Re: Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED] \(formerly\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
> >
> > "Aleksandr Timofeev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED] \(formerly\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > ...
> > > > > Please David describe your model of absorption of "photon"
> > > > > simultaneously by two  VLBI radio telescopes.
> > > >
> > > > SourceA)----> (multiple photons)
> > > >
> > > > Detector1) <---- (photon)----< (SourceA
> > > > Most of Earth
> > > > Detector2) <---- (photon)----< (SourceA
> > > >
> > > > Rotate one of the polarizers, and show me it is the same photon
> >  following
> > > > two simultaneous paths.  With three antenna-systems online, I'm
> >  guessing
> > > > only the antenna-system on which you rotate the polarizer "drops
out".
> > >
> > > Dear David,
> > >
> > > I do not perceive your model rather well...
> > >
> > > The truth as I perceive it...
> > >
> > > Let three radio telescopes are on the Earth.
> > > Let very remote source emits one "photon" in a direction of the
Earth.
> > >
> > > 1. What concrete radio telescope will
> > > swallow up; devour; absorb; take up; or immerse this "photon"?
> > >
> > > 2. Other optional versions of your model...
> >
> > Since one telescope *does* absorb all of a photon (based on total
absorbed
> > energy),
>
> From group of three radio telescopes:
>
>         the UNIQUE RADIO TELESCOPE
> has "absorb all" alone concrete "Photon".
>
> Whether I have understood you correctly?

I'm going to say yes in a very specific way.  A recognized signal is
received at three (in this example) antennae.  It is assured to be the same
signal because of simultaneous arrival at the three antennae (based on the
synchronization procedure you previously described).  It is further assured
to be the same signal because the same energy-per-photon is recorded at
each antennae.

Yes, multiple photons from a single source.

>
> > then signals detected at multiple telescopes must be multiple
> > photons emitted in a "data packet".  How many recorded incidents do you
> > have where roughly half a photon (based on energy levels and/or
> > polarization) is absorbed simultaneously at two antennae?
>
> " half a photon (based on energy levels and/or polarization)
> is absorbed simultaneously at two antennae? "
>
> What physical interpretation can have this assertion? :
>
> " half a photon <...> is absorbed simultaneously at two antennae "

Half a photon (neglecting any QM hackles I have already have raised) would
be half the energy, and half the momentum.  Of course, this would be a
three particle-with-spin interaction, and would also be invalid.

> > Mach knew the Universe intrudes in the *here*.  Einstein said the
inverse,
> > that any body was extended, even through the Universe. The diffraction
> > formula says as much.  This is why the wave model works so well for
> > propagation.
>
> I do not perceive your model rather well...

Think of the "hair" model I had for particles?  Remember, hair extending
transverse to the line-of-flight to the "ends" of the Universe?  All bodies
are comprised of particles.  All particles have such "hair".  Einstein
called it "extended body".  Mach had the Universe make the water in the
bucket spin.  There is no empty space, and a little of each of us is
already in the stars.

> > The fact that the antennae are separated by Earth is just geography.
>
> We consider a physical problem, I do not perceive as this one is bound
> to " just geography ".
>
> Please David explain this one more detailed.

I could write a lot, but I am "only an egg".  I only have an inkling, and
have insufficient rigor to present a solid case.  I cannot convince, I can
only suggest what I see.

I do wish you'd flip one of the polarizers to be 90° to one of the other
antennae, and see if you take out *two* signals, and not one.  *That* would
be a conundrum!

David A. Smith