One can say it is actually some periods of a wave...
As soon as you say 'oscillating' then you have a periodic signal,
a wave with a frequency, attack and decay time, polarisation, etc.

But it is not a continuous wave.
Each photon has its own separate oscilation.

I suspect that the separate fields of all photons traveling together interact
somehow and maybe become synched.

This idea is backed by my light speed unification theory that helps to explain
binary star brightness curves.

Somebody here (Florian) pointed to a nice animation:
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html
Run the animations, fascinating.

they wont run on windows.

c+v ? ;-)

Well, somebody is going to yell at this.

They have been yeling for years.
Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt the moving observer.
Didn't you know that?

On Apr 26, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:49:16 -0700 (PDT), mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:


New matter is born of the mass of the field of accelerated particles.
These are the exotic products of colliders.

Yes.
How do fields turn into matter.... and vice versa?

Is there really any difference?

Mitch Raemsch


New matter comes from the mass and field of old matter in a coillider.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:12:40 +1000) it happened Timo Nieminen
timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in
Pine.LNX.4.50.0804270804050.32413-100000@localhost>:

I dunno what your point is, or if you have one.

The point was in the rest of the post, which you cut. The point was: why
is the "little ball" analogy an adequate "mechanism", when it isn't
correct?

See the paragraph below marked '1'

'1'
Like I said: There is a limit to the depth (of our knowledge), and especially
_my_ knowledge, you have to stop somewhere, but it is needed to ask the question
'how' nevertheless.
The level of little balls (with charge of course) is in many cases sufficient
to 'visualise' or understand what is happening (like in a vacuum tube, or capacitor, etc).

What you do isn't "arguing". You made a wrong statement, and cut
discussion of it. _You're_ the one who claimed that Newtonianism is
fundamentally flawed, and physics will not advance until we get rid of it.

Bull, I never claimed that.

Perhaps if you presented some evidence for your case, perhaps from the
history of physics or other sciences, or at least discussed the topic that
_you_ introduced, it might be more interesting.

Bull, I did not start the topic.

Tell you what, mister first year textbook, back in the 1960ties I played with CRT,
designed my own TV, build it too, calculated the transformers, the deflection coils,
wound them, I know from experience how magnetic fields interact with
electrons.
It is nice stuff, not a lot of shouting 'Aristotle did', designed the electronics too.
You will see how electrons at various energies react, what happens when
you change the acceleration field, electromagnetic and
electrostatic focus, electrostatic and electromagnetic deflection
(scope versus TV),
Then vidicon cameras, now there is a different magnetic focus, where the electron
beam in fact rotates (and the picture with it).
Where did I use math? Where did I use that f*cking math?
Only to calculate the transformers, took me 2 days or so in my school days.
The rest was not very math intensive too, but oh what a wonderful world
of PRACTICAL experience.
And that was long before I worked in an accelerator plant, but boy does such a background
give you a clear picture (now where is that f*cking math again?) of what happens there.

The real physicists _know_ it is 100% experiment and 1% math.

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:09:22 GMT) it happened HW@....(Dr. Henri
Wilson) wrote in <8l9714hi8fqoa48c2arbsdgogmbq36ud50@4ax.com>:

One can say it is actually some periods of a wave...
As soon as you say 'oscillating' then you have a periodic signal,
a wave with a frequency, attack and decay time, polarisation, etc.

But it is not a continuous wave.
Each photon has its own separate oscilation.

True, a wave packet if you will..


I suspect that the separate fields of all photons traveling together interact
somehow and maybe become synched.

Yes, could be, but why synced?
That would require interaction.

This idea is backed by my light speed unification theory that helps to explain
binary star brightness curves.

Somebody here (Florian) pointed to a nice animation:
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html
Run the animations, fascinating.

they wont run on windows.

mm dunno, runs in my browser (firefox).

c+v ? ;-)

Well, somebody is going to yell at this.

They have been yeling for years.
Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt the moving observer.
Didn't you know that?

I will try to give a diplomatic answer, it seems to me
that Doppler explains clearly the variable speed of light.

When I move towards a light source that has frequency 'f',
I pass through more maxima and minima then when I was stationary.
So the frequency is higher

But the relativist make some epicycles to keep light speed
constant, and then get the same result.

What keeps coming back to me is Lorentz's LET theory,
where length contraction would be real, and a logical thing in some
ether, as then at speeds close to c things get compressed.

Now I avoided that subject nicely now did not I?
We still could use a good OWLS experiment.

Where did I use math? Where did I use that f*cking math?
[cut]
The real physicists _know_ it is 100% experiment and 1% math.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Where did I use math? Where did I use that f*cking math?
[cut]
The real physicists _know_ it is 100% experiment and 1% math.

Oh yes, and where did you use that f*cking "mechanism"? Is real physics
100% experiment, 1% math, and 0% "mechanism"?

--
Timo

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message

|
| We certainly could...but nobody will ever get the funding. ....except
maybe in
| China or Russia.
|
| I expect NASA already knows that one way light speed is not always c...but
the
| physics mafia prevents any disclosure.
|
|
| Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| ....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

I took you off my kill file, but on probation.

Let's see if you can behave yourself.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Where did I use math? Where did I use that f*cking math?
[cut]
The real physicists _know_ it is 100% experiment and 1% math.

Oh yes, and where did you use that f*cking "mechanism"?

Is real physics
100% experiment, 1% math, and 0% "mechanism"?

_You_ claimed that physics will not advance with "mechanism", and you
appeared to claim that the "little ball" _analogy_ for electrons is
sufficient "mechanism".

What you do isn't "arguing". You made a wrong statement, and cut
discussion of it. _You're_ the one who claimed that Newtonianism is
fundamentally flawed, and physics will not advance until we get rid of it.

Bull, I never claimed that.

You want me to quote you?

Are you trying to deny that you claimed that
physics will not advance with "mechanism".

Bull, I did not start the topic.

You want me to quote you? Or are you weaseling? Sure, the OP posted that
we don't know what fields "are". But you were the one claiming that
physics will not advance without "mechanism".

Well done! Seriously. Sure, there isn't always much maths involved. But
where did you need "mechanism"?

To do electronics, you need to know how
the things in the circuit behave. At most, you need mathematical models
describing the phenomena. Isn't Ohm's law enough to choose an appropriate
resistor for a circuit, even with no "mechanism"?

Isn't trial-and-error
often enough, without mechanism?

And to return to your original point, will any of that TV building advance
physics, or fundamental theoretical physics?

Sometimes. experiment leads. Sometimes, theory leads. For example, fibre
optics. Lord Rayleigh did the theory, and it took about 60 years for the
manufacturing to catch up. Would they, should they, have bothered without
having the theory there that it should work?

On Apr 23, 3:20 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I would like to attract your attention to something called 'isomap'. I
just
have found that and I allready love it. Try to google for that. I guess
you
find out yourself what I mean. Or maybe you look at the the thread
'simple
theory' on
sci.physics

, where I collected some of my
ideas.

Thomas Heger

I took a look at the isomap wiki but have not read the paper. The
short circuit concept feels pretty foreign but plausible. It seems
somewhat like imposing a planck distance but with some more freedoms.

As I read the coherent authors on this thread it is reassuring that
they admit that the electron is still puzzling. The context of the
discussion so far takes the electron as fundamental and I like that
too. But does the quark model need to be included to round out the
model? What about spin?

Spin I believe is conflicted in modern theory. We are told that this
is a binary quality of up or down yet the attempts to produce a spin
polarized beam of electrons is not nearly so simple as the Stern
Gerlach experiment portrays; the last I checked 80% was the best they
could do. Constantly we hear interpretations of 'shaving off' as in a
continuum for this supposedly binary quality. I have proposed in the
past that an improper transformation might be an accurate though
abstract model for the electron spin:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Deformation/AxisDualDeformStudy.gif

This is pretty tangential to the isomap concept but the polysign
system does expose natural dimensional reduction. For instance the 3D
sphere in the undergoes transformation down to a 1D structure and a 2D
structure at specific orientations under arithmetic product alone.
This behavior extends upward into higher dimensions though I have
little general work in P4+. Anyow assosiative algebra makes enough
claims to support this stance on dimensional reduction in high
dimensions.

But in terms of the raw electron whatever it may be shouldn't we
expect a clean mathematical model exists for it? If we accept this as
an assumption then the modern collage of mathematics is dubious. We
need a basis with more dynamics in order to simplify the particle
itself. Such a step would of course come with numerous side effects
which should line up with more of accepted physics. The only measure
of such a pure mathematical construction is in its consequences so
correspondence is all that matters. Beyond this any freedom should be
taken yet the basis should fold down slimly.

How can quantum mechanics be ignored? One simple attack on quantum
mechanics is to ask whether they ever recovered
F = q E
from their theory? I'm fairly certain the answer to this question is
no and that they impose this old field law atop their harmonic
oscillators and other various mathematical constructions. This is a
theoretical misstep since they've supposedly demolished such clean
behaviors and replaced it with probabilistic treatment.

I would appreciate some feedback.

Please have a look at my new paper

Hi Thomas. Here is some feedback on your google doc. I have a hard
time with this statement that you make early on:

"The model don't need anything:
-no fields
-no particles
-no physical laws
-no observer
-no coordinates
-no constants"

don't should be doesn't but my criticism is not about grammar or
typoos. You rely upon quaternions and they do form a coordinate
system. It seems you've been careful yet the page after I've quoted
you say:

I'm german and i'm not a writer. I gues style has to be changed.

"The observer has a specific role in this model.
The model is working without an observer, but to make some use of it,
it is neccecary to define a few units.
For this porpose an observer is required."

This is too sticky and I think by withdrawing the initial claims you'd
be better off. Such details prevent us from going deeper.
Interpretation and reinterpretation are fine to focus on I think, but
to deny some of the old traits and then come right back to them so
directly is not productive.

How many of your readers get to antisymmetric spacetime versus
symmetric spacetime under Handedness and Hyperspheres? Few I'll bet
and it is here that the interesting thoughts are going on. If you like
to think of coordinates as relations that is fine, but to claim that
you've destroyed coordinates is too much. Interpretation is allowed to
be loosely coupled and without this your own context cannot come
through. Instantiation of a quaternion on a piece of paper will
involve coordinates in the representation. I don't see any way around
that.
I didn't distroy coordinates, and that was not intended. I wanted to arrange

Timo wrote: in

_You_ claimed that physics will not advance with "mechanism", and you
appeared to claim that the "little ball" _analogy_ for electrons is
sufficient "mechanism".

It is, for many purposes.

What you do isn't "arguing". You made a wrong statement, and cut
discussion of it. _You're_ the one who claimed that Newtonianism is
fundamentally flawed, and physics will not advance until we get rid of it.

Bull, I never claimed that.

You want me to quote you?

Sure, do.

Are you trying to deny that you claimed that
physics will not advance with "mechanism".

You must have noticed that we still have Newton's equations, but have no
clue as to what gravity actually is, so we have not advanced.
If we had, we would have been able to manipulate gravity.

Bull, I did not start the topic.

You want me to quote you? Or are you weaseling? Sure, the OP posted that
we don't know what fields "are". But you were the one claiming that
physics will not advance without "mechanism".

Holy shit, you are daft are not you?
This is the SAME thing.
Maybe your idea of mechanism is not of this world or planet.

Well done! Seriously. Sure, there isn't always much maths involved. But
where did you need "mechanism"?

Electrons, how they react to electric and magnetic fields, my whole
point in this case is, that without the idea of electrons as little balls of charge,
you cannot ever comprehend the experiments.

To do electronics, you need to know how
the things in the circuit behave. At most, you need mathematical models
describing the phenomena. Isn't Ohm's law enough to choose an appropriate
resistor for a circuit, even with no "mechanism"?

See, that is the difference between understanding and engineering.
Once you have dreamt up a configuration, then you can do engineering, and
in engineering use Ohm's law to calculate some component.
You cannot _I_ _repeat_ _CANNOT_ start with Ohms law and design
a circuit that does something.
To design a circuit that does something, you need a clue what electrons do.
Once you have your circuit, then use Ohm's law to get the quantities.

Sometimes. experiment leads. Sometimes, theory leads. For example, fibre
optics. Lord Rayleigh did the theory, and it took about 60 years for the
manufacturing to catch up. Would they, should they, have bothered without
having the theory there that it should work?

Take for example all that stuff about optical cloaking.
Keep on trying

They did the math, published papers, but if you read it there are very tight
limits where it _could_ work.
Once you see that, should you keep investing millions in trying to get a
cloaking device that completely hides soldiers or tanks?