| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"phoenix" |
| Date: |
06 Mar 2005 12:51:01 AM |
| Object: |
What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
What really is light??
Light imposes limits on space-time, setting an absolute
limit for the velocity of any object and distorting the
dimensional relations of objects that approach that
velocity. But what does light have to do with how fast
something goes? If light is a thing in space-time, how
can it affect the length, the mass, and the passage of
time of other things in space-time? And why should
the equivalence of mass and energy have anything to
do with the speed, much less the square of the speed,
of light?
P.
.
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
09 Mar 2005 12:06:40 PM |
|
|
Sorry David, I have been using the new Google groups beta where entries
are laid out beneath each other.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
"So if you fix v, then s^2 varies directly as t^2.... it is *not*
tied to a single value as you stated. Only a minor quibble"
You are right. Any time interval can give rise to a null geodesic. I
was focussing so much on the v=c business that I was blind to what you
were saying.
Best Wishes
Alex Green.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 08:11:41 AM |
|
|
In article <1110091861.355984.313130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
phoenix <photonixx@go.com> wrote:
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
What really is light??
Light imposes limits on space-time, setting an absolute
limit for the velocity of any object and distorting the
dimensional relations of objects that approach that
velocity. But what does light have to do with how fast
something goes? If light is a thing in space-time, how
can it affect the length, the mass, and the passage of
time of other things in space-time? And why should
the equivalence of mass and energy have anything to
do with the speed, much less the square of the speed,
of light?
Light doesn't impose anything on spacetime, it just goes as fast as it
can. It's an historical artifact that the invariant speed is called the
speed of light.
--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 01:27:55 PM |
|
|
phoenix wrote:
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
What really is light??
Photons.
Light imposes limits on space-time, setting an absolute
limit for the velocity of any object and distorting the
dimensional relations of objects that approach that
velocity. But what does light have to do with how fast
something goes?
Annalen der Physik 4, XVII, pp. 891-921 (1905)
Corections:
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles
If light is a thing in space-time, how
can it affect the length, the mass, and the passage of
time of other things in space-time? And why should
the equivalence of mass and energy have anything to
do with the speed, much less the square of the speed,
of light?
Are you ignorant or stupid?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "newedana" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 04:18:19 PM |
|
|
what is light?
It is simple. It is electromagnetic energy waves with a variety of
frequency or wavelength, which can propagae through vacant vacuum pace
without any mediation of mass like things.
Since our universe is mainly consisted with a single phase of vacant
vacuum space, the speed of light has to be naturally constant anywhere
in the cosmic space. We have to abandon the old and rigid idea,
'"action through only medium, and medium equals mass" We are
forgetting that the vacuum phase itself is the very medium of
electromagnetic force and energy, seeing the fact in real.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 08:21:57 AM |
|
|
phoenix wrote:
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
It's not just light but everything including gravitation... the
limitation is in the fundamental structure of spacetime to which
light (photons) and everything else are constrained by c.
.
|
|
|
| User: "phoenix" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 08:38:24 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
phoenix wrote:
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
It's not just light but everything including gravitation... the
limitation is in the fundamental structure of spacetime to which
light (photons) and everything else are constrained by c.
So the alternating electric and magnetic fields or em
fields propagating in space is related to the structure
of space/time and indirectly to relativity... hmm...
I wonder why are things like that and there is no Aether
which can makes things simpler.
Anyway. I hope Feynman Lectures 3 Vol Book sets can explain
them completely because I just ordered those books a while
ago.
Thanks for the advance tips anyway.
P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 01:22:36 PM |
|
|
"phoenix" <photonixx@go.com> wrote in message
news:1110119904.904255.156450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I wonder why are things like that and there is no Aether
which can makes things simpler.
Because it isn't the universes responsibility to spoon feed you or do your
homework or wipe your nose when you fall down and get a booboo..
heh
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
07 Mar 2005 01:07:34 PM |
|
|
phoenix,
In case you haven't noticed, I like to push those 'do-not-push'
buttons.
"Sam Wormley; and everything else are constrained by c."
Now then, doesn't that sound exactly like the sort of intelectual borg
like statement you'd expect?
I happen to believe that photons, or at least certain quantum modulated
photons can travel as fast as they please. After all, it is possible to
further streamline a 2D quantum string like photon, into giving such a
photon a lift at the speed of 'c', then allowing said photon passenger
to leave the carrier wavefront at another factor of nearly 'c' and so
forth.
Clearly two <--back-to-back--> laser pointers represent a pair of
moving wavefronts performing as a well proven example of a differential
of twice light speed (roughly 6e8 m/s). Thus how hard could it be for
one photon (especially by a photon that supposedly offers no mass) to
share a ride along with another, and another and so forth. In other
words, what law of physics is specifically preventing the interaction
and/or mutual collective accomplishment of photon velocity from adding
and/or subtracting outside of our frame of existence?
Basic township that's situated upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Basic LSE (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS topics:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fusioneer" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 09:23:05 AM |
|
|
phoenix wrote:
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
What really is light??
Light imposes limits on space-time, setting an absolute
limit for the velocity of any object and distorting the
dimensional relations of objects that approach that
velocity. But what does light have to do with how fast
something goes? If light is a thing in space-time, how
can it affect the length, the mass, and the passage of
time of other things in space-time? And why should
the equivalence of mass and energy have anything to
do with the speed, much less the square of the speed,
of light?
P.
Don't assume SR is correct. Photons are gravitational charge units or
packets. They are toroidal packets of flux that oscillate between two
modes Del X H and Del X E. The gravitational terminus of each packet
is its toroidal axis. Gravity is a time-rate gradient field.
Particles that are near the terminus line of such a packet, from the
viewpoint of any remote observer, will necessarily overlap in momentum
space. This is because of time dilation, thus their relative
velocities will begin to approach zero. When they reach a point where
they have a common de Broglie wavelength [calculated from a center of
momentum frame] that is equal to or greater than their interparticle
distance then they are overlapping in momentum space. Elementary
charged particles that are overlapping in momentum space behave
oppositely to the expectation of Coulomb's Law. Thus, when a photon
overlaps with an electron and the nucleus of an atom the electron is
ejected from the near region of the nucleus and the atom becomes
ionized. I've just written a book and have presented a new model of
the photon to replace the silly inane antiquated picture given in many
undergrad texts of right angle sine waves representing E and H.
Maxwell's equations clearly paint a picture of a distinct geometry that
really is a toroidal flux loop structure.
You can order the book which is about 500 pages on CD-ROM from:
http://www.singtech.com/Unification.html
Charles Cagle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 05:49:06 PM |
|
|
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110122585.638489.215440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
phoenix wrote:
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
What really is light??
Light imposes limits on space-time, setting an absolute
limit for the velocity of any object and distorting the
dimensional relations of objects that approach that
velocity. But what does light have to do with how fast
something goes? If light is a thing in space-time, how
can it affect the length, the mass, and the passage of
time of other things in space-time? And why should
the equivalence of mass and energy have anything to
do with the speed, much less the square of the speed,
of light?
P.
Don't assume SR is correct.
It has been tested very hard indeed during the past 100 years, and it
still stands as a reliable method of doing calculations of the
kinematics of very fast particles.
Photons are gravitational charge units or
packets.
That is complete horse manure.
Photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic field.
The gravitational field has not yet been quantised successfully.
They are toroidal packets of flux that oscillate between two
modes Del X H and Del X E. The gravitational terminus of each
packet
is its toroidal axis.
You are spewing crap from all orifices.
Your much vaunted god has misinformed you.
Was that a deliberate act?
Or were you simply too stupid to understand what he was trying to tell
you?
You have puked up the stuff in the rest of your notr so frequently
that I thought I'd save a bit of bandwidth by snipping it.
[snip]
--
Franz
"A first-rate laboratory is one in which mediocre scientists can
produce outstanding work"
P.M.S. Blackett
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fusioneer" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 07:18:17 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110122585.638489.215440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
phoenix wrote:
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
What really is light??
Light imposes limits on space-time, setting an absolute
limit for the velocity of any object and distorting the
dimensional relations of objects that approach that
velocity. But what does light have to do with how fast
something goes? If light is a thing in space-time, how
can it affect the length, the mass, and the passage of
time of other things in space-time? And why should
the equivalence of mass and energy have anything to
do with the speed, much less the square of the speed,
of light?
P.
Don't assume SR is correct.
It has been tested very hard indeed during the past 100 years, and it
still stands as a reliable method of doing calculations of the
kinematics of very fast particles.
Photons are gravitational charge units or
packets.
That is complete horse manure.
Photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic field.
The gravitational field has not yet been quantised successfully.
As if you had a clue. In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
charge packets. This is the ultimate purloined letter right in front
of your face and because you don't understand the nature of charge then
you also cannot understand the nature of gravity. The gravitational
field has been quantised successfully but not published as that. Every
photon is a charge and its time reversed conjugate in superposition and
that is the very essence of a gravitational charge. You can't grasp
this stuff but you bark like a dog in the manger trying to keep others
away who can grasp it. With your lazy mind you think in terms of your
experience in classical physics but if you would just begin to think in
terms of the rules of quanta you might get this. Let me help you:
Rule 1) Quantum particles can only have motion with respect to other
quantum particles and not with respect to any arbitarily contrived
coordinate system. This means that any single quantum in a universe of
n quanta is prosecuting n-1 trajectories simultaneously. This axiom is
rich in properties if you just take the time to explore them. If you
don't then you're constantly going to be at war against the truth.
Using that property you can deduce that elementary charged particles
that are at rest with respect to each other (overlapping in momentum
space) will behave opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's law. I
don't know why you insist on being so thick about this. Sit down and
work it out for yourself for crying out loud. Coulomb's law only
really applies to charged particles that are not overlapping in
momentum space. In our very thermal world that's the conditions that
we almost always observe them under. Electrons at 20C are moving
around at 115,000 m/s. It is rare for elementary charged particles to
actually be at rest with respect to each other and there really aren't
any experiments that show that this isn't true or I should say that
there is no experiment on record that shows that elementary charged
particles that are overlapping in momentum space obey Coulombic
behavior. We've got lots of clues to the contrary but as long as you
accept nonsensical explanations (strong force, phonon coupling) then
you will never sit down and actually work out the details for yourself.
You're really being obtuse.
They are toroidal packets of flux that oscillate between two
modes Del X H and Del X E. The gravitational terminus of each
packet
is its toroidal axis.
You are spewing crap from all orifices.
Your much vaunted god has misinformed you.
Was that a deliberate act?
Or were you simply too stupid to understand what he was trying to
tell
you?
Quit being so vile. You're going to have to account for every word
some day. Give your hatred a rest, why don't you?
<snip more bile>
Charles Cagle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
07 Mar 2005 03:39:22 AM |
|
|
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110158297.089032.12160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110122585.638489.215440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
phoenix wrote:
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
What really is light??
Light imposes limits on space-time, setting an absolute
limit for the velocity of any object and distorting the
dimensional relations of objects that approach that
velocity. But what does light have to do with how fast
something goes? If light is a thing in space-time, how
can it affect the length, the mass, and the passage of
time of other things in space-time? And why should
the equivalence of mass and energy have anything to
do with the speed, much less the square of the speed,
of light?
P.
Don't assume SR is correct.
It has been tested very hard indeed during the past 100 years, and
it
still stands as a reliable method of doing calculations of the
kinematics of very fast particles.
Photons are gravitational charge units or
packets.
That is complete horse manure.
Photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic field.
The gravitational field has not yet been quantised successfully.
As if you had a clue. In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
charge packets.
Horse dung.
Photons have spin 1. Gravitational quanta have spin 2. (If they
exist).
The rest of your note was also crap, so I snipped it.
[snip]
Instead of burbling along merrily, why don' you tackle the list of
problems regarding your theory? I put them you in another thread.
--
Franz
"A first-rate laboratory is one in which mediocre scientists can
produce outstanding work"
P.M.S. Blackett
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fusioneer" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
07 Mar 2005 05:10:52 AM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
As if you had a clue. In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
charge packets.
Horse dung.
Photons have spin 1. Gravitational quanta have spin 2. (If they
exist).
The rest of your note was also crap, so I snipped it.
[snip]
Instead of burbling along merrily, why don' you tackle the list of
problems regarding your theory? I put them you in another thread.
There you have it above. 'If they exist.' That's mighty brave of you
to be so honest. In fact they don't exist and that means the theory
that gave birth to them is quite a load of 'Horse dung' as you put it.
Franz, why don't you clean up your act and get some better manners?
Charles Cagle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
07 Mar 2005 02:05:42 PM |
|
|
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110193852.332491.152970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
As if you had a clue. In fact, photons are exactly
gravitational
charge packets.
Horse dung.
Photons have spin 1. Gravitational quanta have spin 2. (If they
exist).
The rest of your note was also crap, so I snipped it.
[snip]
Instead of burbling along merrily, why don' you tackle the list of
problems regarding your theory? I put them you in another
thread.
There you have it above. 'If they exist.' That's mighty brave of
you
to be so honest. In fact they don't exist and that means the theory
that gave birth to them is quite a load of 'Horse dung' as you put
it.
Franz, why don't you clean up your act and get some better manners?
I have, and cherish my good manners, but I reserve them for use when
the company in which I find myself deserve my respect. I have
nothing but disdain for you, because you are nothing but an ignorant,
verbose, bible thumping twit masquerading as some sort of third rate
would-be physicist. You are also a coward, unable to defend your
mantras when confronted with questions which actually require thought
to answer.
--
Franz
"A first-rate laboratory is one in which mediocre scientists can
produce outstanding work"
P.M.S. Blackett
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
07 Mar 2005 06:30:26 PM |
|
|
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110193852.332491.152970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
As if you had a clue. In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
charge packets.
Horse dung.
Photons have spin 1. Gravitational quanta have spin 2. (If they
exist).
The rest of your note was also crap, so I snipped it.
[snip]
Instead of burbling along merrily, why don' you tackle the list of
problems regarding your theory? I put them you in another thread.
There you have it above. 'If they exist.' That's mighty brave of you
to be so honest. In fact they don't exist and that means the theory
that gave birth to them is quite a load of 'Horse dung' as you put it.
Again your inability to reason is showing. Photons do exist and have spin
one. QFT implies such particles can not be used to explain gravity eg see
chapter 1.5 Zee - Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell. By assuming a spin of
one Zee shows we arrive at EM and not gravity. He further shows that only
by assuming a spin of 2 gravity emerges from QFT.
Bill
Franz, why don't you clean up your act and get some better manners?
Charles Cagle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
07 Mar 2005 12:27:45 AM |
|
|
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110158297.089032.12160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110122585.638489.215440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
phoenix wrote:
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
What really is light??
Light imposes limits on space-time, setting an absolute
limit for the velocity of any object and distorting the
dimensional relations of objects that approach that
velocity. But what does light have to do with how fast
something goes? If light is a thing in space-time, how
can it affect the length, the mass, and the passage of
time of other things in space-time? And why should
the equivalence of mass and energy have anything to
do with the speed, much less the square of the speed,
of light?
P.
Don't assume SR is correct.
It has been tested very hard indeed during the past 100 years, and it
still stands as a reliable method of doing calculations of the
kinematics of very fast particles.
Photons are gravitational charge units or
packets.
That is complete horse manure.
Photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic field.
The gravitational field has not yet been quantised successfully.
As if you had a clue. In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
charge packets.
Photons have spin one; gravitons spin 2.
This is the ultimate purloined letter right in front
of your face and because you don't understand the nature of charge then
you also cannot understand the nature of gravity.
Your proof how a particle of spin one can act like a particle of spin 2
would be very interesting - if you actually knew what you were talking
about - which is doubtful.
The gravitational
field has been quantised successfully but not published as that.
It has been successfully quantisised and published - see
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024. It simply requires us to have a cutoff
at about the plank scale. Physicsts would dearly love to peek behind this
cutoff.
Every
photon is a charge and its time reversed conjugate in superposition and
that is the very essence of a gravitational charge. You can't grasp
this stuff but you bark like a dog in the manger trying to keep others
away who can grasp it.
The problem is you obviously have no idea what you are talkling about. Rest
of rubbish mecifully snipped.
Charles Cagle
No surprise.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fusioneer" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
07 Mar 2005 05:06:30 AM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110158297.089032.12160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110122585.638489.215440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
phoenix wrote:
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
What really is light??
.
As if you had a clue. In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
charge packets.
Photons have spin one; gravitons spin 2.
Right out of a book. Gravitons have never been detected let alone have
they ever had their spin measured.
This is the ultimate purloined letter right in front
of your face and because you don't understand the nature of charge
then
you also cannot understand the nature of gravity.
Your proof how a particle of spin one can act like a particle of spin
2
would be very interesting - if you actually knew what you were
talking
about - which is doubtful.
That is so irrelevant. You're trying hold me to showing you how a
particle that has never been detected ought to correspond to one that
has? Gravitons are fictions. Photons are real.
In other words the theory of gravitons is nonsense. Photons are
gravitational charge packets. Gravity has a charge separation effect
because it causes elementary charged particles that are near the
gravitational terminus to overlap in momentum space. Photons that
approach an atom cause the electrons and the nucleons to overlap in
momentum space and they become strongly repulsively interactive with
respect to each other. The electrons are so much less massive than the
nucleus that they get the lion's share of the energy albeit an equal
momentum. The result is that the atom becomes ionized. Grasp this:
There is no experimental data on record that demonstrates the
elementary charged particles that are at rest with respect to each
other will behave according to Coulomb's law. So, why do you believe
in Coulombic behavior under conditions that have never been verified by
experiment? Especially why would you believe in what you believe in if
it can be logically deduced from first principles (relativity of
motion) and Maxwell's equations and experimental data that elementary
charged particles that are overlapping in momentum space will, in fact,
behave opposite to the expectation of Coulomb's law? That isn't
science when you believe as absolute fact things that are not in
evidence, that's dogmatism. I even approached Ephraim Fischbach at
Purdue with this and he had to admit that there was no experimental
data that confirmed that elementary charged particles will behave
according to Coulomb's law when they are at rest wrt each other. I'm
trying to appeal to reason here. You've been taught something that not
only can be deduced that it isn't true but there are examples that are
ubiquitous which show this also. When physicists discovered multiple
protons residing in the same nucleus this presented a great conundrum.
WRT the idea that the relative motion of charges might be a factor in
how they interact - well the truth of the matter is that no one ever
examined this in detail. I did. And I was astounded because I thought
that surely people much smarter than I would have picked up on this but
the more research I did I found that no one took this approach, no one
had examined this in detail. I think Riemann came close but retracted
a paper. I'm just asking people to be rational here and not believe a
theory when we've got data that exists that demonstrates that Coulomb's
law is a special case, not the general case.
Charles Cagle
The gravitational
field has been quantised successfully but not published as that.
It has been successfully quantisised and published - see
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024. It simply requires us to have a
cutoff
at about the plank scale. Physicsts would dearly love to peek behind
this
cutoff.
Every
photon is a charge and its time reversed conjugate in superposition
and
that is the very essence of a gravitational charge. You can't
grasp
this stuff but you bark like a dog in the manger trying to keep
others
away who can grasp it.
The problem is you obviously have no idea what you are talkling
about. Rest
of rubbish mecifully snipped.
Charles Cagle
No surprise.
Bill
I can hardly believe how obtuse you people are being about this. Once
in a great while a rational person shows up - but the sad part is that
there are such long dry spells between them. I have little hope for
you people.
Howard Aiken was quoted as saying: "Don't worry about people stealing
your ideas. If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down
people's throats. :-/.. How true.
Charles Cagle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
08 Mar 2005 01:47:06 AM |
|
|
Fusioneer:
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110158297.089032.12160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110122585.638489.215440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
phoenix wrote:
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
What really is light??
.
As if you had a clue. In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
charge packets.
Photons have spin one; gravitons spin 2.
Right out of a book. Gravitons have never been detected let alone have
they ever had their spin measured.
If gravitons exist, they have to be a spin 2.
Your proof how a particle of spin one can act like a particle of spin
2
would be very interesting - if you actually knew what you were
talking about - which is doubtful.
That is so irrelevant. You're trying hold me to showing you how a
particle that has never been detected ought to correspond to one that
has? Gravitons are fictions. Photons are real.
How do you know that if don't know what a graviton is?
In other words the theory of gravitons is nonsense.
What is non-sense is what you've written below (and you will
also inevitably refuse to translate that crap into an equation,
since you have no idea what the jargon means):
Photons are gravitational charge packets. Gravity has a charge
separation effect because it causes elementary charged particles
that are near the gravitational terminus to overlap in momentum space.
OK, take your pick of elementary particles and write an equation
(or several equations) that quantify what you just said and use
the equations to calculate a scattering cross section between two
particles so that it can be tested against an experiment.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
07 Mar 2005 02:05:41 PM |
|
|
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110193590.408368.258220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110158297.089032.12160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110122585.638489.215440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
phoenix wrote:
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
What really is light??
.
As if you had a clue. In fact, photons are exactly
gravitational
charge packets.
Photons have spin one; gravitons spin 2.
Right out of a book. Gravitons have never been detected let alone
have
they ever had their spin measured.
When a tensor field like that of gravity is quantised, its quanta will
guaranteeably havespin 2
This is the ultimate purloined letter right in front
of your face and because you don't understand the nature of
charge
then
you also cannot understand the nature of gravity.
Your proof how a particle of spin one can act like a particle of
spin
2
would be very interesting - if you actually knew what you were
talking
about - which is doubtful.
That is so irrelevant. You're trying hold me to showing you how a
particle that has never been detected ought to correspond to one
that
has? Gravitons are fictions. Photons are real.
I thought you said a photon was a graviton. Why the change of mind?
In other words the theory of gravitons is nonsense. Photons are
gravitational charge packets.
In ordinary language that transcribes to
"Photons are gravitational quanta", which you have been shown to be
crap.
Gravity has a charge separation effect
Balls.
because it causes elementary charged particles that are near the
gravitational terminus to overlap in momentum space.
You dropped that silly language some time ago. Why the reversion?
Had another set of instructions from your god?
Photons that
approach an atom cause the electrons and the nucleons to overlap
No they don't.
This is a new slant on an old piece of horse dung.
in
momentum space and they become strongly repulsively interactive with
respect to each other.
You are side stepping the problem originally posed by Jim Carr some
years ago.
He asked you to determine the backward scattering differential cross
section of alphas in Rutherford scattering.
You have so far failed to do so.
The electrons are so much less massive than the
nucleus that they get the lion's share of the energy albeit an equal
momentum.
Why should they get an equal momentum?
In a 3 body interaction such as the one you propose, in which a
photon, an electron and a nucleus participate in both the initial and
final states has more phase space available than you appear to be
aware of.
The result is that the atom becomes ionized.
Not necessarily. Most interactions between photons and atoms lead
only to a virtual excited state of the atom. Some lead to a real
excited state. None lead to an ionised state, unless the photon is
sufficiently energetic.
Grasp this:
There is no experimental data on record that demonstrates the
elementary charged particles that are at rest with respect to each
other will behave according to Coulomb's law.
I did. My hands turned brown and stank, so I dropped it smartly.
You still fail to cope with 180 deg Rutheeford and Bhabha scattering.
Are you going to have a shot at it some time?
The rest of your scred is equally smelly.
I snip it because you are still backing away from that series of
problems I asked you to tackle. Why so shy?
[snip]
--
Franz
"A first-rate laboratory is one in which mediocre scientists can
produce outstanding work"
P.M.S. Blackett
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
07 Mar 2005 06:15:24 PM |
|
|
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110193590.408368.258220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110158297.089032.12160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110122585.638489.215440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
phoenix wrote:
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
What really is light??
.
As if you had a clue. In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
charge packets.
Photons have spin one; gravitons spin 2.
Right out of a book. Gravitons have never been detected let alone have
they ever had their spin measured.
Learn some logic. Your claim was 'In fact, photons are exactly
gravitational charge packets.'. When one works out a theory of a spin one
particle - any spin one particle (and it has been experimentally verified
photons have spin one) then one does not arrive at a theory applicable to
gravity.
Rest of rubbish snipped.
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
07 Mar 2005 12:15:36 PM |
|
|
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110193590.408368.258220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Photons have spin one; gravitons spin 2.
Right out of a book. Gravitons have never been detected let alone have
they ever had their spin measured.
So why is YOUR book better than HIS book? Your own "answers" are taken
right out of your book.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
07 Mar 2005 10:17:28 AM |
|
|
Fusioneer wrote:
Photons are
gravitational charge packets. Gravity has a charge separation effect
because it causes elementary charged particles that are near the
gravitational terminus to overlap in momentum space.
Cagle is blowing it out his ***** here.
Gavitation is account for by the curvature of spacetime.
Photons are vector bosons mediating the electomagnetic force.
There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 08:40:49 PM |
|
|
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110158297.089032.12160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
That is complete horse manure.
Photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic field.
The gravitational field has not yet been quantised successfully.
As if you had a clue. In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
In fact, in this forum, Franz has considerably more credibility than you do.
So yes, he has more of a clue than you do.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 08:44:51 PM |
|
|
"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110158297.089032.12160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
You are spewing crap from all orifices.
Your much vaunted god has misinformed you.
Was that a deliberate act?
Or were you simply too stupid to understand what he was trying to
tell
you?
Quit being so vile. You're going to have to account for every word
some day. Give your hatred a rest, why don't you?
And you will have to account to the people you ripped off for that 500-page
PDF File full of crap. In your world, someone calling you on the low IQ you
keep demonstrating is of course using hate speech.. that way your ego is
stroked with the notion that if people are out to "get you" then your crap
must have some kind of legitimacy.. fundamental christians do it too, keep
harping on the sense that if they are "persecuted," what they "preach" is
gospel.
Why don't we all just wait and see whether they start building fusion
reactors everywhere due to the contents of your PDF file.. when, of course,
that doesn't happen, your crap will come home to roost.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 10:11:17 PM |
|
|
Fusioneer wrote:
In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
charge packets.
Cagle is blowing it out his ***** here.
Gavitation is account for by the curvature of spacetime.
Photons are vector bosons mediating the electomagnetic force.
There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 10:26:48 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:FvQWd.40370$Ze3.37865@attbi_s51...
Fusioneer wrote:
In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
charge packets.
Cagle is blowing it out his ***** here.
Gavitation is account for by the curvature of spacetime.
What is spacetime curved in relation to?
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
06 Mar 2005 11:08:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:FvQWd.40370$Ze3.37865@attbi_s51...
Fusioneer wrote:
In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
charge packets.
Cagle is blowing it out his ***** here.
Gavitation is account for by the curvature of spacetime.
What is spacetime curved in relation to?
You are thinking of extrinsic curvature, curvature with respect to the
ambient space around a manifold. Sam is talking about intrinsic
curvature, a geometric property independent of whether or the manifold
is embedded into a higher dimensional space. For example, a cylinder has
extrinsic curvature, but if you were to draw a triangle on the
surface of it the internal angles would add up to 180 degrees,
which proves that it has zero *intrinsic* curvature. Try the same thing
on a sphere, and you'll find the the angles do not add up to 180 degrees
exactly, but for a small triangle it will be close. This is because a
sphere has intrinsic curvature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
08 Mar 2005 05:52:16 AM |
|
|
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503062304520.1707-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:FvQWd.40370$Ze3.37865@attbi_s51...
Fusioneer wrote:
In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
charge packets.
Cagle is blowing it out his ***** here.
Gavitation is account for by the curvature of spacetime.
What is spacetime curved in relation to?
You are thinking of extrinsic curvature, curvature with respect to the
ambient space around a manifold. Sam is talking about intrinsic
curvature, a geometric property independent of whether or the manifold
is embedded into a higher dimensional space. For example, a cylinder has
extrinsic curvature, but if you were to draw a triangle on the
surface of it the internal angles would add up to 180 degrees,
which proves that it has zero *intrinsic* curvature. Try the same thing
on a sphere, and you'll find the the angles do not add up to 180 degrees
exactly, but for a small triangle it will be close. This is because a
sphere has intrinsic curvature.
Curvature:
"An intrinsic property of a space independent of the coordinate system used
to describe it."
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
No doubt there are "intrinsic properties" in things,
that are not accessible to the observer,
who is "describing" the "intrinsic properties",
but it seems to me
that science is about describing
the extrinsic properties of things,
and religion is speculating about intrinsic properties
that are independent of the system used to describe them.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
08 Mar 2005 04:30:00 PM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:395i09F5ver89U1@individual.net...
[snip]
No doubt there are "intrinsic properties" in things,
that are not accessible to the observer,
who is "describing" the "intrinsic properties",
Your obsession with overusing your bons mots is a soporific bore.
How about enlarging your stock-in-trade?
[snip]
--
Franz
"A first-rate laboratory is one in which mediocre scientists can
produce outstanding work"
P.M.S. Blackett
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
09 Mar 2005 05:48:46 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d0l917$a67$6@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:395i09F5ver89U1@individual.net...
[snip]
No doubt there are "intrinsic properties" in things,
that are not accessible to the observer,
who is "describing" the "intrinsic properties",
Your obsession with overusing your bons mots is a soporific bore.
How about enlarging your stock-in-trade?
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
Hey!
It works!
But to appear privy to
powerful, esoteric knowledge,
and to "enlarging your stock-in-trade"
I think I will go with the curved space gang,
and say:
2 + 2 = 4.0000000000001
"Enlarge your stock in trade"????
It looks like "Franz Heymann"
has been accessing too many XXX web sites.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
