Radio Waves, Photons, and Wave Speed.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 23 Dec 2009 08:23 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:25bb5813-c866-4c89-b7ce-f8f7f96e64cb(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 23, 1:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ralph Garbage" <ralph.rabbi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a6f48879-e9b4-496f-8384-91a9adc2a959(a)w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Dec 22, 3:36 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> >> > wrote: >> >> On 22.12.2009 11:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> >> >> > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:03:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> >> > <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 21.12.2009 01:38, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> >> >>> There are still some people here who believe that a radio wave is >> >> >>> of >> >> >>> similar >> >> >>> nature to a gamma particle and consists of a single photon. Others >> >> >>> think it is >> >> >>> a Maxwellian type wave in an aether. How naive. >> >> >> >>> I suggest that a radio wave is made by modulating the emission >> >> >>> rate >> >> >>> of a great >> >> >>> many 'white' photons. The 'wave' is determined by varying the >> >> >>> photon >> >> >>> energy >> >> >>> density and is projected over a wide angle at c wrt the >> >> >>> broadcasting >> >> >>> antenna. >> >> >> >> This is WILSON'S RADIATION LAW again, isn't it? >> >> >> Or has the law changed? >> >> >> Is RABBIDGE'S RADIATION LAW different? >> >> >> >> |Dr. Henri Wilson wrote March 26, 2009: >> >> >> || On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:38:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> >> >> ||<paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >> >> >> || >> >> >> ||| Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> >> |||| Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform >> >> >> definition....... >> >> >> |||| WILSON'S RADIATION LAW. >> >> >> ||| >> >> >> ||| OK, Henri. >> >> >> ||| Apply 'WILSON'S RADIATION LAW' on this real world example: >> >> >> ||| >> >> >> ||| In the interstellar medium there are regions of cold hydrogen. >> >> >> ||| (Just about all the atoms are in ground state.) >> >> >> ||| From this hydrogen, we receive a 21 cm EM radiation. >> >> >> ||| We know that this radiation comes from the superfine transition >> >> >> ||| associated with spin reversal of the electron in ground state. >> >> >> ||| (The same as is used in hydrogen atomic clocks.) >> >> >> ||| When the spin reverses, a single photon is emitted/absorbed. >> >> >> ||| This process is stochastic, and on average each atom >> >> >> experiences >> >> >> ||| a transition once per ~10 million years. Since the density is >> >> >> ||| in the order of 30 atoms per cm^3, and one period of the >> >> >> radiation >> >> >> ||| is 0.7 ns, a bit calculation will show that you must have a >> >> >> volume >> >> >> ||| of 10^7 km^3 (a cube with 215 km sides) to have a 50% >> >> >> probability >> >> >> ||| for a transitions to take place within a specific period. >> >> >> ||| This means that there are hundreds of km between two atoms >> >> >> emitting >> >> >> ||| a photon within the same period. >> >> >> ||| >> >> >> ||| How come these randomly emitted photons from far apart atoms >> >> >> ||| arrange themselves in a wavelike density distribution with >> >> >> ||| exactly 21 cm wavelength? >> >> >> || >> >> >> || They don't, dopey. They don't have to. The individual photons >> >> >> have >> >> >> that >> >> >> || intrinsic wavelength. >> >> >> | >> >> >> | We agree, then. >> >> >> | What reaches the antenna is a flow of randomly spaced photons >> >> >> | with no wavelike density distribution. The wavelength is an >> >> >> | aspect of every photon. >> >> >> | >> >> >> | So why did you previously say: >> >> >> | "Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform >> >> >> definition" >> >> >> | when you now say it is wrong? >> >> >> || >> >> >> ||| Is there a drill sergeant? >> >> >> || >> >> >> || This is not the same process as that which occurs when a high >> >> >> frequency AC >> >> >> || current moves around an antenna. Do you understand radiation >> >> >> from >> >> >> an >> >> >> || accelerating charge? >> >> >> | >> >> >> | So if we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna, >> >> >> | photon density variations is used for waveform definition, >> >> >> | but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there >> >> >> | is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect >> >> >> | of the photons. >> >> >> > correct... >> >> >> SIC!!!!! :-) >> >> >> >> Hilarious, no? >> >> >> > not really. No. >> >> >> So Ralph Rabbidge doesn't realize how hilarious his giant >> >> self-contradistinctions are. >> >> >> This Rabbidge fellow isn't very bright, is he? :-) >> >> > Henry Wilson DSc is really really genius! >> > You couldn't even come close to challenging his powerful mind. >> >> BAHAHAHAHA .. hysterical > > ------------------ > psychopath!! So .. you're going to stalk me posting insults now .. how childish of you. not really different to your usual behavior actually.
From: Ralph Garbage on 23 Dec 2009 08:46 On Dec 23, 5:23 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:25bb5813-c866-4c89-b7ce-f8f7f96e64cb(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Dec 23, 1:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Ralph Garbage" <ralph.rabbi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:a6f48879-e9b4-496f-8384-91a9adc2a959(a)w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Dec 22, 3:36 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> > >> > wrote: > >> >> On 22.12.2009 11:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > >> >> > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:03:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > >> >> > <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > > >> >> >> On 21.12.2009 01:38, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >> >> >>> There are still some people here who believe that a radio wave is > >> >> >>> of > >> >> >>> similar > >> >> >>> nature to a gamma particle and consists of a single photon. Others > >> >> >>> think it is > >> >> >>> a Maxwellian type wave in an aether. How naive. > > >> >> >>> I suggest that a radio wave is made by modulating the emission > >> >> >>> rate > >> >> >>> of a great > >> >> >>> many 'white' photons. The 'wave' is determined by varying the > >> >> >>> photon > >> >> >>> energy > >> >> >>> density and is projected over a wide angle at c wrt the > >> >> >>> broadcasting > >> >> >>> antenna. > > >> >> >> This is WILSON'S RADIATION LAW again, isn't it? > >> >> >> Or has the law changed? > >> >> >> Is RABBIDGE'S RADIATION LAW different? > > >> >> >> |Dr. Henri Wilson wrote March 26, 2009: > >> >> >> || On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:38:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > >> >> >> ||<paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > >> >> >> || > >> >> >> ||| Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > >> >> >> |||| Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform > >> >> >> definition....... > >> >> >> |||| WILSON'S RADIATION LAW. > >> >> >> ||| > >> >> >> ||| OK, Henri. > >> >> >> ||| Apply 'WILSON'S RADIATION LAW' on this real world example: > >> >> >> ||| > >> >> >> ||| In the interstellar medium there are regions of cold hydrogen. > >> >> >> ||| (Just about all the atoms are in ground state.) > >> >> >> ||| From this hydrogen, we receive a 21 cm EM radiation. > >> >> >> ||| We know that this radiation comes from the superfine transition > >> >> >> ||| associated with spin reversal of the electron in ground state. > >> >> >> ||| (The same as is used in hydrogen atomic clocks.) > >> >> >> ||| When the spin reverses, a single photon is emitted/absorbed. > >> >> >> ||| This process is stochastic, and on average each atom > >> >> >> experiences > >> >> >> ||| a transition once per ~10 million years. Since the density is > >> >> >> ||| in the order of 30 atoms per cm^3, and one period of the > >> >> >> radiation > >> >> >> ||| is 0.7 ns, a bit calculation will show that you must have a > >> >> >> volume > >> >> >> ||| of 10^7 km^3 (a cube with 215 km sides) to have a 50% > >> >> >> probability > >> >> >> ||| for a transitions to take place within a specific period. > >> >> >> ||| This means that there are hundreds of km between two atoms > >> >> >> emitting > >> >> >> ||| a photon within the same period. > >> >> >> ||| > >> >> >> ||| How come these randomly emitted photons from far apart atoms > >> >> >> ||| arrange themselves in a wavelike density distribution with > >> >> >> ||| exactly 21 cm wavelength? > >> >> >> || > >> >> >> || They don't, dopey. They don't have to. The individual photons > >> >> >> have > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> || intrinsic wavelength. > >> >> >> | > >> >> >> | We agree, then. > >> >> >> | What reaches the antenna is a flow of randomly spaced photons > >> >> >> | with no wavelike density distribution. The wavelength is an > >> >> >> | aspect of every photon. > >> >> >> | > >> >> >> | So why did you previously say: > >> >> >> | "Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform > >> >> >> definition" > >> >> >> | when you now say it is wrong? > >> >> >> || > >> >> >> ||| Is there a drill sergeant? > >> >> >> || > >> >> >> || This is not the same process as that which occurs when a high > >> >> >> frequency AC > >> >> >> || current moves around an antenna. Do you understand radiation > >> >> >> from > >> >> >> an > >> >> >> || accelerating charge? > >> >> >> | > >> >> >> | So if we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna, > >> >> >> | photon density variations is used for waveform definition, > >> >> >> | but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there > >> >> >> | is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect > >> >> >> | of the photons. > > >> >> > correct... > > >> >> SIC!!!!! :-) > > >> >> >> Hilarious, no? > > >> >> > not really. No. > > >> >> So Ralph Rabbidge doesn't realize how hilarious his giant > >> >> self-contradistinctions are. > > >> >> This Rabbidge fellow isn't very bright, is he? :-) > > >> > Henry Wilson DSc is really really genius! > >> > You couldn't even come close to challenging his powerful mind. > > >> BAHAHAHAHA .. hysterical > > > ------------------ > > psychopath!! > > So .. you're going to stalk me posting insults now .. how childish of you.. > not really different to your usual behavior actually. He obviously just took exception to your hysterical comment, and worships Henry Wilson DSc as soon EVERYONE will! Henry Wilson DSc rules!
From: Inertial on 23 Dec 2009 09:20 "Ralph Garbage" <ralph.rabbidge(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e3ecd4b3-4258-415d-b38a-37e6824966c8(a)u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 23, 5:23 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:25bb5813-c866-4c89-b7ce-f8f7f96e64cb(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Dec 23, 1:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Ralph Garbage" <ralph.rabbi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:a6f48879-e9b4-496f-8384-91a9adc2a959(a)w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Dec 22, 3:36 am, "Paul B. Andersen" >> >> > <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> On 22.12.2009 11:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:03:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> >> >> > <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 21.12.2009 01:38, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> >> >> >>> There are still some people here who believe that a radio wave >> >> >> >>> is >> >> >> >>> of >> >> >> >>> similar >> >> >> >>> nature to a gamma particle and consists of a single photon. >> >> >> >>> Others >> >> >> >>> think it is >> >> >> >>> a Maxwellian type wave in an aether. How naive. >> >> >> >> >>> I suggest that a radio wave is made by modulating the emission >> >> >> >>> rate >> >> >> >>> of a great >> >> >> >>> many 'white' photons. The 'wave' is determined by varying the >> >> >> >>> photon >> >> >> >>> energy >> >> >> >>> density and is projected over a wide angle at c wrt the >> >> >> >>> broadcasting >> >> >> >>> antenna. >> >> >> >> >> This is WILSON'S RADIATION LAW again, isn't it? >> >> >> >> Or has the law changed? >> >> >> >> Is RABBIDGE'S RADIATION LAW different? >> >> >> >> >> |Dr. Henri Wilson wrote March 26, 2009: >> >> >> >> || On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:38:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> >> >> >> ||<paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >> >> >> >> || >> >> >> >> ||| Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> >> >> |||| Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform >> >> >> >> definition....... >> >> >> >> |||| WILSON'S RADIATION LAW. >> >> >> >> ||| >> >> >> >> ||| OK, Henri. >> >> >> >> ||| Apply 'WILSON'S RADIATION LAW' on this real world example: >> >> >> >> ||| >> >> >> >> ||| In the interstellar medium there are regions of cold >> >> >> >> hydrogen. >> >> >> >> ||| (Just about all the atoms are in ground state.) >> >> >> >> ||| From this hydrogen, we receive a 21 cm EM radiation. >> >> >> >> ||| We know that this radiation comes from the superfine >> >> >> >> transition >> >> >> >> ||| associated with spin reversal of the electron in ground >> >> >> >> state. >> >> >> >> ||| (The same as is used in hydrogen atomic clocks.) >> >> >> >> ||| When the spin reverses, a single photon is emitted/absorbed. >> >> >> >> ||| This process is stochastic, and on average each atom >> >> >> >> experiences >> >> >> >> ||| a transition once per ~10 million years. Since the density >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> ||| in the order of 30 atoms per cm^3, and one period of the >> >> >> >> radiation >> >> >> >> ||| is 0.7 ns, a bit calculation will show that you must have a >> >> >> >> volume >> >> >> >> ||| of 10^7 km^3 (a cube with 215 km sides) to have a 50% >> >> >> >> probability >> >> >> >> ||| for a transitions to take place within a specific period. >> >> >> >> ||| This means that there are hundreds of km between two atoms >> >> >> >> emitting >> >> >> >> ||| a photon within the same period. >> >> >> >> ||| >> >> >> >> ||| How come these randomly emitted photons from far apart atoms >> >> >> >> ||| arrange themselves in a wavelike density distribution with >> >> >> >> ||| exactly 21 cm wavelength? >> >> >> >> || >> >> >> >> || They don't, dopey. They don't have to. The individual photons >> >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> || intrinsic wavelength. >> >> >> >> | >> >> >> >> | We agree, then. >> >> >> >> | What reaches the antenna is a flow of randomly spaced photons >> >> >> >> | with no wavelike density distribution. The wavelength is an >> >> >> >> | aspect of every photon. >> >> >> >> | >> >> >> >> | So why did you previously say: >> >> >> >> | "Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform >> >> >> >> definition" >> >> >> >> | when you now say it is wrong? >> >> >> >> || >> >> >> >> ||| Is there a drill sergeant? >> >> >> >> || >> >> >> >> || This is not the same process as that which occurs when a high >> >> >> >> frequency AC >> >> >> >> || current moves around an antenna. Do you understand radiation >> >> >> >> from >> >> >> >> an >> >> >> >> || accelerating charge? >> >> >> >> | >> >> >> >> | So if we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna, >> >> >> >> | photon density variations is used for waveform definition, >> >> >> >> | but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there >> >> >> >> | is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect >> >> >> >> | of the photons. >> >> >> >> > correct... >> >> >> >> SIC!!!!! :-) >> >> >> >> >> Hilarious, no? >> >> >> >> > not really. No. >> >> >> >> So Ralph Rabbidge doesn't realize how hilarious his giant >> >> >> self-contradistinctions are. >> >> >> >> This Rabbidge fellow isn't very bright, is he? :-) >> >> >> > Henry Wilson DSc is really really genius! >> >> > You couldn't even come close to challenging his powerful mind. >> >> >> BAHAHAHAHA .. hysterical >> >> > ------------------ >> > psychopath!! >> >> So .. you're going to stalk me posting insults now .. how childish of >> you. >> not really different to your usual behavior actually. > > He obviously just took exception to your hysterical comment, and > worships Henry Wilson DSc as soon EVERYONE will! > Henry Wilson DSc rules! BAHAHAHAHHA. No .. he's just a senile old psycho stalker (Porat, that is, not Henry .. but then, on second thoughts....)
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Dec 2009 09:52 On 12/23/09 5:58 AM, Ralph Garbage wrote: > > Henry Wilson DSc is really really genius! > You couldn't even come close to challenging his powerful mind. > Henri's and you posting records show otherwise.
From: Ralph Garbage on 23 Dec 2009 09:57
On Dec 23, 6:52 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/23/09 5:58 AM, Ralph Garbage wrote: > > > > > Henry Wilson DSc is really really genius! > > You couldn't even come close to challenging his powerful mind. > > Henri's and you posting records show otherwise. I'm rubber and you're glue... You are unworthy to even stand in Henry Wilson DSc's shadow! |