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: Y.Porat on 27 May 2010 10:12 On May 25, 6:41 pm, 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. ------------------- it is not created * instantaneously* as well !! (:-) !! noting in our universe is done 'instantaneously' !! TO DO** ANYTHING** IS A SYNONYM OF TIME TAKING !!! and there are issues of which it is very important to know how long it was done !!! (:-) the shortest time to do anything seems to be not less than the Planck time !!!........!! and it is apparently belongs to photon creation .... ATB Y.Porat ------------------------ Y.Porat ----------------------------
From: bert on 27 May 2010 10:24 On May 26, 1:38 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Infinity ?? My "Time lapse theory" proves there is no instant action in the universe. Inertia sees to it TreBert
From: GogoJF on 27 May 2010 10:52 On May 27, 9:12 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 6:41 pm, 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. > > ------------------- > it is not created * instantaneously* as well > !! (:-) !! > > noting in our universe is done > 'instantaneously' !! > > TO DO** ANYTHING** IS A SYNONYM OF > TIME TAKING !!! > > and there are issues of which > it is very important to know > how long it was done !!! (:-) > the shortest time to do anything > seems to be > not less than the Planck time !!!........!! > and it is apparently belongs to > photon creation .... > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------ > > Y.Porat > ---------------------------- Which is faster Planck time or c?
From: Dono. on 27 May 2010 11:19 On May 27, 7:52 am, BozoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Which is faster Planck time or c? LOL
From: GogoJF on 27 May 2010 17:14
On May 27, 10:19 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On May 27, 7:52 am, BozoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Which is faster Planck time or c? > > LOL According to Wiki on Plank time: It is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length. According to Wiki on Planck length: Unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10-35 meters. Dono, shouldn't the answer to this question be that they are equally as fast? |