jem wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
jem wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
PD wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:00 am, John Kennaugh
wrote:


One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is
evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both.

Why not?

One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how
particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it
differently.


A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also
exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird.
A US quarter is incapable of starting an unnecessary war without
having even the vaguest plan as to what to do after it had been
'won' neither is it capable of eating flesh so a US quarter
exhibits neither the properties of a president nor of a carnivorous bird.

PD overestimated your ability to extract the point from his example.
Try this. A US quarter "gives an impeccable impression" of being a
picture of a president,

so using Kennaugh "logic" it's impossible, or at least exceedingly
difficult, for it to "give an impeccable impression" of being a
picture of an eagle too.
It has a picture of a president on one side and a picture of an
eagle on the other. If it was cubic it could have six pictures one on
each side.
A 'picture' is not fundamentally different to another 'picture'
physically they are built up using the same technique of raised bits
of metal. They differ only in which bits of metal are raised and by
how much and what is done on one side in no way puts constraints on
what is done on the other and you cannot distort "Kennaugh's logic"
to imply that it says it does.

In order to learn from an analogy, Kennaugh, you need to look to the
similarities, not the dissimilarities.

The statement "light is a wave and particles" is a paradox.

Definition
"Paradox" -A statement which is seemingly absurd but may nevertheless be
true.

Any useful analogy must include a paradox. There is nothing even vaguely
paradoxical about two sides of a coin having different images on them.
There are no similarities to look for in the so called an analogy.


A wave on the other hand is a function of continuous fields and a
photon is definitely not continuous.
Now if you watch a film it looks to be a continuously moving picture
but you know that it is made up of a series of fixed images. It
doesn't mean we have to accept that it IS a continuously moving
picture and IS also a series of fixed images. It IS a series of fixed
images which give an impeccable impression of being a moving picture.
Light is not both waves AND photons - although it might be neither.
The
most promising approach is that light IS made up of photons which
together give an impeccable impression of being waves. Just as we
understand how a series of fixed images can give rise to an impression
of continuously moving pictures it might be possible to understand how
photons can give the impression that they are waves.

Light IS something* that exhibits *both* wave-like AND particle-like
behavior, but if it makes you happier to think that light IS a particle
which also "gives an impeccable impression" of being a wave,

I do.

or IS a wave which also "gives an impeccable impression" of being a
particle,

I cannot see how that would work.


go right ahead, because such distinctions are entirely irrelevant to
Science.


* Having discussed related issues with you before, I know it's
necessary to point out that light isn't something that exists in Nature
with properties that Science attempts to discover

I'm afraid it is. The fact that physics has redefined itself to the
point where is can no longer be considered "science" is not my problem.

- it's something that exists in models of Nature where *what* it is, is
*exactly* what it's *defined* to be.


R.A.Waldron has suggested [1] a structural model of a photon with
which explains the wavelike properties of light but physics doctrine
has declared that a photon has no internal structure which is rather
limiting. Like trying to explain how one gets the impression of
detailed moving pictures from a series of blank frames rather than
assuming that something in the nature of the frames gives rise to the
impression of detailed moving pictures.

Your goal for physical models, Kennaugh, is to get them to conform to
your common-sense notions, but the modern view of Science is that the
proper goal for physical models is the accurate prediction of
experimental outcomes

So provided you can mathematically generate accurate tide tables there
is no need to enquire and try to understand the real physical processes
in nature which makes the tides go in and out. What a truly degenerate
view of science.


- common-sense needs to conform to accurate models.

[1] "The Spinning Photon" R.A.Waldron 1983 - Speculations in Science
and Technology Vol6 No2


--
John Kennaugh

PD wrote:
On Apr 23, 5:18*pm, wrote:
On Apr 23, 12:29*pm, John Kennaugh
wrote:



PD wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:23*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:00*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:

One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical
is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both.

Why not?

One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how
particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it
differently.

A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also
exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird.

A US quarter is incapable of starting an unnecessary war without having
even the vaguest plan as to what to do after it had been 'won' neither
is it capable of eating flesh so a US quarter exhibits neither the
properties of a president nor of a carnivorous bird.

Well, the electron is incapable of always being localizable, and so it
also fails at exhibiting the properties of a particle.

* In redefining itself physics has declared that the only thing which
matters is prediction. If you have imprecise knowledge, for good
fundamental reasons, as to where an electron is and what its speed is
your prediction of where it will be a given time later is also
imprecise. The mathematics dealing with the statistics involved is well
established.

As is the modern trend physics takes the mathematics as being more
important than what it is describing and with no justification has
transposed our lack of knowledge as to where the electron is as being
that the electron itself is imprecise.

If you stop an electron then you know exactly where it is and in theory
you can find out how fast it was travelling and from what direction.
Retrospectively you can calculate exactly where it was previously. There
is every reason to believe that an electron is a precise object which
travels from exactly point A to exactly point B. Retrospective
measurement is dismissed on the grounds that physics is only concerned
with prediction - what is going to happen, not in what happened in the
past. There is nothing vague about the trace in a cloud chamber nor the
images produced by an electron microscope. I see no reason to believe
that an electron is other than a precise particle.

* In the Schrodinger's cat experiment the only thing which changes when
the box is opened is our knowledge - and possibly the smell in the room.
It is perfectly possible to redesign the experiment with monitoring
equipment in the box which, when the box is opened with tell you
precisely when the cat died - but physics is about prediction and
retrospective measurement doesn't count so as far as physics is
concerned the cat is both alive and dead until the moment the box is
opened just as light is both waves and particles.

--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." *Dr Scott
Murray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Light is a Unified force.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

You know, Mitch, if all you want to write is T-shirt slogans, then at
least make them funny or pithy.

You mean like "Gravity is a myth - the earth sucks" )


PD

--
John Kennaugh

"NoEinstein" wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 12:50 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"
?=
wrote in message

... I'm very impressed by
your " derivations " of General Relativity;
but, in Sci.Physics.*, who else is doing it ( and doing it right ) ?

Nobody. Most people who posts in forums are far too afraid of making a
mistake.

Pete

Dear Pete: So, I guess those who will reply aren't shy.

I wasn't talking about those who reply. I was talking about those who
provide derivations of their claims.

Pete

On Apr 23, 8:31 am, wrote:
I'm very impressed by your “ derivations � of General Relativity;
but, in Sci.Physics.*, who else is doing it ( and doing it right ) ?

Relf, for once your posting in this newsgroup can serve a purpose.

I'm in Seattle - tell me some place that's interesting to see.

If you like drunk / drugged students, the Ave is the place.
I'll shoot some pool with you in a bar on the “ Ave. �,
( U-District, ZIP code 98105 ) and / or show you my roomming house.

If you like tony stores, Barnes & Noble and fine restraurants,
the University Village is good.. and there's parking.

Name the time and place.. I'll be there.
How about Saturday at noon at the QFC grocery store
at the University Village ( also 98105 ) ?

On this map ( showing the University of Washington, North East Seattle )
QFC is on the upper right:
“ www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/CampusWalk.PNG �.

My land-line ( no cell ) is 206.525.5196,
but it's often tied up by the modem.

I can show you various computer labs on campus.
We could walk through campus, maybe chat with a yachtsman.

I can see the Seattle Yacht Club from campus, but I don't go there.
The Arboretum ( just off campus ) is a very nice walk,
lots of trees and water ( Union Bay, Lake Washington ).

Alki beach ( sea water ) is nice,
Discovery park has a nice beach ( sea ),
same for Golden Gardens ( sea ) and Sand Point ( Lake Wash. ).

On Apr 24, 7:18*pm, PD wrote:
On Apr 24, 5:22*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





On Apr 23, 9:02*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 22, 6:58*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 21, 9:08*pm, PD wrote:

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-
* :-} ~

Yeah, I didn't think you could do fifth grade algebra.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: PD is exactly right when he admits he doesn't think! *—
NoEinstein —

Uh-oh, you're slipping. We'd gotten all the way to "PD=PNG" and then
just plain ":-} ~", but it seems like you burst a blood vessel and had
to say something more, despite your firm resolution not too. I know,
it's a terrible, terrible compulsion and someone should have warned
you before you started knee-jerking that knee-jerking was so
addictive. By the way, your chin is bleeding.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How about "HA"!

On Apr 24, 7:19*pm, PD wrote:
On Apr 24, 5:23*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





On Apr 23, 9:02*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 22, 6:59*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 21, 9:08*pm, PD wrote:

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?

* *:-} ~~~

Yes, that's what I thought.

Folks: PD is exactly right when he admits he doesn't think! *—
NoEinstein —

Really? Where in the above did I say that? Or are you having reading
difficulties today, on top of cranial vapor-lock?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: PD's vacuousness enters the room before he does! — NoEinstein
—

On Apr 24, 7:22*pm, PD wrote:
On Apr 24, 5:28*pm, NoEinstein wrote:





On Apr 23, 9:12*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 22, 7:40*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 21, 9:51*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

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...]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Eric: *Have you gotten "religion" or something? *You've made
three non-offensive comments in a row. *Keep that up and I will remove
your PNG status!
* * *To answer your question: *My simple experiment has been described
in numerous of my replies. *One guy, Tom Davidson, even asked for, and
got a drawing and a detailed description of the construction.

Tom, I'd be interested in your emailing the drawing and the detailed
description of the construction. I'll take this to be NoEinstein's
"publication" of his paper. Thanks in advance.

*I will
avoid any "PD like" groupies who only want to pass judgment—when they
have zero qualifications to p... on anything. *If you will search my
profile for: X-Y-Z interferometer, one or more of those will describe
the arrangement of the laser, mirrors and target, etc. *But to
understand what is happening all that is needed is to realize that
while the light (of either light course) is in transit, the apparatus
itself keeps moving due to Earth's velocity component. *My
interferometer places the CONTROL light course on the SAME Z axis that
the rest of the apparatus rotates about. *The beam splitter is
perpendicular to the first leg of the laser light. *Since the TIME
required for light to travel to a PERPENDICULAR surface doesn't vary,
even though the mirror is moving, such can act as a CONTROL (something
that doesn't vary, to which something that DOES vary can be compared).
* * *After passing through the 30R, 70T beam splitter, the TEST light
course reflects from a 45 degree first surface mirror; and on to a
perpendicular first surface mirror; back to the 45 degree mirror;
through the BS; and on to the painted metal target bonded to the front
of the laser. *That target has a precision pin hole to allow the laser
light to pass through. *Because the light diverges about .5 degree, by
the time it reflects back to the target, the fringe pattern is a clear
3/8" diameter with about 8 fringes.
* * *The reason my interferometer works, and the M-M didn't, is
because M-M had BOTH light courses reflect from the 45 degree mirror!
So, the lateral motion of the apparatus affected both of its light
courses, identically. *My interferometer has an effective physical
length change of the light course that reflects from the 45 degree
mirror. *The faster the Earth's velocity component, the further off
center the light hits the 45 degree mirror, and the greater is the
physical change in the length of that course. *As Michelson knew, a
physical change of length (via screws) of ONE COURSE of his
interferometer allowed making precise measurements—like the "official"
meter stick. *But when he let Earth's velocity "move" the light, both
courses reflected from the 45 degree BS, and so both TIMES of travel
remained identical…
* * *If any of those two dozen universities that I've sent all of my
information to had been objective, they have had more than enough time
to replicate my results. *So, THAT is the real reason it SEEMS that I
am keeping my experiment to myself. *There just aren't any (ha, ha....)
“scientists” out there objective enough to buck the status quo of
stupidity at ALL USA universities! *Note: Exceptions to the latter are
URGED to ask for my experiment descriptions! *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: No publication is sought. *Nor are there objective minds in
science worthy to comment—especially not PD. *— NoEinstein —

Oh, OK, so as long as you're not going to publish it, then Tom will
feel better in sending it to me. Thanks, Tom.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: Isn't it amazing that PD craves information that he is
incapable of understanding? He gets around his "thinking" problems by
always disagreeing with anything said. Naive readers may think: "Wow,
if PD is smart enough to... disagree with that, then PD must be smart
(sic).” I suggest that PD make a post where he lists those things
that he actually agrees with. If my experience is an indicator,
everything on the list would be from the STATUS QUO of when PD rested
his ass in college... a long time ago! — NoEinstein —

On Apr 25, 4:02*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 24, 7:19*pm, PD wrote:





On Apr 24, 5:23*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 23, 9:02*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 22, 6:59*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 21, 9:08*pm, PD wrote:

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?

* *:-} ~~~

Yes, that's what I thought.

Folks: PD is exactly right when he admits he doesn't think! *—
NoEinstein —

Really? Where in the above did I say that? Or are you having reading
difficulties today, on top of cranial vapor-lock?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: *PD's vacuousness enters the room before he does! *— NoEinstein
—- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Light is a Unified force. EM

Mitch Raemsch

On Apr 24, 7:23*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:33:10 -0400, jem wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
jem wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
PD wrote:
It has a picture of a president on one side and a picture of an eagle on
the other. If it was cubic it could have six pictures one on each side.
A 'picture' is not fundamentally different to another 'picture'
physically they are built up using the same technique of raised bits of
metal. They differ only in which bits of metal are raised and by how
much and what is done on one side in no way puts constraints on what is
done on the other and you cannot distort "Kennaugh's logic" to imply
that it says it does.

In order to learn from an analogy, Kennaugh, you need to look to the
similarities, not the dissimilarities.

A wave on the other hand is a function of continuous fields and a photon
is definitely not continuous.

Now if you watch a film it looks to be a continuously moving picture but
you know that it is made up of a series of fixed images. It doesn't mean
we have to accept that it IS a continuously moving picture and IS also a
series of fixed images. It IS a series of fixed images which give an
impeccable impression of being a moving picture.

Light is not both waves AND photons - although it might be neither. The
most promising approach is that light IS made up of photons which
together give an impeccable impression of being waves. Just as we
understand how a series of fixed images can give rise to an impression
of continuously moving pictures it might be possible to understand how
photons can give the impression that they are waves.

Light IS something* that exhibits *both* wave-like AND particle-like
behavior, but if it makes you happier to think that light IS a
particle which also "gives an impeccable impression" of being a wave,
or IS a wave which also "gives an impeccable impression" of being a
particle, go right ahead, because such distinctions are entirely
irrelevant to Science.

The natural deduction is that It is a 'particle' that possesses an intrinsic
oscillation.

Have you ever seen a slow motion movie of a falling water droplet? It is a
fluid particle that oscillates. A photon is probably somewhat similar, although
the oscillation process is presumably quite different for that of a water
droplet.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: Water squirted from a hose, horizontally, will create a
parabolic shape as it falls to the ground.. The "oscillation" you see
is due to the surface tension of the droplets trying to make them
spherical, while the air flow is trying to make them "tear drop"
shaped. Most of my explanations don't require thinking at a molecular
level. Because I majored in Architecture and structural design,
things at larger scales are fine with me. — NoEinstein —