• [deleted]

  • Post #60

Hi Peter,

From the

a) ant sized train to the

b) toy train to the

c) moving pavement to the

d) bigger train to the

e) second bigger train to the

f) planet to the

g) solar system to the

h) galaxy,

your saying that the beacon/tiny LED on a) can potentially be observed by an observer in the frame of h) faster than the speed of light?

To put this another way, your saying that I can propel mass-energy using a series of cylindrical energy jet flows labeled

a) inner

b) 2nd inner,

c) 3rd inner,

d) 3rd outer,

e) 2nd outer,

f) and first outer cylindrical mass-energy jet.

You're saying that I can do all this by relying upon the index of refraction of the energy alone. I don't see how. The M87 jet was propelling gravitationally significant amounts of mass energy. But let's take a closer look.

M87 spits out first outer f), f) spits out e), e) spits out d), ... b) spits out a). Is that the idea?

I don't agree that index of refraction will let you do this.

I do agree that gravitationally significant energy jets CAN overcome the speed of light barrier.

What say you?

Dear Jason,

I wanted to say hello and let you know I enjoyed reading your essay. Your thoughts about all particles being made of photons give a lot to ponder. I have been very interested in analyzing possible internal motion of photons and the similarities with the motion of other particles, so that is partly why your essay struck a chord. I believe considering an internal motion as driven by a single sustaining potential allows several things to come together at a fairly deep level. Your essay gives me encouragement to continue looking at the similarities.

Your essay is very interesting and also satisfying in your use of math with accurate units. Overall, a very enjoyable and thought provoking essay! It gets a high mark from me and I hope it does well.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Hi Russell,

Thank you very much for reading my essay. I am glad that you enjoyed it.

You mentioned the idea of internal motion of photons. What I find interesting about photons is that the mathematics for photons, and many other areas of physics, presumes an absense of internal parts. That is actually a good thing. If you had internal parts, it means you have to consider all of the interactions between internal parts. With photons, the absense of internal parts (or internal motion) frees us to come up with creative interactions between physics equations. In other words, the absense of internal parts or motion means that the universe isn't concerned about those details. If it's not concerned, then we could get away with such things as frequency shift photons.

    You do have a creative ability to define equations with accurate units that describe unusual possibilities. I suspect that if internal motion was discovered, you would still find creative applications in working with it. I tend to lean towards photons and other particles being made out of the same thing and they have similar rules of internal motion. I think that is why I find your essay quite interesting.

    Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

    Hi Russell,

    R:"I tend to lean towards photons and other particles being made out of the same thing and they have similar rules of internal motion. "

    I think you're right. I think that photons are more fundamental than any other particle. With all of the telecommunications and data modulations of lasers, I am truly surprised that nobody has bothered to ask if we could use light/lasers/RF frequencies to construct the profile of a graviton/gravity field. In the mean time, I'm looking at lasers, optics and electronics, trying to figure out if I can build it myself.

    There is no way I could achieve a repetition rate of 1GHz or even 1MHz. However, I might be able to get 4 or 5 lasers to pulse for the same duration, in ascending/descending order, like a stairway of frequencies, with a repetition rate of 1000 times per second. I'll probably have to salvage some of the parts I need.

    Won't this be fun!

    Hi Jason,

    That sounds like great fun! It will probably be quite a sensitive experiment since any kind of gravity experiment is very delicate.

    By the way, have you seen any of the optics work by Robert Boyd? He has some fascinating data on fast and slow light. One article in Photonics Spectra, Jan 2007 discusses group speed faster than c (although the pulse front is not faster c). I have kept his observations in mind while analyzing equations. It does seem like this kind of optics research gives us a tool to test against theories.

    I would like to encourage you and I'll be interested to hear the results of your observations.

    Kind regards, Russell

    Jason

    In response to above. You have it quite well but must consider this;

    It's not that 'Index of refraction can DO it', the diffractive process can do very little, it's all about the fact that the index of refraction CAN'T STOP it!

    A super massive toroid black hole spits the galactic matter back out as plasma at unbelievably high energies. Remember, the jet itself is quite big, many light years wide, and it ends up millions of light years long.

    The first ejections are soon decelerated to 'c'.

    The next ejections go quicker (to the outside observer) as the bit they're injected IN TO is already doing nearly 'c'!, but when the reach the jet 'head' they too are slowed down by the speed limit.

    The next ejections find a nice 'moving pavement' and manage to avoid the 'n' until they too reach the jet head and the speed trap! and so on.. and on.. and on.

    The outer edges of the 'tubes' are being slowed down progressively by 'n' all the time, but as you say, the power of n is limited and 'spread out' compared to a smbh. It always wins in the end, but obviously can't even 'get at' the sneaky central globules to slow them down till some time after ejection.

    I've just returned to the UK from the Caribb, and we found a 150mph jet stream in our favour. It was very bumpy near the edges, but we got back around an HOUR earlier. That was because we did what those crafty central globules do!!

    Look at my recent post on my essay string explaining the logic of the solution. And I've just realised I haven't rated you yet - top mark coming - I hope you have for me too!

    Visualise some pictures and think it through a few times and it should stick. Then you can build the hyperexpressway. Actually there is one very central to us already, but we need to get there, and ride it safely!

    How does it sound now?

    Best wishes

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #67

    Hello Jason,

    This contest postings have my head spinning. Sorry that I did not get to yours and comment. But since we have had long and sustained discussion before, I feel I know a bit of your Photon Theory. But Jason, I have some astonishing new results that have some relevance to your photons! I have mathematically proven that 'photons do not exist'! Seriously! Read my very short paper that I posted just last night!

    "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave"

    I hope you can still support my efforts to get my essay (38) to the 'church' on time!

    Best Wishes,

    Constantinos

    Hi Russell,

    Well I found this article,

    http://www.livescience.com/790-light-travels-faster-light.html

    No, I don't believe a word of it. However, I would like to watch and wait just to see what happens. They need to experimentally verify these results. If you think it's worth watching, then by all means keep an eye on it.

    Well, I just got my second laser. The box says green laser, but I already have a green laser. Uh oh! Once the battery charges up, I'll check the color.

    Anyway, I have a 68HC11 from 5 years ago. If it still works, I'll have to get back into the habit of programming it.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #69

    Dear Constantinos,

    I am reading your paper. Your approach seems to offer a simplicity that would help make physics more accessible. But I didn't see an approach to gravity. Do you have any thoughts about that?

      • [deleted]

      • Post #70

      Hi Jason,

      Just like old times! Good to talk with you again. Have you also checked my very simple and elegant proof that "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave" ? You may need to revise just a little your Photon Theory. I doubt if you really need photons to be particles in any of your theory.

      About gravity and my essay. I do indeed have some ideas about gravity. But I am not prepared to intelligently discuss them yet. Still in the formative stage. I'll give you a sneak preview, however! I don't believe in gravity! In fact, I don't believe in any 'Universal Law'! In my humble opinion, all we can do a 'describe' Nature but not 'explain' it through Universal Law! Too often in Physics we mistake 'description' for 'explanation'. We inherently cannot explain anything. Only describe what we observe and measure. Anyway, my still very green idea about gravity revolves around such philosophic principles.

      Jason, I need your support! As you have mine ...

      best wishes,

      Constantinos

      For these reason, while digital might be helpful, reality is observably analog.

      Jason,

      I enjoyed your discussion.

      While I agree with characterization of the nature of reality, I didn't follow how you posit it "observably" analog. What did I miss?

      Jim Hoover

        Hi Jim,

        There are lots of measurements that have to be converted into digital voltage before the measurement can be processed digitally. There are voltage ranges for digital, CMOS, TTL, etc. The advantage of converting physical world measurements into digital is that digital is quicker and much easier to calculate. Analog to digital converters are used to convert measurements in the real world into digital. When digital to analog converters are used to synthesize a signal, there is still a "digital" appearance to the output signal; at least until the signal has spent some time in the enviroment where it begins to lose this digital appearance.

        Light is said to obey particle-wave duality. We know from experiments with lenses that light has wave behavior. The fact that an atom might absorb or emit one photon is presented as the argument for particle behavior of light. Yet it is impossible to isolate a photon down to a point. If we try, we merely increase our odds of missing the photon.

        Does that answer your question sufficiently?

        Jason,

        Because of your interest in 'all things photon' I want to make you aware of some good news on the C-field front!

        The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:

        The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to photons passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.

        The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.

        From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsible for observable effects.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Jason,

        Busy day with my mail. Not only did I find the C-field info (in 'Science News') mentioned in my last comment, but I found info in the 4 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science' Vol 331 that will be of interest to you.

        On page 1142 there is an overview titled, "Toward Synthesis of Arbitrary Optical Waveforms" which summarizes an article on page 1165 by Chan et al, titled "Synthesis and Measurement of Ultrafast Waveforms from Five Discrete Optical Harmonics"

        As an example they show both synthesized square waves and triangle waves. This is pretty much what you proposed, so I thought you might find relevant data here.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Edwin,

          That's amazing. I would suggest they try synthesizing a sawtooth wave; since the derivative with respect to x is a force,

          [math]F = -\frac{dU}{dx}[/math]

          I haven't yet found a free copy of the article. I might have to go down to the library.

          I am glad that you also found something related to C-fields. I hope it turns out to be helpful to you.

          Hi Edwin,

          You said,"The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to photons passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. "

          That is very interesting. I was toying with the idea of synthesizing a shift photon in such a way that the polarization of the next frequency starts where the polarization of the previous frequency ended. The hope is to produce corkscrew gravity forces. However, it sounds like spinning black holes already cause something like that to happen.

          From reading the abstract of that article, it sounds like all five frequencies are being produced simultaneously. Do you think they will try to produce them sequencially at a high repetition rate? That is the idea of a shift photon.

          Jason,

          Today's been very busy and I just read enough to know that you would be very interested. I'll study the articles later.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Jason

          Well done for squeezing in. I hope you apologise nicely to Tom!

          I have a present for you. Some spectroscopy speed and photon density images of the Black Hole jets in HH34 (the photo in my essay). This should remove any retained doubts you've had.

          This shows the turbulent speed and density grades. I do also have better ones somewhere but have had computer issues and info overload!

          Just open the PDF and scroll to the appendices; http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0611/0611865v1.pdf

          Best wishes

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          • Post #79

          Dear Peter,

          I haven't forgotten about you; and I will read the article after I finish various mundane chores, involving mundane things like budgets, laundry and errands...oh my.