On Apr 19, 1:39*pm, knucmo wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:42:00 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

I wrote:
“ Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
*No matter what else is or isn't known,
*metaphysically, we ‘ know ’ the cosmos is fully causal. ”.

And you replied:
“ Randomness is not ignorance.
*It is the foundation of probability theory.
*Do you argue that probability theory is ignorance as well ? ”.

Plus, probability might just be a way of weighing up which causes are
more likely to happen than others.


Seems strange that "physical tests" of coin toss trials match up with
the predictions made by probability theory pretty much exactly. There
are countless other examples.

I dont think that this constitutes a formal proof that randomness
exists either in nature, or mathematics. But certainly, probability
theory is a logical structure of theorems and lemmas "which would be
valid" if we knew for certain that randomness did indeed exist. If
randomness does not exist, then this logical structure gets demoted to
a hypothetical case. There may be other "hypothetical" theories out
there just waiting to be uncovered - cant think of any at the moment
but it might be possible.

Whatever the case, he said that :

“ Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.

Rubbish

No matter what else is or isn't known,
metaphysically, we ‘ know ’ the cosmos is fully causal. ”.

No. Despite the fact that I disagree with QM in many ways Feynman was
right. The universe is most accurately described by probability
theory.

You say that you know that the universe is "fully causal". In fact,
nothing could be further from the truth.

The universe may be treated as "fully causal", and it may also be
treated as if it were "fully a-causal". That both approaches seem to
work - this should give you a clue.

Causality is not so simple in the real world. You must first
understand randomness.

I wrote:
“ Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
*No matter what else is or isn't known,
*metaphysically, we ‘ know ’ the cosmos is fully causal. ”.



To show that this statement is ludicrous - consider the folowing
question:

Consider a cointoss which is "geniunely random".

By virtue of the fact that you know that the long term behaviour is
known, being GIVEN by theory, is it TRULY random ?

The same paradox applies to causality.

If something is known to occur without a cause, then it is causal by
virtue of the acausality itself.

Do you think that it is so trivial to resolve these things ?

On Apr 18, 10:19*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

Light is a unified force. It's a dual force wave of energy. It is
Electric Magnetic energy wave.

Mitch Raemsch

"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...k-lecture.html

"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.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos



** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Apr 18, 12:50 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:
--"Sanny" wrote in message

...



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

Light is a EM wave propagating through the Indefinable Energy Form
of the Quantum State (Aether,Zero Point Energy,Space/Time), Which
is the left over Indefinable Energy Form that was the Indefinable Unified
Energy Form that was the Indefinable Unified Energy Form of BB fame,
the Quantum Point (Singularity, Chaos Point, Energy Quanta) and perceived
to be a Little Ball of Stuff due to Intrinsic Bias of the observer, any
device
designed to observe and the "Light" being observed when observed at
a short enough time frame.

But I could be Wrong....

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"

Why wrong, because if we can't wrap ourselves around your
interpretation is why it doesn't hardly matter.

Could you try out a few other wordings, so that we don't have to be
Einstein or on drugs in order to interpret your theory?

All inclusive, there's fewer than one atom/m3, yet there's likely more
than 1e100 photons/m3.

Because there's a fixed number of atoms and continuous supply of
photons, it seems the photon is in charge of most everything outside
of them black holes.
.. - Brad Guth

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...k-lecture.html

"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.

--
"Classic erroneous presupposition."
-- David Tholen

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 12:50 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:
--"Sanny" wrote in message

...



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

Light is a EM wave propagating through the Indefinable Energy Form
of the Quantum State (Aether,Zero Point Energy,Space/Time), Which
is the left over Indefinable Energy Form that was the Indefinable Unified
Energy Form that was the Indefinable Unified Energy Form of BB fame,
the Quantum Point (Singularity, Chaos Point, Energy Quanta) and perceived
to be a Little Ball of Stuff due to Intrinsic Bias of the observer, any
device
designed to observe and the "Light" being observed when observed at
a short enough time frame.

But I could be Wrong....

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"

Why wrong, because if we can't wrap ourselves around your
interpretation is why it doesn't hardly matter.

Could you try out a few other wordings, so that we don't have to be
Einstein or on drugs in order to interpret your theory?

All inclusive, there's fewer than one atom/m3, yet there's likely more
than 1e100 photons/m3.

Because there's a fixed number of atoms and continuous supply of
photons, it seems the photon is in charge of most everything outside
of them black holes.
. - Brad Guth

To "believe" is a large part of physics. In fact its a large part of any
science. Science will never have access to truth and therefore truth is but
an unobtainable goal.

Pete

On Apr 19, 5:34 am, Huang wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:22 am, wrote:



Detecting light as a particle or a wave
depends on how coherent ( i.e. how predictable ) it is.

For example, given an ideal laser showing a diffraction pattern
in famous double-slit experiment:

A. The frequency / energy is fully predictable;
i.e. it's Fully a wave.

B. You can't detect ( not even in theory )
which of the two slits it might've passed through;
i.e. it's Not a particle.

Semi-coherent ( i.e. semi-predictable ) light
is detectable as a semi-particle, semi-wave.

Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
No matter what else is or isn't known,
metaphysically, we “ know � the cosmos is fully causal.

Randomness is not ignorance. It is the foundation of probability
theory. Do you argue that probability theory is ignorance as well ?

It is abuntantly obvious that random length can be characterized as
being either continuous or discrete - as one may wish. Clearly, this
is the only way that a wave-particle duality type of paradox could
occur. Unless you really want to struggle to jam a square peg into a
round hole - in which case you have the Copenhagen interpretation.
Clinging to that old thing is like believing in UFO's and timetravel.

Believing in only a terrestrial existence of intelligent life is far
worse off than believing in "UFO's and timetravel".

Your "probability theory" seems as equally a bit vague, as is string
theory or cold fusion theory.

In the infinite universe, technically all sorts of complex things of
randomness are probable, including whatever is outside of our universe
becomes even more so probable.
. - Brad Guth

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:23:57 -0400
Meat Plow wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:20:00 +0000, Jeffâ–²Relf =?UTF-8?Q? wrote:

Other Forte_Agent users have properly quoted the UTF-8 ( 8-bit Unicode )
in my posts. Google always resends proper UTF-8.

Outlook ( Windows Live Mail ) displays proper UTF-8
but it won't resend it unless you explicitly allow:
8-bit characters and Unicode ( i.e. UTF-8 ).

! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; = ? @ A B
C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e
f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ 33 Â* ¡ ¢ £ ¤ Â¥ ¦ §
¨ © ª « ¬ Â* ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Ã� Â Ã Ä Ã… Æ Ç È É Ê
Ë ÃŒ Ã� ÃŽ Ã� Ã� Ñ Ã’ Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Û Ãœ Ã� Þ ß Ã* á â ã ä Ã¥ æ ç è é ê ë ì Ã*
î ï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ
100 Ā � Ă ă Ą ą Ć ć Ĉ ĉ Ċ ċ Č � Ď � � đ Ē ē Ĕ ĕ Ė ė Ę ę Ě ě Ĝ � Ğ ğ
Ä* Ä¡ Ä¢ Ä£ Ĥ Ä¥ Ħ ħ Ĩ Ä© Ī Ä« Ĭ Ä* Ä® į Ä° ı IJ ij Ä´ ĵ Ķ Ä· ĸ Ĺ ĺ Ä» ļ Ľ ľ Ä¿ Å€ Å� Å‚
Ń Å„ Å… ņ Ň ň ʼn ÅŠ Å‹ ÅŒ Å� ÅŽ Å� Å� Å‘ Å’ Å“ Å” Å• Å– Å— Ř Å™ Åš Å› Åœ Å� Åž ÅŸ Å* Å¡ Å¢ Å£ Ť Å¥
Ŧ ŧ Ũ Å© Ū Å« Ŭ Å* Å® ů Å° ű Ų ų Å´ ŵ Ŷ Å· Ÿ Ź ź Å» ż Ž ž Å¿ 18 Æ’ Æ“ 46 Ç‚ 10 Ç�
ǎ � � Ǒ ǒ Ǔ ǔ Ǖ ǖ Ǘ ǘ Ǚ ǚ Ǜ ǜ 24 ǵ 2 Ǹ ǹ Ǻ ǻ Ǽ ǽ Ǿ ǿ
24 Ș È™ Èš È› 52 É� É‘ É’ É“ É” É• É– É— ɘ É™ Éš É› Éœ É� Éž ÉŸ É* É¡ É¢ É£ ɤ É¥ ɦ ɧ ɨ É© ɪ É«
ɬ É* É® ɯ É° ɱ ɲ ɳ É´ ɵ ɶ É· ɸ ɹ ɺ É» ɼ ɽ ɾ É¿ Ê€ Ê� Ê‚ ʃ Ê„ Ê… ʆ ʇ ʈ ʉ ÊŠ Ê‹ ÊŒ Ê� ÊŽ
Ê� Ê� Ê‘ Ê’ Ê“ Ê” Ê• Ê– Ê— ʘ Ê™ Êš Ê› Êœ Ê� Êž ÊŸ Ê* Ê¡ Ê¢ Ê£ ʤ Ê¥ ʦ ʧ ʨ 29 ˆ ˇ ˈ ˉ 2 ËŒ
3 � ˑ 6 ˘ ˙ ˚ ˛ ˜ � ˞ 6 ˥ ˦ ˧ ˨ ˩ 22 ̀ � ̂ ̃ ̄ 1 ̆ 1 ̈ 2 ̋ ̌ 2 � 2 ̒
2 Ì• 2 ̘ Ì™ Ìš 1 Ìœ Ì� Ìž ÌŸ Ì* 3 ̤ Ì¥ ̦ 2 Ì© ̪ 1 ̬ 2 ̯ Ì° 3 Ì´ 4 ̹ ̺ Ì» ̼ ̽ 35 Í¡
18 ʹ ͵ 4 ͺ 3 ; 5 ΄ ΅ Ά · Έ Ή Ί 1 Ό 1 Ύ � �
391 Α Î’ Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Îœ Î� Ξ Ο Î* Ρ 1 Σ Τ Î¥ Φ Χ Ψ Ω Ϊ Ϋ ά Î* ή ί ΰ
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � ς σ τ υ φ χ ψ ω
410 Ð� Б Ð’ Г Д Е Ж З И Й К Л Ðœ Ð� О П Ð* С Т У Ф Ð¥ Ц Ч Ш Щ Ъ Ы Ь Ð* Ю Я
а б в г д е ж з и й к л м н о п р � т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь � ю �
2014 — ― ‖ ‗ ‘ ’ ‚ ‛ “ â€� „ ‟ â€* ‡ • ‣ ․ ‥ … ‧ 
 
 ‪ ‫ ‬ â€* * 1 ‰ ‱
′ ″ ‴ ‵ ‶ ‷ ‸ ‹ › ※ ‼ ‽ ‾ ‿ � � � � � � � � � � 7 � 30 � 3 � � �
â�· â�¸ â�¹ â�º â�» â�¼ â�½ â�¾ â�¿ â‚€ â‚� â‚‚ ₃ â‚„ â‚… ₆ ₇ ₈ ₉ â‚Š â‚‹ â‚Œ â‚� â‚Ž 17 â‚* â‚¡ â‚¢ â‚£ ₤ â‚¥ ₦ ₧ ₨
â‚© ₪ â‚« € â‚* â‚® ₯ â‚° ₱ 78 â„€ â„� â„‚ ℃ â„„ â„… ℆ ℇ ℈ ℉ â„Š â„‹ â„Œ â„� â„Ž â„� â„� â„‘ â„’ â„“ â„” â„• â„– â„—
℘ â„™ â„š â„› â„œ â„� â„ž â„Ÿ â„* â„¡ â„¢ â„£ ℤ â„¥ Ω ℧ ℨ â„© K â„« ℬ â„* â„® ℯ â„° ℱ Ⅎ ℳ â„´ ℵ ℶ â„· ℸ
26 â…“ â…” â…• â…– â…— â…˜ â…™ â…š â…› â…œ â…� â…ž â…Ÿ â…* â…¡ â…¢ â…£ â…¤ â…¥ â…¦ â…§ â…¨ â…© â…ª â…« â…¬
â…* â…® â…¯ â…° â…± â…² â…³ â…´ â…µ â…¶ â…· â…¸ â…¹ â…º â…» â…¼ â…½ â…¾ â…¿ ↀ â†� ↂ
13 â†� ↑ → ↓ ↔ ↕ ↖ ↗ ↘ ↙ ↚ ↛ ↜ â†� ↞ ↟ â†* ↡ ↢ ↣ ↤ ↥ ↦ ↧ ↨ ↩ ↪ ↫ ↬ â†* ↮
↯ ↰ ↱ ↲ ↳ ↴ ↵ ↶ ↷ ↸ ↹ ↺ ↻ ↼ ↽ ↾ ↿ ⇀ � ⇂ ⇃ ⇄ ⇅ ⇆ ⇇ ⇈ ⇉ ⇊ ⇋ ⇌ � ⇎ � � ⇑
⇒ ⇓ ⇔ ⇕ ⇖ ⇗ ⇘ ⇙ ⇚ ⇛ ⇜ â‡� ⇞ ⇟ â‡* ⇡ ⇢ ⇣ ⇤ ⇥ ⇦ ⇧ ⇨ ⇩ ⇪
21eb 21 ∀ � ∂ ∃ ∄ ∅ ∆ ∇ ∈ ∉ ∊ ∋ ∌ � ∎ � � ∑ − ∓ ∔ ∕ ∖ ∗ ∘ ∙ √ ∛
∜ âˆ� ∞ ∟ âˆ* ∡ ∢ ∣ ∤ ∥ ∦ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ∫ ∬ âˆ* ∮ ∯ ∰ ∱ ∲ ∳ ∴ ∵ ∶ ∷ ∸
∹ ∺ ∻ ∼ ∽ ∾ ∿ ≀ � ≂ ≃ ≄ ≅ ≆ ≇ ≈ ≉ ≊ ≋ ≌ � ≎ � � ≑ ≒ ≓ ≔ ≕ ≖ ≗ ≘ ≙ ≚
≛ ≜ â‰� ≞ ≟ â‰* ≡ ≢ ≣ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≪ ≫ ≬ â‰* ≮ ≯ ≰ ≱ ≲ ≳ ≴ ≵ ≶ ≷ ≸ ≹ ≺
≻ ≼ ≽ ≾ ≿ ⊀ � ⊂ ⊃ ⊄ ⊅ ⊆ ⊇ ⊈ ⊉ ⊊ ⊋ ⊌ � ⊎ � � ⊑ ⊒ ⊓ ⊔ ⊕ ⊖ ⊗ ⊘ ⊙ ⊚ ⊛
⊜ âŠ� ⊞ ⊟ âŠ* ⊡ ⊢ ⊣ ⊤ ⊥ ⊦ ⊧ ⊨ ⊩ ⊪ ⊫ ⊬ âŠ* ⊮ ⊯ ⊰ ⊱ ⊲ ⊳ ⊴ ⊵ ⊶ ⊷ ⊸ ⊹ ⊺ ⊻ ⊼ ⊽
⊾ ⊿ ⋀ � ⋂ ⋃ ⋄ ⋅ ⋆ ⋇ ⋈ ⋉ ⋊ ⋋ ⋌ � ⋎ � � ⋑ ⋒ ⋓ ⋔ ⋕ ⋖ ⋗ ⋘ ⋙ ⋚ ⋛ ⋜ � ⋞ ⋟
â‹* â‹¡ â‹¢ â‹£ ⋤ â‹¥ ⋦ ⋧ ⋨ â‹© ⋪ â‹« ⋬ â‹* â‹® ⋯ â‹° ⋱ 16 ⌂ 2 ⌅ ⌆ 9 âŒ� 1 ⌒ 5 ⌘ 7 âŒ* ⌡
156 ⎾ ⎿ � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1 � 84 �
2460 â‘* â‘¡ â‘¢ â‘£ ⑤ â‘¥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ â‘© ⑪ â‘« ⑬ â‘* â‘® ⑯ â‘° ⑱ ⑲ ⑳ â‘´
⑵ ⑶ ⑷ ⑸ ⑹ ⑺ ⑻ ⑼ ⑽ ⑾ ⑿ ⒀ � ⒂ ⒃ ⒄ ⒅ ⒆ ⒇ ⒈ ⒉ ⒊ ⒋
â’Œ â’� â’Ž â’� â’� â’‘ â’’ â’“ â’” â’• â’– â’— â’˜ â’™ â’š â’› â’œ â’� â’ž â’Ÿ â’* â’¡ â’¢
â’£ â’¤ â’¥ â’¦ â’§ â’¨ â’© â’ª â’« â’¬ â’* â’® â’¯ â’° â’± â’² â’³ â’´ â’µ â’¶ â’· â’¸ â’¹
Ⓔ Ⓕ Ⓖ Ⓗ Ⓘ Ⓙ Ⓚ � Ⓜ Ⓝ Ⓞ Ⓟ Ⓠ Ⓡ Ⓢ Ⓣ Ⓤ Ⓥ Ⓦ � Ⓨ � �
â“‘ â“’ â““ â“” â“• â“– â“— ⓘ â“™ â“š â“› â“œ â“� â“ž â“Ÿ â“* â“¡ â“¢ â“£ ⓤ â“¥ ⓦ ⓧ
ⓨ â“© ⓪ â“« ⓬ â“* â“® ⓯ â“° ⓱ ⓲ ⓳ â“´ ⓵ ⓶ â“· ⓸ ⓹ ⓺ â“» ⓼ ⓽ ⓾
1 ─ � │ ┃ ┄ ┅ ┆ ┇ ┈ ┉ ┊ ┋ ┌ � ┎ � � ┑ ┒ ┓ └ ┕ ┖ ┗ ┘ ┙ ┚ ┛
├ â”� ┞ ┟ â”* ┡ ┢ ┣ ┤ ┥ ┦ ┧ ┨ ┩ ┪ ┫ ┬ â”* â”® ┯ â”° â”± ┲ ┳ â”´ ┵ ┶ â”·
┸ ┹ ┺ ┻ ┼ ┽ ┾ ┿ ╀ � ╂ ╃ ╄ ╅ ╆ ╇ ╈ ╉ ╊ ╋ ╌ � ╎ � � ║ ╒ ╓ ╔ ╕ ╖ ╗
╘ â•™ â•š â•› â•œ â•� â•ž â•Ÿ â•* â•¡ â•¢ â•£ ╤ â•¥ ╦ ╧ ╨ â•© ╪ â•« ╬ â•* â•® ╯ â•° ╱ ╲ ╳ â•´ ╵ ╶ â•· ╸ ╹ ╺
â•» ╼ ╽ ╾ â•¿ â–€ â–� â–‚ â–ƒ â–„ â–… â–† â–‡ â–ˆ â–‰ â–Š â–‹ â–Œ â–� â–Ž â–� â–� â–‘ â–’ â–“ â–” â–• 10 â–* â–¡ â–¢ â–£ â–¤
â–¥ â–¦ â–§ â–¨ â–© â–ª â–« â–¬ â–* â–® â–¯ â–° â–± â–² â–³ â–´ â–µ â–¶ â–· â–¸ â–¹ â–º â–» â–¼ â–½ â–¾ â–¿ â—€ â—� â—‚ â—ƒ â—„ â—…
â—† â—‡ â—ˆ â—‰ â—Š â—‹ â—Œ â—� â—Ž â—� â—� â—‘ â—’ â—“ â—” â—• â—– â—— â—˜ â—™ â—š â—› â—œ â—� â—ž â—Ÿ â—* â—¡ â—¢ â—£ â—¤ â—¥
â—¦ â—§ â—¨ â—© â—ª â—« â—¬ â—* â—® â—¯ 16 ☀ â˜� ☂ ☃ ☄ ★ ☆ ☇ ☈ ☉ ☊ ☋ ☌ â˜� ☎
â˜� â˜� ☑ ☒ ☓ 2 ☖ ☗ 2 ☚ ☛ ☜ â˜� ☞ ☟ â˜* ☡ ☢ ☣ ☤ ☥ ☦ ☧ ☨
☩ ☪ ☫ ☬ â˜* ☮ ☯ ☰ ☱ ☲ ☳ ☴ ☵ ☶ ☷ ☸ ☹ ☺ ☻ ☼ ☽ ☾ ☿ ♀
� ♂ ♃ ♄ ♅ ♆ ♇ ♈ ♉ ♊ ♋ ♌ � ♎ � � ♑ ♒ ♓ ♔ ♕ ♖ ♗
♘ â™™ ♚ â™› ♜ â™� ♞ ♟ â™* ♡ ♢ ♣ ♤ ♥ ♦ ♧ ♨ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ â™* â™® ♯
2708 ✈ ✉ 2 ✌ � ✎ � � ✑ ✒ ✓ ✔ ✕ ✖ ✗ ✘ ✙ ✚ ✛ ✜ �
✞ ✟ âœ* ✡ ✢ ✣ ✤ ✥ ✦ ✧ 1 ✩ ✪ ✫ ✬ âœ* ✮ ✯ ✰ ✱ ✲ ✳ ✴
✵ ✶ ✷ ✸ ✹ ✺ ✻ ✼ ✽ ✾ ✿ � � � � � � � � � � � �
1 � 1 � � � � 3 � 1 � � � � � � � 2 � � � � � � �
14 � � � � � � � � � � ➀ � ➂ ➃ ➄ ➅ ➆ ➇ ➈ ➉ ➊ ➋
➌ âž� ➎ âž� âž� âž‘ âž’ âž“ âž” 3 ➘ âž™ âžš âž› âžœ âž� âžž ➟ âž* âž¡ ➢ ➣ ➤
➥ ➦ ➧ ➨ âž© ➪ âž« ➬ âž* âž® ➯ 1 âž± âž² âž³ âž´ âžµ ➶ âž· ➸ âž¹ ➺ âž»
âž¼ âž½ âž¾
ff01 � ＂ ＃ ＄ ％ ＆ ＇ （ ） ＊ ＋ ， � ． � � １ ２ ３ ４ ５
ï¼– ï¼— ８ ï¼™ ： ï¼› ＜ ï¼� ＞ ？ ï¼* Ａ ï¼¢ ï¼£ Ｄ ï¼¥ Ｆ Ｇ Ｈ Ｉ Ｊ Ｋ Ｌ
ï¼* ï¼® Ｏ ï¼° ï¼± ï¼² ï¼³ ï¼´ ï¼µ Ｖ ï¼· Ｘ ï¼¹ Ｚ ï¼» ï¼¼ ï¼½ ï¼¾ ＿ ï½€ ï½� ｂ ｃ
ｄ ｅ ｆ ｇ ｈ ｉ ｊ ｋ ｌ � ｎ � � ｑ ｒ ｓ ｔ ｕ ｖ ｗ ｘ ｙ ｚ
｛ ｜ � ～
ffe3 ￣ ￤ ￥ ￦ 1 ￨ ￩ ￪ ￫ ￬


Stop it.

Sombody get Jeffy turned on to the figlet server so he can post something aEstheticly plEasing.

--
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/19/...zenegger-bush/

On Apr 20, 8:05 am, "Pmb" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...



On Apr 18, 12:50 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:
--"Sanny" wrote in message

...

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

Light is a EM wave propagating through the Indefinable Energy Form
of the Quantum State (Aether,Zero Point Energy,Space/Time), Which
is the left over Indefinable Energy Form that was the Indefinable Unified
Energy Form that was the Indefinable Unified Energy Form of BB fame,
the Quantum Point (Singularity, Chaos Point, Energy Quanta) and perceived
to be a Little Ball of Stuff due to Intrinsic Bias of the observer, any
device
designed to observe and the "Light" being observed when observed at
a short enough time frame.

But I could be Wrong....

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"

Why wrong, because if we can't wrap ourselves around your
interpretation is why it doesn't hardly matter.

Could you try out a few other wordings, so that we don't have to be
Einstein or on drugs in order to interpret your theory?

All inclusive, there's fewer than one atom/m3, yet there's likely more
than 1e100 photons/m3.

Because there's a fixed number of atoms and continuous supply of
photons, it seems the photon is in charge of most everything outside
of them black holes.
. - Brad Guth

To "believe" is a large part of physics. In fact its a large part of any
science. Science will never have access to truth and therefore truth is but
an unobtainable goal.

Pete

That's good, to believe in the regular laws of physics and of the best
available science that's independently peer replicated, to me seems
like a perfectly viable foundation of truth. So, why isn't that the
case of what our mainstream status quo has to say?

Of course, if those in charge are intentionally telling us what and
how to interpret each and every old or new thing that comes along, and
if those in charge are so entitled as to exclude upon whatever
evidence rocks their boat, then what's the difference?

If those in charge of our private parts, and having been responsible
for taking most of our hard earned loot as well as having taken our
lives, insist that all that's off-world is merely of God's inert eye-
candy, then why bother looking or much less sending our spendy probes
off to such God forsaken places that we humans can never materialized
into any tangible worth, on behalf of benefiting our terrestrial
sequestered existence?

If our moon were chuck full of fresh water, or even as hollow as a
crystallized interior of a geode rock; so what?

If there were once upon a time or even of other coexisting intelligent
forms of ET life, such as having existed upon Venus; so what?

How many trillions of our hard earned loot, and precious decades or
centuries are we supposed to invest upon research into such other
remote off-world places, that to the best of our knowledge and
expertise can't accommodate us frail humans in the buff?

I'm in favor of ignoring God. How about yourself?
.. - Brad Guth