On Apr 19, 1:22Â*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;
Â* Â*i.e. it's Â*Fully Â*a wave.

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

Dear Jeff: "All of that..." from a computer programmer! I must
admit, you round all of the bases, even when you don't touch any of
them. — NoEinstein —

On Apr 19, 4:00Â*am, "
wrote:
On Apr 19, 1:22Â*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;
Â* Â*i.e. it's Â*Fully Â*a wave.

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

Â* Â*But's that's Â*only because the only thing the ****ing physics
idiots
Â* Â*know about either philosophy, the cosmos, logic, randomness, or
causality
Â* is geometry.
Â* Â*Since they are blathering Kant wannabee idiots, rather than
scientists.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear zzbunker: Wow! Looks like you've got supposed scientists
correctly pegged! — NoEinstein —

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 —

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 —

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.

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?

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
On Apr 20, 8:19Â pm, wrote:
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.

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

It was bad enough
that Eric Gisse dragged Art Deco,
and the other race/religion motivated bigots
working out of the caliballista.org boiler-room
into sci.physics,

but it is worse to see him coming to the bigots aid,
when a sci.physics regular points out
what Art Deco is like.

Eric Gisse's attitude reminds me of the song phrase:
"If you can't be with the one you love,
love the one you're with.."

Considering that Gisse doesn't love the folks in sci.physics,
and he drags the scum in from AUK to pollute the newsgroup,
and considering that "Birds of the feather..",

one would think that Gisse would migrate to AUK
and be with the one he loves.

--
Tom Potter

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



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

"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...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.

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


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

"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"

--
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..