On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:51:44 -0800 (PST),

On 15 d=E9c, 01:01, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:22:04 -0800 (PST),

[...]

Considering that you so proudly found an actual non zero
derivative from a constant, I perfectly understand why you
reject just about anything that comes to mind if it means
looking good in the eyes of your mentors.

Really, Andre?

When did I do that?

You are just as meaningless as you are ignorant.

So you don't even remember your own goofs ?

laying off the weed should be good for you

You still don't understand that asin^2(wt)+bcos^2(wt) is
a constant.

Only for a =3D b. Plot it for a =3D/=3D b

Not here dude. Wrong and you can't do that for the equation
concerned.

So...what? Calculus doesn't apply to you?

Again, in context, a and b are only two states
between which a constant amount of energy oscillates
in the de Broglie photon, that is half the photon's energy.

The context does not matter. The function is one of time

so I can differentiate it with respect to time.

You claim it is constant, but
that doesn't stop me from taking the derivative.

Have you ever passed a calculus course, Andre?

if you have difficulty following
my one line of single variable calculus.

I have no difficulty at all. This is just wrong. The equation
obviously remains way above your understanding threshold.

Why is it wrong, Andre?

f(t) =3D asin^2(wt)+bcos^2(wt)
df/dt =3D 2w[a*cos(wt)*sin(wt) - b*sin(wt)*cos(wt)]

Can't do that, since in the equation

E =3D ( hc / (2 lambda) ) + [ ( e^2 / ( 2C ) ) cos^2(wt) + ( (Li^2) /
2 ) sin^2(wt)]

E is constant,

hc/(2 lambda) is constant

and finally
[ ( e^2 / ( 2C ) ) cos^2(wt) + ( (Li^2) / 2 ) sin^2(wt)] is constant.

Is t constant?

Is cos(wt) constant?

Is sin(wt) constant?

h is the Planck constant
c is the speed of light
lambda is the photon wavelentgh

C =3D 2 eps0 lambda alpha
w =3D (2 pi c) / (lambda alpha)
L =3D (mu0 lambda alpha cuberoot(3 alpha^2)) / (8 pi^2)
i =3D (2 pi e c) / lambda alpha sixthroot(3 alpha^2)

e is the elementary charge
alpha is the fine structure constant
eps0 is the electrostatic permittivity constant of vacuum
mu0 is the magnetostatic permeability constant of vacuum

You have only two choices for df/dt =3D 0. Either w =3D 0, which is
trivial but allowed, or a =3D b which is the condition given way back i=

September.

No. You take your wishes for reality, it seems to me. I defined
the equation, not you.

The condition given in september was what I said above.

a and b are two states between which a constant amount of
energy (half the photon's energy) oscillates in the de Broglie
photon.

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you here - I simply showed that _given
your equation_ and _given that the sum is constant_ that you only have
two options for it to be true:

* a =3D b
* w =3D 0

If you don't understand why what I am saying is true,
you need to go back to freshman calculus.

If you want to argue that the rules of real analysis don't apply to
you,

you are going to have to rebuild your brand of mathematics
from the ground up.

For example - what is sin(x) in Andreland?

I mean, in real analysis I can take it for granted that d(sin(x))/dx =3D
cos(x),

but since you are flaunting calculus who knows what the
derivative of sine could be!

That's the condition that was given in september and any time
before, here and anywhere else.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/d489ab84.=

Andr=E9Michaud

Of course, you still can't explain what exactly I did that confuses
you.

I sure can. Very simple. You tried to derive a non-zero value to what
is obviously a constant.

How'd I try to do that, Andre? I explicitly assumed that the function
is constant.

You are aware that saying the first derivatve equal to zero is
_equivalent_ to saying it is constant, right Andre?

You have studied calculus before...right?

Merely asserting that a function of time is constant in time

It was you who assumed that it was a function of time, with your
very limited understanding. I never said nor implie that it was.

"...constant amount of energy oscillates..."

"cos(wt)"

"sin(wt)"

If it isn't a function of time, then why did you write it as a
function of time? What is t?

If it isn't a function of time, how is it oscillating?

is
the same as proving it is constant in time. I wasn't the only one who
pointed this out to you - Paul did as well. You couldn't explain it to
HIM, either.

Who is Paul ?

International man of mystery.

And the equation is not a function of time but of energy. It is the
bottom wrong of the ladder. A simple constant exploded into its
various constant components.

Oh...so t isn't time?

Since none of the french words for energy start with t, I can't help
but wonder what the hell you are talking about.

Way beyond you understanding ability. You would need to
understand electromagnetism to a level you can't even imagine
to see that.

Andre, mastery of multivariable calculus was a prerequisite for all of
my upper division physics courses. Which includes electromagnetic
theory.

In fact, the only thing different between what I did and what Paul did
is that I did the one line of calculus and pointed out why your
options are what they are.

You simply pointed out your inability to understand the equation.

Silly me - I merely assumed that "t" was for "time" given that t is
NEVER used for anything but time except in a few specific cases that
are obviously not in play here.

The next time you seek to ridicule either my mathematical ability or
ability to process physics,

You did it again yourself very well thank you. I just needed to yank
your chain a little for you do do a magistral repeat.

Ability to process physics, zero. Ability to process a very simple
constant mathematical representation, zero. Ability to follow a simple
logical thread, zero.

Ridicule, 100 percent.

Google groups keeps this stuff forever, you know.

keep in mind that you can't even parse an argument from freshman
calculus without getting tripped up over your own personal desires.

Well, my view is that any freshman not hermetically plugged at both
ends as you show yourself to be would easily understand that a
photon's
energy of a given wavelength is constant as long as the wavelength
remains constant.

Where did I assume it is not constant?

Sure I treated it as if it had a time derivative but then I set it
equal to zero. I bet you'd hate the trick of multiplying by a form of
one, or adding a form of zero.

Tell me Eric, what impact do you fathom your disapproval of my
contributions to this ng will have on the future of science ?

None whatsoever. Posting your misunderstandings merely
makes you look bad - it has no impact on science either way.

My correcting of your misunderstandings has an equivalent
impact on science - none whatsoever.

It appears that you have forgotten that this newsgroup is of no
importance on anything but a personal level.

No actual science is done on this newsgroup. This newsgroup
is not the place to develop or even report new science.
This newsgroup is merely entertainment.

How much do you weigh in the community ?

Be honest.