Re: 1c+1c Light and matter

From: Jim Greenfield (greenfield_7_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/23/04 

Date: 22 Aug 2004 19:01:22 -0700

"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<dxXVc.4700$Ir2.56755235@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c4afb26.0408211818.36f7ff9f@posting.google.com...
> | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<lyJVc.4371$%q3.52927524@news-text.cableinet.net>...
>
>
> [snip]
>
> | Wasted , I'm afraid........
>
> Download from
> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/virus_alert.htm,
> Select Samples/ Sol. Select Spectrum/absorption.
> You'll see a simulated spectrum with absorption lines. This represents light
> from the sun, with absorption for ONE simulated element. The real hydrogen
> spectrum doesn't display this many lines in the visible range, and neither
> does the real helium spectrum, which is superimposed.
> The slighty jagged grey line represents the luminosity, the height (y-axis)
> being automatically scaled, the the x-axis representing time.
> There is some digitization because after all you are using a digital
> computer, which is why the line isn't perfectly straight.
> Select Data and you'll see a new window with some parameters from which the
> curve was generated, in this case a straight line as expected.
> Now select Samples/Algol.
> You'll see a simulated planet orbiting a star - ignore relative size - and
> the light curve and spectral velocity curve will shortly follow.
> Select Data again, and change the photon count to 1,000,000 instead of
> 10,000. This will compute a million points around the orbit insead of ten
> thousand, but will of course take 100 times longer to compute the orbit.
> You'll see the planet and the star revolve around a common centre.
> Next go to http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/AST/UCEP.html
> and you'll see an amateur astronomer's view.
>
> Decide for yourself if the velocity of light is source dependent as the data
> indicates or source independent because Einstein said it was.

(I need a second opinion (my daughter :-( ) as to whether this file
is safe. Having had computer vandalism/terrorism before, I am a bit
wary.
>
>
> | > These are combined into the single Doppler equation,
> | > f' = f.(u+m)/(v+m)
> | > from which we find that if both you and the helicopter are moving at the
> | > same speed through air, you'll hear no shift, as expected.
> |
> | Forget the air- my helicopter is flying in space, with a "push"
> | exerted at the tip of one rotor, and a "pull" at the opposite.
> | Now,| how will the push/pulls per second vary with respect to me
> | (stationary) with the motion of the chopper?
>
>
> Can't have your cake and eat it too. What is it pushing against?

Concentrate! The rotor is like a bar magnet- opposite forces apply
from each end. There is NO aether involved- just actions (pulses) at a
point per time.
>
>
>
> | > HOWEVER... For light in space, there is NO medium.
> | > There is only relative motion.
> | > LET would use f' = fc/(c+v)
> | > Emission theory would use f'(c-v)/c
> | > Relativity uses f' = f. sqrt( [(c-v)/c^2] / [(c+v)/c^2] )

Isn't the expression c^2 a hoot! Dhr's will not even accept that
1c+1c=2c
and yet are quite happy to use 300,000+300,000+300,000........300,000
times!
> | >
> | > For v << c, these three equations have approximately the same value.
> | > | 1) energy (kinetic) perhaps lost through interactions with particles
> | > | enroute
> | >
> | > That just loses the photon. You blocked its path, and it ends up going a
> | > different way. Do enough of that and you'll see fog.

Glass?
> |
> | It may have just given up some of its linear velocity (kinetic
> | energy), or angular momentum as it interacts.
>
> So what? If you've got fog in the way, of course the photon is going to give
> up some energy, but you are not going to see through the fog to find the red
> shift of a galaxy. All you'll see is the light from some other source
> scattered in your direction.

I greatly suspect that the CMBR is a result of this effect.
>
> | >
> | > | 2) angular momentum similarly (linear velocity may be exchanged, or
> | > | some lost)
> | > Sure. No problem with that, the conversion of energy from linear to spin
> or
> | > back again is fine. That is what I'd expect to produce refraction.
> |
> | As above
> | >
> | > | 3) gravity
> | > A two-edged sword. We use momentum exchange to accelerate spacecraft out
> | > beyond the solar system. A comet gains velocity as it approaches the
> sun,
> | > converting potential enegy into kinetic, and loses velocity as it climbs
> | > away again. A photon hurtling sunward is accelerated, encounters the
> earth,
> | > and its velocity suddenly drops to c_air, and the spin goes up.
> |
> | Are we sure that spin increases?
>
> Drop a plane on a runway and tell me if the wheels don't spin up. Runways
> usually have a lot of skid marks at the touchdown point.

You may be right, but what happens to an out going photon? Whence the
energy exchange to (presumably) reduce the spin rate?
>
> | Going on responses from Srians to
> | date, I'd bet em both that c has never been measured in space, say
> | with sunlight and then star light.
>
> Of course it hasn't. Relativists are only interested in experiments that
> will show their religion is ok. Science doesn't interest them. The simplest
> experiments are the easiest. Shoot the moon with laser from the ISS, and
> time the reflection from the mirror Armstrong left there in 1969. Do that at
> moonrise and mooset, some 45 minutes later. Repeat as necessary. Heck, the
> whole thing could be set up to run automatically with nothing more than an
> ordinary PC coupled to a hand-held GPS receiver, the laser and the
> telescope. It could be done on the next launch, its that easy. So what have
> they done so far? Put some mustard seeds up for some school project, its
> good PR!

The Nobel Committee, having given a famous prize to Einstein, would
have a major midlife crisis, if forced to contemplate giving one to
someone who proved his ideas bull***. And yes, I do know that he
wasn't awarded specifically for GR.

> | > | > | My photons/waves, are as dogs to barks; the bark indicates the
> | > | > | presence of a dog, and may transfer information about the dog and
> its
> | > | > | motion (etc). I am increasingly coming to the thought that a
> photon
> | > | > | exerts an influence without "contact" ie that it acts as if
> exerting a
> | > | > | field around itself.
> | > | >
> | > | > Yes, I agree. A photon has size. My photon doesn't have two poles,
> though.
> | > | > It has one, like an electron that turns into a positron, and a
> magnetic
> | > | > monopole that turns from North to South. When the charged "electron"
> (there
> | > | > is no mass, hence the quotes) has no magnetic field to support it,
> it
> | > | > collapses, producing a North pole. At zero E-field, the north pole
> is at
> | > | > maximum. It collapses, having nothing to maintain it, and produces a
> | > | > positive field, and then that produces a South pole, from which the
> cycle
> | > | > continues. Thus the total energy is constant, since sin^2 + cos^2 =
> 1.
> The E
> | > | > and B fields leapfrog over each other, making no mechanical aether
> | > | > necessary, and the velocity of the photon is source dependent. The
> frequency
> | > | > of the photon is simply how rapidly it alternates, and it can stand
> still
> | > | > ( or you can fly alongside, same thing). But my photons interact,
> too,
> and
> | > | > the interaction is a function of size, distance between them and
> frequency.
> | > | > We can have two photons side by side, one with a North pole and the
> other
> | > | > with a South (your bar magnet) and one can spin around the other in
> x, y
> or
> | > | > z axes. But they still change their polarity intrinsically, like
> reversing
> | > | > the current in a solenoid. And of course, it is the current in a
> solenoid
> | > | > that produces a magnetic field, and waving a bar magnet past a
> solenoid
> that
> | > | > produces a current. That is of course the basis of a transformer. We
> can
> | > | > have a high current at low voltage or low current at a high voltage.
> | > | > In a transformer, the current is constrained to the copper and the
> magnetic
> | > | > "current" constrained to the iron core. The photon has no
> constraint,
> but
> | > | > the fields still exist.
> | > |
> | > | My bar magnet is just another expression of "push/pull" or "on/off".
> | > | It is representing a vibration, and the frequency is "ACTIONS AT A
> | > | POINT" (emphasis for any lurking Hogwarts). Your explanation is very
> | > | much on the same (wavelength :-) )
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | > | I have no idea how far this extends, or whether
> | > | > | this would constitute "mass" of the photon.
> | > | >
> | > | > No mass, except in the sense the E = h(nu) = mc^2, and that only
> applies
> | > | > when the photon has reached its destination, having given up it
> velocity.
> | > | > It has carried away some mass from the star, too, and that means the
> star
> | > | > has a weaker gravitational field. So what part of the photon is the
> part
> we
> | > | > call gravity, however tiny?
> | > |
> | > | Interesting. This suggests that the speed of gravity is that of light,
> | > | right?
> | > Well... I'd prefer to think of the entire field as a whole gradually
> fading
> | > in strength. If that is because the field is expanding outwards, it is
> still
> | > almost as strong as it is where it is when it is. And of course the
> Earth's
> | > field isn't radiating away. We are only emitting the same energy that
> | > falling on us. Were it otherwise, the mean termperature of the Earth
> would
> | > be changing. Of course there have been ices ages in the past and global
> | > warming is something we are concerned with today, but that has little to
> do
> | > with gravity.
> | >
> | > | I've held the view that gravity is instantaneous (or close to). My
> | > | photons have some mass as well (which is transfered away from sorce as
> | > | you say)
> | > | I further suspect that as photons slow below a certain speed, they
> | > | become undetectable (dark matter?).
> | >
> | > Two in one there. Yes, I'll go along with there being a limit to the
> extent
> | > of the observable universe, with light being undetectable beyond that
> limit.
> | > That takes us all the way down to the CMBR.
> | > Dark matter, though, is an entirely different story, born of
> misunderstand
> | > of doppler shift. I've given a brief reason at
> | > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SekerinTime.htm
> | > at the end of the page for why it is thought to exist, but I really
> should
> | > expand a little further. Let us assume for the moment that the galaxy in
> | > view on that page has no velocity with respect to us at its core. The
> rim
> | > will have one velocity toward us, and diametrically opposite the
> negative of
> | > that velocity, as shown in the red and blue boxes. These should sum to
> | > zero, of course, giving the velocity of the galaxy as whole. You could
> do
> | > this with your helicopter blades, of course.
> | >
> | > Our method of determining velocity is to determine red shift (or
> frequency)
> | > and applying that to the doppler equation, solving for v. Using the
> | > equations
> | >
> | > v = c( [1- f '^2 /f^2 ] / [1+ f '^2/f^2] ) (SR)
> | >
> | > and
> | >
> | > v = c ( 1-f' /f) (ET)
> | >
> | > I've produced a table using a spread ***.
>
> Yeuch.... didn't work.
> | >
> Observed f Einstein v Galileo v Lorentz v Recession velocity
> 0.0 300000 300000 #DIV/0! 60000
> 0.1 294059 270000 2700000 62106
> 0.2 276923 240000 1200000 59216
> 0.3 250459 210000 700000 52350
> 0.4 217241 180000 450000 42890
> 0.5 180000 150000 300000 32308
> 0.6 141176 120000 200000 21940
> 0.7 102685 90000 128571 12866
> 0.8 65854 60000 75000 5878
> 0.9 31492 30000 33333 1492
> 1.0 0 0 0 0
> 1.1 -28507 -30000 -27273 1492
> 1.2 -54098 -60000 -50000 5878
> 1.3 -76952 -90000 -69231 12866
> 1.4 -97297 -120000 -85714 21940
> 1.5 -115385 -150000 -100000 32308
> 1.6 -131461 -180000 -112500 42890
> 1.7 -145758 -210000 -123529 52350
> 1.8 -158491 -240000 -133333 59216
> 1.9 -169848 -270000 -142105 62106
> 2.0 -180000 -300000 -150000 60000
> | >
> | > Notice that for observed frequencies of 0.9 and 1.1, we have
> | > 30,000 - 30,000 = 0 in column 3, so the galaxy is stationary,
> | > but in column 2 we have 31492 -28507 = 1492, the galaxy core is
> receding.
> | > Thus we find recession not only from overall red shift, but from
> observation
> | > of a single galaxy, simply by using Einstein's equation instead of the
> | > correct one.
> | > I sometimes get very frustrated when I think just how far reaching
> | > Einstein's nonsense has thrown physics and astronomy off track.
> | >
> | > Incidentally, there is a curiousity between 1.8f and 2.0f or 0.0 to
> 0.2f.
> | > See it?
> | > Try plotting column 5 on a graph if not.
> | >
> | >
> | > | At very low velocity, they may
> | > | begin to combine under gravity (sucked in by a star or galaxy) and
> | > | eventually be reconstituted as hydrogen-- and round she goes again!
> | >
> | > Continous creation. Yes, quite conceivable, and the clouds seen at
> | > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031026.html
> | > could easily stop a slow photon dead over a few light years. They are
> | > absolutely enormous. Nature doesn't care about a few billion years, she
> has
> | > eternity to play with, and has had a past eternity as well. It is
> difficult
> | > for the human mind to imagine that such clouds have always existed.
> | > Certainly it is for me, since I abhore circularity in mathematical
> argument,
> | > yet philosophically it seems I must accept it in Nature. Intuition tells
> me
> | > that must have has a beginning, even if they eventually form an entire
> | > galaxy. How did they get their in the first place? Yes, I'll agree that
> | > photons carry the "Stuff" to make them, but what is the seed?

No seed, no chicken and egg scenario, no beginning, no end, no
"creation"!!
The human psyche just cannot handle or accept the concept of 1/0.
Because of that, religions are created in the human mind to fill the
void, and DHR's claim that 1/0 is "undefined". I certainly can't
"understand" it; I CAN exercise my ability to apply logic to
observation and arrive at this intellectual conclusion, relying on
natural truths, rather than Relativity's "magic".
(Although "force at a distance" is somewhat "magical" at that)

> | > | > | One thing I am sure of; it
> | > | > | doesn't contain an "intelligence" which regulates its velocity to
> that
> | > | > | of others in the vicinity, regardless of the motion of their
> sources.
> | > | >
> | > | > Quite so. I would not be able to reproduce the luminosity curve of
> cepheids,
> | > | > flare stars, eclipsing variables and recurrent novae if c+v did not
> apply.
> | > | > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
> | > | >
> | > | > However, we do think the speed changes in a medium, as indicated by
> | > | > refraction.
> | > |
> | > | But the interface of the mediums, say glass to air, acts as the
> | > | source, does it?
> | >
> | > Depends on your point of view. If a car emerges from a tunnel, was it
> bumped
> | > from the one behind or did it enter the tunnel and pass through without
> | > contact?

Changed gears

Jim G
c'=c+v

Quantcast