a brain. Listen you stupid old ozzie cretin, fish do NOT have feathers. BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? : All lengths are absolute.....unless you believe in Einstein or Lorentz : . : w = (c-v)/f, an equation you don't understand and deny. : : ...for a continuous wave.. BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? : : Your cigar-shaped photons are STOOOPID and you have : no equation for them. : : Do you know why a violin string is stroked where it is? BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? Do you know the : equation of a standing wave. How about its harmonics? BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? |
#934
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:42:20 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message .. . : Your definition is not established. : BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? : : Listen you silly old pommie engineer, a spinning wheel does NOT have a : wavelength. Listen you idiotic old ozzie imbecile, physicists do NOT have a brain. Listen you stupid old ozzie cretin, birds do NOT have fishscales. BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? There was no Dr. Wavelength. : : Your photon model doesn't even possess a 'wavelength'. : : Correct. Wavelength is relative velocity dependent. : : Not so. Listen you idiotic old ozzie imbecile, physicists do NOT have a brain. Listen you stupid old ozzie cretin, fish do NOT have feathers. BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? ........got the stutters again..... : All lengths are absolute.....unless you believe in Einstein or Lorentz : . : w = (c-v)/f, an equation you don't understand and deny. : : ...for a continuous wave.. BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? ........got the stutters again..... : Your cigar-shaped photons are STOOOPID and you have : no equation for them. : : Do you know why a violin string is stroked where it is? BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? ........got the stutters again..... Do you know the : equation of a standing wave. How about its harmonics? BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? ........got the stutters again..... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#935
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ... : On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:42:20 GMT, "Androcles" : wrote: : : : "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message : .. . : : : Your definition is not established. : : BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? : : : : Listen you silly old pommie engineer, a spinning wheel does NOT have a : : wavelength. : : Listen you idiotic old ozzie imbecile, physicists do NOT have a brain. : Listen you stupid old ozzie cretin, birds do NOT have fishscales. : BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? : : There was no Dr. Wavelength. I'd probably enjoy drinking with you, we still wouldn't get anywhere but you are funnier than Dork Van de merde. I'd kick his ****ing head in and get arrested. With you I'd fall on the floor laughing and get arrested. Can't win for losing. BTW, there is no Dame Frequency, and it is Sir Wavelength to you. : : : : Your photon model doesn't even possess a 'wavelength'. : : : : Correct. Wavelength is relative velocity dependent. : : : : Not so. : : Listen you idiotic old ozzie imbecile, physicists do NOT have a brain. : Listen you stupid old ozzie cretin, fish do NOT have feathers. : : BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? : : .......got the stutters again..... It's your round. : : : All lengths are absolute.....unless you believe in Einstein or Lorentz : : . : : w = (c-v)/f, an equation you don't understand and deny. : : : : ...for a continuous wave.. : BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? : : .......got the stutters again..... It's still your round. : : : Your cigar-shaped photons are STOOOPID and you have : : no equation for them. : : : : Do you know why a violin string is stroked where it is? : BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? : : .......got the stutters again..... Mine's a Glenlivet. Stop staring at the barmaid, that's hair, not wool. : : Do you know the : : equation of a standing wave. How about its harmonics? : : BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? : : .......got the stutters again..... Are you going to get your round? BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift? |
#936
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:08:38 +0000, John Kennaugh wrote: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:59:42 +0000, John Kennaugh wrote: Surely one works out what its structure needs to be in order that it can do what it does. Then and only then can you claim to know (or think you know) what its structure is. Physics hasn't done that and therefore can make no claims as to the structure of a photon. It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be considered as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind. This fits in with the BaTh explanation of Sagnac and diffraction, amongst other phenomena. The nature of that oscillation is not known but I suspect it could be a rotating +/- charge pair This was my suggestion some time back. If you think about it Maxwell's equations are built solely on relationships relating to charge - Faraday having shown that magnetism is caused by moving charge. As Maxwell's equations model light very well that success means there must be a link between light and charge therefore there must be a link between photons and charge. I currently think a photon in transit is not just a 'spinning wheel' but looks something like this: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg I am not saying it is wrong but it reminds me a bit too much of the 'wave packet' idea which doesn't really work. The fields are oscillating and form a standing wave along the photon's length. Each photon has a well defined INTRINSIC 'wavelength' that is absolute and the same in all frames. You can see my model oscillating and moving (in reality at c wrt its source) at http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/E-field.exe Physics is undisciplined because it has turned its back on the idea that maths and physical interpretation compliment each other and now physical interpretation is considered an unnecessary adjunct to theory. If one insists on maintaining that discipline see where it leads. If there is no aether (as believed by mainstream physics) then it cannot be responsible for action at a distance forces. There is no obvious alternative explanation so one might ask if one is actually needed. Ultimately all force acts at a distance and one is lead to the conclusion that although counter intuitive, one should accept this as fundamental without need of explanation. If so, then a 'field' becomes a 'field of influence'. A mapping of the direction and amplitude of the force which *would* act on a charge *if* a charge were placed at a given point. In which case a field is not physical but metaphysical it cannot exist without a source of influence and cannot store energy (because it isn't physical) nor propagate through space as a separate entity. If there is no aether then a field is a metaphysical 'field of influence' and cannot exist without a source of that influence so if photons have fields associated with them they must contain charge. I agree with that. I am now wondering if each photon consists of an individual package of 'the stuff that fields are made of'. Since photons are apparently everywhere, so is the 'stuff'. Even though the individual photons are moving, does the 'stuff they carry' form a kind of continuous aether? ...just a thought.... You are in a sense re-running the argument of Einstein. "The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, [stress in the aether JK] but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else [ a field is some sort of physical 'stuff' JK], exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz's theory, electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter, brings impulse and energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of energy. More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it." AE 1920 Basically if you want physically real fields the choices are to either stick with some sort of aether in which case a field is a stress in that aether or assume a field is some sort of physical stuff. He concluded that the 'stuff' idea is more of a problem than sticking with the aether. Modern aetherists I believe think that there is *only aether*, that the particles of matter are simply 'different sorts of stable knots in the aether' - my description - I'm sure they put it more scientifically. It has some attractions. If you think of things like experiments done at CERN one can think of the resultant short lived particles as 'unstable knots in the aether' and one does not need to categorise them assume that they have any particular significance. At one time the list of particles was absurdly long until they decided to re-classify some interactions as 'resonances' to prune it down to the 'standard model'. or something like a standing wave running along the length of the photon 'envelope'. Photons also have effective 'cross section and length', If photons contain rotating charge then they produce a surrounding field. You therefore have both the physical cross section but an effective width beyond that to the extent of the field. Yes. Even a pair of spinning charges should generate a similar field that operates withing a 'volume'. which explains the double slit experiment. I am told that even if the light level is reduced such that photons arrive singly at a double slit, interference fringes are detected, 'interference' still takes place. I beg to differ. Not as I understand interference at any rate. If two sine waves each amplitude unity are interfering with each other then depending on the phase the result is anything from an amplitude of 2 to 0 and *any amplitude in between* e.g. an amplitude of say 0.333 is perfectly possible. In the case of photons you cannot have 0.333 of a photon. Although the result might be mathematically similar to interference in fact either a whole photon arrives at a point on the detector, or doesn't. A maximum may indeed be a build up of photons each adding to the intensity but a minimum is not where two things have cancelled. The slits somehow determine the probability that a photon will travel in any given direction, the probability of travelling in some directions being much higher than in others. Thus a fringe pattern is built up over time. A minimum represents a direction with a very low probability where very few photons have arrived. Explaining this behaviour is a difficult matter but at least let us be clear about what it is we are trying to explain and not go into fantasy land and suggest that a photon becomes a wave and passes through both slits and interferes with itself as I have seen suggested. If it did you could get 0.333 of a photon. Now if you study the original double slit experiment the slits are illuminated by a single slit. Without such things as lasers this is necessary so as to select a small area of the source in order that the light from it is sufficiently coherent to give interference fringes. For an ordinary source photons are given off in large coherent bursts (all oscillating in phase). If you take the light from two big an area you collect bursts of different phases (there is also something called temporal coherence which is that light from the same spot but later in time will not cause interference with earlier light from the same spot). I was hoping my model might explain this. http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg The thing is oscilating. The diffracted angle depends on the phase of the intrinsic field on arrival at the slits. A small portion of the individual photon is deflected to an angle that somehow depends on that phase.....I don't know how 'wavelength' comes into the picture though. OK now here is my question. If a single photons will produce 'interference' fringes how come incoherent light prevents interference fringes? CMIIW but I don't think that's true for incoherent MONOCHROMATIC light. I think you will find it is. My understanding is that there is a parameter called coherent length. Imagine an interferometer - the MMX apparatus will do. Now suppose you lengthen one arm. The fringes move obviously but at some point you stop getting interference patterns because the light which sets out later has no fixed phase relationship with that which sets out earlier. They even quote a coherence length for lasers so even laser light is not completely coherent although the very best are as near as damn-it. Coherence length is related to temporal coherence - how long it remains coherent. Spatial coherence relates to how far apart light from two parts of a source can be before you lose interference fringes. Anyway that is my understanding and if so my question is a valid one. We take it for granted that the material in which the slits are cut plays no part in it the process but you wouldn't use transparent material would you? If you wanted to do the experiment at RF you would have to make the slits in metal as that is not transparent to RF. Just as with the optical experiment you would select the size of the slit to give best results - clearest fringes. Now I am an electronics engineer but aerial design is not something I know too much about but I think that that arrangement at RF would be described as two slot antenna. The excitation of those slots not being the RF which manages to make it through the slots but the metal plate as a whole being excited by the incident RF energy and being re-radiated by the slots. Even if you think of an optical double slit as a shooting gallery where some photons go through and some do not the geometry is such that more photons will miss the slots than go through. One cannot simply ignore them and say they play no further part. It is possible that those which do not go through the slits play as important a role as those which do. That they in some way prime the fields which exist in the slots in such a way that the next photon passing through them is deflected by an angle whose probability is effected by the previous photons - including those which didn't go through. I don't think you need to worry about that. A single photon has a finite cross section. Some of it passes through each slit and presumably disperses a little. The amount of reinforcement and hence diffracted angle depends on the relationship between the (phase?) properties of the 'two bits' as they meet. Maybe. Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its source?....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless or does it slowly lose energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift). If it wasn't lossless what would become of the energy lost? Part of the CMBR Ok. So a light photon would be giving off low frequency, low energy radio photons. It might work. Continuously or whenever it contacts a charged particle? Extinction is based on the estimate that there are sufficient charged particles in space for a photon to interact with one every 3 light years (or something like that). If each such interaction was not totally loss free that would produce red shift even if the oscillator itself was loss free. I read somewhere that red shift is quantized. A thought occurred to me as follows. Suppose we are somewhere near the centre of the universe. The radius of the universe is 14billion light year so I am told i.e radius = 1.4 ^10 light years = 1.23^14 light seconds = 3.68^22 m Circumference = 2.3^23 m 1 degree of arc = 6.4^20 m If the universe was as a whole rotating at a rate of 1 degree every 68,500 years the periferal speed would be 0.99c redshifting anything at that distance down to radio frequency. Why should we assume the universe isn't rotating? Rotation is the norm for just about everything within it. If the universe as a whole isn't rotating about its centre of gravity it is the only thing which isn't. I am trying to get my hands on an article by Waldron: Waldron R.A. 1983b "the spinning photon" SST 6,259 I believe SST may stand for "Speculations in Science and Technology". You might be interested in Waldron, R. A., 1981b. "Is the Universe Really Expanding?" SST 4, 539. will look. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm -- John Kennaugh |
#937
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:28:55 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:08:38 +0000, John Kennaugh wrote: I currently think a photon in transit is not just a 'spinning wheel' but looks something like this: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg I am not saying it is wrong but it reminds me a bit too much of the 'wave packet' idea which doesn't really work. ....but it is pretty well established that light IS transmitted in some kind of individual 'packets'. It is also claimed that individual photons will diffract and over time will produce the same accumulated diffraction pattern of a full beam. This means that each photon MUST possess some kind of continuous wave as an intrinsic feature since the laws of diffraction require that successive 'cycles' exist. The fields are oscillating and form a standing wave along the photon's length. Each photon has a well defined INTRINSIC 'wavelength' that is absolute and the same in all frames. You can see my model oscillating and moving (in reality at c wrt its source) at http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/E-field.exe If there is no aether then a field is a metaphysical 'field of influence' and cannot exist without a source of that influence so if photons have fields associated with them they must contain charge. I agree with that. I am now wondering if each photon consists of an individual package of 'the stuff that fields are made of'. Since photons are apparently everywhere, so is the 'stuff'. Even though the individual photons are moving, does the 'stuff they carry' form a kind of continuous aether? ...just a thought.... You are in a sense re-running the argument of Einstein. "The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, [stress in the aether JK] but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else [ a field is some sort of physical 'stuff' JK], exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz's theory, electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter, brings impulse and energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of energy. More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it." AE 1920 Basically if you want physically real fields the choices are to either stick with some sort of aether in which case a field is a stressmus be associated wth 'stuff', for want of a better word. in that aether or assume a field is some sort of physical stuff. He concluded that the 'stuff' idea is more of a problem than sticking with the aether. Modern aetherists I believe think that there is *only aether*, that the particles of matter are simply 'different sorts of stable knots in the aether' - my description - I'm sure they put it more scientifically. It has some attractions. If you think of things like experiments done at CERN one can think of the resultant short lived particles as 'unstable knots in the aether' and one does not need to categorise them assume that they have any particular significance. At one time the list of particles was absurdly long until they decided to re-classify some interactions as 'resonances' to prune it down to the 'standard model'. One of the big unanswered questions is, "what makes a field?"...or more precisely..."what makes space in which a field exists different from space devoid of fields?" So far, physics has not made any progress in answering this question. Like all scientists of the day, Einstein was aware that fields must be associated with some kind of 'stuff', for want of a better word. My idea is that each photon carries its own little bit of 'stuff' along with it. Since photons are everywhere, the whole universe is virtually filled with it to varying degrees. This does in no way resemble the classical absolute aether concept since each portion is moving in a particular direction and there are vast density variations. I suppose it could be likened to a typical gas, with the whole photon capsule constituting something like a thermally moving molecule. I have previously put forward the idea that fields could be made of 'matter of a second mass dimension'. I was hoping my model might explain this. http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg The thing is oscilating. The diffracted angle depends on the phase of the intrinsic field on arrival at the slits. A small portion of the individual photon is deflected to an angle that somehow depends on that phase.....I don't know how 'wavelength' comes into the picture though. OK now here is my question. If a single photons will produce 'interference' fringes how come incoherent light prevents interference fringes? CMIIW but I don't think that's true for incoherent MONOCHROMATIC light. I think you will find it is. My understanding is that there is a parameter called coherent length. Imagine an interferometer - the MMX apparatus will do. Now suppose you lengthen one arm. The fringes move obviously but at some point you stop getting interference patterns because the light which sets out later has no fixed phase relationship with that which sets out earlier. They even quote a coherence length for lasers so even laser light is not completely coherent although the very best are as near as damn-it. Coherence length is related to temporal coherence - how long it remains coherent. Spatial coherence relates to how far apart light from two parts of a source can be before you lose interference fringes. Anyway that is my understanding and if so my question is a valid one. Yes, what you say is probably correct for interferometers or anything that involves fringes...but I was thinking in terms of broader aspects of interference, including gratings, thin films etc. In fact there are plenty of examples of interference involving only sunlight. But that's another matter..... To get back to your question, it is fair to say that in experiments where single photons are used, the idea of coherence is not relevant anyway for obvious reasons. My theory explains why interference patterns produced by single monochromatic photons passing through double slits are the same as those of a whole beam. It doesn't matter if the beam is coherent or not. I don't think you need to worry about that. A single photon has a finite cross section. Some of it passes through each slit and presumably disperses a little. The amount of reinforcement and hence diffracted angle depends on the relationship between the (phase?) properties of the 'two bits' as they meet. Maybe. It's a theory anyway.... that appears to explain what is still a mystery. Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its source?....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless or does it slowly lose energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift). If it wasn't lossless what would become of the energy lost? Part of the CMBR Ok. So a light photon would be giving off low frequency, low energy radio photons. It might work. Continuously or whenever it contacts a charged particle? Extinction is based on the estimate that there are sufficient charged particles in space for a photon to interact with one every 3 light years (or something like that). If each such interaction was not totally loss free that would produce red shift even if the oscillator itself was loss free. I read somewhere that red shift is quantized. There is a problem though. The radiated EM would have to be emiited in approximately the same direction as the original photon or the latter would be sent off course and all distant images would be blurred. This has given ME a thought....maybe the red shift is caused by an internal arrangement of the harmonics of the intrinsic wave itself. ....but I wont go into that till I think more about it.. A thought occurred to me as follows. Suppose we are somewhere near the centre of the universe. The radius of the universe is 14billion light year so I am told i.e radius = 1.4 ^10 light years = 1.23^14 light seconds = 3.68^22 m Circumference = 2.3^23 m 1 degree of arc = 6.4^20 m If the universe was as a whole rotating at a rate of 1 degree every 68,500 years the periferal speed would be 0.99c redshifting anything at that distance down to radio frequency. ....a transverse doppler shift...maybe...I haven't really thought much about transverse doppler in BaTh. Why should we assume the universe isn't rotating? Rotation is the norm for just about everything within it. If the universe as a whole isn't rotating about its centre of gravity it is the only thing which isn't. That's a very reasonable theory. However would it mean that redshift is exactly proportional to distance (something that has never been proved anyway)? I don't think so because the angular rotation rate would probably fall of with distance. I am trying to get my hands on an article by Waldron: Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#938
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
... On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:28:55 +0000, John Kennaugh wrote: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:08:38 +0000, John Kennaugh wrote: I currently think a photon in transit is not just a 'spinning wheel' but looks something like this: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg I am not saying it is wrong but it reminds me a bit too much of the 'wave packet' idea which doesn't really work. ...but it is pretty well established that light IS transmitted in some kind of individual 'packets'. It is also claimed that individual photons will diffract and over time will produce the same accumulated diffraction pattern of a full beam. This means that each photon MUST possess some kind of continuous wave as an intrinsic feature since the laws of diffraction require that successive 'cycles' exist. Welcome to Quantum mechanics 101 One of the big unanswered questions is, "what makes a field?"...or more precisely..."what makes space in which a field exists different from space devoid of fields?" So far, physics has not made any progress in answering this question. Because it is a matter of metaphysics .. its outside the scope of physics, although still an interesting question (as are most questions of metaphysics) Like all scientists of the day, Einstein was aware that fields must be associated with some kind of 'stuff', for want of a better word. My idea is that each photon carries its own little bit of 'stuff' along with it. Since photons are everywhere, the whole universe is virtually filled with it to varying degrees. This does in no way resemble the classical absolute aether concept since each portion is moving in a particular direction and there are vast density variations. I suppose it could be likened to a typical gas, with the whole photon capsule constituting something like a thermally moving molecule. I have previously put forward the idea that fields could be made of 'matter of a second mass dimension'. All just metaphysics and philsophy .. unless it can lead to some new theory of physics which can be experimentally tested To get back to your question, it is fair to say that in experiments where single photons are used, the idea of coherence is not relevant anyway for obvious reasons. My theory explains why interference patterns produced by single monochromatic photons passing through double slits are the same as those of a whole beam. It doesn't matter if the beam is coherent or not. You've not explained how such an interference pattern is generated. If it is soley to do with phase angle (which is finite) then there would just be a closed finite interference pattern .. but the pattern is not. It's a theory anyway.... that appears to explain what is still a mystery. Its not a theory .. its an idea, a concept .. but not a theory (in the scientific sense) .. unles it can predict experim,ental results and is able to be refuted (ie it is testable) This has given ME a thought....maybe the red shift is caused by an internal arrangement of the harmonics of the intrinsic wave itself. ....but I wont go into that till I think more about it.. The red **** is just Dopler .. it happens to all things that are waves (or wave like) when the observer is moving realtive to the source or medium (for waves that have a medium) ...a transverse doppler shift...maybe...I haven't really thought much about transverse doppler in BaTh. BaTH is a refuted theory .. there's not much point in thinking about how it. |
#939
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ... : On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:28:55 +0000, John Kennaugh : wrote: : : Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: : On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:08:38 +0000, John Kennaugh : wrote: : : : I currently think a photon in transit is not just a 'spinning wheel' but looks : something like this: : http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg : : I am not saying it is wrong but it reminds me a bit too much of the : 'wave packet' idea which doesn't really work. : : ...but it is pretty well established that light IS transmitted in some kind of : individual 'packets'. : It is also claimed that individual photons will diffract and over time will : produce the same accumulated diffraction pattern of a full beam. : : This means that each photon MUST possess some kind of continuous wave as an : intrinsic feature since the laws of diffraction require that successive : 'cycles' exist. : : The fields are oscillating and form a standing wave along the photon's length. : Each photon has a well defined INTRINSIC 'wavelength' that is absolute and the : same in all frames. : : You can see my model oscillating and moving (in reality at c wrt its source) at : http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/E-field.exe : : : : If there is no aether then a field is a metaphysical 'field of : influence' and cannot exist without a source of that influence so if : photons have fields associated with them they must contain charge. : : I agree with that. : I am now wondering if each photon consists of an individual package of 'the : stuff that fields are made of'. : Since photons are apparently everywhere, so is the 'stuff'. : Even though the individual photons are moving, does the 'stuff they carry' form : a kind of continuous aether? : ...just a thought.... : : You are in a sense re-running the argument of Einstein. : : "The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this : state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist : at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, [stress : in the aether JK] but they are independent realities which are not : reducible to anything else [ a field is some sort of physical 'stuff' : JK], exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception : suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz's theory, : electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter, brings impulse and : energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity, : both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, : ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of : energy. : More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of : relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence : of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion : to it." AE 1920 : : Basically if you want physically real fields the choices are to either : stick with some sort of aether in which case a field is a stressmus be associated wth 'stuff', for want of a better word. : in that : aether or assume a field is some sort of physical stuff. He concluded : that the 'stuff' idea is more of a problem than sticking with the : aether. Modern aetherists I believe think that there is *only aether*, : that the particles of matter are simply 'different sorts of stable knots : in the aether' - my description - I'm sure they put it more : scientifically. It has some attractions. If you think of things like : experiments done at CERN one can think of the resultant short lived : particles as 'unstable knots in the aether' and one does not need to : categorise them assume that they have any particular significance. At : one time the list of particles was absurdly long until they decided to : re-classify some interactions as 'resonances' to prune it down to the : 'standard model'. : : One of the big unanswered questions is, "what makes a field?"...or more : precisely..."what makes space in which a field exists different from space : devoid of fields?" : So far, physics has not made any progress in answering this question. : Like all scientists of the day, Einstein was aware that fields must be : associated with some kind of 'stuff', for want of a better word. : : My idea Hear we go... ego all the ****ing way. is that each photon carries its own little bit of 'stuff' along with : it. Oh yeah, magnetic and electric fields are stuff now. : Since photons are everywhere, the whole universe is virtually filled with : it to varying degrees. Little balls of aether stuff. : This does in no way resemble the classical absolute : aether concept since each portion is moving in a particular direction and there : are vast density variations. I suppose it could be likened to a typical gas, : with the whole photon capsule constituting something like a thermally moving : molecule. I have previously put forward the idea that fields could be made of : 'matter of a second mass dimension'. : I have previously put forward the idea that matter could be made of fields of a first field dimension. : : : : I was hoping my model might explain this. : http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg : The thing is oscilating. The diffracted angle depends on the phase of the : intrinsic field on arrival at the slits. A small portion of the individual : photon is deflected to an angle that somehow depends on that phase.....I don't : know how 'wavelength' comes into the picture though. : : OK now here is my question. If a single photons will produce : 'interference' fringes how come incoherent light prevents interference : fringes? : : CMIIW but I don't think that's true for incoherent MONOCHROMATIC light. : : I think you will find it is. My understanding is that there is a : parameter called coherent length. Imagine an interferometer - the MMX : apparatus will do. Now suppose you lengthen one arm. The fringes move : obviously but at some point you stop getting interference patterns : because the light which sets out later has no fixed phase relationship : with that which sets out earlier. They even quote a coherence length for : lasers so even laser light is not completely coherent although the very : best are as near as damn-it. Coherence length is related to temporal : coherence - how long it remains coherent. Spatial coherence relates to : how far apart light from two parts of a source can be before you lose : interference fringes. : Anyway that is my understanding and if so my question is a valid one. : : Yes, what you say is probably correct for interferometers or anything that : involves fringes...but I was thinking in terms of broader aspects of : interference, including gratings, thin films etc. In fact there are plenty of : examples of interference involving only sunlight. But that's another : matter..... : : To get back to your question, it is fair to say that in experiments where : single photons are used, the idea of coherence is not relevant anyway for : obvious reasons. My theory explains why interference patterns produced by : single monochromatic photons passing through double slits are the same as those : of a whole beam. It doesn't matter if the beam is coherent or not. : : : : I don't think you need to worry about that. : A single photon has a finite cross section. Some of it passes through each slit : and presumably disperses a little. The amount of reinforcement and hence : diffracted angle depends on the relationship between the (phase?) properties of : the 'two bits' as they meet. : : Maybe. : : It's a theory anyway.... that appears to explain what is still a mystery. : : Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation : frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its : source?....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless or does it : slowly lose : energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift). : : If it wasn't lossless what would become of the energy lost? : : Part of the CMBR : : Ok. So a light photon would be giving off low frequency, low energy : radio photons. It might work. Continuously or whenever it contacts a : charged particle? Extinction is based on the estimate that there are : sufficient charged particles in space for a photon to interact with one : every 3 light years (or something like that). If each such interaction : was not totally loss free that would produce red shift even if the : oscillator itself was loss free. I read somewhere that red shift is : quantized. : : There is a problem though. The radiated EM would have to be emiited in : approximately the same direction as the original photon or the latter would be : sent off course and all distant images would be blurred. : : This has given ME a thought....maybe the red shift is caused by an internal : arrangement of the harmonics of the intrinsic wave itself. ....but I wont go : into that till I think more about it.. : : : A thought occurred to me as follows. : Suppose we are somewhere near the centre of the universe. : The radius of the universe is 14billion light year so I am told : i.e radius = 1.4 ^10 light years : = 1.23^14 light seconds : = 3.68^22 m : Circumference = 2.3^23 m : 1 degree of arc = 6.4^20 m : : If the universe was as a whole rotating at a rate of 1 degree every : 68,500 years the periferal speed would be 0.99c redshifting anything at : that distance down to radio frequency. : : ...a transverse doppler shift...maybe...I haven't really thought much about : transverse doppler in BaTh. : : Why should we assume the universe isn't rotating? Rotation is the norm : for just about everything within it. If the universe as a whole isn't : rotating about its centre of gravity it is the only thing which isn't. : : That's a very reasonable theory. However would it mean that redshift is exactly : proportional to distance (something that has never been proved anyway)? I don't : think so because the angular rotation rate would probably fall of with : distance. Coriolis effect makes it an unreasonable theory. : : I am trying to get my hands on an article by Waldron: : : : : : Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) : : www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#940
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:42:00 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:
**** off Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEIN RELATIVITY: THE UNAMBIGUOUS AMBIGUITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 22nd 07 08:11 AM |
LARSON -IAN Relativity, Einstein Was WRONG | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | January 30th 07 04:55 PM |
Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity | physicsajay | Astronomy Misc | 38 | November 8th 06 08:19 PM |
Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity | AJAY SHARMA | Policy | 11 | November 7th 06 01:46 AM |
Einstein "Theory of Relativity" | Lester Solnin | Solar | 7 | April 13th 05 08:17 AM |