"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:

.................................................. ......................
Does your paper explain how that corkscrewing critter
illuminates all four of these:
http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/ima...-smallsize.jpg
http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/
...so it can add constructivly or destructivly after passing
the four delay lines ?

Sue...
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
.................................................. ...........
To Sue,

In essence what you are saying is, that the since the workable size
of
an
optical telescope is limited and consequently can only project the
image
of
an observed star on a screen of limited quality.

To improve the sharpness and detail of the projected image of a
distant
star
astronomers hit on the idea of using several telescopes and have
each
telescope project the image of the observed star on the same spot on
the
screen. The resulting improved image is comparable to what one
telescope of
the same light gathering capacity as the 4 separate telescopes,
would
produce.

The added complication is that the projected images of the four
telescopes
have to reach the screen in phase with each other for them to add up
successfully. (Similar to the two split experiment) To this end the
distance traveled by the light from each telescope to the screen
must be
the
same for the images to arrive in phase. This way the images will
add
to,
rather than subtract from, each other.

This latest development has not come about as a result of a better
understanding exactly what a light beam consists off. It is simply
a
practical solution to an old problem.

However the helical photon wave concept does provide for a better
understanding what happens when similar light beams are in or out of
phase
with each other.

Then you have some inclusion of Feynman's path integral ?
http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergra...ch/Feynm4.html

Sue...
.................................................. ..............
To Sue,

First of all, I am not an admirer of Feynman since he was the worst
(academic) offender in turning the science of particle physics into a
religious magic show and himself into its prophet.

Secondly, I think that your above quotation by Feynman confuses the
issue
rather than add to our understanding of the use of multiple telescopes.

Basically what I was saying in my previous posting was that, if you were
giving a slide show in a large hall and wanted to brighten the projected
image of the slide projector, you could use a second slide projector on
top
of your existing projector to project a copy of the same slide on the
screen, making the projected image twice as bright.

However for this to work, the second projector would have to be the same
distance away from the screen as the first projector. It would have to
be
pointed at exactly the same spot on the screen and the second projected
image would have to be of the same size as the first image. In so doing
the
two projected images should also be in phase and strengthen rather than
detract from each other.

In today's computer world the television image of the star produced by
each
telescope can be digitally added to the television images generated by
any
number of other telescopes. This way, the image of the star produced by
each telescope can be computer manipulated to make them a near perfect
match, before they are digitally added together to form the resultant
image.

Len.

Suppose I want to take the emission of a single star-atom
(photon?) and subtract two of the mirrors from the other two
to get a complete null ? The light from one projector will not
destructivly interfer with the light from another as you have
described the overlay of images. The VLTI however permits
both constructive and destructive interference.

Does your theory account for the destructive interferrance that
is observed at VLTI Paranal ?

Sue...
.................................................. ..................
To Sue,

Feynman analysis does not correspond with reality since the vacuum of space
gradually changes into the medium of the world's atmosphere, i.e. there is
no distinct dividing line between the two. Moreover the earth atmosphere is
not homogeneous, as it gets progressively denser the closer you come to
earth. In addition its mixture changes as you go along.

Beyond that, I have said about as much as I wanted to say in my previous
postings, to explain the use of multiple telescopes, especially since I
don't really understand your last question. If you want more from me, I am
afraid I can't help you.

Len.
.................................................. ...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:

.................................................. .....................
Does your paper explain how that corkscrewing critter
illuminates all four of these:
http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/ima...-smallsize.jpg
http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/
...so it can add constructivly or destructivly after passing
the four delay lines ?

Sue...
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
.................................................. ...........
To Sue,

In essence what you are saying is, that the since the workable size
of
an
optical telescope is limited and consequently can only project the
image
of
an observed star on a screen of limited quality.

To improve the sharpness and detail of the projected image of a
distant
star
astronomers hit on the idea of using several telescopes and have
each
telescope project the image of the observed star on the same spot on
the
screen. The resulting improved image is comparable to what one
telescope of
the same light gathering capacity as the 4 separate telescopes,
would
produce.

The added complication is that the projected images of the four
telescopes
have to reach the screen in phase with each other for them to add up
successfully. (Similar to the two split experiment) To this end the
distance traveled by the light from each telescope to the screen
must be
the
same for the images to arrive in phase. This way the images will
add
to,
rather than subtract from, each other.

This latest development has not come about as a result of a better
understanding exactly what a light beam consists off. It is simply
a
practical solution to an old problem.

However the helical photon wave concept does provide for a better
understanding what happens when similar light beams are in or out of
phase
with each other.

Then you have some inclusion of Feynman's path integral ?
http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergra...ch/Feynm4.html

Sue...
.................................................. ..............
To Sue,

First of all, I am not an admirer of Feynman since he was the worst
(academic) offender in turning the science of particle physics into a
religious magic show and himself into its prophet.

Secondly, I think that your above quotation by Feynman confuses the
issue
rather than add to our understanding of the use of multiple telescopes.

Basically what I was saying in my previous posting was that, if you were
giving a slide show in a large hall and wanted to brighten the projected
image of the slide projector, you could use a second slide projector on
top
of your existing projector to project a copy of the same slide on the
screen, making the projected image twice as bright.

However for this to work, the second projector would have to be the same
distance away from the screen as the first projector. It would have to
be
pointed at exactly the same spot on the screen and the second projected
image would have to be of the same size as the first image. In so doing
the
two projected images should also be in phase and strengthen rather than
detract from each other.

In today's computer world the television image of the star produced by
each
telescope can be digitally added to the television images generated by
any
number of other telescopes. This way, the image of the star produced by
each telescope can be computer manipulated to make them a near perfect
match, before they are digitally added together to form the resultant
image.

Len.

Suppose I want to take the emission of a single star-atom
(photon?) and subtract two of the mirrors from the other two
to get a complete null ? The light from one projector will not
destructivly interfer with the light from another as you have
described the overlay of images. The VLTI however permits
both constructive and destructive interference.

Does your theory account for the destructive interferrance that
is observed at VLTI Paranal ?

Sue...
.................................................. .................
To Sue,

Feynman analysis does not correspond with reality since the vacuum of space
gradually changes into the medium of the world's atmosphere, i.e. there is
no distinct dividing line between the two. Moreover the earth atmosphere is
not homogeneous, as it gets progressively denser the closer you come to
earth. In addition its mixture changes as you go along.

Beyond that, I have said about as much as I wanted to say in my previous
postings, to explain the use of multiple telescopes, especially since I
don't really understand your last question. If you want more from me, I am
afraid I can't help you.

Len.

I take that to be a negative response to my question.
I encourage you to spend a bit more time with Feynman's
path integral approach because it *does* model the VLTI
in interference mode.

Kind regards,

Sue...

.................................................. ..

.................................................. ....................
I take that to be a negative response to my question.
I encourage you to spend a bit more time with Feynman's
path integral approach because it *does* model the VLTI
in interference mode.

Kind regards,

Sue...
.................................................. .................

To Sue,

I don't want to cut you off as long as we are having a real discussion.
So I will give it one more try.

When we look at a multicoloured light image of a body, the light consists
of many colours and frequencies in a multiple complex phase relationship.

Consequently if we do the two slit experiment with two separate white light
images NO INTERFERENCE PATTERN WILL RESULT! Only if we use one light source
and split it in two by letting it go trough two adjoining slits, will an
interference pattern show on the screen.

On the other hand if we take two separate monochromatic laser light sources
and have one shine on each slit, an interference pattern will once more show
at the screen behind the slits, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOW DEALING WITH TWO
SEPARATE LIGHT SOURCES. This is the case because a pure laser source of a
single colour can only be either in or out of phase with another laser of
exactly the same monochrome colour.

In the case of two separate slide projectors projecting the same image on
the screen at the same location, the light source that illuminates each
slide is NOT the same. Consequently, interference between the two projected
images will not result even though the projected image is the same.
(In addition it is difficult to make two identical copies of a slide.)

In the case of the multiple telescopes, the same star is used as a light
source which means that an interference pattern may result, although not to
the same extend as would have occurred if we had used the star in a two slit
experiment. This is the case because it is much harder to make two
telescopes which are exactly alike than two slits.

I hope this answers your question since I am still not quite sure what was
bothering you about my previous postings.

Good luck, Len.
.................................................

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
.................................................. ...................
I take that to be a negative response to my question.
I encourage you to spend a bit more time with Feynman's
path integral approach because it *does* model the VLTI
in interference mode.

Kind regards,

Sue...
.................................................. ................

To Sue,

I don't want to cut you off as long as we are having a real discussion.
So I will give it one more try.

When we look at a multicoloured light image of a body, the light consists
of many colours and frequencies in a multiple complex phase relationship.

Consequently if we do the two slit experiment with two separate white light
images NO INTERFERENCE PATTERN WILL RESULT! Only if we use one light source
and split it in two by letting it go trough two adjoining slits, will an
interference pattern show on the screen.

On the other hand if we take two separate monochromatic laser light sources
and have one shine on each slit, an interference pattern will once more show
at the screen behind the slits, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOW DEALING WITH TWO
SEPARATE LIGHT SOURCES. This is the case because a pure laser source of a
single colour can only be either in or out of phase with another laser of
exactly the same monochrome colour.

Get a pair of laser pointers and try it.


In the case of two separate slide projectors projecting the same image on
the screen at the same location, the light source that illuminates each
slide is NOT the same. Consequently, interference between the two projected
images will not result even though the projected image is the same.
(In addition it is difficult to make two identical copies of a slide.)

They will be twice as bright because it is random light.


In the case of the multiple telescopes, the same star is used as a light
source which means that an interference pattern may result, although not to
the same extend as would have occurred if we had used the star in a two slit
experiment. This is the case because it is much harder to make two
telescopes which are exactly alike than two slits.

Click on the VLTI delay line to see just how hard it is.
Flying machines are hard too, but I don't discount that
such devices might exist just because the problem is difficult.

I hope this answers your question since I am still not quite sure what was
bothering you about my previous postings.

You have the photon clocks of Feynman's path integral but
you seem to be lacking the abilty to explore all paths.

Asking about the VLTI is just a convenient way to inquire
about your theory because a real device leaves no ambiguity.

Without ability to explore all paths, your theory predicts that
VLTI does not work in interferometer mode...
but it does work so you need to go break their telescope. ;o)

Sue...



Good luck, Len.
................................................

"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
.................................................. ...................
I take that to be a negative response to my question.
I encourage you to spend a bit more time with Feynman's
path integral approach because it *does* model the VLTI
in interference mode.

Kind regards,

Sue...
.................................................. ................

To Sue,

I don't want to cut you off as long as we are having a real discussion.
So I will give it one more try.

When we look at a multicoloured light image of a body, the light
consists
of many colours and frequencies in a multiple complex phase
relationship.

Consequently if we do the two slit experiment with two separate white
light
images NO INTERFERENCE PATTERN WILL RESULT! Only if we use one light
source
and split it in two by letting it go trough two adjoining slits, will an
interference pattern show on the screen.

On the other hand if we take two separate monochromatic laser light
sources
and have one shine on each slit, an interference pattern will once more
show
at the screen behind the slits, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOW DEALING WITH TWO
SEPARATE LIGHT SOURCES. This is the case because a pure laser source of
a
single colour can only be either in or out of phase with another laser
of
exactly the same monochrome colour.

Get a pair of laser pointers and try it.


In the case of two separate slide projectors projecting the same image
on
the screen at the same location, the light source that illuminates each
slide is NOT the same. Consequently, interference between the two
projected
images will not result even though the projected image is the same.
(In addition it is difficult to make two identical copies of a slide.)

They will be twice as bright because it is random light.


In the case of the multiple telescopes, the same star is used as a light
source which means that an interference pattern may result, although not
to
the same extend as would have occurred if we had used the star in a two
slit
experiment. This is the case because it is much harder to make two
telescopes which are exactly alike than two slits.

Click on the VLTI delay line to see just how hard it is.
Flying machines are hard too, but I don't discount that
such devices might exist just because the problem is difficult.

I hope this answers your question since I am still not quite sure what
was
bothering you about my previous postings.

You have the photon clocks of Feynman's path integral but
you seem to be lacking the abilty to explore all paths.

Asking about the VLTI is just a convenient way to inquire
about your theory because a real device leaves no ambiguity.

Without ability to explore all paths, your theory predicts that
VLTI does not work in interferometer mode...
but it does work so you need to go break their telescope. ;o)

Sue...
.................................................. ...............
To Sue,

Where does my theory predict that VLTI does not work? You are beginning to
**** me off.

Len.
.................................................. ............

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
.................................................. ...................
I take that to be a negative response to my question.
I encourage you to spend a bit more time with Feynman's
path integral approach because it *does* model the VLTI
in interference mode.

Kind regards,

Sue...
.................................................. ................

To Sue,

I don't want to cut you off as long as we are having a real discussion.
So I will give it one more try.

When we look at a multicoloured light image of a body, the light
consists
of many colours and frequencies in a multiple complex phase
relationship.

Consequently if we do the two slit experiment with two separate white
light
images NO INTERFERENCE PATTERN WILL RESULT! Only if we use one light
source
and split it in two by letting it go trough two adjoining slits, will an
interference pattern show on the screen.

On the other hand if we take two separate monochromatic laser light
sources
and have one shine on each slit, an interference pattern will once more
show
at the screen behind the slits, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOW DEALING WITH TWO
SEPARATE LIGHT SOURCES. This is the case because a pure laser source of
a
single colour can only be either in or out of phase with another laser
of
exactly the same monochrome colour.

Get a pair of laser pointers and try it.


In the case of two separate slide projectors projecting the same image
on
the screen at the same location, the light source that illuminates each
slide is NOT the same. Consequently, interference between the two
projected
images will not result even though the projected image is the same.
(In addition it is difficult to make two identical copies of a slide.)

They will be twice as bright because it is random light.


In the case of the multiple telescopes, the same star is used as a light
source which means that an interference pattern may result, although not
to
the same extend as would have occurred if we had used the star in a two
slit
experiment. This is the case because it is much harder to make two
telescopes which are exactly alike than two slits.

Click on the VLTI delay line to see just how hard it is.
Flying machines are hard too, but I don't discount that
such devices might exist just because the problem is difficult.

I hope this answers your question since I am still not quite sure what
was
bothering you about my previous postings.

You have the photon clocks of Feynman's path integral but
you seem to be lacking the abilty to explore all paths.

Asking about the VLTI is just a convenient way to inquire
about your theory because a real device leaves no ambiguity.

Without ability to explore all paths, your theory predicts that
VLTI does not work in interferometer mode...
but it does work so you need to go break their telescope. ;o)

Sue...
.................................................. ..............
To Sue,

Where does my theory predict that VLTI does not work?

Light, on the other hand, behaves quite differently.
It travels best through a vacuum and consists of a stream of particles
called photons.
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek/spap1.html

Light does not exist absent the motion of an electron.
A space with an electron is not a vacuum.

As a matter of fact, when we look out anywhere and
see light, we can always "see" some matter as the source
of the light. We don't just see light
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laurea...n-lecture.html


You are beginning to **** me off.

Your problem is with Feynman, not with me.
His mirrors work... your mirrors don't work.
Break some mirrors or fix your theory. )

"Antenna arrays"
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/.../antarray.html

Sue...


Len.
.................................................. ...........

"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:

.................................................. ....................
I take that to be a negative response to my question.
I encourage you to spend a bit more time with Feynman's
path integral approach because it *does* model the VLTI
in interference mode.

Kind regards,

Sue...
.................................................. ................

To Sue,

I don't want to cut you off as long as we are having a real
discussion.
So I will give it one more try.

When we look at a multicoloured light image of a body, the light
consists
of many colours and frequencies in a multiple complex phase
relationship.

Consequently if we do the two slit experiment with two separate
white
light
images NO INTERFERENCE PATTERN WILL RESULT! Only if we use one
light
source
and split it in two by letting it go trough two adjoining slits,
will an
interference pattern show on the screen.

On the other hand if we take two separate monochromatic laser light
sources
and have one shine on each slit, an interference pattern will once
more
show
at the screen behind the slits, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOW DEALING WITH
TWO
SEPARATE LIGHT SOURCES. This is the case because a pure laser
source of
a
single colour can only be either in or out of phase with another
laser
of
exactly the same monochrome colour.

Get a pair of laser pointers and try it.


In the case of two separate slide projectors projecting the same
image
on
the screen at the same location, the light source that illuminates
each
slide is NOT the same. Consequently, interference between the two
projected
images will not result even though the projected image is the same.
(In addition it is difficult to make two identical copies of a
slide.)

They will be twice as bright because it is random light.


In the case of the multiple telescopes, the same star is used as a
light
source which means that an interference pattern may result, although
not
to
the same extend as would have occurred if we had used the star in a
two
slit
experiment. This is the case because it is much harder to make two
telescopes which are exactly alike than two slits.

Click on the VLTI delay line to see just how hard it is.
Flying machines are hard too, but I don't discount that
such devices might exist just because the problem is difficult.

I hope this answers your question since I am still not quite sure
what
was
bothering you about my previous postings.

You have the photon clocks of Feynman's path integral but
you seem to be lacking the abilty to explore all paths.

Asking about the VLTI is just a convenient way to inquire
about your theory because a real device leaves no ambiguity.

Without ability to explore all paths, your theory predicts that
VLTI does not work in interferometer mode...
but it does work so you need to go break their telescope. ;o)

Sue...
.................................................. ..............
To Sue,

Where does my theory predict that VLTI does not work?

Light, on the other hand, behaves quite differently.
It travels best through a vacuum and consists of a stream of particles
called photons.
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek/spap1.html

Light does not exist absent the motion of an electron.
A space with an electron is not a vacuum.

As a matter of fact, when we look out anywhere and
see light, we can always "see" some matter as the source
of the light. We don't just see light
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laurea...n-lecture.html


You are beginning to **** me off.

Your problem is with Feynman, not with me.
His mirrors work... your mirrors don't work.
Break some mirrors or fix your theory. )

"Antenna arrays"
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/.../antarray.html

Sue...


Len.
.................................................. ...........

To Sue,

Some for renown, on scraps of learning dote,
And think they grow immortal as they quote.
Edward Young (1683-1765) British poet.
Love of Fame, II

Len.
.................................................. ...................

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:

.................................................. ...................
I take that to be a negative response to my question.
I encourage you to spend a bit more time with Feynman's
path integral approach because it *does* model the VLTI
in interference mode.

Kind regards,

Sue...
.................................................. ................

To Sue,

I don't want to cut you off as long as we are having a real
discussion.
So I will give it one more try.

When we look at a multicoloured light image of a body, the light
consists
of many colours and frequencies in a multiple complex phase
relationship.

Consequently if we do the two slit experiment with two separate
white
light
images NO INTERFERENCE PATTERN WILL RESULT! Only if we use one
light
source
and split it in two by letting it go trough two adjoining slits,
will an
interference pattern show on the screen.

On the other hand if we take two separate monochromatic laser light
sources
and have one shine on each slit, an interference pattern will once
more
show
at the screen behind the slits, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOW DEALING WITH
TWO
SEPARATE LIGHT SOURCES. This is the case because a pure laser
source of
a
single colour can only be either in or out of phase with another
laser
of
exactly the same monochrome colour.

Get a pair of laser pointers and try it.


In the case of two separate slide projectors projecting the same
image
on
the screen at the same location, the light source that illuminates
each
slide is NOT the same. Consequently, interference between the two
projected
images will not result even though the projected image is the same.
(In addition it is difficult to make two identical copies of a
slide.)

They will be twice as bright because it is random light.


In the case of the multiple telescopes, the same star is used as a
light
source which means that an interference pattern may result, although
not
to
the same extend as would have occurred if we had used the star in a
two
slit
experiment. This is the case because it is much harder to make two
telescopes which are exactly alike than two slits.

Click on the VLTI delay line to see just how hard it is.
Flying machines are hard too, but I don't discount that
such devices might exist just because the problem is difficult.

I hope this answers your question since I am still not quite sure
what
was
bothering you about my previous postings.

You have the photon clocks of Feynman's path integral but
you seem to be lacking the abilty to explore all paths.

Asking about the VLTI is just a convenient way to inquire
about your theory because a real device leaves no ambiguity.

Without ability to explore all paths, your theory predicts that
VLTI does not work in interferometer mode...
but it does work so you need to go break their telescope. ;o)

Sue...
.................................................. ..............
To Sue,

Where does my theory predict that VLTI does not work?

Light, on the other hand, behaves quite differently.
It travels best through a vacuum and consists of a stream of particles
called photons.
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek/spap1.html

Light does not exist absent the motion of an electron.
A space with an electron is not a vacuum.

As a matter of fact, when we look out anywhere and
see light, we can always "see" some matter as the source
of the light. We don't just see light
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laurea...n-lecture.html


You are beginning to **** me off.

Your problem is with Feynman, not with me.
His mirrors work... your mirrors don't work.
Break some mirrors or fix your theory. )

"Antenna arrays"
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/.../antarray.html

Sue...


Len.
.................................................. ...........

To Sue,

Some for renown, on scraps of learning dote,
And think they grow immortal as they quote.
Edward Young (1683-1765) British poet.
Love of Fame, II

Len.

I quote what is probably the most successful theories
in physics. You have your work cut out for you
if you think cutting it in half impoves it.

http://www.physorg.com/news8731.html


Sue...


.................................................. ..................

"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:

.................................................. ...................
I take that to be a negative response to my question.
I encourage you to spend a bit more time with Feynman's
path integral approach because it *does* model the VLTI
in interference mode.

Kind regards,

Sue...

.................................................. .................

To Sue,

I don't want to cut you off as long as we are having a real
discussion.
So I will give it one more try.

When we look at a multicoloured light image of a body, the
light
consists
of many colours and frequencies in a multiple complex phase
relationship.

Consequently if we do the two slit experiment with two separate
white
light
images NO INTERFERENCE PATTERN WILL RESULT! Only if we use one
light
source
and split it in two by letting it go trough two adjoining slits,
will an
interference pattern show on the screen.

On the other hand if we take two separate monochromatic laser
light
sources
and have one shine on each slit, an interference pattern will
once
more
show
at the screen behind the slits, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOW DEALING
WITH
TWO
SEPARATE LIGHT SOURCES. This is the case because a pure laser
source of
a
single colour can only be either in or out of phase with another
laser
of
exactly the same monochrome colour.

Get a pair of laser pointers and try it.


In the case of two separate slide projectors projecting the same
image
on
the screen at the same location, the light source that
illuminates
each
slide is NOT the same. Consequently, interference between the
two
projected
images will not result even though the projected image is the
same.
(In addition it is difficult to make two identical copies of a
slide.)

They will be twice as bright because it is random light.


In the case of the multiple telescopes, the same star is used as
a
light
source which means that an interference pattern may result,
although
not
to
the same extend as would have occurred if we had used the star
in a
two
slit
experiment. This is the case because it is much harder to make
two
telescopes which are exactly alike than two slits.

Click on the VLTI delay line to see just how hard it is.
Flying machines are hard too, but I don't discount that
such devices might exist just because the problem is difficult.

I hope this answers your question since I am still not quite
sure
what
was
bothering you about my previous postings.

You have the photon clocks of Feynman's path integral but
you seem to be lacking the abilty to explore all paths.

Asking about the VLTI is just a convenient way to inquire
about your theory because a real device leaves no ambiguity.

Without ability to explore all paths, your theory predicts that
VLTI does not work in interferometer mode...
but it does work so you need to go break their telescope. ;o)

Sue...
.................................................. ..............
To Sue,

Where does my theory predict that VLTI does not work?

Light, on the other hand, behaves quite differently.
It travels best through a vacuum and consists of a stream of particles
called photons.
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek/spap1.html

Light does not exist absent the motion of an electron.
A space with an electron is not a vacuum.

As a matter of fact, when we look out anywhere and
see light, we can always "see" some matter as the source
of the light. We don't just see light
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laurea...n-lecture.html


You are beginning to **** me off.

Your problem is with Feynman, not with me.
His mirrors work... your mirrors don't work.
Break some mirrors or fix your theory. )

"Antenna arrays"
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/.../antarray.html

Sue...


Len.
.................................................. ...........

To Sue,

Some for renown, on scraps of learning dote,
And think they grow immortal as they quote.
Edward Young (1683-1765) British poet.
Love of Fame, II

Len.

I quote what is probably the most successful theories
in physics. You have your work cut out for you
if you think cutting it in half impoves it.

http://www.physorg.com/news8731.html


Sue..
.................................................. ..................
To Sue,

Goody goody! They can now see their z and w particles ten times better than
they could before!

It is all a public relations smoke screen designed to keep their research
grants from drying up. Their multi-million dollar hocus-pocus 'science'
doesn't mean a thing and never has had, nor will have, any practical
applications. It is the biggest confidence (snow) job in the history of
science, and tax payers like you and I are paying for it. It makes me sick
every time I think about it.

Len.
.................................................. ...................

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
THE CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT.

If we look at the electromagnetic spectrum which shows the frequency of
electromagnetic waves (such as x-rays, visible light, micro-waves,
television waves, fm waves and long radio waves etc.) versus their
wavelength, we notice a direct relationship between the two.

If we multiply any given frequency with its corresponding wavelength, we get
the speed of light c, providing the electromagnetic wave travels through a
vacuum. That is to say, the speed at which all electromagnetic waves travel
through a vacuum is constant (c), and is the product of their frequency and
wavelength.

If we accept the fact that electromagnetic waves consists of photons that
follow a helical trajectory, it is easy to understand why this should be so.
Because the frequency of a helical photon wave is the number of times each
photon completes one helical spiral per second, during which time it travels
the same number of wavelengths.

Why not a double helix? If a photon consisted of a pair of massless
positive and negative charges rotating about a common centre then one
might get around to explaining how alternating em fields are somehow
involved e.g. Maxwell? You also have the angle between the axis of
rotation and the direction of motion to give a concept of polarisation.

[snip]
--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal