What is Light?
Sanny
1. Light is a Wave
I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.
2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
can we say they are perpendicular.
Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.
Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
the correct description of light.
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
J Jones
The eyes know, and they're not telling.
CWatters
"Sanny" <soft...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a120f99-9b32-4812...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
> the correct description of light.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
Both
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality
BradGuth
Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because Einstein
didn't have a clue.
I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps as
somewhat quantum string like items. Of course, this still doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".
Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting with
mass?
Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
. - Brad Guth
Hagar
"Sanny" <soft...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a120f99-9b32-4812...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
OK Sanny, here's the inside scoop:
Light comes from a tube.
The tube contains storage devices called batteries.
They in turn power a bulb or a few LEDs.
Now here's the critical part: There is a switch on the side.
ON means light (in Old Celtic) and OFF means no light.
It is very important not to get the two mixed up, since thinking ON means
OFF may cause a premature electron ejaculation by the batteries and then all
they want to do is lay around and smoke and drink beer.
Hope that helped you in your quest for the truth.
John Graeme
It's confusing only if you insist on thinking that human concepts like
"particle" and "wave" are some fundamental aspect of nature. They are
human constructs for understanding nature. Light is light--Under some
conditions it has wave properties; under others particle properties.
Igor
See, there's your problem. Passing out. Maybe if you'd have just
stayed awake, you would know.
BradGuth
Explain how photons can even exist/coexist w/o the strong force or
perhaps the dark force gravitons (aka matter).
. - Brad Guth
. - Brad Guth
Paul Mays
--
"Sanny" <soft...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a120f99-9b32-4812...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Light is a EM wave propagating through the Indefinable Energy Form
of the Quantum State (Aether,Zero Point Energy,Space/Time), Which
is the left over Indefinable Energy Form that was the Indefinable Unified
Energy Form that was the Indefinable Unified Energy Form of BB fame,
the Quantum Point (Singularity, Chaos Point, Energy Quanta) and perceived
to be a Little Ball of Stuff due to Intrinsic Bias of the observer, any
device
designed to observe and the "Light" being observed when observed at
a short enough time frame.
But I could be Wrong....
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
Paul Mays
--
"CWatters" <colin....@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:ppednbjabflhdpXVnZ2dnUVZ8h6dnZ2d@plusnet...
Sure about That?
Paul Mays
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a10db786-5f6a-4566...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
I gota definition I like too...
--
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
>
> Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
[snip rest of crap]
Education: that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the
foolish their lack of understanding. Mystics are baffled by the
obvious yet possess a complete understanding of the nonexistent.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"John Graeme" <jdgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a756ffd5-ef11-4263...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Yes, well, I'm a passenger when on a plane but I'm a customer
of the airline when I buy a ticket. Being both and a father and
a motorist as well is as being an engineer is confusing for Sanny,
isn't it? Oh well, time for dinner, I'm about to be a chef. Good thing
I'm not a passenger anymore.
Sir Frederick
There are alternative explanations for the
presence of EM waves or particles as observed in our
situation. I do not know any particulars
or sources. The gist is that what we observe is a
projections from stresses in putative higher dimensions
(a fifth or sixth dimension?). These stresses (similar to
space-time stresses producing 'gravity) manifest
in space-time as EM waves. I would
imagine the Maxwell equations derivable from this
putative scenario. I know nothing more other than
the mention did come from a respectable source.
Don't remember the source, might have been from string
theory literature.
kenseto
I suggest that you look up the paper entitled "Past Experiments
Detecting Absolute Motion" in my website for a description of a photon
(page 3):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
dlzc
...
> The eyes know, and they're not telling.
Who was it that said:
"Crikey, what a lot of crappy, irrelevant responses you got."
David A. Smith
dlzc
On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When in School I learnt 2 things about Light
>
> 1. Light is a Wave
>
> I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to
> proove Light is a wave.
>
> 2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro
> Magnetic Wave.
>
> Later I was Told
> 3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light
> travel at 90`
>
> Can we Change the angle of movement of
> Electric & Magnetic Field? How can we say
> they are perpendicular.
We can conduct the light through a medium, and the realtionship
changes. We can pass the light through different type of polatizers,
and verify the angle. We can review the requirements of Maxwell's
relations, and it provides their relationship.
> Later I was told Light has photons and its
> energy is = h*u
>
> So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.
>
> Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
>
> Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
Has Man ever understood Woman, or Woman Man? *There* is a complex
relationship.
> After 12 years of my passing out of school
> I still want to know whats the correct
> description of light.
You have some good answers. Light is light. What you seek to
measure, is what light can become for you. Do not put faith in
words... "wave" and "particle" stand for experiences and not light.
David A. Smith
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc".
However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the quantum
string like photon. In other words, without the spin of atoms, we got
nothing.
. - Brad Guth
NoEinstein
Dear Sanny: Light is basically a small cluster of ether—the stuff from
which everything in the Universe is composed. Those clusters are
'like' photons. Because ether is polar, or has plus and minus 'ends',
it is attracted to the high charges concentrated near any mass. Light
passing close to, say, a knife edge gets deflected by the charges of
the atoms in the knife. The closer the photons come to the knife
edge, the greater is the angle such will be bent.
The above bending seemed to say that light is a wave (sic)
because water (or sound waves) can pass around objects and be detected
off of the line of sight of the source from the observer. An early
experiment with interference patterns used precisely spaced vertical
slits. A paper target was set parallel to the foil having the slits.
Because the edges of those slits bent the light off of the line of
sight, the light from adjoining slits, also bent, interfered with the
light from adjoining slits. The interference pattern appears similar
to the ripples of crossing waves in water. So, erroneously, light was
assumed to be passing through some water-like medium… Note: They were
RIGHT about the ‘medium’, but WRONG about the effect the medium was
having on the photons.
But the botched-up 1887 M-M experiment seemed to rule out
ether... Einstein got around ‘that’ dilemma by supposing that light
could be either a wave or photons. But as with nearly everything
Einstein supposed, he was wrong. (Brownian Motion is the lone exception
—and that was actually a no-brainer.)
Because ether and light are related, light gets re energized
(nurtured) from the ether through which it passes. That's why light
over vast distances 'usually' travels at velocity 'c'. You could
think of such velocity as the tangential velocity of the smallest
ether unit—that I call: IOTA. Light can travel any velocity above
'c', but such velocity will be slowed back to velocity 'c' over as yet
indeterminate distances. Uniquely, light traveling faster than 'c'
can keep doing so indefinitely, if the rays are confined to fixed
directions and with high enough energy. In that case the photons will
tunnel through the ether. If mankind wishes to locate intelligent
beings, the best place to look is in the very high energy ranges of
the spectrum. Huge amounts of data could be compressed to cross the
Milky Way quickly. What we may think are gamma ray bursts could be
high energy communications. The ‘detectors’ for such would need to be
traveling beyond velocity 'c' so the data could be ‘caught’. And both
sender and receiver would need to know precisely where the other was,
and when, and how fast they were traveling... "relatively". Note:
That is NOT a reference to any twin paradoxes, or time travel—as there
are no such things!
Hope this lets you think beyond the textbooks! — NoEinstein —
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
Light is a force. IT is EM. It is electric and magnetic. Call it a
Dual Force wave of energy.
Mitch Reamsch - Falling light changes colour
Huang
This is because physical length can be either continuous or discrete,
but not both at the same time.
And this is because a random length may be regarded as being
indeterminately continuous or discrete.
And to understand this you must understand existential indeterminacy.
That points may be regarded as being existentially indeterminate, but
there is another equally valid approach which does NOT consider points
to be existentially indeterminate, and that BOTH cases are equally
valid.
You should now know exactly what a photon is, what gravity is, dark
matter, and everything else.
zzbu...@netscape.net
>
> 1. Light is a Wave
Well, that's mostly because schools are always experimenting
wanks.
Since there's a big difference between saying light is a wave,
and light ravels like a wave.
>
> I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.
If lens could prove anything, we have given the astronomy idiots
even bigger telescopes than they have now, rather than
microprocessors
and lasers.
> 2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
Well, they always do that. Since light is an E-M wave,
just like light's a flame thrower.. Idiots in Washingtoon
will buy anything as the saying goes.
> Later I was Told
> 3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
Well, the science cranks just do that to sell polorizers.
Since the only thing travelling is wanks, and the only thing
at 90' is pure covariant wanks.
> Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
> can we say they are perpendicular.
>
> Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
But, since atoms have photons too, that's just the same
thing as saying: if you wish hard enough, atoms will turn
into light.
Mark Earnest
"Sanny" <soft...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a120f99-9b32-4812...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Jeff▲Relf
depends on how coherent ( i.e. how predictable ) it is.
For example, given an ideal laser showing a diffraction pattern
in famous double-slit experiment:
A. The frequency / energy is fully predictable;
i.e. it's Fully a wave.
B. You can't detect ( not even in theory )
which of the two slits it might've passed through;
i.e. it's Not a particle.
Semi-coherent ( i.e. semi-predictable ) light
is detectable as a semi-particle, semi-wave.
Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
No matter what else is or isn't known,
metaphysically, we “ know ” the cosmos is fully causal.
zzbu...@netscape.net
But's that's only because the only thing the fucking physics
idiots
know about either philosophy, the cosmos, logic, randomness, or
causality
is geometry.
Since they are blathering Kant wannabee idiots, rather than
scientists.
Paul Mays
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0267adb-191a-4f15...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Depends on whos Bias you follow..
Paul Mays
"Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in message
news:GRhOj.4470$wL5....@fe101.usenetserver.com...
Well my interpretation Explains why there no need for gravitons to
denote the Causation of Gravity, What specifically light is and why its
detectable as a Wave or Little ball of stuff (Photon), Why its velocity
will always be independent of source or target, and seemingly a constant..
Yet allows all existing physical rules to remain valid to a Intrinsically
Biased
observer.
Tom Potter
>"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:0e5c4ad0-f77a-488b...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>On Apr 18, 2:19 pm, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> When in School I learnt 2 things about Light
>>
>> 1. Light is a Wave
>>
>> I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.
>>
>> 2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
>>
>> Later I was Told
>> 3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
>>
>> Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
>> can we say they are perpendicular.
>>
>> Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
>>
>> So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.
>>
>> Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
>>
>> Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
>>
>> After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
>> the correct description of light.
>>
>> Bye
>> Sanny
>
>ether... Einstein got around 'that' dilemma by supposing that light
>could be either a wave or photons. But as with nearly everything
>Einstein supposed, he was wrong. (Brownian Motion is the lone exception
I am surprised to see that "NoEinstein"
like most people,
has been conditioned by the mass media,
and the Einstein Cult
to give Einstein credit/debit for the work of other folks.
The credit/debit for wave-particle duality
belongs to de Broglie, not to Einstein.
wave length = unit of action / momentum
Although the Einstein Cult tries to
credit Einstein for de Broglie's theory,
and claim that he promoted de Broglie and the idea,
the fact of the matter is that Einstein did not
comprehend nor appreciate the enormous impact
that de Broglie's work would have on physics,
as Bohr and his associates, most physicists,
and the Nobel Prize committee did.
Note that de Broglie's theory was presented
in his 1924 doctoral thesis,
and he received the Nobel Prize in Physics
for it in 1929, the shortest time in history.
In other words,
Bohr, most of the leading physicists,
and the Nobel Prize Committee,
**immediately** recognized the importance of
de Broglie's theory, while Einstein and a few cultists
persisted in fighting it, and the Quantum Mechanics"
that it inspired, for many years.
( Google EPR experiment)
It is also interesting to see that the Einstein Cult
worked hard "Revising" history and physics,
and conditioning the masses to think
that the wave-particle duality theory of matter
was based on Einstein's corruption of
Planck's quantum of action work of 1901,
for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1918.
Note that although Einstein corrupted Planck's quantum of action,
and has sent physics into a one hundred year cul de sac,
the Einstein Cult has managed to con most people
into thinking that energy, rather than action is quanta.
It does not take a system engineer to comprehend
that measured energy is affect by relative velocity,
whereas quanta of action is NOT.
As can be seen Planck clearly pointed out
in his Nobel Prize lecture that ACTION was quanta.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1918/planck-lecture.html
"When I look back to the time, already twenty years ago,
when the concept and magnitude of the physical quantum of action began,
for the first time, to unfold from the mass of experimental facts.."
"The explanation of the second universal constant of the radiation law was
not so easy.
Because it represents the product of energy and time
(according to the first calculation it was 6.55 x 10-27 erg sec),
I described it as the elementary quantum of action."
( I might point out that the real unit of quanta is actually
neither energy, nor action, but is the "First Radiation Constant",
Action (The "Second Radiation Constant"),
does not take the Hubble Effect into account.)
To answer Sanny question:
"What is light?"
The universe is a sea of standing waves,
and matter are antinodes in that sea.
A so-called photon is simply
an electron event that involves
one quantum of action.
A cause event is a rotary (Spin) event
that occurs at some anti-node
in the sea of standing waves,
and propagated much like
gear motion is propagated
until it finds a standing wave
that has an impedance of 377 ohms,
at which point it becomes an effect and terminates.
To make my point,
consider that the maximum amount of action (Hence Power/energy)
is transferred when the source (Cause) impedance
equals the load (Effect) impedance.
At the one quantum unit level,
the maximum amount of action
equals the minimum amount of action,
ONE unit of Planck's Constant.
Thus to transfer ONE unit of action
from a cause anti-node
to an effect anti-node,
there must be a 377 ohm path between them.
Otherwise you get a reflection,
and no cause and no effect occurs.
"Light" is the statistical expression
for sets of quanta of action that
can be detected by human eyes.
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Huang
Randomness is not ignorance. It is the foundation of probability
theory. Do you argue that probability theory is ignorance as well ?
It is abuntantly obvious that random length can be characterized as
being either continuous or discrete - as one may wish. Clearly, this
is the only way that a wave-particle duality type of paradox could
occur. Unless you really want to struggle to jam a square peg into a
round hole - in which case you have the Copenhagen interpretation.
Clinging to that old thing is like believing in UFO's and timetravel.
Huang
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's also because the nature of mathematics is such that one expects
to find a precise answer to a given question. Mathematicians are not
accustomed to a problem where the solution itself is "A or B". A
solution should be either A or B, not both indeterminately. They are
not acustomed to this type of solution to a given problem.
Jeff▲Relf
“ Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
No matter what else is or isn't known,
And you replied:
“ Randomness is not ignorance.
It is the foundation of probability theory.
Do you argue that probability theory is ignorance as well ? ”.
Statistics is merely semi-random, not fully random.
Examples are easy to come by:
A. A roll of the dice. B. Where I might be 24 hours from now.
C. Brownian motion and D. Bose-Einstein condensates
Art Deco
Crackpotter! How you doin'? BTW, this mess makes no sense at all.
--
"Classic erroneous presupposition."
-- David Tholen
Art Deco
Igor
> On Apr 18, 12:28 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 2:19 pm, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > When in School I learnt 2 things about Light
>
> > > 1. Light is a Wave
>
> > > I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.
>
> > > 2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
>
> > > Later I was Told
> > > 3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
>
> > > Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
> > > can we say they are perpendicular.
>
> > > Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
>
> > > So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.
>
> > > Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
>
> > > Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
>
> > > After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
> > > the correct description of light.
>
> > stayed awake, you would know.
>
> Explain how photons can even exist/coexist w/o the strong force or
> perhaps the dark force gravitons (aka matter).
> . - Brad Guth
> . - Brad Guth-
Perhaps it's the same reason you continue to post with nary a notion
about physics in particular and science in general.
Hagar
"Art Deco" <er...@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:190420080859149887%er...@caballista.org...
But everyone understands you inane rantings ?
Hagar the Horrible
"And idiots begat fools, and fools begat morons, and
morons begat imbeciles, and imbeciles begat dufuses. And
then dopes like the Auk00kers realized they could do this
with people outside their immediate families..."
Hagar
Why don't you 'splain it us, then, Onestone ..
Hagar the Horrible
"And idiots begat fools, and fools begat morons, and
morons begat imbeciles, and imbeciles begat dufuses.
And then resident Auk00kers realized they could do
BradGuth
> "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in message
>
> news:GRhOj.4470$wL5....@fe101.usenetserver.com...
>
>
>
>
>
Is this "intrinsically biased observer" ever allowed to use good old
deductive formulated logic?
How about allowing for an intrinsic biased form of observationology,
meaning the deductive interpreting of pixels as being those patterns
of whatever's perfectly natural as opposed to what's artificial/
intelligent looking.
. - Brad Guth
Jeff▲Relf
the wavelength of my human body is less than 10^-35 meters;
but that's a metaphysical ( i.e. unmeasurable / unusable ) length.
Detecting light as a particle or a wave
depends on how coherent ( i.e. how predictable ) it is.
For example, given an ideal laser showing a diffraction pattern
in the famous double-slit experiment:
A. The frequency ( and energy ) is fully predictable;
i.e. it's Fully a wave.
B. You can't detect ( not even in theory )
which of the two slits it might've passed through;
i.e. it's Not a particle.
Semi-coherent ( i.e. semi-predictable ) light
is detectable as a semi-particle, semi-wave.
Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
No matter what else is or isn't known,
metaphysically, we “ know ” the cosmos is fully causal.
Statistics is merely semi-random, not fully random; For example:
A. A roll of the dice. B. Where I might be 24 hours from now.
C. Brownian motion and D. Bose-Einstein condensates.
Huang
That's very interesting, because some physicists are saying that
physical things are "caused" to exist when they are observed into
existence by an observer.
If one "observes" randomness, or behaviour which satisfies the various
assumptions of probability theory, then can we not also say that this
"randomness" was _likewise_ "observed into existence" ? And not merely
an artifact of the imagination ???
Perhaps you can explain why it should be confined to the mind and not
the physical world.
BradGuth
> On Apr 18, 3:46 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 12:28 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 18, 2:19 pm, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > When in School I learnt 2 things about Light
>
> > > > 1. Light is a Wave
>
> > > > I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.
>
> > > > 2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
>
> > > > Later I was Told
> > > > 3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
>
> > > > Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
> > > > can we say they are perpendicular.
>
> > > > Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
>
> > > > So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.
>
> > > > Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
>
> > > > Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
>
> > > > After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
> > > > the correct description of light.
>
> > > See, there's your problem. Passing out. Maybe if you'd have just
> > > stayed awake, you would know.
>
> > Explain how photons can even exist/coexist w/o the strong force or
> > perhaps the dark force gravitons (aka matter).
> > . -BradGuth
>
> about physics in particular and science in general.
So, you not only do not have an honest clue, but you obviously think
little of those of us asking questions. I should have known that Igor
wasn't here to constructive educate, or to otherwise share upon
anything that's the least bit outside of your terrestrial comfort
zone.
Photons can be created and coexist, but the energy of gravitons can't
possibly matter: is that it?
. - Brad Guth
Jeff▲Relf
where I was rich and famous, with groupies vying for my attention.
According to you ( it seems ),
I made this “ the physical world ”, not “ confined to my mind ”.
Not bloody likely, I say.
Physical processes determine absolutely everything.
I'm a physicalist; I believe in physicalism.
My main hope is: “ I'll remain happy, no matter my losses. ”.
Just as over- eating / drinking ruins one's health,
nations birthing too many kids and consuming too much crude oil
have ruined the health of the global economy.
To improve our health, we need more taxes and regulations,
especially child support “ taxes ”.
While “ sperm doners ” get an automatic ( computerized )
life-long irrevocable lien ( no judge can touch it )
accruing at 12 percent A.P.R. ( in “ interest and penalties ” )..
General tax money is used to pay the medical expenses of single mothers,
and to house / feed them in fine style, and to give them free day-care,
and free schooling for the mothers ( college ) and kids.
Is this a good idea ? I wonder. Certainly, it's attracting the immigrants.
Jeff▲Relf
“ Crackpotter ! How you doin' ?
BTW, this mess makes no sense at all. ”.
In your little world, a “ Kook ” is:
anyone who doesn't restrain his comments to single-line potty humor.
Paul Mays
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f39e1bca-be73-4f4c...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Yes he is.. But due to The Intrinsic nature of the Bias the observer
may fail the attempt to formulate logic and perceive the observed in
such a way as to require concepts to be Assumed.
Take two objects that observe each other, How do they observer? They can
only produce Wave Forms that impact the other and return with information
that the other can use for said such a deduction. If as the wave forms both
use to transfer information Heterodyne then the information either gains at
the
observation is Intrinsically Biased so as to skew any deduction attempted
from
said observation.
If you spend a little time looking over the postulate I have posted you may
find I have attempted to do just that. logically contemplate the observed
universe and deducing a Simple rational that allows existing rules to remain
valid while giving Causation weight in the logic, which existing physical
rules ignore.
knucmo
wrote:
>I wrote:
>“ Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
> No matter what else is or isn't known,
> metaphysically, we ‘ know ’ the cosmos is fully causal. ”.
>
>And you replied:
>“ Randomness is not ignorance.
> It is the foundation of probability theory.
> Do you argue that probability theory is ignorance as well ? ”.
Plus, probability might just be a way of weighing up which causes are
more likely to happen than others.
Kali
=96=B2Relf?= =?UTF-8?Q? =E2=9C=97@=E2=9C=97.Invalid said:
>You wrote:
>“ Crackpotter ! How you doin' ?
> BTW, this mess makes no sense at all. †.
Your posts rarely do, =?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=96=B2Relf?=
[...]
--
Kali
K. A. Cannon
>In <Jeff_Relf_2008_...@X.Invalid>, =?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2
>=96=B2Relf?= =?UTF-8?Q? =E2=9C=97@=E2=9C=97.Invalid said:
>>You wrote:
>>“ Crackpotter ! How you doin' ?
>> BTW, this mess makes no sense at all. �€?.
>
>Your posts rarely do, =?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=96=B2Relf?=
>
>[...]
Why does the tardlet use a Unicode font?
What does it do that a simple system font doesn't?
Well...beside making his poasts look like mangled muck.
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)
COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
я黨wぃf
# Example fpc.cfg for Free Pascal Compiler
#
# ----------------------
# Defines (preprocessor)
# ----------------------
#
# nested #IFNDEF, #IFDEF, #ENDIF, #ELSE, #DEFINE, #UNDEF are allowed
#
# -d is the same as #DEFINE
# -u is the same as #UNDEF
#
# When not m68k is defined at the commandline, define i386
#IFNDEF m68k
#DEFINE i386
#ENDIF
#
# Some examples (for switches see below, and the -? helppages)
#
# Try compiling with the -dRELEASE or -dDEBUG on the commandline
#
# For a release compile with optimizes and strip debuginfo
#IFDEF RELEASE
-OG2p3
-Xs
#WRITE Compiling Release Version
#ENDIF
# For a debug version compile with debuginfo and all codegeneration checks on
#IFDEF DEBUG
-g
-Crtoi
#WRITE Compiling Debug Version
#ENDIF
# ----------------
# Parsing switches
# ----------------
# All assembler blocks are intel styled by default
#-Rintel
# All assembler blocks are AT&T styled by default
#-Ratt
# Semantic checking
# -S2 switch some Delphi 2 extension on
# -Sc supports operators like C (*=,+=,/= and -=)
# -Sg allows LABEL and GOTO
# -Si support C++ stlyed INLINE
# -Sm support macros like C (global)
# -So tries to be TP/BP 7.0 compatible
# -Ss constructor name must be init (destructor must be done)
# -St allows static keyword in objects
# Allow goto, inline, C-operators, C-vars
-Sgic2
# ---------------
# Code generation
# ---------------
# Uncomment the next line if you always want static/dynamic units by default
# (can be overruled with -CD, -CS at the commandline)
#-CS
#-CD
# Set the default heapsize to 8Mb
#-Ch8000000
# Set default codegeneration checks (iocheck, overflow, range, stack)
#-Ci
#-Co
#-Cr
#-Ct
# Optimizer switches
# -Og generate smaller code
# -OG generate faster code (default)
# -Or keep certain variables in registers (still BUGGY!!!)
# -Ou enable uncertain optimizations (see docs)
# -O1 level 1 optimizations (quick optimizations)
# -O2 level 2 optimizations (-O1 + slower optimizations)
# -O3 level 3 optimizations (same as -O2u)
# -Op target processor
# -Op1 set target processor to 386/486
# -Op2 set target processor to Pentium/PentiumMMX (tm)
# -Op3 set target processor to PPro/PII/c6x86/K6 (tm)
# Optimize always for Size and PII
#-OG2p3
# -----------------------
# Set Filenames and Paths
# -----------------------
# Slashes are also allowed under dos
# path to the messagefile, not necessary anymore but can be used to override
# the default language
#-Fr/boot/home/fpc/msg/errore.msg
#-Fr/boot/home/fpc/msg/errorn.msg
# searchpath for includefiles
#-Fi/pp/inc;/pp/rtl/inc
# searchpath for units and other system dependent things
-Fu/boot/home/fpc/units/$target
-Fu/boot/home/fpc/units/$target/*
-Fu/boot/home/fpc/units/$target/rtl
-Fu/boot/home/fpc/bepascal/source/bepascal/pas/src/be/*
#-Fu~/fpc/packages/*;~/fpc/rtl/linux
# searchpath for libraries
-Fl.
#-Fl/pp/lib
#-Fl/lib;/usr/lib
# -------------
# Linking
# -------------
# generate always debugging information for GDB (slows down the compiling
# process)
#-g
# always pass an option to the linker
#-k-s
# Always strip debuginfo from the executable
-Xs
# -------------
# Miscellaneous
# -------------
# Write always a nice FPC logo ;)
-l
# Verbosity
# e : Show errors (default) d : Show debug info
# w : Show warnings u : Show used files
# n : Show notes t : Show tried files
# h : Show hints m : Show defined macros
# i : Show general info p : Show compiled procedures
# l : Show linenumbers c : Show conditionals
# a : Show everything 0 : Show nothing (except errors)
# Display Info, Warnings, Notes and Hints
-viwn
# If you don't want so much verbosity use
#-vw
#
# That's all folks
#
Jeff▲Relf
in my posts. Google always resends proper UTF-8.
Outlook ( Windows Live Mail ) displays proper UTF-8
but it won't resend it unless you explicitly allow:
8-bit characters and Unicode ( i.e. UTF-8 ).
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B
C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e
f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ 33 ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ §
¨ © ª « ¬ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê
Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Þ ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í
î ï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ
100 Ā ā Ă ă Ą ą Ć ć Ĉ ĉ Ċ ċ Č č Ď ď Đ đ Ē ē Ĕ ĕ Ė ė Ę ę Ě ě Ĝ ĝ Ğ ğ
Ġ ġ Ģ ģ Ĥ ĥ Ħ ħ Ĩ ĩ Ī ī Ĭ ĭ Į į İ ı IJ ij Ĵ ĵ Ķ ķ ĸ Ĺ ĺ Ļ ļ Ľ ľ Ŀ ŀ Ł ł
Ń ń Ņ ņ Ň ň ʼn Ŋ ŋ Ō ō Ŏ ŏ Ő ő Œ œ Ŕ ŕ Ŗ ŗ Ř ř Ś ś Ŝ ŝ Ş ş Š š Ţ ţ Ť ť
Ŧ ŧ Ũ ũ Ū ū Ŭ ŭ Ů ů Ű ű Ų ų Ŵ ŵ Ŷ ŷ Ÿ Ź ź Ż ż Ž ž ſ 18 ƒ Ɠ 46 ǂ 10 Ǎ
ǎ Ǐ ǐ Ǒ ǒ Ǔ ǔ Ǖ ǖ Ǘ ǘ Ǚ ǚ Ǜ ǜ 24 ǵ 2 Ǹ ǹ Ǻ ǻ Ǽ ǽ Ǿ ǿ
24 Ș ș Ț ț 52 ɐ ɑ ɒ ɓ ɔ ɕ ɖ ɗ ɘ ə ɚ ɛ ɜ ɝ ɞ ɟ ɠ ɡ ɢ ɣ ɤ ɥ ɦ ɧ ɨ ɩ ɪ ɫ
ɬ ɭ ɮ ɯ ɰ ɱ ɲ ɳ ɴ ɵ ɶ ɷ ɸ ɹ ɺ ɻ ɼ ɽ ɾ ɿ ʀ ʁ ʂ ʃ ʄ ʅ ʆ ʇ ʈ ʉ ʊ ʋ ʌ ʍ ʎ
ʏ ʐ ʑ ʒ ʓ ʔ ʕ ʖ ʗ ʘ ʙ ʚ ʛ ʜ ʝ ʞ ʟ ʠ ʡ ʢ ʣ ʤ ʥ ʦ ʧ ʨ 29 ˆ ˇ ˈ ˉ 2 ˌ
3 ː ˑ 6 ˘ ˙ ˚ ˛ ˜ ˝ ˞ 6 ˥ ˦ ˧ ˨ ˩ 22 ̀ ́ ̂ ̃ ̄ 1 ̆ 1 ̈ 2 ̋ ̌ 2 ̏ 2 ̒
2 ̕ 2 ̘ ̙ ̚ 1 ̜ ̝ ̞ ̟ ̠ 3 ̤ ̥ ̦ 2 ̩ ̪ 1 ̬ 2 ̯ ̰ 3 ̴ 4 ̹ ̺ ̻ ̼ ̽ 35 ͡
18 ʹ ͵ 4 ͺ 3 ; 5 ΄ ΅ Ά · Έ Ή Ί 1 Ό 1 Ύ Ώ ΐ
391 Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ Ν Ξ Ο Π Ρ 1 Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω Ϊ Ϋ ά έ ή ί ΰ
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ ς σ τ υ φ χ ψ ω
410 А Б В Г Д Е Ж З И Й К Л М Н О П Р С Т У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ Ъ Ы Ь Э Ю Я
а б в г д е ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я
2014 — ― ‖ ‗ ‘ ’ ‚ ‛ “ ” „ ‟ † ‡ • ‣ ․ ‥ … ‧
1 ‰ ‱
′ ″ ‴ ‵ ‶ ‷ ‸ ‹ › ※ ‼ ‽ ‾ ‿ ⁀ ⁁ ⁂ ⁃ ⁄ ⁅ ⁆ ⁇ ⁈ ⁉ 7 ⁑ 30 ⁰ 3 ⁴ ⁵ ⁶
⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ⁺ ⁻ ⁼ ⁽ ⁾ ⁿ ₀ ₁ ₂ ₃ ₄ ₅ ₆ ₇ ₈ ₉ ₊ ₋ ₌ ₍ ₎ 17 ₠ ₡ ₢ ₣ ₤ ₥ ₦ ₧ ₨
₩ ₪ ₫ € ₭ ₮ ₯ ₰ ₱ 78 ℀ ℁ ℂ ℃ ℄ ℅ ℆ ℇ ℈ ℉ ℊ ℋ ℌ ℍ ℎ ℏ ℐ ℑ ℒ ℓ ℔ ℕ № ℗
℘ ℙ ℚ ℛ ℜ ℝ ℞ ℟ ℠ ℡ ™ ℣ ℤ ℥ Ω ℧ ℨ ℩ K Å ℬ ℭ ℮ ℯ ℰ ℱ Ⅎ ℳ ℴ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ
26 ⅓ ⅔ ⅕ ⅖ ⅗ ⅘ ⅙ ⅚ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ ⅟ Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ Ⅵ Ⅶ Ⅷ Ⅸ Ⅹ Ⅺ Ⅻ Ⅼ
Ⅽ Ⅾ Ⅿ ⅰ ⅱ ⅲ ⅳ ⅴ ⅵ ⅶ ⅷ ⅸ ⅹ ⅺ ⅻ ⅼ ⅽ ⅾ ⅿ ↀ ↁ ↂ
13 ← ↑ → ↓ ↔ ↕ ↖ ↗ ↘ ↙ ↚ ↛ ↜ ↝ ↞ ↟ ↠ ↡ ↢ ↣ ↤ ↥ ↦ ↧ ↨ ↩ ↪ ↫ ↬ ↭ ↮
↯ ↰ ↱ ↲ ↳ ↴ ↵ ↶ ↷ ↸ ↹ ↺ ↻ ↼ ↽ ↾ ↿ ⇀ ⇁ ⇂ ⇃ ⇄ ⇅ ⇆ ⇇ ⇈ ⇉ ⇊ ⇋ ⇌ ⇍ ⇎ ⇏ ⇐ ⇑
⇒ ⇓ ⇔ ⇕ ⇖ ⇗ ⇘ ⇙ ⇚ ⇛ ⇜ ⇝ ⇞ ⇟ ⇠ ⇡ ⇢ ⇣ ⇤ ⇥ ⇦ ⇧ ⇨ ⇩ ⇪
21eb 21 ∀ ∁ ∂ ∃ ∄ ∅ ∆ ∇ ∈ ∉ ∊ ∋ ∌ ∍ ∎ ∏ ∐ ∑ − ∓ ∔ ∕ ∖ ∗ ∘ ∙ √ ∛
∜ ∝ ∞ ∟ ∠ ∡ ∢ ∣ ∤ ∥ ∦ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∱ ∲ ∳ ∴ ∵ ∶ ∷ ∸
∹ ∺ ∻ ∼ ∽ ∾ ∿ ≀ ≁ ≂ ≃ ≄ ≅ ≆ ≇ ≈ ≉ ≊ ≋ ≌ ≍ ≎ ≏ ≐ ≑ ≒ ≓ ≔ ≕ ≖ ≗ ≘ ≙ ≚
≛ ≜ ≝ ≞ ≟ ≠ ≡ ≢ ≣ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≪ ≫ ≬ ≭ ≮ ≯ ≰ ≱ ≲ ≳ ≴ ≵ ≶ ≷ ≸ ≹ ≺
≻ ≼ ≽ ≾ ≿ ⊀ ⊁ ⊂ ⊃ ⊄ ⊅ ⊆ ⊇ ⊈ ⊉ ⊊ ⊋ ⊌ ⊍ ⊎ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ⊓ ⊔ ⊕ ⊖ ⊗ ⊘ ⊙ ⊚ ⊛
⊜ ⊝ ⊞ ⊟ ⊠ ⊡ ⊢ ⊣ ⊤ ⊥ ⊦ ⊧ ⊨ ⊩ ⊪ ⊫ ⊬ ⊭ ⊮ ⊯ ⊰ ⊱ ⊲ ⊳ ⊴ ⊵ ⊶ ⊷ ⊸ ⊹ ⊺ ⊻ ⊼ ⊽
⊾ ⊿ ⋀ ⋁ ⋂ ⋃ ⋄ ⋅ ⋆ ⋇ ⋈ ⋉ ⋊ ⋋ ⋌ ⋍ ⋎ ⋏ ⋐ ⋑ ⋒ ⋓ ⋔ ⋕ ⋖ ⋗ ⋘ ⋙ ⋚ ⋛ ⋜ ⋝ ⋞ ⋟
⋠ ⋡ ⋢ ⋣ ⋤ ⋥ ⋦ ⋧ ⋨ ⋩ ⋪ ⋫ ⋬ ⋭ ⋮ ⋯ ⋰ ⋱ 16 ⌂ 2 ⌅ ⌆ 9 ⌐ 1 ⌒ 5 ⌘ 7 ⌠ ⌡
156 ⎾ ⎿ ⏀ ⏁ ⏂ ⏃ ⏄ ⏅ ⏆ ⏇ ⏈ ⏉ ⏊ ⏋ ⏌ 1 ⏎ 84 ␣
2460 ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩ ⑪ ⑫ ⑬ ⑭ ⑮ ⑯ ⑰ ⑱ ⑲ ⑳ ⑴
⑵ ⑶ ⑷ ⑸ ⑹ ⑺ ⑻ ⑼ ⑽ ⑾ ⑿ ⒀ ⒁ ⒂ ⒃ ⒄ ⒅ ⒆ ⒇ ⒈ ⒉ ⒊ ⒋
⒌ ⒍ ⒎ ⒏ ⒐ ⒑ ⒒ ⒓ ⒔ ⒕ ⒖ ⒗ ⒘ ⒙ ⒚ ⒛ ⒜ ⒝ ⒞ ⒟ ⒠ ⒡ ⒢
⒣ ⒤ ⒥ ⒦ ⒧ ⒨ ⒩ ⒪ ⒫ ⒬ ⒭ ⒮ ⒯ ⒰ ⒱ ⒲ ⒳ ⒴ ⒵ Ⓐ Ⓑ Ⓒ Ⓓ
Ⓔ Ⓕ Ⓖ Ⓗ Ⓘ Ⓙ Ⓚ Ⓛ Ⓜ Ⓝ Ⓞ Ⓟ Ⓠ Ⓡ Ⓢ Ⓣ Ⓤ Ⓥ Ⓦ Ⓧ Ⓨ Ⓩ ⓐ
ⓑ ⓒ ⓓ ⓔ ⓕ ⓖ ⓗ ⓘ ⓙ ⓚ ⓛ ⓜ ⓝ ⓞ ⓟ ⓠ ⓡ ⓢ ⓣ ⓤ ⓥ ⓦ ⓧ
ⓨ ⓩ ⓪ ⓫ ⓬ ⓭ ⓮ ⓯ ⓰ ⓱ ⓲ ⓳ ⓴ ⓵ ⓶ ⓷ ⓸ ⓹ ⓺ ⓻ ⓼ ⓽ ⓾
1 ─ ━ │ ┃ ┄ ┅ ┆ ┇ ┈ ┉ ┊ ┋ ┌ ┍ ┎ ┏ ┐ ┑ ┒ ┓ └ ┕ ┖ ┗ ┘ ┙ ┚ ┛
├ ┝ ┞ ┟ ┠ ┡ ┢ ┣ ┤ ┥ ┦ ┧ ┨ ┩ ┪ ┫ ┬ ┭ ┮ ┯ ┰ ┱ ┲ ┳ ┴ ┵ ┶ ┷
┸ ┹ ┺ ┻ ┼ ┽ ┾ ┿ ╀ ╁ ╂ ╃ ╄ ╅ ╆ ╇ ╈ ╉ ╊ ╋ ╌ ╍ ╎ ╏ ═ ║ ╒ ╓ ╔ ╕ ╖ ╗
╘ ╙ ╚ ╛ ╜ ╝ ╞ ╟ ╠ ╡ ╢ ╣ ╤ ╥ ╦ ╧ ╨ ╩ ╪ ╫ ╬ ╭ ╮ ╯ ╰ ╱ ╲ ╳ ╴ ╵ ╶ ╷ ╸ ╹ ╺
╻ ╼ ╽ ╾ ╿ ▀ ▁ ▂ ▃ ▄ ▅ ▆ ▇ █ ▉ ▊ ▋ ▌ ▍ ▎ ▏ ▐ ░ ▒ ▓ ▔ ▕ 10 ■ □ ▢ ▣ ▤
▥ ▦ ▧ ▨ ▩ ▪ ▫ ▬ ▭ ▮ ▯ ▰ ▱ ▲ △ ▴ ▵ ▶ ▷ ▸ ▹ ► ▻ ▼ ▽ ▾ ▿ ◀ ◁ ◂ ◃ ◄ ◅
◆ ◇ ◈ ◉ ◊ ○ ◌ ◍ ◎ ● ◐ ◑ ◒ ◓ ◔ ◕ ◖ ◗ ◘ ◙ ◚ ◛ ◜ ◝ ◞ ◟ ◠ ◡ ◢ ◣ ◤ ◥
◦ ◧ ◨ ◩ ◪ ◫ ◬ ◭ ◮ ◯ 16 ☀ ☁ ☂ ☃ ☄ ★ ☆ ☇ ☈ ☉ ☊ ☋ ☌ ☍ ☎
☏ ☐ ☑ ☒ ☓ 2 ☖ ☗ 2 ☚ ☛ ☜ ☝ ☞ ☟ ☠ ☡ ☢ ☣ ☤ ☥ ☦ ☧ ☨
☩ ☪ ☫ ☬ ☭ ☮ ☯ ☰ ☱ ☲ ☳ ☴ ☵ ☶ ☷ ☸ ☹ ☺ ☻ ☼ ☽ ☾ ☿ ♀
♁ ♂ ♃ ♄ ♅ ♆ ♇ ♈ ♉ ♊ ♋ ♌ ♍ ♎ ♏ ♐ ♑ ♒ ♓ ♔ ♕ ♖ ♗
♘ ♙ ♚ ♛ ♜ ♝ ♞ ♟ ♠ ♡ ♢ ♣ ♤ ♥ ♦ ♧ ♨ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮ ♯
2708 ✈ ✉ 2 ✌ ✍ ✎ ✏ ✐ ✑ ✒ ✓ ✔ ✕ ✖ ✗ ✘ ✙ ✚ ✛ ✜ ✝
✞ ✟ ✠ ✡ ✢ ✣ ✤ ✥ ✦ ✧ 1 ✩ ✪ ✫ ✬ ✭ ✮ ✯ ✰ ✱ ✲ ✳ ✴
✵ ✶ ✷ ✸ ✹ ✺ ✻ ✼ ✽ ✾ ✿ ❀ ❁ ❂ ❃ ❄ ❅ ❆ ❇ ❈ ❉ ❊ ❋
1 ❍ 1 ❏ ❐ ❑ ❒ 3 ❖ 1 ❘ ❙ ❚ ❛ ❜ ❝ ❞ 2 ❡ ❢ ❣ ❤ ❥ ❦ ❧
14 ❶ ❷ ❸ ❹ ❺ ❻ ❼ ❽ ❾ ❿ ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄ ➅ ➆ ➇ ➈ ➉ ➊ ➋
➌ ➍ ➎ ➏ ➐ ➑ ➒ ➓ ➔ 3 ➘ ➙ ➚ ➛ ➜ ➝ ➞ ➟ ➠ ➡ ➢ ➣ ➤
➥ ➦ ➧ ➨ ➩ ➪ ➫ ➬ ➭ ➮ ➯ 1 ➱ ➲ ➳ ➴ ➵ ➶ ➷ ➸ ➹ ➺ ➻
➼ ➽ ➾
ff01 ！ ＂ ＃ ＄ ％ ＆ ＇ （ ） ＊ ＋ ， － ． ／ ０ １ ２ ３ ４ ５
６ ７ ８ ９ ： ； ＜ ＝ ＞ ？ ＠ Ａ Ｂ Ｃ Ｄ Ｅ Ｆ Ｇ Ｈ Ｉ Ｊ Ｋ Ｌ
Ｍ Ｎ Ｏ Ｐ Ｑ Ｒ Ｓ Ｔ Ｕ Ｖ Ｗ Ｘ Ｙ Ｚ ［ ＼ ］ ＾ ＿ ｀ ａ ｂ ｃ
ｄ ｅ ｆ ｇ ｈ ｉ ｊ ｋ ｌ ｍ ｎ ｏ ｐ ｑ ｒ ｓ ｔ ｕ ｖ ｗ ｘ ｙ ｚ
｛ ｜ ｝ ～
ffe3 ￣ ￤ ￥ ￦ 1 ￨ ￩ ￪ ￫ ￬
Art Deco
>Other Forte_Agent users have properly quoted the UTF-8 ( 8-bit Unicode )
>in my posts. Google always resends proper UTF-8.
>
>Outlook ( Windows Live Mail ) displays proper UTF-8
>but it won't resend it unless you explicitly allow:
> 8-bit characters and Unicode ( i.e. UTF-8 ).
>
>! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B
>C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e
>f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ 33 ¡ ¢ £ ? ¥ | §
>¨ © ª « ¬ - ® ¯ ° ± 2 3 ´ µ ¶ · ¸ 1 º » ? ? ? ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê
>Ë Ì Í Î Ï ? Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö * Ø Ù Ú Û Ü ? ? ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í
>î ï ? ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ? ? ÿ
>100 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ž ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ‘ ¦ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 18 Ÿ ? 46 1 10 X
>i e L : P o u e y M c o o t 24 e 2 6 0 . 8 0 1 0
>24 s g - D 52 W O . 8 8 s 4 9 7 f 1 9 u e e s r e . o > X C m l i t -
>: a u e t u d r e s c m N T - o t n - a e a , 1 p 0 8 1 : 4 1
>T O g n z t o : T u d r e s D t : S t 9 A r 2 0 29 – ? ? 2 ?
>3 ? ? 6 ˜ ™ š œ — › ? 6 ? ? ? ? ? 22 p y i s 1 1 8 1 a 2 p i 2 o 2 :
>2 9 2 l . s 1 n m : 3 8 3 s i p 2 i s 1 l 2 v t 3 5 4 1
>
> B a 35 h
>18 a g 4 @ 3 i 5 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? 1 ? ? ?
>391 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ‡ ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ¼ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>410 : > > " a l M y " < a . @ a s c m r t n m s a e > > > > n w
>G h j 4 7 $ L . 4 4 f 1 1 u e e s r e . o . . > > > > > > > > >
>2014 ‹ ‹ ? ? Œ ¹ ’ ? ³ ² “ ? Ý ý € ? ? ? Š ?
>
> ? ? ? ? ? 1 ” ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ð ð ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ž ? ? ? ? ? 7 ? 30 ? 3 ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 17 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ¤ ? ? ? ? ? 78 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>26 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>13 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>21eb 21 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ½ ? … - ? ? / ? * ? ? ˆ ?
>? ? ƒ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? † ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ‰ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ‚ ? ? ? ¾ „ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 16 ? 2 ? ? 9 ? 1 ? 5 ? 7 ? ?
>156 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? 84 ?
>2460 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 10 ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? × ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 16 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? 2 ? ? 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>2708 ? ? 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>1 ? 1 ? ? ? ? 3 ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>14 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ?
>ff01 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ?
>ffe3 ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ?
What a mess, Jeff<glyph>Relf.
BradGuth
I may have to read that one a few dozen times before I can make better
sense of your Causation logic.
Are you saying that atoms have nothing to do with photons?
. - Brad Guth
Huang
Seems strange that "physical tests" of coin toss trials match up with
the predictions made by probability theory pretty much exactly. There
are countless other examples.
I dont think that this constitutes a formal proof that randomness
exists either in nature, or mathematics. But certainly, probability
theory is a logical structure of theorems and lemmas "which would be
valid" if we knew for certain that randomness did indeed exist. If
randomness does not exist, then this logical structure gets demoted to
a hypothetical case. There may be other "hypothetical" theories out
there just waiting to be uncovered - cant think of any at the moment
but it might be possible.
Whatever the case, he said that :
> >“ Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
Rubbish
> > No matter what else is or isn't known,
> > metaphysically, we ‘ know ’ the cosmos is fully causal. ”.
No. Despite the fact that I disagree with QM in many ways Feynman was
right. The universe is most accurately described by probability
theory.
You say that you know that the universe is "fully causal". In fact,
nothing could be further from the truth.
The universe may be treated as "fully causal", and it may also be
treated as if it were "fully a-causal". That both approaches seem to
work - this should give you a clue.
Causality is not so simple in the real world. You must first
understand randomness.
Huang
> >I wrote:
> >“ Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
> > No matter what else is or isn't known,
> > metaphysically, we ‘ know ’ the cosmos is fully causal. ”.
To show that this statement is ludicrous - consider the folowing
question:
Consider a cointoss which is "geniunely random".
By virtue of the fact that you know that the long term behaviour is
known, being GIVEN by theory, is it TRULY random ?
The same paradox applies to causality.
If something is known to occur without a cause, then it is causal by
virtue of the acausality itself.
Do you think that it is so trivial to resolve these things ?
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
> When in School I learnt 2 things about Light
>
> 1. Light is a Wave
>
> I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.
>
> 2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
>
> Later I was Told
> 3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
>
> Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
> can we say they are perpendicular.
>
> Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
>
> So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.
>
> Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
>
> Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
>
> After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
> the correct description of light.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Light is a unified force. It's a dual force wave of energy. It is
Electric Magnetic energy wave.
Mitch Raemsch
Bio Freak
wrote:
> When in School I learnt 2 things about Light
>
> 1. Light is a Wave
>
> I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.
>
>
> 2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
>
> Later I was Told
> 3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
>
> Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
> can we say they are perpendicular.
>
> Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
>
> So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.
>
> Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
>
> Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
>
> After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
> the correct description of light.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Hehe :-) By reading others' responses you
should know by now that your question is not
one that can be asked from others. You ought to
find it out, or think about it, by yourself.
Suggestion: It brings you quite a bit closer to
what light is if you always bear in mind where
it comes from (deceleration of charged
particles). A lot of features of light can be
understood by that notion alone, including its
particle and wave nature.
--
"Pride comes before a fall. "
Tom Potter
I am pleased to see that Art Deco,
an active member of the race/religion motivated bigots
that operate out of the caballista.org boiler-room,
continues to be a faithful reader of my posts.
Hopefully, in time, they will have a positive affect on him,
and he will not only become educated in physics,
but he will become a rational, MATURE, MORAL human being.
and cease turning the newsgroups into "Rivers of shit".
But to address Art's inability to comprehend my post,
if he will ask an intelligent question,
I will be more than pleased to educate him
about photons and light.
As a starting point Arty,
"action" is fundamental quanta,
and changes are conveyed between
causes and effects in integer units of action.
Now, do you understand that point Arty?
If so, we'll move on to the next point.
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
BradGuth
> --"Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1a120f99-9b32-4812...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > When in School I learnt 2 things about Light
>
> > 1. Light is a Wave
>
> > I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.
>
> > 2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
>
> > Later I was Told
> > 3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
>
> > Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
> > can we say they are perpendicular.
>
> > Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
>
> > So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.
>
> > Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
>
> > Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
>
> > After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
> > the correct description of light.
>
> > Bye
> > Sanny
>
> of the Quantum State (Aether,Zero Point Energy,Space/Time), Which
> is the left over Indefinable Energy Form that was the Indefinable Unified
> Energy Form that was the Indefinable Unified Energy Form of BB fame,
> the Quantum Point (Singularity, Chaos Point, Energy Quanta) and perceived
> to be a Little Ball of Stuff due to Intrinsic Bias of the observer, any
> device
> designed to observe and the "Light" being observed when observed at
> a short enough time frame.
>
> But I could be Wrong....
>
> Paul R. Mays
> "I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
> I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
Why wrong, because if we can't wrap ourselves around your
interpretation is why it doesn't hardly matter.
Could you try out a few other wordings, so that we don't have to be
Einstein or on drugs in order to interpret your theory?
All inclusive, there's fewer than one atom/m3, yet there's likely more
than 1e100 photons/m3.
Because there's a fixed number of atoms and continuous supply of
photons, it seems the photon is in charge of most everything outside
of them black holes.
. - Brad Guth
Art Deco
§ñühw¤£f
Meat Plow <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:20:00 +0000, Jeffâ–²Relf =?UTF-8?Q? wrote:
>
> > Other Forte_Agent users have properly quoted the UTF-8 ( 8-bit Unicode )
> > in my posts. Google always resends proper UTF-8.
> >
> > Outlook ( Windows Live Mail ) displays proper UTF-8
> > but it won't resend it unless you explicitly allow:
> > 8-bit characters and Unicode ( i.e. UTF-8 ).
> >
> > ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B
> > C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e
> > f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ 33  ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ §
> > ¨ © ª « ¬  ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À à Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê
> > Ë ÃŒ à Î à à Ñ Ã’ Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Û Ãœ à Þ ß à á â ã ä Ã¥ æ ç è é ê ë ì Ã
> > î ï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ
> > 100 Ä€ Ä Ä‚ ă Ä„ Ä… Ć ć Ĉ ĉ ÄŠ Ä‹ ÄŒ Ä ÄŽ Ä Ä Ä‘ Ä’ Ä“ Ä” Ä• Ä– Ä— Ę Ä™ Äš Ä› Äœ Ä Äž ÄŸ
> > Ä Ä¡ Ä¢ Ä£ Ĥ Ä¥ Ħ ħ Ĩ Ä© Ī Ä« Ĭ Ä Ä® į Ä° ı IJ ij Ä´ ĵ Ķ Ä· ĸ Ĺ ĺ Ä» ļ Ľ ľ Ä¿ Å€ Å Å‚
> > Ń ń Ņ ņ Ň ň ʼn Ŋ ŋ Ō ŠŎ ŠŠő Œ œ Ŕ ŕ Ŗ ŗ Ř ř Ś ś Ŝ ŠŞ ş Šš Ţ ţ Ť ť
> > Ŧ ŧ Ũ Å© Ū Å« Ŭ Å Å® ů Å° ű Ų ų Å´ ŵ Ŷ Å· Ÿ Ź ź Å» ż Ž ž Å¿ 18 Æ’ Æ“ 46 Ç‚ 10 Ç
> > ÇŽ Ç Ç Ç‘ Ç’ Ç“ Ç” Ç• Ç– Ç— ǘ Ç™ Çš Ç› Çœ 24 ǵ 2 Ǹ ǹ Ǻ Ç» Ǽ ǽ Ǿ Ç¿
> > 24 Ș È™ Èš È› 52 É É‘ É’ É“ É” É• É– É— ɘ É™ Éš É› Éœ É Éž ÉŸ É É¡ É¢ É£ ɤ É¥ ɦ ɧ ɨ É© ɪ É«
> > ɬ É É® ɯ É° ɱ ɲ ɳ É´ ɵ ɶ É· ɸ ɹ ɺ É» ɼ ɽ ɾ É¿ Ê€ Ê Ê‚ ʃ Ê„ Ê… ʆ ʇ ʈ ʉ ÊŠ Ê‹ ÊŒ Ê ÊŽ
> > Ê Ê Ê‘ Ê’ Ê“ Ê” Ê• Ê– Ê— ʘ Ê™ Êš Ê› Êœ Ê Êž ÊŸ Ê Ê¡ Ê¢ Ê£ ʤ Ê¥ ʦ ʧ ʨ 29 ˆ ˇ ˈ ˉ 2 ËŒ
> > 3 Ë Ë‘ 6 ˘ Ë™ Ëš Ë› Ëœ Ë Ëž 6 Ë¥ ˦ ˧ ˨ Ë© 22 Ì€ Ì Ì‚ ̃ Ì„ 1 ̆ 1 ̈ 2 Ì‹ ÌŒ 2 Ì 2 Ì’
> > 2 Ì• 2 ̘ Ì™ Ìš 1 Ìœ Ì Ìž ÌŸ Ì 3 ̤ Ì¥ ̦ 2 Ì© ̪ 1 ̬ 2 ̯ Ì° 3 Ì´ 4 ̹ ̺ Ì» ̼ ̽ 35 Í¡
> > 18 Í´ ͵ 4 ͺ 3 ; 5 ΄ Î… Ά · Έ Ή Ί 1 ÎŒ 1 ÎŽ Î Î
> > 391 Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ ΠΞ Ο ΠΡ 1 Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω Ϊ Ϋ ά Πή ί ΰ
> > α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο Ï€ Ï Ï‚ σ Ï„ Ï… φ χ ψ ω
> > 410 РБ В Г Д Е Ж З И Й К Л М РО П РС Т У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ Ъ Ы Ь РЮ Я
> > а б в г д е ж з и й к л м н о п Ñ€ Ñ Ñ‚ у Ñ„ Ñ… ц ч ш щ ÑŠ Ñ‹ ÑŒ Ñ ÑŽ Ñ
> > 2014 — ― ‖ ‗ ‘ ’ ‚ ‛ “ †„ ‟ †‡ • ‣ ․ ‥ … ‧ 
 
 ‪ ‫ ‬ †‮ 1 ‰ ‱
> > ′ ″ ‴ ‵ ‶ ‷ ‸ ‹ › ※ ‼ ‽ ‾ ‿ â € â â ‚ â ƒ â „ â … â † â ‡ â ˆ â ‰ 7 â ‘ 30 â ° 3 â ´ â µ â ¶
> > ⠷ ⠸ ⠹ ⠺ ⠻ ⠼ ⠽ ⠾ ⠿ ₀ ₠₂ ₃ ₄ ₅ ₆ ₇ ₈ ₉ ₊ ₋ ₌ ₠₎ 17 ₠₡ ₢ ₣ ₤ ₥ ₦ ₧ ₨
> > ₩ ₪ ₫ € ₠₮ ₯ ₰ ₱ 78 ℀ ℠ℂ ℃ ℄ ℅ ℆ ℇ ℈ ℉ ℊ ℋ ℌ ℠ℎ ℠℠ℑ ℒ ℓ ℔ ℕ № ℗
> > ℘ ℙ ℚ ℛ ℜ ℠℞ ℟ ℠℡ ™ ℣ ℤ ℥ Ω ℧ ℨ ℩ K Å ℬ ℠℮ ℯ ℰ ℱ Ⅎ ℳ ℴ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ
> > 26 â…“ â…” â…• â…– â…— â…˜ â…™ â…š â…› â…œ â… â…ž â…Ÿ â… â…¡ â…¢ â…£ â…¤ â…¥ â…¦ â…§ â…¨ â…© â…ª â…« â…¬
> > â… â…® â…¯ â…° â…± â…² â…³ â…´ â…µ â…¶ â…· â…¸ â…¹ â…º â…» â…¼ â…½ â…¾ â…¿ ↀ ↠ↂ
> > 13 ↠↑ → ↓ ↔ ↕ ↖ ↗ ↘ ↙ ↚ ↛ ↜ ↠↞ ↟ ↠↡ ↢ ↣ ↤ ↥ ↦ ↧ ↨ ↩ ↪ ↫ ↬ ↠↮
> > ↯ ↰ ↱ ↲ ↳ ↴ ↵ ↶ ↷ ↸ ↹ ↺ ↻ ↼ ↽ ↾ ↿ ⇀ ⇠⇂ ⇃ ⇄ ⇅ ⇆ ⇇ ⇈ ⇉ ⇊ ⇋ ⇌ ⇠⇎ ⇠⇠⇑
> > ⇒ ⇓ ⇔ ⇕ ⇖ ⇗ ⇘ ⇙ ⇚ ⇛ ⇜ ⇠⇞ ⇟ ⇠⇡ ⇢ ⇣ ⇤ ⇥ ⇦ ⇧ ⇨ ⇩ ⇪
> > 21eb 21 ∀ ∠∂ ∃ ∄ ∅ ∆ ∇ ∈ ∉ ∊ ∋ ∌ ∠∎ ∠∠∑ − ∓ ∔ ∕ ∖ ∗ ∘ ∙ √ ∛
> > ∜ ∠∞ ∟ ∠∡ ∢ ∣ ∤ ∥ ∦ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ∫ ∬ ∠∮ ∯ ∰ ∱ ∲ ∳ ∴ ∵ ∶ ∷ ∸
> > ∹ ∺ ∻ ∼ ∽ ∾ ∿ ≀ ≠≂ ≃ ≄ ≅ ≆ ≇ ≈ ≉ ≊ ≋ ≌ ≠≎ ≠≠≑ ≒ ≓ ≔ ≕ ≖ ≗ ≘ ≙ ≚
> > ≛ ≜ ≠≞ ≟ ≠≡ ≢ ≣ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≪ ≫ ≬ ≠≮ ≯ ≰ ≱ ≲ ≳ ≴ ≵ ≶ ≷ ≸ ≹ ≺
> > ≻ ≼ ≽ ≾ ≿ ⊀ ⊠⊂ ⊃ ⊄ ⊅ ⊆ ⊇ ⊈ ⊉ ⊊ ⊋ ⊌ ⊠⊎ ⊠⊠⊑ ⊒ ⊓ ⊔ ⊕ ⊖ ⊗ ⊘ ⊙ ⊚ ⊛
> > ⊜ ⊠⊞ ⊟ ⊠⊡ ⊢ ⊣ ⊤ ⊥ ⊦ ⊧ ⊨ ⊩ ⊪ ⊫ ⊬ ⊠⊮ ⊯ ⊰ ⊱ ⊲ ⊳ ⊴ ⊵ ⊶ ⊷ ⊸ ⊹ ⊺ ⊻ ⊼ ⊽
> > ⊾ ⊿ ⋀ ⋠⋂ ⋃ ⋄ ⋅ ⋆ ⋇ ⋈ ⋉ ⋊ ⋋ ⋌ ⋠⋎ ⋠⋠⋑ ⋒ ⋓ ⋔ ⋕ ⋖ ⋗ ⋘ ⋙ ⋚ ⋛ ⋜ ⋠⋞ ⋟
> > ⋠⋡ ⋢ ⋣ ⋤ ⋥ ⋦ ⋧ ⋨ ⋩ ⋪ ⋫ ⋬ ⋠⋮ ⋯ ⋰ ⋱ 16 ⌂ 2 ⌅ ⌆ 9 ⌠1 ⌒ 5 ⌘ 7 ⌠⌡
> > 156 ⎾ ⎿ â € â â ‚ â ƒ â „ â … â † â ‡ â ˆ â ‰ â Š â ‹ â Œ 1 â Ž 84 â £
> > 2460 ①② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩ ⑪ ⑫ ⑬ ①⑮ ⑯ ⑰ ⑱ ⑲ ⑳ ⑴
> > ⑵ ⑶ ⑷ ⑸ ⑹ ⑺ ⑻ ⑼ ⑽ ⑾ ⑿ ⒀ ⒠⒂ ⒃ ⒄ ⒅ ⒆ ⒇ ⒈ ⒉ ⒊ ⒋
> > ⒌ ⒠⒎ ⒠⒠⒑ ⒒ ⒓ ⒔ ⒕ ⒖ ⒗ ⒘ ⒙ ⒚ ⒛ ⒜ ⒠⒞ ⒟ ⒠⒡ ⒢
> > â’£ â’¤ â’¥ â’¦ â’§ â’¨ â’© â’ª â’« â’¬ â’ â’® â’¯ â’° â’± â’² â’³ â’´ â’µ â’¶ â’· â’¸ â’¹
> > â’º â’» â’¼ â’½ â’¾ â’¿ â“€ â“ â“‚ Ⓝ â“„ â“… Ⓠ Ⓡ Ⓢ Ⓣ â“Š â“‹ â“Œ â“ â“Ž â“ â“
> > ⓑ ⓒ ⓓ ⓔ ⓕ ⓖ ⓗ ⓘ ⓙ ⓚ ⓛ ⓜ ⓠⓞ ⓟ ⓠⓡ ⓢ ⓣ ⓤ ⓥ ⓦ ⓧ
> > ⓨ ⓩ ⓪ ⓫ ⓬ ⓠ⓮ ⓯ ⓰ ⓱ ⓲ ⓳ ⓴ ⓵ ⓶ ⓷ ⓸ ⓹ ⓺ ⓻ ⓼ ⓽ ⓾
> > 1 ─ ┠│ ┃ ┄ ┅ ┆ ┇ ┈ ┉ ┊ ┋ ┌ ┠┎ ┠┠┑ ┒ ┓ └ ┕ ┖ ┗ ┘ ┙ ┚ ┛
> > ├ ┠┞ ┟ ┠┡ ┢ ┣ ┤ ┥ ┦ ┧ ┨ ┩ ┪ ┫ ┬ ┠┮ ┯ ┰ ┱ ┲ ┳ ┴ ┵ ┶ ┷
> > ┸ ┹ ┺ ┻ ┼ ┽ ┾ ┿ ╀ ╠╂ ╃ ╄ ╅ ╆ ╇ ╈ ╉ ╊ ╋ ╌ ╠╎ ╠╠║ ╒ ╓ ╔ ╕ ╖ ╗
> > ╘ ╙ ╚ ╛ ╜ ╠╞ ╟ ╠╡ ╢ ╣ ╤ ╥ ╦ ╧ ╨ ╩ ╪ ╫ ╬ ╠╮ ╯ ╰ ╱ ╲ ╳ ╴ ╵ ╶ ╷ ╸ ╹ ╺
> > ╻ ╼ ╽ ╾ ╿ ▀ ■▂ ▃ ▄ ▅ ▆ ▇ █ ▉ ▊ ▋ ▌ ■▎ ■■░ ▒ ▓ ▔ ▕ 10 ■□ ▢ ▣ ▤
> > â–¥ â–¦ â–§ â–¨ â–© â–ª â–« â–¬ â– â–® â–¯ â–° â–± â–² â–³ â–´ â–µ â–¶ â–· â–¸ â–¹ â–º â–» â–¼ â–½ â–¾ â–¿ â—€ â— â—‚ â—ƒ â—„ â—…
> > ◆ ◇ ◈ ◉ ◊ ○ ◌ ◠◎ ◠◠◑ ◒ ◓ ◔ ◕ ◖ ◗ ◘ ◙ ◚ ◛ ◜ ◠◞ ◟ ◠◡ ◢ ◣ ◤ ◥
> > ◦ ◧ ◨ ◩ ◪ ◫ ◬ ◠◮ ◯ 16 ☀ ☠☂ ☃ ☄ ★ ☆ ☇ ☈ ☉ ☊ ☋ ☌ ☠☎
> > ☠☠☑ ☒ ☓ 2 ☖ ☗ 2 ☚ ☛ ☜ ☠☞ ☟ ☠☡ ☢ ☣ ☤ ☥ ☦ ☧ ☨
> > ☩ ☪ ☫ ☬ ☠☮ ☯ ☰ ☱ ☲ ☳ ☴ ☵ ☶ ☷ ☸ ☹ ☺ ☻ ☼ ☽ ☾ ☿ ♀
> > ♠♂ ♃ ♄ ♅ ♆ ♇ ♈ ♉ ♊ ♋ ♌ ♠♎ ♠♠♑ ♒ ♓ ♔ ♕ ♖ ♗
> > ♘ ♙ ♚ ♛ ♜ ♠♞ ♟ ♠♡ ♢ ♣ ♤ ♥ ♦ ♧ ♨ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♠♮ ♯
> > 2708 ✈ ✉ 2 ✌ ✠✎ ✠✠✑ ✒ ✓ ✔ ✕ ✖ ✗ ✘ ✙ ✚ ✛ ✜ âœ
> > ✞ ✟ ✠✡ ✢ ✣ ✤ ✥ ✦ ✧ 1 ✩ ✪ ✫ ✬ ✠✮ ✯ ✰ ✱ ✲ ✳ ✴
> > ✵ ✶ ✷ ✸ ✹ ✺ ✻ ✼ ✽ ✾ ✿ â € â â ‚ â ƒ â „ â … â † â ‡ â ˆ â ‰ â Š â ‹
> > 1 â 1 â â â ‘ â ’ 3 â – 1 â ˜ â ™ â š â › â œ â â ž 2 â ¡ â ¢ â £ â ¤ â ¥ â ¦ â §
> > 14 ⠶ ⠷ ⠸ ⠹ ⠺ ⠻ ⠼ ⠽ ⠾ ⠿ ➀ ➠➂ ➃ ➄ ➅ ➆ ➇ ➈ ➉ ➊ ➋
> > ➌ ➠➎ ➠➠➑ ➒ ➓ ➔ 3 ➘ ➙ ➚ ➛ ➜ ➠➞ ➟ ➠➡ ➢ ➣ ➤
> > ➥ ➦ ➧ ➨ ➩ ➪ ➫ ➬ ➠➮ ➯ 1 ➱ ➲ ➳ ➴ ➵ ➶ ➷ ➸ ➹ ➺ ➻
> > âž¼ âž½ âž¾
> > ff01 ï¼ ï¼‚ ＃ ＄ ï¼… ＆ ＇ （ ） ＊ ＋ ， ï¼ ï¼Ž ï¼ ï¼ ï¼‘ ï¼’ ３ ï¼” ５
> > ï¼– ï¼— ８ ï¼™ ： ï¼› ＜ ï¼ ï¼ž ？ ï¼ ï¼¡ ï¼¢ ï¼£ Ｄ ï¼¥ Ｆ Ｇ Ｈ Ｉ Ｊ Ｋ Ｌ
> > ï¼ ï¼® Ｏ ï¼° ï¼± ï¼² ï¼³ ï¼´ ï¼µ Ｖ ï¼· Ｘ ï¼¹ Ｚ ï¼» ï¼¼ ï¼½ ï¼¾ ＿ ï½€ ï½ ï½‚ ｃ
> > ｄ ï½… ｆ ｇ ｈ ｉ ｊ ｋ ｌ ï½ ï½Ž ï½ ï½ ï½‘ ï½’ ｓ ï½” ｕ ï½– ï½— ｘ ï½™ ｚ
> > ï½› ｜ ï½ ï½ž
> > ffe3 ￣ ￤ ￥ ￦ 1 ￨ ￩ ￪ ￫ ￬
>
>
> Stop it.
>
Sombody get Jeffy turned on to the figlet server so he can post something aEstheticly plEasing.
Pmb
To "believe" is a large part of physics. In fact its a large part of any
science. Science will never have access to truth and therefore truth is but
an unobtainable goal.
Pete
BradGuth
> On Apr 19, 12:22 am, Jeff▲Relf<✗@✗.Invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Detecting light as a particle or a wave
> > depends on how coherent ( i.e. how predictable ) it is.
>
> > For example, given an ideal laser showing a diffraction pattern
>
> > A. The frequency / energy is fully predictable;
> > i.e. it's Fully a wave.
>
> > B. You can't detect ( not even in theory )
> > which of the two slits it might've passed through;
> > i.e. it's Not a particle.
>
> > Semi-coherent ( i.e. semi-predictable ) light
> > is detectable as a semi-particle, semi-wave.
>
> > No matter what else is or isn't known,
> > metaphysically, we “ know ” the cosmos is fully causal.
>
> theory. Do you argue that probability theory is ignorance as well ?
>
> being either continuous or discrete - as one may wish. Clearly, this
> is the only way that a wave-particle duality type of paradox could
> occur. Unless you really want to struggle to jam a square peg into a
> round hole - in which case you have the Copenhagen interpretation.
> Clinging to that old thing is like believing in UFO's and timetravel.
Believing in only a terrestrial existence of intelligent life is far
worse off than believing in "UFO's and timetravel".
Your "probability theory" seems as equally a bit vague, as is string
theory or cold fusion theory.
In the infinite universe, technically all sorts of complex things of
randomness are probable, including whatever is outside of our universe
becomes even more so probable.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That's good, to believe in the regular laws of physics and of the best
available science that's independently peer replicated, to me seems
like a perfectly viable foundation of truth. So, why isn't that the
case of what our mainstream status quo has to say?
Of course, if those in charge are intentionally telling us what and
how to interpret each and every old or new thing that comes along, and
if those in charge are so entitled as to exclude upon whatever
evidence rocks their boat, then what's the difference?
If those in charge of our private parts, and having been responsible
for taking most of our hard earned loot as well as having taken our
lives, insist that all that's off-world is merely of God's inert eye-
candy, then why bother looking or much less sending our spendy probes
off to such God forsaken places that we humans can never materialized
into any tangible worth, on behalf of benefiting our terrestrial
sequestered existence?
If our moon were chuck full of fresh water, or even as hollow as a
crystallized interior of a geode rock; so what?
If there were once upon a time or even of other coexisting intelligent
forms of ET life, such as having existed upon Venus; so what?
How many trillions of our hard earned loot, and precious decades or
centuries are we supposed to invest upon research into such other
remote off-world places, that to the best of our knowledge and
expertise can't accommodate us frail humans in the buff?
I'm in favor of ignoring God. How about yourself?
. - Brad Guth
Paul Mays
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2b50b3c-0cfd-43fc...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Oh No.. now you gone and done it.. You Asked... Generally speaking I get
flamed alot and hardly ever get asked.
I have attempted to put the whole of the concept into a PDF so folks can
read at leisure but to put it in simple terms I have to start from the basis
of the idea of an Intrinsic Bias. That Bias is unavoidable due to us being
connected by the Quantum State we are in. Some try to call it Aether which
Maxwell, Einstein and others have addressed for a very long time. All tend
to conceive it as a medium that matter passes through. That's the Intrinsic
Bias. We as observers tend to ignore the insipid nature of it.
The only way any information is exchanged is via wave forms between the
observer and that being observed. With Light we have nothing more than a EM
wave form at a freq we can observe. I contend it propagates through the
Quantum State and when we attempt to observe it we alter the quantum state
by also producing wave forms and when we observe the information we gather
is Intrinsically Biased causing us to perceive what we observe differently
with different method of observation.
Take the idea of a slit experiment detecting photos and waves from the same
source. I use the idea I try to explain in my postulate to show that if I
attempt to view the "light" at a 0 time constant then I detect a signature
energy level that I perceive as a real physical ball of stuff. My gear I
built is made of stuff that I select to make the gear and is connected to
the object I want to use it to observe and is connected to me the observer.
So the act of observing effects that which is being observed.
If I observer using a device designed to observe over a period of time I get
a obvious EM wave pattern. Again the Wave Pattern I observe is not that
which I observe only the Interpretation of the information I have gathered.
So in my view a "Particle" that shows the aspect of duality is a wave and
only a wave and is perceived as a physical little ball of stuff only due to
the method and Intrinsic Bias of the observer.
Using my view a "Photon", "Electron" and many other "Particles" are only
waves and may also so be observed in such a way as be modeled as having Mass
yet no Rest Mass. Because a photon is only a wave once it propagates
through the Quantum State it does not rely on the source or target for its
velocity of c.
This is why c seems constant to an intrinsically biased observer while I
contend it is variable.
--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
--
Paul Mays
"Pmb" <peter....@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:dsmdnQTLxOM7xpbV...@comcast.com...
And there's the rub. Then science has become religion where its tantamount
to heresy to speak ill of the "B'liefs of others. The hordes rise at the
individual that "Believes" the Earth orbits the Sun. Burned at the stake as
Bruno was when he Did Not Believe as the arbiters of religion said he
should.
If you B'Lieve you are in the pews singing a heavenly lament. If you Know,
you are outside asking why do they sit so silent. If you Do Not Know you
stand outside the doors begging to be let in and if you Think You Know you
sit on the steps and split the difference.
--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
--
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> --
> Paul R. Mays
> "I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
> I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
I accept your variable 'c', because it seems perfectly logical outside
of our physiological and/or technological limited perceptions of 'c'.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
>
> And there's the rub. Then science has become religion where its tantamount
> to heresy to speak ill of the "B'liefs of others. The hordes rise at the
> individual that "Believes" the Earth orbits the Sun. Burned at the stake as
> Bruno was when he Did Not Believe as the arbiters of religion said he
> should.
>
> If you B'Lieve you are in the pews singing a heavenly lament. If you Know,
> you are outside asking why do they sit so silent. If you Do Not Know you
> stand outside the doors begging to be let in and if you Think You Know you
> sit on the steps and split the difference.
>
>
> --
> Paul R. Mays
> "I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
> I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
I've been splitting differences all my life, perhaps because I'm not
one of those all-or-nothing kind of all-knowing bigots.
BTW, it seems we have a bad case of Brown-Nosed damage-control (the
Usenet status quo or bust) that is running itself a muck.
Would you folks just have another good look-see at all the ongoing
brown-nosed clownism, not only as happening within this group, but
saturated and for the most part unopposed throughout Usenet.
Are those Third Reich Semites actually getting that pissed off and
desperate?
Is there some other faith-based group(s) of pretend-atheists or cults
in charge?
. - Brad Guth
-
DARPA (our very own Third Reich collective of Semitic wizards) "This
agency brought forth the Saturn 5 rocket, surveillance satellites, the
Internet, stealth technology, guided munitions, unmanned aerial
vehicles, night vision and the body armor that's in use today,"
““So what's hot at DARPA right now? Bugs. The creepy, crawly flying
kind. The Agency's Microsystems Technology Office is hard at work on
HI-MEMS (Hybrid Insect Micro-Electro-Mechanical System), raising real
insects filled with electronic circuitry, which could be guided using
GPS technology to specific targets via electrical impulses sent to
their muscles. These half-bug, half-chip creations - DARPA calls them
"insect cyborgs" - would be ideal for surveillance missions, the
agency says in a brief description on its website.””
Are we fellow spooks and moles of the Third Reich having a good enough
time yet?
. - BG
Pmb
"Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in message
Not at all. Science has *always* been about belief. I.e. If I drop a rock I
*believe* it will fall. I *believe* the sun will rise tomorrow. I *believe*
that energy is conserved etc. None of these can be proven. But we believe
them because we have very good reason to believe them. It is what we keep
observing for years on end without change. On the other hand, when this kind
of thing is applied towards God then that belief system is called religion.
Science is about what we observer in nature. Therefore, by its very
definition, science is not a religion - Period, end of story.
Pete
BradGuth
> "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in message
>
> news:l5KOj.3954$q51....@fe087.usenetserver.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:dsmdnQTLxOM7xpbV...@comcast.com...
>
> >> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
But religion still controls the private parts of whatever science gets
into their mainstream, as well as controls and/or orchestrates others
on behalf of dominating upon the amount of evidence exclusion
necessary in order to sustain their status quo, or else.
. - Brad Guth
Paul Mays
"Pmb" <peter....@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:QYSdnVwHsspcEpbV...@comcast.com...
Then I misunderstand Science for If I drop a rock "I Know" it will Fall
Here on Planet Earth not given external variables, I "Think I Know" the Sun
will rise tommorrow if a catostrophic event does not occure before then that
affects the prediction. I Know energy is concerved by the massive evidence
that can be repeatally evaluated by and outside observer but I "Do Not Know"
that which I cannot validate with the scientific method.
Science is Not a Religion. But B'lief of any portion of it without question
Is.
--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
--
NoEinstein
> On Apr 18, 10:19 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 1. Light is a Wave
>
> > I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.
>
> > 2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
>
> > Later I was Told
> > 3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
>
> > Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
> > can we say they are perpendicular.
>
> > Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
>
> > So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.
>
> > Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
>
> > Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
>
> > After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
> > the correct description of light.
>
> > Bye
> > Sanny
>
> > Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
>
> Dual Force wave of energy.
>
> Mitch Reamsch - Falling light changes colour- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Mitch: Your comments are a smorgasborg of "might be(s)". Quit
reading out-of-date texts and start thinking for yourself! There is
no such thing as "different color" light! There is only a different
PERCEPTION of color depending on the wavelength of the arriving
photons. Those photons are IDENTICAL regardless of the
"wavelength" (a misnomer, because light ISN'T waves!). — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> Light can be a wave or a particle, but not both at the same time.
>
> This is because physical length can be either continuous or discrete,
> but not both at the same time.
>
> And this is because a random length may be regarded as being
> indeterminately continuous or discrete.
>
> And to understand this you must understand existential indeterminacy.
> That points may be regarded as being existentially indeterminate, but
> there is another equally valid approach which does NOT consider points
> to be existentially indeterminate, and that BOTH cases are equally
> valid.
>
> You should now know exactly what a photon is, what gravity is, dark
> matter, and everything else.
Dear Huang: You just quote Einstein. But I've disproved that man up,
down, and sideways! Light is PHOTONS only, NOT a wave... EVER!
Please go to my profile and read my recent posts. Then, you should
agree to forget his moronic ideas. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2:19 pm, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When in School I learnt 2 things about Light
>
> > 1. Light is a Wave
>
> wanks.
> Since there's a big difference between saying light is a wave,
> and light ravels like a wave.
>
>
>
> > I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.
>
> even bigger telescopes than they have now, rather than
> microprocessors
> and lasers.
>
> > 2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
>
> just like light's a flame thrower.. Idiots in Washingtoon
> will buy anything as the saying goes.
>
> > Later I was Told
> > 3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
>
> Since the only thing travelling is wanks, and the only thing
> at 90' is pure covariant wanks.
>
> > Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
> > can we say they are perpendicular.
>
> > Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
>
> thing as saying: if you wish hard enough, atoms will turn
> into light.
>
>
>
>
>
> > So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.
>
> > Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
>
> > Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
>
> > After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
> > the correct description of light.
>
> > Bye
> > Sanny
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear zzbunker: I tend to agree. Like "string" theory, this "light is
this; light is that" only shows that the status quo physicists don't
know. But I know that light is just PHOTONS! And those will travel
perfectly well in the background ether, or in the "Swiss Cheese" voids
between galaxies where there is little or no ether. Those voids are
the super highways for trans-Universe travel! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> Detecting light as a particle or a wave
> depends on how coherent ( i.e. how predictable ) it is.
>
> For example, given an ideal laser showing a diffraction pattern
> in famous double-slit experiment:
>
> A. The frequency / energy is fully predictable;
> i.e. it's Fully a wave.
>
> B. You can't detect ( not even in theory )
> which of the two slits it might've passed through;
> i.e. it's Not a particle.
>
> Semi-coherent ( i.e. semi-predictable ) light
> is detectable as a semi-particle, semi-wave.
>
> Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
> No matter what else is or isn't known,
> metaphysically, we “ know ” the cosmos is fully causal.
Dear Jeff: "All of that..." from a computer programmer! I must
admit, you round all of the bases, even when you don't touch any of
them. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
wrote:
> On Apr 19, 1:22 am, Jeff▲Relf<✗@✗.Invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Detecting light as a particle or a wave
> > depends on how coherent ( i.e. how predictable ) it is.
>
> > For example, given an ideal laser showing a diffraction pattern
> > in famous double-slit experiment:
>
> > A. The frequency / energy is fully predictable;
> > i.e. it's Fully a wave.
>
> > B. You can't detect ( not even in theory )
> > which of the two slits it might've passed through;
> > i.e. it's Not a particle.
>
> > Semi-coherent ( i.e. semi-predictable ) light
> > is detectable as a semi-particle, semi-wave.
>
> > Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
> > No matter what else is or isn't known,
> > metaphysically, we “ know ” the cosmos is fully causal.
>
> idiots
> know about either philosophy, the cosmos, logic, randomness, or
> causality
> is geometry.
> Since they are blathering Kant wannabee idiots, rather than
> scientists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear zzbunker: Wow! Looks like you've got supposed scientists
correctly pegged! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > When in School I learnt 2 things about Light
>
> > > > > 1. Light is a Wave
>
>
>
> > > > > 3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
>
> How
> > > > > can we say they are perpendicular.
>
> > > > > Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
>
>
> > > > > Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
>
> > > > > Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
>
> > > > > After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know
> whats
> > > > > the correct description of light.
>
> > > > > Bye
> > > > > Sanny
>
> > > > > Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
>
> > > > didn't have a clue.
>
> > > > I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
> > > > photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps as
> > > > somewhat quantum string like items. Of course, this still doesn't
> > > > tell us specifically as to "what is light".
>
> > > > Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each and
> > > > every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of gravitons
> > > > interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting with
> > > > mass?
>
> > > > Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available gravitons
> > > > it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
> > > > . - Brad Guth
>
> > > I gota definition I like too...
>
> > > Paul R. Mays
> > > "I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
> > > I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
>
>
> > However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the quantum
> > string like photon. In other words, without the spin of atoms, we got
> > nothing.
> > . - Brad Guth
>
>
> --
> Paul R. Mays
> "I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Paul: "Believing" is the anti-science. KNOWING is the true
science! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in message
>
> denote the Causation of Gravity, What specifically light is and why its
> detectable as a Wave or Little ball of stuff (Photon), Why its velocity
> will always be independent of source or target, and seemingly a constant..
>
> Yet allows all existing physical rules to remain valid to a Intrinsically
> Biased
> observer.
>
> Paul R. Mays
> "I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
> I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Paul: You're right on all but one point: "The velocity of
emitted (or reflected) light ALWAYS increases or decreases depending
on the velocity and direction of the source or reflecting surface." —
NoEinstein —
Huang
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wish Einstein were here to kick your ass properly, and in person.
If light did'nt behave like a wave then they would'nt be calling it a
wave-prticle duality. It would be the "particle singularity" hah hah.
Light can be either wave or particle because just like gravity, it is
composed only of space. Gravity is nothing more than a deformation of
space. Why should photons be any different ?
All of this can be modelled readily by understanding that length is
indeed probabilistic.
The key thing is that it may be regarded as being a continuous segment
with a random bit attatched to the end, OR it may be regarded that all
point in the entire segment are existentially indeterminate. This
gives you a case A and a case B.
It does not make any sense that you would be able to observe anything
BUT the expected lengthg which results from this process, and so
whather you have case A or case B is indeterminate.
With a little fiddling you can model just about any physical phenomena
you wish, but that's beyond the scope of this post.
Also consider - there is only one way that space can exhibit the
"discreteness" that the cellular aotomata folks love so much. Only 1
way. Discrete chunks must be separated by a membrane of nonexistence -
otherwise they cannot be discrete. This most appropriately modelled
with random variables because there are possible outcomes which wont
exist.
BUT - remember that indeterminacy is indeterminate. Those little
nonexistent "unrealized outcomes" which constitue the cell boundaries
for your automata universe, they can all be bunched up together into a
single collected region which leaves you with continuous length all
over again.
Space is indeterminately continuous or discrete.
Jeff▲Relf
“ integer units of action ” ? !
He couldn't understand potty humor if it exeeded one line.
We're like idiot savants with non-overlapping esoteric talents;
so one man's talent can't be seen by the other.
Eric Gisse
What's your talent? Endlessly posting offtopic stupidity to
sci.physics?
Tom Potter
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3881289-1d04-4b68...@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 20, 8:19Â pm, Jeffâ-²Relf<âo-@âo-.Invalid> wrote:
> What makes you believe Art Deco could understand
>
> He couldn't understand potty humor if it exeeded one line.
> We're like idiot savants with non-overlapping esoteric talents;
> so one man's talent can't be seen by the other.
-- What's your talent? Endlessly posting offtopic stupidity to
-- sci.physics?
It was bad enough
that Eric Gisse dragged Art Deco,
and the other race/religion motivated bigots
working out of the caliballista.org boiler-room
into sci.physics,
but it is worse to see him coming to the bigots aid,
when a sci.physics regular points out
what Art Deco is like.
Eric Gisse's attitude reminds me of the song phrase:
"If you can't be with the one you love,
love the one you're with.."
Considering that Gisse doesn't love the folks in sci.physics,
and he drags the scum in from AUK to pollute the newsgroup,
and considering that "Birds of the feather..",
one would think that Gisse would migrate to AUK
and be with the one he loves.
Tom Potter
When I taught at the
military service school, high school, college,
and seminar levels,
I learned that I should not move on to
more sophisticated ideas,
until I verified that my student
understood the point in question.
Thus I repeat,
"As a starting point Arty,
"action" is fundamental quanta,
and changes are conveyed between
causes and effects in integer units of action.
Now, do you understand that point Arty?
If so, we'll move on to the next point."
Before I move on Arty,
let me know if you comprehend the
single point in question,
and verify your understanding by
making a short comment that demonstrates
that you do in fact comprehend it.
I must point out,
that short, smart ass, adolescent, low brow comments
demonstrate stupidity, not comprehension.
Paul Mays
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7174583e-50e7-4784...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
No it is not....Trying to Know is true Science... Knowing is but
self stroking...
--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
Paul Mays
--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:de6054e5-a9c5-40cb...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
No .. A car is going 50mph at a brick wall... if the wall is moving at the
car
at 50 mpg yes the impact comes sooner and with more force but the car
is still doing 50mph..
PD
This is counter to experimental measurement, NoEinstein. Of course,
you could always say that you don't care.
PD
KNOWING is religious faith, NoEinstein. Do you know the difference
between a scientist and a priest?
PD
Tom Potter
"Jeff?Relf<?@?.Invalid>" <=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=96=B2Relf?=
=?UTF-8?Q?<=E2=9C=97@=E2=9C=97.Invalid>?=> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2008_...@X.Invalid...
> What makes you believe Art Deco could understand
>
> He couldn't understand potty humor if it exeeded one line.
> We're like idiot savants with non-overlapping esoteric talents;
> so one man's talent can't be seen by the other.
Actually Art Deco understands, and does,
his job very well.
Art works out of the caliballista.org boiler-room,
which is operated by a few Jewish bigots,
and used to intimidate and smear people,
that the bigots target.
Art's job is not to engage in rational, intelligent, moral
discussions to arrive at fundamental truths,
but his job is to smear folks, and obscure threads
on issues that his handlers don't want to have
the public exposed to.
Art does his job in several ways.
1. He pisses out posters,
and gets them off the issue,
and into a pissing war.
2. He tries to link his victims
with negative images, negative ideas,
and negative people.
3. He appends alt.usenet.kook
to threads he wants to disrupt
in order to instigate a flame war between
the poster, the caliballista, boiler-rook bigots,
and the young boys and sociopaths
who hang out in alt.usenet.kook.
Art does a pretty good job
directing the activities of a few race/religion motivated bigots,
and in exploiting inferiority complexes in a few
sociopaths and young boys,
who tend to boost their egos by demeaning folks.
( Note that Art also exploits the inferiority complexes
of young boys and sociopaths in the serious newsgroups,
and gets some of them to append alt.usenet.kook to posts.
The Republican Party,
and now the Clinton gang
use the same tactics
used by the calaballista.org race motivated bigots,
and the tactic must work,
as they spend millions of dollars
trying to divert the attention of people
from facts and details.
I dare say that if Obama becomes president,
the masses will begin to turn aggressively on the
bigots, media, and politicians who use
smear as a weapon to promote their agenda,
which could not be promote successfully
using logic, intelligence and facts.
Hopefully, when the public gets sick of the
smear tactics, laws will be passed that make
it easy for folks smeared by Institutionalized Bigotry
to collect damages from the individuals and
organization that effected the smears.
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
own."
To read the stories of a few of the many folks
who have been victims of Institutionalized bigotry
visit the web site below.
<http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>
PD
>
> Dear Huang: You just quote Einstein. But I've disproved that man up,
> down, and sideways! Light is PHOTONS only, NOT a wave... EVER!
> Please go to my profile and read my recent posts. Then, you should
> agree to forget his moronic ideas. — NoEinstein —
Good, then kindly reproduce the double slit interference pattern that
is easily observed in an experiment involving a $20 laser pointer, a
bit of glass, a razor blade, and flat black spray paint. Be sure to do
so with PHOTONS only.
PD
John Kennaugh
>When in School I learnt 2 things about Light
>
>1. Light is a Wave
It has wavelike properties
>
>I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.
In physics you cannot *prove* a theory. A theory stands until it is
disproved. The wavelike properties that were demonstrated to you are the
sort of thing which led to the wave theory of light.
>2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
You should question what you are told. You should ask "if it is a wave
what is the wave propagating IN". The answer you will get is that modern
physics does not attempt to answer those sorts of question. I feel it
should.
>Later I was Told
>3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
You should ask what, physically is meant by a 'field'. The answer you
will get is that modern physics does not attempt to answer those sorts
of question.
>
>Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
>can we say they are perpendicular.
Oersted, Ampere and Faraday between them showed that magnetic and
electric phenomena were not separate phenomena but both are caused by
charge.
>
>Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
Yes. Historically light was believed to be an electromagnetic wave
propagated in the all pervading propagation medium they called the
aether (Maxwells wave in aether theory). A field was a stress in that
aether caused by a charge. The interaction between stress patterns
explained how one charge could attract or repel another charge. The
stress could propagate through the aether at the speed of light = light
waves. Two consequences of this are firstly that the speed of light is
constant with respect to the aether so cannot be affected by the motion
of the source. Secondly as the speed of light is constant w.r.t the
aether anyone moving w.r.t the aether will measure a different speed to
someone stationary w.r.t the aether. Basically if light is a wave in the
aether and the earth is belting around the sun at tens of thousands of
miles per hour the earth must be moving w.r.t the aether and this
movement should show itself as a difference in the speed of light. A
famous experiment called the Michelson Morely experiment was done to
demonstrate this and failed to do so. No movement was detected.
This was only the first of a number of experiments which disproved the
idea that light is a wave. It was eventually discovered that light
consists of particles we call photons and these leave the source and
arrive at their destination unchanged.
>
>So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.
Rather a lot of particles moving at light speed
>
>Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
>
>Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
Absolutely agree. The problem was that followers of Maxwell refused to
accept his theory was wrong despite the overwhelming evidence. What
Einstein did was to totally ignore the fact that he had got a Nobel
prize for showing that light is made of particles and went back to
Maxwell's wave theory. What his relativity theory is based upon
(although physicists vehemently deny it) is that Maxwell's theory is
correct and that therefore what the Michelson Morely experiment showed
was that *every* observer is stationary w.r.t the aether which is why
the experiment failed to show any movement w.r.t the aether. This is
what his second postulate describes.
You might sensibly ask how two observers moving with respect to each
other can both be stationary w.r.t the same aether and I can tell you
that there is no sensible answer. This far from sensible assumption
rescues Maxwell's wave in aether theory from the results of the MM
experiment but not from the glaring inconsistency that light is made up
of particles. It has dire consequences. In order to get the right answer
one has to assume that at different speeds a ruler changes its length,
time slows down, and the mass of an object changes. Note that no
physical processes have been identified which could cause a ruler to
change its length etc. These effects are *assumed* to occur in order to
get the answer required having made the absurd assumption embedded in
the second postulate.
What you will be told, and it isn't true, is that Einstein came up with
a theory which doesn't need an aether. Einstein actually argued in
favour of retaining the idea of the aether. An aether which every
observer can be naturally stationary with, is clearly absurd so
physicists got rid of it from their thinking but they did not rethink
how that affected the very basis of relativity. Its removal was not the
result of experiment nor some clever theoretical argument. It was
removed from physics by the totally arbitrary decision taken by
physicists that physics did not need to explain what is going on in
physical terms, that mathematics will suffice. That modern physics does
not attempt to answer those sorts of question.
>After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
>the correct description of light.
There are now two branches of physics which deal with light and it
depends what question you are asking.
One will tell you that light is an electromagnetic wave because its
properties can be modelled by Maxwell's wave equation. You will be told
that the aether does not exist and nothing has replaced it for light
waves to be physical waves IN. You may be told that it consists of
electromagnetic fields but fields were stresses in the aether and now
there is no aether for them to be stresses in. Because physics no longer
has to explain anything in physical terms it does not have to explain
what a field is made of as long as they can write an equation describing
its properties.
The other branch of physics will tell you that light is made up of
photons but so as not to encroach on the other branch of physics it
claims that photons have no internal structure. Such a structureless
photon cannot explain the wavelike properties of light.
Essentially by retaining a disproved theory Physics has ended up with
two branches which further down the line disagree. Attempts are being
made to unify these two branches by means of highly complicated
mathematics called string theory. According to Stephen Hawking string
theory may succeed in unifying physics if we assume that the universe
has either 10 or 26 dimensions and even then "only if the infinities
cancel" - whatever that means.
Basically Physics is one hell of a lot more absurd than you thought and
I hope that in your lifetime sanity will be restored.
To me it seems that light is made up of photons which must have an
internal structure such that on mass they give rise to the very
convincing wavelike properties you are familiar with. While Maxwell's
equations cannot be considered as an accurate description of a physical
phenomena the fact that they give very accurate predictions cannot be
dismissed. Essentially they are based on a series of relationships
worked out by Faraday all of which relate to charge. It seems to me
therefore that there has to be a link between charge and light and
therefore between charge and photons. Waldron has suggested that photons
rotate and consist of equal numbers of +ve and -ve charged particles. It
is this rotation which gives rise to the phenomena of frequency and the
other wavelike properties.
>
>Bye
>Sanny
>
>Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
>
>
--
John Kennaugh
Jeff▲Relf
How many billions of web pages are there ? 16 ?
Usenet spits out 4 tera bytes per day.
How many TV channels do you have ? 800 ?
How big is your campus library system ? your local book store ?
Do you have any face-to-face friends ? a wife ? a job ?
I count 136 people ( Nyms ) who've made 7+ posts to Sci.Physics
in the last 18.5 days.. yet it's me you talk to.
Ignoring all but the most recent 33 posts per Nym..
these Nyms got the most expo$ure ( in order ):
“ 1 Surfer .844 Jerry .797 Tom_Roberts
.707 Sanny .628 wbbrdr_gmail .585 none
.521 uri .52 Tom_Potter .468 George_Hammond
.456 nuny_bid_nes .447 Michael_Helland .447 Pmb
.436 schoenfeld_one .433 David_A_Smith .432 Jeff▲Relf
.427 Paul_Mays .404 Henry .404 jimp_specsol
.403 NoEinstein .399 Sam_Wormley .397 Dono
.396 Darwin123 .393 Tom .39 Dr_Henri
.385 Jamie_Morken .381 Eric_Gisse .381 MitchNobel
.369 PD ”.
For for Sci.Physics, today, the full list looks like this:
“ www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/_Phy_R.TXT
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/_Phy_R_TXT.PNG ”.
The number before each Nym is its XRank ( like PageRank™ ),
for more on that, see “ www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/ ”.
Randy Poe
> Why do you spend so much time on me ? after all..
How many seconds per day do you estimate that to
be?
> I count 136 people ( Nyms ) who've made 7+ posts to Sci.Physics
> in the last 18.5 days.. yet it's me you talk to.
If your newsreader is reporting that you are the only person
Eric is responding to, you have a serious defect in your
counting algorithm.
- Randy
Jeff▲Relf
“ Why do you spend so much time on me ? after all.. ”.
And you replied:
“ How many seconds per day do you estimate that to be ? ”.
About 5 seconds.. but that's 5 seconds too many, if you ask me.
Can't you find something more worthy of your time ?
NoEinstein
> On Apr 20, 8:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 19, 12:09 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Light can be a wave or a particle, but not both at the same time.
>
> > > This is because physical length can be either continuous or discrete,
> > > but not both at the same time.
>
> > > And this is because a random length may be regarded as being
> > > indeterminately continuous or discrete.
>
> > > And to understand this you must understand existential indeterminacy.
> > > That points may be regarded as being existentially indeterminate, but
> > > there is another equally valid approach which does NOT consider points
> > > to be existentially indeterminate, and that BOTH cases are equally
> > > valid.
>
> > > You should now know exactly what a photon is, what gravity is, dark
> > > matter, and everything else.
>
> > Dear Huang: You just quote Einstein. But I've disproved that man up,
> > down, and sideways! Light is PHOTONS only, NOT a wave... EVER!
> > Please go to my profile and read my recent posts. Then, you should
> > agree to forget his moronic ideas. — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I wish Einstein were here to kick your ass properly, and in person.
>
> If light did'nt behave like a wave then they would'nt be calling it a
> wave-prticle duality. It would be the "particle singularity" hah hah.
>
theories of relativity, and etc., nothing that "they" say is worth a
damn.
>
> Light can be either wave or particle because just like gravity, it is
> composed only of space. Gravity is nothing more than a deformation of
> space. Why should photons be any different?
>
brain attempt to explain the nil result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley
experiment. Since all of the optics were rotated in the same PLANE
(horizontal), the supposed TIME change in one light course was always
exactly the same as for the other light course. Because I discovered
the simple fact that the M-M experiment was designed without an
unchanging CONTROL, there was no need to change the... rulers and
clocks to bastardize science to suit Einstein's whim.
My own X-Y-Z interferometer easily detects Earth's movement in the
cosmos. Einstein himself said that no Earth based experiment could
detect such movement, but he was so WRONG! — NoEinstein —
>
[Snip remaining dribble...]
PD
>
> My own X-Y-Z interferometer easily detects Earth's movement in the
> cosmos. Einstein himself said that no Earth based experiment could
> detect such movement, but he was so WRONG! — NoEinstein —
Unsupported assertion. You might as well be claiming that you have a
working fusion reactor in your garage that supplies all your heat and
electricity for the winter.
PD
NoEinstein
In college I was most fortunate to have attended lectures by R.
Buckminster Fuller, the inventor of the geodesic dome. His mind was
like a continuously playing record. When you entered his lecture, he
begins by speaking what he happens to be thinking at the moment.
Fuller was a recognized genius, but his brain didn't customize his
thoughts for anyone. Jeff is much like that. He is probably a genius
but with a problem focusing on apt subjects. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> "Art Deco" <e...@caballista.org> wrote in message
>
> news:200420080818312184%er...@caballista.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tom Potter <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Art Deco" <e...@caballista.org> wrote in message
> >>news:190420080856330200%er...@caballista.org...
> >>> Tom Potter <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Tom: Your trying to ascertain the "understanding" of the basics
by you students is like my trying to walk people like Randy Poe
through my Coriolis invalidation. The "power" that students have over
teachers is that they can keep saying they... "Don't get it." There
is an issue of pride that keeps getting in the way of anyone on the
groups acknowledging that Einstein has now been dethroned.
Though you agree to the wastefulness of Einstein's ideas, you
have yet to say: "NoEinstein, it looks like you've done it!" Racial
and social issues are the causes of many problems. But science would
benefit by having those who agree simply say so. — NoEinstein —
Jeff▲Relf
wasn't “ operated by a few Jewish bigots ”.
I don't care about Jews one way or the other; yet
I've won awards each month since January ( and before ).. not you.
World War II was about who controlled what land;
e.g. the Suez Canal and the oil fields.
Jewish bogeymen had nothing to do with it.
Quoting WikiPedia:
“ Perhaps as early as the 12th Dynasty,
Pharaoh Senusret III ( 1,878 BC - 1,839 BC )
may have had a west-east river dug through the Wadi Tumilat,
joining the River Nile with the Red Sea
( which, in ancient times, reached north to the Bitter Lakes ).
This allowed direct naval trade with Punt,
and, indirectly, linked the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.
The reliefs of the Punt expedition under Hatshepsut depict
sea-going vessels carrying the expeditionary force
returning from Punt.
This has given rise to the theory that, at the time,
a navigable link existed between the Red Sea and the Nile.
Evidence indicates its existence by the 13th century BC
during the time of Ramesses II ”.
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> --
> Paul R. Mays
> "I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Paul: The NSF wastes about three and a half billion dollars a
year "trying to know". If those people and universities getting
grants actually discovered some truths, they, thereby, would dry up
the funding. That's why they play dumb—to keep the money flowing! —
NoEinstein —
Mike
> When in School I learnt 2 things about Light
>
> 1. Light is a Wave
[snip]
Your problem has nothing to do with physics but it's a mere
metaphysical query. I will try to explain why.
The word "is" can have many different meanings of epistemological and
ontological nature. The big mistake is to assign to it the ontological
one and actually beliee that light is -- in a literal sense --
something, like a wave. In physics, the word "is" means "it can be
modeled as" so Light is a wave means light can be modeled as a wave.
It surely, the model passes verification in many experiments.
Yuu should read Rudolph Carnap's "Rejection of Metaphysics", a
philosopher who belonged to the prominent Vienna Circle. He explains
the problem with the word "is". Sadly enough, the educational
corrupted establishment that is run mostly by crackpots -- I can
mention at least 10 that are worshiped nowadays as physics heroes --
never heard the Vienna Circle and continued to use such stupid
expressions in books and in lectures, like "light is a wave" or "light
is a particle" and meaningless terms like duality that arise from a
confusion and mixture of epistemology and ontology.
I'mm sorry to see you are so confused about this. You are not alone.
You should write a letter to the incompetent educational
establishements you attended and demand your money back. I'm serious.
Mike
NoEinstein
> --http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
>
> --
> Paul R. Mays
> "I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
> I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Paul: Closing velocity is confusing you. Think of a baseball
pitcher on the bow of a boat. If the boat is going 10 mph, and he
throws a 90 mph fast ball (relative to the boat) in the direction the
boat is headed, the baseball will be increased in speed to 100 mph.
But if the same pitcher throws the ball 90 mph from the stern, the
ball will only be traveling 80 mph relative to the shore. Light does
EXACTLY the same thing! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
:-} -