George Dishman wrote:
> jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Henri Wilson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 23:39:08 +0100, "George Dishman"
> > > <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> > > >news:3c5332p495gqqprf07tmj28ng1e5m0ml77@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > >>
> > > >> Well I don't want to get back into this argument because it could go on
> > > >> forever.
> > > >
> > > >I don't expect to continue it. I've said all I can
> > > >to help Jim, if he still doesn't follow, we'll just
> > > >have to disagree. I think you understand the physics
> > > >behind it and we haven't really had a problem
> > > >discussing the maths for your program.
> > >
> > > I don't see any problem with any of it.
> > > Jim is basically correct but you have a different approach to the whole
> > > subject.
> > Yes: Fire a machine gun from a stationary position ref target- inspect
> > damage.
> > Mount the gun on a plane, and fire while approaching target- inspect
> > damage.
> > Does the plane circle, firing at only one position- scratch as bullshit
> > Does the plane stop, before firing each bullet?- scratch as UTTER
> > bullshit
> You asked the question Jim, the bullshit is all yours.
> Of course you asked about riflemen, not planes so
> the question was reasonable and eventually you
> even admitted the correct answer, but it proved your
> explanation of Doppler was wrong so you would
> rather sweep that under the carpet.
> So having asked a question and found the answer
> proved you wrong, now you want to change the
> subject ...
> > Does a light source emit x photons per sec, in any given direction?
> Only if the brightness is constant.
That is a given!
The gun rate of fire is fixed, and no-one interferes with the source
> > Does the number of photons arriving at a target per time INCREASE
> > when the source approaches the target?
> No, it is still constant if the source brightness and
> speed of approach are constant,
"If my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle"
There HAS BEEN an alteration, from (1) to (4).
but the number is
> higher than if the source wasn't approaching. This
> effect makes the source look brighter but it doesn't
> change the received frequency (colour) or energy of
> individual photons.
No way! _ALL_ that is seen, is doppler blued effect, when a light
alters its approach velocity to a receiver.
If you made an attempt to follow
> the conversation between Henry and myself, you
> would have found I said that a couple of days ago.
You wish to alter the numbers of photons represented, compared to
by discussing "periods of emission"
Keep it simple (and true to what I say)----
10 bullets form either a stationary or moving (ref target) gun are
considered, and their energies
compared at the target.
NOTE WELL: their individual energies add to become a GROUP energy of 10
> > DO the photons deliver MORE ENERGY?????????
> There is another effect called Doppler shift which you
> are forgetting which also operates and it does change
> the received frequency (colour) of each photon.
What is this? How does "one photon" have a frequency???????????
The FACT is, that the group of photons (equivalent to the 10 bullet
machine gun burst, which occurred over a fixed interval), does NOT
alter in number, when the source is accellerated ref the target
> been trying to teaching you what causes Doppler effect
> based on your riflemen for weeks but you insist on
> changing the subject all the time.
> The energy of an individual photon is proportional to the
> received frequency (whether the source is moving or not)
> so the change of frequency caused by Doppler produces
> a change of energy.
> > (the answer being yes, George is desperate to avoid the comparison)
> The answer being that the energy is proportional to
> the frequency, Jim is desperate to pretend we hadn't
> already addressed the comparison. Here is a reprise:
> You suggested the analogy of a burst of gunfire to
> represent a photon and I addressed that a few days
> ago as I had promised when you finally gave an answer,
> the correct one as it happens, to my question about
> scenario (3).
> As an analogy for a photons of different colour, bursts
> of gunfire hitting the target at different rates (photon
> frequency) do damage (photon energy) proportional to
> the rate, therefore bursts must be of equal duration at
> the target.
> That means bursts from a high frequency source contain
> more bullets than a burst from a low frequency source
> and in the analogy it is the increased number of bullets
> in the burst that causes the increased amount of damage.
Just ten lil' bullets, fired by a fixed rate gun.
x lil' photons, emitted from an unalterring source.
Change motion of gun and source----------it is STILL just the ten and
the x which under scrutiny.
The _scrutiny_ doth reveal, that in BOTH cases there is an increase in
energy UNACCOUNTED FOR in target inspection, when applying (3) as the
cause of doppler as to (1)
> Now where do you want to go with this Jim, or are you
> again going to pretend I didn't answer?
You say somewhere that I compare a SINGLE photon, as to a group of
get this right, and for good!
ONE bullet, or ONE photon (see footnote) does not have a frequency, so
highlights how far you are prepared to go, in order to misrepresent my
(I have postulated elsewhere that light frequency is due to BOTH the
number of photons per time inpinging on a reciever due to their linear
motion, and the individual spin rate of each photon, as it travels that
line (and attendent local fields of each photon)
In this discussion, I refer to linear motion only, and the number of
photons passing a point per time unit.