Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

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

Polarizers at 90° do not block all but circularly polarized light? Do you
have a citation for this?

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.

It is clear *why* the polarizers were inserted. It is also clear that at
certain positions of the sky, some of the polarizers are at 90°. Yet pairs
of antennae so related do not form a blind spot.

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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I claim nothing about the noise. I claim about loss of signal. Since
there is no loss of signal, the signal is two separate streams... and not
some gestalt structure. Therefore a wave-only model is an approximation.

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

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

Bilge has given up largely on the both of us. You because you argue, but
discussion is pointless, nothing said causes you to state all you know to
be true. Me because I am a sterile field.

....
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.

Preserverance is good. Speaking the truth is better. I have brought all I
know to this discussion, more than once. Rather than logically counter,
you read from your playbook. May I be excused now?

David A. Smith

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

[snip]

Dear Aleksandr,

Of course, I'm pleased much to hear your appreciation of my reviews of
L. Hecht's papers. Though believe, this is so boresome to review works
by people who never asked me of it, whilst the colleagues and
"non-colleagues" (as they say) in NG fully ignore my works. If I were
seeing someone's thorough and unbiased approach to my research, just
as I try to do, if the material of my study but not nationality or
other signs were considered, it would have a sense. But factually the
correction of someone's conceptions - this is just what I'm doing
every day in the NG and see as a response nothing except malice. Last
two months someone attacks my e-mail boxes with spam and viruses, and
I know, this is some offended colleague from Google discussions. Do
you really think, I should review their works for such "gratitude"?
Boresome... You know, if one reviews thoroughly, this takes time like
to type a paper! And can be even more useful for the author than the
material of the very paper - of course, if arrogance doesn't stifle
the author.

Regards,

Sergey

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

[snip]

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.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...bc5a87f7027269

Title: Titius-Bode laws in the solar system.
1: Scale invariance explains everything

Authors: Graner, F.; Dubrulle, B.

" Abstract
According to the Titius-Bode law, the planetary distances
to the sun follow a geometric progression. We review the
major interpretations and explanations of the law. We show
that most derivations of Titius-Bode law are implicitely
based on the assumption of both rotational and scale
invariance. In absence of any radial length scale, linear
instabilities cause periodic perturbations in the variable
x = ln(r/r0). Since maxima equidistant in x obey a
geometric progression in the variable r, Titius-Bode type
of laws are natural outcome of the linear regime of systems
in which both symmetries are present; we discuss possible
nonlinear corrections to the law. Thus, if Titius-Bode law
is real, it is probably only a consequence of the scale
invariance of the disk which gave rise to the planets. "

Load Article (PDF) from: Full Refereed Journal Article

Extractions from the F.Graner and B.Dubrulle paper:
================================================== ===

" 2. Theories of Titius-Bode laws

2.1. Dynamical vs kinematical theories

Explanations to the Titius-Bode law can be divided in two cat-
egories. We refer as "dynamical" to the theories of the first
type, which assume that the present law traces back to a period
anterior or contemporary to planet formation; most of them de-
scribe instabilities occurring in the primordial protoplanetary
disk, thus set constraints on its physical characteristics. Theo-
ries of the second category, called "kinematical", assume that
the law physically originates from orbital interactions posterior
to planet formation.
The pros and cons of each category have been discussed by
Nieto (1972). He argues that observed deviations from the exact
geometric law could be interpreted as the natural outcome of
orbital evolution after planet formation. Those deviations have
been quantified by Blagg (1913) and Richardson (1945) via the
introduction of а periodic function in the original exponential
law:"

"Kinematical" theories sometimes contradict each other; for
example, Molchanov (1968) explains the Titius-Bode law by
resonances between the frequencies of the nine planets, while
Souriau (1989) argues that the law is a consequence of the
planets being as far of resonances as possible, to avoid
catastrophic ejection events. Note however that kinematical
theories based on resonances are probably all ruled out by
the work of Henon(1969), who showed that for any set of
revolution periods, provided they are randomly selected
using an "excluded volume" procedure, one can find
resonances relations as good as those observed in the
Solar System.
We are interested in explaining explanations of the Titius-
Bode law, rather than the law itself. As it turns out, our
discussion mainly applies to dynamical theories; we therefore
focus on them, and do not comment further the relevance of
one category or the other.

2.2. Brief overviev of dynamical theories

A complete review of dynamical theories for the Titius-Bode
law is given in Nieto (1972). They mainly assume one of four
physical mechanisms to take place in the protoplanetary disk:
planetesimal accretion; competition between gravity and
electromagnetic forces; self-gravitational instability; and
hydrodynamic or turbulent instabilities in the protoplanetary
disk. Accretion produces a Titius-Bode law via the feeding
zone "

" The gravitational instability mechanism, explicitly tak-
ing into account the cylindrical (rotational) symmetry of the
disk, has been especially fashionable among Titius-Bode law
builders. Prentice (1977) found a Titius-Bode law for the
distribution of density maxima provided the collapse is
homologous, i.e. self-similar; he was especially interested
in the influence of turbulent convection.
In contrast, Polyachenko & Fridman (1972) showed that
even in a cold disk, the instability leads to a Titius-Bode
law "

" Other theories were based on disk structure under fully
developed turbulence, rather than linear instability. For
instance, von Weisacker (1948), then Kuiper (1951) showed
that turbulence in the disk would lead to the creation of
large vortices, organized in concentric circles. If the
scale of the turbulence (the scale of the vortices) varyes
linearly with the radial distance, the frontier between
the concentric vortex rings follows a Titius-Bode law.

2.3. Comments

Within such a tremendous diversity, these models share a
common methodology. Each of them assumes a physical
phenomenon to be the origin of planet formation. Then,
coming to quantitative predictions, each model needs an
hypothesis on the of course unknown physical properties
of the primordial system.
The most natural assumption, as long as we are totally
ignorant, avoids introducing unnecessary parameters.
Thus the first reflex is to propose a model with no
supplementary length scale, other than the radial length
scale r itself. Only Prentice seems to explicitly mention
his hypothesis, and apparently no author points out its
relevance. Such hypotheses include: homologous
collapse, constant eccentricity, disk height H or vortex
size ..."

" This method seems reasonable; it is very popular, but
simultaneously not innocent, for a very precise reason.
Indeed, it never fails to produce a geometric progression
in orbit sizes, even if not desired, and whatever the
underlying physical model.
For a "faithful" physicist, this prediction of a
Titius-Bode evidences the validity of the model and
even offers quantitative constraints. We show in the next
section why we believe that, in all the models we review,
Titius-Bode laws arise from a same symmetry hidden in the
equations, and not from physical phenomena they tend to
modelize."

================================================== ======
" Titius-Bode laws arise from a same

symmetry hidden in the equations,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and not from physical phenomena
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

they tend to modelize."
================================================== ======



Kind regards,

Aleksandr

Aleksandr Timofeev wrote in message
om...

{snip}

For a "faithful" physicist, this prediction of a
Titius-Bode evidences the validity of the model and
even offers quantitative constraints. We show in the next
section why we believe that, in all the models we review,
Titius-Bode laws arise from a same symmetry hidden in the
equations, and not from physical phenomena they tend to
modelize."

================================================== ======
" Titius-Bode laws arise from a same

symmetry hidden in the equations,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and not from physical phenomena
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

they tend to modelize."
================================================== ======

You missed fundamental orbital dynamics. See Beckmann's "Einstein Plus
Two."

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote in message
om...

{snip}

For a "faithful" physicist, this prediction of a
Titius-Bode evidences the validity of the model and
even offers quantitative constraints. We show in the next
section why we believe that, in all the models we review,
Titius-Bode laws arise from a same symmetry hidden in the
equations, and not from physical phenomena they tend to
modelize."

================================================== ======
" Titius-Bode laws arise from a same

symmetry hidden in the equations,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and not from physical phenomena
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

they tend to modelize."
================================================== ======

You missed fundamental orbital dynamics. See Beckmann's "Einstein Plus
Two."


Dear greywolf42

Please your comments on Baez's article below:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...galois.mit.edu

================================================== ========
From: (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: MOLASSES DEMON THEORY #17
Date: 17 Nov 91 23:18:58 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA


In article
writes:
In article
, (BECKMANN PETR) writes:

Suits me fine. Don't forget that I insist on strict
SRT, precluding a gravitational field. Nothing but the
relative acceleration between Jack and Jill is known.
This is perfectly satisfied by Jack's inertial
frame in which he is at rest and all free objects move
in a straight line, only Jill is accelerated.
I am equally at liberty to satisfy these conditions
by putting Jill at rest in an inertial frame and let
Jack be the one who is accelerated. Remember you have
no ether and no gravitational field to hold onto.
By the equivalence principle, there is not even any
inertia. But in the second case the outcome is, by
my whim, different.

Again, Beckmann is using the "modified equivalence
principle," which includes the clause: "all frames,
including non-inertial frames, are inertial if I say
so". This is clearly related to the formulation of
relativity that goes: "everything is relative."

If anyone is still surprised by Dr. Beckmann's
spluttering, read any account of crank scientific
theories, and you will see that he fits the
pattern quite well. Dr. B. please note - I am not
saying that you ARE a crank, just that A) you
certainly sound like one, and B) you don't
understand special relativity. :-)]

The last joke is actually a very good point. Indeed,
the whole fracas, despite its primary value as esoteric
comedy, makes some interesting points. Before I
continue, that reminds me of a joke I read in an
article about humorous things that were actually
said in the courtroom.
The prosecutor asks a witness: "Were you also shot in
the fracas?" The witness replies, "No, I was shot in
the stomach." Anyway....

Anyone who has been around physics for some time and
keeps one's eyes open will know of dozens of crackpot
theories of the same sort as Beckmann's. Indeed, I have
a second cousin who has spent much of his life writing
ever longer proofs that special relativity is inconsistent.
And one has only to turn to sci.physics.fusion to see that
Farrell and Mills claim experimental evidence for an
n = 1/2 state of hydrogen.
For those not up on their physical chemistry, this would
most likely mean a revolution in quantum mechanics. But
I would like to know this Mills' first name; a friend
assures me he is the same Mills as the author of "A
New Atomic Theory." The latter Mills had applied for
patents for an antigravity device (and many other
potentially useful apparati) based on his theory; his
unfortunate patent lawyer, a believer in Mills' genius,
was never able to collect his fees, and was eventually
fired from the firm.
Beckmann fits the general outlines of the crank quite well.
He makes the shocking claim that Einstein's work on
relativity is flawed, and that he, Beckmann, has managed
to correct it. (A friend has remarked on the "Einstein
envy" of so many cranks.) However, to read his work
one has to track down either his obscure book, "Einstein
Plus Two", or an equally obscure journal, "Galilean
Electrodynamics." The latter, Beckmann claims proudly,
is "peer-reviewed," but this merely raises the further
question, "whose peers?" His theory seems to be based
on the notion of "motion relative to the dominant field,
" but he never states a clear rule for determining this
quantity in arbitrary situations. The logical problems
with this sort of notion in , e.g., fluid mechanics
applications, are obvious. Moreover, his theory seems
to make approximately one new prediction, which seems
not to have been verified experimentally. Most damagingly,
he reveals himself (e.g. above) to be utterly ignorant of
the principles of special relativity, the theory he
claims to have improved.

Now, what to do in such a case? You may be tempted to
argue with Beckmann until either he admits his theory
is nonsense or you discover that he is actually
correct... but as is usual in these cases, the crank's
attachment to his theory rules out any chance that *he*
will admit defeat, and your own patience eventually wears
thin... Can you then drop the matter in good conscience?
Or would it not be unfair to pass judgement on his theory
until you *have* read through "Einstein Plus Two" and all
the back issues of Galilean Electrodynamics?

Here is where molasses demon theory #17 comes in. I am
adapting it from a well-known philosopher. Say someone
comes up to you and says "I believe in the molasses demon
theory. Namely, if you fast for one day and then pour a
fresh bottle of molasses on your head, then tap the floor
with your left foot 17 times, a monstrous demon will appear.
" He argues that it would be unfair to dismiss this theory
before doing the experiment. So you do the experiment, but,
just as you expected, no demon appears. After a shower you
confront the crank and say that you have refuted his crazy
theory. But then he says, "That was molasses demon
theory #17. After I spoke to you I realized I made a
miscalculation. The actual, correct, theory is molasses
demon theory #18." And he claims that it would be unfair
to dismiss *this* theory before testing it.

This example may seem silly, but if one likes one could
consider instead the Brans-Dicke scalar-tensor theory of
gravity, which admitted a constant such that as this
constant approached infinity, their theory became ever
harder to distinguish from general relativity
experimentally. Eventually, when the constant got high
enough, people lost interest.

So, the point is, when one has finite time, there are
certain theories one must dismiss even at some slight
risk of being "unfair." For in fact, by wasting ones
time on these theories one is being unfair to all the
more interesting ideas one would otherwise be spending
ones time on. One can say to the proponent of such a
theory, "maybe you're right, but I'm willing to bet on
the fact that you're wrong, so I won't continue to spend
my time worrying about whether you're right."

================================================== ======

Sincerely yours,
Aleksandr

Aleksandr Timofeev wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote in message
om...

{snip}

For a "faithful" physicist, this prediction of a
Titius-Bode evidences the validity of the model and
even offers quantitative constraints. We show in the next
section why we believe that, in all the models we review,
Titius-Bode laws arise from a same symmetry hidden in the
equations, and not from physical phenomena they tend to
modelize."

================================================== ======
" Titius-Bode laws arise from a same

symmetry hidden in the equations,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and not from physical phenomena
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

they tend to modelize."
================================================== ======

You missed fundamental orbital dynamics. See Beckmann's "Einstein Plus
Two."


Dear greywolf42

Please your comments on Baez's article below:


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...galois.mit.edu

================================================== ========
{Snip details available at the above link}
================================================== ======

What can I say? Baez' priestly rant to the faithful is slime from start to
finish. It's all personal attack, combined with deliberate distortions of
Beckmann's work. Baez never points to a specific failure in any of
Beckmann's work, and he admits that he hasn't read the book describing it
("Einstein Plus Two"). Hence, his claims are all based on his religious
belief in SR and it's prophet, Einstein.

"He makes the shocking claim that Einstein's work on relativity is flawed,
and that he, Beckmann, has managed to correct it. (A friend has remarked on
the "Einstein envy" of so many cranks.)" Obviously, one cannot question
Einstein, without being a crackpot! Yet the QM boys did this all the time.

I could chop it up piece by piece, but I prefer something with substance,
rather than gelatin.


But Beckmann said it better than I, in his reply to that 'joke' post from
Baez:

"I note that among the copious insults and oh, so funny, jokes, there is not
one objection to my point that an accelerated charge need not necessarily
radiate, nor to my challenge to name an experiment that contradicts my
hypothesis that the velocity implicit in Maxwell's equations should be
referred to the field, and not to the observer. Thaler gave up on the third
try."

"Is there nobody capable of answering with evidence rather than insults?"

This was followed (of course) with more insults from Baez.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote in message
om...

{snip}

For a "faithful" physicist, this prediction of a
Titius-Bode evidences the validity of the model and
even offers quantitative constraints. We show in the next
section why we believe that, in all the models we review,
Titius-Bode laws arise from a same symmetry hidden in the
equations, and not from physical phenomena they tend to
modelize."

================================================== ======
" Titius-Bode laws arise from a same

symmetry hidden in the equations,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and not from physical phenomena
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

they tend to modelize."
================================================== ======

You missed fundamental orbital dynamics. See Beckmann's "Einstein Plus
Two."


Dear greywolf42

Please your comments on Baez's article below:


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...galois.mit.edu

================================================== ========
{Snip details available at the above link}
================================================== ======

What can I say? Baez' priestly rant to the faithful is slime from start to
finish. It's all personal attack, combined with deliberate distortions of
Beckmann's work. Baez never points to a specific failure in any of
Beckmann's work, and he admits that he hasn't read the book describing it
("Einstein Plus Two"). Hence, his claims are all based on his religious
belief in SR and it's prophet, Einstein.

I share your point of view.
I shall point out the other example of hypocricy.
Whether you guess, what expedient my paper has vanished
without leaving a trace, by which one started a thread?:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm....de mon.co.uk

Personally Baez has permitted the publication of this paper
in sci.physics.research...

Who has deleted my paper from archive?

"He makes the shocking claim that Einstein's work on relativity is flawed,
and that he, Beckmann, has managed to correct it. (A friend has remarked on
the "Einstein envy" of so many cranks.)" Obviously, one cannot question
Einstein, without being a crackpot! Yet the QM boys did this all the time.

I could chop it up piece by piece, but I prefer something with substance,
rather than gelatin.


But Beckmann said it better than I, in his reply to that 'joke' post from
Baez:

"I note that among the copious insults and oh, so funny, jokes, there is not
one objection to my point that an accelerated charge need not necessarily
radiate, nor to my challenge to name an experiment that contradicts my
hypothesis that the velocity implicit in Maxwell's equations should be
referred to the field, and not to the observer. Thaler gave up on the third
try."

"Is there nobody capable of answering with evidence rather than insults?"

This was followed (of course) with more insults from Baez.

Personally Baez has permitted the publication of my paper
in sci.physics.research...

Who has deleted my paper from archive?

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:jg0Ab.27670$Bk1.6608@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

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

Polarizers at 90° do not block all but circularly polarized light? Do you
have a citation for this?

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.

It is clear *why* the polarizers were inserted. It is also clear that at
certain positions of the sky, some of the polarizers are at 90°. Yet pairs
of antennae so related do not form a blind spot.

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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I claim nothing about the noise. I claim about loss of signal. Since
there is no loss of signal, the signal is two separate streams... and not
some gestalt structure. Therefore a wave-only model is an approximation.

In a such case What can you say NOW about
a self-interference so-called of "photon" in VLBI?

Some case or cases, strictly in point to the problem
at hand, must be produced.

================================================== ============
A trifle of affectation in "photon" manner did not disharmonize
with such " a face of photon " ; it was natural to "photon".

The devil "photon" can cite Scripture for his purpose.

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

The "photon" is Alby's Satan, Beelzebub, Lucifer, Apollyon,
the Prince of darkness, the Evil One, the Enemy of God and Man,
the Arch-enemy, Arch-fiend, the Old Serpent, the Dragon,
Old Nick, Old Simmie, Old Clootie, Old Teaser, the Old One,
the Old lad ;^))))
================================================== ============


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

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

Bilge has given up largely on the both of us. You because you argue, but
discussion is pointless, nothing said causes you to state all you know to
be true. Me because I am a sterile field.

...
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.

Preserverance is good. Speaking the truth is better. I have brought all I
know to this discussion, more than once. Rather than logically counter,
you read from your playbook. May I be excused now?

I am given a deep thanks to you.
You have helped me deeper to understand psychologic problems
of overcoming of physical stereotypes of thinking.

Aleksandr

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:jg0Ab.27670$Bk1.6608@fed1read05...
....
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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I claim nothing about the noise. I claim about loss of signal. Since
there is no loss of signal, the signal is two separate streams... and
not
some gestalt structure. Therefore a wave-only model is an
approximation.

In a such case What can you say NOW about
a self-interference so-called of "photon" in VLBI?

All particles self-interfere.

Some case or cases, strictly in point to the problem
at hand, must be produced.

Yes. Wave-only model and the photoelectric effect are mutually exclusive.
Since we have no argument that particles are particles, and particles
self-interfere, you are left without reason to assume that light is not
comprised of photons-as-particles.

....
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.

Preserverance is good. Speaking the truth is better. I have brought
all I
know to this discussion, more than once. Rather than logically
counter,
you read from your playbook. May I be excused now?

I am given a deep thanks to you.
You have helped me deeper to understand psychologic problems
of overcoming of physical stereotypes of thinking.

Well, you are very close to the problem. Wave-only and the photoelectric
effect. Show how it can be done. Otherwise, you are simply talking.
Perhaps you are lonely.

David A. Smith

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:8JKCb.7902$gN.226@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:jg0Ab.27670$Bk1.6608@fed1read05...
...
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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I claim nothing about the noise. I claim about loss of signal. Since
there is no loss of signal, the signal is two separate streams... and
not
some gestalt structure. Therefore a wave-only model is an
approximation.

In a such case What can you say NOW about
a self-interference so-called of "photon" in VLBI?

All particles self-interfere.

Some case or cases, strictly in point to the problem
at hand, must be produced.

Yes. Wave-only model and the photoelectric effect are mutually exclusive.

Not at all, if you accept that particles are de facto particles, in the
sense that all of them, (including the photon) have small and well defined
radial extents. It is their *dynamics* which are determined not by the
classical equations of particle motion, but by the laws of quantum
mechanics.
The radial sizes of, for example, the proton, the neutron and the electron
have been determined, and these have little to do with how they behave in
relatively low energy diffraction phenomena. Work is currently in progress
to refine the answers for the form factor of the photon itself. That is
tantamount to specifying the radial dimensions of the photon, which have
sweet fanny adams to do with its wavelength. To the best of my knowledge,
the radial extent of the photon is compatible with being a point particle.

Since we have no argument that particles are particles, and particles
self-interfere, you are left without reason to assume that light is not
comprised of photons-as-particles.

...
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.

Preserverance is good. Speaking the truth is better. I have brought
all I
know to this discussion, more than once. Rather than logically
counter,
you read from your playbook. May I be excused now?

I am given a deep thanks to you.
You have helped me deeper to understand psychologic problems
of overcoming of physical stereotypes of thinking.

Well, you are very close to the problem. Wave-only and the photoelectric
effect. Show how it can be done. Otherwise, you are simply talking.
Perhaps you are lonely.

Franz Heymann