Maximal Light Delay

Here is a question I received recently and my answer.

First, thanks indeed for you intriguing and
thought-provoking book. The time is surely overdue for a move beyond a
cosmology essentially unchanged conceptually since the theories of
Newton and Laplace. And a question. If I read you correctly, the
detection of light is proposed to be the sudden emergence to
observability of a cumulative instantaneous effect. Presumably, then, a
more intense source at the same distance would produce the effect
sooner. But wouldn't that mean that for all the various experiments
carried out over years, the sources used just happened to have the
right intensity to make the apparent velocity come out the same?
Obviously far too much of a coincidence to be believable. So what am I
missing?


...The more intense source at the same distance should produce a rise
to a greater final amplitude than a less intense one, after r/c
seconds, and need less amplification butthe r/c second delay for both
the intense and weak source at the same distance, r, is implied by the
theory. More specifically, the oscillating longitudinal charge inside
the free electrons etc in say a vertical receiver antenna produces
transversely oscillating charge which produces in turn longitudinally
oscillating charge,OPPOSITE to the initial oscillating charge) in other
free electrons etc. So the more intense source provides more opposition
to the more intense cumulative effect.
This longtidinal oscillation produces in turn a transverse
oscillation which in turn produces a longitudinal oscillation etc.
The more intense source provides more intense initial oscillating
charge which is with r/c delay overcome by the above increasing
longitudinal charge induced in the above manner (see
http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Radiation and Inductance

wrote:

Here is a question I received recently and my answer.

First, thanks indeed for you intriguing and
thought-provoking book. The time is surely overdue for a move beyond a
cosmology essentially unchanged conceptually since the theories of
Newton and Laplace.

Idiot alert.

And a question. If I read you correctly, the
detection of light is proposed to be the sudden emergence to
observability of a cumulative instantaneous effect.

gibber and goo

Presumably, then, a
more intense source at the same distance would produce the effect
sooner.
[snip crap]

Idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Screwball alert is more like it.

wrote:

Here is a question I received recently and my answer.

First, thanks indeed for you intriguing and
thought-provoking book. The time is surely overdue for a move beyond a
cosmology essentially unchanged conceptually since the theories of
Newton and Laplace. And a question. If I read you correctly, the
detection of light is proposed to be the sudden emergence to
observability of a cumulative instantaneous effect. Presumably, then, a
more intense source at the same distance would produce the effect
sooner. But wouldn't that mean that for all the various experiments
carried out over years, the sources used just happened to have the
right intensity to make the apparent velocity come out the same?
Obviously far too much of a coincidence to be believable. So what am I
missing?


...The more intense source at the same distance should produce a rise
to a greater final amplitude than a less intense one, after r/c
seconds, and need less amplification butthe r/c second delay for both
the intense and weak source at the same distance, r, is implied by the
theory. More specifically, the oscillating longitudinal charge inside
the free electrons etc in say a vertical receiver antenna produces
transversely oscillating charge which produces in turn longitudinally
oscillating charge,OPPOSITE to the initial oscillating charge) in other
free electrons etc. So the more intense source provides more opposition
to the more intense cumulative effect.
This longtidinal oscillation produces in turn a transverse
oscillation which in turn produces a longitudinal oscillation etc.
The more intense source provides more intense initial oscillating
charge which is with r/c delay overcome by the above increasing
longitudinal charge induced in the above manner (see
http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Radiation and Inductance

In message . com,
writes
Here is a question I received recently and my answer.

Translated into English, I think Ralph is saying that a more intense
source is brighter than a less intense one :-)

(see
http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Radiation and Inductance


"Not Found".
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message . com,
writes
Here is a question I received recently and my answer.

Translated into English, I think Ralph is saying that a more intense
source is brighter than a less intense one :-)

There is more to it. The question was why a more intense source is
not received sooner assuming that the forces producing the reception
are the cumulative effect of instantaneous forces at a distance.
The reason briefly is that the more intense source produces more
initial opposition. The details are in the link which can be found if
you paste the below corrected link into your address bar.


(see, http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Radiation and Inductance.htm



"Not Found".

In message .com,
writes


Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message . com,
writes
Here is a question I received recently and my answer.

Translated into English, I think Ralph is saying that a more intense
source is brighter than a less intense one :-)

There is more to it. The question was why a more intense source is
not received sooner assuming that the forces producing the reception
are the cumulative effect of instantaneous forces at a distance.
The reason briefly is that the more intense source produces more
initial opposition. The details are in the link which can be found if
you paste the below corrected link into your address bar.


(see, http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Radiation and Inductance.htm


I'll leave the physics to the experts, but note in passing that spaces
in URLs are considered to be a Bad Idea.
As a biologist, I'll note that you are incorrect when you say "the human
eye can detect short bursts of 10 photons". The eye can detect single
photons.
And while your page only talks about nanosecond pulses, single-photon
detection of femtosecond pulses is apparently quite routine.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message .com,
writes


Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message . com,

As a biologist, I'll note that you are incorrect when you say "the human
eye can detect short bursts of 10 photons". The eye can detect single
photons.

I am simply quoting a well known physics text and the quote does not
say that what you claim is not also possible-but it is strange that
they do not say the eye can detect single photons. As a biologist, how
do you measure the detection of a single photon by the human eye?

In any case this does not matter for the argument in the paper and the
point of the the paper which is that light is the cumulative effect
of instantaneous forces at a distance and not the movement of bundles
of energy, hf, which is called a photon where for visible light 1/f is
about 1/4 to 1/7 times 10^-14 seconds or 2.5 to 1.4 times 10^-15
seconds

And while your page only talks about nanosecond pulses, single-photon
detection of femtosecond pulses is apparently quite routine.

The experiment you are referring to used ten nanosecond pulses of
visible light (where each oscillation is more than a femtosecond so
that such pulses really dont apply to visible light) and showed that no
signal was received if such pulses were blocked during emission but
were received if only blocked at the expected time of reception.

The Sandsbury IFS experiment has been proved to be invalid due to failure of
the process of the experiment. Please don't use it in any refutations.

--
Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?

Bob May wrote:
The Sandsbury IFS experiment has been proved to be invalid due to failure of
the process of the experiment. Please don't use it in any refutation.
On the contrary, The Sandsbury experiment has been proved valid. see
http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Pockells1.doc

In message , Bob May
writes
The Sandsbury IFS experiment has been proved to be invalid due to failure of
the process of the experiment. Please don't use it in any refutations.

--
Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?

Actually, there is - or at least a depletion - but the consensus seems
to be that the North pole lacks the stable conditions and extreme cold
of the South pole. You disagree?