Radio Waves, Photons, and Wave Speed.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Moon Tickets Available
Next: Halexandria Update; Family Trees; Gods; Tiamat; Sitchin; von Daniken; KJV; sun stood still
From: Inertial on 22 Dec 2009 23:15 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:VbydndP118NuEazWnZ2dnUVZ_sypnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 12/22/09 6:51 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >> >> Hey dopey, what creates the photons that the antenna emits? >> > > Current (moving charge), Silly! Think Maxwell's equations! Or more to the point oscillating or alternating current (so not just moving, but accelerating charges)
From: Inertial on 22 Dec 2009 23:48 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:kr73j517b15jci8oj4723nilk6ooc934sd(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:15:00 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:VbydndP118NuEazWnZ2dnUVZ_sypnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... >>> On 12/22/09 6:51 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hey dopey, what creates the photons that the antenna emits? >>>> >>> >>> Current (moving charge), Silly! Think Maxwell's equations! >> >>Or more to the point oscillating or alternating current (so not just >>moving, >>but accelerating charges) > > If nothing else, this thread has now demonstrated that inertial is > actually > considerably brighter than both little eric and wormey, who probably comes > in > last. Wow .. two close-to-a-compliment from you in one week.
From: Inertial on 22 Dec 2009 19:00 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:a3m2j5ta6a4mk91qais4k0f5n1egls86ub(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:53:24 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >><paparios(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:74287cc7-cee1-4ff1-929a-d85384556284(a)21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >>> On 22 dic, 07:49, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:03:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>> >>>> >Hilarious, no? >>>> >>>> not really. No. >>>> >>>> I suppose you are going to claim that a radio station that has been on >>>> air for >>>> fifty years is still broadcasing the same photon. >>>> >>> >>> Book worthy!!!!: "radio stations broadcast photons" >> >>Indeed they do, and encoded in the frequencies (and now less often the >>amplitudes) of those photons / EMR is the sounds we hear, or the pictures >>we >>see on our television screens etc. > > So your god Einstein was wrong then? I have no god and no religion too (very John Lennon). And yes, Einstein was wrong about some things .. he was only human. What do you think I've said that is contrary to Einstein (or at least your misunderstandings of him .. you certainly don't understand SR, which is very simple, so I doubt you managed to understand anything else) ?
From: Inertial on 23 Dec 2009 06:10 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:7cq3j5pbj4jdmvhpri63c32u29p4uina98(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:48:36 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:kr73j517b15jci8oj4723nilk6ooc934sd(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:15:00 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:VbydndP118NuEazWnZ2dnUVZ_sypnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... >>>>> On 12/22/09 6:51 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey dopey, what creates the photons that the antenna emits? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Current (moving charge), Silly! Think Maxwell's equations! >>>> >>>>Or more to the point oscillating or alternating current (so not just >>>>moving, >>>>but accelerating charges) >>> >>> If nothing else, this thread has now demonstrated that inertial is >>> actually >>> considerably brighter than both little eric and wormey, who probably >>> comes >>> in >>> last. >> >>Wow .. two close-to-a-compliment from you in one week. > > I would consider it a compliment. > You're still around the chimp level... So still way ahead of you, even then.
From: Ralph Garbage on 23 Dec 2009 06:58
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. > > > > I suppose you are going to claim that a radio station that has been on air for > > fifty years is still broadcasing the same photon. > > .. another argument illustrating the intellectual capacity of Ralph Rabbidge. :-) > > -- > Paul > > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |