Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
m...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:v71nb.118184$gv5.56329@fed1read05...
Dear Bill Hobba:

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
David Smith wrote:
No detectable consequences. Determination of self-interference
of a
single
photon is not possible. Only for a population of photons is a
statistical
distribution measureable.


Craig Markwardt wrote:
Taken at its face value, this statement is not correct. The very
clever experiment by Grangier et al [ref. 1], first devised a
mechanism to select for single photons using a pair of calcium
transitions and a coincidence window. These "single" photons were
then passed, one at a time, through a Michelson interferometer, and
fringes were produced! I.e., the photon interfered with itself.

The point is that addition of the interferometer introduces
uncertainty over which arm the photon passed through, and is thus
quantum probabilistic arguments play a role.

Interesting effect - thanks for the reference. However I agree with
David -
the results of one photon prove nothing - you need to do the
experiment
several times (or equivalently with a number of different photons) to
determine that is taking place.

The experiment he cited actually had a lot of photons emitted and
detected,
I think you'll find. But the rate at which they were emitted was such
that
there was only "one" in the path at a time. "One" being some number
less
than one hundred, most likely.

I think Mr. Markwardt just wanted to patch a hole he (rightly) felt I
had
left in the discussion.


Diffraction is a single photon interfering with
itself, a whole host of them.

The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes.

You have claimed this many, many times, and when challenged, you unable to
support your claim.

Rotate the polarizer, and see how many "signals" are lost.

David A. Smith

Someone correctly wrote:
Diffraction is a single photon interfering with
itself, a whole host of them.


Aleksandr Timofeev in his typical style of not addressing the logic of an
explanation and simply restating his totally erroneous view said
The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes.


David A. Smith correctly wrote:
You have claimed this many, many times, and when challenged, you unable to
support your claim.

Rotate the polarizer, and see how many "signals" are lost.

Do you honestly think your logic will have any impact on someone who is
immune to it?

Thanks
Bill

Dear Bill Hobba:

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
Someone correctly wrote:
Diffraction is a single photon interfering with
itself, a whole host of them.


Aleksandr Timofeev in his typical style of not addressing the logic of an
explanation and simply restating his totally erroneous view said
The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes.


David A. Smith correctly wrote:
You have claimed this many, many times, and when challenged, you unable
to
support your claim.

Rotate the polarizer, and see how many "signals" are lost.

Do you honestly think your logic will have any impact on someone who is
immune to it?

I don't think he's immune. I think he is "prodding the lion", to see if
he'll get a reaction. He has as much as admitted that his instruments hide
the discrete nature of photons. Then personally hides in QM when
challenged, as if "quantum" didn't mean "not just a wave" (in some loose
sense, sorry Bilge).

Thanks

Didn't want you to think you were on your own. Sometimes tilting at
windmills is lonely work.

David A. Smith

(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com...
(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...

[snip]

By the way, your thread mentions Maxwell's electrodynamics. Aren't you
interesting to look though our report "Several experiments studying
dynamic magnetic field" which we just published in our journal,

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ntents3.html#b

Please pay your attention to the subsection 4.4 where we compare the
calculation plots with those experimental, and I'm going to clean my
e-mail boxes from spam, as some "ardent fighters for the idea" here in
the newsgroups began to jam them tightly. Little Prince also had to
clean his volcanoes every day - tedious but necessary work. ;-)

Part 1
-------------------------------------------------

http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html

===========================================
EDITORIAL Winter 1999-2000
Science: To Be, or Not to Be
Or, How I Discovered the Swindle
of Special Relativity


Index

First Steps
Ampere's Theory of Magnetism
Maxwell's Fraud Summarized
The First Unipolar Machines
Forbidden Words
===========================================

Please, comments



The paper by Laurence Hecht raises anew the problem of transverse
conductor with a current moving along the parallel guides. At due time
Ampere studied this problem and left it not finally solved. Comparing
with the studies of this subject carried out by other authors (for
example, by G. Nicolaev, Tomsk, carried out in 1970 - 1990), the
author introduces a variation. He makes his transverse conductor of
copper and steel and yields the changed direction of motion of this
conductor. I think, the author is right when perceives the way to
solve this problem through interaction of the magnetic field of
parallel guides and of the current in transverse conductor (effect of
unipolar engine). The author also understands correctly that the
motion direction changes because of induced magnetism. However he
remains at the periphery of study of the phenomenon. To tell it in the
language of history of science, the author tries to analyse the effect
of unipolar engine in the context of investigations by Ampere, Weber,
Maxwell and Einstein. With it, he does not return to the problem he
raised in the beginning of his paper and does not finish his study -
this is so typical for papers touching this subject.

Whilst there is no real paradox which some authors see in the
described Ampere's experiment. If we draw the lines of force of
magnetic field excited by the current in guides, the motion of
transverse conductor in this magnetic field will be fully determined
by the interaction in this conductor with this magnetic field. In
particular, if we change the direction of current in the guides, the
conductor will change the direction of its motion. This is in case of
diamagnetic conductor. If we make it of ferromagnetic material, the
interaction will complicate. In this case to the between-currents
interaction will add the interaction of guides with induced magnetic
field in the ferromagnetic conductor. In distinction from the currents
interaction, the direction of force caused by the interaction of
magnetic fields must not change with the changed direction of current
in guides. With it, the amplitude of total affection on the transverse
conductor has to change with the change of current in guides.
Unfortunately, the author did not deepen into studying and didn't
analyse the very essence of the effect, he didn't undertake this and
other studies of the subject, but only confined himself to the
statement of the exterior effect and preliminary analysis.

On the whole, this study does not essentially contribute into the
understanding of fundamentals of stationary magnetism and force
interaction in magnetic field, as it is quite explainable at the level
of standard understanding. However, should this study be elaborated,
it could be interesting in the sense that it can clear the essence of
phenomena in the study that has not been finished at due time; this
will lift one more seeming paradox and release the minds of scientists
for new paradoxes. ;-)

I would like to mention additionally, this work has not a basic
significance just because the author studied the stationary magnetic
field at the level of exterior effects, while we in our paper study
dynamic magnetic field and show the basic distinction between the
standard conception and experimental results. And we have suggested
the counter-conception which is in full agreement with the
experimental data. ;-)



Part 2
-------------------------------------------------

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

The Fermat's least action principle has mystical properties similar
to remote action of Newton's(?) gravitational force between two
bodies:

http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ar...at/Fermat.html

Whether you have any design ideas or a constructive remarks concerning
this subject?



http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

===========================================
From: (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.ele ctromag,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Why Do You Believe Fermat's Principle?
Date: 1 Aug 2002 02:17:56 -0700

================================================== =====================
Historically meta principles have given birth at study of a particular
limited class of physical tasks, and for this reason the application
of meta principles superimposes limitation on classes of physical
tasks,
for which we are able basically to discover mathematical solutions.

This class of physical tasks limits by area of stable or fixed
(stationary) physical systems, or motion of bodies of neglible small
mass inside fixed physical systems.
================================================== =====================

"-meta- principles" allow to do predictions for an extremely limited
class
of physical tasks!
===========================================


Please, comments


---
Kind regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
http://www.friends-partners.org/~rus...hem/oldeng.htm

I have looked through also the second paper by Laurence Hecht which
concerns the Fermat principle of minimal motion. This paper is also
very well written, but the author seems to be more the historian of
science than physics researcher. Just as in previous paper, he is more
interesting in, who said what in which concern and what were the
nuances of controversies of that time - more than in what is namely
the core of problem. The author clearly uses the original sources or
has accessible good analytical studies of the subject. However, just
as in previous paper, the end of paper is fully undetermined. The
paper has much of philosophy but is not so much conclusive in the
subject. This is why I think him to be the historian of science.

If speaking of the core of subject, it is made more noise about the
Fermat principle than it factually is. Hecht well describes the state
of today science and attitude of today scientists to the basic
principles that they put into a container called 'space'. The Fermat
principle relates to this class, too. Theoreticians of physics begin
with this issue and vary the trajectories which they mostly cannot
calculate. The same as the concept of inertia, the core of this
principle can be discovered only after we learn to work in continuum
at the level of analytic solutions. So like it or not, the principle
of minimal action will still remain the postulate, and we have to
accept this situation.

To advance, we have to understand the phenomenology of physical
processes at their dynamical level. You are correctly saying that
still the problems are solved for stationary processes. True, this not
so much turned out historically as stationary problems are much
simpler in formulation and analysis. This is what, for example, Bohr
well understood when developed his version of quantum mechanics - and
modern supporters of QM don't understand, just as they don't
understand that the alternative theory of QM has been simply cribbed
out of Bohr - Heisenberg's QM in terms of criteria of external
likeness of solutions. And Bohr created his theory basing just on the
calculation of stationary orbits. They even don't know that
Schroedinger equation is inapplicable out of atom orbits.

In this way into depths we can easily see that we often cannot
comprehend properly even stationary processes. This is why I often
feel difficulty to prove something to the colleagues, because we in
our research try to start from the beginning, while the colleagues try
the problem from the end. But real progress into depths of knowledge
lays in the underpinning of knowledge. As a rule, many understand it,
but each has his own underpinning. Our trend is perhaps clear for many
colleagues from the solutions which we show in our journal. And we are
about to go on this way. Truly, today I'm absolutely not interesting
in the essence of inertia, Fermat principle, aether structure, neither
in the structure of electron and proton, nor in many other such
things. I see that at the level of knowledge which everyone thinks
long ago mastered, we really don't know too many things and have a
wrong idea of them. Our mathematical tool is too imperfect, our
statement of problems is often too inaccurate. Without this, any our
attempts to guess the solutions of problems of the next level are
doomed, because at the current level they rely on incomplete
knowledge. The same senseless and doomed are attempts to think out
"theories of everything". Before we dare to dive deeper, we have to
master today level of knowledge. We solve this problem as we can. In
this connection, if speaking of going on together, I'm able to discuss
only those unsolved problems that belong to the current level of
knowledge.

We in our studies try to adhere to the classical principle of
consistence of phenomenology, calculation and experiment. Attempts to
guess some magic numbers I simply don't understand, as I have a great
distrust to substantiation of such researches in frames of
phenomenology. Or rather, since the process occurs, we naturally can
express it in some numbers. If the process has its regularity, its
numbers also have their regularity. But it is more convenient to seek
the phenomenology of the very phenomenon than to tell fortunes by
numbers, the more that understanding the phenomenology of process, we
can extrapolate it, which is practically impossible to do on the
grounds of numbers. In this case with the change of exterior
conditions the found regularity will also change. But if you like your
approach, no problem. Only it would be desirable, your forecasted four
planets to have some effect on the known planets of the Sun system.
For it, you have to know the regularities of phenomenon. So you came
to our trend too.

Kind regards,

Sergey.

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
Someone correctly wrote:
Diffraction is a single photon interfering with
itself, a whole host of them.


Aleksandr Timofeev in his typical style of not addressing the logic of an
explanation and simply restating his totally erroneous view said
The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes.


David A. Smith correctly wrote:
You have claimed this many, many times, and when challenged, you unable to
support your claim.

Rotate the polarizer, and see how many "signals" are lost.

Do you honestly think your logic will have any impact on someone who is
immune to it?

Thanks, Bill, yes, I honestly think my logic will have any impact on
someone who is listen to it...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

================================================== ============
From: (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics
Subject: Question: interference patterns.
Date: 23 Jul 2002 07:31:53 -0700

ca314159 wrote in message ...
[snip]

"Harmful chimeras", as you call them, seem to have been around for millenia.
They apparently once ruled the earth in prehistoric times, in what one might call:
that period of Nature's nightmarish combinatorics of biology and its
aesthetic preference for cute and cuddly deepsea anglerfish:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/hughes200...ng/deep03b.jpg

Developing any working theories without using chimeras seems improbable.
Give me an example of a theory without a chimera.

"...and I cherish more than anything else the Analogies, my most
trustworthy masters. They know all the secrets of Nature..."
--Kepler

Analogies, similes, metaphors, paradoxes, hyphenation, morphisms,... are all chimeras.
How often do they lead to "eureka!" ?

One must draw a line somewhere. If some people find the idea of
photons convenient, then "let them eat cake".
They want and desire the sugar-coated complication because it has caloric content
and does work for them. "More power to them." And they have no desire to eat
something more blandly nutritional like plain ordinary bread even though it
may be healthier.

Every paradigm is a candle, burning from both ends.

Kuhn:

"The proponents of different theories are like the members of different
language-culture communities."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...ks/us/kuhn.htm

Similarly, "linguistic relativity":
http://www.google.com/search?q=linguistic+relativity

and these seem to naturally lead to ideas of the "Global Village":
that expanding universe of sensors/information/communication,
and preceived responsibility,
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/bas9401.html

McLuhan's notion of "reversal" is of the inevitable demise of a paradigm
as it reverts into something destructive. This is similar to Paracelsus'
ideas on the dose relationship between cures and poisons.

So, they also claim, not only are we, the average citizens,
now responsible for our households, our neighborhoods, our cities,
our nations,... but the whole world. And not only the world,
but anything you can perceive with these new enhanced sensors like:
atoms, photons, stars, galaxies, killer asteroids...

"Excuse me while I kiss the sky"
- Jimi Hendrix - Purple Haze

We're all expected now to be infinitely "nosey",
minding each others' business.
So how much responsibility do you want to take on ?
Or, how much responsibility are you willing to let others lay on you ?

Are you willing to go into the rain forests and tell the
stone age natives there, that you must now regulate their
lives, because it's your responsibility since you saw them
before they saw you ?

This of course creates alot of paranoia. Some people don't seem to
like the idea of their being held responsible for some anonymous nerd
on the other side of the planet mucking around with dangerous
combinations of over-the-counter chemicals, desktop black holes,
phlogiston, and DNA. Others get over-zealous, and want to control
everyone in microscopic detail like big brother.

Dune, Star Wars propaganda ensues followed by the more humorous
"all your base are belong to us" phenomena:
http://www.sirlinksalot.net/ayb.html

And thus too was born the whole idea of "The Borg" in Star Trek,
those interconnected cyborgs with no individual personality.
The "resistance is futile" ultimatum of these
prefection-seeking Borg is reflected in other prophetic propaganda:

Ursula Leguin wrote in "The Lathe of Heaven" of how the universe
is inevitably destroyed by some anonymous hyperdimensional alien engineer
tinkering with a new kind of space drive. The protagonist is told
that this cannot be avoided. Destruction is as inevitable as existance.
A similar stoic notion of our tragic and inevitable demise is presented
in "Dr. Strangelove".

Life is short. I think I'll go out and buy a Gadsden flag:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/stor...den.html#story
rather than worry about whether science is being corrupted by
the concept of photons. One might as well complain that music
was about continuous waves, and not about individual discrete notes;
but I don't think that would go very far.

"It is rare to find learned men who are clean, do not stink and have a sense of humour."
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his...s/Leibniz.html



By "photon" bad character and ill-looking appearance,
like the Devil with his tail cut off. ;-)

The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
" The Devil is the Liar and He is the Father of Lie. "



The schizophrenia is inadequate perception of the real.



The purpose of the given article is the proof of an
inaccuracy of representation about a duality of physical
properties of light.

Light is wave process always and in all cases.

The nature, ambient us, consists of quantum microsystems,
therefore any phenomenon can be explain from a point of Plank's
view - quantum microsystems can exchange energy only by quantum
portions. This energy is absorbed and is emited only as
electromagnetic waves.

Photoeffect, Raman and Compton effects and all other phenomena
have physically correct explanation only from the point of Plank's
view.
The classical interpretations of a photoeffect and Compton
effect are error.
These interpretations were offered when there was no quantum
mechanics and radio physics. In that time the principles of operation
of transmitting and receiving devices were poorly clear and known
in detailses. The processes in solid bodies and structure of solid
bodies in that time were unintelligible. The quantum theory of a
structure of substance (physical chemistry) was not in that time.

But the pceudo-scientific imaginations as the classical
interpretations of a photoeffect and Compton effect on the
basis of a hypothesis of a photon are alive until now. Why?:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

Step First Debunking Photon Wave-Particle Duality

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

================================================== =======================
From: Aleksandr Timofeev )
Subject: Photon Wave-Particle Duality
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.particle, sci.physics.electromag
Date: 2001-10-05 09:11:06 PST

(Jim Carr) wrote in message ...
In article
(Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:

Proofs of existence of a photon in all cases leans on interaction of
electromagnetic waves with substance.

Sort of. It leans on the utter inability of Maxwell's
description of electromagnetic waves and their interaction
with an electron to describe the observed angular distribution
seen in Compton scattering.

Let's approach to this problem on the other hand.
Let's assume, that the process of scattering of electromagnetic
radiation consists of three stages:
1. The first stage will represent process of an absorption of
electromagnetic radiation by a quantum microsystem. It is important
to mark, that at this stage the quantum portion of electromagnetic
radiation will be absorbed, since absorber is the quantum microsystem
(the Plank postulate).
2. The second stage will represent a metastable state.
3. The third stage will represent spontaneous process of
simultaneous emitting by a quantum microsystem of electromagnetic
radiation and electron. It is important to mark, that at this stage
a quantum portion of electromagnetic radiation also will be radiated,
since the radiator is the quantum microsystem (the Plank postulate).

Here we have the non-linear gear of transformation of frequency
of initial radiation by a quantum microsystem.

It is natural, that all participants interacting at the third
stage are subject to conservation laws, i.e. we have almost same
law of angular distribution, which you have indicated, but this
law of angular distribution should be updated with allowance for
of third very massive component representing a quantum microsystem.

This falsification of an E+M wave
description of a physical phenomenon involving light leaves
the photon-based models as the only viable alternative.


Just in this place, the logic error in the orthodox interpretation
of interaction of electromagnetic radiation and substance in the
given individual considered case of the non-linear gear of
transformation of frequency of initial radiation by a quantum
microsystem is hidden.

I shall strengthen my position by adding in this model
of Raman effect.

In a nature completely other gear of scattering is realized
which differs from offered you and refuted in the same moment
by you of inconsistent model of interaction of an electromagnetic
wave and electron.

In this place we have a vicious circle.

No. You seem to think that, by describing the internal self-consistency
of the photon model as a "vicious circle", you can use semantics as a
substitute for experiment or theory. Similarly, you seem to wish to
pretend that the lack of self-consistency in a wave model of light
interacting with matter is a good thing rather than bad as most others
seem to realize.

The hypothesis of a photon is necessary only for explanation
of transmission of E/M energy without existence of medium.

Well now I assume the problem " of free electrons " will arise.

Eric Prebys has run away from a field
of this battle.
He is a good official opponent since he is the expert in the field of
non-linear transformations of frequency of electromagnetic
oscillations.
================================================== =======================

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
m...
....
Thanks, Bill, yes, I honestly think my logic will have any impact on
someone who is listen to it...
ca314159 wrote in message
...

....said nothing in support of your claims.
but this did not dissuade you for claiming a "convert".

Photoeffect, Raman and Compton effects and all other phenomena
have physically correct explanation only from the point of Plank's
view.

Unsupported statement.

(Jim Carr) wrote in message
...

....disagreed with a Maxwellian solution in its entirety for Compton
scattering.
but this did not dissuade you for claiming another "convert".

Eric Prebys has run away from a field
of this battle.

.... which only says that he got tired of your fully circular arguments.

Rotate one of the polarizers to be exactly 90° to one of the others. See
how many signals drop out. Really simple, Alexsandr. Otherwise your
conundrum is not fully developed.

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:S%Nvb.5234$Bk1.4041@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
m...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:v71nb.118184$gv5.56329@fed1read05...
Dear Bill Hobba:

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
David Smith wrote:
No detectable consequences. Determination of self-interference
of a
single
photon is not possible. Only for a population of photons is a
statistical
distribution measureable.


Craig Markwardt wrote:
Taken at its face value, this statement is not correct. The very
clever experiment by Grangier et al [ref. 1], first devised a
mechanism to select for single photons using a pair of calcium
transitions and a coincidence window. These "single" photons were
then passed, one at a time, through a Michelson interferometer, and
fringes were produced! I.e., the photon interfered with itself.

The point is that addition of the interferometer introduces
uncertainty over which arm the photon passed through, and is thus
quantum probabilistic arguments play a role.

Interesting effect - thanks for the reference. However I agree with
David -
the results of one photon prove nothing - you need to do the
experiment
several times (or equivalently with a number of different photons) to
determine that is taking place.

The experiment he cited actually had a lot of photons emitted and
detected,
I think you'll find. But the rate at which they were emitted was such
that
there was only "one" in the path at a time. "One" being some number
less
than one hundred, most likely.

I think Mr. Markwardt just wanted to patch a hole he (rightly) felt I
had
left in the discussion.


Diffraction is a single photon interfering with
itself, a whole host of them.

The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes.

You have claimed this many, many times, and when challenged, you unable to
support your claim.

Rotate the polarizer, and see how many "signals" are lost.

The readers of the thread hardly perceive physical sense of a hint
written here by you. ;^))

Whether you can describe your problem in more detail?


David A. Smith

(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com...
(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...

[snip]

Part 2
-------------------------------------------------

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

The Fermat's least action principle has mystical properties similar
to remote action of Newton's(?) gravitational force between two
bodies:

" Newton's(?) gravitational force "

Robert Hooke

Born: 18 July 1635 in Freshwater, Isle of Wight, England
Died: 3 March 1703 in London, England

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his...ans/Hooke.html

" When Newton produced his theory of light and colour in 1672,
Hooke claimed that what was correct in Newton's theory was stolen
from his own ideas about light of 1665 and what was original was
wrong. This marked the beginning of severe arguments between the two.
In 1672 Hooke attempted to prove that the Earth moves in an ellipse
round the Sun and six years later proposed that inverse square law of
gravitation to explain planetary motions. Hooke wrote to Newton in
1679 asking for his opinion:-

.... of compounding the celestiall motions of the planetts of a direct
motion by the tangent (inertial motion) and an attractive motion
towards the centrall body ... my supposition is that the Attraction
always is in a duplicate proportion to the Distance from the Center
Reciprocall ...

================================================== =================
Hooke claimed priority over the inverse square
law and this led to a bitter dispute with Newton who, as a consequence,
removed all references to Hooke from the Principia.
================================================== =================

Frequent bitter disputes with fellow scientists occurred throughout
Hooke's life. On the other hand, we should note that he was on very
good terms with some colleagues, particularly Boyle and Wren.
Historians have described Hooke as a difficult and unreasonable man
but in many ways this is a harsh judgement. There is no doubt that
Hooke genuinely felt that others had stolen ideas which he had been
first to put forward. "

================================================== =================
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his...ns/Newton.html

Newton

The mechanics of the Copernican astronomy of Galileo attracted him and
he also studied Kepler's Optics.

From his law of centrifugal force and Kepler's third law of planetary
motion, Newton deduced the inverse-square law.

After his 1679 correspondence with Hooke, Newton, by his own account,
found a proof that Kepler's areal law was a consequence of centripetal
forces, and he also showed that if the orbital curve is an ellipse
under the action of central forces then the radial dependence of the
force is inverse square with the distance from the centre.

This discovery showed the physical significance of Kepler's second law.
================================================== =================


---
Kind regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
http://www.friends-partners.org/~rus...hem/oldeng.htm

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:S%Nvb.5234$Bk1.4041@fed1read05...
....
Diffraction is a single photon interfering with
itself, a whole host of them.

The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes.

You have claimed this many, many times, and when challenged, you unable
to
support your claim.

Rotate the polarizer, and see how many "signals" are lost.

The readers of the thread hardly perceive physical sense of a hint
written here by you. ;^))

As if you *really* cared...

Whether you can describe your problem in more detail?

Alexsandr would like someone else to draw nice little ASCII diagrams of the
Earth, and the detector assemblies at each antenna for the VLBI array. I
of course will not do this, but suffice it to say that each detector is
outfitted with a polarizer that blocks surface scatter from Earth, by not
permitting light to enter the detector that has polarization such that it
is likely to have reflected off the Earth proper. The antennae are
scattered over the surface of the Earth, and any trio will form a detector
"plane", that will accurately resolve source positions.

Alexsandr's contention is that since the detectors are situated all over
the Earth, and their detectors are "absolutely" synchronized (by later
comparisons of data streams from each detector), that only a wave could
produce simultaneous detection in each data stream.

I have challenged Mr. Timofeev to ask permission of his boss (or whatever),
to alter the orientation of the polarizer at one detector for long enough
to assure a measured effect was recorded... say five minutes. The
orientation would be to place the polarizer at 90° to another polarizer on
a remote detector. Since crossed polarizers disallow anything except
helically polarized light from passing, then the two detectors with this
orientation should then both lose signal. Assuming the incoming signal
were wavefronts, and the radio wave was truly a wave. If only the altered
detector were affected, then the polarizer only affects its "waves".

Since if two VLBI are located at more than 90° separation on the Earth (and
some are) then observations in certain areas of the sky should provide a
null signal in all cases for the two unfortunate antennae. So Alexsandr
doesn't have to ask this favor of his boss.

How is that Aleksandr? Be sure and not hide in quantum mechanics, if you
wish to discuss this with *me* further.

David A. Smith

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Sergey Karavashkin:
(Bilge) wrote:

Bilge,

Have you ever pondered, why our discussions never are a quiet
discussion?

No, not really. I consider you a crackpot. I really don't expect
you to be rational.

He-he, Bilge, don't raise dust. Again and again you are trying to make
all around obscene. Only don't forget that
1) You have omitted all the constructive part - your congratulation
and my explanation, what are the mistakes of your interpretation. Not
in vain! - this means, you understood it all and this caused you gall.
;-)
2) You also omitted my remainder how, trying to jump over me, you
introduced a time derivative of vector into your right-hand part of
conservation equations of flux of vector in Maxwell equations. Now you
are writing,

I was using nothing but maxwell's equations.

Of course, you "don't know" that Maxwell and further Hertz, when
derived these field equations, used the conservation laws for
stationary fields. According to these laws, the divergence of any
vector of field in the free of charge region is IDENTICALLY ZERO, in
that number in time. Thus, having inserted the right-hand part into
the conservation law for flux of vector, you used already not Maxwell
but Karavashkin laws. I know long ago, it makes you violent, don't
bother demonstrating again. I also know that you will rather swallow
your tongue than behave decently. To the point, having introduced a
non-zero right-hand part into the divergence theorem, you lose the
right to equalise the scalar potential to zero, as you all colleagues
used to do light-heartedly in the conventional formalism - this means,
you have additional problems with the energy calibration for scalar
photon.

The fact that you are psychologically unable to grasp the possibility
of dynamic force field in presence of curl of vector is caused only by
the degree of limitedness to which the relativists drive themselves,
following the symbol of their belief. For hydrodynamicians this is not
news. For example, L.I. Sedov gives an example of non-zero curl of
vector of potential field even for stationary case. I would like only
to draw your attention that my "non-constructive" studies (which would
be constructive in your eyes, should they satisfy your quantum
nonsense) are permanently corroborated experimentally. While you, as
far as I can see, still are creating your device for
radiation/reception of longitudinal EM wave. Nowise can smooth your
scalar photons? Buy an iron. ;-) Just what I'm saying, your
relativistic well-done boys don't know even far approaches, how to
solve these problems. I would mark, avoiding to refer to me, you only
violate the copyright, but you cannot hide the fact that you are
replicating my results, and your malice will be of no help.

Sergey.



The reason is so simple. You permanently try, by fair
means or foul, to squeeze the physics into Procrustean bed of
relativistic and quantum-photon dogmata.

I was using nothing but maxwell's equations. If your lines for
B don't terminate, you have a monopole. Period. End of story.