"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
| http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf

That was lovely. I have it bookmarked.

| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

Hmm. Is that the best sort of Cubist, pink-period self-portrait extant of
Uncool Al on the web, or . . .

--
JP David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/

"Absolutely. Liberty and responsibility are . . . two sides of the same
coin. Civil commitment and the insanity defense are like Siamese twins.
They cannot be separated. Both are grave moral wrongs. But, for modern
western society, both are irresistibly convenient. I am equally opposed to
psychiatric coercions and to psychiatric excuses." Thomas Szasz

"Seymour Grass" wrote in message
...
So long as Einstein's helpful little myth of the 'photon' continues to be
the model for theoretical speculation about solar energy, progress toward
the discovery of a more efficient design for solar cells must remain
essentially at a stand-still.

For all intents and purposes, the solar cell is nothing but a diode, an
abysmally inefficient one at that, and never mind current researches into
various organic compounds, the use of indium and gallium, arseno-pyrite,
because thus far, nothing so economically feasible as silicon has yet
come
to be produced as a reasonable replacement.

Physicists and chemists are stymied because they are hobbled by
theoretical
mythologies about "hole-flow" and the particle superstition attaching to
an
understanding of electromagnic radiation whether of light or electric
current.

A working hypothesis must go back to a state of understanding which
precedes
all contemporary contradiction of particle/wave paradoxes, to Planck's
earliest assumptions which yet remain unaltered by Einstein's
photoelectric
theory. What is required is nothing more than a critique of the logical
inconsistencies that presently plague the understandings of science in
order
that by their exposure, they may, by the same dialectical process, be
resolved into the conclusions which obvious logical antitheses would
reveal.

FROM THE BEGINNING
It was Planck's constant which proved his case that, generally speaking,
when a photosensitive element is exposed to light, an excitation occurs
which causes an electron in the outer shell of the atom to transmute from
a
condition of higher energy to a lower.

It is standard in the practice of science to describe this phenomenon in
the
parlance of the presently accepted mythology such as to say, "an electron
is
emitted". Thus, according to myth, a hungry little fuzzy ball of material
substance of "negative charge" when impacted by another little ghost ball
of
no charge, somehow that "photon", is then gobbled up by that little
electron
entire, so that having now this extra energy, it is then moved to leap out
of its orbit and go a-wandering whither it will.

The trouble with this thesis is that it doesn't take Planck's mechanics at
face value which requires that the 'electron' be reduced, not increased in
its energy. On the face of it, and most literally considered, it would
seem
that Quantum Theory as Planck introduced it would require a completely
opposite view of the nature of light energy.

THE ANTITHESIS
If light is viewed in lieu of all contemporary materialistic trappings as
being entirely without substance, as ought to seem most fundamentally
obvious to the intuition, and if it may be seen as having negative motion
such as one finds at the eye of a hurricane or going through an automotive
vacuum line, if it may be thought that electromagnetic radiation is
negatively propagated with the effect of a siphon, it may then be seen as
completely in comportment with Planck's view of what really happens to a
supposed orphan electron in a phosphorus doped silicon crystal--precisely
nothing much.

What happens? The electron is 'excited' by the light ray or wave (same
thing depending on which angle the wave is looked at, either you're seeing
the snake straight-on or from the side. If it's an ultra-violet
diamondback
coming straight on, the undulations are so fine and of such high frequency
that you won't hardly know the thing was wiggling at all--what you see is
the ray and not the wave, and the head of the thing is the 'photon'--or
let
us say the 'tail'.

Whenever something is being consumed by heat, it draws fuel and oxygen to
itself. Any campfire warms the air around the fire-ring not because some
storm of heat-rays and waves are coming out of the fire, but because the
thermal vortex is sucking everything around the ring into the fire--the
air,
the earth, the skin molecules on faces of the cowboys singing "Oh, Bury Me
Not . . ." Anything and everything near or far from that campfire is being
excited into motion as energy being drawn toward the fire. Those cowboys
experience that excitation as heat because they are exposed to the fierce
cyclone of imploding quantum motion feeding the light energy in the fire.

Light makes the whole world visible to us because it excites the molecules
in everything so that the atoms glow in everything, the electrons in
everything are being excited into quantum motion. It's like your blood is
blue until being exposed to oxygen, it turns to red. Light energy to the
world is like oxygen to all the blue blood in it. It is not the light
energy which shines, it's everything else that shines being put into a
state
of excitation by that luminal force.

Light is a negative force, like a tornado: There is no ejection of
electrons, there is only a depletion of energy in an electron; no electron
leaves its orbit, only the energy of the electron does that being drawn
away, as beach sand in an undertow of the ocean, by electromagnetic waves.

Now you can argue with this thesis till you're blue in the face talking
about ionization but you will never be able to produce a single one to
look
at since every ion only exists theoretically as a model of what's really
the wave packets, quanta. Face it: matter is matter, and energy is
energy. The material model for the quanta of energy must now be put away
in
favor of something a little more illustrative of what's really there.


--
John http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"Seeking to know is only too often learning to doubt." -- Antoinette du
Ligier de la Garde Deshoulieres (1638-1694), French poet




And what's really there
is nothing more than space full of matter in motion.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

"Mathew Orman" wrote in message
...
| And what's really there
| is nothing more than space full of matter in motion.

Well, if you wanted to be concise to the extreme about it, okay--why not
just leave "space" out of the whole matter since it's nothing but an
abstraction like "time" anyway?

Consider in passing this thought: if the structure of a black hole is a
vortex, and if that is the ultimate 'form' as it were, of "space", or of
space in which all matter is reduced to the proto-void of a "singularity",
then what might that tell us about the geometric form of light-radiation?
Imagine all light being propagated from an incandescent point outward to
infinity as a sort of cuneiform, or i.e. conical projection.

Where is the "photon"? It is nothing but a singularity at the incandescent
point but its energy is projected as the face of a sunflower in helical
waves to infinity.

--
Seymour Grass http://jpdavid.bravepages.com/index.html

"A rising mass movement attracts and holds a following not by its doctrine
and promises but by the refuge it offers from the anxieties, barrenness and
meaninglessness of an individual existence. It cures the poignantly
frustrated not by conferring on them an absolute truth or by remedying the
difficulties and abuses which made their lives miserable, but by freeing
them from their ineffectual selves--and it does this by enfolding and
absorbing them into a closely knit and exultant corporate whole." Eric
Hoffer in *The True Believer*

"Seymour Grass" wrote in message ...

[snip]

Seymour Grass http://jpdavid.bravepages.com/index.html

| Security Warning
|
| Do you want to install and run "(after accepting our
| agreements) Precision Time/DateManager, free 10
| second GAIN ad-supported downloads that display
| (i) exact time/date, and (ii) GAIN-branded ads
| selected based on websites you view? Click here to
| read our agreements. Click Yes to accept" signed
| on 07-Jul-2003 21:48 and distributed by:
|
| The Gator Corporation
|
| Publisher authenticity verified by Verisign Class 3
| Code Signing 2001-4 CA
|
| Caution: The Gator Corporation asserts that this
| content is safe. You should only install/view this
| content if you trust The Gator Corporation to make
| that assertion.
|
| [] Always trust content from The Gator Corporation
|
| Yes No More Info

See also:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=gator+adware+spyware

Dirk Vdm

In article , (Randy Poe) writes:
"Seymour Grass" wrote in message ...
[snip]

Somebody please tell me this was a satirical piece making
fun of book-length crackpot posts. Nobody can simultaneously
hold so many misconceptions in so many different subjects,
can they?

Don't forget, "human wisdom is finite, stupidity isn't".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Seymour Grass wrote:

Whenever something is being consumed by heat, it draws fuel and oxygen to
itself. Any campfire warms the air around the fire-ring not because some
storm of heat-rays and waves are coming out of the fire, but because the
thermal vortex is sucking everything around the ring into the fire--the air,
the earth, the skin molecules on faces of the cowboys singing "Oh, Bury Me
Not . . ." Anything and everything near or far from that campfire is being
excited into motion as energy being drawn toward the fire. Those cowboys
experience that excitation as heat because they are exposed to the fierce
cyclone of imploding quantum motion feeding the light energy in the fire.

Yikes - did anyone else find this image disturbing? I may have dreams about
those cowboys whose facial skin was sucked off in mid song. No more late
night horror movies for me.

Bruce

wrote in message
...

| Don't forget, "human wisdom is finite, stupidity isn't".

And if there was a hot, piping pot of proof in the pudding, there it is.
--
JP David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/

"A book is a mirror, if an ass peers into it, you can't expect an apostle to
peer out." - Georg Lichtenberg

So long as Einstein's helpful little myth of the 'photon' continues to be
the model for theoretical speculation about solar energy, progress toward
the discovery of a more efficient design for solar cells must remain
essentially at a stand-still.

For all intents and purposes, the solar cell is nothing but a diode, an
abysmally inefficient one at that, and never mind current researches into
various organic compounds, the use of indium and gallium, arseno-pyrite,
because thus far, nothing so economically feasible as silicon has yet come
to be produced as a reasonable replacement.

Physicists and chemists are stymied because they are hobbled by theoretical
mythologies about "hole-flow" and the particle superstition attaching to an
understanding of electromagnic radiation whether of light or electric
current.

A working hypothesis must go back to a state of understanding which precedes
all contemporary contradiction of particle/wave paradoxes, to Planck's
earliest assumptions which yet remain unaltered by Einstein's photoelectric
theory. What is required is nothing more than a critique of the logical
inconsistencies that presently plague the understandings of science in order
that by their exposure, they may, by the same dialectical process, be
resolved into the conclusions which obvious logical antitheses would reveal.

FROM THE BEGINNING
It was Planck's constant which proved his case that, generally speaking,
when a photosensitive element is exposed to light, an excitation occurs
which causes an electron in the outer shell of the atom to transmute from a
condition of higher energy to a lower.

It is standard in the practice of science to describe this phenomenon in the
parlance of the presently accepted mythology such as to say, "an electron is
emitted". Thus, according to myth, a hungry little fuzzy ball of material
substance of "negative charge" when impacted by another little ghost ball of
no charge, somehow that "photon", is then gobbled up by that little electron
entire, so that having now this extra energy, it is then moved to leap out
of its orbit and go a-wandering whither it will.

The trouble with this thesis is that it doesn't take Planck's mechanics at
face value which requires that the 'electron' be reduced, not increased in
its energy. On the face of it, and most literally considered, it would seem
that Quantum Theory as Planck introduced it would require a completely
opposite view of the nature of light energy.

THE ANTITHESIS
If light is viewed in lieu of all contemporary materialistic trappings as
being entirely without substance, as ought to seem most fundamentally
obvious to the intuition, and if it may be seen as having negative motion
such as one finds at the eye of a hurricane or going through an automotive
vacuum line, if it may be thought that electromagnetic radiation is
negatively propagated with the effect of a siphon, it may then be seen as
completely in comportment with Planck's view of what really happens to a
supposed orphan electron in a phosphorus doped silicon crystal--precisely
nothing much.

What happens? The electron is 'excited' by the light ray or wave (same
thing depending on which angle the wave is looked at, either you're seeing
the snake straight-on or from the side. If it's an ultra-violet diamondback
coming straight on, the undulations are so fine and of such high frequency
that you won't hardly know the thing was wiggling at all--what you see is
the ray and not the wave, and the head of the thing is the 'photon'--or let
us say the 'tail'.

Whenever something is being consumed by heat, it draws fuel and oxygen to
itself. Any campfire warms the air around the fire-ring not because some
storm of heat-rays and waves are coming out of the fire, but because the
thermal vortex is sucking everything around the ring into the fire--the air,
the earth, the skin molecules on faces of the cowboys singing "Oh, Bury Me
Not . . ." Anything and everything near or far from that campfire is being
excited into motion as energy being drawn toward the fire. Those cowboys
experience that excitation as heat because they are exposed to the fierce
cyclone of imploding quantum motion feeding the light energy in the fire.

Light makes the whole world visible to us because it excites the molecules
in everything so that the atoms glow in everything, the electrons in
everything are being excited into quantum motion. It's like your blood is
blue until being exposed to oxygen, it turns to red. Light energy to the
world is like oxygen to all the blue blood in it. It is not the light
energy which shines, it's everything else that shines being put into a state
of excitation by that luminal force.

Light is a negative force, like a tornado: There is no ejection of
electrons, there is only a depletion of energy in an electron; no electron
leaves its orbit, only the energy of the electron does that being drawn
away, as beach sand in an undertow of the ocean, by electromagnetic waves.

Now you can argue with this thesis till you're blue in the face talking
about ionization but you will never be able to produce a single one to look
at since every ion only exists theoretically as a model of what's really
the wave packets, quanta. Face it: matter is matter, and energy is
energy. The material model for the quanta of energy must now be put away in
favor of something a little more illustrative of what's really there.

"Bruce Seiler" wrote in message
...
| Seymour Grass wrote:
|
| Whenever something is being consumed by heat, it draws fuel and oxygen
to
| itself. Any campfire warms the air around the fire-ring not because
some
| storm of heat-rays and waves are coming out of the fire, but because the
| thermal vortex is sucking everything around the ring into the fire--the
air,
| the earth, the skin molecules on faces of the cowboys singing "Oh, Bury
Me
| Not . . ." Anything and everything near or far from that campfire is
being
| excited into motion as energy being drawn toward the fire. Those cowboys
| experience that excitation as heat because they are exposed to the
fierce
| cyclone of imploding quantum motion feeding the light energy in the
fire.
|
| Yikes - did anyone else find this image disturbing? I may have dreams
about
| those cowboys whose facial skin was sucked off in mid song. No more late
| night horror movies for me.

Yeah, like *Blazing Saddles*-- it just depends on what side of you is facing
the fire, and how potent is them 'frijoles' you got in your plate, my boy,
as to just how disturbed you could get. But don't get your pants on fire
too soon . . .

In 1879, it was shown by Augustin Mouchot that by soldering a plate of
copper to one of iron, and then directing the heat of a solar reflector on
that junction, an electric current could be made to flow from the one side
of the junction to the other. The Cowboy's campfire does the same thing to
anything *at junction* with it, as it were. There can be no question but
that the sensation of heat felt in the cowpoke's face is an excitation of
the atoms in his skin due to a flow of energy from his face to the fire, or
vice-versa, to the flames from his fart.

--
John http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/

"The shortsighted squeal, they always squeal except when they are being
diddled or hypnotized." --Ezra Pound

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:55:09 -0500, "Seymour Grass"
wrote:


"Randy Poe" wrote in message
. com...
| "Seymour Grass" wrote in message
...
| [snip]
|
| Somebody please tell me this was a satirical piece making
| fun of book-length crackpot posts. Nobody can simultaneously
| hold so many misconceptions in so many different subjects,
| can they?

The clearest evidence that one's critic is merely hopping about without a
leg to stand on, trying to hold on to both his painful shins at once, is the
way he will never address the specifics of the issue.

Specific one: Was this a satirical piece? Unaddressed.
Specific two: You don't really believe everything you wrote here, do
you? Unaddressed.

I'm not going to waste time responding to 40 different specific
misconceptions till I know whether this was a satire or was intended
to be interpreted seriously.

- Randy

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:44:23 GMT, wrote:

In article , (Randy Poe) writes:
"Seymour Grass" wrote in message ...
[snip]

Somebody please tell me this was a satirical piece making
fun of book-length crackpot posts. Nobody can simultaneously
hold so many misconceptions in so many different subjects,
can they?

Don't forget, "human wisdom is finite, stupidity isn't".

I'm still undecided. After posting the cut-and-paste text and
gathering responses, the OP has yet to actually engage anybody in
substantive discussion. Instead it's been silly banter about IQs and
other nonsense. As somebody-who-shall-remain unnamed in this thread
said, "the clearest evidence that one's critic is merely hopping about
without a leg to stand on, trying to hold on to both his painful shins
at once, is the way he will never address the specifics of the issue."

At any rate, I've raised my first question, which remains unanswered:
Is this a joke? If OP wishes to address this question, I'll continue.

- Randy