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.

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

1. Light is a Wave

Well, that's mostly because schools are always experimenting
wanks.
Since there's a big difference between saying light is a wave,
and light ravels like a wave.



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

If lens could prove anything, we have given the astronomy idiots
even bigger telescopes than they have now, rather than
microprocessors
and lasers.



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

Well, they always do that. Since light is an E-M wave,
just like light's a flame thrower.. Idiots in Washingtoon
will buy anything as the saying goes.



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

Well, the science cranks just do that to sell polorizers.
Since the only thing travelling is wanks, and the only thing
at 90' is pure covariant wanks.


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

But, since atoms have photons too, that's just the same
thing as saying: if you wish hard enough, atoms will turn
into light.


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 spirit, and only its outward renditions affect the retina.

"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

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.

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.

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

"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"

"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"

"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.

--
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 19, 12:22Â*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.



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.

On Apr 19, 3:00Â*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 -


It's also because the nature of mathematics is such that one expects
to find a precise answer to a given question. Mathematicians are not
accustomed to a problem where the solution itself is "A or B". A
solution should be either A or B, not both indeterminately. They are
not acustomed to this type of solution to a given problem.