Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

| A *photon* has little if any definition outside
| the near-field of an atomic oscillator. It is
| just a chunk of EM perturbation in a sea of
| other EM perturbations... with some phase information.

There are no beams of light, right?
That's right.

Material structures, usually conducive
or dielectric, are responsible for the
directional characteristics and they
see as well as they show.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...arp.750pix.jpg

Sue...


Androcles.

ok that is good enough for me
because this ng i supose has a bigger rating then your meeting (:-)
all i wahted to say is :
lust give credit to copyrighters (:-)

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "Sue..." wrote in message
| oups.com...
|
| | A *photon* has little if any definition outside
| | the near-field of an atomic oscillator. It is
| | just a chunk of EM perturbation in a sea of
| | other EM perturbations... with some phase information.
|
| There are no beams of light, right?
| That's right.

Ok... According to Gisse v dx/dt, not much point continuing
a discussion with either of you. I won't plonk you, though, you do
have a joke to tell now and then even if you are crazy enough to
deny empirical evidence.
Androcles.

Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "Sue..." wrote in message
| oups.com...
|
| | A *photon* has little if any definition outside
| | the near-field of an atomic oscillator. It is
| | just a chunk of EM perturbation in a sea of
| | other EM perturbations... with some phase information.
|
| There are no beams of light, right?
| That's right.

Ok... According to Gisse v dx/dt, not much point continuing
a discussion with either of you. I won't plonk you, though, you do
have a joke to tell now and then even if you are crazy enough to
deny empirical evidence.

A likely tale. Plonking is how a member of the
H. G. Wells fan club admits defeat so I'll hang
on to my seat on the audience side of the comedy
club. If you can get a sea of charges to pay
attention to your de-esses and de-tees then I'll
try to manufacture a joke about their attention
span.

'Till then, I can only offer this *timeless*
expression:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif


Sue...

Androcles.

"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "Sue..." wrote in message
| oups.com...
| |
| | Androcles wrote:
| | "Sue..." wrote in message
| | oups.com...
| |
| | | A *photon* has little if any definition outside
| | | the near-field of an atomic oscillator. It is
| | | just a chunk of EM perturbation in a sea of
| | | other EM perturbations... with some phase information.
| |
| | There are no beams of light, right?
| | That's right.
|
| Ok... According to Gisse v dx/dt, not much point continuing
| a discussion with either of you. I won't plonk you, though, you do
| have a joke to tell now and then even if you are crazy enough to
| deny empirical evidence.
|
| A likely tale. Plonking is how a member of the
| H. G. Wells fan club admits defeat

Oh, I admit defeat. I'm not going anywhere near "v dx/dt",
or "there are no shadows".
I'm defeated, Gisse is plonked.
Do carry on ranting, I'll just be selective about what I find funny.
Androcles.




so I'll hang
| on to my seat on the audience side of the comedy
| club. If you can get a sea of charges to pay
| attention to your de-esses and de-tees then I'll
| try to manufacture a joke about their attention
| span.
|
| 'Till then, I can only offer this *timeless*
| expression:
| http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
|
|
| Sue...
|
| Androcles.
|

No. As per Einstein, h*fL / c^2 is EQUiVALENT mass.!!
Why invent, or ..in your case, dig up MORE SYNONYMs.?
Go See 'THE UNiVERSE & DR. EiNSTEiN'; 1956;
Comet Books / Collins; 1956 EDiTiON:
Written by: Lincoln Barnett;
SUB-Title: The Meaning of Time, Space and Matter.
[With foreword by Albert Einstein; Princeton, New Jersey.]
[FOREWORD written September 10, 1948; ..SEE: Pages 5 & 6.]
[This is Einstein's FiNAL SAY on GR, just before he died.]
brian a m stuckless

Sue... wrote: Y.Porat wrote: in More simple words:
the Lorentz factor does not apply to the photon
the photon is a special case that has to be treated separately

and if no Lorentz factor for it- no need anymore to claim the
weird claim that it has no mass( though having Energy and
momentum!!) and the mass of the photon is defined simply
as; mC^2 = hf therefore photon mass is m (photon) =hf/ C^2

No it is **apparent** mass

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on
Nuclear Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964)

insert ..see top of PAGE.!!

does it make sense to you?? very simple isn't it??
does it makes so many things much simpler ??!!

(instead of the mountains of junglaring just because one false
assumption that the L factor applies to the photon as well)??!!

QM is not a theory of propagation. It is a energy accouning
mechanism that substitutes statististics for electrodynamics.

You cannot design a vaccine for avian flu from the geographic
data which describes it's propagation. You also need some
knowlege of it's mechanisms.
http://www.sasvrc.qld.gov.au/assets/RNA_V_3.gif
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm

Sue...

TIA Y.Porat
-----------------------------

I had forgotten that I wrote something under this heading. Yes, Y.Porat, I
understood what you meant and I agreed with you. But you can't understand my
explanation of mass before you read what is said about it in falling space
theory.

Henry Haapalainen
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Y.Porat wrote:
Hi ****ty
a piece of human ****
you are jealous Eh..??

but people already know who you are and who i am
it want help you
i am marching on and you sunk down in your ****
people now realize that you are a sabotager
and will ignore you as a farting mad dog
go see your psychiatrists

PS to the other readers

please bypass that mad sabotager.(that surely is not a woman- it is a
mad impostor.)

Yes you are.

Stop misspelling its, ****headed Sue.

OK Henry
the main point is that we agree on a very important
and not least- revolutionary issue!!

mind you it is more revolutionary than we can imagine at first glance

and again No mass - no real physics !!

that is going to be one of the basics of physics from now on
and will save tons of vane mumbling!!

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------