GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

Pmb wrote:
"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..
"Cosmik de Bris" wrote in message
.. .
Pmb wrote:
"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
news Tom Roberts wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:21 GMT, Tom Roberts

wrote:
if there were actual indications that a ballistic approach was
needed, physicists would respond to them.
There is no indication that any approach OTHER THAN the ballistic
one is
needed.
That is HOPELESSLY naive.
If I may say so you are the one who takes everything you read as being
correct.
I disagree. Tom only accepts what he reads if it conforms to what he
currently accepts to be the case. At least that's the way his actions
appear to tell us.

Pete
Not us Pete, you. You seem to have a very limited view of Tom, who I
believe to be one of the most informed people in this group. You may find
some people who agree with you but they will be the "usual suspects".
So you claim. I've experienced Tom's posting habits for the last 7 years.
I fully understand what he does. I'm not interested in taking a vote on
who agrees with me or not.


You won't see this because you have killfiled me but anyway.

I'd like to make precise what I have stated above since it appears that
people like "Cosmik de Bris" will misinterpret what I meant.

What exactly are people like me Pete?

I do not
believe that I have a better overall understanding of physics that Tom. I've
never stated anything such as that or anything that can be interpreted to
mean that. Those who arrive at such conclusions are doing so by reading into
what I say about Tom which I never said nor believe. I mean exactly what I
stated.

You said"

"Tom only accepts what he reads if it conforms to what he
currently accepts to be the case."

And I disagreed with you, no insults, just disagreement. I've seen Tom
admit his mistakes many times.

For example: in the past Tom gave what he believes to be the
definition of "proper time" for which it only applied to readings taken on a
clock at rest in an inertial system. I corrected him in that proper time
refers to that time recorded on an ideal clock in any type of motion
whatsoever. I gave him an example of such a definition from Jackson's
"Classical Electrodynamics" and at that point Tom claimed that I didn't
understand what he said. He then backpedaled and claimed that he meant
something totally different that what he actually posted. This is what I'm
referring to. No matter what, if Tom makes a simple mistake, like the
definition of proper time, then he will never admit to actually making a
mistake. He will instead start to insult the people who disagree with him in
his only little smug (e.g. shrug!) way. This has occurred only with
respect to definitions and interpretations of such terms as like "real
force" or such. As far as what he can calculate? I haven't seen him make any
calculations that I can recall. I assume that he is respected by his peers
and is good at what he does. But he does have this horrible habit of
backpedaling and insulting those who disagree with him.

If anyone can take one of those instances which I'm refering to and prove me
wrong then I invite them to do so. Most irritating people (i.e. those who
are fast to start insulting) have been blocked so I won't be able to read
them. An that includes "Cosmik de Bris" as of today.

I didn't insult anyone, you seem to be very sensitive to simple
disagreement.

I have no need for
irritating people and assertions in my life and will block those who are
anxious to judge (like "Cosmik de Bris")

I didn't judge, you did, I defended.

without being there to actually
experience discussions that have occured over the last 7 years between Tom
and myself. It is that collective experience which finally convinced me that
Tom is not a person to whom I wish to subject myself to his rude behaviour.

I await proof of claims such as that made by "Cosmik de Bris". Only exact
comments from posts will be responded to by me and I will not respond to
those comments which are based on opinion but only those which are based on
facts.

Well you won't see mine so I won't bother. And who judges what the facts
are? You I guess.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:11:21 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news

: : This fits in with the BaTh explanation
: : of Sagnac and diffraction, amongst other phenomena.
: : The nature of that oscillation is not known
:
:
: Bull****, of course it is known, it is just not known by Wilson.
: E = -dB/dt.
: Hanson caught on right away once it was explained to him.
:
: That equation does not, in itself, produce an oscillating system.

Sanctimonious Wilson's knee-jerk reaction.
You are like Poe and Phuckwit Duck, quick to say "not" or "no".
Tell us, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr., what equation DOES produce
an oscillating system?

You have to include another term showing how B varies with E.
....so you produce instability and an oscillating system.

: [hanson]
: Another way to look at photon representation via a sinusoidal EM
: parameter display would be by citing/using the **fundamental**
: observation that/of
:
: "A collapsing E-field generates an expanding M-field & visa
: versa and these first principles / conservation laws say that
:
: 1) If there is no field of neither M nor E: Nothing happens
: 2) If there is a field present but no change: Nothing happens.
: 3) If there is a Magnetic Field that starts to collapse, an E field
: arises.
: 4) If M becomes zero, the E will be max+ at pi/2, then
: 5) E starts to collapse at p/2 down to 0 at pi while
: M rises from 0 at pi/2 to max at pi... ...etc & analog to/till 2pi
:
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../AC.htm#hanson
:
: We know what Maxwell's equations mean...they don't explain 'photons'.


You are like Poe and Phuckwit Duck, quick to say "not" or "no".
Tell us, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr., what equation DOES produce
an oscillating system?

Maxwell's.



: Of course, idiot.
: w = c/f.
:
: ...but you haven't established what w is yet...
:
: ....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless
:
: Yes, it is.
:
: How do you know that?
plonk again
I KNOW IT.

How do you know a photon doesn't lose about 0.00001% of its energy every year
it travels?

or does it slowly lose
: : energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift).
:
: It doesn't lose any energy at all, what it does is gradually increase
: its cross-sectional area and spreads the energy over a greater area.
:
: I will agree with the idea that it increases cross section.

: That's what explains galactic red shift.
:
: ....now wait a minute. There is no direct link.

YOU wait another nine years, or ****ing listen up and quit knee-jerking.
There is a direct link between distance and shift. Empirical evidence
is the direct link. Shift is proportional to DISTANCE.

Yes we can probably agree on that....but an increase in size will not
necessarily cause a doppler shift...just a decrease in energy per unit area.

It is the only direct link there is, Doppler shift linked to velocity is
an indirect link and wrong, the source isn't moving away.

If a photon slows down wrt an observer, its observed frequency will be lowered.

: You have to establish whether the redshift is due to an increase in
wavelength
: or a decrease in frequency.....or both?

Neither, it's a marginal increase in cross sectional area and
a reduction in speed. That's a DECREASE in wavelength and
no change in frequency.

Why do you stick with these arse-up aetherian ideas?

If you slow down a rod, its length doesn't change.
If you slow down a serated bullet, the distance between serations does not
change ...but the arrival frequency of the serations DOES.

FREQUENCY AND NOT WAVELENGTH IS SUBJECT TO DOPPLER SHIFT.


:
: : I am also of the opinion that generated EM signals like RF, are just
: variations
: : in photon density.
:
:
: No, you are guessing. Radio is a truly coherent wave.
:
: you don't know that.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coherent
coherent:
3a: relating to or composed of waves having a constant difference in phase

You don't know that, you are too stupid, but I do.
Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.

I cannot see why variations in photon density alone would not achieve the same
result.

You are like Poe and Phuckwit Duck, quick to say "not" or "no".
Tell us, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr., what wave is coherent?

....and you are starting to sound like Seto...always wrong....

: If you want to create a low frequency photon you first
: need a parabolic dish to give it direction and stop it
: broadcasting in all directions or the energy will quickly
: dissipate over a large area. Then you need a low frequency
: source such as a radio transmitter, then you need to interrupt
: the wave after a single cycle and voila! you have a photon.
:
: I would say that the accelerating electric charges in the antenna radiate
a
: whole range of photons.

You'd say 1,000,000 wasn't a number because it has a lot of smaller
numbers in it.
In fact you'd say anything just to argue, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr.
The accelerating charges in an antenna all act together to produce
a single field, just as they do in an electromagnet.

But where is the direct connection between the frequency of the applied field
and 'intrinsic photon frequency'?

THERE IS NONE.

: A TRAIN of photons all synchronized is a wave on a beam.
:
: You don't know that.

Yes I do. You don't know that, you are too stupidly ignorant, but I do
and I'm telling you a TRAIN of photons all synchronized is a wave on
a beam.
Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.

A laser or any monochromatic light ray is made up of identical photons. The
laser might even be 100% coherent......but I can't see the connection between
this and a radio signal.

You'd say anything just to argue, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr., but you
only display your ignorance by doing so.

....says the know-it-not engineer......

sh of traffic unsynchronized is a just a beam, but
: each photon has the same frequency as in a laser, out of phase
: with the others.
:
: Lasers are different. Presumably the emitted photons ARE all roughly the
same.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Radio
- - - --- - - - -- - --- -- - --- -- - -- Laser
But not in phase and have different starting positions along the gas tube
or ruby rod, even if they start at the same time.
Radio waves are in phase, not even roughly, not even presumably,
but exactly. Quit guessing.

What aspect is in phase? What is in phase with what?
..........stop rambling for christ's sake.

Look, you daft old *******, a laser beam is a stream of identical cars
crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge, a radio beam is a train, or even
a million trains side-by-side. Each car, whether road or rail, is a
photon BY DEFINITION.

....and I'm saying that an intelligent signal can be constructed by simply
varying the density of the cars. After all, that's the principle behind fibre
optics.

: (Or a beam may be a mixture of frequencies
: as in a beam of white light.)
:
: I say a radio wave is just modulated 'photon density'...the photons
themselves
: being all different and not related to the actual radio wave frequency.

You can say whatever you want, you daft old *******, but you
know nothing about it. You just argue for the sake of it and
are ****in' clueless.

OK smartarse, how does one create a fibre optic signal?




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:59:42 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:29:56 GMT, Tom Roberts
wrote:

John Kennaugh wrote:

This is not "me", this is the common and well-established meaning of
"photon": In the standard model, photons are elementary particles with
no internal structure. They have no mass or charge, but do interact
electromagnetically with charged particles.

If a particle has no internal structure, it cannot possibly posssess
properties
that would make it any different from 'empty space'.


How can anyone possibly know that a photon has no internal structure? It
is an article of faith.

Surely one works out what its structure needs to be in order that it can
do what it does. Then and only then can you claim to know (or think you
know) what its structure is. Physics hasn't done that and therefore can
make no claims as to the structure of a photon.

It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be considered
as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind. This fits in with the BaTh explanation
of Sagnac and diffraction, amongst other phenomena.
The nature of that oscillation is not known but I suspect it could be a
rotating +/- charge pair

This was my suggestion some time back. If you think about it Maxwell's
equations are built solely on relationships relating to charge - Faraday
having shown that magnetism is caused by moving charge. As Maxwell's
equations model light very well that success means there must be a link
between light and charge therefore there must be a link between photons
and charge.

Physics is undisciplined because it has turned its back on the idea that
maths and physical interpretation compliment each other and now physical
interpretation is considered an unnecessary adjunct to theory. If one
insists on maintaining that discipline see where it leads.

If there is no aether (as believed by mainstream physics) then it cannot
be responsible for action at a distance forces.

There is no obvious alternative explanation so one might ask if one is
actually needed. Ultimately all force acts at a distance and one is lead
to the conclusion that although counter intuitive, one should accept
this as fundamental without need of explanation.

If so, then a 'field' becomes a 'field of influence'. A mapping of the
direction and amplitude of the force which *would* act on a charge *if*
a charge were placed at a given point.

In which case a field is not physical but metaphysical it cannot exist
without a source of influence and cannot store energy (because it isn't
physical) nor propagate through space as a separate entity.

If there is no aether then a field is a metaphysical 'field of
influence' and cannot exist without a source of that influence so if
photons have fields associated with them they must contain charge.


or something like a standing wave running along the
length of the photon 'envelope'.
Photons also have effective 'cross section and length',

If photons contain rotating charge then they produce a surrounding
field. You therefore have both the physical cross section but an
effective width beyond that to the extent of the field.

which explains the
double slit experiment.

I am told that even if the light level is reduced such that photons
arrive singly at a double slit, interference fringes are detected,
'interference' still takes place. I beg to differ. Not as I understand
interference at any rate. If two sine waves each amplitude unity are
interfering with each other then depending on the phase the result is
anything from an amplitude of 2 to 0 and *any amplitude in between* e.g.
an amplitude of say 0.333 is perfectly possible.

In the case of photons you cannot have 0.333 of a photon. Although the
result might be mathematically similar to interference in fact either a
whole photon arrives at a point on the detector, or doesn't. A maximum
may indeed be a build up of photons each adding to the intensity but a
minimum is not where two things have cancelled. The slits somehow
determine the probability that a photon will travel in any given
direction, the probability of travelling in some directions being much
higher than in others.

Thus a fringe pattern is built up over time. A minimum represents a
direction with a very low probability where very few photons have
arrived. Explaining this behaviour is a difficult matter but at least
let us be clear about what it is we are trying to explain and not go
into fantasy land and suggest that a photon becomes a wave and passes
through both slits and interferes with itself as I have seen suggested.
If it did you could get 0.333 of a photon.

Now if you study the original double slit experiment the slits are
illuminated by a single slit. Without such things as lasers this is
necessary so as to select a small area of the source in order that the
light from it is sufficiently coherent to give interference fringes. For
an ordinary source photons are given off in large coherent bursts (all
oscillating in phase). If you take the light from two big an area you
collect bursts of different phases (there is also something called
temporal coherence which is that light from the same spot but later in
time will not cause interference with earlier light from the same spot).

OK now here is my question. If a single photons will produce
'interference' fringes how come incoherent light prevents interference
fringes? We take it for granted that the material in which the slits are
cut plays no part in it the process but you wouldn't use transparent
material would you? If you wanted to do the experiment at RF you would
have to make the slits in metal as that is not transparent to RF. Just
as with the optical experiment you would select the size of the slit to
give best results - clearest fringes. Now I am an electronics engineer
but aerial design is not something I know too much about but I think
that that arrangement at RF would be described as two slot antenna. The
excitation of those slots not being the RF which manages to make it
through the slots but the metal plate as a whole being excited by the
incident RF energy and being re-radiated by the slots.

Even if you think of an optical double slit as a shooting gallery where
some photons go through and some do not the geometry is such that more
photons will miss the slots than go through. One cannot simply ignore
them and say they play no further part. It is possible that those which
do not go through the slits play as important a role as those which do.
That they in some way prime the fields which exist in the slots in such
a way that the next photon passing through them is deflected by an angle
whose probability is effected by the previous photons - including those
which didn't go through.


Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation
frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its
source?....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless or does it slowly lose
energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift).

If it wasn't lossless what would become of the energy lost?

I am trying to get my hands on an article by Waldron:

Waldron R.A. 1983b "the spinning photon" SST 6,259
I believe SST may stand for "Speculations in Science and Technology".

You might be interested in
Waldron, R. A., 1981b. "Is the Universe Really Expanding?" SST 4, 539.


--
Cheers
John Kennaugh

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news : On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:11:21 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: news :
: : : This fits in with the BaTh explanation
: : : of Sagnac and diffraction, amongst other phenomena.
: : : The nature of that oscillation is not known
: :
: :
: : Bull****, of course it is known, it is just not known by Wilson.
: : E = -dB/dt.
: : Hanson caught on right away once it was explained to him.
: :
: : That equation does not, in itself, produce an oscillating system.
:
: Sanctimonious Wilson's knee-jerk reaction.
: You are like Poe and Phuckwit Duck, quick to say "not" or "no".
: Tell us, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr., what equation DOES produce
: an oscillating system?
:
: You have to include another term showing how B varies with E.
: ...so you produce instability and an oscillating system.
:
: : [hanson]
: : Another way to look at photon representation via a sinusoidal EM
: : parameter display would be by citing/using the **fundamental**
: : observation that/of
: :
: : "A collapsing E-field generates an expanding M-field & visa
: : versa and these first principles / conservation laws say that
: :
: : 1) If there is no field of neither M nor E: Nothing happens
: : 2) If there is a field present but no change: Nothing happens.
: : 3) If there is a Magnetic Field that starts to collapse, an E field
: : arises.
: : 4) If M becomes zero, the E will be max+ at pi/2, then
: : 5) E starts to collapse at p/2 down to 0 at pi while
: : M rises from 0 at pi/2 to max at pi... ...etc & analog to/till
2pi
: :
: : http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../AC.htm#hanson
: :
: : We know what Maxwell's equations mean...they don't explain 'photons'.
:
:
: You are like Poe and Phuckwit Duck, quick to say "not" or "no".
: Tell us, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr., what equation DOES produce
: an oscillating system?
:
: Maxwell's.

"We know what Maxwell's equations mean...they don't explain 'photons'." --
Wilson
"The nature of that oscillation [a photon's] is not known" -- Wilson

Tell us, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr., what equation DOES produce
an oscillating system, you've told us it not Maxwell's and now
you say it is?


:
:
:
: : Of course, idiot.
: : w = c/f.
: :
: : ...but you haven't established what w is yet...
: :
: : ....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless
: :
: : Yes, it is.
: :
: : How do you know that?
: plonk again
: I KNOW IT.
:
: How do you know a photon doesn't lose about 0.00001% of its energy every
year
: it travels?

Law of conservation of energy in one of Nature laws, not man's.
It has never been broken, merely misunderstood. I'm not going to
debate axioms with you, either you accept it or you don't, but
no scientist or engineer is going to listen to you if you think you
can break it.




: or does it slowly lose
: : : energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift).
: :
: : It doesn't lose any energy at all, what it does is gradually increase
: : its cross-sectional area and spreads the energy over a greater area.
: :
: : I will agree with the idea that it increases cross section.
:
: : That's what explains galactic red shift.
: :
: : ....now wait a minute. There is no direct link.
:
: YOU wait another nine years, or ****ing listen up and quit knee-jerking.
: There is a direct link between distance and shift. Empirical evidence
: is the direct link. Shift is proportional to DISTANCE.
:
: Yes we can probably agree on that....but an increase in size will not
: necessarily cause a doppler shift...just a decrease in energy per unit
area.

It isn't Doppler shift, it is Androcles shift. Doppler shift is velocity
based, Androcles shift is distance based. I get red shift as a
function of distance, not velocity. MY hypothesis is unrelated to your
ballistic theory (of which I take no part), but you will agree with the
idea that it increases cross section.
Yes, there is a decrease in unit area, but also an increase in total area,
over which the energy of a photon remains constant.


: It is the only direct link there is, Doppler shift linked to velocity is
: an indirect link and wrong, the source isn't moving away.
:
: If a photon slows down wrt an observer, its observed frequency will be
lowered.

Of course. shrug
That's what red shift IS. No argument from me. The observed
frequency isn't the intrinsic frequency, that remains a
universal constant. If it slows down then we get a SHORTER
wavelength and red shift. It is only the constant c brigade that
associate red with long. Red is SHORT, blue is LONG, as
you can easily tell from any diffraction grating.

:
: : You have to establish whether the redshift is due to an increase in
: wavelength
: : or a decrease in frequency.....or both?
:
: Neither, it's a marginal increase in cross sectional area and
: a reduction in speed. That's a DECREASE in wavelength and
: no change in frequency.
:
: Why do you stick with these arse-up aetherian ideas?

Red is SHORT, blue is LONG, as you can easily tell from any
diffraction grating. The longer the wavelength, the greater the angle.
Why are you so stupid?

: If you slow down a rod, its length doesn't change.

Correct.

: If you slow down a serated bullet, the distance between serations does not
: change ...but the arrival frequency of the serations DOES.

Observed frequency isn't intrinsic frequency. The RPM of the bullet
remains unchanged, but a LONG bullet has a different OBSERVED
frequency to a SHORT bullet for the same speed and RPM.


: FREQUENCY AND NOT WAVELENGTH IS SUBJECT TO DOPPLER SHIFT.

WAVELENGTH AND NOT (intrinsic) FREQUENCY IS SUBJECT TO DOPPLER SHIFT.

You only-one-speed-of-light crackpots are all the same, totally
confused.
Red is SHORT, blue is LONG, as you can easily tell from any
diffraction grating.
w = c/f.
f is the constant. Not w, not c.
f is the constant. Not w, not c.
f is the constant. Not w, not c.

The spinning bullet has a constant f, in RPM.
That is its intrinsic frequency that it left the gun with, never
mind what an "observer" sees. Observers have all kinds
of relative velocities.

The spinning photon has a constant f, in RPM.
That is its intrinsic frequency that it left the atom with, never
mind what an "observer" sees. Observers have all kinds
of relative velocities.
w = c/f.
f is the constant. Not w, not c.


: :
: : : I am also of the opinion that generated EM signals like RF, are just
: : variations
: : : in photon density.
: :
: :
: : No, you are guessing. Radio is a truly coherent wave.
: :
: : you don't know that.
:
: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coherent
: coherent:
: 3a: relating to or composed of waves having a constant difference in
phase
:
: You don't know that, you are too stupid, but I do.
: Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.
:
: I cannot see why variations in photon density alone would not achieve the
same
: result.

Stop thinking photons are somehow tiny.
A photon is a pulse of energy, large or small.
Photons from molecules are small because molecules are
a small, but antenna are large and they emit large photons,
one after the other. A train of photons is a wave just as
a string of railcars is a train. Now, you can put two trains
side-by-side and increase the railcar density but all you get
is twice the energy. Also you can load each railcar with heavy
coal or run it empty, but a train is a train is a train.
A wave is a wave is a wave.


: You are like Poe and Phuckwit Duck, quick to say "not" or "no".
: Tell us, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr., what wave is coherent?
:
: ...and you are starting to sound like Seto...always wrong....

I'm never wrong and you didn't answer the question.
Tell us, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr., what wave is coherent?


: : If you want to create a low frequency photon you first
: : need a parabolic dish to give it direction and stop it
: : broadcasting in all directions or the energy will quickly
: : dissipate over a large area. Then you need a low frequency
: : source such as a radio transmitter, then you need to interrupt
: : the wave after a single cycle and voila! you have a photon.
: :
: : I would say that the accelerating electric charges in the antenna
radiate
: a
: : whole range of photons.
:
: You'd say 1,000,000 wasn't a number because it has a lot of smaller
: numbers in it.
: In fact you'd say anything just to argue, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr.
: The accelerating charges in an antenna all act together to produce
: a single field, just as they do in an electromagnet.
:
: But where is the direct connection between the frequency of the applied
field
: and 'intrinsic photon frequency'?
:
: THERE IS NONE.

Best answered with your own words.
"It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be
considered as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind." -- Wilson

You've got this hang-up that photons are tiny, high frequency pulses
that only molecules can emit. A photon is a pulse of electromagnetic
radiation, and that's ALL that it is. It can be large or it can be small,
but it is a pulse. A single cycle.
A tsunami or a ripple on a puddle, it's the same thing, only the scale
is different.
You wouldn't call a tsumani a lot of tiny ripples, would you?
....you are starting to sound like Seto...always wrong....

:
: : A TRAIN of photons all synchronized is a wave on a beam.
: :
: : You don't know that.
:
: Yes I do. You don't know that, you are too stupidly ignorant, but I do
: and I'm telling you a TRAIN of photons all synchronized is a wave on
: a beam.
: Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.
:
: A laser or any monochromatic light ray is made up of identical photons.
The
: laser might even be 100% coherent......but I can't see the connection
between
: this and a radio signal.

Then learn. Pay attention in class and stop interrupting.
Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.
Lasers are not 100% coherent, the frequencies of different photons
are not in phase.


:
: You'd say anything just to argue, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr., but you
: only display your ignorance by doing so.
:
: ...says the know-it-not engineer......

I know a hell of a lot more than you ever will.


:
: sh of traffic unsynchronized is a just a beam, but
: : each photon has the same frequency as in a laser, out of phase
: : with the others.
: :
: : Lasers are different. Presumably the emitted photons ARE all roughly
the
: same.
:
: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Radio
: - - - --- - - - -- - --- -- - --- -- - -- Laser
: But not in phase and have different starting positions along the gas tube
: or ruby rod, even if they start at the same time.
: Radio waves are in phase, not even roughly, not even presumably,
: but exactly. Quit guessing.
:
: What aspect is in phase? What is in phase with what?
: .........stop rambling for christ's sake.

This one:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Radio
- - - --- - - - -- - --- -- - --- -- - -- Laser

Pay attention for your minor god's sake.


:
: Look, you daft old *******, a laser beam is a stream of identical cars
: crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge, a radio beam is a train, or even
: a million trains side-by-side. Each car, whether road or rail, is a
: photon BY DEFINITION.
:
: ...and I'm saying that an intelligent signal can be constructed by simply
: varying the density of the cars. After all, that's the principle behind
fibre
: optics.

Of course it can. You load one railcar with coal, leave the next empty
and send Morse code. Don't try that with traffic over Sydney Harbour
Bridge, the message will be garbled. Make sure you send bunches
of road cars loaded and bunches empty. The signal will be slightly
blurred but will still get through. We engineers prefer digital but
Nature prefers analogue. Rail is more reliable than road but in
the event of a system failure six road cars filled with coal will
be better than one railcar. Five get through and one has an
engine failure, we'll call that a "one", Five empty we'll call that
a "nought".


: : (Or a beam may be a mixture of frequencies
: : as in a beam of white light.)
: :
: : I say a radio wave is just modulated 'photon density'...the photons
: themselves
: : being all different and not related to the actual radio wave frequency.
:
: You can say whatever you want, you daft old *******, but you
: know nothing about it. You just argue for the sake of it and
: are ****in' clueless.
:
: OK smartarse, how does one create a fibre optic signal?

You load one railcar with coal, leave the next empty
and send Morse code. Don't try that with traffic over Sydney Harbour
Bridge, the message will be garbled. Make sure you send bunches
of road cars loaded and bunches empty. The signal will be slightly
blurred but will still get through. We engineers prefer digital but
Nature prefers analogue. Rail is more reliable than road but in
the event of a system failure six road cars filled with coal will
be better than one railcar. Five get through and one has an
engine failure, we'll call that a "one", Five empty we'll call that
a "nought".
It's all down to engineering. What we expect of Dr. Physicists
is to come up with new ideas, not teach them the crap we
already know inside out, upside down, left to right, front to
back. Physicists... I **** 'em.
Dr. Androcles

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:56:07 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news

"We know what Maxwell's equations mean...they don't explain 'photons'." --
Wilson
"The nature of that oscillation [a photon's] is not known" -- Wilson

Tell us, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr., what equation DOES produce
an oscillating system, you've told us it not Maxwell's and now
you say it is?

There's more than one equation. Which one do you prefer?


: :
: : How do you know that?
: plonk again
: I KNOW IT.
:
: How do you know a photon doesn't lose about 0.00001% of its energy every
year
: it travels?

Law of conservation of energy in one of Nature laws, not man's.
It has never been broken, merely misunderstood. I'm not going to
debate axioms with you, either you accept it or you don't, but
no scientist or engineer is going to listen to you if you think you
can break it.

there is no violation. The lost energy obbviously goes somewhere...possibly the
CMBR.

: : That's what explains galactic red shift.
: :
: : ....now wait a minute. There is no direct link.
:
: YOU wait another nine years, or ****ing listen up and quit knee-jerking.
: There is a direct link between distance and shift. Empirical evidence
: is the direct link. Shift is proportional to DISTANCE.
:
: Yes we can probably agree on that....but an increase in size will not
: necessarily cause a doppler shift...just a decrease in energy per unit
area.

It isn't Doppler shift, it is Androcles shift. Doppler shift is velocity
based, Androcles shift is distance based. I get red shift as a
function of distance, not velocity. MY hypothesis is unrelated to your
ballistic theory (of which I take no part), but you will agree with the
idea that it increases cross section.
Yes, there is a decrease in unit area, but also an increase in total area,
over which the energy of a photon remains constant.

I understand your point but I still can't see any frequency shift there.

: It is the only direct link there is, Doppler shift linked to velocity is
: an indirect link and wrong, the source isn't moving away.
:
: If a photon slows down wrt an observer, its observed frequency will be
lowered.

Of course. shrug
That's what red shift IS. No argument from me. The observed
frequency isn't the intrinsic frequency, that remains a
universal constant. If it slows down then we get a SHORTER
wavelength and red shift. It is only the constant c brigade that
associate red with long. Red is SHORT, blue is LONG, as
you can easily tell from any diffraction grating.

That paragraph almost warrants a plonk.


: Why do you stick with these arse-up aetherian ideas?

Red is SHORT, blue is LONG, as you can easily tell from any
diffraction grating. The longer the wavelength, the greater the angle.
Why are you so stupid?

....and red is longer than blue. Everyone knows that...except you.

: If you slow down a rod, its length doesn't change.

Correct.

: If you slow down a serated bullet, the distance between serations does not
: change ...but the arrival frequency of the serations DOES.

Observed frequency isn't intrinsic frequency. The RPM of the bullet
remains unchanged, but a LONG bullet has a different OBSERVED
frequency to a SHORT bullet for the same speed and RPM.



: FREQUENCY AND NOT WAVELENGTH IS SUBJECT TO DOPPLER SHIFT.

WAVELENGTH AND NOT (intrinsic) FREQUENCY IS SUBJECT TO DOPPLER SHIFT.

You only-one-speed-of-light crackpots are all the same, totally
confused.
Red is SHORT, blue is LONG, as you can easily tell from any
diffraction grating.
w = c/f.
f is the constant. Not w, not c.
f is the constant. Not w, not c.
f is the constant. Not w, not c.

The spinning bullet has a constant f, in RPM.
That is its intrinsic frequency that it left the gun with, never
mind what an "observer" sees. Observers have all kinds
of relative velocities.

OK, I will admit I have actually been quite aware that your theory is not as
stupid as I have been making out. As you will see, nor is mine. Our differences
are really due to the fact that we are using different models and
definitions...and since nobody has much idea of what a 'photon' is, this type
of speculation is quite legitimate. I have arrived at my model because it
explains Sagnac...amongst other things.

Consider a photon as resembling a spinning wheel that moves at c away from its
source along its rotation axis. I define its 'wavelength' as the distance it
moves PER ROTATION along that axis. If the axis was replaced by a long rod and
the wheel had a notch on its rim, it would be possible to place marks along the
rod indicating the point where the notch was at the top. The distance between
marks represents the wheel's 'absolute wavelength'. It does not change in the
frame of a moving observer. I also agree that the wheel's rotation period in
the source frame defines an absolute interval of time.
However, if an observer moves along the rod at v relative to the source, the
rate at which the marks will pass is doppler shifted by (c+v)/c. That is what I
call a frequency shift.

YOUR model is different. You say that if a moving observer carries a long rod
parallel to the above one and marks it whenever a notch is at the top, the
distance between marks on HIS rod will be doppler shifted by (c+v)/c. This is
what YOU call a wavelength shift.

So we have two distinctly different situations. Which is the right one?

The spinning photon has a constant f, in RPM.
That is its intrinsic frequency that it left the atom with, never
mind what an "observer" sees. Observers have all kinds
of relative velocities.
w = c/f.
f is the constant. Not w, not c.

Think about what I have said above.
My approach works.


: You don't know that, you are too stupid, but I do.
: Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.
:
: I cannot see why variations in photon density alone would not achieve the
same
: result.

Stop thinking photons are somehow tiny.
A photon is a pulse of energy, large or small.
Photons from molecules are small because molecules are
a small, but antenna are large and they emit large photons,
one after the other. A train of photons is a wave just as
a string of railcars is a train.

You are assuming that their intrinsic oscillations have somehow adjusted to be
in synch. Does that require fairies?

Now, you can put two trains
side-by-side and increase the railcar density but all you get
is twice the energy. Also you can load each railcar with heavy
coal or run it empty, but a train is a train is a train.
A wave is a wave is a wave.

..but we are talking 'particles'..



: In fact you'd say anything just to argue, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr.
: The accelerating charges in an antenna all act together to produce
: a single field, just as they do in an electromagnet.
:
: But where is the direct connection between the frequency of the applied
field
: and 'intrinsic photon frequency'?
:
: THERE IS NONE.

Best answered with your own words.
"It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be
considered as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind." -- Wilson

You've got this hang-up that photons are tiny, high frequency pulses
that only molecules can emit. A photon is a pulse of electromagnetic
radiation, and that's ALL that it is. It can be large or it can be small,
but it is a pulse. A single cycle.

Nah! That's a gross oversimplification.


: : You don't know that.
:
: Yes I do. You don't know that, you are too stupidly ignorant, but I do
: and I'm telling you a TRAIN of photons all synchronized is a wave on
: a beam.
: Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.
:
: A laser or any monochromatic light ray is made up of identical photons.
The
: laser might even be 100% coherent......but I can't see the connection
between
: this and a radio signal.

Then learn. Pay attention in class and stop interrupting.
Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.
Lasers are not 100% coherent, the frequencies of different photons
are not in phase

bull



: : Lasers are different. Presumably the emitted photons ARE all roughly
the
: same.
:
: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Radio
: - - - --- - - - -- - --- -- - --- -- - -- Laser
: But not in phase and have different starting positions along the gas tube
: or ruby rod, even if they start at the same time.
: Radio waves are in phase, not even roughly, not even presumably,
: but exactly. Quit guessing.
:
: What aspect is in phase? What is in phase with what?
: .........stop rambling for christ's sake.

This one:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Radio
- - - --- - - - -- - --- -- - --- -- - -- Laser

Pay attention for your minor god's sake.


:
: Look, you daft old *******, a laser beam is a stream of identical cars
: crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge, a radio beam is a train, or even
: a million trains side-by-side. Each car, whether road or rail, is a
: photon BY DEFINITION.
:
: ...and I'm saying that an intelligent signal can be constructed by simply
: varying the density of the cars. After all, that's the principle behind
fibre
: optics.

Of course it can. You load one railcar with coal, leave the next empty
and send Morse code. Don't try that with traffic over Sydney Harbour
Bridge, the message will be garbled. Make sure you send bunches
of road cars loaded and bunches empty. The signal will be slightly
blurred but will still get through. We engineers prefer digital but
Nature prefers analogue. Rail is more reliable than road but in
the event of a system failure six road cars filled with coal will
be better than one railcar. Five get through and one has an
engine failure, we'll call that a "one", Five empty we'll call that
a "nought".

Digital or analogue, photon density variation alone can be used to create a
signal...and the photons can have different intrinsic frequencies.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:56:07 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: news :
: "We know what Maxwell's equations mean...they don't explain
'photons'." --
: Wilson
: "The nature of that oscillation [a photon's] is not known" -- Wilson
:
: Tell us, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr., what equation DOES produce
: an oscillating system, you've told us it not Maxwell's and now
: you say it is?
:
: There's more than one equation. Which one do you prefer?

For this oscillating system you only need one equation:
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html


You like moving dots and Wilsonphots with envelopes
(which are nothing like photons), how does this grab you?
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/D...pSpeed/PG1.mpg
Group velocity and phase velocity are not other same.


: : :
: : : How do you know that?
: : plonk again
: : I KNOW IT.
: :
: : How do you know a photon doesn't lose about 0.00001% of its energy
every
: year
: : it travels?
:
: Law of conservation of energy in one of Nature laws, not man's.
: It has never been broken, merely misunderstood. I'm not going to
: debate axioms with you, either you accept it or you don't, but
: no scientist or engineer is going to listen to you if you think you
: can break it.
:
: there is no violation. The lost energy obbviously goes
somewhere...possibly the
: CMBR.

Then it isn't lost. You are making wild guesses as usual. In any case
the CMBR is photons.


:
: : : That's what explains galactic red shift.
: : :
: : : ....now wait a minute. There is no direct link.
: :
: : YOU wait another nine years, or ****ing listen up and quit
knee-jerking.
: : There is a direct link between distance and shift. Empirical evidence
: : is the direct link. Shift is proportional to DISTANCE.
: :
: : Yes we can probably agree on that....but an increase in size will not
: : necessarily cause a doppler shift...just a decrease in energy per unit
: area.
:
: It isn't Doppler shift, it is Androcles shift. Doppler shift is velocity
: based, Androcles shift is distance based. I get red shift as a
: function of distance, not velocity. MY hypothesis is unrelated to your
: ballistic theory (of which I take no part), but you will agree with the
: idea that it increases cross section.
: Yes, there is a decrease in unit area, but also an increase in total
area,
: over which the energy of a photon remains constant.
:
: I understand your point but I still can't see any frequency shift there.

There isn't any frequency shift!
The wavelength is shorter, the speed lower.
Lead bullets get flattened when they hit steel plate and
spread their energy over greater surface area, Armour
piercing bullets penetrate. If you are hit with a big fat old
IR photon it warms you up, but a fast long lance of X-ray
goes right through you.
A fast water jet will cut carpet, I've done it for Ford on the end
of a robotic arm. The Hoover dam will give you headache
but it won't cut it off.
Why the photon gradually spreads is a research problem, but
it does.


: : It is the only direct link there is, Doppler shift linked to velocity
is
: : an indirect link and wrong, the source isn't moving away.
: :
: : If a photon slows down wrt an observer, its observed frequency will be
: lowered.
:
: Of course. shrug
: That's what red shift IS. No argument from me. The observed
: frequency isn't the intrinsic frequency, that remains a
: universal constant. If it slows down then we get a SHORTER
: wavelength and red shift. It is only the constant c brigade that
: associate red with long. Red is SHORT, blue is LONG, as
: you can easily tell from any diffraction grating.
:
: That paragraph almost warrants a plonk.

I don't give a ****. Plonk all you want, you stupid old
sheep shagger. I'm not interested in your lousy feelings,
I'm discussing SCIENCE, something you know next to
nothing about.



:
:
: : Why do you stick with these arse-up aetherian ideas?
:
: Red is SHORT, blue is LONG, as you can easily tell from any
: diffraction grating. The longer the wavelength, the greater the angle.
: Why are you so stupid?
:
: ...and red is longer than blue. Everyone knows that...except you.

So w = c/f is wrong, is it?
It is only the constant c brigade that associate red with long,
and you are one of them, you ****ing sheep shagging troll.



:
: : If you slow down a rod, its length doesn't change.
:
: Correct.
:
: : If you slow down a serated bullet, the distance between serations does
not
: : change ...but the arrival frequency of the serations DOES.
:
: Observed frequency isn't intrinsic frequency. The RPM of the bullet
: remains unchanged, but a LONG bullet has a different OBSERVED
: frequency to a SHORT bullet for the same speed and RPM.
:
:
:
: : FREQUENCY AND NOT WAVELENGTH IS SUBJECT TO DOPPLER SHIFT.
:
: WAVELENGTH AND NOT (intrinsic) FREQUENCY IS SUBJECT TO DOPPLER SHIFT.
:
: You only-one-speed-of-light crackpots are all the same, totally
: confused.
: Red is SHORT, blue is LONG, as you can easily tell from any
: diffraction grating.
: w = c/f.
: f is the constant. Not w, not c.
: f is the constant. Not w, not c.
: f is the constant. Not w, not c.
:
: The spinning bullet has a constant f, in RPM.
: That is its intrinsic frequency that it left the gun with, never
: mind what an "observer" sees. Observers have all kinds
: of relative velocities.
:
: OK, I will admit I have actually been quite aware that your theory is not
as
: stupid as I have been making out.

So you were trolling... as if I didn't know that. So why should I
give a **** about your plonks?



: As you will see, nor is mine. Our differences
: are really due to the fact that we are using different models and
: definitions...and since nobody has much idea of what a 'photon' is,

A photon is a pulse of energy, a single cycle in a wave.
You are the nobody that doesn't have much idea.


: this type
: of speculation is quite legitimate. I have arrived at my model because it
: explains Sagnac...amongst other things.

You haven't got there yet, you still have tick fairies in rayphases.exe,
14 cycles blue and 10 cycles red in the same time. That's not possible.
Speed it up and it gets worse, 6 cycles red and 18 blue.
YOU CANT SPLIT 24 PHOTONS INTO ONE GOING LEFT
AND 23 GOING RIGHT, you HAVE to have 12 one way and 12 the
other. The ONLY way is to shorten and lengthen the wavelengths.


: Consider a photon as resembling a spinning wheel that moves at c away from
its
: source along its rotation axis. I define its 'wavelength' as the distance
it
: moves PER ROTATION along that axis. If the axis was replaced by a long rod
and
: the wheel had a notch on its rim, it would be possible to place marks
along the
: rod indicating the point where the notch was at the top. The distance
between
: marks represents the wheel's 'absolute wavelength'. It does not change in
the
: frame of a moving observer. I also agree that the wheel's rotation period
in
: the source frame defines an absolute interval of time.
: However, if an observer moves along the rod at v relative to the source,
the
: rate at which the marks will pass is doppler shifted by (c+v)/c. That is
what I
: call a frequency shift.

Look moosh... there are 12 inches to a foot of rubber catapult elastic.
If I stretch the elastic to two feet long then the marks are 2 inches apart
instead one inch apart and there are still 12 of them. You are snipping
rubber off the left side of your catapult and gluing it on the right to keep
the marks an inch apart. That will enable you to roll your fixed wheel
along the rubber once on the left and 23 time on the right. I'm
using a bigger wheel and rolling down the sides of the catapult
12 each side. Now my big wheel has the same RPM as your little
wheel, but my big wheel goes twice as far as your little wheel
in the same time. Twice as far in the same time is twice the speed.
BUT! I still end up with the notch on my wheel perfectly aligned
with the marks on the elastic, just as you do.

: YOUR model is different. You say that if a moving observer carries a long
rod
: parallel to the above one and marks it whenever a notch is at the top, the
: distance between marks on HIS rod will be doppler shifted by (c+v)/c. This
is
: what YOU call a wavelength shift.
:
: So we have two distinctly different situations. Which is the right one?

I don't have tick fairies. You do, and you are totally buggered when
the speed exceeds 24, you've run out of elastic to cut off one side
and glue on the other.


:
: The spinning photon has a constant f, in RPM.
: That is its intrinsic frequency that it left the atom with, never
: mind what an "observer" sees. Observers have all kinds
: of relative velocities.
: w = c/f.
: f is the constant. Not w, not c.
:
: Think about what I have said above.
: My approach works.
:
I have thought about it and it makes no sense to have
tick fairies. It doesn't work. You can't send one photon
left and 23 to the right as you are doing in rayphases.exe.


:
: : You don't know that, you are too stupid, but I do.
: : Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.
: :
: : I cannot see why variations in photon density alone would not achieve
the
: same
: : result.
:
: Stop thinking photons are somehow tiny.
: A photon is a pulse of energy, large or small.
: Photons from molecules are small because molecules are
: a small, but antenna are large and they emit large photons,
: one after the other. A train of photons is a wave just as
: a string of railcars is a train.
:
: You are assuming that their intrinsic oscillations have somehow adjusted
to be
: in synch. Does that require fairies?

In a radio transmitter it requires one oscillator to start them all, one
after
the other. Since I only ever build one oscillator per antenna they are
somehow adjusted to be in synch, just as railcars are somehow
all pulled by one locomotive and all move together, in synch.
Getting them to adjust out of synch requires fairies, as does taking
railcars off one train and adding them to another going in the opposite
direction, which is your method of increasing the speed of one train
and decreasing the speed of another.
:
: Now, you can put two trains
: side-by-side and increase the railcar density but all you get
: is twice the energy. Also you can load each railcar with heavy
: coal or run it empty, but a train is a train is a train.
: A wave is a wave is a wave.
:
: ..but we are talking 'particles'..
A cycle is a particle.



:
:
: : In fact you'd say anything just to argue, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr.
: : The accelerating charges in an antenna all act together to produce
: : a single field, just as they do in an electromagnet.
: :
: : But where is the direct connection between the frequency of the applied
: field
: : and 'intrinsic photon frequency'?
: :
: : THERE IS NONE.
:
: Best answered with your own words.
: "It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be
: considered as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind." -- Wilson
:
: You've got this hang-up that photons are tiny, high frequency pulses
: that only molecules can emit. A photon is a pulse of electromagnetic
: radiation, and that's ALL that it is. It can be large or it can be small,
: but it is a pulse. A single cycle.
:
: Nah! That's a gross oversimplification.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton

Go argue with Newton.



:
:
: : : You don't know that.
: :
: : Yes I do. You don't know that, you are too stupidly ignorant, but I do
: : and I'm telling you a TRAIN of photons all synchronized is a wave on
: : a beam.
: : Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.
: :
: : A laser or any monochromatic light ray is made up of identical photons.
: The
: : laser might even be 100% coherent......but I can't see the connection
: between
: : this and a radio signal.
:
: Then learn. Pay attention in class and stop interrupting.
: Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.
: Lasers are not 100% coherent, the frequencies of different photons
: are not in phase
:
: bull
plonk

:
:
: : : Lasers are different. Presumably the emitted photons ARE all roughly
: the
: : same.
: :
: : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Radio
: : - - - --- - - - -- - --- -- - --- -- - -- Laser
: : But not in phase and have different starting positions along the gas
tube
: : or ruby rod, even if they start at the same time.
: : Radio waves are in phase, not even roughly, not even presumably,
: : but exactly. Quit guessing.
: :
: : What aspect is in phase? What is in phase with what?
: : .........stop rambling for christ's sake.
:
: This one:
:
: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Radio
: - - - --- - - - -- - --- -- - --- -- - -- Laser
:
: Pay attention for your minor god's sake.
:
:
: :
: : Look, you daft old *******, a laser beam is a stream of identical cars
: : crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge, a radio beam is a train, or even
: : a million trains side-by-side. Each car, whether road or rail, is a
: : photon BY DEFINITION.
: :
: : ...and I'm saying that an intelligent signal can be constructed by
simply
: : varying the density of the cars. After all, that's the principle behind
: fibre
: : optics.
:
: Of course it can. You load one railcar with coal, leave the next empty
: and send Morse code. Don't try that with traffic over Sydney Harbour
: Bridge, the message will be garbled. Make sure you send bunches
: of road cars loaded and bunches empty. The signal will be slightly
: blurred but will still get through. We engineers prefer digital but
: Nature prefers analogue. Rail is more reliable than road but in
: the event of a system failure six road cars filled with coal will
: be better than one railcar. Five get through and one has an
: engine failure, we'll call that a "one", Five empty we'll call that
: a "nought".
:
: Digital or analogue, photon density variation alone can be used to create
a
: signal...and the photons can have different intrinsic frequencies.

Go back to sleep.
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:44:52 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

: There's more than one equation. Which one do you prefer?

For this oscillating system you only need one equation:
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html


You like moving dots and Wilsonphots with envelopes
(which are nothing like photons), how does this grab you?
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/D...pSpeed/PG1.mpg
Group velocity and phase velocity are not other same.

access denied...


: : How do you know a photon doesn't lose about 0.00001% of its energy
every
: year
: : it travels?
:
: Law of conservation of energy in one of Nature laws, not man's.
: It has never been broken, merely misunderstood. I'm not going to
: debate axioms with you, either you accept it or you don't, but
: no scientist or engineer is going to listen to you if you think you
: can break it.
:
: there is no violation. The lost energy obbviously goes
somewhere...possibly the
: CMBR.

Then it isn't lost. You are making wild guesses as usual. In any case
the CMBR is photons.

That's OK. When photons lose energy, they do so in quantum steps....by
releasing other very low energy photons.


: It isn't Doppler shift, it is Androcles shift. Doppler shift is velocity
: based, Androcles shift is distance based. I get red shift as a
: function of distance, not velocity. MY hypothesis is unrelated to your
: ballistic theory (of which I take no part), but you will agree with the
: idea that it increases cross section.
: Yes, there is a decrease in unit area, but also an increase in total
area,
: over which the energy of a photon remains constant.
:
: I understand your point but I still can't see any frequency shift there.

There isn't any frequency shift!
The wavelength is shorter, the speed lower.

I can't see any wavelength shift either.
....unless you are claiming that photons change from a long cigar shape towards
a spherical one.


: : Why do you stick with these arse-up aetherian ideas?
:
: Red is SHORT, blue is LONG, as you can easily tell from any
: diffraction grating. The longer the wavelength, the greater the angle.
: Why are you so stupid?
:
: ...and red is longer than blue. Everyone knows that...except you.

So w = c/f is wrong, is it?
It is only the constant c brigade that associate red with long,
and you are one of them, you ****ing sheep shagging troll.

Red has longer wavelength than blue. You should know that.

: : If you slow down a rod, its length doesn't change.
:
: Correct.
:
: : If you slow down a serated bullet, the distance between serations does
not
: : change ...but the arrival frequency of the serations DOES.
:
: Observed frequency isn't intrinsic frequency. The RPM of the bullet
: remains unchanged, but a LONG bullet has a different OBSERVED
: frequency to a SHORT bullet for the same speed and RPM.
:

: The spinning bullet has a constant f, in RPM.
: That is its intrinsic frequency that it left the gun with, never
: mind what an "observer" sees. Observers have all kinds
: of relative velocities.
:
: OK, I will admit I have actually been quite aware that your theory is not
as
: stupid as I have been making out.

So you were trolling... as if I didn't know that. So why should I
give a **** about your plonks?

I wsn't trolling...it's just that YOUR approach, which I investigated
thoroughly before, cannot explain Sagnac....so it must be wrong.

: As you will see, nor is mine. Our differences
: are really due to the fact that we are using different models and
: definitions...and since nobody has much idea of what a 'photon' is,

A photon is a pulse of energy, a single cycle in a wave.

...so engineers can see photons as they travel, eh? very good....haha!.

You are the nobody that doesn't have much idea.

Photon: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg

The fields are oscillating as in: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe

The whole thing moves at c wrt its source. The magnetic component is similar
and at right angle to the screen.
Note: the distance between wavecrests remains the same in all frames. The rate
at which wavecrests arrive is observer speed dependent.

: this type
: of speculation is quite legitimate. I have arrived at my model because it
: explains Sagnac...amongst other things.

You haven't got there yet, you still have tick fairies in rayphases.exe,
14 cycles blue and 10 cycles red in the same time. That's not possible.

Yes it is. as I pointed out, to an observer moving at source speed around the
ring, the frequencies are the same, as they should be.

Speed it up and it gets worse, 6 cycles red and 18 blue.
YOU CANT SPLIT 24 PHOTONS INTO ONE GOING LEFT
AND 23 GOING RIGHT, you HAVE to have 12 one way and 12 the
other. The ONLY way is to shorten and lengthen the wavelengths.

.......then you get the Andersen/Jerry model and a null result.

Mine looks funny...but that's the way it is....the frequencies are the same in
the source frame but different in the nonrotating one.

: Consider a photon as resembling a spinning wheel that moves at c away from
its
: source along its rotation axis. I define its 'wavelength' as the distance
it
: moves PER ROTATION along that axis. If the axis was replaced by a long rod
and
: the wheel had a notch on its rim, it would be possible to place marks
along the
: rod indicating the point where the notch was at the top. The distance
between
: marks represents the wheel's 'absolute wavelength'. It does not change in
the
: frame of a moving observer. I also agree that the wheel's rotation period
in
: the source frame defines an absolute interval of time.
: However, if an observer moves along the rod at v relative to the source,
the
: rate at which the marks will pass is doppler shifted by (c+v)/c. That is
what I
: call a frequency shift.

Look moosh... there are 12 inches to a foot of rubber catapult elastic.
If I stretch the elastic to two feet long then the marks are 2 inches apart
instead one inch apart and there are still 12 of them. You are snipping
rubber off the left side of your catapult and gluing it on the right to keep
the marks an inch apart. That will enable you to roll your fixed wheel
along the rubber once on the left and 23 time on the right. I'm
using a bigger wheel and rolling down the sides of the catapult
12 each side. Now my big wheel has the same RPM as your little
wheel, but my big wheel goes twice as far as your little wheel
in the same time. Twice as far in the same time is twice the speed.
BUT! I still end up with the notch on my wheel perfectly aligned
with the marks on the elastic, just as you do.

that's not what happens.


: YOUR model is different. You say that if a moving observer carries a long
rod
: parallel to the above one and marks it whenever a notch is at the top, the
: distance between marks on HIS rod will be doppler shifted by (c+v)/c. This
is
: what YOU call a wavelength shift.
:
: So we have two distinctly different situations. Which is the right one?

I don't have tick fairies. You do, and you are totally buggered when
the speed exceeds 24, you've run out of elastic to cut off one side
and glue on the other.

No, I just accepet that the rudimentary 'spinning wheel' model of a photon is
insufficient to explain things like Sagnac.

I prefer the 'standing wave' one.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg

: The spinning photon has a constant f, in RPM.
: That is its intrinsic frequency that it left the atom with, never
: mind what an "observer" sees. Observers have all kinds
: of relative velocities.
: w = c/f.
: f is the constant. Not w, not c.
:
: Think about what I have said above.
: My approach works.
:
I have thought about it and it makes no sense to have
tick fairies. It doesn't work. You can't send one photon
left and 23 to the right as you are doing in rayphases.exe.

Sorry, but that's what you see IN THE NONROTATING FRAME when the frequency of
each ray is the same in the source frame...as it is.


: Stop thinking photons are somehow tiny.
: A photon is a pulse of energy, large or small.
: Photons from molecules are small because molecules are
: a small, but antenna are large and they emit large photons,
: one after the other. A train of photons is a wave just as
: a string of railcars is a train.
:
: You are assuming that their intrinsic oscillations have somehow adjusted
to be
: in synch. Does that require fairies?

In a radio transmitter it requires one oscillator to start them all, one
after
the other. Since I only ever build one oscillator per antenna they are
somehow adjusted to be in synch, just as railcars are somehow
all pulled by one locomotive and all move together, in synch.

that doesn't follow.

Getting them to adjust out of synch requires fairies, as does taking
railcars off one train and adding them to another going in the opposite
direction, which is your method of increasing the speed of one train
and decreasing the speed of another.

Accelerating charges emit quanta of EM radiation in the form of 'photons'.
Charges are continuously accelerating up and down the antenna. They should be
emitting a range of photon frequencies, somewhat randomly.
I say the signal is emitted as simple variations in photon density, with the
properties of the individual photons being irrelevant..

: Now, you can put two trains
: side-by-side and increase the railcar density but all you get
: is twice the energy. Also you can load each railcar with heavy
: coal or run it empty, but a train is a train is a train.
: A wave is a wave is a wave.
:
: ..but we are talking 'particles'..
A cycle is a particle.

How do you know a photon is only ONE cycle?

: :
: : THERE IS NONE.

: : : You don't know that.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:08:38 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:59:42 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Surely one works out what its structure needs to be in order that it can
do what it does. Then and only then can you claim to know (or think you
know) what its structure is. Physics hasn't done that and therefore can
make no claims as to the structure of a photon.

It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be considered
as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind. This fits in with the BaTh explanation
of Sagnac and diffraction, amongst other phenomena.
The nature of that oscillation is not known but I suspect it could be a
rotating +/- charge pair

This was my suggestion some time back. If you think about it Maxwell's
equations are built solely on relationships relating to charge - Faraday
having shown that magnetism is caused by moving charge. As Maxwell's
equations model light very well that success means there must be a link
between light and charge therefore there must be a link between photons
and charge.

I currently think a photon in transit is not just a 'spinning wheel' but looks
something like this:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg

The fields are oscillating and form a standing wave along the photon's length.
Each photon has a well defined INTRINSIC 'wavelength' that is absolute and the
same in all frames.

You can see my model oscillating and moving (in reality at c wrt its source) at
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/E-field.exe


Physics is undisciplined because it has turned its back on the idea that
maths and physical interpretation compliment each other and now physical
interpretation is considered an unnecessary adjunct to theory. If one
insists on maintaining that discipline see where it leads.

If there is no aether (as believed by mainstream physics) then it cannot
be responsible for action at a distance forces.

There is no obvious alternative explanation so one might ask if one is
actually needed. Ultimately all force acts at a distance and one is lead
to the conclusion that although counter intuitive, one should accept
this as fundamental without need of explanation.

If so, then a 'field' becomes a 'field of influence'. A mapping of the
direction and amplitude of the force which *would* act on a charge *if*
a charge were placed at a given point.

In which case a field is not physical but metaphysical it cannot exist
without a source of influence and cannot store energy (because it isn't
physical) nor propagate through space as a separate entity.

If there is no aether then a field is a metaphysical 'field of
influence' and cannot exist without a source of that influence so if
photons have fields associated with them they must contain charge.

I agree with that.
I am now wondering if each photon consists of an individual package of 'the
stuff that fields are made of'.
Since photons are apparently everywhere, so is the 'stuff'.
Even though the individual photons are moving, does the 'stuff they carry' form
a kind of continuous aether?
....just a thought....


or something like a standing wave running along the
length of the photon 'envelope'.
Photons also have effective 'cross section and length',

If photons contain rotating charge then they produce a surrounding
field. You therefore have both the physical cross section but an
effective width beyond that to the extent of the field.

Yes. Even a pair of spinning charges should generate a similar field that
operates withing a 'volume'.

which explains the
double slit experiment.

I am told that even if the light level is reduced such that photons
arrive singly at a double slit, interference fringes are detected,
'interference' still takes place. I beg to differ. Not as I understand
interference at any rate. If two sine waves each amplitude unity are
interfering with each other then depending on the phase the result is
anything from an amplitude of 2 to 0 and *any amplitude in between* e.g.
an amplitude of say 0.333 is perfectly possible.

In the case of photons you cannot have 0.333 of a photon. Although the
result might be mathematically similar to interference in fact either a
whole photon arrives at a point on the detector, or doesn't. A maximum
may indeed be a build up of photons each adding to the intensity but a
minimum is not where two things have cancelled. The slits somehow
determine the probability that a photon will travel in any given
direction, the probability of travelling in some directions being much
higher than in others.

Thus a fringe pattern is built up over time. A minimum represents a
direction with a very low probability where very few photons have
arrived. Explaining this behaviour is a difficult matter but at least
let us be clear about what it is we are trying to explain and not go
into fantasy land and suggest that a photon becomes a wave and passes
through both slits and interferes with itself as I have seen suggested.
If it did you could get 0.333 of a photon.

Now if you study the original double slit experiment the slits are
illuminated by a single slit. Without such things as lasers this is
necessary so as to select a small area of the source in order that the
light from it is sufficiently coherent to give interference fringes. For
an ordinary source photons are given off in large coherent bursts (all
oscillating in phase). If you take the light from two big an area you
collect bursts of different phases (there is also something called
temporal coherence which is that light from the same spot but later in
time will not cause interference with earlier light from the same spot).

I was hoping my model might explain this.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg
The thing is oscilating. The diffracted angle depends on the phase of the
intrinsic field on arrival at the slits. A small portion of the individual
photon is deflected to an angle that somehow depends on that phase.....I don't
know how 'wavelength' comes into the picture though.

OK now here is my question. If a single photons will produce
'interference' fringes how come incoherent light prevents interference
fringes?

CMIIW but I don't think that's true for incoherent MONOCHROMATIC light.

We take it for granted that the material in which the slits are
cut plays no part in it the process but you wouldn't use transparent
material would you? If you wanted to do the experiment at RF you would
have to make the slits in metal as that is not transparent to RF. Just
as with the optical experiment you would select the size of the slit to
give best results - clearest fringes. Now I am an electronics engineer
but aerial design is not something I know too much about but I think
that that arrangement at RF would be described as two slot antenna. The
excitation of those slots not being the RF which manages to make it
through the slots but the metal plate as a whole being excited by the
incident RF energy and being re-radiated by the slots.

Even if you think of an optical double slit as a shooting gallery where
some photons go through and some do not the geometry is such that more
photons will miss the slots than go through. One cannot simply ignore
them and say they play no further part. It is possible that those which
do not go through the slits play as important a role as those which do.
That they in some way prime the fields which exist in the slots in such
a way that the next photon passing through them is deflected by an angle
whose probability is effected by the previous photons - including those
which didn't go through.

I don't think you need to worry about that.
A single photon has a finite cross section. Some of it passes through each slit
and presumably disperses a little. The amount of reinforcement and hence
diffracted angle depends on the relationship between the (phase?) properties of
the 'two bits' as they meet.

Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation
frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its
source?....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless or does it slowly lose
energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift).

If it wasn't lossless what would become of the energy lost?

Part of the CMBR

I am trying to get my hands on an article by Waldron:

Waldron R.A. 1983b "the spinning photon" SST 6,259
I believe SST may stand for "Speculations in Science and Technology".

You might be interested in
Waldron, R. A., 1981b. "Is the Universe Really Expanding?" SST 4, 539.

will look.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:44:52 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: .. .
:
: : There's more than one equation. Which one do you prefer?
:
: For this oscillating system you only need one equation:
: http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html
:
:
: You like moving dots and Wilsonphots with envelopes
: (which are nothing like photons), how does this grab you?
: http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/D...pSpeed/PG1.mpg
: Group velocity and phase velocity are not other same.
:
: access denied...

Ah, that's probably because you are not an engineer. You can use
the tradesman's entrance he
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos.html
Then you'll find
Basic Wave Phenomena


: : : How do you know a photon doesn't lose about 0.00001% of its energy
: every
: : year
: : : it travels?
: :
: : Law of conservation of energy in one of Nature laws, not man's.
: : It has never been broken, merely misunderstood. I'm not going to
: : debate axioms with you, either you accept it or you don't, but
: : no scientist or engineer is going to listen to you if you think you
: : can break it.
: :
: : there is no violation. The lost energy obbviously goes
: somewhere...possibly the
: : CMBR.
:
: Then it isn't lost. You are making wild guesses as usual. In any case
: the CMBR is photons.
:
: That's OK. When photons lose energy, they do so in quantum steps....by
: releasing other very low energy photons.
:

Sheesh, Wilson, you are so far out in left field it's incredible.
Look, chum... when a photon hits a target it may well re-radiate
a pair or more of lower energy photons, that's true, but...
in a different direction. When looking at a galaxy and saying it
is red shifted, you are seeing it with photons that came directly
from that galaxy. When looking at the CMBR you are seeing
a fog, there is no detail.
That's why it is called Common Microwave BACKGROUND
Radiation.
The whole sky is blue because dust motes in the atmosphere
are scattering sunlight in ALL directions. You can't have it
both ways, see a galaxy AND say the photons scattered
a tiny part of their energy, it doesn't work that way. Quantum
exchanges are like money. You can split a dollar into 100 cents
or into fewer coins of a higher denomination, but you can't
spend ozzie money in British shops and you can't split
photons without the right molecule.
The red shift is NOT in quantum leaps anyway, it is gradual
and looks just like Doppler shift. That's why Hubble thought
it was Doppler shift.
Androclean shift is purely a function of distance. If you imagine
a water droplet getting gradually wider as it slides down a thin wire
then it traces a cone, but it has a weak interaction with its neighbours
and loses speed as it progresses. The wires themselves radiate
in all directions and give us the inverse square law that we all know
and love so well, the droplets travelling on them getting further apart,
but the red shift is the slight but gradual widening of the droplet
which travels millions of light years before it gets noticed.

Anyway, that's my hypothesis, designed to fit ALL the data,
not just some small part of it.
Why the spread? Who knows, but it's a whole lot more plausible
than any "Big Bang" theory, a universe suddenly appearing out
of nothing and for no reason. We have to accept the universe
exists, we don't have to accept that it began or ever had a
beginning or will ever have an ending, we will never know
for certain anyway unless you believe in some Gawd who
is going to reveal all on judgment day just before he sentences
you and I to eternal damnation for being naughty boys and
sinning by screwing out of wedlock or some **** like that.

The thing about cosmology is any religious crackpot can have
a theory and nobody can prove it or even test it. As an engineer
I'm only interested in theories that I can use to some advantage
such as high speed interplanetary communications for the Mars
Rovers or Cassini at Saturn.


: : It isn't Doppler shift, it is Androcles shift. Doppler shift is
velocity
: : based, Androcles shift is distance based. I get red shift as a
: : function of distance, not velocity. MY hypothesis is unrelated to your
: : ballistic theory (of which I take no part), but you will agree with
the
: : idea that it increases cross section.
: : Yes, there is a decrease in unit area, but also an increase in total
: area,
: : over which the energy of a photon remains constant.
: :
: : I understand your point but I still can't see any frequency shift
there.
:
: There isn't any frequency shift!
: The wavelength is shorter, the speed lower.
:
: I can't see any wavelength shift either.
: ...unless you are claiming that photons change from a long cigar shape
towards
: a spherical one.

More like a coin flattening out into a 33 RPM vinyl LP.
There never was any length to begin with. When
a spinning bullet travels the length of a rifled barrel
the bullet isn't as long as the gun but it makes one turn
in that length. If it travels slower then it makes a full
turn with a shorter barrel.
http://www.spudtech.com/images/products/sch80rifled.jpg
That's ballistics.
In mathematical terms fix the RPM first, never mind the
length of the barrel, one turn fixes both the speed and the
"wavelength".
w = c/f.



: : : Why do you stick with these arse-up aetherian ideas?
: :
: : Red is SHORT, blue is LONG, as you can easily tell from any
: : diffraction grating. The longer the wavelength, the greater the angle.
: : Why are you so stupid?
: :
: : ...and red is longer than blue. Everyone knows that...except you.
:
: So w = c/f is wrong, is it?
: It is only the constant c brigade that associate red with long,
: and you are one of them, you ****ing sheep shagging troll.
:
: Red has longer wavelength than blue. You should know that.

Nope. You've been indoctrinated by the only-one-speed-of-light
Einstein Dingleberries and aetherialist kooks.
My ideas are ballistic ideas, you are not paying attention to the
equation. Red has a lower speed and a shorter wavelength than
blue, a bullet in a rifled barrel isn't as long as the barrel like
a cigar. It isn't at both ends at the same time.
You, of all people, claiming to have a ballistic theory as you
do, are not even close to using ballistics as your model.
If a bullet turns once in a rifle barrel one metre long in one second
then its speed is 1 meter per second, its frequency is 1 Hz and
its wavelength is one metre.
1 = 1/1
If a bullet turns twice in a rifle barrel one metre long in one second
then its speed is 1 meter per second, its frequency is 2 Hz and
its wavelength is 0.5 metre.
0.5 = 1/2
If a bullet turns once in a rifle barrel one metre long in 0.5 second
then its speed is 2 metres per second, its frequency is 2 Hz and
its wavelength is 1 metre.
1= 2/2
w = c/f
I told you years ago I wanted no part of your crackpot
BaTh. Scrap it, garbage.


: : : If you slow down a rod, its length doesn't change.
: :
: : Correct.
: :
: : : If you slow down a serated bullet, the distance between serations
does
: not
: : : change ...but the arrival frequency of the serations DOES.
: :
: : Observed frequency isn't intrinsic frequency. The RPM of the bullet
: : remains unchanged, but a LONG bullet has a different OBSERVED
: : frequency to a SHORT bullet for the same speed and RPM.
: :
:
: : The spinning bullet has a constant f, in RPM.
: : That is its intrinsic frequency that it left the gun with, never
: : mind what an "observer" sees. Observers have all kinds
: : of relative velocities.
: :
: : OK, I will admit I have actually been quite aware that your theory is
not
: as
: : stupid as I have been making out.
:
: So you were trolling... as if I didn't know that. So why should I
: give a **** about your plonks?
:
: I wsn't trolling...it's just that YOUR approach, which I investigated
: thoroughly before, cannot explain Sagnac....so it must be wrong.

Since you don't know wavelength is proportional to speed you
don't have a prayer understanding Sagnac. If you have ballistic
theory then use ballistics. I rely on facts, not some crackpottery
of constant or invariant wavelengths and red being longer than
blue.
c = wf = w * 1/t = w/t = dx/dt in metres per second or
miles per hour or whatever units you like, but it is still SPEED.
Wake up to the fact that YOU have been indoctrinated.


:
: : As you will see, nor is mine. Our differences
: : are really due to the fact that we are using different models and
: : definitions...and since nobody has much idea of what a 'photon' is,
:
: A photon is a pulse of energy, a single cycle in a wave.
:
: ..so engineers can see photons as they travel, eh? very good....haha!.

"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.


: You are the nobody that doesn't have much idea.
:
: Photon: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg

"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695

"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER"


"There is NO WAVELENGTH SHIFT at the observer."


"Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson.
ups.com

"SPINNING OBJECTS HAVE A FREQUENCY, NOT A BLOODY WAVELENGTH." -- Wilson
news
"Light doesn't have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense.
Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the
source" -- Wilson.


"THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN GENERAL, THE 'WAVELENGTH' OF AN OSCILLATION IS
THE
SAME IN ALL FRAMES." -- Wilson


"Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation
frequency' idea.
Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson,
October 26, 2007 1:03 PM


"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.

"For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t =
2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v)" -- Wilson.
...
"That's for the nonrotating frame, dopey." -- Wilson.
.

"There is NOT the same number of wavelengths between the STARTPOINT and
the detector" -- Wilson


"plonk" -- Wilson (faced with his own words)


You don't use emission theory and don't know what it is, your
crackpot theory is BaTh; you've been whining that for 6 years, you
invented it when I was in hospital in Florida with a shattered ankle
and I've been in Britain 4.75 years while you've gotten gradually more
senile. In all that time you've only learned to write "Dr" in front of
your name which nobody believes.
You blew it with denying Doppler and your tick fairies, senile old fart.





:
: The fields are oscillating as in:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe
:
: The whole thing moves at c wrt its source. The magnetic component is
similar
: and at right angle to the screen.
: Note: the distance between wavecrests remains the same in all frames. The
rate
: at which wavecrests arrive is observer speed dependent.
:
You don't use emission theory and don't know what it is, your
crackpot theory is BaTh; you've been whining that for 6 years, you
invented it when I was in hospital in Florida with a shattered ankle
and I've been in Britain 4.75 years while you've gotten gradually more
senile. In all that time you've only learned to write "Dr" in front of
your name which nobody believes.
You blew it with denying Doppler and your tick fairies, senile old fart.


: : this type
: : of speculation is quite legitimate. I have arrived at my model because
it
: : explains Sagnac...amongst other things.
:
: You haven't got there yet, you still have tick fairies in rayphases.exe,
: 14 cycles blue and 10 cycles red in the same time. That's not possible.
:
: Yes it is.
plonk
You haven't got there yet, you still have tick fairies in rayphases.exe,
14 cycles blue and 10 cycles red in the same time. That's not possible.
Speed it up and it gets worse, 6 cycles red and 18 blue.
YOU CANT SPLIT 24 PHOTONS INTO ONE GOING LEFT
AND 23 GOING RIGHT, you HAVE to have 12 one way and 12 the
other. The ONLY way is to shorten and lengthen the wavelengths.


: Consider a photon as resembling a spinning wheel that moves at c away from
its
: source along its rotation axis. I define its 'wavelength' as the distance
it
: moves PER ROTATION along that axis. If the axis was replaced by a long rod
and
: the wheel had a notch on its rim, it would be possible to place marks
along the
: rod indicating the point where the notch was at the top. The distance
between
: marks represents the wheel's 'absolute wavelength'. It does not change in
the
: frame of a moving observer. I also agree that the wheel's rotation period
in
: the source frame defines an absolute interval of time.
: However, if an observer moves along the rod at v relative to the source,
the
: rate at which the marks will pass is doppler shifted by (c+v)/c. That is
what I
: call a frequency shift.

Look moosh... there are 12 inches to a foot of rubber catapult elastic.
If I stretch the elastic to two feet long then the marks are 2 inches apart
instead one inch apart and there are still 12 of them. You are snipping
rubber off the left side of your catapult and gluing it on the right to keep
the marks an inch apart. That will enable you to roll your fixed wheel
along the rubber once on the left and 23 time on the right. I'm
using a bigger wheel and rolling down the sides of the catapult
12 each side. Now my big wheel has the same RPM as your little
wheel, but my big wheel goes twice as far as your little wheel
in the same time. Twice as far in the same time is twice the speed.
BUT! I still end up with the notch on my wheel perfectly aligned
with the marks on the elastic, just as you do.

: YOUR model is different. You say that if a moving observer carries a long
rod
: parallel to the above one and marks it whenever a notch is at the top, the
: distance between marks on HIS rod will be doppler shifted by (c+v)/c. This
is
: what YOU call a wavelength shift.
:
: So we have two distinctly different situations. Which is the right one?

I don't have tick fairies. You do, and you are totally buggered when
the speed exceeds 24, you've run out of elastic to cut off one side
and glue on the other.


:
: The spinning photon has a constant f, in RPM.
: That is its intrinsic frequency that it left the atom with, never
: mind what an "observer" sees. Observers have all kinds
: of relative velocities.
: w = c/f.
: f is the constant. Not w, not c.
:
: Think about what I have said above.
: My approach works.
:
I have thought about it and it makes no sense to have
tick fairies. It doesn't work. You can't send one photon
left and 23 to the right as you are doing in rayphases.exe.


:
: : You don't know that, you are too stupid, but I do.
: : Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.
: :
: : I cannot see why variations in photon density alone would not achieve
the
: same
: : result.
:
: Stop thinking photons are somehow tiny.
: A photon is a pulse of energy, large or small.
: Photons from molecules are small because molecules are
: a small, but antenna are large and they emit large photons,
: one after the other. A train of photons is a wave just as
: a string of railcars is a train.
:
: You are assuming that their intrinsic oscillations have somehow adjusted
to be
: in synch. Does that require fairies?

In a radio transmitter it requires one oscillator to start them all, one
after
the other. Since I only ever build one oscillator per antenna they are
somehow adjusted to be in synch, just as railcars are somehow
all pulled by one locomotive and all move together, in synch.
Getting them to adjust out of synch requires fairies, as does taking
railcars off one train and adding them to another going in the opposite
direction, which is your method of increasing the speed of one train
and decreasing the speed of another.
:
: Now, you can put two trains
: side-by-side and increase the railcar density but all you get
: is twice the energy. Also you can load each railcar with heavy
: coal or run it empty, but a train is a train is a train.
: A wave is a wave is a wave.
:
: ..but we are talking 'particles'..
A cycle is a particle.



:
:
: : In fact you'd say anything just to argue, Mr. Know-it-all fake Dr.
: : The accelerating charges in an antenna all act together to produce
: : a single field, just as they do in an electromagnet.
: :
: : But where is the direct connection between the frequency of the applied
: field
: : and 'intrinsic photon frequency'?
: :
: : THERE IS NONE.
:
: Best answered with your own words.
: "It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be
: considered as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind." -- Wilson
:
: You've got this hang-up that photons are tiny, high frequency pulses
: that only molecules can emit. A photon is a pulse of electromagnetic
: radiation, and that's ALL that it is. It can be large or it can be small,
: but it is a pulse. A single cycle.
:
: Nah! That's a gross oversimplification.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton

Go argue with Newton.



:
:
: : : You don't know that.
: :
: : Yes I do. You don't know that, you are too stupidly ignorant, but I do
: : and I'm telling you a TRAIN of photons all synchronized is a wave on
: : a beam.
: : Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.
: :
: : A laser or any monochromatic light ray is made up of identical photons.
: The
: : laser might even be 100% coherent......but I can't see the connection
: between
: : this and a radio signal.
:
: Then learn. Pay attention in class and stop interrupting.
: Radio is a truly coherent wave BY DEFINITION of coherent wave.
: Lasers are not 100% coherent, the frequencies of different photons
: are not in phase
:
: bull
plonk

:
:
: : : Lasers are different. Presumably the emitted photons ARE all roughly
: the
: : same.
: :
: : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Radio
: : - - - --- - - - -- - --- -- - --- -- - -- Laser
: : But not in phase and have different starting positions along the gas
tube
: : or ruby rod, even if they start at the same time.
: : Radio waves are in phase, not even roughly, not even presumably,
: : but exactly. Quit guessing.
: :
: : What aspect is in phase? What is in phase with what?
: : .........stop rambling for christ's sake.
:
: This one:
:
: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Radio
: - - - --- - - - -- - --- -- - --- -- - -- Laser
:
: Pay attention for your minor god's sake.
:
:
: :
: : Look, you daft old *******, a laser beam is a stream of identical cars
: : crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge, a radio beam is a train, or even
: : a million trains side-by-side. Each car, whether road or rail, is a
: : photon BY DEFINITION.
: :
: : ...and I'm saying that an intelligent signal can be constructed by
simply
: : varying the density of the cars. After all, that's the principle behind
: fibre
: : optics.
:
: Of course it can. You load one railcar with coal, leave the next empty
: and send Morse code. Don't try that with traffic over Sydney Harbour
: Bridge, the message will be garbled. Make sure you send bunches
: of road cars loaded and bunches empty. The signal will be slightly
: blurred but will still get through. We engineers prefer digital but
: Nature prefers analogue. Rail is more reliable than road but in
: the event of a system failure six road cars filled with coal will
: be better than one railcar. Five get through and one has an
: engine failure, we'll call that a "one", Five empty we'll call that
: a "nought".
:
: Digital or analogue, photon density variation alone can be used to create
a
: signal...and the photons can have different intrinsic frequencies.

Go back to sleep.
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:49:14 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .


:
: Then it isn't lost. You are making wild guesses as usual. In any case
: the CMBR is photons.
:
: That's OK. When photons lose energy, they do so in quantum steps....by
: releasing other very low energy photons.
:

Sheesh, Wilson, you are so far out in left field it's incredible.
Look, chum... when a photon hits a target it may well re-radiate
a pair or more of lower energy photons, that's true, but...
in a different direction. When looking at a galaxy and saying it
is red shifted, you are seeing it with photons that came directly
from that galaxy. When looking at the CMBR you are seeing
a fog, there is no detail.

You are confused again.
I said the photons coming from the galaxies lose a little energy on the way.
I suggested that this energy might somehow add to the CMBR. I did NOT say that
the images of distant galaxies had anything to do with the CMBR.

I can only speculate about a process by which a traveling photon can lose
energy without deviating from its original direction

That's why it is called Common Microwave BACKGROUND
Radiation.

It's called COSMIC microwave background radiation.

The whole sky is blue because dust motes in the atmosphere
are scattering sunlight in ALL directions.

....says the confused engineer.
THE SKY APPEARS BLUE BECAUSE AIR MOLECULES, DUST, WATER AND LOTS OF OTHER ****
HAPPEN TO SCATTER SUNLIGHT GENERALLY AND TO ABSORB MORE RED THAN BLUE LIGHT.

You can't have it
both ways, see a galaxy AND say the photons scattered
a tiny part of their energy, it doesn't work that way. Quantum
exchanges are like money. You can split a dollar into 100 cents
or into fewer coins of a higher denomination, but you can't
spend ozzie money in British shops and you can't split
photons without the right molecule.
The red shift is NOT in quantum leaps anyway, it is gradual
and looks just like Doppler shift. That's why Hubble thought
it was Doppler shift.

It could still occur in small steps.

Androclean shift is purely a function of distance. If you imagine
a water droplet getting gradually wider as it slides down a thin wire
then it traces a cone, but it has a weak interaction with its neighbours
and loses speed as it progresses. The wires themselves radiate
in all directions and give us the inverse square law that we all know
and love so well, the droplets travelling on them getting further apart,
but the red shift is the slight but gradual widening of the droplet
which travels millions of light years before it gets noticed.

Anyway, that's my hypothesis, designed to fit ALL the data,
not just some small part of it.

But if you were correct, the redshift would follow an inverse square law and be
much much greater than it is.

Why the spread? Who knows, but it's a whole lot more plausible
than any "Big Bang" theory, a universe suddenly appearing out
of nothing and for no reason.

Ah, but all the christains love the idea of their god playing with
fireworks........

We have to accept the universe
exists, we don't have to accept that it began or ever had a
beginning or will ever have an ending, we will never know
for certain anyway unless you believe in some Gawd who
is going to reveal all on judgment day just before he sentences
you and I to eternal damnation for being naughty boys and
sinning by screwing out of wedlock or some **** like that.

How anyone can beleive the nonsense in this day and age, I cannot understand.

The thing about cosmology is any religious crackpot can have
a theory and nobody can prove it or even test it. As an engineer
I'm only interested in theories that I can use to some advantage
such as high speed interplanetary communications for the Mars
Rovers or Cassini at Saturn.

Physicists are allowed to delve into cosmology. That's where the big questions
arise. If a physicist doesn't know the answer he accepts that.
Christians, etc., on the other hand, can't accept not knowing the answers and
so make them up..... along with an equally fabricated movement that maintains
faith in those answers.


: There isn't any frequency shift!
: The wavelength is shorter, the speed lower.
:
: I can't see any wavelength shift either.
: ...unless you are claiming that photons change from a long cigar shape
towards
: a spherical one.

More like a coin flattening out into a 33 RPM vinyl LP.
There never was any length to begin with. When
a spinning bullet travels the length of a rifled barrel
the bullet isn't as long as the gun but it makes one turn
in that length. If it travels slower then it makes a full
turn with a shorter barrel.
http://www.spudtech.com/images/products/sch80rifled.jpg
That's ballistics.
In mathematical terms fix the RPM first, never mind the
length of the barrel, one turn fixes both the speed and the
"wavelength".
w = c/f.

Like I said, it's all a matter of definition. A spinning wheel DOES NOT possess
an intrinsic wavelength. The teeth of a sawblade do.

: : : Why do you stick with these arse-up aetherian ideas?
: :
: : Red is SHORT, blue is LONG, as you can easily tell from any
: : diffraction grating. The longer the wavelength, the greater the angle.
: : Why are you so stupid?
: :
: : ...and red is longer than blue. Everyone knows that...except you.
:
: So w = c/f is wrong, is it?
: It is only the constant c brigade that associate red with long,
: and you are one of them, you ****ing sheep shagging troll.
:
: Red has longer wavelength than blue. You should know that.

Nope. You've been indoctrinated by the only-one-speed-of-light
Einstein Dingleberries and aetherialist kooks.

Bull****....and don't accuse me again. Light moves at c wrt its source an c+v
wrt a moving obsever

My ideas are ballistic ideas, you are not paying attention to the
equation. Red has a lower speed and a shorter wavelength than
blue, a bullet in a rifled barrel isn't as long as the barrel like
a cigar. It isn't at both ends at the same time.
You, of all people, claiming to have a ballistic theory as you
do, are not even close to using ballistics as your model.
If a bullet turns once in a rifle barrel one metre long in one second
then its speed is 1 meter per second, its frequency is 1 Hz and
its wavelength is one metre.
1 = 1/1
If a bullet turns twice in a rifle barrel one metre long in one second
then its speed is 1 meter per second, its frequency is 2 Hz and
its wavelength is 0.5 metre.
0.5 = 1/2
If a bullet turns once in a rifle barrel one metre long in 0.5 second
then its speed is 2 metres per second, its frequency is 2 Hz and
its wavelength is 1 metre.
1= 2/2
w = c/f

Here, your 'w' is not really a 'wavelength' because there is no continuous
'wave' involved.... It is just the distance travelled by the bullet IN THE
FRAME OF THE GUN during one rotation.

I told you years ago I wanted no part of your crackpot
BaTh. Scrap it, garbage.

It's YOUR theory....although you behave more like a closet aetherist most
times.


: : stupid as I have been making out.
:
: So you were trolling... as if I didn't know that. So why should I
: give a **** about your plonks?
:
: I wsn't trolling...it's just that YOUR approach, which I investigated
: thoroughly before, cannot explain Sagnac....so it must be wrong.

Since you don't know wavelength is proportional to speed you
don't have a prayer understanding Sagnac.

The 'wavelength of a CONTINUOUS WAVE is absolute and constant in all frames.

The problem is to establish what atually contitutes a 'continuous wave' and to
define its 'wavelength'.

If you have ballistic
theory then use ballistics. I rely on facts, not some crackpottery
of constant or invariant wavelengths and red being longer than
blue.
c = wf = w * 1/t = w/t = dx/dt in metres per second or
miles per hour or whatever units you like, but it is still SPEED.
Wake up to the fact that YOU have been indoctrinated.

get ****ed....





Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm