On Apr 21, 1:40Â*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:19Â*pm, wrote:

What makes you believe Art Deco could understand
“ integer units of action � ? !

He couldn't understand potty humor if it exeeded one line.
We're like idiot savants with non-overlapping esoteric talents;
so one man's talent can't be seen by the other.

What's your talent? Endlessly posting offtopic stupidity to
sci.physics?

In college I was most fortunate to have attended lectures by R.
Buckminster Fuller, the inventor of the geodesic dome. His mind was
like a continuously playing record. When you entered his lecture, he
begins by speaking what he happens to be thinking at the moment.
Fuller was a recognized genius, but his brain didn't customize his
thoughts for anyone. Jeff is much like that. He is probably a genius
but with a problem focusing on apt subjects. — NoEinstein —

On Apr 21, 7:47*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message

...





Tom Potter wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Tom Potter wrote:

"NoEinstein" wrote in message
....
On Apr 18, 2:19 pm, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

* * the botched-up 1887 M-M experiment seemed to rule out
ether... *Einstein got around 'that' dilemma by supposing that light
could be either a wave or photons. *But as with nearly everything
Einstein supposed, he was wrong. (Brownian Motion is the lone exception
-and that was actually a no-brainer.)

I am surprised to see that "NoEinstein"
like most people,
has been conditioned by the mass media,
and the Einstein Cult
to give Einstein credit/debit for the work of other folks.

The credit/debit for wave-particle duality
belongs to de Broglie, not to Einstein.

wave length = unit of action / momentum

Although the Einstein Cult tries to
credit Einstein for de Broglie's theory,
and claim that he promoted de Broglie and the idea,
the fact of the matter is that Einstein did not
comprehend nor appreciate the enormous impact
that de Broglie's work would have on physics,
as Bohr and his associates, most physicists,
and the Nobel Prize committee did.

Note that de Broglie's theory was presented
in his 1924 doctoral thesis,
and he received the Nobel Prize in Physics
for it in 1929, the shortest time in history.

In other words,
Bohr, most of the leading physicists,
and the Nobel Prize Committee,
**immediately** recognized the importance of
de Broglie's theory, while Einstein and a few cultists
persisted in fighting it, and the Quantum Mechanics"
that it inspired, for many years.
( Google EPR experiment)

It is also interesting to see that the Einstein Cult
worked hard "Revising" history and physics,
and conditioning the masses to think
that the wave-particle duality theory of matter
was based on Einstein's corruption of
Planck's quantum of action work of 1901,
for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1918.

Note that although Einstein corrupted Planck's quantum of action,
and has sent physics into a one hundred year cul de sac,
the Einstein Cult has managed to con most people
into thinking that energy, rather than action is quanta.

It does not take a system engineer to comprehend
that measured energy is affect by relative velocity,
whereas quanta of action is NOT.

As can be seen Planck clearly pointed out
in his Nobel Prize lecture that ACTION was quanta.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...18/planck-lect....

"When I look back to the time, already twenty years ago,
when the concept and magnitude of the physical quantum of action began,
for the first time, to unfold from the mass of experimental facts.."

"The explanation of the second universal constant of the radiation law
was
not so easy.
Because it represents the product of energy and time
(according to the first calculation it was 6.55 x 10-27 erg sec),
I described it as the elementary quantum of action."

( I might point out that the real unit of quanta is actually
neither energy, nor action, but is the "First Radiation Constant",
Action (The "Second Radiation Constant"),
does not take the Hubble Effect into account.)

To answer Sanny question:
"What is light?"

The universe is a sea of standing waves,
and matter are antinodes in that sea.

A so-called photon is simply
an electron event that involves
one quantum of action.

A cause event is a rotary (Spin) event
that occurs at some anti-node
in the sea of standing waves,
and propagated much like
gear motion is propagated
until it finds a standing wave
that has an impedance of 377 ohms,
at which point it becomes an effect and terminates.

To make my point,
consider that the maximum amount of action (Hence Power/energy)
is transferred when the source (Cause) impedance
equals the load (Effect) *impedance.

At the one quantum unit level,
the maximum amount of action
equals the minimum amount of action,
ONE unit of Planck's Constant.

Thus to transfer ONE unit of action
from a cause anti-node
to an effect anti-node,
there must be a 377 ohm path between them.
Otherwise you get a reflection,
and no cause and no effect occurs.

"Light" is the statistical expression
for sets of quanta of action that
can be detected by human eyes.

Crackpotter! *How you doin'? *BTW, this mess makes no sense at all..

I am pleased to see that Art Deco,
an active member of the race/religion motivated bigots
that operate out of the caballista.org boiler-room,
continues to be a faithful reader of my posts.

Hopefully, in time, they will have a positive affect on him,
and he will not only become educated in physics,
but he will become a rational, MATURE, MORAL human being.
and cease turning the newsgroups into "Rivers of ****".

But to address Art's inability to comprehend my post,
if he will ask an intelligent question,
I will be more than pleased to educate him
about photons and light.

As a starting point Arty,
"action" is fundamental quanta,
and changes are conveyed between
causes and effects in integer units of action.

Now, do you understand that point Arty?
If so, we'll move on to the next point.

Please proceed, Crackpotter. *I can use another good laugh.

When I taught at the
military service school, high school, college,
and seminar levels,
I learned that I should not move on to
more sophisticated ideas,
until I verified that my student
understood the point in question.

Thus I repeat,

"As a starting point Arty,
"action" is fundamental quanta,
and changes are conveyed between
causes and effects in integer units of action.

Now, do you understand that point Arty?
If so, we'll move on to the next point."

Before I move on Arty,
let me know if you comprehend the
single point in question,

and verify your understanding by
making a short comment that demonstrates
that you do in fact comprehend it.

I must point out,
that short, smart ass, adolescent, low brow comments
demonstrate stupidity, not comprehension.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...m/PotterPhotos

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Tom: Your trying to ascertain the "understanding" of the basics
by you students is like my trying to walk people like Randy Poe
through my Coriolis invalidation. The "power" that students have over
teachers is that they can keep saying they... "Don't get it." There
is an issue of pride that keeps getting in the way of anyone on the
groups acknowledging that Einstein has now been dethroned.
Though you agree to the wastefulness of Einstein's ideas, you
have yet to say: "NoEinstein, it looks like you've done it!" Racial
and social issues are the causes of many problems. But science would
benefit by having those who agree simply say so. — NoEinstein —

Caliballista.ORG ( now defunct )
wasn't “ operated by a few Jewish bigots �.

I don't care about Jews one way or the other; yet
I've won awards each month since January ( and before ).. not you.

World War II was about who controlled what land;
e.g. the Suez Canal and the oil fields.
Jewish bogeymen had nothing to do with it.

Quoting WikiPedia:
“ Perhaps as early as the 12th Dynasty,
Pharaoh Senusret III ( 1,878 BC - 1,839 BC )

may have had a west-east river dug through the Wadi Tumilat,
joining the River Nile with the Red Sea
( which, in ancient times, reached north to the Bitter Lakes ).

This allowed direct naval trade with Punt,
and, indirectly, linked the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.

The reliefs of the Punt expedition under Hatshepsut depict
sea-going vessels carrying the expeditionary force
returning from Punt.

This has given rise to the theory that, at the time,
a navigable link existed between the Red Sea and the Nile.

Evidence indicates its existence by the 13th century BC
during the time of Ramesses II �.

On Apr 21, 7:52*am, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...
On Apr 19, 4:14 am, "Paul Mays" wrote: "BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:





"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a
wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field?
How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know
whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps as
somewhat quantum string like items. Of course, this still doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
. - Brad Guth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc".

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the quantum
string like photon. In other words, without the spin of atoms, we got
nothing.
. - Brad Guth

Depends on whos Bias you follow..

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: *"Believing" is the anti-science. *KNOWING is the true
science! *— NoEinstein —

No it is not....Trying to Know is true Science... Knowing is but
self stroking...

--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
*I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: The NSF wastes about three and a half billion dollars a
year "trying to know". If those people and universities getting
grants actually discovered some truths, they, thereby, would dry up
the funding. That's why they play dumb—to keep the money flowing! —
NoEinstein —

On Apr 18, 2:19*pm, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

[snip]

Your problem has nothing to do with physics but it's a mere
metaphysical query. I will try to explain why.

The word "is" can have many different meanings of epistemological and
ontological nature. The big mistake is to assign to it the ontological
one and actually beliee that light is -- in a literal sense --
something, like a wave. In physics, the word "is" means "it can be
modeled as" so Light is a wave means light can be modeled as a wave.
It surely, the model passes verification in many experiments.

Yuu should read Rudolph Carnap's "Rejection of Metaphysics", a
philosopher who belonged to the prominent Vienna Circle. He explains
the problem with the word "is". Sadly enough, the educational
corrupted establishment that is run mostly by crackpots -- I can
mention at least 10 that are worshiped nowadays as physics heroes --
never heard the Vienna Circle and continued to use such stupid
expressions in books and in lectures, like "light is a wave" or "light
is a particle" and meaningless terms like duality that arise from a
confusion and mixture of epistemology and ontology.

I'mm sorry to see you are so confused about this. You are not alone.
You should write a letter to the incompetent educational
establishements you attended and demand your money back. I'm serious.

Mike

On Apr 21, 7:55*am, "Paul Mays" wrote:
--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
*I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...
On Apr 19, 4:51 am, "Paul Mays" wrote:





"Paul Mays" wrote in message

.. .

"BradGuth" wrote in message
....
On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

....

On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a
wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic
Field?
How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know
whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because
Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps
as
somewhat quantum string like items. Of course, this still doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of
gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available
gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
. - Brad Guth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc".

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the quantum
string like photon. In other words, without the spin of atoms, we got
nothing.
. - Brad Guth

Well my interpretation Explains why there no need for gravitons to
denote the Causation of Gravity, What specifically light is and why its
detectable as a Wave or Little ball of stuff (Photon), Why its velocity
will always be independent of source or target, and seemingly a constant...

Yet allows all existing physical rules to remain valid to a Intrinsically
Biased
observer.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: *You're right on all but one point: "The velocity of
emitted (or reflected) light ALWAYS increases or decreases depending
on the velocity and direction of the source or reflecting surface." *—
NoEinstein —

No .. *A car is going 50mph at a brick wall... *if the wall is moving at the
car
at 50 mpg yes the impact comes sooner and with more force but the car
is still doing 50mph..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: Closing velocity is confusing you. Think of a baseball
pitcher on the bow of a boat. If the boat is going 10 mph, and he
throws a 90 mph fast ball (relative to the boat) in the direction the
boat is headed, the baseball will be increased in speed to 100 mph.
But if the same pitcher throws the ball 90 mph from the stern, the
ball will only be traveling 80 mph relative to the shore. Light does
EXACTLY the same thing! — NoEinstein —

On Apr 21, 8:28*am, PD wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:30*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





On Apr 19, 4:51*am, "Paul Mays" wrote:

"Paul Mays" wrote in message

.. .

"BradGuth" wrote in message
....
On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a
wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field?
How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know
whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps as
somewhat quantum string like items. *Of course, this still doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
*. - Brad Guth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
*I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc"..

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the quantum
string like photon. *In other words, without the spin of atoms, we got
nothing.
. - Brad Guth

Well my interpretation Explains why there no need for gravitons to
denote the Causation of Gravity, What specifically light is and why its
detectable as a Wave or Little ball of stuff (Photon), Why its velocity
will always be independent of source or target, *and seemingly a constant..

Yet allows all existing physical rules to remain valid to a Intrinsically
Biased
observer.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
*I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: *You're right on all but one point: "The velocity of
emitted (or reflected) light ALWAYS increases or decreases depending
on the velocity and direction of the source or reflecting surface." *—
NoEinstein —

This is counter to experimental measurement, NoEinstein. Of course,
you could always say that you don't care.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

:-} -

On Apr 21, 8:29*am, PD wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:26*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





On Apr 19, 4:14*am, "Paul Mays" wrote:

"BradGuth" wrote in message

.... On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

....

On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field?
How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know
whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps as
somewhat quantum string like items. *Of course, this still doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
*. - Brad Guth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
*I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc".

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the quantum
string like photon. *In other words, without the spin of atoms, we got
nothing.
. - Brad Guth

Depends on whos Bias you follow..

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
*I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: *"Believing" is the anti-science. *KNOWING is the true
science! *— NoEinstein —

KNOWING is religious faith, NoEinstein. Do you know the difference
between a scientist and a priest?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

:-} -

NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 21, 7:47 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message

...





Tom Potter wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Tom Potter wrote:
"NoEinstein" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 2:19 pm, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light
1. Light is a Wave
I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.
2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
can we say they are perpendicular.
Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.
Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
the correct description of light.
Bye
Sanny
the botched-up 1887 M-M experiment seemed to rule out
ether... Einstein got around 'that' dilemma by supposing that light
could be either a wave or photons. But as with nearly everything
Einstein supposed, he was wrong. (Brownian Motion is the lone exception
-and that was actually a no-brainer.)
I am surprised to see that "NoEinstein"
like most people,
has been conditioned by the mass media,
and the Einstein Cult
to give Einstein credit/debit for the work of other folks.
The credit/debit for wave-particle duality
belongs to de Broglie, not to Einstein.
wave length = unit of action / momentum
Although the Einstein Cult tries to
credit Einstein for de Broglie's theory,
and claim that he promoted de Broglie and the idea,
the fact of the matter is that Einstein did not
comprehend nor appreciate the enormous impact
that de Broglie's work would have on physics,
as Bohr and his associates, most physicists,
and the Nobel Prize committee did.
Note that de Broglie's theory was presented
in his 1924 doctoral thesis,
and he received the Nobel Prize in Physics
for it in 1929, the shortest time in history.
In other words,
Bohr, most of the leading physicists,
and the Nobel Prize Committee,
**immediately** recognized the importance of
de Broglie's theory, while Einstein and a few cultists
persisted in fighting it, and the Quantum Mechanics"
that it inspired, for many years.
( Google EPR experiment)
It is also interesting to see that the Einstein Cult
worked hard "Revising" history and physics,
and conditioning the masses to think
that the wave-particle duality theory of matter
was based on Einstein's corruption of
Planck's quantum of action work of 1901,
for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1918.
Note that although Einstein corrupted Planck's quantum of action,
and has sent physics into a one hundred year cul de sac,
the Einstein Cult has managed to con most people
into thinking that energy, rather than action is quanta.
It does not take a system engineer to comprehend
that measured energy is affect by relative velocity,
whereas quanta of action is NOT.
As can be seen Planck clearly pointed out
in his Nobel Prize lecture that ACTION was quanta.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...18/planck-lect...
"When I look back to the time, already twenty years ago,
when the concept and magnitude of the physical quantum of action began,
for the first time, to unfold from the mass of experimental facts.."
"The explanation of the second universal constant of the radiation law
was
not so easy.
Because it represents the product of energy and time
(according to the first calculation it was 6.55 x 10-27 erg sec),
I described it as the elementary quantum of action."
( I might point out that the real unit of quanta is actually
neither energy, nor action, but is the "First Radiation Constant",
Action (The "Second Radiation Constant"),
does not take the Hubble Effect into account.)
To answer Sanny question:
"What is light?"
The universe is a sea of standing waves,
and matter are antinodes in that sea.
A so-called photon is simply
an electron event that involves
one quantum of action.
A cause event is a rotary (Spin) event
that occurs at some anti-node
in the sea of standing waves,
and propagated much like
gear motion is propagated
until it finds a standing wave
that has an impedance of 377 ohms,
at which point it becomes an effect and terminates.
To make my point,
consider that the maximum amount of action (Hence Power/energy)
is transferred when the source (Cause) impedance
equals the load (Effect) impedance.
At the one quantum unit level,
the maximum amount of action
equals the minimum amount of action,
ONE unit of Planck's Constant.
Thus to transfer ONE unit of action
from a cause anti-node
to an effect anti-node,
there must be a 377 ohm path between them.
Otherwise you get a reflection,
and no cause and no effect occurs.
"Light" is the statistical expression
for sets of quanta of action that
can be detected by human eyes.
Crackpotter! How you doin'? BTW, this mess makes no sense at all.
I am pleased to see that Art Deco,
an active member of the race/religion motivated bigots
that operate out of the caballista.org boiler-room,
continues to be a faithful reader of my posts.
Hopefully, in time, they will have a positive affect on him,
and he will not only become educated in physics,
but he will become a rational, MATURE, MORAL human being.
and cease turning the newsgroups into "Rivers of ****".
But to address Art's inability to comprehend my post,
if he will ask an intelligent question,
I will be more than pleased to educate him
about photons and light.
As a starting point Arty,
"action" is fundamental quanta,
and changes are conveyed between
causes and effects in integer units of action.
Now, do you understand that point Arty?
If so, we'll move on to the next point.
Please proceed, Crackpotter. I can use another good laugh.
When I taught at the
military service school, high school, college,
and seminar levels,
I learned that I should not move on to
more sophisticated ideas,
until I verified that my student
understood the point in question.

Thus I repeat,

"As a starting point Arty,
"action" is fundamental quanta,
and changes are conveyed between
causes and effects in integer units of action.

Now, do you understand that point Arty?
If so, we'll move on to the next point."

Before I move on Arty,
let me know if you comprehend the
single point in question,

and verify your understanding by
making a short comment that demonstrates
that you do in fact comprehend it.

I must point out,
that short, smart ass, adolescent, low brow comments
demonstrate stupidity, not comprehension.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...m/PotterPhotos

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Tom: Your trying to ascertain the "understanding" of the basics
by you students is like my trying to walk people like Randy Poe
through my Coriolis invalidation. The "power" that students have over
teachers is that they can keep saying they... "Don't get it." There
is an issue of pride that keeps getting in the way of anyone on the
groups acknowledging that Einstein has now been dethroned.
Though you agree to the wastefulness of Einstein's ideas, you
have yet to say: "NoEinstein, it looks like you've done it!" Racial
and social issues are the causes of many problems. But science would
benefit by having those who agree simply say so. — NoEinstein —
So you agree with Potter and Androcles. Try to see if you can
get Hammond and Ken Seto on board too.

On Apr 21, 8:18*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
" ?= wrote in message

...

What makes you believe Art Deco could understand
â?o integer units of action â? *? !

He couldn't understand potty humor if it exeeded one line.
We're like idiot savants with non-overlapping esoteric talents;
so one man's talent can't be seen by the other.

Actually Art Deco understands, and does,
his job very well.

Art works out of the caliballista.org boiler-room,
which is operated by a few Jewish bigots,
and used to intimidate and smear people,
that the bigots target.

Art's job is not to engage in rational, intelligent, moral
discussions to arrive at fundamental truths,

but his job is to smear folks, and obscure threads
on issues that his handlers don't want to have
the public exposed to.

Art does his job in several ways.

1. He ****es out posters,
and gets them off the issue,
and into a ****ing war.

2. He tries to link his victims
with negative images, negative ideas,
and negative people.

3. He appends alt.usenet.kook
to threads he wants to disrupt
in order to instigate a flame war between
the poster, the caliballista, boiler-rook bigots,
and the young boys and sociopaths
who hang out in alt.usenet.kook.

Art does a pretty good job
directing the activities of a few race/religion motivated bigots,
and in exploiting inferiority complexes in a few
sociopaths and young boys,
who tend to boost their egos by demeaning folks.
( Note that Art also exploits the inferiority complexes
of young boys and sociopaths in the serious newsgroups,
and gets some of them to append alt.usenet.kook to posts.

The Republican Party,
and now the Clinton gang
use the same tactics
used by the calaballista.org race motivated bigots,
and the tactic must work,
as they spend millions of dollars
trying to divert the attention of people
from facts and details.

I dare say that if Obama becomes president,
the masses will begin to turn aggressively on the
bigots, media, and politicians who use
smear as a weapon to promote their agenda,
which could not be promote successfully
using logic, intelligence and facts.

Hopefully, when the public gets sick of the
smear tactics, laws will be passed that make
it easy for folks smeared by Institutionalized Bigotry
to collect damages from the individuals and
organization that effected the smears.

The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
own."

To read the stories of a few of the many folks
who have been victims of Institutionalized bigotry
visit the web site below.

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...m/PotterPhotos

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Dear Tom: If Obama becomes President, the USA is probably doomed...
— NoEinstein —