Light is the unified form of the universe
in [Physics]
|
From: GogoJF on 25 May 2010 14:19 On May 25, 1:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 12:49 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 12:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 12:30 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 12:26 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 12:21 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 12:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 25, 11:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > > > > > > > > > > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > > > > > > > > > > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > > > > > > > > > > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? > > > > > > > > > > What is impractical about it? > > > > > > > > > > When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears. It > > > > > > > > > transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you > > > > > > > > > intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse > > > > > > > > > ratio of the distance squared. > > > > > > > > > > The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* > > > > > > > > > directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction > > > > > > > > > of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance > > > > > > > > > squared. > > > > > > > > > > The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS.. > > > > > > > > > To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun > > > > > > > > > delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the > > > > > > > > > Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the > > > > > > > > > earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over > > > > > > > > > a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters! > > > > > > > > > So, are you saying that every square meter of the sun delivers light > > > > > > > > to every square meter on the Earth? > > > > > > > > No, I didn't say that. Please reread what I said. > > > > > > > > > The Terrell Effect says that the > > > > > > > > sun's image would be blurry. > > > > > > > > Nah, not by enough to be noticeable. Here is where it is important to > > > > > > > know how to calculate. Just because an effect is present does not mean > > > > > > > that it is noticeable. For example, if you roll a steel ball on a > > > > > > > basketball floor, the Coriolis effect will bend the path of that ball. > > > > > > > Just not enough for you to notice it with your eyeballs. If you > > > > > > > actually calculate the size of the Coriolis effect on that steel ball, > > > > > > > you'll understand why you don't notice it. It doesn't mean the effect > > > > > > > isn't there. > > > > > > > > > But, we know that it is clear. You are > > > > > > > > tangled in cause and effect. > > > > > > > I understand what you are saying, but let me give you an example of > > > > > > what I am talking about, as simple as possible. > > > > > > > There is a single light bulb in a large room. When you stand near the > > > > > > light bulb you not only can see the bulb, but you can also see your > > > > > > hand and body. Now, as you walk away, the bulb can still be seen > > > > > > clearly- it just gets slightly smaller, but your hand and body get > > > > > > dimmer. Finally, you reach a point where you are standing in total > > > > > > darkness. You cannot see your hand or body, but you can still see the > > > > > > light bulb. At this point, the light bulb can no longer illuminate > > > > > > its surroundings but the observer can still "see" the bulb. Now, > > > > > > according to the photoelectric effect, photons diminish down to 1 and > > > > > > then eventually go to zero. But I believe this theory is wrong. The > > > > > > act of seeing is not particles falling into the eye mechanically. > > > > > > In other words, as propagating effects fall to zero, you can still see > > > > > the bulb- but we still say it is 1 photon. This is because we > > > > > substituted the hand for a photocell, which makes this two different > > > > > and separate experiments. But, we combined them into one- as in > > > > > Lenard's second crucial experiment of the early twentieth century.. > > > > > This was a critical error in logic! > > > > > This is a critical flaw in experimental procedure. > > > > No, I'm sorry, perhaps you don't understand the experiment. > > > What experiment? My illustration or Lenards? Ok, let's take > > Lenard's. Maybe you can figure why this following statement is, what > > it is. On page 198 of Frank's "Philosophy of Science", it says: > > > Lenard's experiment showed conclusively that the lower limit of the > > radiation absorbed by the screen, (meaning the photocell) as the > > distance increases is independent of the distance and dependent only > > upon the color (frequency) of the light. > > > What does this mean to you PD? > > It means that light doesn't deliver energy continuously, as in a wave. > If it were a wave, then there would be no lower limit based on > frequency. > In a wave model, the energy is related to the product of intensity and > frequency, so that an more intense red light would deliver the same > amount of energy as a less intense blue light. What this would mean, > for example, is that if the photoelectric effect cut off at a lower > frequency, then moving the photocell closer to the source would > restore the photoelectric effect, IF the wave model were applicable. > This, however, did not happen, as noted in the observations above. > Thus, something is wrong with the wave model. > > However, a photon model accounts for *all* the above observations. > > This is explained in just about every freshman physics or chemistry > textbook you can find in the library. What about Lenard's use of two different screens- the near screen an opaque surface and the far screen a shiny photocell?
From: GogoJF on 25 May 2010 14:22 On May 25, 1:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 12:49 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 12:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 12:30 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 12:26 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 12:21 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 12:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 25, 11:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > > > > > > > > > > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > > > > > > > > > > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > > > > > > > > > > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? > > > > > > > > > > What is impractical about it? > > > > > > > > > > When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears. It > > > > > > > > > transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you > > > > > > > > > intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse > > > > > > > > > ratio of the distance squared. > > > > > > > > > > The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* > > > > > > > > > directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction > > > > > > > > > of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance > > > > > > > > > squared. > > > > > > > > > > The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS.. > > > > > > > > > To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun > > > > > > > > > delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the > > > > > > > > > Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the > > > > > > > > > earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over > > > > > > > > > a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters! > > > > > > > > > So, are you saying that every square meter of the sun delivers light > > > > > > > > to every square meter on the Earth? > > > > > > > > No, I didn't say that. Please reread what I said. > > > > > > > > > The Terrell Effect says that the > > > > > > > > sun's image would be blurry. > > > > > > > > Nah, not by enough to be noticeable. Here is where it is important to > > > > > > > know how to calculate. Just because an effect is present does not mean > > > > > > > that it is noticeable. For example, if you roll a steel ball on a > > > > > > > basketball floor, the Coriolis effect will bend the path of that ball. > > > > > > > Just not enough for you to notice it with your eyeballs. If you > > > > > > > actually calculate the size of the Coriolis effect on that steel ball, > > > > > > > you'll understand why you don't notice it. It doesn't mean the effect > > > > > > > isn't there. > > > > > > > > > But, we know that it is clear. You are > > > > > > > > tangled in cause and effect. > > > > > > > I understand what you are saying, but let me give you an example of > > > > > > what I am talking about, as simple as possible. > > > > > > > There is a single light bulb in a large room. When you stand near the > > > > > > light bulb you not only can see the bulb, but you can also see your > > > > > > hand and body. Now, as you walk away, the bulb can still be seen > > > > > > clearly- it just gets slightly smaller, but your hand and body get > > > > > > dimmer. Finally, you reach a point where you are standing in total > > > > > > darkness. You cannot see your hand or body, but you can still see the > > > > > > light bulb. At this point, the light bulb can no longer illuminate > > > > > > its surroundings but the observer can still "see" the bulb. Now, > > > > > > according to the photoelectric effect, photons diminish down to 1 and > > > > > > then eventually go to zero. But I believe this theory is wrong. The > > > > > > act of seeing is not particles falling into the eye mechanically. > > > > > > In other words, as propagating effects fall to zero, you can still see > > > > > the bulb- but we still say it is 1 photon. This is because we > > > > > substituted the hand for a photocell, which makes this two different > > > > > and separate experiments. But, we combined them into one- as in > > > > > Lenard's second crucial experiment of the early twentieth century.. > > > > > This was a critical error in logic! > > > > > This is a critical flaw in experimental procedure. > > > > No, I'm sorry, perhaps you don't understand the experiment. > > > What experiment? My illustration or Lenards? Ok, let's take > > Lenard's. Maybe you can figure why this following statement is, what > > it is. On page 198 of Frank's "Philosophy of Science", it says: > > > Lenard's experiment showed conclusively that the lower limit of the > > radiation absorbed by the screen, (meaning the photocell) as the > > distance increases is independent of the distance and dependent only > > upon the color (frequency) of the light. > > > What does this mean to you PD? > > It means that light doesn't deliver energy continuously, as in a wave. > If it were a wave, then there would be no lower limit based on > frequency. > In a wave model, the energy is related to the product of intensity and > frequency, so that an more intense red light would deliver the same > amount of energy as a less intense blue light. What this would mean, > for example, is that if the photoelectric effect cut off at a lower > frequency, then moving the photocell closer to the source would > restore the photoelectric effect, IF the wave model were applicable. > This, however, did not happen, as noted in the observations above. > Thus, something is wrong with the wave model. > > However, a photon model accounts for *all* the above observations. > > This is explained in just about every freshman physics or chemistry > textbook you can find in the library. By the way, if it is considered a second crucial experiment to physics, and one of the main keys to Einstein's 1905 paper, then I would hope it would be in every freshman physics and chemistry textbook!
From: PD on 25 May 2010 14:28 On May 25, 1:22 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 1:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 12:49 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 12:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 12:30 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 12:26 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 12:21 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 25, 12:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 11:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > > > > > > > > > > > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > > > > > > > > > > > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > > > > > > > > > > > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? > > > > > > > > > > > What is impractical about it? > > > > > > > > > > > When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears. It > > > > > > > > > > transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you > > > > > > > > > > intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse > > > > > > > > > > ratio of the distance squared. > > > > > > > > > > > The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* > > > > > > > > > > directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction > > > > > > > > > > of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance > > > > > > > > > > squared. > > > > > > > > > > > The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS. > > > > > > > > > > To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun > > > > > > > > > > delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the > > > > > > > > > > Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the > > > > > > > > > > earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over > > > > > > > > > > a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters! > > > > > > > > > > So, are you saying that every square meter of the sun delivers light > > > > > > > > > to every square meter on the Earth? > > > > > > > > > No, I didn't say that. Please reread what I said. > > > > > > > > > > The Terrell Effect says that the > > > > > > > > > sun's image would be blurry. > > > > > > > > > Nah, not by enough to be noticeable. Here is where it is important to > > > > > > > > know how to calculate. Just because an effect is present does not mean > > > > > > > > that it is noticeable. For example, if you roll a steel ball on a > > > > > > > > basketball floor, the Coriolis effect will bend the path of that ball. > > > > > > > > Just not enough for you to notice it with your eyeballs. If you > > > > > > > > actually calculate the size of the Coriolis effect on that steel ball, > > > > > > > > you'll understand why you don't notice it. It doesn't mean the effect > > > > > > > > isn't there. > > > > > > > > > > But, we know that it is clear. You are > > > > > > > > > tangled in cause and effect. > > > > > > > > I understand what you are saying, but let me give you an example of > > > > > > > what I am talking about, as simple as possible. > > > > > > > > There is a single light bulb in a large room. When you stand near the > > > > > > > light bulb you not only can see the bulb, but you can also see your > > > > > > > hand and body. Now, as you walk away, the bulb can still be seen > > > > > > > clearly- it just gets slightly smaller, but your hand and body get > > > > > > > dimmer. Finally, you reach a point where you are standing in total > > > > > > > darkness. You cannot see your hand or body, but you can still see the > > > > > > > light bulb. At this point, the light bulb can no longer illuminate > > > > > > > its surroundings but the observer can still "see" the bulb. Now, > > > > > > > according to the photoelectric effect, photons diminish down to 1 and > > > > > > > then eventually go to zero. But I believe this theory is wrong. The > > > > > > > act of seeing is not particles falling into the eye mechanically. > > > > > > > In other words, as propagating effects fall to zero, you can still see > > > > > > the bulb- but we still say it is 1 photon. This is because we > > > > > > substituted the hand for a photocell, which makes this two different > > > > > > and separate experiments. But, we combined them into one- as in > > > > > > Lenard's second crucial experiment of the early twentieth century. > > > > > > This was a critical error in logic! > > > > > > This is a critical flaw in experimental procedure. > > > > > No, I'm sorry, perhaps you don't understand the experiment. > > > > What experiment? My illustration or Lenards? Ok, let's take > > > Lenard's. Maybe you can figure why this following statement is, what > > > it is. On page 198 of Frank's "Philosophy of Science", it says: > > > > Lenard's experiment showed conclusively that the lower limit of the > > > radiation absorbed by the screen, (meaning the photocell) as the > > > distance increases is independent of the distance and dependent only > > > upon the color (frequency) of the light. > > > > What does this mean to you PD? > > > It means that light doesn't deliver energy continuously, as in a wave. > > If it were a wave, then there would be no lower limit based on > > frequency. > > In a wave model, the energy is related to the product of intensity and > > frequency, so that an more intense red light would deliver the same > > amount of energy as a less intense blue light. What this would mean, > > for example, is that if the photoelectric effect cut off at a lower > > frequency, then moving the photocell closer to the source would > > restore the photoelectric effect, IF the wave model were applicable. > > This, however, did not happen, as noted in the observations above. > > Thus, something is wrong with the wave model. > > > However, a photon model accounts for *all* the above observations. > > > This is explained in just about every freshman physics or chemistry > > textbook you can find in the library. > > By the way, if it is considered a second crucial experiment to > physics, and one of the main keys to Einstein's 1905 paper, then I > would hope it would be in every freshman physics and chemistry > textbook! Einstein made several 1905 papers. I assume you're talking about the photoelectric effect paper. Yes, the key observations of the photoelectric effect are in those textbooks.
From: GogoJF on 25 May 2010 14:31 On May 25, 1:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 1:22 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 1:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 12:49 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 12:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 12:30 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 12:26 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 25, 12:21 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 12:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 11:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > > > > > > > > > > > > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > > > > > > > > > > > > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > > > > > > > > > > > > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? > > > > > > > > > > > > What is impractical about it? > > > > > > > > > > > > When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears. It > > > > > > > > > > > transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you > > > > > > > > > > > intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse > > > > > > > > > > > ratio of the distance squared. > > > > > > > > > > > > The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* > > > > > > > > > > > directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction > > > > > > > > > > > of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance > > > > > > > > > > > squared. > > > > > > > > > > > > The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS. > > > > > > > > > > > To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun > > > > > > > > > > > delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the > > > > > > > > > > > Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the > > > > > > > > > > > earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over > > > > > > > > > > > a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters! > > > > > > > > > > > So, are you saying that every square meter of the sun delivers light > > > > > > > > > > to every square meter on the Earth? > > > > > > > > > > No, I didn't say that. Please reread what I said. > > > > > > > > > > > The Terrell Effect says that the > > > > > > > > > > sun's image would be blurry. > > > > > > > > > > Nah, not by enough to be noticeable. Here is where it is important to > > > > > > > > > know how to calculate. Just because an effect is present does not mean > > > > > > > > > that it is noticeable. For example, if you roll a steel ball on a > > > > > > > > > basketball floor, the Coriolis effect will bend the path of that ball. > > > > > > > > > Just not enough for you to notice it with your eyeballs. If you > > > > > > > > > actually calculate the size of the Coriolis effect on that steel ball, > > > > > > > > > you'll understand why you don't notice it. It doesn't mean the effect > > > > > > > > > isn't there. > > > > > > > > > > > But, we know that it is clear. You are > > > > > > > > > > tangled in cause and effect. > > > > > > > > > I understand what you are saying, but let me give you an example of > > > > > > > > what I am talking about, as simple as possible. > > > > > > > > > There is a single light bulb in a large room. When you stand near the > > > > > > > > light bulb you not only can see the bulb, but you can also see your > > > > > > > > hand and body. Now, as you walk away, the bulb can still be seen > > > > > > > > clearly- it just gets slightly smaller, but your hand and body get > > > > > > > > dimmer. Finally, you reach a point where you are standing in total > > > > > > > > darkness. You cannot see your hand or body, but you can still see the > > > > > > > > light bulb. At this point, the light bulb can no longer illuminate > > > > > > > > its surroundings but the observer can still "see" the bulb. Now, > > > > > > > > according to the photoelectric effect, photons diminish down to 1 and > > > > > > > > then eventually go to zero. But I believe this theory is wrong. The > > > > > > > > act of seeing is not particles falling into the eye mechanically. > > > > > > > > In other words, as propagating effects fall to zero, you can still see > > > > > > > the bulb- but we still say it is 1 photon. This is because we > > > > > > > substituted the hand for a photocell, which makes this two different > > > > > > > and separate experiments. But, we combined them into one- as in > > > > > > > Lenard's second crucial experiment of the early twentieth century. > > > > > > > This was a critical error in logic! > > > > > > > This is a critical flaw in experimental procedure. > > > > > > No, I'm sorry, perhaps you don't understand the experiment. > > > > > What experiment? My illustration or Lenards? Ok, let's take > > > > Lenard's. Maybe you can figure why this following statement is, what > > > > it is. On page 198 of Frank's "Philosophy of Science", it says: > > > > > Lenard's experiment showed conclusively that the lower limit of the > > > > radiation absorbed by the screen, (meaning the photocell) as the > > > > distance increases is independent of the distance and dependent only > > > > upon the color (frequency) of the light. > > > > > What does this mean to you PD? > > > > It means that light doesn't deliver energy continuously, as in a wave.. > > > If it were a wave, then there would be no lower limit based on > > > frequency. > > > In a wave model, the energy is related to the product of intensity and > > > frequency, so that an more intense red light would deliver the same > > > amount of energy as a less intense blue light. What this would mean, > > > for example, is that if the photoelectric effect cut off at a lower > > > frequency, then moving the photocell closer to the source would > > > restore the photoelectric effect, IF the wave model were applicable. > > > This, however, did not happen, as noted in the observations above. > > > Thus, something is wrong with the wave model. > > > > However, a photon model accounts for *all* the above observations. > > > > This is explained in just about every freshman physics or chemistry > > > textbook you can find in the library. > > > By the way, if it is considered a second crucial experiment to > > physics, and one of the main keys to Einstein's 1905 paper, then I > > would hope it would be in every freshman physics and chemistry > > textbook! > > Einstein made several 1905 papers. I assume you're talking about the > photoelectric effect paper. > Yes, the key observations of the photoelectric effect are in those > textbooks. What about the use of two different screens? I wish you would elaborate on this as much as possible.
From: BURT on 25 May 2010 15:52
On May 25, 8:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 8:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Light is the communicating force of the universe. The truth is that it > > is also a completely unified form of the universe. Everything about it > > is unified. Even the space it oscillates in is unified with it. > > > Mitch Raemsch > Mæther is the unified form of the universe. Stop copying me. |