| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"quantis" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2006 08:55:15 PM |
| Object: |
what really are Gravitons? |
Hi,
What is your understanding of gravitons? Do particles
really exchange gravitons? But isn't it that gravity is
not an attraction directly between particles but a
result of curvature of spacetime?
quantis
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 05:38:16 AM |
|
|
quantis:
Hi,
What is your understanding of gravitons?
The quanta of a quantized gravitational field.
Do particles
really exchange gravitons? But isn't it that gravity is
not an attraction directly between particles but a
result of curvature of spacetime?
If it turns out that it makes sense to quantize the gravitational
field, (which it may or may not), then the graviton quantizes the
curvature of spacetime. Since general relativity is known to be
valid to high level of precision, any theory incorporating gravitons
has to reduce to general relativity in the classical limit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
13 Mar 2006 05:10:59 AM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
quantis:
Hi,
What is your understanding of gravitons?
The quanta of a quantized gravitational field.
Do particles
really exchange gravitons? But isn't it that gravity is
not an attraction directly between particles but a
result of curvature of spacetime?
If it turns out that it makes sense to quantize the gravitational
field, (which it may or may not), then the graviton quantizes the
curvature of spacetime. Since general relativity is known to be
valid to high level of precision, any theory incorporating gravitons
has to reduce to general relativity in the classical limit.
bilge is an *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
13 Mar 2006 08:14:49 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker:
Bilge wrote:
quantis:
Hi,
What is your understanding of gravitons?
The quanta of a quantized gravitational field.
Do particles
really exchange gravitons? But isn't it that gravity is
not an attraction directly between particles but a
result of curvature of spacetime?
If it turns out that it makes sense to quantize the gravitational
field, (which it may or may not), then the graviton quantizes the
curvature of spacetime. Since general relativity is known to be
valid to high level of precision, any theory incorporating gravitons
has to reduce to general relativity in the classical limit.
bilge is an *****
As usual, you managed to post a comment that had nothing to do with
the subject of the thread.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
13 Mar 2006 10:25:00 PM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrne1cgt5.5r.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
| As usual, I managed to post a comment that had nothing to do with
| the subject of the thread.
That you did, arsehole.
You are still an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical,
***** without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad.
You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics
and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever,
Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands relativity and
doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini
time.
Modern physics:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
Hey dumbfuck! Do you know how to move sideways or up?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to3.jpg
High school algebra:
x² + y² + z² = c²t² Einstein
xi² + eta² + zeta² = c²tau² Einstein
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles
Right or wrong, dumbfuck?
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are,
pathetic *****.
For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is
sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c
Right or wrong, shitforbrains?
Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z
because he did not know how to move sideways or up,
anencephalous cretin.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a crab to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a crab.
Oops!... Did I say 'a crab'? Sorry...'light'.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
BA = -AB,
2AB = AC,
[AB +BA]/(t'A-tA) = 0
Hence c = 0 in Einstein's math.
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
(Or stars explode twice in three months, which is stupid).
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
you remain an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical,
incompetent ***** without a scrap of logic in you,
you whining little toad.
You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics
and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever,
Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands physics and
doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini
time.
Modern physics:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
*****, useless tord!
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator.
Personally I prefer three witches:
Double double, toil and trouble,
Fire burn and Einstein bubble. --- Pop!
Hexenmeister.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
13 Mar 2006 06:23:30 AM |
|
|
On Monday 13 March 2006 11:10, Ken S. Tucker (dynamics@vianet.on.ca)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<1142248259.871775.209280@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>):
Bilge wrote:
quantis:
Hi,
What is your understanding of gravitons?
The quanta of a quantized gravitational field.
Do particles
really exchange gravitons? But isn't it that gravity is
not an attraction directly between particles but a
result of curvature of spacetime?
If it turns out that it makes sense to quantize the gravitational
field, (which it may or may not), then the graviton quantizes the
curvature of spacetime. Since general relativity is known to be
valid to high level of precision, any theory incorporating gravitons
has to reduce to general relativity in the classical limit.
bilge is an *****
Such a well thought out, constructive reply.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
10 Mar 2006 05:52:15 PM |
|
|
"quantis" <quantum_stuff@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1141959315.450145.267760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
What is your understanding of gravitons? Do particles
really exchange gravitons? But isn't it that gravity is
not an attraction directly between particles but a
result of curvature of spacetime?
quantis
Curvature of space, not curvature of spacetime. Yes. Gravitons could never
explain the true nature of gravity.
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
13 Mar 2006 03:32:37 PM |
|
|
According to my wife, a 'graviton' is any small, salt-flavored snack
food made of carbohydrates and vegetable oil that is small enough to
'pop into your mouth.'
;-)
They are called 'gravitons' because they add *directly* to one's weight
on a bathroom scale.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
09 Mar 2006 09:21:01 PM |
|
|
Dear quantis:
"quantis" <quantum_stuff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141959315.450145.267760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
What is your understanding of gravitons?
Very little.
Do particles
really exchange gravitons?
Particles with mass are supposed to exchange gravitons... in
quantum gravity.
But isn't it that gravity is
not an attraction directly between particles but a
result of curvature of spacetime?
Spacetime is meaningless at the quantum level. So now what do
you do?
Relativity (curvature of spacetime) is a classical theory.
Quantum mechanics is not.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
09 Mar 2006 10:41:31 PM |
|
|
Hopefully garvity is not a cybernetic emergent phenomena, and it does
seem to emerge from any concentration of matter, for there is no
explaining/predicting emergent phenomena, and there may never be.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
09 Mar 2006 10:44:40 PM |
|
|
Hopefully gravity is not a cybernetic emergent phenomenon, and it does
emerge from any concentration of matter, for there is no
explaining/predicting emergent phenomena, and there may never be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Left-over density from the notional start of the big bang. |
23 Mar 2006 03:43:23 PM |
|
|
Hi Quantis, You asked about the gravitons and the causes of gravity.
Gravitational acceleration is a function of the density of mass-energy
and one's proximity to it.
The density is what's left-over from the notional start of the big bang,
as, I posit, the universe has just always been dissipating.
Hence, there is a fifth _Spatial_ dimension, I posit: Entropy.
Because gravitational time dilation is a function of the escape velocity,
I posit that things there are actually traveling that fast,
but in a cyclical fashion, and in more dimensions.
Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light,
but have so far eluded detection, see LIGO and VIRGO.
Gravity is ultra weak, so much more precision is required.
Gravitons are hypothetical/virtual particles, quantizations, discretenesses,
belonging to untested quantum-gravity models, e.g. M_Theory, Brane_Cosmology.
They aren't compatible with the smoothness of General_Relativity.
Even if they did exist, there'd still be plenty of unknowns.
See: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Graviton
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Left-over density from the notional start of the big bang. |
23 Mar 2006 03:47:33 PM |
|
|
On Thursday 23 March 2006 21:43, Jeff…Relf (Me@Privacy.NET) masturbated for
a bit then wrote in sci.physics (<Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_23_4J9C@Cotse.NET>):
Hence, there is a fifth _Spatial_ dimension, I posit: Entropy.
Demonstrate how this affects gravity and the strong force - both of which
provide an excellent indicator for there being three spatial dimensions.
You can posit all you like. You are still wrong.
And I am flattered that you like to fantasise about my masturbation but
trust me, I would never be interested in you.
--
T Wake
Usenet.es7 at gishpuppy.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: There is no real distinction between the space and time coordinates. |
23 Mar 2006 03:58:20 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You told me:
And I am flattered that you like to fantasise about my masturbation
but trust me, I would never be interested in you.
No, I told you to go do it somewhere else, you idiot.
Time is _Observed_ to be a spatial dimension in General_Relativity,
because the orbits are so well known.
The paths of microscopic particles are not well known at all,
but time is sure to be spatial there too, nonetheless.
Hawking said:
In relativity,
there is no real distinction between the space and time coordinates,
_Just_As_ there is no difference between two space coordinates.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: There is no real distinction between the space and time coordinates. |
23 Mar 2006 04:02:30 PM |
|
|
In <Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_23_LvA5@Cotse.NET>, sent to sci.physics on Thursday
23 March 2006 21:58, Jeff…Relf had a brainfart and wrote:
Hi T_Wake, You told me:
And I am flattered that you like to fantasise about my masturbation
but trust me, I would never be interested in you.
No, I told you to go do it somewhere else, you idiot.
No matter what you told me the fact remains I was not masturbating which
means it existed in your fantasy.
Time is _Observed_ to be a spatial dimension in General_Relativity,
because the orbits are so well known.
Nonsense.
The paths of microscopic particles are not well known at all,
but time is sure to be spatial there too, nonetheless.
Hawking said:
In relativity,
there is no real distinction between the space and time coordinates,
_Just_As_ there is no difference between two space coordinates.
This does not imply time is spatial. You need to stop quoting people (out of
context) and try to understand the science.
Do you understand how gravity and the strong force imply three (no more, no
less) spatial dimensions?
Can you work out how both forces would be remodelled if there were more or
less than three spatial dimensions?
--
T Wake
Usenet.es7 at gishpuppy.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake, You're a sci-fi freak, totally uninterested in reality. |
23 Mar 2006 04:19:02 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You're a sci-fi freak, totally uninterested in reality.
Sober up sometime, won't you ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake, You're a sci-fi freak, totally uninterested in reality. |
23 Mar 2006 04:30:31 PM |
|
|
In <Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_23_dNPI@Cotse.NET>, sent to sci.physics on Thursday
23 March 2006 22:19, Jeff…Relf had a brainstorm and wrote:
Hi T_Wake, You're a sci-fi freak, totally uninterested in reality.
Sober up sometime, won't you ?
I have never been particularly keen on science fiction, although you appear
to have an unhealthy obsession over it. Is there a reason for this?
Also, I notice you are continuing to follow the crank guidelines you
yourself posted to this newsgroup. Well done that chap.
I assume by your lack of answer you have no idea how to model gravity and /
or the strong force in five (or four) dimensions and choose to ignore it.
The shame of your failure must be annoying but really, it is OK. No one
here thought for one second you had any idea about physics.
Would I be correct in thinking that you also don't know why gravity and the
strong force imply three spatial dimensions? Would you like a lesson? (My
rates are low).
In case you missed it, the bits you seem to have ignored from the previous
post are:
[_Relf's_ masturbation fantasy}
No, I told you to go do it somewhere else, you idiot.
No matter what you told me the fact remains I was not masturbating which
means it existed in your fantasy.
[_Relf's_ spatial dimension problems}
_Just_As_ there is no difference between two space coordinates.
This does not imply time is spatial. You need to stop quoting people (out of
context) and try to understand the science.
Do you understand how gravity and the strong force imply three (no more, no
less) spatial dimensions?
Can you work out how both forces would be remodelled if there were more or
less than three spatial dimensions?
--
T Wake
Usenet.es7 at gishpuppy.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
10 Mar 2006 09:02:49 PM |
|
|
In article <1141959315.450145.267760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
quantis <quantum_stuff@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
What is your understanding of gravitons? Do particles
really exchange gravitons? But isn't it that gravity is
not an attraction directly between particles but a
result of curvature of spacetime?
quantis
Debroglie's relation applied to gravitational fields.
--
"Coincidences, in general, are great stumbling blocks in the way of that
class of thinkers who have been educated to know nothing of the theory of
probabilities." -- Edgar Allen Poe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 06:24:44 AM |
|
|
quantis wrote:
Hi,
What is your understanding of gravitons? Do particles
really exchange gravitons? But isn't it that gravity is
not an attraction directly between particles but a
result of curvature of spacetime?
quantis
Gravitons are like photons and angels.
Although many people have been conditioned to think <sic>,
that these fictional objects convey changes from
causes to effects,
the fact of the matter is,
that they don't exist.
The ONLY thing that can be measured
between a cause and an effect,
is and interaction time,
There are no angels, photons, or gravitons
between causes and effects.
The time interval between a set of apparently fixed causes
and a set of apparently fixed effects
can be modulated somewhat by rearranging the environment
and adjusting a standing wave,
but this does not create gravitons, photons or angels.
As man is hardwired to try to be "conserved" (Survival instinct),
his languages, religions, philosophies and sciences
are based on immortal OBJECTS (As he would like to be),
that exist and vary in a non-destructive environment.
Physics works hard to create models based
on immortal objects that vary
in an isotropic and homogeneous environment,
although De Broglie exposed this fallacy many years ago.
--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 06:42:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Gravitons are like photons and angels.
Although many people have been conditioned to think <sic>,
that these fictional objects convey changes from
causes to effects,
the fact of the matter is,
that they don't exist.
Hey, Potter, I hate to break this too you, but human eyes have
evolved to detect photons in the 400-700 nm wavelengths. I must
conceded you are "blind" to science, but I doubt you are "blind"
to photons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 07:38:14 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
Gravitons are like photons and angels.
Although many people have been conditioned to think <sic>,
that these fictional objects convey changes from
causes to effects,
the fact of the matter is,
that they don't exist.
Hey, Potter, I hate to break this too you, but human eyes have
evolved to detect photons in the 400-700 nm wavelengths. I must
conceded you are "blind" to science, but I doubt you are "blind"
to photons.
Sam makes my point
that many people have been brainwashed to think <sic>
that things like angels, photons and gravitons exist,
and that these things convey changes from causes to effects.
As I pointed out,
the ONLY thing that can be measured
between a cause and an effect,
is an interaction time.
Now something else can be determined
about point sources (Causes)
and point sinks, (Effects)
and that is the configuration of the environment,
that the source and sink points live in.
In other words,
one can set up a source point/sink point environment,
and by determining the cross-correlation
between events associate with each point,
they can determine the time interval
between the two points.
The time interval thus obtained,
when multiplied by a constant,
is called the distance
between the two points.
I might point out to Sam,
that although I am "blind" to photons, gravitons and angels,
my eyes can detect electromagnetic radiation in the
"400-700 nm wavelength" range.
I wonder if Sam thinks that sounditons
convey sound from MP3 players to ears?????
--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 07:52:54 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
wrote:
Gravitons are like photons and angels.
Although many people have been conditioned to think <sic>,
that these fictional objects convey changes from
causes to effects,
the fact of the matter is,
that they don't exist.
Hey, Potter, I hate to break this too you, but human eyes have
evolved to detect photons in the 400-700 nm wavelengths. I must
conceded you are "blind" to science, but I doubt you are "blind"
to photons.
Sam makes my point
that many people have been brainwashed to think <sic>
that things like angels, photons and gravitons exist,
and that these things convey changes from causes to effects.
Hey, Potter, angels don't exist, but photons do... We
count phones, measure their wavelength and energy, use
them to make images over a broad range of wavelengths
from radio to gamma.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 07:58:18 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
Gravitons are like photons and angels.
Although many people have been conditioned to think <sic>,
that these fictional objects convey changes from
causes to effects,
the fact of the matter is,
that they don't exist.
Hey, Potter, I hate to break this too you, but human eyes have
evolved to detect photons in the 400-700 nm wavelengths. I must
conceded you are "blind" to science, but I doubt you are "blind"
to photons.
Sam makes my point
that many people have been brainwashed to think <sic>
that things like angels, photons and gravitons exist,
and that these things convey changes from causes to effects.
Hey, Potter, angels don't exist, but photons do... We
count phones, measure their wavelength and energy, use
them to make images over a broad range of wavelengths
from radio to gamma.
Which piece of this machine does the counting?
http://www.naic.edu/
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 08:25:22 AM |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
Gravitons are like photons and angels.
Although many people have been conditioned to think <sic>,
that these fictional objects convey changes from
causes to effects,
the fact of the matter is,
that they don't exist.
Hey, Potter, I hate to break this too you, but human eyes have
evolved to detect photons in the 400-700 nm wavelengths. I must
conceded you are "blind" to science, but I doubt you are "blind"
to photons.
Sam makes my point
that many people have been brainwashed to think <sic>
that things like angels, photons and gravitons exist,
and that these things convey changes from causes to effects.
Hey, Potter, angels don't exist, but photons do... We
count phones, measure their wavelength and energy, use
them to make images over a broad range of wavelengths
from radio to gamma.
Which piece of this machine does the counting?
http://www.naic.edu/
Sue...
Counting higher energy photos is commonplace... optical, UV,
x-ray, etc. as you well know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 08:46:45 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
Gravitons are like photons and angels.
Although many people have been conditioned to think <sic>,
that these fictional objects convey changes from
causes to effects,
the fact of the matter is,
that they don't exist.
Hey, Potter, I hate to break this too you, but human eyes have
evolved to detect photons in the 400-700 nm wavelengths. I must
conceded you are "blind" to science, but I doubt you are "blind"
to photons.
Sam makes my point
that many people have been brainwashed to think <sic>
that things like angels, photons and gravitons exist,
and that these things convey changes from causes to effects.
Hey, Potter, angels don't exist, but photons do... We
count phones, measure their wavelength and energy, use
them to make images over a broad range of wavelengths
from radio to gamma.
Which piece of this machine does the counting?
http://www.naic.edu/
Sue...
Counting higher energy photos is commonplace... optical, UV,
x-ray, etc. as you well know.
Aren't detectors normally used in those bands actually
counting atomic interactions? The Nobel comitte seems to
take that POV.
<<The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to
the particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern
terminology, photons, were explicitly mentioned in
the reports on which the prize decision rested only
in connection with emission and absorption processes.
The Committee says that the most important application
of Einstein's photoelectric law and also its most convincing
confirmation has come from the use Bohr made of it in his
theory of atoms, which explains a vast amount of
spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 01:09:39 PM |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
Gravitons are like photons and angels.
Although many people have been conditioned to think <sic>,
that these fictional objects convey changes from
causes to effects,
the fact of the matter is,
that they don't exist.
Hey, Potter, I hate to break this too you, but human eyes have
evolved to detect photons in the 400-700 nm wavelengths. I must
conceded you are "blind" to science, but I doubt you are "blind"
to photons.
Sam makes my point
that many people have been brainwashed to think <sic>
that things like angels, photons and gravitons exist,
and that these things convey changes from causes to effects.
Hey, Potter, angels don't exist, but photons do... We
count phones, measure their wavelength and energy, use
them to make images over a broad range of wavelengths
from radio to gamma.
Which piece of this machine does the counting?
http://www.naic.edu/
Sue...
Counting higher energy photos is commonplace... optical, UV,
x-ray, etc. as you well know.
Aren't detectors normally used in those bands actually
counting atomic interactions? The Nobel comitte seems to
take that POV.
All photons travel at c.
1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
To count photons directly or as part of a statistical ensemble
requires absorbing them. BTW, and as an aside--When you count
marbles or anything else, photons are are an integral part of
the process.
Read Feynman's QED
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)#Quantum_Interpretation
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 01:45:04 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
Gravitons are like photons and angels.
Although many people have been conditioned to think <sic>,
that these fictional objects convey changes from
causes to effects,
the fact of the matter is,
that they don't exist.
Hey, Potter, I hate to break this too you, but human eyes have
evolved to detect photons in the 400-700 nm wavelengths. I must
conceded you are "blind" to science, but I doubt you are "blind"
to photons.
Sam makes my point
that many people have been brainwashed to think <sic>
that things like angels, photons and gravitons exist,
and that these things convey changes from causes to effects.
Hey, Potter, angels don't exist, but photons do... We
count phones, measure their wavelength and energy, use
them to make images over a broad range of wavelengths
from radio to gamma.
Which piece of this machine does the counting?
http://www.naic.edu/
Sue...
Counting higher energy photos is commonplace... optical, UV,
x-ray, etc. as you well know.
Aren't detectors normally used in those bands actually
counting atomic interactions? The Nobel comitte seems to
take that POV.
All photons travel at c.
1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
To count photons directly or as part of a statistical ensemble
requires absorbing them. BTW, and as an aside--When you count
marbles or anything else, photons are are an integral part of
the process.
Read Feynman's QED
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)#Quantum_Interpretation
A "statistical ensemble"? That sounds like an object that
comes into existance when we develop the rules for it.
A statistical ensemble won't require a polished mirror to work so
if you are going to quote Feynman on this issue, you need to include
his wrist watches and magnetic monopoles and figure out
which hand wears the watch and which hand carries the
monopole. Do photons have hands too? :o)
http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_programme/highsch/Feynm4.html
Sue...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 09:02:00 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
Gravitons are like photons and angels.
Although many people have been conditioned to think <sic>,
that these fictional objects convey changes from
causes to effects,
the fact of the matter is,
that they don't exist.
Hey, Potter, I hate to break this too you, but human eyes have
evolved to detect photons in the 400-700 nm wavelengths. I must
conceded you are "blind" to science, but I doubt you are "blind"
to photons.
Sam makes my point
that many people have been brainwashed to think <sic>
that things like angels, photons and gravitons exist,
and that these things convey changes from causes to effects.
Hey, Potter, angels don't exist, but photons do... We
count phones, measure their wavelength and energy, use
them to make images over a broad range of wavelengths
from radio to gamma.
Which piece of this machine does the counting?
http://www.naic.edu/
Sue...
Counting higher energy photos is commonplace... optical, UV,
x-ray, etc. as you well know.
It is interesting to see that Sam
does not know the difference between an electro-magnetic (LIght) pulse
and what some people refer to as a photon.
Apparently Sam thinks that if I click my flashlight
(Or my laser or transmitter.)
off and on five times,
he can count five photons.
Sam's God Einstein wouldn't like to hear that,
as his divinity preached that the photoelectric effect
was a function of frequencies, not pulses.
ONE electro-magnetic pulse can cause many electrons
to change various energy levels.
--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 01:12:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
It is interesting to see that Sam
does not know the difference between an electro-magnetic (LIght) pulse
and what some people refer to as a photon.
Potter is confused as always, when it comes to principles of
physics. We are *not* discussing pulses of light, but individual
photons. Try not to be so stooopid Potter.
All photons travel at c.
1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
To count photons directly or as part of a statistical ensemble
requires absorbing them. BTW, and as an aside--When you count
marbles or anything else, photons are are an integral part of
the process.
Read Feynman's QED
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)#Quantum_Interpretation
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 06:23:33 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
tdp1001@gmail.com wrote:
It is interesting to see that Sam
does not know the difference between an electro-magnetic (LIght) pulse
and what some people refer to as a photon.
Potter is confused as always, when it comes to principles of
physics. We are *not* discussing pulses of light, but individual
photons. Try not to be so stooopid Potter.
All photons travel at c.
1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
To count photons directly or as part of a statistical ensemble
requires absorbing them. BTW, and as an aside--When you count
marbles or anything else, photons are are an integral part of
the process.
Read Feynman's QED
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)#Quantum_Interpretation
I suggest that Sam visit the following URLs,
and read some of the works of the Max Planck Institute
as they are the experts in light pulses.
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease200402241/genPDF.pdf
http://www.physorg.com/news977.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/physics-04zn.html
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm
--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: what really are Gravitons? |
12 Mar 2006 06:57:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
wrote:
It is interesting to see that Sam
does not know the difference between an electro-magnetic (LIght) pulse
and what some people refer to as a photon.
Potter is confused as always, when it comes to principles of
physics. We are *not* discussing pulses of light, but individual
photons. Try not to be so stooopid Potter.
All photons travel at c.
1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
To count photons directly or as part of a statistical ensemble
requires absorbing them. BTW, and as an aside--When you count
marbles or anything else, photons are are an integral part of
the process.
Read Feynman's QED
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)#Quantum_Interpretation
I suggest that Sam visit the following URLs,
and read some of the works of the Max Planck Institute
as they are the experts in light pulses.
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease200402241/genPDF.pdf
http://www.physorg.com/news977.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/physics-04zn.html
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm
Nice of you to take some time, Potter, to research some resources
even if the are about light pulses and no counting photons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
