"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:20:42 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


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

George, what you are doing is trivial and primative.

Yes, they are trivial and primitive but those
two equations are the totality of your model.

I am way ahead of you.

ROFL, you haven't even appreciated the impact of
the difference between brightness and luminosity.
Your curves are totally screwed because of that.

It would make little difference even if the stars DID expand slightly.

For L Car, 12% radius and 26% area out of 33%
luminosity for K band, 5 times more than the
effect of the surface brighness change, it is
the dominant factor.

You obtained those figures using circular logic.

Nope, both the radius and luminosity come from
direct measurement. Remember both changes are
fractional.

Nope, as we discussed a few days ago, for a laser it
might produce an effect similar to a standing wave, but
you need to calculate it to find out, you won't get
anywhere guessing as it is going to be very complex.

I'm not guessing, The calculation is trivial.

You are guessing, you don't have an equation to combine
photons, and in fact you don't even have an equation for
the oscillatory part of a photon. You will need to do a
statistical summation over multiple photons of time-varying
phase relationship and you don't have the basic information
needed to do that.

I don't need it.

You do, or you cannot even predict that interference
will occur with a grating.

I have provided my equation.

No, you provided a diagram which assume a
wavelength, but since the wave nature of light
came from the solution of Maxwell's Equations
and those don't apply to ballistic theory, you
don't have an equation for a wave. Your diagram
and associated equation would be the next step
after that.

Maxwell's equations probably DO apply to BaTh.

Nope. Let's do it again: A single observer
measures the permeability and permittivity
of a small region of vacuum (a 'box').
Accoirding to Maxwell's Equatons, those
values determine the speed of light through
the box. Light from two sources, one at rest
wrt the observer and the other moving, passes
through the box. The light from both sources
must move at the speed given by the equations
regardless of the speed of the source.

They could explain why light
moves initially at c wrt its source.

Nope, suppose the moving source above is in
the box when the light is emitted. The speed
at emission must be c relative to the observer.

Remember however that the values of the
two constants must be measured NEAR the source and at rest wrt it.

But the MEs don't mean much in space below the WDT.

Think about a coil of wire Henry. Pass a current
through the coil and it produces a magnetic field.
Remove the air from the coil and the field is still
there. Do you really believe the magnetic field
would cease to exist if you could create a better
vacuum? I don't think you can be serious, either
that or you don't understand what you are suggesting.

Those are entirely size and temperature driven.
Remove those effects and there is no residual
variation for ballistic theory.

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.

You tell me.

It is negative.

Liar, you know that GPS clocks have to be offset
to work correctly Henry, exactly as predicted by
GR (and don't say ballistic theory says the same,
it doesn't, it predicts no change in the clock
frequency).

That's why the GR correction is a joke. It requires that the 'velocity
component' is a REAL PHYSICAL change...when we know it cannot be.

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, SR simply doesn't work without fairies.

Sorry Henry, all you ned is Pythagoras and
and understanding of geometry.

It is nonsense from start to
finish. The only reason it has survived to this day is that until recently
there was no way to directly test it.....

Sagnac tests it directly and confirms the
postulate. Of course the postulate itself
comes straight from Maxwell's Equations as
you saw above which are derived from simple
experiments with coils and Leyden jars.

and a certain group had a vested
interest in turning Einstein into a veritable god..

Most physicists in the field are working to
replace it, look up "string theory".

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.

Don't use meaningless words like proper' ..

Try to find out what the word means, it is a
technical term that physicists use.

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 due to a change
in location in SR provided the velocity is
unchanged.

I'm not interested in what SR says.

Then don't waste my time asking questions
if you don't want to know the answer.

George

On Aug 20, 4:40 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

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

Actually Preacher also has a product to sell. The product is God.

The God is the oldest product, and it has been marketed from the
beginning of civilization.
Some will say that having bought a particular god, makes them more
civilized than others.
The producers and marketing people of the product accept payment in a
variety of ways.
Some would be happy with murder others require money, but the central
theme for all forms
of payment is increase of power over the buyers.

The marketing team of religions has from long back understood the need
for advertisement,
and they have also understood the need for creating exceedingly
beautiful shops. They have
also understood the need for loss leaders and freebies.

Modern marketing has still a lot to learn from the Pope, the Imams and
the Shankaracharyas.

-anandsr

bz wrote:

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.

Care to show the calculation? I think you'll find that there is
no significant difference.

This is one reason that ships head into the wind in heavy seas.

Wind and waves do not generally have the same direction. At any
rate, modern ships tend to stick to their course and ignore wind
and waves (except when conducting flight ops). When ships do
head into the sea it is to avoid rolling over.

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.

You haven't spent much time at sea, have you?

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- -- AB2SB

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:27:52 -0000, wrote:

On Aug 20, 4:40 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

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

Actually Preacher also has a product to sell. The product is God.

The God is the oldest product, and it has been marketed from the
beginning of civilization.
Some will say that having bought a particular god, makes them more
civilized than others.
The producers and marketing people of the product accept payment in a
variety of ways.
Some would be happy with murder others require money, but the central
theme for all forms
of payment is increase of power over the buyers.

The marketing team of religions has from long back understood the need
for advertisement,
and they have also understood the need for creating exceedingly
beautiful shops. They have
also understood the need for loss leaders and freebies.

Modern marketing has still a lot to learn from the Pope, the Imams and
the Shankaracharyas.

You are right....their marketting techniques have been perfected over centuries
to an extent where they can literally sell a compltely nonexistent product to
the increasing number of fools who accept it.
Anyone else doing that would be had up for fraud..
....but at least used cars exist...even if they DO fall apart a week after being
bought....
'god' falls apart well beforehand...

-anandsr



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.

"T.M. Sommers" wrote in news:46d862fd$0$26701
:

bz wrote:

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.

Care to show the calculation? I think you'll find that there is
no significant difference.

I think we are thinking of rather different sized vessels.
I am thinking of smaller, higher speed vessels.


This is one reason that ships head into the wind in heavy seas.

Wind and waves do not generally have the same direction. At any
rate, modern ships tend to stick to their course and ignore wind
and waves (except when conducting flight ops).

Large ships can often do so.
Smaller, older ships don't have that luxury in heavy swells.

When ships do
head into the sea it is to avoid rolling over.

That is a good reason to avoid broaching.
I said "This is one reason that ships head into the wind in heavy seas."
I didn't claim I was giving the only reason or even the chief reason.

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.

You haven't spent much time at sea, have you?

No, but I had a 2nd class radiotelegraph license with radar endorsement and
spent many hours on smaller freighters and tankers servicing their radio and
radar equipment in the mid 70's, as well as many hours on tow boats so I am
not totally unfamiliar with the subject even though I have not spent much
time at sea.

Have you have ever looked at the things the cargo master must take into
consideration when loading a ship?

Ships CAN break in half, especially if the load is not properly distributed.
If the ship is in seas with a wavelength that is similar to the length of the
ship, the danger is increased. It has happened.

Making way into the wind tends to reduce that hazard.

As for calculations, if you are encountering waves that are traveling at 10
or 20 m/s (22 or 44 mph, 25 or 50 knots)[wave height ~9 meters for 25 knot
winds, fully developed seas], don't you think that a few knots of headway
into the wind would make a significant difference? The calculations are
somewhat complicated by the fact that the velocity of waves depends on the
frequency and the amplitude of the waves and ocean wave amplitudes are
somewhat chaotic. But I think you can see that 5 or 10 knots (4.3 or 8.7 mph)
speed into the waves would have a significant effect in seas caused by 25 or
50 knot winds.

It is interesting how the fetch (distance wind has blown across the water)
effects the wave spectrum.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources...apter16_04.htm

But I think we are getting a bit far 'out to sea' from relativity.

73 AB2SB de N5bz

--
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 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:02:32 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

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


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.)

Photons are billions of wavelengths long.

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

we know that.

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.

You have regressed 100 years.


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.

Stop trolling. you should know my theory by now.

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.

Length is absolute.

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

Frequency is 'wavecrest arrival rate'. Naturlly it depends on the relative
speed between observer and medium.

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?

Bob, you are going over the same stuff that they used to talk about 120 years
ago.



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.

The movement of the boat doesn't affect the waves.

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.

Light behaves like both waves and particles.

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.





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 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:02:32 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

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


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.)

Photons are billions of wavelengths long.

There are certain problems with that idea.

It conflicts with the fact that one can create laser pulses that are only a
few femto seconds long.

It conflicts with the fact that a 1 MHz transmitter can emit pulses that
are only a few micro seconds in length whereas photons that were billions
of wavelengths long would take several seconds.

It conflicts with the fact that ELF (extremely low frequency) transmitters,
operating in the tens of KHz frequencies can transmit Morse code with
keying speeds that would require emissions of photons of only a few cycles
in length.

It conflicts with the fact that some atomic emissions are VERY rapid as are
some absorptions.

I do understand that information theory suggests that some narrow emission
spectrum lines would require many cycles, perhaps even billions, to
establish the line width.

This is precisely why I said that 'I am told that it is useless to
speculate on things that can not be measured or described mathematically'.

There are some conflicts in the information that make it 'senseless' to
speak of the actual 'size' of a photon, whereas they certainly behave as if
they have a wavelength that can be measured and a frequency that can be
measured and those are certainly related to the energy and they travel at a
well known velocity.


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

we know that.

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.

You have regressed 100 years.

I thought YOU wanted to go back over 100 years.



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.

Stop trolling. you should know my theory by now.

I am not sure that anyone knows what your theory is now as it keeps
changing from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute and second to
second.


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.

Length is absolute.

Now, who is trying to go back 100 years?

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

Frequency is 'wavecrest arrival rate'. Naturlly it depends on the
relative speed between observer and medium.

It also depends on the relative speed between the emitter and the medium,
and as long as the medium's movement is uniform, the relative motion of the
medium drops out and you are left with only the relative speed between the
emitter and the observer.

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?

Bob, you are going over the same stuff that they used to talk about 120
years ago.

Yet you still have problems understanding it.

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.

The movement of the boat doesn't affect the waves.

Both you and Ken Seto really DO need to take a boat ride sometime and watch
what happens to the waves emitted due to the boat's vibrations as those
waves travel ahead of the boat and astern of the boat. You will see that
the wavelengths are effected by the movement of the boat.

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.

Light behaves like both waves and particles.

Right. And particles don't need a medium. Neither do photons because of
their particle nature.

And because of their wave nature, they travel at a constant velocity, as
determined by the equipment of any observer, independent of the motion of
the source, without the need for a medium.

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.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:02:38 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:02:32 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

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


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.)

Photons are billions of wavelengths long.

There are certain problems with that idea.

It conflicts with the fact that one can create laser pulses that are only a
few femto seconds long.

It conflicts with the fact that a 1 MHz transmitter can emit pulses that
are only a few micro seconds in length whereas photons that were billions
of wavelengths long would take several seconds.

It conflicts with the fact that ELF (extremely low frequency) transmitters,
operating in the tens of KHz frequencies can transmit Morse code with
keying speeds that would require emissions of photons of only a few cycles
in length.

It conflicts with the fact that some atomic emissions are VERY rapid as are
some absorptions.

I do understand that information theory suggests that some narrow emission
spectrum lines would require many cycles, perhaps even billions, to
establish the line width.

This is precisely why I said that 'I am told that it is useless to
speculate on things that can not be measured or described mathematically'.

There are some conflicts in the information that make it 'senseless' to
speak of the actual 'size' of a photon, whereas they certainly behave as if
they have a wavelength that can be measured and a frequency that can be
measured and those are certainly related to the energy and they travel at a
well known velocity.

Photons possess their own 'intrinsic oscillations' the frequencies of which are
not related to those of generated EM waves like FM that are merely a
consequence of photon density variation.


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

we know that.

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.

You have regressed 100 years.

I thought YOU wanted to go back over 100 years.



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.

Stop trolling. you should know my theory by now.

I am not sure that anyone knows what your theory is now as it keeps
changing from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute and second to
second.

It is still evolving.....but no one understands it anyway. George tries hard...

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.

Length is absolute.

Now, who is trying to go back 100 years?

Bob, a rod can be used to define an absolute spatial interval. Nothing
physicaly happens to a rod when it is moved..it is exactly the same rod....

That rod can be taken anywhere anyhow and be used as a standard by which other
absolute 'lengths' can be assessed.

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

Frequency is 'wavecrest arrival rate'. Naturlly it depends on the
relative speed between observer and medium.

It also depends on the relative speed between the emitter and the medium,
and as long as the medium's movement is uniform, the relative motion of the
medium drops out and you are left with only the relative speed between the
emitter and the observer.

I'm not going to discuss what happens in the presence of a mediium...it does
not apply to light traveling through empty space..

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?

Bob, you are going over the same stuff that they used to talk about 120
years ago.

Yet you still have problems understanding it.

Bob, there is no universal and absolute aether...give it up...

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


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.

The movement of the boat doesn't affect the waves.

Both you and Ken Seto really DO need to take a boat ride sometime and watch
what happens to the waves emitted due to the boat's vibrations as those
waves travel ahead of the boat and astern of the boat. You will see that
the wavelengths are effected by the movement of the boat.

The way they are generated is affected..but not the way they subsequently
travel. ...that's determined by properties of the water.

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.

Light behaves like both waves and particles.

Right. And particles don't need a medium. Neither do photons because of
their particle nature.

And because of their wave nature, they travel at a constant velocity, as
determined by the equipment of any observer, independent of the motion of
the source, without the need for a medium.

No Bob, my model explains the two aspects.
Photons are like minature traveling organ pipes.




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, 2 Sep 2007 03:02:38 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

..... anything 3 or more levels old snipped for brevity. Anyone interested
can always look up the previous coments.


There are certain problems with that idea.

It conflicts with the fact that one can create laser pulses that are
only a few femto seconds long.

It conflicts with the fact that a 1 MHz transmitter can emit pulses that
are only a few micro seconds in length whereas photons that were
billions of wavelengths long would take several seconds.

It conflicts with the fact that ELF (extremely low frequency)
transmitters, operating in the tens of KHz frequencies can transmit
Morse code with keying speeds that would require emissions of photons of
only a few cycles in length.

It conflicts with the fact that some atomic emissions are VERY rapid as
are some absorptions.

I do understand that information theory suggests that some narrow
emission spectrum lines would require many cycles, perhaps even
billions, to establish the line width.

This is precisely why I said that 'I am told that it is useless to
speculate on things that can not be measured or described
mathematically'.

There are some conflicts in the information that make it 'senseless' to
speak of the actual 'size' of a photon, whereas they certainly behave as
if they have a wavelength that can be measured and a frequency that can
be measured and those are certainly related to the energy and they
travel at a well known velocity.

Photons possess their own 'intrinsic oscillations' the frequencies of
which are not related to those of generated EM waves like FM that are
merely a consequence of photon density variation.

There is NOTHING to support that assertion. You haven't even proposed
equations for such o-silly-ations.

.....


I thought YOU wanted to go back over 100 years.

.....

I am not sure that anyone knows what your theory is now as it keeps
changing from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute and second to
second.

It is still evolving.....but no one understands it anyway. George tries
hard...

Shape shifters are hard to identify. Most theories are constantly being
challenged but seldom need to change form. Your 'theory' is so amorphous
that trying to understand it is like trying to nail jello to a tree.

.....


Now, who is trying to go back 100 years?

Bob, a rod can be used to define an absolute spatial interval. Nothing
physicaly happens to a rod when it is moved..it is exactly the same
rod....

Yep. But it appears to have a different length when viewed from afar than
from close, when viewed from a moving frame than when viewed from the same
frame.


That rod can be taken anywhere anyhow and be used as a standard by which
other absolute 'lengths' can be assessed.

Absolutely. However your absolute length and mine may well appear to be
quite different.

.....


It also depends on the relative speed between the emitter and the
medium, and as long as the medium's movement is uniform, the relative
motion of the medium drops out and you are left with only the relative
speed between the emitter and the observer.

I'm not going to discuss what happens in the presence of a mediium...it
does not apply to light traveling through empty space..

Good, then we can just consider how waves behave and ignore the presence or
absence of a medium.

.....


Yet you still have problems understanding it.

Bob, there is no universal and absolute aether...give it up...

You are the one that keeps bringing up an aether. I have said repeatedly
and in many different ways that there is no need to invoke the daemon
'aether' in order to understand the motion of waves.

You, on the other hand keep insisting that c is the velocity wrt the source
but c+v_relative is the velocity of the light wrt the observer where
v_relative is the relative velocity of the source wrt the observer. Which
makes absolutely no sense when one is talking about waves that obey
Maxwell's equations rather than traveling through an aether. Maxwell's
equations depend on the properties of 'free space', not a local ether
traveling with the emitting source. You even depend on an aether (you don't
call it that) but that is what you are invoking to 'equalize' the
velocities of the light so that it IS traveling at c when it is detected.
And you admit that it is traveling at c when detected because otherwise we
would see all kinds of weird multiple images of any stars that are in
orbits around other bodies. So, clearly, it is YOU that believe in an
aether.

.....


Both you and Ken Seto really DO need to take a boat ride sometime and
watch what happens to the waves emitted due to the boat's vibrations as
those waves travel ahead of the boat and astern of the boat. You will
see that the wavelengths are effected by the movement of the boat.

The way they are generated is affected..but not the way they
subsequently travel. ...that's determined by properties of the water.

The wavelength that they display, as clearly visible upon the water, is
different for the waves emitted in the direction of forward travel (much
shorter) than those emitted in the opposite direction (much much longer).
After emission, they travel at a more-or-less constant velocity [the
velocity of waves upon water IS variable and depends on the frequency and
amplitude of the waves, but that is beside the point and a minor
distraction which should be ignored in this discussion.]

.....


Right. And particles don't need a medium. Neither do photons because of
their particle nature.

And because of their wave nature, they travel at a constant velocity, as
determined by the equipment of any observer, independent of the motion
of the source, without the need for a medium.

No Bob, my model explains the two aspects.
Photons are like minature traveling organ pipes.

In what way? Show me your equations.




--
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 Sun, 2 Sep 2007 13:42:53 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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


It conflicts with the fact that some atomic emissions are VERY rapid as
are some absorptions.

I do understand that information theory suggests that some narrow
emission spectrum lines would require many cycles, perhaps even
billions, to establish the line width.

This is precisely why I said that 'I am told that it is useless to
speculate on things that can not be measured or described
mathematically'.

There are some conflicts in the information that make it 'senseless' to
speak of the actual 'size' of a photon, whereas they certainly behave as
if they have a wavelength that can be measured and a frequency that can
be measured and those are certainly related to the energy and they
travel at a well known velocity.

Photons possess their own 'intrinsic oscillations' the frequencies of
which are not related to those of generated EM waves like FM that are
merely a consequence of photon density variation.

There is NOTHING to support that assertion. You haven't even proposed
equations for such o-silly-ations.

......don't need eqations yet....the model come first

I am not sure that anyone knows what your theory is now as it keeps
changing from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute and second to
second.

It is still evolving.....but no one understands it anyway. George tries
hard...

Shape shifters are hard to identify. Most theories are constantly being
challenged but seldom need to change form. Your 'theory' is so amorphous
that trying to understand it is like trying to nail jello to a tree.

We know that photons possess 'spatial regularities'. These are what give rise
to the concept of 'photon wavelength' and allow single photons to diffract.

I have not decided whether the pattern is caused by a standing wave in the lump
of stuff that photons cary with them or by a rotation of a couple of opposite
charges that self propagate losslessly initially at c wrt their source.

Now, who is trying to go back 100 years?

Bob, a rod can be used to define an absolute spatial interval. Nothing
physicaly happens to a rod when it is moved..it is exactly the same
rod....

Yep. But it appears to have a different length when viewed from afar than
from close, when viewed from a moving frame than when viewed from the same
frame.

No it doesn't....that's part of the hoax..

That rod can be taken anywhere anyhow and be used as a standard by which
other absolute 'lengths' can be assessed.

Absolutely. However your absolute length and mine may well appear to be
quite different.

On;y because you hav been sadly mislead by a group of serious hoaxers.

It also depends on the relative speed between the emitter and the
medium, and as long as the medium's movement is uniform, the relative
motion of the medium drops out and you are left with only the relative
speed between the emitter and the observer.

I'm not going to discuss what happens in the presence of a mediium...it
does not apply to light traveling through empty space..

Good, then we can just consider how waves behave and ignore the presence or
absence of a medium.



Yet you still have problems understanding it.

Bob, there is no universal and absolute aether...give it up...

You are the one that keeps bringing up an aether. I have said repeatedly
and in many different ways that there is no need to invoke the daemon
'aether' in order to understand the motion of waves.

what makes a 'wave' Bob?

You, on the other hand keep insisting that c is the velocity wrt the source
but c+v_relative is the velocity of the light wrt the observer where
v_relative is the relative velocity of the source wrt the observer. Which
makes absolutely no sense when one is talking about waves that obey
Maxwell's equations rather than traveling through an aether. Maxwell's
equations depend on the properties of 'free space', not a local ether
traveling with the emitting source.

Maxwell assumed an aether.
The two constants cannot be measured in truly empty space. They have no
definition anyway.
Differently moving observers will get different answers at the same point and
instant .

You even depend on an aether (you don't
call it that) but that is what you are invoking to 'equalize' the
velocities of the light so that it IS traveling at c when it is detected.
And you admit that it is traveling at c when detected because otherwise we
would see all kinds of weird multiple images of any stars that are in
orbits around other bodies. So, clearly, it is YOU that believe in an
aether.

Electron density variations in space are well established.
This is a possible cause of much of the unification.

Both you and Ken Seto really DO need to take a boat ride sometime and
watch what happens to the waves emitted due to the boat's vibrations as
those waves travel ahead of the boat and astern of the boat. You will
see that the wavelengths are effected by the movement of the boat.

The way they are generated is affected..but not the way they
subsequently travel. ...that's determined by properties of the water.

The wavelength that they display, as clearly visible upon the water, is
different for the waves emitted in the direction of forward travel (much
shorter) than those emitted in the opposite direction (much much longer).
After emission, they travel at a more-or-less constant velocity [the
velocity of waves upon water IS variable and depends on the frequency and
amplitude of the waves,

....and more importantly, the depth of the water...

but that is beside the point and a minor
distraction which should be ignored in this discussion.]

Right. And particles don't need a medium. Neither do photons because of
their particle nature.

And because of their wave nature, they travel at a constant velocity, as
determined by the equipment of any observer, independent of the motion
of the source, without the need for a medium.

No Bob, my model explains the two aspects.
Photons are like minature traveling organ pipes.

In what way? Show me your equations.

Use your imagination.



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.