Re: Photons, yet another theory which almost makes sense

[wnc]

ere is the thing,

photons are i invalid entities

they started saying that they got it from measurements
done in nature,

bogus by definition

then they said that it is a model, wrong again, why

1. a photon is described by its frequency, so it MUST
have one and only one frequency

2. impossible to do, this would require an ideal filter,
infinitely thin with perfectly vertical sharp cut frequency
band pass filter

which are forbidden both in nature and in models

beside this, their intrinsic speed, and that, that they
travel, I am not sure at all

Good-bye

[glird]

On Jan 2, 11:03 am, wnc wrote:
>
> photons are invalid entities
>< They started saying that they got it from measurements done in nature, {which is}
bogus by definition.
Then they said that it is a model, wrong again. Why?

1. a photon is described by its frequency, so it MUST have one and

only one frequency.

Try saying the same thing like this:
A GIVEN photon is described by e = hf, in which f is its frequency,
so IT must have only one frequency. That, however, is impossible
because f is a function of the velocity per differently moving
observers.

glird

[Inertial]

"wnc" <wy45...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ab3b69f-9d40-4bb2...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Here is the thing,

>
> photons are i invalid entities

Really?

> they started said they got it from measurements
> done in nature,

Yeup

> which was bogus by definition

Nope

> then they said that it is a model, wrong again, why

It a word we ue to describe something in a model of nature.

> 1. a photon is described by its frequency, s it MUST

> have one and only one

Nope. A single photon can have many frequencies depending on who is
measuring it .. its a frame dependent quantity

> 2. impossible to do, this will require and ideal filter,
> having having an infinitely thin with perfectly vertical

> sharp cut frequency band pass filter

Doesn't matter

> which are forbidden both in nature and in models

Irrelevant

> beside this, their intrinsic speed, and that, that they
> travel, I am not sure at all

That you are not sure at all if obvious.

[Henry Wilson DSc]

On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 14:36:02 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Jan 2, 11:03�am, wnc wrote:
>>
>> photons are invalid entities
>>< They started saying that they got it from measurements done in nature, {which is}
>bogus by definition.
> Then they said that it is a model, wrong again. Why?
> 1. a photon is described by its frequency, so it MUST have one and
>only one frequency.

What is wrong with MY model...that a photon is an 'oscillating particle'. One
can only speculate on the nature of its intrinsic oscillation but two
possibilities are 'a rotation' and a 'standing wave'.

> Try saying the same thing like this:
> A GIVEN photon is described by e = hf, in which f is its frequency,
>so IT must have only one frequency. That, however, is impossible
>because f is a function of the velocity per differently moving
>observers.

.....but its energy also changes accordingly.

>
>glird

Henry Wilson...

Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.html