Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Sergey Karavashkin:

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,

No, I didn't. All I needed was div B = 0. If the flux lines are
"open" as you put it, then div B ! = 0 and you have a source or
sink, i.e. a magnetic monopole.


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.

That's perfectly adequate for anything but radiation 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.

You aren't talking about a "charge free region". You're talking about
a region in which a line of magnetic flux starts and never returns.
That is the definition of a source. That divergence is not zero.
End of story.

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.'


Bill Hobba replied:
'Do you honestly think your logic will have any impact on someone who is
immune to it?'


Davis A Smith wrote:
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).

I hope your correct. It would be a sad day for humanity if someone could
understand a VBLI interferometer and not understand the very fundamental
issues of the wave particle duality - issues that were explored in detail by
two of the greatest physicists of the 20th century - Bohr and Einstein. If
was facts that drove us to the Copenhagen interpretation - an interpretation
that Einstein disliked to his dying day - but was forced to admit was
consistent with experiment.

Thanks
Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
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.'


Bill Hobba replied:
'Do you honestly think your logic will have any impact on someone who is
immune to it?'


Davis A Smith wrote:
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).

I hope your correct. It would be a sad day for humanity if someone could
understand a VBLI interferometer and not understand the very fundamental
issues of the wave particle duality - issues that were explored in detail by
two of the greatest physicists of the 20th century - Bohr and Einstein. If
was facts that drove us to the Copenhagen interpretation - an interpretation
that Einstein disliked to his dying day - but was forced to admit was
consistent with experiment.

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

================================================== =============
From: Aleksandr Timofeev )
Subject: Proof that All Photons are not Identical.
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity
Date: 2002-10-01 07:53:53 PST


(Bilge) wrote in message
...

[snip]

Since I think quantum mechanics is not only correct, but find the
features to which some people object, to be the plusses, your goal
appears to mainly be to waste your time trying to circumvent reality.

But your statement refutes the text, located below:

" Start with a single ``detector plate,'' say 1 cm by 1 cm, and with a
``single photon source.'' By the latter I don't mean that you have
to accept the idea of photons, just that the source is one that
quantum mechanics says should emit one photon at a time. "

``single photon source''

I. The parable One of the Null Hypothesis, Working Hypothesis and
official confirmation & unofficial confirmation of a hypothesis.

==================================================
One is reminded of the hapless undergrad who got to math class late on
Friday, saw five problems on the board, and figured they were
homework.
He started that evening and really panicked. By Monday, after almost
three days of unceasing terror, he submitted only three proofs.

They were five classical problems in the subject. NOBODY had proofs.
One presumes he passed the course after the prof recovered.

--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0ix.netcom.com
==================================================


II. The Parable Two of the Maxwell's Demon.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +
From: Peter Newman )
Subject: Where's the flaw?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 1997/02/13

Bert Dobbelaere wrote:
I thought up a simple machine that should be able to convert
heat from only one source to most other energy forms
(e.g. electricity), so the total entropy would decrease :

Consider a vessel filled with a gas that is divided in two
parts by a special membrane. The membrane has as a property
that a gas molecule that hits it from one side has a higher
chance to cross the barrier than one that comes from the
other side.

Can anyone give me a convincing argument why the above
described machine could not work ?
[snip]

I think this is an analogue of a machine called 'Maxwell's
Demon' that I read about many years ago in Scientific American.
The devil is in the detail:
If turned out with Maxwell's Demon, the unaccounted
energy/entropy loss is in the 'one-way-ness' of the contraption.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +

III. The Parable Three about death of the Maxwell's Demon.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +
From: Michael Weiss )
Subject: Where's the flaw?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 1997/02/12

Your example is a variant of the "rachet and pawl" example
that Feynman discusses in detail in his Lectures (vol 1,
if memory serves).

In short: the "funnels" in your membrane have to bend open,
as you say. Without some sort of damping mechanism, though,
they would continue vibrating open and shut, and so they
would allow molecules to go the other way. Damping implies
that the membrane absorbs the kinetic energy of the
molecules, which means that it heats up. At thermal
equilibrium, random thermal motions cause the funnels to
open spontaneously often enough so that exchanges in both
directions are equal. Oh yes: a thermally agitated funnel
might prevent a molecule from passing in the "correct"
direction, because it is closing when the molecule hits.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +

Albert E. warned:
"Most mistakes in philosophy and logic occur because
the human mind is apt to take the symbol for reality".

[I shall utillize the similar shape of the name, since they
delete all my messages with this correct name (censorship)]

[I shall utillize the similar shape of a name, since they delete all
my messages with this name (censorship)]
Not every horny devil is a Maxwell's Demon.
Here we consider a Albert's Demon - "Particle - Photon".

VI. The Parable Four of the Albert's Demon.

Not every horny devil is a Maxwell's Demon.
"Photon", ``single photon source'', etc are Albert's Demons.

But for the fact that devil is in the details?

1. A) The nature has imposed the prohibition for knowledge
of amount of the events of an emission of radiation by
ensembles of quantum systems.
B) The nature has imposed the prohibition for knowledge
of the moments of a beginning and termination of event
of an emission of radiation by a quantum ensemble of
microsystems.
C) The macroscopic experimenter has not mechanisms for
guidance by concrete elementary quantum emitter.
For this reason any events of an emission of radiation by
ensembles of quantum systems have casual character, even
those events of an emission of radiation which ones have
cross correlation.

2. A) The difference of number of events of an emission of
radiation by a source from number of events of detection
of electromagnetic radiation by the detector is not known
to us never.
B) The nature has imposed the prohibition for knowledge
of the moments of a beginning and termination of event
of an absorption of radiation by a quantum ensemble of
microsystems.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++
Because of the prohibition for knowledge of the moments
of a beginning and termination of event of an emission
of radiation in a source and prohibition for knowledge
of the moments of a beginning and termination of event
of absorption of radiation in the detector, the experimenter
has not an opportunity to identify concrete event of an
emission of radiation and concrete event of absorption
radiation and he can not tell that the same radiation
shared in both events. Never experimenter has an
opportunity to tell, that he detected the same concrete
elementary portion of radiation, which was radiated.

These circumstances are the Albert's Demon.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++


************************************************** *******
************************************************** *******
3. Any experiments with electromagnetic radiation lean on
the information gained from the detector of electromagnetic
radiation and only on the information gained from the
detector of electromagnetic radiation.
************************************************** *******
************************************************** *******

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:XlSwb.17965$Bk1.722@fed1read05...
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...


I am really cared...
All of us here are Quixotes.

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,

I do this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...1.dejanews.com


Principles of work of VLBI.

The microwave interferometr with superlong basis consists of two radio
telescopes were on a very large distance from each other. Before experiment
or after him, the nuclear hours are synchronized. Each radio telescope writes
on a videotape a transformed radiation accepted by an antenna. Simultaneously
with a signal, the scores of time received from the standard of frequency,
are written on a videotape.
After ending experiment we have two videotapes with entries of a signal
and scores of time. The "interference picture" is received after data
processing of these videotapes on the computer.

There are two graphic schemes illustrating the description:

The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 1.
Block scheme.

- radio-telescope 1
- hydrogenous
- atomic
- parabolic antenna 1 tape 1 clock 1
- \
- \
- \ [ microwave ]
- \ [ receiver + ] [videotape] [hydrogen ]
- ) )-P-[analog-to-digital]---[recorder ]---[frequency]
- /^ [ converter ] ^ ^ [standard ]
- / | ^ | | |
- / polarizer 1 | radio-signals time-marks |
- microwave / | |
- radiation |__________________________________|
- ^
- reference frequency from hydrogenous atomic clocks
-
-
- for synchronization of atomic clock
- [transportable caesium]
- [ frequency standard ]

^
|
[snip] ============= Length of basis ~ the Earth diameter =================
|
V


- radio-telescope 2
-
- hydrogenous
- atomic
- parabolic antenna 2 tape 2 clock 2
- \
- \
- \ [ microwave ]
- \ [ receiver + ] [videotape] [hydrogen ]
- ) )-P-[analog-to-digital]---[recorder ]---[frequency]
- /^ [ converter ] ^ ^ [standard ]
- / | ^ | |
- / polarizer 2 | radio-signals time-marks |
- microwave / | |
- radiation |__________________________________|
- ^
- reference frequency from hydrogenous atomic clock
-
-
-
-
-

.. The microwave interferometer with superlong basis. Part 2.
.. ----------------------------------------------------------
..
.. "Interference fringes"
.. ^
.. |
.. [videotape 1] ------ [ COMPUTER ] ---------- [videotape 2]
.. ^ ^
.. | |
.. radio-telescope 1 - synchronization clocks - radio-telescope 2
.. Length of basis
.. |----------------------------- {snip} -------------------------------|
.. /^\ /^\



..^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ {snip} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
..| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
.. Noise microwave radiation


but suffice it to say that each detector is
outfitted with a polarizer

See positions of polarizer 1 & polarizer 2 at graphic schemes.

The polarizer blocks irrelevant radiation from area of a source(radiant).


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 polarizer blocks irrelevant radiation from area of a source(radiant).

The antennae are
scattered over the surface of the Earth, and any trio will form a detector
"plane", that will accurately resolve source positions.

The parabolic-reflector 1 & 2 are DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS, a good similar
example is the small satellite antenna.

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),


" their detectors are "absolutely" synchronized (by later comparisons
of data streams from each detector), "

With one stipulation, "detectors" will be synchronized physically
ALMOUST "absolutely", but "detectors" will be never synchronized
" absolutely precisely " from a mathematical point of view.

Always there is so-called " a residual frequency of an interference ".
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hydrogenous atomic clock 1 & hydrogenous atomic clock 2 are physical
Newtonian time in "detector 1" & "detector 2" accordingly.
The atomic clocks are physical Newtonian time in each "detector"
accordingly.

The physical Newtonian time in " the detector 1 " is unpredictable
differs from physical Newtonian time in " the detector 2 ".
This phenomenon is termed as instability of atomic clocks.

For a tentative rough synchronization of atomic clocks
transportable caesium frequency standard will be
customaryly utillized.
Here fraud with synchronization of clocks in SR suffers
complete experimental crash! ;^))))))

The instability of atomic clocks relative to each other is is very
small, but this one ALWAYS exists.

There are also other physical reasons " of residual frequency
of an interference ".


that only a wave could
produce simultaneous detection in each data stream.

It is not absolutely valid interpretation of an interference
phenomenon of waves.

Just to the contrary " not simultaneous detection "
but "detection" spread on some time interval of a SIGNAL
ACCUMULATION.

For an interference phenomenon of waves most IMPORTANT
is the frequency STABILITY and PHASE STABILITY during
addition of signals from " of the detector 1 " and from
" of the detector 2 ".

Just the STABILITY allows to separate a signal from noise
thanking to a SIGNAL ACCUMULATION during some time
of ACCUMULATION, when the power of noise exceeds of
a signal power in thousand time.

STABILITY of signals from "slots" and TIME of ACCUMULATION
of signals from slots interdependent and are a BASIS of an
interference phenomenon.


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.

But you have forgotten that fact, that the Earth is continuously rotated
about the axis. ;-)

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".

Well also what follows from this?
You have forgotten that fact, that the Earth is continuously rotated
about the axis. ;-)

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.

I guess, that you consider of the radio astronomers as idiots.

The experiments are executed on telescopes which one can see "radiant",
the telescopes automatically track "source" or "radiant".

How is that Aleksandr?

VLBI interference is a virtual computer interference.
The computer programs eliminate rotation of the Earth,
a geometrical signal delay etc. etc.

therefore in VLBI interference the astronomers
always watch a main lobe of an interference !!!


Look at fundamental proceedings in VLBI:

INTERFEROMETRY AND SYNTHESIS IN RADIO ASTRONOMY

second edition

A. Richard Thompson National Radio Astronomy Observatory
James M. Moran Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astroohysics
George W. Swenson, Jr. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

ISBN 0-471-25492-4 INGLISH John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001

My boss is editor of:
ISBN 5-9221-0015-7 RUSSIAN FIZMATLIT, 2003, RUSSIAN

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

Then we need to discuss, what happens to a signal
in VLBI "detector" after a polarizer. ;^)))


David A. Smith

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:XlSwb.17965$Bk1.722@fed1read05...
....
but suffice it to say that each detector is
outfitted with a polarizer

See positions of polarizer 1 & polarizer 2 at graphic schemes.

The polarizer blocks irrelevant radiation from area of a source(radiant).

You say "irrelvant". Physics says otherwise. Physics says "light with a
certain polarization is blocked".

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 polarizer blocks irrelevant radiation from area of a source(radiant).

Physics says "light with a certain polarization is blocked".

The antennae are
scattered over the surface of the Earth, and any trio will form a
detector
"plane", that will accurately resolve source positions.

The parabolic-reflector 1 & 2 are DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS, a good similar
example is the small satellite antenna.

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),


" their detectors are "absolutely" synchronized (by later comparisons
of data streams from each detector), "

With one stipulation, "detectors" will be synchronized physically
ALMOUST "absolutely", but "detectors" will be never synchronized
" absolutely precisely " from a mathematical point of view.

Always there is so-called " a residual frequency of an interference ".
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hydrogenous atomic clock 1 & hydrogenous atomic clock 2 are physical
Newtonian time in "detector 1" & "detector 2" accordingly.
The atomic clocks are physical Newtonian time in each "detector"
accordingly.

The physical Newtonian time in " the detector 1 " is unpredictable
differs from physical Newtonian time in " the detector 2 ".
This phenomenon is termed as instability of atomic clocks.

For a tentative rough synchronization of atomic clocks
transportable caesium frequency standard will be
customaryly utillized.
Here fraud with synchronization of clocks in SR suffers
complete experimental crash! ;^))))))

The instability of atomic clocks relative to each other is is very
small, but this one ALWAYS exists.

There are also other physical reasons " of residual frequency
of an interference ".


that only a wave could
produce simultaneous detection in each data stream.

It is not absolutely valid interpretation of an interference
phenomenon of waves.

Just to the contrary " not simultaneous detection "
but "detection" spread on some time interval of a SIGNAL
ACCUMULATION.

Ah! So you agree then that each antenna accumulates enough photons to
comprise a signal? How nice.

For an interference phenomenon of waves most IMPORTANT
is the frequency STABILITY and PHASE STABILITY during
addition of signals from " of the detector 1 " and from
" of the detector 2 ".

Just the STABILITY allows to separate a signal from noise
thanking to a SIGNAL ACCUMULATION during some time
of ACCUMULATION, when the power of noise exceeds of
a signal power in thousand time.

STABILITY of signals from "slots" and TIME of ACCUMULATION
of signals from slots interdependent and are a BASIS of an
interference phenomenon.

And it it is a continuous wave being detected, based on your thread title,
then there should be "blind spots" in the sky where the two polaraizers are
at 90°.

It is very simple and very basic. The fact that there are no such blind
spots means that they are detecting two photon (or wavelet if you prefer)
streams.

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.

But you have forgotten that fact, that the Earth is continuously rotated
about the axis. ;-)

I have not forgotten. That is why I said it as I did. The antennae have a
fixed geometric relationship. At certain locations in the observation
sphere that whirls around with the Earth, certain detectors should have
their polarizers at 90° to another detector.

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".

Well also what follows from this?
You have forgotten that fact, that the Earth is continuously rotated
about the axis. ;-)

No. I just did not relate this clearly enough.

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.

I guess, that you consider of the radio astronomers as idiots.

The experiments are executed on telescopes which one can see "radiant",
the telescopes automatically track "source" or "radiant".

No, Alexsandr. I consider you as arguing a case you no longer believe in.
It is evident in your choices of arguments that you do not believe that
light is a wave-only phenomenon.

How is that Aleksandr?

VLBI interference is a virtual computer interference.
The computer programs eliminate rotation of the Earth,
a geometrical signal delay etc. etc.

therefore in VLBI interference the astronomers
always watch a main lobe of an interference !!!

Which would disappear if the polarizers were crossed at 90°, and the signal
were a wave passing through both polarizers with the accuracy you have
cited.

Look at fundamental proceedings in VLBI:

INTERFEROMETRY AND SYNTHESIS IN RADIO ASTRONOMY

second edition

A. Richard Thompson National Radio Astronomy Observatory
James M. Moran Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astroohysics
George W. Swenson, Jr. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

ISBN 0-471-25492-4 INGLISH John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001

My boss is editor of:
ISBN 5-9221-0015-7 RUSSIAN FIZMATLIT, 2003, RUSSIAN

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

Then we need to discuss, what happens to a signal
in VLBI "detector" after a polarizer. ;^)))

You don't need to do this again. This is cycle 3 of this same argument
chain, and you always use quantum mechanics to describe it. Therefore your
argument is from strength, that the signal is comprised of discrete
particles from a source. Yet you feel somehow that no one follows this.
That no one is laughing.

Others may, but I am not. You have brought nothing new to this argument,
and I tire of you saying the same things in the same way.

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:XlSwb.17965$Bk1.722@fed1read05...
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.

- VLBI radio-telescope 1
-
-
- parabolic antenna 1
- \
- \
- \
- \
- ) )-P- ??? David??? ??? ??? ??? -|
- /^ |
- / | |
- / polarizer 1 |
- microwave / |
- radiation |
- |
- .
- .

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

[snip]

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.


You have made excellent reviews of papers written by Laurence Hecht.
Laurence Hecht is the editor of the "21st Century" journal:

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

I have written the letter to Laurence Hecht with the internet
reference on your message. Laurence Hecht is the rather peculiar
man, he can send the answer even year after!!! He wrote, that
his mail box is overflowed by waste and that therefore he often
loses the useful letters.

Please look at Tom Van Flandern writings:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep6/ep6-vanfl.htm

See also Walter Babin site - "dissident" scientists:
http://www.wbabin.net/

" An underground of "dissident" scientists and self-described
experts publish their theories in newsletters and on the Web,
exchanging ideas in a great battle against "the temple of
relativity." According to these critics, relativity is not
only wrong, it's an affront to common sense, and its creator ... ":

http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/...ein/index.html


Kind regards,

Aleksandr

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:XlSwb.17965$Bk1.722@fed1read05...
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.
....
David A. Smith wrote:

" 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."


" then the two _detectors_ with this orientation should then both
lose _signal_."



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

Really? This is a simple experiment that is done in high school, or in any
shop that sells sunglasses.

-------------------------------------------------------------
In VLBI there is no direct physical process of addition
" of waves " passing through slots!
-------------------------------------------------------------

Ah! So the signals are then discrete. And your conundrum falls apart.

The interference picture in VLBI (interferometer)
is pure mathematical abstraction, since the construction
of an interference pattern is carried out in the computer.

And so is in no sense proof that light is a wave-only phenomenon.

Whether you can describe in more detail your problems:

1. "Detections" of signals? ;
2. "Recording" of signals? ;
3. "Additions" of signals?

My "problem" is your continued
- supply of ASCII diagrams that are illegible to those without a suitable
font,
- insistence on descriptions of discrete signal streams, while you pretend
that they are "one",
- ignoring the response I already provided, so that you can posture
further.

Burke B.F., Quantum Interference Paradox, Nature, 223, 389-390, 1969.

How is that David? Be sure and not hide in obscurity, " if you
wish to discuss this with *me* ".

I have made myself clear, and you have blown more smoke. Congratulations!
Situation normal.

David A. Smith

(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com...
(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,

Yes I see, there are very many subjects to discuss and we can
endlessly jump from one to another. But I don't understand, why are
you jumping. Undoubtedly, the problem of "borrowed ideas" is very
topical in physics, and not only in physics. The authors of original
ideas are often claimed malicious, intractable, rude, secretive,
cranks and so on; at the same time those who claim try to cut the
author's possibilities to spread his ideas and undertake much efforts
to guess his new solution without him. Usually so behave people unable
to solve even a small part of what they mud. For better or for worse,
this is so. Such stories as you told happened with Farkash Bolyai
(non-Euclidean geometry), Lobachevsky, Heaviside (F-representation of
the field theory), Franklin (lightning-conductor and bifocal glasses),
Kulibin (in that number first arc bridge in Petersburg), Ohm (Ohm's
law) and many, many others. And we can recall Pushkin, Lermontov,
Vysotsky - was it otherwise with them? ;-)

If speaking particularly of Newton, he had problems not only with
Hooke but with Leibnitz and many others, too. When the conception
appeared in all its harmony, many see in it their unrealised plans,
unfinished computations and unelaborated guesses. All discoveries are
created on some underpinning. The same with Newton's gravitation law.
We can find the precursors of all Newton's discoveries in the books by
other authors, in that number by Descartes. But basing on Descartes'
laws similar to Newton's laws, we can calculate no model. ;-)

Can we claim the law of gravity to be not Newton's? Possibly can, but
neither Hooke's. Should Hooke achieve full understanding of
gravitation, no one could prevent him to publish. None the less, in
the form in which we know this law, especially in the sense of
establishing the equivalence between the gravitational and inertial
masses - this law has been proven by Newton. This aspect of their
controversy can be of interest for historians of science. Perhaps it
is even very interesting, but shouldn't be begun with the
question-mark, as you did. See, you are writing,

[Aleksandr]
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.

[Sergey]
This means, in the draft of Principia Newton had referred to Hooke. As
far as I know psychology of such behaviour when the author deleted
some references, decent authors never do so without special reason.
Indecent author tries to make some version of proof to avoid the
reference. If you are saying, there were the references, perhaps Hooke
had some guilt that Newton deleted them.

Then you are writing,

[Aleksandr]
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.

[Sergey]
It follows from this that Hooke told to Newton some unshaped guess,
some foresight, but not the law of gravitation per se. Here in the
newsgroups we throw many ideas - correct and incorrect, formed and
not. If someone of us blamed someone other of plagiarism because this
second appeared able to prove rigorously the unshaped thoughts of that
first, it would seem an absurd. Another case, when Bilge has read my
published paper, rigorous proof accepted by recognised referees and
defined corollaries - and began direct plagiarism. This was, of
course, foul and silly, as he doesn't know, what to do further. So we
have to differ, who, what and how uses. By the way, it was Pushkin who
gave to Gogol the theme of comedy "Inspector". Neither Pushkin nor any
other never accused Gogol in plagiarism - and this really was not
plagiarism. The same as Faraday factually had replicated Ampere's
experiment when discovered his law of EM induction. The difference was
only that Ampere conducted his experiment alone, while Faraday had an
assistant. Just the assistant revealed that the pointer deviated when
Faraday switched on the current. Whilst Ampere switched and went to
another room to see his pointer, the effect was over. All the physics
is in nuances. We cannot work here with an axe. We have to work with a
brush, as archaeologists.

One more what you wrote was

[Aleksandr]
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 ...

[Sergey]
Period. You are writing, Hooke asked Newton for his opinion. This
means, his opinion was valuable for him, and in 1679 Hooked hadn't a
distrust in Newton! I would like to tell you here an episode which we
had when arrived Kronshtadt few years ago. The guide showed us Popov's
laboratory and the summer-house from whose roof Popov broadcasted the
first in the world radio signals, and told us of a problem of priority
between Popov and Marconi. At odd moment we got into conversation with
the guide and told him, while Popov was the author of transverse EM
waves, we are the authors of longitudinal EM waves, so we have the
professional interest in this subject and place. Then he asked me,
what I think of that problem. Standing with the Kronshtadt roadstead
as the background, I asked him, does he know, the Marconi's steamship
stood just here and in its radio room Marconi and Popov had a
many-hour talk in private. Does he know that after this Marconi has
invited Popov to his wedding? As Popov couldn't arrive, he has sent to
Marconi a silver samovar. You Russian know indeed, such thing can be
presented only from the very bottom of the heart. The most interesting
that the guide (highly erudite professional) didn't know these details
and it was very unexpected for him. Because of it he had a perverted
opinion of relations between these people and their works. ;-)

As to optic ideas by Newton, the corpuscular theory of light whose
version we can see in photon theory had once died in investigations by
Hertz and Maxwell, and will dye again. So the question, whose priority
is, Hooke's either Newton's, is senseless. The wave theory whose
supporter was Hooke will win, and hardly someone will recall Newton's
priority. But there will remain Newton's rings, and as far as I know,
Hooke never aspired to be their author. This point of the controversy
looks like that of the authors of ball lightning conceptions - no one
of them didn't obtain the ball lightning at his laboratory. That will
be the author who will obtain it experimentally, all others can seek
what they didn't finished thinking and why they didn't obtain this
result. To the point, I can tell you, following our conception of BL,
we have obtained the initial BL, about the size of a cherry, and
switched the device off, as we couldn't provide the necessary safety.

One more example. This summer I have implemented the idea of diffusion
wearproof coating for workpieces, and the device gave staggering
results. The initial idea of these diffusion coatings is not mine, of
course. My friend asked me to adjust the device, as several teams
couldn't manage it quite long time. I adjusted, but I saw some
reasons, why the coating had low quality. I changed it (just the
nuances of process) - and it gave basically other coating. Before, the
worker had to remove a half of coating to provide the clean surface,
now a fine grinding is enough, and the coating lays on the hardened
sub-layer. That's it! I can repeat again, all the physics lies in
nuances.

We can speak of it much. Only, what concern has it to the subject of
our discussion - to play numbers either to study the regularities of
physical phenomenon? Has it any relation to the motion of conductor in
magnetic field? Or to our investigations in astrophysics? Or to
dynamic EM field of which they all keep silence as fishes, only the
counter on our web site whirls as a fan? ;-)

Why these jumps, I cannot understand.

Kind regards,

Sergey.

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:8RJxb.23007$Bk1.3272@fed1read05...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...

[snip]

VLBI interference is a virtual computer interference.
The computer programs eliminate rotation of the Earth,
a geometrical signal delay etc. etc.

therefore in VLBI interference the astronomers
always watch a main lobe of an interference !!!

Which would disappear if the polarizers were crossed at 90°, and the signal
were a wave passing through both polarizers with the accuracy you have
cited.

" As already it has become customary ",
this your assertion is erroneous. ;-)

All of the VLBI radio telescopes watch the same point
on a celestial sphere. The sky always makes "noise" in a
radio-frequency range. In a radio astronomy the quantity
of noise usually exceeds quantity of a signal! For this
reason on everyone of a VLBI radio telescope always there
is any "noise" signal, which one is recorded on a
magnetic tape. I repeat again, ON EVERYONE of a VLBI radio
TELESCOPE ALWAYS THERE IS ANY "NOISE" SIGNAL, WHICH ONE IS
RECORDED on a magnetic TAPE.

Just " the virtual interference in the digital computer "
makes possible to detect a SOURCE "hidden" under noise,
if the SOURCE is living. If the SOURCE has died, we shall
not have " a virtual interference in the digital computer ",

the NOISE DOES NOT INTERFERE
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

even " in a virtual interference in the digital computer "!

If you do not trust me, then you should ask Bilge about it.

Look at fundamental proceedings in VLBI:

INTERFEROMETRY AND SYNTHESIS IN RADIO ASTRONOMY

second edition

A. Richard Thompson National Radio Astronomy Observatory
James M. Moran Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astroohysics
George W. Swenson, Jr. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

ISBN 0-471-25492-4 INGLISH John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001

My boss is editor of:
ISBN 5-9221-0015-7 RUSSIAN FIZMATLIT, 2003, RUSSIAN

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

Then we need to discuss, what happens to a signal
in VLBI "detector" after a polarizer. ;^)))

You don't need to do this again. This is cycle 3 of this same argument
chain, and you always use quantum mechanics to describe it. Therefore your
argument is from strength, that the signal is comprised of discrete
particles from a source. Yet you feel somehow that no one follows this.
That no one is laughing.


It is very sad, you are the very difficult pupil or it can :^)
be very difficult disciple. But it will be valid to note,
that both of us are very persevering in reaching our PURPOSES.



Others may, but I am not. You have brought nothing new to this argument,
and I tire of you saying the same things in the same way.

David A. Smith