Curving light waves

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Experiment picture comp.

a.

b.

Some more.

c.

d.

e.

Originally posted by primalfractal
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Could you please describe the experiment in laymans terms for everyone including the uses of the equipment you described?

I made a sketch:

The idea would be to move aim of the photon source from point A to point C while the wave packet is still in the process of exiting the device, to determine statistically over a large number of photons how much of the wave packet can exit the source while movement of the source can still affect the impact point B of the photon on the detector.

By detecting the precise time of impact of the photon, we can work backward from there to determine the travel time of the photon at the speed of light in the experimental medium to determine the time it exited the source with the goal of capturing photon impacts at the detector where the wave packet was partly out of the moving photon source as shown.

This was what I had in mind, is this also what you were thinking?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by primalfractal
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Could you please describe the experiment in laymans terms for everyone including the uses of the equipment you described?

I made a sketch:

The idea would be to move aim of the photon source from point A to point C while the wave packet is still in the process of exiting the device, to determine statistically over a large number of photons how much of the wave packet can exit the source while movement of the source can still affect the impact point B of the photon on the detector.

By detecting the precise time of impact of the photon, we can work backward from there to determine the travel time of the photon at the speed of light in the experimental medium to determine the time it exited the source with the goal of capturing photon impacts at the detector where the wave packet was partly out of the moving photon source as shown.

This was what I had in mind, is this also what you were thinking?

To accomplish what exactly. I cant take the pain of reading this whole topic again.

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by primalfractal
I think the God particle is a great name.
It rightly marks the boundry where particles
become quanta. It presupposes exitance of
said quanta.

A quantum field in which everything is connected.

Which means all is one, is this not God? It's definately not a cat.

edit on 30-9-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)

No.

Almost everything you said is false, and under wrong pretense. PLEASE read atleast one textbook level book on quantum mechanics before you start throwing around words like fields and quanta.

edit on 30-9-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

Memes are more powerful than books on quantum.

This is what people believe, afraid the ship has really sailed on this one.

A small amount of people argueing obtruse points that most don't understand won't change anything.

This is history, will people remember "Higgs whatsie" or "God Particle".

And if you think it was some sort of pr stunt your critical thinking is being limited. You obviously cant just claim(and have people believe you) to find "the God Particle" without evidence.

Hey, I think I might have found the "Goddess Wave".

But you seem to have found the "zworgle field" since you do not believe people need evidence to make such claims.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thank you for your excellent contributions to this thread (and other)

Originally posted by ubeenhad
To accomplish what exactly. I cant take the pain of reading this whole topic again.

To satisfy curiosity? What's the point in doing any experiment?

reply to post by primalfractal


Yup.
Newtonian mechanics isn't even talked about anymore.

Gravity, shamavity. in a few years, who will remember.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Um, you should know this BRO!

Your experiment violates laws of physics. How do you plan on moving the source that fast.
Think about it.
Also, what would you be trying to test?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

It makes no difference whether he was awarded an honorary degree or not. What's important is the elements that he foresaw.

I cannot find verification of the elements he foresaw, but looking at my .pdf of A New Concept of the Universe, I see that he said the following in his "An Open Letter to the World of Science" in 1953:

. . . Recalling the important contributions I have already made to science, such as my work in completing the hydrogen octave and my prior discovery of the existence of the two atom bomb elements given to the scientific world in my two Periodic Tables of the Elements, assures me that you will give serious thought and attention to these documents. . . .

Further than inciting research which yielded so-called isotopes of hydrogen and heavy water, nothing came of my effort, nor did I receive the credit due me. . . .

From Bearden's website:

Subject: RE: Tom Beardens PhD...
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:11:07 -0600

Tony,

Yes, I was awarded the Ph.D. for life experience and for life accomplishment (from Trinity College - Ed.), and I make no attempt to conceal it. I was awarded the Legion of Merit in Vietnam for similar reasons. If that makes it "bogus", so be it. I was also listed in Who's Who in Aviation and Aerospace, 1983, National Aeronautical Institute. I don't know what others may have done, but to obtain the doctorate for experience, I first was required to prepare a formal Ph.D. thesis, as is normal, and do several months of additional work for it. As might be expected, my thesis advanced the first legitimate theory of COP>1.0 EM systems, freely extracting energy from the vacuum. It also contained the first formal correction to Aristotelian logic since Aristotle advanced it. My M.S. in nuclear engineering was awarded by Georgia Tech under full rigor, as was my B.S. in mathematics from what is today Northeast Louisiana University. Those are the credentials, and one can take it or leave it.

One might point out that Heaviside --- whose equations are studied in university as "Maxwell's equations", and who originated some powerful mathematical methods as well --- never even attended university but was totally self-taught. Today, a very great many people for more than a century have happily used Heaviside's work, not really caring whether he had a Ph.D. or not.

The real judge is what a fellow does and the worth or non-worth of it. My book, Energy from the Vacuum, speaks for itself. My years of work in scalar interferometry --- trying desperately to get this nation to develop adequate defenses --- has in fact now been verified, both experimentally and theoretically, and scalar interferometry was the basis for Secretary of Defense Cohen's public statement in 1997 at a conference in Athens, Georgia --- the first confirmation of those weapons by a high U.S. government official. We do have adequate defenses today, at least a little bit as a result of some of my own hard work in convincing the system. Unfortunately the energetics weapons have now spread to even more powerful quantum potential weapons and negative energy EMP, so my weapons efforts are still continuing in that respect. Defending this nation comes first; after that comes the rest.

I'm quite willing to let that be the final arbiter.

Best wishes,

Tom

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Nice job.

A to c need only be small and distance of source could be changed.
100 packets and cut it say.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Will this show quantum effect though? Slits?

Originally posted by primalfractal
A to c need only be small and distance of source could be changed.
100 packets and cut it say.

I give up.

Im confident that arbitgeur(sorry spelling) will see the problem and obviously has alot more patients than me so you should ask him to explain why its impossible.

reply to post by primalfractal


The Curve is due to the Warping of Space/Time of both the Earth and the Moon.
Split Infinity

reply to post by ubeenhad


I see. Your right about my post but it must be possible to move it fast enough.

Mirror?

reply to post by SplitInfinity


This is interesting and I agree.

Seems to say all mass curves light to some extent unless the formula has some sort of cutoff.

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Your experiment violates laws of physics. How do you plan on moving the source that fast.
Think about it.
Also, what would you be trying to test?

What law does it violate?
I haven't designed the experiment, it's just a concept. It might be hard to do, and I never said it would be easy, but I don't think it's impossible.
But if you think it's impossible, explain why you think so.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


guess i gave you too much credit/

Here are a few reasons.


Propagation of EM waves
Wave particle duality
Photon info
Special Relativity

Read about privledged reference frames. You will get it

Well, it's posted on physicsforums.com, wonder how we will go?

"What happens to a photon wave packet when half out of a moving device?"

Linky