On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:49:37 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

George, your Einsteinian grating theory wold not allow the gratings on
HST to detect its orbital motion.

On the contrary. The Doppler effect's change in frequency/wavelength is quite
well documented for waves and can be shown to be dependent only on the
relative velocity of the source and observer.

'Wavelength', like all lengths...is absolute ...but unlike rods, it is velocity
dependent....There is NO significant change in the velocity of the star photons
outside the atmosphere. Therefore, since SR says gratings are sensitive to
wavelength only, those on the HST should not be sensitive to the grating's
orbital movement.

The same can be shown for Doppler effect for 'photons' as the change in
energy (and thus the wavelength and frequency) can be shown to depend on the
relative velocity of the source and observer.

Energy must always be velocity dependent. It has dimensions M((L/T)^2)
Frequency as applied to individual photons relates to 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
We aren't sure what constitutes a 'wavecrest'.

The same can NOT be said for Wilsonian light carriers .... are they waves or
particles Henri?

They are particles with a structure carrying intrinsic 'waves', George.



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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:32:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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


Gas temperature falls during an expansion, George.

Conventional modelling includes the thermodynamic
effects of course. As an aside, you might be
interested to find out the thermal capacity of
the plasma.

Whatever.....Its temperature will still increase as it compresses during
the
contraction phase under gravity. ...

Of course. Remember also that the ionisation
hence the position of the photosphere also depend
on the temperature and other conditions. It is a
complex set of linked dynamics but the bottom line
is that when all these aspects are taken into
account, conventioanl theory matches what is
observed.

That's because the answer is known beforehand.... and it isn't hard to come up
with all kinds of weird theories that will match the willusion.


It is perfectly real Henry, proven many times
including by Ives and Stillwell as I have pointed
out before. It is of course geometrical in nature
rather than what you mean by 'physical' but the
geometry is still part of the physics.

George, it is trivial to prove that rods do not physically change with
velocity.

The proper length does not change, their
coordinate length does.

Would they increase or decrease their absolute lengths?

The standard terminology is "proper length" and
it doesn't change.

The relativist jargon includes the totally unnecessary word 'proper'. Like the
manufactured vocabulary of all religions, its whole aim is to confuse and
impress idiots like eric geese.

Simple geometry Henry, but clearly beyond you. Read
"Spacetime Physics, chapter 1 for a more detailed
explanation at a layman introductory level.

That kind of thing might impress the gullible ....but not me George.

You are too clueless to understand it.

George, rods do not physically change when they experience a change in
speed.

Their proper length does not change, their
coordinate length does.

Sorry, I don't recognise these artificial terms.

Then you need to learn the standard terminology
if you wan to discuss physics.

It isn't standard in my book...
It is in the nonsense chapter..

Any rod can be used to define an absolute spatial interval. It can be taken
anywhere, anyhow without physically changing in any way.
It can be used to measure absolute length anywhere.

Only an idiot would try to measure the length a fast moving rod and if its
length appeared different from its true one, that would merely indicate that
the experimental procedure was flawed.

the number of ticks emitted by an orbiting clock PER ORBIT is te same no
matter
WHO counts them.

Of course, the duration of the orbit depends
on who is counting, that is a coordinate time,
not a proper time.

The orbit 'period' defines an absolute time interval. It is the same for all
observers.
All observers MUST count the same number of GPS ticks emitted PER clock ORBIT.

I can take a rigid rod anywhere, anyhow with the full knowledge that
it is exactly the same as it was before I left.

Do you dispute that?

Coordinate length does not change do to a change
in location in SR provided the velocity is
unchanged.

It matters not what happens to the rod.

Then I guess you raised the question just to change
the subject as usual.

It is fundamental to the uunderstanding of why the GR corretion is way out.

It always oc'cupies the same absolute
spatial interval.

It has the same "proper length". Learn the terminology
Henry.

I'm not out to fool anyone George..least of all myself.. I just use 'absolute
length'.

George




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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:49:37 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

George, your Einsteinian grating theory wold not allow the gratings on
HST to detect its orbital motion.

On the contrary. The Doppler effect's change in frequency/wavelength is
quite well documented for waves and can be shown to be dependent only on
the relative velocity of the source and observer.

'Wavelength', like all lengths...is absolute ...but unlike rods, it is
velocity dependent....There is NO significant change in the velocity of
the star photons outside the atmosphere. Therefore, since SR says
gratings are sensitive to wavelength only,

SR does NOT say this about gratings. Laboratory experiments show it to be
true as does the math. The lab experiments?

Sound waves of 1 meter in length and microwaves of 1 meter in length
undergo identical refraction from an array of metal rods. Wave tank
experiments show identical results from identical wavelength incident
waves when the density of the liquid in the tank is varied and the
frequency of the wave generator is adjusted to produce the same
wavelength.

those on the HST should not
be sensitive to the grating's orbital movement.

ANYTHING which changes the rate at which wave crests impact the grating
AND thus the length of the waves will change the angle of refraction. This
means that anything which effects the relative velocity of HST and the
distant star will change the measured wavelength as well as the counted
frequency(given a frequency counter sitting beside the grating).
Incidentally, the ratio of the observed wavelength and observed frequency
for light seems to always give a well known 'constant' value.


The same can be shown for Doppler effect for 'photons' as the change in
energy (and thus the wavelength and frequency) can be shown to depend on
the relative velocity of the source and observer.

Energy must always be velocity dependent. It has dimensions M((L/T)^2)
Frequency as applied to individual photons relates to 'wavecrest arrival
rate'. We aren't sure what constitutes a 'wavecrest'.

Yet we can determine how far apart they are with a grating. Experiments
show this to be true in every case.

The same can NOT be said for Wilsonian light carriers .... are they
waves or particles Henri?

They are particles with a structure carrying intrinsic 'waves', George.

So your answer to my 'or' question is 'both'? Thank you.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:40:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:47:31 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

IF YOU CLAIM THE CALCULATION TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE POSTULATES
OF SR - POINT OUT _EXACTLY_ WHERE THE INCONSISTENCY IS.
I have explained.
SR claims that the rays move at c wrt the source, (as does BaTh).t also claims
that they move at c wrt the ring.
However is the accompanying diagram, th rays are clearly shown to be moving at
c+/-v wrt the source.
The accompanying diagram is drawn in the inertial frame,
and shows that the light is moving at c in the inertial frame,
and that the source is moving with the speed v in the inertial frame.

It doesn't show any other speeds relative to anything else.

..so the only conclusion I can reach is that SRians are in fantasyland when
they claim Sagnac is consistent with SR.
Try again, Henri.
And remenber:
Stupidities like:
"(c+/-v) appear in the equations, that is inconsistent with SR"
won't do.

Below is a description of the standard Sagnac diagram,
and a calculation of what SR predicts for the Sagnac experiment.

- Given an inertial frame which is the reference
for all speeds mentioned below.
That is, all speeds are relative to this frame.
- Given a stationary circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors).
- According to SR, the speed of the light is c.
That's just a postulate. Where is the physics?
No theory of physics has anything but "just postulates".
If the prediction - based on the postulates of the theory -
is in accordance with experimental evidence, the theory
and its postulates are confirmed, otherwise it is falsified.
That's physics, Henri.

- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
uses to meet the source.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)
Both c+v and c-v, as used above represent the velocities of the rays wrt the
source.
That should be obvious to anyone outside norway.
Stupidities like:
"(c+/-v) appear in the equations, that is inconsistent with SR"
won't do.


delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c2 - v2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r2, g = (1 - v2/c2)-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c2)* g2

The g2 will obviously be unmeasurable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.
Purely coincidental...
The diagram is not related to SR.
I see. You didn't understand the derivation.
Here it is again.
If there is any particular part you don't understand, just ask.

Below is a description of the standard Sagnac diagram,
and a calculation of what SR predicts for the Sagnac experiment.

- Given an inertial frame which is the reference
for all speeds mentioned below.
That is, all speeds are relative to this frame.
- Given a stationary circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors).
- According to SR, the speed of the light is c.
- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
uses to meet the source.

I suppose you can manage to draw the diagram described above yourself.

Since you obviously don't understand the derivation,
I will have to explain:
- tf is the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- 2*pi*r is the circumference of the circle (or ring).
- tf*v is the distance the source has moved during the time
from the light was emitted, to it is back at the source.
- tf*c is the distance the light has moved during the time
from the light was emitted, to it is back at the source.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c

Is this really too hard for you, Henri?
There are only two speeds in this equation, c and v.
Both are speeds in the inertial frame.
THERE ARE NO SPEEDS RELATIVE TO ANYTHING ELSE IN
THIS EQUATION!

When we _solve_ this equation, we get:
2*pi*r = tf*c - tf*v = tf*(c-v)
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

Time = distance/ velocity
velocity = c-v

(c-v) is nothing but an arithmetic difference between
two speeds, It is NOT the speed of anything relative
to anything!

The equation for the light going in the other direction
is equivalent:

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)

Time = distance/ velocity
velocity = c+v

delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c^2 - v^2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r^2, g = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c2)* g2

The g^2 will obviously be unmeasurable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

Very amusing Paul. ...becoming more amusing every day...

Since you obviously are unable to point out any inconsistencies
or errors in my derivation, we can consider it settled:

SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

You can laugh at it, but you can't refute it.


Paul

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:03:34 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:



'Wavelength', like all lengths...is absolute ...but unlike rods, it is
velocity dependent....There is NO significant change in the velocity of
the star photons outside the atmosphere. Therefore, since SR says
gratings are sensitive to wavelength only,

SR does NOT say this about gratings. Laboratory experiments show it to be
true as does the math. The lab experiments?

Methinks SR doesn't know what it says.

Sound waves of 1 meter in length and microwaves of 1 meter in length
undergo identical refraction from an array of metal rods. Wave tank
experiments show identical results from identical wavelength incident
waves when the density of the liquid in the tank is varied and the
frequency of the wave generator is adjusted to produce the same
wavelength.

That's true when a medium is involved.
Light doesn't have a medium Bob...didn't anyone tell you that?

those on the HST should not
be sensitive to the grating's orbital movement.

ANYTHING which changes the rate at which wave crests impact the grating
AND thus the length of the waves will change the angle of refraction.

My point Bob, is that the movement of the telescope CANNOT and DOES NOT change
the wavelength of the incoming light.

This
means that anything which effects the relative velocity of HST and the
distant star will change the measured wavelength as well as the counted
frequency(given a frequency counter sitting beside the grating).

Now you're talking. It is the 'wavecrest arrival frequency' that a grating
detects.

Incidentally, the ratio of the observed wavelength and observed frequency
for light seems to always give a well known 'constant' value.

Hahahahohohohoh!
You must be joking Bob.

I'll tell you a secret. There is a good reason for that.
'Frequency' of light is a calculated quantity derived using nu = c/lambda

....and please don't refer me to the latest claims about light being mixed with
microwaves of known fequency to produce beats.

The same can be shown for Doppler effect for 'photons' as the change in
energy (and thus the wavelength and frequency) can be shown to depend on
the relative velocity of the source and observer.

Energy must always be velocity dependent. It has dimensions M((L/T)^2)
Frequency as applied to individual photons relates to 'wavecrest arrival
rate'. We aren't sure what constitutes a 'wavecrest'.

Yet we can determine how far apart they are with a grating. Experiments
show this to be true in every case.

But you just agreed above that gratings are sensitive to wavecrest arrival
frequency.

Make up your mind Bob.

The same can NOT be said for Wilsonian light carriers .... are they
waves or particles Henri?

They are particles with a structure carrying intrinsic 'waves', George.

So your answer to my 'or' question is 'both'? Thank you.

I believe that is the general opinion about light. It can behave like a
particle or a wave.



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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:52:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:40:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:47:31 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

IF YOU CLAIM THE CALCULATION TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE POSTULATES
OF SR - POINT OUT _EXACTLY_ WHERE THE INCONSISTENCY IS.
I have explained.
SR claims that the rays move at c wrt the source, (as does BaTh).t also claims
that they move at c wrt the ring.
However is the accompanying diagram, th rays are clearly shown to be moving at
c+/-v wrt the source.
The accompanying diagram is drawn in the inertial frame,
and shows that the light is moving at c in the inertial frame,
and that the source is moving with the speed v in the inertial frame.

It doesn't show any other speeds relative to anything else.

..so the only conclusion I can reach is that SRians are in fantasyland when
they claim Sagnac is consistent with SR.
Try again, Henri.
And remenber:
Stupidities like:
"(c+/-v) appear in the equations, that is inconsistent with SR"
won't do.

Below is a description of the standard Sagnac diagram,
and a calculation of what SR predicts for the Sagnac experiment.

- Given an inertial frame which is the reference
for all speeds mentioned below.
That is, all speeds are relative to this frame.
- Given a stationary circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors).
- According to SR, the speed of the light is c.
That's just a postulate. Where is the physics?
No theory of physics has anything but "just postulates".
If the prediction - based on the postulates of the theory -
is in accordance with experimental evidence, the theory
and its postulates are confirmed, otherwise it is falsified.
That's physics, Henri.

- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
uses to meet the source.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)
Both c+v and c-v, as used above represent the velocities of the rays wrt the
source.
That should be obvious to anyone outside norway.
Stupidities like:
"(c+/-v) appear in the equations, that is inconsistent with SR"
won't do.


delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c2 - v2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r2, g = (1 - v2/c2)-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c2)* g2

The g2 will obviously be unmeasurable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.
Purely coincidental...
The diagram is not related to SR.
I see. You didn't understand the derivation.
Here it is again.
If there is any particular part you don't understand, just ask.

Below is a description of the standard Sagnac diagram,
and a calculation of what SR predicts for the Sagnac experiment.

- Given an inertial frame which is the reference
for all speeds mentioned below.
That is, all speeds are relative to this frame.
- Given a stationary circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors).
- According to SR, the speed of the light is c.
- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
uses to meet the source.

I suppose you can manage to draw the diagram described above yourself.

Since you obviously don't understand the derivation,
I will have to explain:
- tf is the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- 2*pi*r is the circumference of the circle (or ring).
- tf*v is the distance the source has moved during the time
from the light was emitted, to it is back at the source.
- tf*c is the distance the light has moved during the time
from the light was emitted, to it is back at the source.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c

Is this really too hard for you, Henri?
There are only two speeds in this equation, c and v.
Both are speeds in the inertial frame.
THERE ARE NO SPEEDS RELATIVE TO ANYTHING ELSE IN
THIS EQUATION!

When we _solve_ this equation, we get:
2*pi*r = tf*c - tf*v = tf*(c-v)
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

Time = distance/ velocity
velocity = c-v

(c-v) is nothing but an arithmetic difference between
two speeds, It is NOT the speed of anything relative
to anything!

The equation for the light going in the other direction
is equivalent:

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)

Time = distance/ velocity
velocity = c+v

delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c^2 - v^2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r^2, g = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c2)* g2

The g^2 will obviously be unmeasurable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

Very amusing Paul. ...becoming more amusing every day...

Since you obviously are unable to point out any inconsistencies
or errors in my derivation, we can consider it settled:

SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

You can laugh at it, but you can't refute it.

Paul, this is not SR. The sagnac ring explanation uses a theory based on the
existence of absolute rotation...which of course is a fact of life.

Sagnac clearly proves SR wrong.

Paul



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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:03:34 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

'Wavelength', like all lengths...is absolute ...but unlike rods, it is
velocity dependent....There is NO significant change in the velocity
of the star photons outside the atmosphere. Therefore, since SR says
gratings are sensitive to wavelength only,

SR does NOT say this about gratings. Laboratory experiments show it to
be true as does the math. The lab experiments?

Methinks SR doesn't know what it says.

SR doesn't say anything about gratings. Wave theory addresses the question.


Sound waves of 1 meter in length and microwaves of 1 meter in length
undergo identical refraction from an array of metal rods. Wave tank
experiments show identical results from identical wavelength incident
waves when the density of the liquid in the tank is varied and the
frequency of the wave generator is adjusted to produce the same
wavelength.

That's true when a medium is involved.

And also when one could be involved but is not required, as in SR.

The medium is unimportant except to the comfort of those who fear math.

Just look at the fact that the motion of the air fails to produce a
noticeable Doppler effect. This is because there are two Doppler shifts
when a moving medium is involved. One Doppler shift when the wave enters
the moving medium and one when the wave exits the moving medium. The shifts
compensate for each other to produce no net Doppler shift. The Doppler
shift depends only on the relative motion of the source and the observer.

Light doesn't have a medium Bob...didn't anyone tell you that?

I never believed in fortune tellers anyway.
No medium is required but if it makes you more comfortable to believe in
fortune tellers, do so.

those on the HST should not
be sensitive to the grating's orbital movement.

ANYTHING which changes the rate at which wave crests impact the grating
AND thus the length of the waves will change the angle of refraction.

My point Bob, is that the movement of the telescope CANNOT and DOES NOT
change the wavelength of the incoming light.

Ride in ship in heavy seas. Head into the waves. Measure the 'wavelength'
of the waves by comparing them with the length of the ship. Now turn the
ship around and travel with the waves. Again, measure the 'wavelength' of
the waves by comparing them with the length of the ship. How many crests
are there per ship length at any instant of time in each case?

You will find the 'wavelength' is much shorter when you are heading into
the waves. This is one reason that ships head into the wind in heavy seas.
The bending moments on the hull are imposed on a shorter section and thus
less likely to break the ship in half. Also, the frequency of pitching is
opposed by the angular momentum of the ship, higher frequency, less
pitching experienced by the crew.

This
means that anything which effects the relative velocity of HST and the
distant star will change the measured wavelength as well as the counted
frequency(given a frequency counter sitting beside the grating).

Now you're talking. It is the 'wave crest arrival frequency' that a
grating detects.

I am talking about the wavelength as measured by the grating and the
frequency as measured with a frequency counter.

The only thing important is the relative velocity. It doesn't matter if it
is the source that is moving or the observer.

Try it with your car and a train whistle. It doesn't matter if the car is
stationary and the train is moving or if the train is stationary and the
car is moving, the Doppler shift will be the same.


Incidentally, the ratio of the observed wavelength and observed
frequency for light seems to always give a well known 'constant' value.

Hahahahohohohoh!
You must be joking Bob.

Quite serious.


I'll tell you a secret. There is a good reason for that.
'Frequency' of light is a calculated quantity derived using nu =
c/lambda

It is not a secret. c = lambda nu
As for 'frequency' being a calculated quantity, while it is true that we
can not yet count light frequency sources directly, lower frequency sources
can be counted. It is quite easy to directly measure the wavelength of
microwaves AND to count their frequency directly. This can be done with the
source moving and it can be done with the receiver moving. Doppler radars
are used all the time. The Doppler shift is the same, no matter what is in
motion.

If your ideas were right, moving targets would not show up in the right
locations on radar screens.

Such discrepancies would be noticed.

...and please don't refer me to the latest claims about light being
mixed with microwaves of known fequency to produce beats.

The same can be shown for Doppler effect for 'photons' as the change
in energy (and thus the wavelength and frequency) can be shown to
depend on the relative velocity of the source and observer.

Energy must always be velocity dependent. It has dimensions M((L/T)^2)
Frequency as applied to individual photons relates to 'wavecrest
arrival rate'. We aren't sure what constitutes a 'wavecrest'.

Yet we can determine how far apart they are with a grating. Experiments
show this to be true in every case.

But you just agreed above that gratings are sensitive to wavecrest
arrival frequency.

Make up your mind Bob.

The gratings are ONLY sensitive to the wavelength. This is demonstrable in
the laboratory. Change the density of the medium, change the propagation
speed, readjust the frequency to give the same wavelength, get the same
diffraction angle. The grating does NOT care about the frequency, just the
wavelength.

The wavelength is intimately connected to the arrival rate of the wave
crests when the wave travels at a constant velocity.

The data from wavelength and frequency, for EM radiation, are consistent
with the radiation traveling at a fixed velocity, at the point of
detection, independent of the motion of the source or the detector.


The same can NOT be said for Wilsonian light carriers .... are they
waves or particles Henri?

They are particles with a structure carrying intrinsic 'waves',
George.

So your answer to my 'or' question is 'both'? Thank you.

I believe that is the general opinion about light. It can behave like a
particle or a wave.

I know the 'general opinion'. Unless you have been promoted to general,
recently, your opinion is widely divergent from the 'general opinion' in
many things. I am asking for YOUR views on the nature of light.


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:36:02 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:03:34 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

'Wavelength', like all lengths...is absolute ...but unlike rods, it is
velocity dependent....There is NO significant change in the velocity
of the star photons outside the atmosphere. Therefore, since SR says
gratings are sensitive to wavelength only,

SR does NOT say this about gratings. Laboratory experiments show it to
be true as does the math. The lab experiments?

Methinks SR doesn't know what it says.

SR doesn't say anything about gratings. Wave theory addresses the question.

Photons aren't 'waves'.

Sound waves of 1 meter in length and microwaves of 1 meter in length
undergo identical refraction from an array of metal rods. Wave tank
experiments show identical results from identical wavelength incident
waves when the density of the liquid in the tank is varied and the
frequency of the wave generator is adjusted to produce the same
wavelength.

That's true when a medium is involved.

And also when one could be involved but is not required, as in SR.

The medium is unimportant except to the comfort of those who fear math.

Just look at the fact that the motion of the air fails to produce a
noticeable Doppler effect. This is because there are two Doppler shifts
when a moving medium is involved. One Doppler shift when the wave enters
the moving medium and one when the wave exits the moving medium. The shifts
compensate for each other to produce no net Doppler shift. The Doppler
shift depends only on the relative motion of the source and the observer.

Well I'm not going to discuss 'moving media' because for light crossing empty
space there is NO medium.

Light doesn't have a medium Bob...didn't anyone tell you that?

I never believed in fortune tellers anyway.
No medium is required but if it makes you more comfortable to believe in
fortune tellers, do so.

those on the HST should not
be sensitive to the grating's orbital movement.

ANYTHING which changes the rate at which wave crests impact the grating
AND thus the length of the waves will change the angle of refraction.

My point Bob, is that the movement of the telescope CANNOT and DOES NOT
change the wavelength of the incoming light.

Ride in ship in heavy seas. Head into the waves. Measure the 'wavelength'
of the waves by comparing them with the length of the ship. Now turn the
ship around and travel with the waves. Again, measure the 'wavelength' of
the waves by comparing them with the length of the ship. How many crests
are there per ship length at any instant of time in each case?

You will find the 'wavelength' is much shorter when you are heading into
the waves. This is one reason that ships head into the wind in heavy seas.
The bending moments on the hull are imposed on a shorter section and thus
less likely to break the ship in half. Also, the frequency of pitching is
opposed by the angular momentum of the ship, higher frequency, less
pitching experienced by the crew.

Hahahahahohohoho!

Are you really under the impression that the ABSOLUTE distance between
wavecrests changes when you turn the ship around?????
is different in the two situations.
...but then, we know that relativists always try to distort the truth..

This
means that anything which effects the relative velocity of HST and the
distant star will change the measured wavelength as well as the counted
frequency(given a frequency counter sitting beside the grating).

Now you're talking. It is the 'wave crest arrival frequency' that a
grating detects.

I am talking about the wavelength as measured by the grating and the
frequency as measured with a frequency counter.

The only thing important is the relative velocity. It doesn't matter if it
is the source that is moving or the observer.

Try it with your car and a train whistle. It doesn't matter if the car is
stationary and the train is moving or if the train is stationary and the
car is moving, the Doppler shift will be the same.

a medium is present...
Firget it..

Incidentally, the ratio of the observed wavelength and observed
frequency for light seems to always give a well known 'constant' value.

Hahahahohohohoh!
You must be joking Bob.

Quite serious.


I'll tell you a secret. There is a good reason for that.
'Frequency' of light is a calculated quantity derived using nu =
c/lambda

It is not a secret. c = lambda nu
As for 'frequency' being a calculated quantity, while it is true that we
can not yet count light frequency sources directly, lower frequency sources
can be counted. It is quite easy to directly measure the wavelength of
microwaves AND to count their frequency directly. This can be done with the
source moving and it can be done with the receiver moving. Doppler radars
are used all the time. The Doppler shift is the same, no matter what is in
motion.

We have just established that the frequency of microwaves hasnought to do with
the 'frequencies' of individual photons.

If your ideas were right, moving targets would not show up in the right
locations on radar screens

They don't. but on Earth the displacement is negligible.

Such discrepancies would be noticed.

No they would not.



Yet we can determine how far apart they are with a grating. Experiments
show this to be true in every case.

But you just agreed above that gratings are sensitive to wavecrest
arrival frequency.

Make up your mind Bob.

The gratings are ONLY sensitive to the wavelength.

you think so...and wavelength is an absolute property of the object and is not
affected by observer movement.

This is demonstrable in
the laboratory. Change the density of the medium, change the propagation
speed, readjust the frequency to give the same wavelength, get the same
diffraction angle. The grating does NOT care about the frequency, just the
wavelength.

Light doesn't have a medium Bob.

The wavelength is intimately connected to the arrival rate of the wave
crests when the wave travels at a constant velocity.

This is not analogous to light.

The data from wavelength and frequency, for EM radiation, are consistent
with the radiation traveling at a fixed velocity, at the point of
detection, independent of the motion of the source or the detector.

Nobody has measured fruency of individual photons. Nobody can even define what
it implies.
you tried with microwaves but failed.


So your answer to my 'or' question is 'both'? Thank you.

I believe that is the general opinion about light. It can behave like a
particle or a wave.

I know the 'general opinion'. Unless you have been promoted to general,
recently, your opinion is widely divergent from the 'general opinion' in
many things. I am asking for YOUR views on the nature of light.

My model should be well known by now.
run www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe

bz



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

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:36:02 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:03:34 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

'Wavelength', like all lengths...is absolute ...but unlike rods, it
is velocity dependent....There is NO significant change in the
velocity of the star photons outside the atmosphere. Therefore,
since SR says gratings are sensitive to wavelength only,

SR does NOT say this about gratings. Laboratory experiments show it to
be true as does the math. The lab experiments?

Methinks SR doesn't know what it says.

SR doesn't say anything about gratings. Wave theory addresses the
question.

Photons aren't 'waves'.

Light is made of photons according to some. But that does not matter
because no one measures the length of single photons (though I would bet
it has a relation to the wavelength, in fact I would bet it is 1 wavelength
in length, but the math of photons does not allow it to be described in
terms of length and I am told that it is useless to speculate on things
that can not be measured or described mathematically.)

Light certainly has wave like characteristics, including the fact that it
is diffracted by gratings.

That "SR doesn't say anything about gratings" is a fact.
Throwing in the 'straw-man' argument that 'photons aren't "waves"' doesn't
change the facts.
Attempted diversion from subject noted.


Sound waves of 1 meter in length and microwaves of 1 meter in length
undergo identical refraction from an array of metal rods. Wave tank
experiments show identical results from identical wavelength incident
waves when the density of the liquid in the tank is varied and the
frequency of the wave generator is adjusted to produce the same
wavelength.

That's true when a medium is involved.

And also when one could be involved but is not required, as in SR.

The medium is unimportant except to the comfort of those who fear math.

Just look at the fact that the motion of the air fails to produce a
noticeable Doppler effect. This is because there are two Doppler shifts
when a moving medium is involved. One Doppler shift when the wave enters
the moving medium and one when the wave exits the moving medium. The
shifts compensate for each other to produce no net Doppler shift. The
Doppler shift depends only on the relative motion of the source and the
observer.

Well I'm not going to discuss 'moving media' because for light crossing
empty space there is NO medium.

Then you are willing to grant the point that it doesn't matter if there is
a media or not?
Whether or not there is a medium is unimportant. Attempted diversion from
subject under discussion noted.



.....

My point Bob, is that the movement of the telescope CANNOT and DOES
NOT change the wavelength of the incoming light.

Ride in ship in heavy seas. Head into the waves. Measure the
'wavelength' of the waves by comparing them with the length of the ship.
Now turn the ship around and travel with the waves. Again, measure the
'wavelength' of the waves by comparing them with the length of the ship.
How many crests are there per ship length at any instant of time in each
case?

You will find the 'wavelength' is much shorter when you are heading into
the waves. This is one reason that ships head into the wind in heavy
seas. The bending moments on the hull are imposed on a shorter section
and thus less likely to break the ship in half. Also, the frequency of
pitching is opposed by the angular momentum of the ship, higher
frequency, less pitching experienced by the crew.

Hahahahahohohoho!

Are you really under the impression that the ABSOLUTE distance between
wave-crests changes when you turn the ship around?????

Your use of word absolute implies something which is false.
You imply that there is only one correct way to measure the length of the
waves; that of traveling along at the same velocity as the waves and
measuring the distance from crest to crest.

But the effective distance changes, as does the effective frequency,
depending upon the procedure used to measure the wavelength.

I showed that the Doppler shift does NOT depend on speeds near c. It also
works for ships at sea moving on the water.

is different in the two situations.
..but then, we know that relativists always try to distort the truth..

Show me where I distorted anything when I brought some observable facts to
your attention.
I guess that takes me out of the group you define as 'relativists'. Right?

This
means that anything which effects the relative velocity of HST and the
distant star will change the measured wavelength as well as the
counted frequency(given a frequency counter sitting beside the
grating).

Now you're talking. It is the 'wave crest arrival frequency' that a
grating detects.

I am talking about the wavelength as measured by the grating and the
frequency as measured with a frequency counter.

The only thing important is the relative velocity. It doesn't matter if
it is the source that is moving or the observer.

Try it with your car and a train whistle. It doesn't matter if the car
is stationary and the train is moving or if the train is stationary and
the car is moving, the Doppler shift will be the same.

a medium is present...
Firget it..

It doesn't matter if there is a medium or not. The phenomena works the same
for wavelike phenomena, whether or not there is a medium.

Show me why the presence or absence of a medium makes a difference.


Incidentally, the ratio of the observed wavelength and observed
frequency for light seems to always give a well known 'constant'
value.

Hahahahohohohoh!
You must be joking Bob.

Quite serious.


I'll tell you a secret. There is a good reason for that.
'Frequency' of light is a calculated quantity derived using nu =
c/lambda

It is not a secret. c = lambda nu
As for 'frequency' being a calculated quantity, while it is true that we
can not yet count light frequency sources directly, lower frequency
sources can be counted. It is quite easy to directly measure the
wavelength of microwaves AND to count their frequency directly. This can
be done with the source moving and it can be done with the receiver
moving. Doppler radars are used all the time. The Doppler shift is the
same, no matter what is in motion.

We have just established that the frequency of microwaves hasnought to
do with the 'frequencies' of individual photons.

No. That has NOT been established. And is probably contrary to fact.
The fact that it is difficult to detect, much less measure the length of,
individual photons that carry an energy of 6.6e-25 Joules does not mean
that they don't have a wavelength that will someday be measured.

If your ideas were right, moving targets would not show up in the right
locations on radar screens

They don't. but on Earth the displacement is negligible.

We bounce radar pulses off satellites and other planets.
Space vehicles transmit microwave pulses that can be used to study Doppler
effects from moving sources at microwave frequencies.

Such discrepancies would be noticed.

No they would not.

Yes, they would. Smaller discrepancies are detected, accounted for and
compensated for every day.

Yet we can determine how far apart they are with a grating.
Experiments show this to be true in every case.

But you just agreed above that gratings are sensitive to wave-crest
arrival frequency.

Make up your mind Bob.

The gratings are ONLY sensitive to the wavelength.

you think so...and wavelength is an absolute property of the object and
is not affected by observer movement.

Take a boat ride. The waves from the bow and from the stern have the same
source (the vibrations of the boat).

Those in front of the boat are compressed by Doppler effect.
Those behind the boat are stretched by Doppler effect.

Once the boat exceeds the velocity of waves on water, the waves forward of
the bow are compressed to zero length and those rearward of the stern are
stretched to 'infinite' length.


This is demonstrable in
the laboratory. Change the density of the medium, change the propagation
speed, readjust the frequency to give the same wavelength, get the same
diffraction angle. The grating does NOT care about the frequency, just
the wavelength.

Light doesn't have a medium Bob.

Straw-man. It doesn't matter if there is a medium or not.
Wavelike phenomena have wavelike properties.

The wavelength is intimately connected to the arrival rate of the wave
crests when the wave travels at a constant velocity.

This is not analogous to light.

Show where the analogy breaks down and exactly how that breakdown is
pertinent to the cases being discussed.


The data from wavelength and frequency, for EM radiation, are consistent
with the radiation traveling at a fixed velocity, at the point of
detection, independent of the motion of the source or the detector.

Nobody has measured fruency of individual photons. Nobody can even
define what it implies.
you tried with microwaves but failed.

I neither tried to measure the frequency of individual photons nor failed.
Nor does it matter.
I can tell you the energy of the photons and their frequency.
I can tell you the wavelength of the stream of microwaves and the velocity
it travels at.
I can tell you that observations show that the velocity does not vary [in
vacuum] regardless of the motion of the source or the observer.


So your answer to my 'or' question is 'both'? Thank you.

I believe that is the general opinion about light. It can behave like
a particle or a wave.

I know the 'general opinion'. Unless you have been promoted to general,
recently, your opinion is widely divergent from the 'general opinion' in
many things. I am asking for YOUR views on the nature of light.

My model should be well known by now.
run www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe

Unwilling to commit yourself?

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:32:31 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


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


Gas temperature falls during an expansion, George.

Conventional modelling includes the thermodynamic
effects of course. As an aside, you might be
interested to find out the thermal capacity of
the plasma.

Whatever.....Its temperature will still increase as it compresses during
the
contraction phase under gravity. ...

Of course. Remember also that the ionisation
hence the position of the photosphere also depend
on the temperature and other conditions. It is a
complex set of linked dynamics but the bottom line
is that when all these aspects are taken into
account, conventioanl theory matches what is
observed.

That's because the answer is known beforehand....

So are the laws that apply so there are very few
parameters you can adjust.

and it isn't hard to come up
with all kinds of weird theories that will match the willusion.

Not when all the equations are defined before
you start.

It is perfectly real Henry, proven many times
including by Ives and Stillwell as I have pointed
out before. It is of course geometrical in nature
rather than what you mean by 'physical' but the
geometry is still part of the physics.

George, it is trivial to prove that rods do not physically change with
velocity.

The proper length does not change, their
coordinate length does.

Would they increase or decrease their absolute lengths?

The standard terminology is "proper length" and
it doesn't change.

The relativist jargon includes the totally unnecessary word 'proper'.

Learn what it means or continue to be a layman.

Their proper length does not change, their
coordinate length does.

Sorry, I don't recognise these artificial terms.

Then you need to learn the standard terminology
if you wan to discuss physics.

It isn't standard in my book...

Then buy a better textbook, not one for kiddies.

Of course, the duration of the orbit depends
on who is counting, that is a coordinate time,
not a proper time.

The orbit 'period' defines an absolute time interval. It is the same for
all
observers.

Wrong. The duration of an orbit is observer
dependent.

All observers MUST count the same number of GPS ticks emitted PER clock
ORBIT.

Yep, and since the duration of the orbit is observer
dependent, so must the frequency be.

I can take a rigid rod anywhere, anyhow with the full knowledge that
it is exactly the same as it was before I left.

Do you dispute that?

Coordinate length does not change do to a change
in location in SR provided the velocity is
unchanged.

It matters not what happens to the rod.

Then I guess you raised the question just to change
the subject as usual.

It is fundamental to the uunderstanding of why the GR corretion is way
out.

The correction is not "out", it is accurate to
one part in 10,000 as we saw.

It always oc'cupies the same absolute
spatial interval.

It has the same "proper length". Learn the terminology
Henry.

I'm not out to fool anyone George..least of all myself.. I just use
'absolute
length'.

That's why you get into trouble with people like
Ken Seto who believe in "absolute motion" crap.
I know you don't believe that stuff but you use
their terminology so you end up with nothing but
confusion. Unless of course I am mistaken and
you too think the Earth is moving through the
universe in the direction of "absolute vertical"?

)

George