Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency
From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 02/24/05
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Previous message: edddy: "An Accelerator Trigger for Mini-nukes"
- In reply to: Franz Heymann: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Next in thread: Sue...: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:47:53 GMT
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:05:29 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
<notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:pskk111vqalqhuvamm6rolfa1tksscpot4@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:06:36 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
>> <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>> >news:1108939067.728613.225470@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >> << I think that light behaves increasingly more
>> >> 'ballistically' as gas pressure approaches zero. Otherwise the
>speed
>> >of
>> >> light
>> >> entering any region containing low pressure matter will adjust
>its
>> >> speed
>> >> towards the equilibrium speed in that matter frame. That doesn't
>> >mean
>> >> that all
>> >> light within that region moves at the same speed. The degree of
>> >> unification
>> >> will dependent on density.
>> >> I see nothing wrong with this concept.
>> >
>> >I do.
>> >At the classical level, it is in contradiction with Maxwell's
>> >equations, according to which
>> >v = c / sqrt (eps*mu), with no adjustment times anywhere in sight.
>>
>> How do you know the measured values of eps and mu are not dependent
>on observer
>> speed through the medium?
>>
>> You don't.
>
>I actually do. I have seen my colleagues calculate in in terms of the
>polarisability of the atoms, which in turn is calculated ab inition in
>the case of the gaseous atoms of low to middle atomic weight, for
>which the wavefunctions are known sufficiently well
>Fizeau also actually noticed it as early as the mid-nineteenth
>century, in his experiments on the speed of light in moving media.
meaningless.
>>
>> >At the quantum level, a photon always moves with a speed c, even in
>> >matter.
>>
>> That's an assumption.
>
>No. It is a consequence of Maxwell's equations.
>For that reasons, Einstein made it one of his postulates of SR, which
>in turn is now one of the best established theories ever propounded by
>man.
Maxwell derived a value for the universal constant c, which happens to be
light's speed wrt its source. Maxwell actually thought it was light's speed
through the imaginery aether.
>
>> >What looks like a slower photon is in reality a succession of
>photons
>> >absorbed and re-emitted coherently but with a changed phase
>>
>> If we had any idea what the terms 'wavelength', 'frequency' and
>'phase' imply
>> as regards light, we could probably be a little more specific about
>that.
>
>If you have no idea of what the relationship between the wavelength
>and the frequency of EM radiation is, and whay the significance of the
>phase of a wave is, that is your problem. It will probably remain so,
>since you don't have sufficient neurons to unravel it.
You haven't improved Heymann. You are too ignorant to realise that other people
are way ahead of you.
Obviously there is a clearcut relationship between frequency, wavelength and
speed for a generated EM radio signal or similar.
I'm talking about individual building blocks of light whatever they may be.
If photons exist - which I doubt - what aspect of their INDIVIDUAL structure is
associated with an inherent wavelength of frequency?
>
>> >> Nor does it seem to conflict
>> >> with any
>> >> evidence.
>> >
>> >Nobody has bothered to look, since it would be a clear waste of
>time
>> >to do so, because the passage of light through transparent media is
>> >already fully understood in all its gory details.
>>
>> It is not at all understood in the high vacuum of space.
>
>Balls.
and the same to you.
>>
>> Light is emitted at c relative to its source, eg., a star.
>>
>> Nothing is known about the mechanisms that alter that speed as it
>traverses
>> space.
>
>There are no mechanisms in free space. That is what free space is.
>Just miles and miles of buggerall.
not so. It is filled with EM.
>
>> >> Consider a universe comprised of only two hydrogen atoms. You
>would
>> >> have
>> >> the electon orbits
>>
>> I didn't write that Heymann.
>> You have your quotes mixed.
>
>Blame that idiot Sue for perpetually mishandling attribution marks.
>
>> >In the ground state, the electron is not in an orbit.
>> >
>> >> synchronized at any distance,
>> >
>> >What is it which you consider to be synchronised?
>> >
>> >> by photonic
>> >> (Coulomb ? ) coupling such
>> >> that a mid-point observer ( aka problematic vacuum impurity )
>would
>> >see
>> >> the atoms as mirror images at any instant in tiime ?
>> >
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Previous message: edddy: "An Accelerator Trigger for Mini-nukes"
- In reply to: Franz Heymann: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Next in thread: Sue...: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
