[General] Andrew's request for alternative models

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Hodge,

I have glanced thru your articles. I'm sorry that I don't see enough in
your model to warrant more of my time.

The only sections that I feel qualified to address (diffraction) leaves me
unimpressed. You stated:
"...all other models of diffraction are inconsistent with these
observations."
 I find that to be incorrect. In your simulations, you appear to be making
assumptions about the experiment that are unfounded. You seem to assume
that the pattern from a single slit is a plane wave incident on the 2nd
slit. It is not. Thus your source term is incorrect.

In the section titled "Change in diffraction pattern with altitude," The
only thing that seems to relate to altitude is the change in beam intensity
(amplitude).* You don't tell how you did it. However, from the results, I
would guess that you did it by changing the position of your detector
relative to the slit. In a diffraction pattern this will change the number
of secondary peaks within a given screen width. In your figures, the number
of peaks changed from 6 to 7 per side as you moved closer to the slit. The
main peak also gets narrower. This is expected, since the known pattern
diverges with distance; but, what does this have to do with altitude?*

* Your other examples are based on astronomical work. I must assume that
you relate beam intensity with distance of slit (altitude) from a detector
on the ground; however, you give no details and indicate the scales (which
would be astronomical).

Andrew

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com> wrote:

> Andrew:
>
> Universe according to the STOE
> http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648
>
> Inertia according to the STOE
> http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1676
>
> Here is a model with 2 constituents in the universe. Inertia is a property
> of one of them (plenum) and gravity a property of the other. A constant
> ratio of them in particle gives the Equivalence Principle.
> 2 Constituents because that is the smallest number that can account for
> all the different observation.
>
> You will see that there are many experimental observations this model
> accounts. Also, note it predicted and explained the variable illumination
> across a slit double slit experiment.
>
> “Acceptably to an audience” is a social criterion that allows all the
> fairy-tail physics of today. The only science criteria are to explain and
> predict observations. In the world of the small, the prime observation to
> be explained is the double slit experiment.
>
>
> Hodge
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160402/65f87bdf/attachment.htm>