On Apr 21, 8:31*am, PD wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:09*pm, NoEinstein wrote:



Dear Huang: *You just quote Einstein. *But I've disproved that man up,
down, and sideways! *Light is PHOTONS only, NOT a wave... EVER!
Please go to my profile and read my recent posts. *Then, you should
agree to forget his moronic ideas. *— NoEinstein —

Good, then kindly reproduce the double slit interference pattern that
is easily observed in an experiment involving a $20 laser pointer, a
bit of glass, a razor blade, and flat black spray paint. Be sure to do
so with PHOTONS only.

PD

:-} -

NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 20, 10:09 pm, Huang wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:09 pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 19, 12:09 am, Huang wrote:
Light can be a wave or a particle, but not both at the same time.
This is because physical length can be either continuous or discrete,
but not both at the same time.
And this is because a random length may be regarded as being
indeterminately continuous or discrete.
And to understand this you must understand existential indeterminacy.
That points may be regarded as being existentially indeterminate, but
there is another equally valid approach which does NOT consider points
to be existentially indeterminate, and that BOTH cases are equally
valid.
You should now know exactly what a photon is, what gravity is, dark
matter, and everything else.
Dear Huang: You just quote Einstein. But I've disproved that man up,
down, and sideways! Light is PHOTONS only, NOT a wave... EVER!
Please go to my profile and read my recent posts. Then, you should
agree to forget his moronic ideas. — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I wish Einstein were here to kick your ass properly, and in person.

If light did'nt behave like a wave then they would'nt be calling it a
wave-prticle duality. It would be the "particle singularity" hah hah.

Dear Huang: I'll get the last laugh! Since I've disproved Einstein's
theories of relativity, and etc., nothing that "they" say is worth a
damn.
Light can be either wave or particle because just like gravity, it is
composed only of space. Gravity is nothing more than a deformation of
space. Why should photons be any different?

Einstein's moronic "space-time" ideas resulted from Lorentz's lame
brain attempt to explain the nil result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley
experiment. Since all of the optics were rotated in the same PLANE
(horizontal), the supposed TIME change in one light course was always
exactly the same as for the other light course. Because I discovered
the simple fact that the M-M experiment was designed without an
unchanging CONTROL, there was no need to change the... rulers and
clocks to *******ize science to suit Einstein's whim.

My own X-Y-Z interferometer easily detects Earth's movement in the
cosmos. Einstein himself said that no Earth based experiment could
detect such movement, but he was so WRONG! — NoEinstein —
[Snip remaining dribble...]
If your interferometer was as well done as your impact experiment,
you can not say anything about the results. You and Seto have this
fascination with not liking things done in the horizontal plane
when, in an experiment done over a period of time, there is no
difference between that and a vertical plane since the earth
revolves (or maybe you have disproved that as well).
By the way, Einstein and all his predictions are still doing quite
well. I keep checking to see if GPS has stopped but it apparently
does not know about your "disproofs".

On Apr 21, 5:44*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
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.

Not quite. The baseball will be going (90 mph + 10 mph)/(1 + (90 mph)
(10 mph)/c^2).

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.

Again not quite. Take the same formula above and replace the plus
signs with minus signs.

*Light does
EXACTLY the same thing! *— NoEinstein —

Yes, you're right. So let's take a boat going 10 mph and throw light
from it, so that the speed is (10 mph + c)/(1 + (10 mph)*c/c^2).
Please do the itty bitty bit of algebra and tell me what answer you
get. Is it more than c, less than c, or the same as c?

PD

On Apr 21, 5:45*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
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 -

* * *:-} -

Does that mean you don't care what experiment says?

You told Art Deco:
“ short, smart ass, adolescent, low brow comments
demonstrate stupidity, not comprehension. �.

Wow ! if only Arty understood that..
he'd be sane enough to quit “ Alt.Usenet.Kooks �.

P.S. I think my NNTP server ( Reader.Motzarella.ORG:80 )
rejects Arty's posts.. it doesn't have:
“ �.

On Apr 21, 5:46*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
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 -

* :-} -

We seem to be getting someplace, NoEinstein. At first, I got a
detailed response. Then I got an elaborate "PD is a persona non grata
because....". Then I got, "Folks, ignore PD because he's a persona non
grata and you should ignore him." Then I got, "PD is a PNG." Then I
got, "PD = PNG". Now I get " :-}- "

You're gradually catching on. Pretty soon you won't be conversing at
all. You'll just be posting into the void and not answering responses
at all. You'll become as useful as Archimedes Plutonium and
EinsteinHoax, and just as ignored.

PD

On Apr 21, 5:18*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 20, 10:09*pm, Huang wrote:



On Apr 20, 8:09*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 19, 12:09*am, Huang wrote:

Light can be a wave or a particle, but not both at the same time.

This is because physical length can be either continuous or discrete,
but not both at the same time.

And this is because a random length may be regarded as being
indeterminately continuous or discrete.

And to understand this you must understand existential indeterminacy..
That points may be regarded as being existentially indeterminate, but
there is another equally valid approach which does NOT consider points
to be existentially indeterminate, and that BOTH cases are equally
valid.

You should now know exactly what a photon is, what gravity is, dark
matter, and everything else.

Dear Huang: *You just quote Einstein. *But I've disproved that man up,
down, and sideways! *Light is PHOTONS only, NOT a wave... EVER!
Please go to my profile and read my recent posts. *Then, you should
agree to forget his moronic ideas. *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I wish Einstein were here to kick your ass properly, and in person.

If light did'nt behave like a wave then they would'nt be calling it a
wave-prticle duality. It would be the "particle singularity" hah hah.

Dear Huang: *I'll get the last laugh! *Since I've disproved Einstein's
theories of relativity, and etc., nothing that "they" say is worth a
damn.

Light can be either wave or particle because just like gravity, it is
composed only of space. Gravity is nothing more than a deformation of
space. Why should photons be any different?

Einstein's moronic "space-time" ideas resulted from Lorentz's lame
brain attempt to explain the nil result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley
experiment. *Since all of the optics were rotated in the same PLANE
(horizontal), the supposed TIME change in one light course was always
exactly the same as for the other light course. *Because I discovered
the simple fact that the M-M experiment was designed without an
unchanging CONTROL, there was no need to change the... rulers and
clocks to *******ize science to suit Einstein's whim.

My own X-Y-Z interferometer easily detects Earth's movement in the
cosmos. *Einstein himself said that no Earth based experiment could
detect such movement, but he was so WRONG! *— NoEinstein —

[Snip remaining dribble...]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Congradulations. That is the MOST RIDICULOUS thing that I have EVER
heard.

If only there were a prize befitting of the achievement, some thing
like a softened icecream cone placed upside down on top of your
head.... to be worn like a party hat.

On Apr 21, 1:32Â*pm, wrote:
Why do you spend so much time on me ? after all..

I don't. I rarely read what you have to say, much less respond. This
will be the first time in awhile I actually read something you say and
respond.


How many billions of web pages are there ? 16 ?
Usenet spits out 4 tera bytes per day.
How many TV channels do you have ? 800 ?

www.mininova.org is my TV.

[snip]

Fix your ****, relf. I spend more time talking to crackpotter than
you.

On Apr 21, 2:18*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
[snip]


My own X-Y-Z interferometer easily detects Earth's movement in the
cosmos. *Einstein himself said that no Earth based experiment could
detect such movement, but he was so WRONG! *— NoEinstein —

Really?

That'd be worth a Nobel - why do you keep it to yourself?


[Snip remaining dribble...]

On Apr 21, 5:12*pm, PD wrote:
On Apr 21, 5:46*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





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 -

* :-} -

We seem to be getting someplace, NoEinstein. At first, I got a
detailed response. Then I got an elaborate "PD is a persona non grata
because....". Then I got, "Folks, ignore PD because he's a persona non
grata and you should ignore him." Then I got, "PD is a PNG." Then I
got, "PD = PNG". Now I get " :-}- "

You're gradually catching on. Pretty soon you won't be conversing at
all. You'll just be posting into the void and not answering responses
at all. You'll become as useful as Archimedes Plutonium and
EinsteinHoax, and just as ignored.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Light is the unified force. Electric Magnetic.

Mitch Raemsch; falling light changes colour