On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:24:30 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:16:30 GMT) it happened HW@....(Dr. Henri

This has been discussed, go to any optics related group, all waves.

You should know that the wave theory cannot explain many aspects of light.

EM consists of 'photons', which are lumps of 'stuff' that is intrinsically
oscillating.

If EM radiation is generated by an electron changing orbit in an atom,
then the amount of enery is E = h.c / wavelength, where h is Planck's constant.
And, depending on that electron orbit and atom, a specific frequency
(energy) is emitted.
This is a mathematical construct.
But what if the electron is simply moved by some remote field (electrostatic
or magnetic), can it not have any energy?
So what does that leave of 'light comes in photons'? Nothing.

Well, when an electron is accelerated by a field it DOES emit EM radiation. How
and why that radiation can be quantized is hard to say.

Maybe when an electron 'freefalls' in a field, it doesn't radiate EM.


As to the 'ball' versus wave idea, I think it is clear that 'ball' does not
explain everything.

It is obviously a restricted analogy, useful only in certain circumstances.

This is a nice link, please scroll to the bottom,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html
here it shows that interference, diffraction, and polarisation
cannot be explained by the particle idea.
I think the photoelectric effect can be explained by the wave idea,
and in the past have posted about that.

My photon concept explains everything.
A photon is an oscillating lump of the 'stuff that fields are made of'.

This explains both the PE effect and as well as interference, diffraction and
polarization.

So do we really need 'photon', other then as mathematical construct?

Yes.
Consider one single isolated H atom in space that suddenly experiences an
electron transition.
It emits a discreet package of energy, which for want of a better description,
we call a 'photon'.....
Obviously whatever the 'package is', it has intrinsic properties and limited
'size'.
My model describes a photon as a cigar shaped lump of 'stuff' that has a
standing Maxwellian type wave running along its axis, which may be many, many
wavelengths long.
The photon carries its own 'stuff' along with it, giving it particle like
qualities. Its intrinsic oscillation provides it with a regular spatially
periodic pattern that can be used to explain diffraction and interference.

Another model has the photon resembling a rapidly spinning pair of charges.
This concept is also a pretty good one.

Diffraction grating works like this
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
(Note: here, I didn't stress that y = lambda, the distance between the above
mentioned standing wave 'nodes'.)

Of course one can say: 'If something waves, then what makes up the waves?'
Sort of chicken and egg problem, then you have particles again.
That, or there is something else we cannot imagine with our brains.

There are many things we imagine now that were beyond imagination 1000 years
ago. You shouldn't rule out anything.

FreddyFX posted some nice explanations in this group, but I have not heard
from him for a while.
There are many theories.

It is fun to think about, although I am not dedicating a lot of brain cycles to this
issue.
For those who do, maybe something will pop up.
We could really use a FTL drive, or gravity neutraliser, etc,
real fusion power too.

Don't rule them out.

So we can move to those stars that have habitable planets, and
do what we do here....

It might be easier if we simply stop doing what we do here.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:25:52 GMT) it happened HW@....(Dr. Henri
Wilson) wrote in :

As to the 'ball' versus wave idea, I think it is clear that 'ball' does not
explain everything.

It is obviously a restricted analogy, useful only in certain circumstances.

This is a nice link, please scroll to the bottom,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html
here it shows that interference, diffraction, and polarisation
cannot be explained by the particle idea.
I think the photoelectric effect can be explained by the wave idea,
and in the past have posted about that.

My photon concept explains everything.
A photon is an oscillating lump of the 'stuff that fields are made of'.

One can say it is actually some periods of a wave...
As soon as you say 'oscillating' then you have a periodic signal,
a wave with a frequency, attack and decay time, polarisation, etc.
Somebody here (Florian) pointed to a nice animation:
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/...b/DynaPub.html
Run the animations, fascinating.

This explains both the PE effect and as well as interference, diffraction and
polarization.

Diffraction grating works like this
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
(Note: here, I didn't stress that y = lambda, the distance between the above
mentioned standing wave 'nodes'.)

c+v ? ;-)

Well, somebody is going to yell at this.

On Apr 25, 11:28 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hi Tim.

On Apr 25, 4:30 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"



wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:14 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:13:22 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:47:57 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

Alas, they _don't_ behave like little balls. Sure, electrons exist. But
they're not little balls.

Shoot one in the CRT, see it hit, looks so much like 'ball'istics to me :-)

Visualising photons as little balls can also be
very misleading at times.

Not only misleading, but plainly wrong, photon is simply a mathematical construct,
EM is waves.

It sounds like, for you, "mechanism" means an easily visualised picture.

As in the EM case waves, everybody works with waves, this has been discussed here.

...and you were doing so well.....

. EM consists of 'photons', which are lumps of 'stuff' that is
intrinsically
. oscillating.

Here is a simplistic challenge to this traditional interpretation.
According to relativity theory the time dilation of an object becomes
zero via the Lorentz factor:
t' = t ( sqrt( 1 - v v / c c )
where sqrt is the square root and t' is the time of the photon from
the observer's local frame where v is c since the object is a photon.
The age of every photon is zero regardless of how far it has
propagated. How then can it oscillate?

A measureable oscillation occurs when the
"photon" is reacting and destroyed by an
eyeball or an radio antenna for example.
I'd argue the photon is brought to rest
by an apparatus, and there conveys energy
and mass to the apparatus, hence the photon
does has "rest" mass, when measured.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker


That's a pretty standard interpretation, except for the rest mass.
Still Ken, if we consider the photon as a little spaceship as in
relativity theory we get caught accepting that the photon's elapsed
time is zero from emission to reception regardless of distance. This
then is in conflict with the oscillatory traditional interpretation.
It is satisfying as to the upper unconditional propagation limit c yet
it splits open more puzzles. Since c is attributed to properties of
space and is composed of two unique values mu and epsilon whose
properties are geometrically related via standard electromagnetism we
can take this as a lead in to anisotropic spacetime models.

Polarization I review Chapter 17 of "Foundations Of Electromagnetic
Theory" third edition by Reitz, Milford, and Christy. The outset of
this chapter is based on opening the E and B fields up to complex
valued components, all within traditional isotropic space. Did they
raise the dimension of the system? Polarization can be considered a
fairly simple property but I'm trying to consider some of that
complexity shifted into anisotropic space so the problem opens up
again.

A possible extension would be to consider the solutions which do not
propagate. By definition such energies would remain local. Like total
internal reflection on steroids such a behavior could link to
stability of the heavier particles such as electrons and protons;
their energies remaining local.

Abstractly, an electron's mobility is much higher than a proton's from
traditional evidence. Whether we attribute this feature to the
particle's mass or invert that conclusion via some stability argument
providing those mobilities could be a lead.

It's a bit flustering and as I go down that path I feel like I don't
understand polarization any more, or did I ever? Can a single photon
carry a left handed circular polarization attribute? I guess that's
alright, but it doesn't mean the the attribute is within the photon.
To keep up the particle charade we'd go back to an electron that made
the photon and blame it for the disturbance. It would be helpful to
have a more integrated model there. Rather than consider mechanism at
the generation of a photon modern physics makes that an assumption via
atomic phenomena of electron shells. Getting back toward fields the
static electrical field doesn't feel any better for all of this,
except that if the same curvatures of space that were made on gravity
can be made on charge then a photon as a ripple of that elastic space
could hold up.

Why shouldn't Einstein's equivalence between acceleration of matter
and gravity extend to charge? Force is clearly there between the
three. I'd rather try to get stability first but could it be possible
to work backward through there? It's an overwhelming task which forces
us back to the security of existing theory. Still, something is likely
broken. Conservation of energy at a dynamic level is fine but we still
have a surplus in the static level. Maybe the same is true of charge.
In other words could there be more protons than electrons? That could
help the dark matter puzzle. I'm not getting far enough on this rant
but perhaps it will spark somebody else's imagination.

- Tim

It seems clear that from our
reference frame that photons do oscillate yet according to relativity
in the photon's own frame it cannot. While the actual Lorentz factor
becomes infinite we would be forced to accept a pencil shape if the
photon is granted a minimum diameter.

The conflict extends farther than the oscillating photon
interpretation.
One way around this puzzle is to grant the photon a more complicated
path which would then exceed the propagation velocity c. Polarization
could then take a mechanistic interpretation as could the energy of
the individual photon. So for instance we could attempt a model of a
photon corkscrewing through space. Wavelength would take a more
physical value for such a photon. The impedance of free space could
take an anisotropic interpretation that will leave us with the
traditional electrical and magnetic field interpretation. There are
signals of such an interpretation within the polysign spacetime basis.
Since the higher energy photon is shorter in wavelength it is catchy
to consider the photon as a ripple of an elastic space. Does this
tweak particle/wave duality? Does it become particle/space duality?
This new duality is perfect.

- Tim

On Apr 26, 8:19 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:28 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Tim

Here is a simplistic challenge to this traditional interpretation.
According to relativity theory the time dilation of an object becomes
zero via the Lorentz factor:
t' = t ( sqrt( 1 - v v / c c )
where sqrt is the square root and t' is the time of the photon from
the observer's local frame where v is c since the object is a photon.
The age of every photon is zero regardless of how far it has
propagated. How then can it oscillate?

A measureable oscillation occurs when the
"photon" is reacting and destroyed by an
eyeball or an radio antenna for example.
I'd argue the photon is brought to rest
by an apparatus, and there conveys energy
and mass to the apparatus, hence the photon
does has "rest" mass, when measured.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

That's a pretty standard interpretation, except for the rest mass.
Still Ken, if we consider the photon as a little spaceship as in
relativity theory we get caught accepting that the photon's elapsed
time is zero from emission to reception regardless of distance. This
then is in conflict with the oscillatory traditional interpretation.

Personally, I use the term "floton" for a
*flying photon* and "photon" for a floton
that is brought to rest to be measured and
then we obtain data about the floton using
photon measurements.



It is satisfying as to the upper unconditional propagation limit c yet
it splits open more puzzles. Since c is attributed to properties of
space and is composed of two unique values mu and epsilon whose
properties are geometrically related via standard electromagnetism we
can take this as a lead in to anisotropic spacetime models.

Polarization I review Chapter 17 of "Foundations Of Electromagnetic
Theory" third edition by Reitz, Milford, and Christy. The outset of
this chapter is based on opening the E and B fields up to complex
valued components, all within traditional isotropic space. Did they
raise the dimension of the system? Polarization can be considered a
fairly simple property but I'm trying to consider some of that
complexity shifted into anisotropic space so the problem opens up
again.

My (simple) understanding of polarization is that
light reacts with matter and is re-transmitted,
or filtered.

A possible extension would be to consider the solutions which do not
propagate. By definition such energies would remain local. Like total
internal reflection on steroids such a behavior could link to
stability of the heavier particles such as electrons and protons;
their energies remaining local.

Yes, I've studied similiar ideas, they looked
plausible to me.

Abstractly, an electron's mobility is much higher than a proton's from
traditional evidence. Whether we attribute this feature to the
particle's mass or invert that conclusion via some stability argument
providing those mobilities could be a lead.

It's a bit flustering and as I go down that path I feel like I don't
understand polarization any more, or did I ever? Can a single photon
carry a left handed circular polarization attribute? I guess that's
alright, but it doesn't mean the the attribute is within the photon.
To keep up the particle charade we'd go back to an electron that made
the photon and blame it for the disturbance. It would be helpful to
have a more integrated model there. Rather than consider mechanism at
the generation of a photon modern physics makes that an assumption via
atomic phenomena of electron shells. Getting back toward fields the
static electrical field doesn't feel any better for all of this,
except that if the same curvatures of space that were made on gravity
can be made on charge then a photon as a ripple of that elastic space
could hold up.

I'm reading.

Why shouldn't Einstein's equivalence between acceleration of matter
and gravity extend to charge? Force is clearly there between the
three. I'd rather try to get stability first but could it be possible
to work backward through there?

At a deeper level it's my understanding "charge"
is subject to Equivalence.

It's an overwhelming task which forces
us back to the security of existing theory. Still, something is likely
broken. Conservation of energy at a dynamic level is fine but we still
have a surplus in the static level. Maybe the same is true of charge.
In other words could there be more protons than electrons?

Hey, I've been thinking about that too, though
I wonder if there are more Leptons than Baryons.

That could
help the dark matter puzzle. I'm not getting far enough on this rant
but perhaps it will spark somebody else's imagination.

- Tim

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:23:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:25:52 GMT) it happened HW@....(Dr. Henri
Wilson) wrote in :

As to the 'ball' versus wave idea, I think it is clear that 'ball' does not
explain everything.

It is obviously a restricted analogy, useful only in certain circumstances.

This is a nice link, please scroll to the bottom,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html
here it shows that interference, diffraction, and polarisation
cannot be explained by the particle idea.
I think the photoelectric effect can be explained by the wave idea,
and in the past have posted about that.

My photon concept explains everything.
A photon is an oscillating lump of the 'stuff that fields are made of'.

One can say it is actually some periods of a wave...
As soon as you say 'oscillating' then you have a periodic signal,
a wave with a frequency, attack and decay time, polarisation, etc.

But it is not a continuous wave.
Each photon has its own separate oscilation.

I suspect that the separate fields of all photons traveling together interact
somehow and maybe become synched.
This idea is backed by my light speed unification theory that helps to explain
binary star brightness curves.

Somebody here (Florian) pointed to a nice animation:
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/...b/DynaPub.html
Run the animations, fascinating.

they wont run on windows.

This explains both the PE effect and as well as interference, diffraction and
polarization.

Diffraction grating works like this
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
(Note: here, I didn't stress that y = lambda, the distance between the above
mentioned standing wave 'nodes'.)

c+v ? ;-)

Well, somebody is going to yell at this.

They have been yeling for years.
Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt the moving observer.
Didn't you know that?



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:39:23 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

What? The "little ball" analogy fails to provide any kind of quantitative
answer? Again, by how much can a magnetic field change the speed of a
charged particle?

Look dude, read a text book.
I dunno what your point is, or if you have one.

The point was in the rest of the post, which you cut. The point was: why
is the "little ball" analogy an adequate "mechanism", when it isn't
correct?

The above is merely the tail end of the diversion _you_ introduced
concerning particle accelerators - fundamentally irrelevant to the
original point of Newtonianism vs "mechanism".

But since you saw fit to keep just that part of the original post, I note
that I have a mathematical model of the behaviour of a charged particle in
a magnetic field. This tells me that the force is equal to F = q vxB.
Oops! Normal to the velocity, and hence won't change the speed!

What does the "little ball" "mechanism" tell you? Can it provide a
quantitative answer?

To repeat,

Like I said: There is a limit to the depth (of our knowledge), and especially
_my_ knowledge, you have to stop somewhere, but it is needed to ask the question
'how' nevertheless.
The level of little balls (with charge of course) is in many cases sufficient
to 'visualise' or understand what is happening (like in a vacuum tube, or capacitor, etc).

Oh! This is the level of "mechanism" you are happy with? An easily
visualisable picture that is _known_ to be wrong? This is the kind of
"mechanism", known to be wrong, that you said physics will not advance
without?

No wonder you were unwilling to commit yourself to saying that the whole
Newtonian approach - mathematical models without mechanism - was wrong!

Sure, simple easily-visualisable analogies are good for teaching. See,
e.g., hydraulic analogies in circuit theory. But how can such "mechanisms"
be necessary for physics to advance? Do recall that this was your original
claim.

Alas, they _don't_ behave like little balls. Sure, electrons exist. But
they're not little balls.

Shoot one in the CRT, see it hit, looks so much like 'ball'istics to me :-)

[moved]
Well, to know what happens in these devices, you'd better forget about
electrons being "little balls".

Nope, works just fine.

Oh? How do "little balls" tell you about, e.g., electron diffraction?
Atomic energy levels (even the Bohr model does better than "little
balls")?

Almost all electrons we deal with in everyday life are attached to atoms.
"Little ball" fails miserably when trying to deal with the behaviour of
such electrons.

How can you explain, e.g., tunnelling, interference, diffraction, etc. in
terms of "little balls"?

How can a _known to be wrong_ "mechanism" be fundamentally needed or
necessary for physics to advance?

Historically, Newtonianism looks like a better bet for advances than
easily visualisable but wrong analogies.

But it gets tiring arguing with a knowbetter.
You are beyond reason.

What you do isn't "arguing". You made a wrong statement, and cut
discussion of it. _You're_ the one who claimed that Newtonianism is
fundamentally flawed, and physics will not advance until we get rid of it.

Perhaps if you presented some evidence for your case, perhaps from the
history of physics or other sciences, or at least discussed the topic that
_you_ introduced, it might be more interesting.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On Apr 13, 3:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any insight into
what makes a 'field'. Apart from the fact that the maths describing the forces
are well known, action-at-a-distance is as much a mystery as ever.

Consider a completely isolated negative charge in remote space. The question
is, does its 'field' exist in the absence of another charge. If so, how is the
surrounding space modified in such a way that if another charge is introduced
at any distance , a force immediately exists between the two. That force can be
attractive or repulsive depending whether the charges are unlike or like.

The gravitational field associated with unit mass is fundamentally different in
that like masses ATTRACT each other. There is no information about the nature
of forces between positive and 'negative' mass (presumeably anti-matter).
It can be deduced from this that the properties of space that account for an
electrostatic field must be fundamentally different from those that are
associated with gravity.
It is also apparent that the relative movement of a charge or charges somehow
alters their combined surrounding fields to create what is called a magnetic
field. Again, although the maths of magnetism are well documented, there is no
actual physical model that describes the relationship between electrostatic and
magnetic force fields.

A second question asks whether the effect of the field of an individual source
truly extends to infinity according to the inverse square law or it
disintegrates, becomes fragmented and eventually merges with other fields.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

New matter is born of the mass of the field of accelerated particles.
These are the exotic products of colliders.

Mitch Raemsch

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:49:16 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Apr 13, 3:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any insight into
what makes a 'field'. Apart from the fact that the maths describing the forces
are well known, action-at-a-distance is as much a mystery as ever.

Consider a completely isolated negative charge in remote space. The question
is, does its 'field' exist in the absence of another charge. If so, how is the
surrounding space modified in such a way that if another charge is introduced
at any distance , a force immediately exists between the two. That force can be
attractive or repulsive depending whether the charges are unlike or like.

The gravitational field associated with unit mass is fundamentally different in
that like masses ATTRACT each other. There is no information about the nature
of forces between positive and 'negative' mass (presumeably anti-matter).
It can be deduced from this that the properties of space that account for an
electrostatic field must be fundamentally different from those that are
associated with gravity.
It is also apparent that the relative movement of a charge or charges somehow
alters their combined surrounding fields to create what is called a magnetic
field. Again, although the maths of magnetism are well documented, there is no
actual physical model that describes the relationship between electrostatic and
magnetic force fields.

A second question asks whether the effect of the field of an individual source
truly extends to infinity according to the inverse square law or it
disintegrates, becomes fragmented and eventually merges with other fields.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

New matter is born of the mass of the field of accelerated particles.
These are the exotic products of colliders.

Yes.
How do fields turn into matter.... and vice versa?

Is there really any difference?

Mitch Raemsch



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Apr 26, 5:12*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:49:16 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:





On Apr 13, 3:39*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any insight into
what makes a 'field'. Apart from the fact that the maths describing the forces
are well known, action-at-a-distance is as much a mystery as ever.

Consider a completely isolated negative charge in remote space. The question
is, does its 'field' exist in the absence of another charge. If so, how is the
surrounding space modified in such a way that if another charge is introduced
at any distance , a force immediately exists between the two. That force can be
attractive or repulsive depending whether the charges are unlike or like.

The gravitational field associated with unit mass is fundamentally different in
that like masses ATTRACT each other. There is no information about the nature
of forces between positive and 'negative' mass (presumeably anti-matter).
It can be deduced from this that the properties of space that account for an
electrostatic field must be fundamentally different from those that are
associated with gravity.
It is also apparent that the relative movement of a charge or charges somehow
alters their combined surrounding fields to create what is called a magnetic
field. Again, although the maths of magnetism are well documented, there is no
actual physical model that describes the relationship between electrostatic and
magnetic force fields.

A second question asks whether the effect of the field of an individual source
truly extends to infinity according to the inverse square law or it
disintegrates, becomes fragmented and eventually merges with other fields.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians.....

New matter is born of the mass of the field of accelerated particles.
These are the exotic products of colliders.

Yes.
How do fields turn into matter.... and vice versa?

Is there really any difference?

Mitch Raemsch

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

New matter comes from the mass and field of old matter in a coillider.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
| On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:09:22 GMT) it happened HW@....(Dr.
Henri
| Wilson) wrote in :
|
| One can say it is actually some periods of a wave...
| As soon as you say 'oscillating' then you have a periodic signal,
| a wave with a frequency, attack and decay time, polarisation, etc.
|
| But it is not a continuous wave.
| Each photon has its own separate oscilation.
|
| True, a wave packet if you will..
|
|
| I suspect that the separate fields of all photons traveling together
interact
| somehow and maybe become synched.
|
| Yes, could be, but why synced?
| That would require interaction.
|
|
| This idea is backed by my light speed unification theory that helps to
explain
| binary star brightness curves.
|
| Somebody here (Florian) pointed to a nice animation:
| http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/...b/DynaPub.html
| Run the animations, fascinating.
|
| they wont run on windows.
|
| mm dunno, runs in my browser (firefox).
|
|
| c+v ? ;-)
|
| Well, somebody is going to yell at this.
|
| They have been yeling for years.
| Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt the moving observer.
| Didn't you know that?
|
| I will try to give a diplomatic answer, it seems to me
| that Doppler explains clearly the variable speed of light.
|
| When I move towards a light source that has frequency 'f',
| I pass through more maxima and minima then when I was stationary.
| So the frequency is higher :-)
|
| But the relativist make some epicycles to keep light speed
| constant, and then get the same result.
|
| What keeps coming back to me is Lorentz's LET theory,
| where length contraction would be real, and a logical thing in some
| ether, as then at speeds close to c things get compressed.

xi = (x-vt)/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

New length = old length / (something less than one)

2 = 1 / 0.5

Looks more like length expansion to me, why do the cranks mutter
"contraction"?

| Now I avoided that subject nicely now did not I?
| We still could use a good OWLS experiment.

Easy... Get a time stamp from Cassini at Saturn... Oh wait... already done
by Ole Roemer... but this would be a tad more accurate.