Prev: the life within us all
Next: The BOP: What You're Looking At . . .
From: BURT on 29 May 2010 17:29
On May 29, 2:26 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 4:49 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 1:36 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 28, 11:12 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Leptons and the proton family are electric point particles. The
> > > > electron is a single point of mass while the proton is three
> > > > infinitely small points of energy infinitely dense. Mass is infinitely
> > > > dense energy in infinitely small particles.
>
> > > > MItch Raemsch
>
> > >   Mitch, we've been through this. Quarks are confined, just like RF in
> > > a cavity. What's the "radius" of one of the many 2.45 gigahertz
> > > photons bouncing around in my microwave oven?
>
> > >   Mark L. Fergerson
>
> > frequency of a photon is imbecility
>
>   Except they're directly measurable. which means you believe
> measurement to be imbecility.
>
>   That doesn't leave much opportunity to do any physics.
>
>   Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Please show how we measure a photon waving?
Show us what of the two waves the photon is in.
Is it in the magnetic wave or is it in the electric wave?

Mitch Raemsch
From: nuny on 29 May 2010 23:46
On May 29, 2:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 2:26 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 4:49 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 29, 1:36 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 28, 11:12 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Leptons and the proton family are electric point particles. The
> > > > > electron is a single point of mass while the proton is three
> > > > > infinitely small points of energy infinitely dense. Mass is infinitely
> > > > > dense energy in infinitely small particles.
>
> > > >   Mitch, we've been through this. Quarks are confined, just like RF in
> > > > a cavity. What's the "radius" of one of the many 2.45 gigahertz
> > > > photons bouncing around in my microwave oven?
>
> > > frequency of a photon is imbecility
>
> >   Except they're directly measurable. which means you believe
> > measurement to be imbecility.
>
> >   That doesn't leave much opportunity to do any physics.
>
> Please show how we measure a photon waving?

We've been through this too. You strive to learn nothing at all of
the technologies involved. If you did want to learn something about
it, you might start by looking up "antenna", but you'd apparently
rather make stuff up.

> Show us what of the two waves the photon is in.
> Is it in the magnetic wave or is it in the electric wave?

There are not "two waves".

Photons are not "in" waves at all.

They can be *measured* as waves.

Now, will you respond to my question about the "radius" of a 2.45
gigahertz photon bouncing around in my microwave oven?


Mark L. Fergerson
From: BURT on 29 May 2010 23:54
On May 29, 8:46 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 2:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 28, 11:12 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Leptons and the proton family are electric point particles. The
> > > > > > electron is a single point of mass while the proton is three
> > > > > > infinitely small points of energy infinitely dense. Mass is infinitely
> > > > > > dense energy in infinitely small particles.
>
> > > > >   Mitch, we've been through this. Quarks are confined, just like RF in
> > > > > a cavity. What's the "radius" of one of the many 2.45 gigahertz
> > > > > photons bouncing around in my microwave oven?
>
> > > > frequency of a photon is imbecility
>
> > >   Except they're directly measurable. which means you believe
> > > measurement to be imbecility.
>
> > >   That doesn't leave much opportunity to do any physics.
>
> > Please show how we measure a photon waving?
>
>   We've been through this too. You strive to learn nothing at all of
> the technologies involved. If you did want to learn something about
> it, you might start by looking up "antenna", but you'd apparently
> rather make stuff up.
>
> > Show us what of the two waves the photon is in.
> > Is it in the magnetic wave or is it in the electric wave?
>
>   There are not "two waves".
>
>   Photons are not "in" waves at all.

Light is defined appropriately by two orthogonal sin waves.
The two waves at right angles. They are electric and magnetic sin
waves. This is where the particle would need to be.

It cannot be outside of either of those waves. It must lie within the
form of light.

So which wave is it in?


>
>   They can be *measured* as waves.

No. Sorry but you can't have it both ways.

Mitch Raemsch
> >
>   Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text -
>

From: alien8er on 30 May 2010 08:05
On May 29, 8:54 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 8:46 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 2:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 28, 11:12 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Leptons and the proton family are electric point particles. The
> > > > > > > electron is a single point of mass while the proton is three
> > > > > > > infinitely small points of energy infinitely dense. Mass is infinitely
> > > > > > > dense energy in infinitely small particles.
>
> > > > > >   Mitch, we've been through this. Quarks are confined, just like RF in
> > > > > > a cavity. What's the "radius" of one of the many 2.45 gigahertz
> > > > > > photons bouncing around in my microwave oven?
>
> > > > > frequency of a photon is imbecility
>
> > > >   Except they're directly measurable. which means you believe
> > > > measurement to be imbecility.
>
> > > >   That doesn't leave much opportunity to do any physics.
>
> > > Please show how we measure a photon waving?
>
> >   We've been through this too. You strive to learn nothing at all of
> > the technologies involved. If you did want to learn something about
> > it, you might start by looking up "antenna", but you'd apparently
> > rather make stuff up.
>
> > > Show us what of the two waves the photon is in.
> > > Is it in the magnetic wave or is it in the electric wave?
>
> >   There are not "two waves".
>
> >   Photons are not "in" waves at all.
>
> Light is defined appropriately by two orthogonal sin waves.
> The two waves at right angles. They are electric and magnetic sin
> waves.

Who defines light that way?

Physicists don't.

Microwave engineers don't.

Who does? You? Based on what?

> It cannot be outside of either of those waves. It must lie within the
> form of light.

Now you want to talk about the "form" of light. Do you not marvel
that NOBODY else talks about that? Or do you take it as evidence of
your own genius?

> So which wave is it in?

I repeat, there are not "two waves". You keep saying there are, but
offer no support.

> >   They can be *measured* as waves.
>
> No. Sorry but you can't have it both ways.

What "both ways"? You don't like the fact that when we look at light
as a wave, it looks like a wave but when we look at it like a
particle, it looks like a particle?

Too bad. That's the way it is. Get over it.

Goofy theories don't matter. Experiment matters. Experiment tells us
what reality *is*, no matter what we might *want* it to be.

I notice you continue to dodge my question about the "radius" of
microwave photons.

I notice you offer no support for your contentions regarding the
"infinite density" of electrons or quarks.

Reality freely shows us the nature of photons, but our
preconceptions keep getting in the way. That's the real root of the so-
called "wave particle duality" confusion. Photons aren't at all
confused about what they are, *we* are confused because we keep trying
to apply macroscopic preconceived ideas like "solid matter" and
"immaterial waves" to light, when *neither* is appropriate.

Looking at introductory diagrams about orthogonal electric and
magnetic "sinewave" fields, and assuming they have some deep
fundamental meaning, is foolish. Such diagrams are primitive maps, and
by now you ought to know that the map is *not* the territory.

Taking such diagrams to be exactly accurate is equivalent to holding
on to primitive beliefs like phlogiston, N-rays, or caloric.

Let go of your preconceptions. They will only hold you back, and
prevent you from understanding Nature's graceful, unending dance.


Mark L. Fergerson
From: BURT on 30 May 2010 14:22
On May 30, 5:05 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 8:54 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 8:46 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 29, 2:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 28, 11:12 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Leptons and the proton family are electric point particles. The
> > > > > > > > electron is a single point of mass while the proton is three
> > > > > > > > infinitely small points of energy infinitely dense. Mass is infinitely
> > > > > > > > dense energy in infinitely small particles.
>
> > > > > > >   Mitch, we've been through this. Quarks are confined, just like RF in
> > > > > > > a cavity. What's the "radius" of one of the many 2.45 gigahertz
> > > > > > > photons bouncing around in my microwave oven?
>
> > > > > > frequency of a photon is imbecility
>
> > > > >   Except they're directly measurable. which means you believe
> > > > > measurement to be imbecility.
>
> > > > >   That doesn't leave much opportunity to do any physics.
>
> > > > Please show how we measure a photon waving?
>
> > >   We've been through this too. You strive to learn nothing at all of
> > > the technologies involved. If you did want to learn something about
> > > it, you might start by looking up "antenna", but you'd apparently
> > > rather make stuff up.
>
> > > > Show us what of the two waves the photon is in.
> > > > Is it in the magnetic wave or is it in the electric wave?
>
> > >   There are not "two waves".
>
> > >   Photons are not "in" waves at all.
>
> > Light is defined appropriately by two orthogonal sin waves.
> > The two waves at right angles. They are electric and magnetic sin
> > waves.
>
>   Who defines light that way?
>
>   Physicists don't.
>
>   Microwave engineers don't.
>
>   Who does? You? Based on what?
>
> > It cannot be outside of either of those waves. It must lie within the
> > form of light.
>
>   Now you want to talk about the "form" of light. Do you not marvel
> that NOBODY else talks about that? Or do you take it as evidence of
> your own genius?
>
> > So which wave is it in?
>
>   I repeat, there are not "two waves". You keep saying there are, but
> offer no support.
>
> > >   They can be *measured* as waves.
>
> > No. Sorry but you can't have it both ways.
>
>   What "both ways"? You don't like the fact that when we look at light
> as a wave, it looks like a wave but when we look at it like a
> particle, it looks like a particle?
>
>   Too bad. That's the way it is. Get over it.
>
>   Goofy theories don't matter. Experiment matters. Experiment tells us
> what reality *is*, no matter what we might *want* it to be.
>
>   I notice you continue to dodge my question about the "radius" of
> microwave photons.
>
>   I notice you offer no support for your contentions regarding the
> "infinite density" of electrons or quarks.
>
>   Reality freely shows us the nature of photons, but our
> preconceptions keep getting in the way. That's the real root of the so-
> called "wave particle duality" confusion. Photons aren't at all
> confused about what they are, *we* are confused because we keep trying
> to apply macroscopic preconceived ideas like "solid matter" and
> "immaterial waves" to light, when *neither* is appropriate.
>
>   Looking at introductory diagrams about orthogonal electric and
> magnetic "sinewave" fields, and assuming they have some deep
> fundamental meaning, is foolish. Such diagrams are primitive maps, and
> by now you ought to know that the map is *not* the territory.
>
>   Taking such diagrams to be exactly accurate is equivalent to holding
> on to primitive beliefs like phlogiston, N-rays, or caloric.
>
>   Let go of your preconceptions. They will only hold you back, and
> prevent you from understanding Nature's graceful, unending dance.
>
>   Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No one has ever seen the actual wave or an actual particle. It is how
light behaves that shows its a wave. Einstein questioned what he won
the Nobel Prize for. In the 1930's he said he could not reconcile the
particle with the wave.

You don't need a particle for the nature of light absorption. The
light wave going into matter is enough to explain the photoelectric
effect.

Mitch Raemsch
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: the life within us all
Next: The BOP: What You're Looking At . . .