> I know what it is. Light travels slower in denser matter. i.e. it travels slower
> in air than in a vacuum, and slower in an optic fiber than in air. It is also
> affected by gravity as well, which is why its slower when travelling through dense
> matter, but this is described in SR/GR.
Nope, that's not it. In QED, photons can travel faster or slower than
'c' in a full vacuum. In the ballistic theory, the photons are emitted
and absorbed by the electrons of the transparent medium at 'c' relative
to the atoms in the medium.
The 'gravitational slowing' you discuss is explained
by the ballistic theory of light in the ordinary classical-mechanical
way. SR/GR have to assert that dimensionality is affected by gravity,
so that the photons are still travelling at 'c' but (somehow) space and
time are altered so this means they don't get very far. I have never
seen a good explanation of this -- alleged -- process.
>> We start with a uniform cubic space, say one metre along each edge.
>> On the north side is a blue LED pointing south, and alongside it, a
>> photoelectric cell likewise aimed southwards.
>>
>> On the south side we have a red LED pointed north, and a northwardly
>> aimed photoelectric cell.
>>
>> Our apparatus is rigged so that the red and the blue LEDs fire
>> simuultaneusly. The photoelectric cells record the time of flight
>> of the red and the blue photons.
>>
>> Armed with this kit, we can do a timeslice-by-timeslice analysis of
>> the positions of the photons within the cube. We can show
>> _conclusively_ that -- for the photons to start where and when they
>> do, and end up when and where they do, the red photons MUST travel
>> at 2c relative to the blue photons.
> No, this is not true. They travel at the same speed, with different wavelengths.
You completely miss the point. The only reason to have red and
blue photons is to colour-differentiate them for ease of
explanation. Northbound blue passes southbound blue at 2c.
Northbound red passes southbound red at 2c. The situational
logic is unbreakable.
> I'd like to see citations of mathematical treatments of black hole
> theory that precedes SR/GR by 100 years. Lessee, that means they should
> be published before 1805.
Black Holes are implicit in Newtonian gravitation with a ballistic
('corpuscular') theory of light. If the velocity of emission of
light-particles is less than the escape velocity of the emitting
body, the light-particle cannot escape the gravitational field and
will eventually fall back.
The calculations are fairly simple. Once we had Newton's
gravitational theory and <inter alia> Roehmer's measurement of
lightspeed by astronomical observation the calculation of the
Schwartzchild radius etc. is fairly easy. Everything's a whole lot
simpler with ballistic theory, remember. We've had great
mathematical tools for centuries.
> Solid state electronics cannot be described by
> classical mechanics, because so much of electronic theory depends on
> tunneling.
Funny, then, that we can model matter so accurately with classical
mechanics (Car-Parrinello Method) that we can _calculate_ (say) the
melting-point of silicon. You have to get your head around the fact
that the same physical phenomena can be explained by indefinitely many
different theories, as Leibnitz showed. The photo-electric effect
preceded Einstein & Lenard's [1905]. Why do you think it's impossible
to come up with an auxilliary theory (even an ad hoc theory...) to
enable us to calculate tunnelling using classical mechanics? All QM
is, is a statistically-based approximation method.
> Likewise, lasers cannot function purely by classical mechanics.
Absolutely, they can (leaving aside the loose language). The
mechanics of electron orbits, and of absorption and emission of
light-particles (photons) are all in my RM paper. You simply don't
understand how far-reaching and powerful Classical Mechanics is as a
system. What is it about lasers you think we can't explain?
> Nor can polarizing filters on cameras.
Simple: the light-particles spin (on up to 3 orthogonal axes).
> the electroluminescent lamp cannot function by classical mechanics
A classical model of the atom (based on Bohr's baroque neo-classical
[1913] model) explains photon emission perfectly well -- RM explains it
even better.
> nuclear fission cannot be described by classical mechanics.
Of course it can -- go look up 'packing fractions.' All energy is
kinetic or potential. Bound particles have potential energy. Orbiting
particles have kinetic energy.
> the quantum tunneling microscope cannot function by classical mechanics.
Again, you're missing the point. The effect is not dependent on the
theory. And I asked for six examples relating to SR/GR, by the way,
not QM.
> Ok, thats six, now where is my money?
Not-OK! Not six! No cigar. See above.
Tony
PS: Sen. Pam Roach ('R', Auburn, WA) cited precisely your concealed-carry
point, BTW). This still does not endear her to me.