Re: Speed Of Light Question


"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:6lbqi15ukc0ldodnnlpni5uus4mtvvnn8m@xxxxxxxxxx
| On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:10:24 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
| >news:qsjmi1pcqeoigcgcusomqnk7rstt652l7l@xxxxxxxxxx
| >| On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:24:57 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
MyPlace.org>
| >wrote:
|
| >| >That's right. Sue brought it up, one atom per cc.
| >| >That's 1,000,000 atoms per cubic metre,
| >| >1,000,000,000,000,000 atoms per cubic kilometer.
| >| >What's Avogadro's number? ... 6.02214199 E 23
| >|
| >| I would settle for one atom per cubic metre.
| >
| >6.02214199 E 17 is still huge.
| >You'll have to guess better than that, and you still won't convince
| >me of fairy dust. Why not introduce some tick fairies to spread
| >the dust around?
|
| I think there are probably a few DNA molecules floating around in
space too.

I'm floating around in space, you are floating around is space, it's a
certainty. Letters A though Z are not words, words are sentences,
sentences are not chapters, chapters are not "War and Peace" by Tolstoy,
amino acids are not DNA molecules which are bigger than "War and Peace",
I'll take your DNA molecule imagination with a pinch of fairy dust.





|
| >| >A good vacuum cleaner mounted on a rocket should be able
| >| >to scoop up a metric tonne of fairy dust between here and the moon
| >| >and let the moonbeams in.
| >| >
| >| >I'm asking you how that slows light down.
| >| >Maybe your fairy dust is a different density.
| >|
| >| You said yourself that photons expand according to the inverse
square
| >law.
| >
| >No I didn't. I said they'd SEPARATE by the inverse square law.
| >Try firing buckshot and see how it spreads. What I'm suggesting
| >is the individual lead balls expand, but by Hubble's constant, not
| >the inverse square law.
|
| Hmm!
|
| I'm not against the idea...but why should photons exhibit a reshift
just
| because they expand?

I don't know why, I'm guessing. I'm advancing an hypothesis to be
knocked down by someone that thinks he knows, and I'll ignore
the phuckwits that know all the answers.
I'll start at the atom that emitted the electric field in all directions
when, according to theorists, an electron fell to a lower
energy state and produced a single emission "line" which is only
a line because the light passed through a narrow slit.
This electric field will be "stopped" or distorted by the nucleus
of the atom if it originates at the electron, but I'd rather think
the electric field originates between the gross electron
swarm and the nucleus. Either way, the nucleus stops the
field from going in all directions except one, and focuses
the energy like a parabolic mirror into a single pulse that
is one cycle called a photon, not a wavy train that you drew.
The end of the (double) wave at the atom is a vertical drop,
the initial energy.
The end arriving at your eye is also a vertical drop, or you won't
"see" the photon.
http://campus.umr.edu/physics/alab/polar/circular_wave.gif
If I knew how that process worked in detail I'd have the answer,
but it seems to me that the original focus wasn't quite perfect,
the photon gradually gets larger and has a longer wavelength.
The inverse square law simply says that a lot of atoms emit
a photon in one direction, but there are many directions.
Hubble's observation tells me the individual photons get
bigger very, VERY gradually.
I still hold to the inverse square law for the spread of photons,
I still hold to the double slit where a single photon passes
through both, I reject wave-particle duality since I consider
a photon to be a focused wave entity of short duration,
one wavelength, capable of dislodging an electron from
an atom it hits, ionizing th atom, or merely absorbed and
re-released, I still hold to its ejection velocity being c,
I still hold to Doppler shift, I reject expanding universe and
big bang in favour of expanding photons with conserved
energy and momenta.
If I've missed anything important or trivial, point it out.
It's not a theory, it's an hypothesis to be broken and disproved.
I will not listen to phuckwits like Andersen giggling that
I'm depending on the inverse square law, I'm not.



| In the absence of a decent photon model, we are only speculating.

Of course. I can't see inside an atom or a molecule, Bohr speculated
on a sun-planet system because Rutherford shot atoms, Compton looked
at the spread, but we don't KNOW if that is right. Radio does give
us a decent photon model though. We know how to beam radio
with a dish, we've had radar for 70 years.Turn a transmitter on
for one cycle, send the energy to a dish and you have a radio photon
as big as you like, as powerful as you like. We can make microwave
photons as well, and we do on towers with dishes on them.
Everyone has a cell phone these days, they radiate and receive
in all directions, but for me to talk to you by phone we'd bounce
a beam to and from a satellite; this message reached you that way
through an intervening computer or few. A beam doesn't follow
the inverse square law, the Viking probes used puny 25 watt
transmitters.



| >
| >
| >| They eventually become big enough to completely engulf individual
| >atoms.
| >
| >LOL! I think you'll find indvidual atoms are a lot less than 400
| >nanometers
| >already.
| >Two cricket balls, one in Sydney and one in Melborne, are going to
| >affect
| >the speed of a QANTAS airliner! And you want to move one ball to
London.
| >Too funny, H!
|
| A photon will encounter more than two atoms as it travels 1000000 LYs.
| A couple of billion cricket balls will certainly slow a jumbo.

Fairy dust won't slow a bright green flying elephant, they can walk
through walls.
Do you wish to discuss your fantasies with someone else?
A psychiatrist, perhaps. I'm not interested or trained in psychosis.
Or maybe you'd prefer Andersen, he's even more psychotic than
you.



|
|
| >| When that happens, the atom gets dragged along a little...ie, it
gains
| >a little
| >| energy it didnt previously have. That enegy comes for the photon.
| >|
| >| Hence the distance proportional redshift.
| >
| >Too funny, H! My sides are splitting!
|
| I don't see the joke, A.

Try looking at Einstein's Nobel prize for the photo-electric effect,
you might get one for the Wilson fairy dust effect. LOL!
http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap28/PhotoEffect/photo.htm



| You know as well as I do that light can impart a pressure onto a
surface.
| It does that at the atomic level.
| So, every time a photon engulfs an atom it drags the atom along a
little.
| I say 'engulfs' because if the photon was much smaller than the atom,
it would
| be scattered and we probably wouldn't see nice clear pictures of
distant
| galaxies.

Atom: 1 angstrom.
wavelength of light: 4400 angstrom.

If the photon were much smaller than an atom it would be the most
powerful
gamma ray that doesn't exist, you'd need one for shooting the bright
green flying elephant perched on the accretion disk around the black
hole that Roberts has observed, and I don't approve of people shooting
my elephants so I'm
not going to allow you a photon smaller than an atom, it might fall into
the wrong hands. Signed in My own Almighty hand, God.
Co-signed, endorsed and approved by me -- Mother Nature.



| >| >
| >| >That's your trouble. You've got to have "your" theory, you ignore
| >| >observation and common fucking sense!
| >| >You are following in the path of every other dingbat with his own
| >pet
| >| >theory,
| >| >another Len Gaasenbeek, another Ken Seto, another Einstein.
| >| >I'm the only physicist without his own theory.
| >| >I'm as interested in your fairy dust as I am in Len's helical
waves.
| >| >Zilch.
| >|
| >| If you want to accept the creationist big bang theory, you are free
to
| >do so.
| >
| >I'm not having your fairy dust, H. Tell it to Len Gaasenbeek, you
stand
| >a better chance. ROFL!
|
| I didn't invent the idea.
| but I cannot see why all matter should be swallowed up by stars and
planets.

It's called "gravity" where I come from. Being upside down you probably
don't appreciate it, your clocks are all set wrong and it's dark at
midday where you are, as well as it being summer time in winter. I
reckon Australia must be on the other side of the sun...

O Sun
_______Earth, day time

_______ Australia, night time



_______Earth, night time
O Sun
_______ Australia, day time

|
| >| >| is that every time a photon goes past an atom, that atom ends up
| >with
| >| >| a minute element of SIDEWAYS momentum it didn't have before. The
| >| >associated
| >| >| energy gain MUST have come from the photon.
| >| >
| >| >You've just described how sunlight evaporates fog.
| >| >Utter garbage.
| >|
| >| I suppose that's a good analogy .
| >| The atoms are also dragged along a little.
| >
| >
| >Fairy dust is dragged along. Got it. LOL!
|
| momentum transfer.
| ends up as heat.

There must be TONNES of fairy dust falling on Australia,
once it's gained the mean momentum of the starlight.
Do you think maybe that's why Antarctica is white?
All the sparkling fairy dust is attracted by Australia's
magnetic field?
I thought it was supposed to be cold there, but I've never been...


| >| >|
| >| >| If that were true, it would be a good theory. ..but each droplet
of
| >| >water
| >| >| doesn't get bigger as it falls.
| >| >
| >| > Ice is bigger than water. I've seen hailstones like golfballs,
| >| >and icecubes in my freezer come over the top of the tray.
| >|
| >| I don't have ice coming out of my shower.
| >
| >Ok. I thought it was better than fairy dust, but if you want to
accept
| >the creationist big bang theory and fairy dust, you are free to do
so.
|
| Do you know what a comet's tail is made of?

Nope. Catch me some and we'll analyze it.

| Comets fly through some pretty empty space. Their tails are turned
around by
| photons from the sun. The responsible photons must be slowed down and
| redshifted.

Ahh.... I see. Comets are the fairies in interstellar space. Gotcha.


|
| There's also DNA out there.

Yes of course. And millions of copies is "War and Peace"

|In many instances, it's the only way evolution on Earth could have
taken place so quickly.

Sure, but I thought God said he created it all in six days and sat down
with a beer on the seventh. I wonder if it's his arse that is warming
the North polar cap and melting it?

Androcles

.

Quantcast