Infinite vs. instant
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Simple and direct proof that the theoretical science of AGW is fraud and the product of the host of charlatans led by J Hansen includingno discusion Wormley
Next: COSMIC BULLET FIRED BY EXPLODING STAR
From: J. Clarke on 26 May 2010 09:34 On 5/25/2010 11:19 PM, GogoJF wrote: > On May 25, 10:12 pm, GogoJF<jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On May 25, 8:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 5/25/10 12:53 PM, GogoJF wrote: >> >>>> On May 25, 12:45 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/10 12:38 PM, GogoJF wrote: >> >>>>>> On May 25, 12:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/25/10 11:48 AM, GogoJF wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Seeing light is instantaneous; seeing >>>>>>>> light is not a transmission like a radar wave. >> >>>>>>> Other than its wavelength ,momentum and energy, >>>>>>> radar (microwave) is identical to visible light. >>>>>>> Whatever gave you reason to believe otherwise? >> >>>>>> Radar is two-way transmission for another. >> >>>>> Shine a flash light into a mirror. >> >>>> Don't paint yourself into a corner. You might not be able to get out. >> >>> Shall we try again Gogo? The electromagnetic force (one of four), >>> is carried by the photon. Some examples from the electromagnetic' >>> spectrum, include x-rays, UV, visible light, microwave. Radar >>> frequencies are typically in longer wavelengths, say cm to meter >>> range. >> >>> From the quantum mechanical perspective, >> >>> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles) >>> 2. photons propagate at c >>> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles) >> >>> Photon momentum >>> p = hν/c = h/λ >> >>> Photon Energy >>> E = hν >> >> Why do you waste your time with me? > > I do not have the operational definitions you are looking for. Well perhaps you should get them. You've come to physics but you don't want to learn the language, fine, expect to be sneered at.
From: GogoJF on 26 May 2010 11:10 On May 25, 11:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/25/10 10:12 PM, Gogol wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 8:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote: > >> On 5/25/10 12:53 PM, GogoJF wrote: > > >>> On May 25, 12:45 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>   wrote: > >>>> On 5/25/10 12:38 PM, GogoJF wrote: > > >>>>> On May 25, 12:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>    wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/25/10 11:48 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > >>>>>>> Seeing light is instantaneous; seeing > >>>>>>> light is not a transmission like a radar wave. > > >>>>>>    Other than its wavelength ,momentum and energy, > >>>>>>    radar (microwave) is identical to visible light. > >>>>>>    Whatever gave you reason to believe otherwise? > > >>>>> Radar is two-way transmission for another. > > >>>>    Shine a flash light into a mirror. > > >>> Don't paint yourself into a corner.  You might not be able to get out. > > >>   Shall we try again Gogo? The electromagnetic force (one of four), > >>   is carried by the photon. Some examples from the electromagnetic' > >>   spectrum, include x-rays, UV, visible light, microwave. Radar > >>   frequencies are typically in longer wavelengths, say cm to meter > >>   range. > > >>   From the quantum mechanical perspective, > > >>     1. photons are emitted (by charged particles) > >>     2. photons propagate at c > >>     3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles) > > >>    Photon momentum > >>     p = hν/c = h/λ > > >>    Photon Energy > >>     E = hν > > > Why do you waste your time with me? > >   Because you're the dad of a nice kid. He's my nephew. But I appreciate your comment all the same. I look at myself as an amateur. This is a part-time thing for me. This is a hobby. I do not have access to the finer instruments of the world. Therefore, I will not be able to give you the precise operational definitions that are needed.
From: Sam Wormley on 26 May 2010 13:38 On 5/26/10 10:10 AM, GogoJF wrote: > On May 25, 11:45 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/25/10 10:12 PM, Gogol wrote: >> >> >> >>> On May 25, 8:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 5/25/10 12:53 PM, GogoJF wrote: >> >>>>> On May 25, 12:45 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/10 12:38 PM, GogoJF wrote: >> >>>>>>> On May 25, 12:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/25/10 11:48 AM, GogoJF wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> Seeing light is instantaneous; seeing >>>>>>>>> light is not a transmission like a radar wave. >> >>>>>>>> Other than its wavelength ,momentum and energy, >>>>>>>> radar (microwave) is identical to visible light. >>>>>>>> Whatever gave you reason to believe otherwise? >> >>>>>>> Radar is two-way transmission for another. >> >>>>>> Shine a flash light into a mirror. >> >>>>> Don't paint yourself into a corner. You might not be able to get out. >> >>>> Shall we try again Gogo? The electromagnetic force (one of four), >>>> is carried by the photon. Some examples from the electromagnetic' >>>> spectrum, include x-rays, UV, visible light, microwave. Radar >>>> frequencies are typically in longer wavelengths, say cm to meter >>>> range. >> >>>> From the quantum mechanical perspective, >> >>>> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles) >>>> 2. photons propagate at c >>>> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles) >> >>>> Photon momentum >>>> p = hν/c = h/λ >> >>>> Photon Energy >>>> E = hν >> >>> Why do you waste your time with me? >> >> Because you're the dad of a nice kid. > > He's my nephew. But I appreciate your comment all the same. I look > at myself as an amateur. This is a part-time thing for me. This is a > hobby. I do not have access to the finer instruments of the world. > Therefore, I will not be able to give you the precise operational > definitions that are needed. You have access to as much as most--libraries, textbooks, published papers, online tutorials and resources, people willing to answer your questions. You don't need to give us any precise operation definitions--they already exits. I just wrote some simple known properties of photons, the carrier of the electromagnetic force. I posted something about its behavior and definitions of its momentum and energy. You might consider reading Feynman's book, "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. You might look at the Physics FAQ http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/index.html You might looks at: A Physics Booklist: Recommendations from the Net http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html Amateur or Hobby status does not prevent you from learning about things physics that you are interested in. Some of us learn, or more likely re-learn, from teaching or trying to be helpful on USENET. Embrace this resource, keeping in mind that it is also infested with plenty of cranks, crackpots, trolls and other loonies. You must sort the wheat from the chaff, but it is worth it. -Sam
From: Peter Webb on 26 May 2010 19:12 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d688d857-9b7d-47f3-bddd-23267b8aa335(a)40g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... On May 26, 4:22 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:261f4366-0ee9-4da7-b45a-22d0d4b3ae5b(a)o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > On May 25, 11:48 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 11:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 9:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 9:42 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 5/25/10 9:19 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > > > > > > When it comes to light, what is the difference? Isn't it two > > > > > > different buzz words to describe a single phenomenon? > > > > > > When you look at the moon you see it as it was about 1.3 second > > > > > ago. Sun - About 8 minutes. Vega, when you look at Vega, you are > > > > > seeing it as it was more than 25 years ago. > > > > > Aw man, your living in the past. This question restated: what is the > > > > difference between instant and infinite when it comes to light, when > > > > dealing with physics? > > > > Light has infinite range, which means that there is not a range from > > > the source that the light will never cross. > > > > However, the time it takes to get to any given range is nonzero. > > > Therefore it is not instantaneous transmission. > > > I believe in the opposite. Light has a finite range to the observer > > called maximum visual acuity. Seeing light is instantaneous; seeing > > light is not a transmission like a radar wave. > > First of all, seeing light in a biological eye is not instantaneous > either. It takes a measurable time for rods and cones to respond to > the light, generate the action potential in the nerves, and for that > nerve signal to transmit to the brain. > > Secondly, the time spent for processing AT the receiver doesn't have > anything to do with the time it takes for the light to get from the > source to the receiver. What you see this very instant when you look > up at the Sun is not the Sun as it is now, but as it was a little over > 8 minutes ago. > > __________________________________ > > Well, that is of course in our inertial frame. In the frame of reference > of > the photon, the photon is received on earth at the same instant it is > emitted from the Sun, which given the title of the thread would appear > relevant. There is no inertial reference frame of the photon. Inertial reference frames are defined as those in which the laws of physics hold in the form we know them. ____________________________________ Well no, that would be a circular definition, and I have never seen that definition of an inertial reference frame ever before. Even if your underlying argument is accepted, do you want me to restate this as a limit? That's a very minor technicality. There is an inertial reference frame in which the time between the photon being emitted from the Sun and received on earth is as small as we like ... and in the limit case is instantaneous. The 8 minutes you state as the time delay is the longest possible measured delay in any possible inertial reference frame ... the delay t is actually 0 < t <= 8 minutes depending on the frame of reference, and in the frame of reference of the photon is instantaneous (assuming the photon travels at c). How about their is an inertial reference frame in which
From: PD on 27 May 2010 09:37
On May 26, 6:12 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:d688d857-9b7d-47f3-bddd-23267b8aa335(a)40g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On May 26, 4:22 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:261f4366-0ee9-4da7-b45a-22d0d4b3ae5b(a)o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com.... > > On May 25, 11:48 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 11:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 9:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 9:42 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 5/25/10 9:19 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > > > > > > > When it comes to light, what is the difference? Isn't it two > > > > > > > different buzz words to describe a single phenomenon? > > > > > > > When you look at the moon you see it as it was about 1.3 second > > > > > > ago. Sun - About 8 minutes. Vega, when you look at Vega, you are > > > > > > seeing it as it was more than 25 years ago. > > > > > > Aw man, your living in the past. This question restated: what is the > > > > > difference between instant and infinite when it comes to light, when > > > > > dealing with physics? > > > > > Light has infinite range, which means that there is not a range from > > > > the source that the light will never cross. > > > > > However, the time it takes to get to any given range is nonzero. > > > > Therefore it is not instantaneous transmission. > > > > I believe in the opposite. Light has a finite range to the observer > > > called maximum visual acuity. Seeing light is instantaneous; seeing > > > light is not a transmission like a radar wave. > > > First of all, seeing light in a biological eye is not instantaneous > > either. It takes a measurable time for rods and cones to respond to > > the light, generate the action potential in the nerves, and for that > > nerve signal to transmit to the brain. > > > Secondly, the time spent for processing AT the receiver doesn't have > > anything to do with the time it takes for the light to get from the > > source to the receiver. What you see this very instant when you look > > up at the Sun is not the Sun as it is now, but as it was a little over > > 8 minutes ago. > > > __________________________________ > > > Well, that is of course in our inertial frame. In the frame of reference > > of > > the photon, the photon is received on earth at the same instant it is > > emitted from the Sun, which given the title of the thread would appear > > relevant. > > There is no inertial reference frame of the photon. Inertial reference > frames are defined as those in which the laws of physics hold in the > form we know them. > > ____________________________________ > Well no, that would be a circular definition, and I have never seen that > definition of an inertial reference frame ever before. > > Even if your underlying argument is accepted, do you want me to restate > this as a limit? That's a very minor technicality. There is an inertial > reference frame in which the time between the photon being emitted from the > Sun and received on earth is as small as we like ... and in the limit case > is instantaneous. The 8 minutes you state as the time delay is the longest > possible measured delay in any possible inertial reference frame ... the > delay t is actually 0 < t <= 8 minutes depending on the frame of reference, > and in the frame of reference of the photon is instantaneous (assuming the > photon travels at c). > > How about their is an inertial reference frame in which Put it another way. Inertial frames probe the *interior* of the light cone from any particular event, but not the light cone itself. |