Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why exactly is the speed of light constant in vacuum?
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Wormley
Apr 27, 2013, 8:38:09 PM4/27/13
to
Why exactly is the speed of light constant in vacuum?
> http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=21340
> The key logic behind Special Relativity was that Maxwell's equations
> for electromagnetism looked like exact, universal laws of physics,
> and their solution gives light waves with a universal speed. Now it
> was logically possible that those laws were only true in one special
> reference frame, but by 1905 no experiment (including the famous
> attempt by Michelson and Morley) provided any evidence that they
> failed to work in any inertial frame. Einstein showed that there was
> a logical, consistent framework (Special Relativity) in which
> Maxwell's equations worked in all inertial frames, and Newton's laws
> also almost worked for any objects moving slowly with respect to a
> frame. From this new framework, all sorts of other effects could be
> derived, and they were all confirmed. Among those many effects are
> the energy-dependent lifetimes of particles, the exact dynamics of
> fast-moving particles, the patterns of radiation from accelerating
> particles, the magnetism-like velocity-dependent term accompanying
> each fundamental force, etc.
> http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=21340
> The key logic behind Special Relativity was that Maxwell's equations
> for electromagnetism looked like exact, universal laws of physics,
> and their solution gives light waves with a universal speed. Now it
> was logically possible that those laws were only true in one special
> reference frame, but by 1905 no experiment (including the famous
> attempt by Michelson and Morley) provided any evidence that they
> failed to work in any inertial frame. Einstein showed that there was
> a logical, consistent framework (Special Relativity) in which
> Maxwell's equations worked in all inertial frames, and Newton's laws
> also almost worked for any objects moving slowly with respect to a
> frame. From this new framework, all sorts of other effects could be
> derived, and they were all confirmed. Among those many effects are
> the energy-dependent lifetimes of particles, the exact dynamics of
> fast-moving particles, the patterns of radiation from accelerating
> particles, the magnetism-like velocity-dependent term accompanying
> each fundamental force, etc.
G=EMC^2
Apr 29, 2013, 2:01:09 PM4/29/13
to
sodium slows light to 3mph I say bull,and give the real reason.
TreBert
hanson
Apr 29, 2013, 3:39:18 PM4/29/13
to
"G=EMC^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why exactly is the speed of light constant in vacuum?
> >http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=21340
> > The key logic behind Special Relativity was that Maxwell's equations
> > for electromagnetism looked like exact, universal laws of physics,
> > and their solution gives light waves with a universal speed. Now it
> > was logically possible that those laws were only true in one special
> > reference frame, but by 1905 no experiment (including the famous
> > attempt by Michelson and Morley) provided any evidence that they
> > failed to work in any inertial frame. Einstein showed that there was
> > a logical, consistent framework (Special Relativity) in which
> > Maxwell's equations worked in all inertial frames, and Newton's laws
> > also almost worked for any objects moving slowly with respect to a
> > frame. From this new framework, all sorts of other effects could be
> > derived, and they were all confirmed. Among those many effects are
> > the energy-dependent lifetimes of particles, the exact dynamics of
> > fast-moving particles, the patterns of radiation from accelerating
> > particles, the magnetism-like velocity-dependent term accompanying
> > each fundamental force, etc.
>
"G=EMC^2" wrote:
c is a constant and even when imperial thinkers say
that very cold sodium slows light to 3mph
I say bull,and give the real reason. -- TreBert
c is a constant and even when imperial thinkers say
that very cold sodium slows light to 3mph
>
... which is the "G=EMC^2" bull shit?...
Brad Guth
Apr 29, 2013, 7:42:00 PM4/29/13
to
has to go anywhere.
Poutnik
Apr 29, 2013, 7:46:56 PM4/29/13
to
Brad Guth posted Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > c is a constant and even when imperial thinkers say that very cold
> > sodium slows light to 3mph I say bull,and give the real reason.
> > TreBert
>
> Except there's still no objective proof that any singular photon wave
> has to go anywhere.
--
Poutnik
Brad Guth
Apr 29, 2013, 7:53:17 PM4/29/13
to
photon wavelength and its supposed quantum particle move anywhere.
hanson
Apr 29, 2013, 8:45:14 PM4/29/13
to
Anti-"Status quo" advocate and "imperial thinker" in his own
inner circle, "Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com>, wrote:
Brad, are you aware about any photon not going anywhere ?
Pity indeed, Brad. What you just said certainly is the case
in your own inner world, because large quanta of evidence
show that around your inner world there is an outer circle
that prevents you from finding and seeing the light, which
you expressed when, you,
>
:::Brad said::: Notice how spook/mole "hanson" is [from]
:::Brad said::: MI5/CIA and their Zionist Nazi DARPA.
:::Brad said::: Notice that spook/mole "hanson" who is an
:::Brad said::: MI5/CIA shadow has no public profile nor
:::Brad said::: "Recent Activity", thus' clearly a Google/NOVA
:::Brad said::: Groups insider that's cloaked as supposedly
:::Brad said::: banished, except with no posting restrictions
:::Brad said::: of Organized Corporate Crime Lords"
:::Brad said::: "the last decade was scripted and orchestrated
:::Brad said::: by "hanson"
>
Brad, why don't learn too how to __roll in the right circles__?
Till you do, Brad, thanks for the laughs.... ahahahahanson
inner circle, "Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com>, wrote:
>
>
Jewish Jailbird "G=EMC^2" Herbert Glazier wrote:
c is a constant and even when imperial thinkers say that very cold
sodium slows light to 3mph I say bull, and give the real reason
.... which is "G=EMC^2"... -- TreBert
>
Jewish Jailbird "G=EMC^2" Herbert Glazier wrote:
c is a constant and even when imperial thinkers say that very cold
sodium slows light to 3mph I say bull, and give the real reason
>
Brad Guth wrote:
Except there's still no objective proof that any singular photon
wave has to go anywhere.
>
Poutnik wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
Except there's still no objective proof that any singular photon
wave has to go anywhere.
>
Brad, are you aware about any photon not going anywhere ?
>
Brad Guth wrote:
I simply can't seem to find any objective evidence that a singular
photon wavelength and its supposed quantum particle move
anywhere.
>
hanson wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
I simply can't seem to find any objective evidence that a singular
photon wavelength and its supposed quantum particle move
anywhere.
>
Pity indeed, Brad. What you just said certainly is the case
in your own inner world, because large quanta of evidence
show that around your inner world there is an outer circle
that prevents you from finding and seeing the light, which
you expressed when, you,
>
:::Brad said::: Notice how spook/mole "hanson" is [from]
:::Brad said::: MI5/CIA and their Zionist Nazi DARPA.
:::Brad said::: Notice that spook/mole "hanson" who is an
:::Brad said::: MI5/CIA shadow has no public profile nor
:::Brad said::: "Recent Activity", thus' clearly a Google/NOVA
:::Brad said::: Groups insider that's cloaked as supposedly
:::Brad said::: banished, except with no posting restrictions
:::Brad said::: of Organized Corporate Crime Lords"
:::Brad said::: "the last decade was scripted and orchestrated
:::Brad said::: by "hanson"
>
Brad, why don't learn too how to __roll in the right circles__?
Till you do, Brad, thanks for the laughs.... ahahahahanson
Sam Wormley
Apr 29, 2013, 11:19:34 PM4/29/13
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Apr 30, 2013, 12:00:22 AM4/30/13
to
the spaceature of curves. actually,
it was Kepler who first proved the curvature (reciprocal
of diameter) of Universe,
with his three orbital constraints;
Newton merely reduced them to a one-liner.
maybe you just can't see the trees for the forest.
> > I simply can't seem to find any objective evidence that a singular
> > photon wavelength and its supposed quantum particle move anywhere.
>
> Make one wonder how you think solar photons get to the earth!
thus:
it was simply a construction,
which happened to be good to as far as I could take it
(on some online calculator, as I recall)
to the "heuristic" value in Ribbenboim. in other words,
it was just lucky that I was serious student
o'Bucky Fuller ... unlike most followers, because
they believe Bucky's say-so, that math was unnecessary,
even though he could do spherical trig,
as the commander of a Naval vessel before radio.
do you find it surprising, that phi is involved?...
I wonder if the other guy has not already gotten a recurrence
relation to generate the twin primes, akin to Lucas sequences.
yes, I'm sure it is the correct formula, although
I would now put it somehwat differently,
as an explicit "constitutional equation
for Big Phi or Brun's constant," or how ever it should be said.
> Some golden section mysticism.
it was Kepler who first proved the curvature (reciprocal
of diameter) of Universe,
with his three orbital constraints;
Newton merely reduced them to a one-liner.
maybe you just can't see the trees for the forest.
> > I simply can't seem to find any objective evidence that a singular
> > photon wavelength and its supposed quantum particle move anywhere.
>
> Make one wonder how you think solar photons get to the earth!
it was simply a construction,
which happened to be good to as far as I could take it
(on some online calculator, as I recall)
to the "heuristic" value in Ribbenboim. in other words,
it was just lucky that I was serious student
o'Bucky Fuller ... unlike most followers, because
they believe Bucky's say-so, that math was unnecessary,
even though he could do spherical trig,
as the commander of a Naval vessel before radio.
do you find it surprising, that phi is involved?...
I wonder if the other guy has not already gotten a recurrence
relation to generate the twin primes, akin to Lucas sequences.
yes, I'm sure it is the correct formula, although
I would now put it somehwat differently,
as an explicit "constitutional equation
for Big Phi or Brun's constant," or how ever it should be said.
> Some golden section mysticism.
Brad Guth
Apr 30, 2013, 2:40:19 AM4/30/13
to
On Apr 29, 5:45 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> Anti-"Status quo" advocate and "imperial thinker" in his own
> Anti-"Status quo" advocate and "imperial thinker" in his own
oligarchs created?
Is everyone supposed to be indoctrinated and of a closed mindset like
yourself?
Do you have objective proof of any singular photon wave moving?
(didn't think so)
hanson
Apr 30, 2013, 4:03:32 AM4/30/13
to
Ksuvo
May 2, 2013, 6:42:35 AM5/2/13
to
be diiferent in different orbital from the Galaxy's center!
But when tha light is coming here, from there, it's velocity is coming
to be same than in our Orbital: 1200/3684....
Sam Wormley
May 2, 2013, 10:34:13 AM5/2/13
to
On 5/2/13 5:42 AM, Ksuvo wrote:
> I think that the light speed of vacuum could be diiferent in different
> orbital from the Galaxy's center!
Every observation demonstrates the constancy of the speed of light.
> I think that the light speed of vacuum could be diiferent in different
> orbital from the Galaxy's center!
Physics FAQ: How is the speed of light measured?
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 2, 2013, 10:45:24 PM5/2/13
to
the speed light (not a velocity in some direction) depends
only upon the index of refraction (in the medium
of atoms that the "wave" is passing through,
"elctromagnetically ... it is amazing,
how many scientists don't get this!"
only upon the index of refraction (in the medium
of atoms that the "wave" is passing through,
"elctromagnetically ... it is amazing,
how many scientists don't get this!"
Poutnik
May 4, 2013, 1:23:48 AM5/4/13
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane posted Thu, 2 May 2013 19:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
from propagation speed or group speed.
Note that both groups speed, and even phase speed
can be at some special occurences higher than c,
as there is possible to have n<1.
--
Poutnik
franklinhu
May 6, 2013, 11:36:06 PM5/6/13
to
What is constant is the amount of time it takes for a light wave to cross a quantum of space. This is assuming that space is made out of particles which have a measurable size. The trick is that these particles are elastic and can be compressed by things like gravity. More of them will fit into any given length (like a meter). It will take light longer to travel the compressed meter of space than the uncompressed space. But, the speed at which it hops from particle to particle of space is an absolute constant.
-fhulight
Brad Guth
May 6, 2013, 11:55:45 PM5/6/13
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 7, 2013, 7:10:51 PM5/7/13
to
I don't know of any such theory, about the "hops;" note that
Fignewton's "theory" was that "rocks o'light go faster
in a denser medium."
thus quoth:
Fignewton's "theory" was that "rocks o'light go faster
in a denser medium."
thus quoth:
Absolutely Vertical
May 8, 2013, 4:47:26 AM5/8/13
to
On 5/6/2013 10:36 PM, franklinhu wrote:
> Well, first of all, the speed of light isn't constant in a vacuum. In a gravitational field,
> it slows down.
that's a misstatement, franklinhu. you should find better reading materials.
> Well, first of all, the speed of light isn't constant in a vacuum. In a gravitational field,
> it slows down.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 8, 2013, 11:00:57 AM5/8/13
to
inaudible quibble. there is no 1>n, by dimensional analysis,
"c = one, or else!"
"c = one, or else!"
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 8, 2013, 11:02:58 AM5/8/13
to
more to the point, "gravitational field" induces pressure
of the "medium of free space."
I looked at the website, and it is 0-pt. energy kooks,
all up and down the hotel.
of the "medium of free space."
I looked at the website, and it is 0-pt. energy kooks,
all up and down the hotel.
Poutnik
May 8, 2013, 1:49:28 PM5/8/13
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane posted Wed, 8 May 2013 08:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
speed is not the same as refraction index.
--
Poutnik
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 8, 2013, 6:19:03 PM5/8/13
to
duh; it is a reciprocal relatioship;
light is the all-out maximum "speed
of the wave in teh medium of free space,
not its velocity!"
c/v cancels the femtometers!
light is the all-out maximum "speed
of the wave in teh medium of free space,
not its velocity!"
c/v cancels the femtometers!
Brad Guth
May 20, 2013, 9:00:05 AM5/20/13
to
On Apr 30, 1:03 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
You and HVAC (aka Harlow) are one of a kind. I'm glad to finally
realize this.
You and HVAC (aka Harlow) are one of a kind. I'm glad to finally
realize this.
Brad Guth
May 20, 2013, 9:06:40 AM5/20/13
to
On May 2, 3:42 am, Ksuvo <aki.karppi...@tut.fi> wrote:
> 30.4.2013 3:45, hanson kirjoitti:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Anti-"Status quo" advocate and "imperial thinker" in his own inner
> 30.4.2013 3:45, hanson kirjoitti:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Anti-"Status quo" advocate and "imperial thinker" in his own inner
snookered all along and perhaps you'll start to understand.
Aether is what likely keeps the photon replication process at that
maximum velocity of 'c', which has nothing to do with the FTL
potential of what entangled photons can mange to pull off.
G=EMC^2
May 20, 2013, 9:39:23 AM5/20/13
to
Photons can not age. Photons never chasnge speed,nor do they bounce.
TreBert
Adolf Arch-Impersonator
May 20, 2013, 9:47:17 AM5/20/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On May 20, 9:06 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
"speed of propogation", IMO. Photon speedsters wish to always put
forth the notion that light moves in the direction where a photon's
maximum velocity, particularly in the anti-longitudinal direction (at
maximum momentum) becomes terminated at c.
But since a photon is also a massless particle, then the velocity of
its scalar wave, as a longitudinal wave, which only has a middle
propagation speed, can reach out to infinity. Tesla measured this more
than 100 years ago, by transmitting a scalar wave around the world,
determining a standing wave resonance of 12 cps.
This resonance, when divided by the Schumann frequency, or 7.8 cps,
equals 1.5c, or the velocity of photon propagation (around the earth).
Different sized planets measure different standing wave resonances,
including black holes. The cool thing is that these standing wave
resonances can be duplicated in the field of g-wave transmission, just
in case the current TCP/IP becomes over-regulated.
David Staup
May 20, 2013, 10:38:43 AM5/20/13
to
the change in speed in different mediums is wholey responsible for
refraction and the action of lenses.... you really should learn some
fundamental principles!
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2013, 10:41:31 AM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 8:06 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Aether is what likely keeps the photon replication process at that
> maximum velocity of 'c', which has nothing to do with the FTL
> potential of what entangled photons can mange to pull off.
No, Brad, there is no Aether, photon replication process, etc. You
> Aether is what likely keeps the photon replication process at that
> maximum velocity of 'c', which has nothing to do with the FTL
> potential of what entangled photons can mange to pull off.
always make this stuff up.
From the *quantum mechanical perspective*, photons only propagate at
the speed of light. And, don't otherwise exist.
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2013, 10:42:47 AM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 8:39 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> Photons given off by the BB some 22 billion years ago still go at c.
> Photons can not age. Photons never chasnge speed,nor do they bounce.
> TreBert
Nope -- All measure indicate the oldest photons as about 13.8 billion
> Photons given off by the BB some 22 billion years ago still go at c.
> Photons can not age. Photons never chasnge speed,nor do they bounce.
> TreBert
years old and no more!
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2013, 10:50:08 AM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 9:38 AM, David Staup wrote:
> the change in speed in different mediums is wholey responsible for
> refraction and the action of lenses.... you really should learn some
> fundamental principles!
Yes, but understand that you are talking about wave fronts, and not
> the change in speed in different mediums is wholey responsible for
> refraction and the action of lenses.... you really should learn some
> fundamental principles!
individual photons from the quantum mechanical perspective. From that
perspective:
1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
Photon momentum
p = hν/c = h/λ
Photon Energy
E = hν
Which was the one TreBert was using.
Adolf Arch-Impersonator
May 20, 2013, 11:45:28 AM5/20/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On May 20, 9:47 am, Adolf Arch-Impersonator <goosestom...@gmail.com>
wrote:
According to the theory of particles with an identified mass (and
therefore identified momentum), the field strength should decrease
with the square of the distance. As a consequence of this sort of
'closed circuit law of the universe', received power should be smaller
than transmitted power. The field strength in this scenario should
continue to decrease quadratically with the distance.
If anyone doubts that TCP/IP can't be replaced, then here's a device
that operates on the scalar wave principle. These waves can transmit
through the earth instantaneously, and require no telephone lines or
cables:
http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r668/AdolfArchImpersonator/scalar_kit_zps23c1e19b.jpg
Scalar wave transmission has no power loss during transmission. If the
dielectric between two spherical electrodes remains open, it is
therefore able to interrelate with the scalar wave fields of the
environment. Other scalar fields with modulating frequency and phase
position present, can increase the signal efficiency to over 100% of
the input power, because this remains an open system.
wrote:
therefore identified momentum), the field strength should decrease
with the square of the distance. As a consequence of this sort of
'closed circuit law of the universe', received power should be smaller
than transmitted power. The field strength in this scenario should
continue to decrease quadratically with the distance.
If anyone doubts that TCP/IP can't be replaced, then here's a device
that operates on the scalar wave principle. These waves can transmit
through the earth instantaneously, and require no telephone lines or
cables:
http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r668/AdolfArchImpersonator/scalar_kit_zps23c1e19b.jpg
Scalar wave transmission has no power loss during transmission. If the
dielectric between two spherical electrodes remains open, it is
therefore able to interrelate with the scalar wave fields of the
environment. Other scalar fields with modulating frequency and phase
position present, can increase the signal efficiency to over 100% of
the input power, because this remains an open system.
hanson
May 20, 2013, 1:54:36 PM5/20/13
to
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
ahahahahahahaha... HAHAHAHA....
"Brad Guth" wrote:
You and HVAC (aka Harlow) are one of a kind.
I'm glad to finally realize this.
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
ahahahahahahaha... HAHAHAHA....
Brad, you are always good for a laugh!
>
Now, Brad, go to post:
"Brad's Photon Mass of "1e-51 grams""
wherein it says:
>
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
<Snip "sadovnik socratus"'s semi reasonable speculations
to let Brad Guth's earth-shaking intellect stand out and
shine since Brad submitted that>
>
(a) 1e-51 gram seems a tad heavy for a photon.
(b) Is this photon mass estimate at all frequency related?
>
hanson wrote:
As I promised you, Brad, in thread "Re: "I Am Not A Crook",
I said: "I will lead you over the hurdles and try to make you
understand what the scientific notation of numbers, which
you have recently discovered & throw around withy wanton,
really mean"....
>
So, Brad, let us begin, forgetting your "tad" & question (b)
and ask you, whether you agree that ...
(1) if one photon is 10^-51 gr, it then will take
(2) 10^+51 such photons to make up 1 gr of mass.
>
Do you agree so far, Brad? Please do not lament
for whatever reason, just say "Y/N/?" & I will continue
with step (3)
ahahahahahahaha... HAHAHAHA....
"Brad Guth" wrote:
You and HVAC (aka Harlow) are one of a kind.
I'm glad to finally realize this.
>
ahahahahahahaha... HAHAHAHA....
Brad, you are always good for a laugh!
>
Now, Brad, go to post:
"Brad's Photon Mass of "1e-51 grams""
wherein it says:
>
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
<Snip "sadovnik socratus"'s semi reasonable speculations
to let Brad Guth's earth-shaking intellect stand out and
shine since Brad submitted that>
>
(a) 1e-51 gram seems a tad heavy for a photon.
(b) Is this photon mass estimate at all frequency related?
>
hanson wrote:
As I promised you, Brad, in thread "Re: "I Am Not A Crook",
I said: "I will lead you over the hurdles and try to make you
understand what the scientific notation of numbers, which
you have recently discovered & throw around withy wanton,
really mean"....
>
So, Brad, let us begin, forgetting your "tad" & question (b)
and ask you, whether you agree that ...
(1) if one photon is 10^-51 gr, it then will take
(2) 10^+51 such photons to make up 1 gr of mass.
>
Do you agree so far, Brad? Please do not lament
for whatever reason, just say "Y/N/?" & I will continue
with step (3)
Brad Guth
May 20, 2013, 2:14:39 PM5/20/13
to
doing all sorts of weird stuff, depending on the local dark-matter
density along a given path, and those pesky field distortions caused
by gravity interacting with aether, or vise versa.
G=EMC^2
May 20, 2013, 2:17:54 PM5/20/13
to
Brad Guth
May 20, 2013, 2:22:35 PM5/20/13
to
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
“A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19
electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light
is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the
rotating balance would suffer an additional tiny torque. This
represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass.”
If aether is everywhere, displaced by ordinary matter and essentially
responsible for everything we sense, then perhaps the trillion frame
per second camera (aka Femto camera) can help to objectively verify
exactly what any given photon and its minimal mass particle are
capable of doing.
Notice how never once is there one singular originating photon wave
and its supposed particle identified as having been objectively
recorded, to see if the original wave and its particle actually moves,
or is simply getting transponder replicated along a given path by way
of a given quantum medium or aether FIFO node as having created or
replicated another stationary photon wave.
Trillion frame per second (“femto camera”)
http://petapixel.com/2012/07/26/ted-talk-on-femto-photography-camera-that-snaps-at-one-trillion-fps/
Brad Guth
May 20, 2013, 2:28:27 PM5/20/13
to
whenever attempting to objectively identify them and their individual
natural form, is noted. You should have gone into politics.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
“A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19
electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light
is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the
rotating balance would suffer an additional tiny torque. This
represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass.”
others have also established their own interpretation of photon mass.
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2013, 3:05:45 PM5/20/13
to
perspective photons only propagate at c, so slowing down and having
to speed up is not even a possibility.
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2013, 3:06:27 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 1:22 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> If aether is everywhere....
No, Aether, Brad!
> If aether is everywhere....
No, Aether, Brad!
Brad Guth
May 20, 2013, 3:09:18 PM5/20/13
to
happy camper?
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2013, 3:09:26 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 1:14 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> photons doing all sorts of weird stuff
is the way the quantum world behaves, Brad. You don't need and
> photons doing all sorts of weird stuff
aether or dark anything... as the quantum mechanics precisely
predicts behavior of photons and other particles.
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2013, 3:12:46 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 1:28 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On May 20, 7:41 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 5/20/13 8:06 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>> >
>>> > >Aether is what likely keeps the photon replication process at that
>>> > >maximum velocity of 'c', which has nothing to do with the FTL
>>> > >potential of what entangled photons can mange to pull off.
>> >
>> > No, Brad, there is no Aether, photon replication process, etc. You
>> > always make this stuff up.
>> >
>> > From the*quantum mechanical perspective*, photons only propagate at
> On May 20, 7:41 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 5/20/13 8:06 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>> >
>>> > >Aether is what likely keeps the photon replication process at that
>>> > >maximum velocity of 'c', which has nothing to do with the FTL
>>> > >potential of what entangled photons can mange to pull off.
>> >
>> > No, Brad, there is no Aether, photon replication process, etc. You
>> > always make this stuff up.
>> >
>> > the speed of light. And, don't otherwise exist.
> Your magical photons the exist and then conditionally don't exist
> whenever attempting to objectively identify them and their individual
> natural form, is noted. You should have gone into politics.
Study Quantum Electrodynamics, Brad. Photon behavior, and interactions
> Your magical photons the exist and then conditionally don't exist
> whenever attempting to objectively identify them and their individual
> natural form, is noted. You should have gone into politics.
with matter are precisely predicted. Repeat after me, Brad, "I should
study physics instead of try to make up my own".
Brad Guth
May 20, 2013, 3:15:01 PM5/20/13
to
photon replications comes down to nearly a screeching halt.
This should be easily verified by the Femto camera.
Brad Guth
May 20, 2013, 3:21:28 PM5/20/13
to
kinda silly, and hasn't been objectively proven to be only that and
not of some other invisible force and/or medium involved...
You guys still don't even know what makes gravity work, or how
acceleration mimics the force of gravity.
benj
May 20, 2013, 3:27:09 PM5/20/13
to
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2013, 3:29:20 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 2:15 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Unless an artificial aether gets introduced, and the propagation of
> photon replications comes down to nearly a screeching halt.
No, Brad.
> Unless an artificial aether gets introduced, and the propagation of
> photon replications comes down to nearly a screeching halt.
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2013, 3:34:41 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 2:21 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Except nothing other than invisible time interacting with photons
No Brad, the only thin interacting with photons are charged particles.
> Except nothing other than invisible time interacting with photons
If you could understand that simple concept, you wouldn't waste so
much time making stuff up. There are no other possibilities.
From the Quantum Mechanical perspective:
Dakota
May 20, 2013, 4:40:19 PM5/20/13
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 20, 2013, 5:32:51 PM5/20/13
to
if photons are not alleged to be massless, infinitesimal rocks
o'light,
according to Newton's not-a-theory, then it is easy to comprehend
most of the classical results of the centuries around Fignewton,
wherebby the index of refraction limits the speed of the propagation
of the waves similar to speed of sound in various media --
but no the same, as Newton thought.
o'light,
according to Newton's not-a-theory, then it is easy to comprehend
most of the classical results of the centuries around Fignewton,
wherebby the index of refraction limits the speed of the propagation
of the waves similar to speed of sound in various media --
but no the same, as Newton thought.
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2013, 5:55:51 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 3:40 PM, Dakota wrote:
> 'Bouncing' photons are what make mirrors work.
<smiling>
> 'Bouncing' photons are what make mirrors work.
You you read Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light an Matter
Chapter 2 deals with Reflection and Refraction.
Thinking like a Newtonian (bouncing ball) is not adequate.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 20, 2013, 6:24:15 PM5/20/13
to
Snell's law, big boy;
you need in you climatological effort to make any sense
of polar conditions.
classically, index of refraction gives the top speed of the medium
-- what ever it might be.
you need in you climatological effort to make any sense
of polar conditions.
classically, index of refraction gives the top speed of the medium
-- what ever it might be.
Double-A
May 20, 2013, 7:06:01 PM5/20/13
to
Double-A
hanson
May 20, 2013, 7:52:20 PM5/20/13
to
"Brian Quincy Hutchings", <Spac...@hotmail.com>
proudly stated that he is a "turdlette that fell off Einstein's ass-
hair & drifted" into the vacuum of "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
Re: because, there is no vacuum per se (Pascalian)
>
hanson wrote:
Quincy, so you finally admit that you are one of those
eternal students from UCLA, who never graduated,
not even with a B.A.... ahahahaha...
>
To your credit though, you have perfectly acquired
UCLA's freshman slang and to demonstrate your sub-
intellectual prowess, you strut around with an Einstein
hair mop under your donated JR Oppenheimer hat,
which you conned out of the sales-girl at the Goodwill
store in Santa Monica, claiming to be a refugee from
Madagascar & a bona fide (Pascalian) relative per se.
>
Impressive indeed, Quincy.... ahahaha... ROTFLMAO....
proudly stated that he is a "turdlette that fell off Einstein's ass-
hair & drifted" into the vacuum of "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
Re: because, there is no vacuum per se (Pascalian)
>
hanson wrote:
Quincy, so you finally admit that you are one of those
eternal students from UCLA, who never graduated,
not even with a B.A.... ahahahaha...
>
To your credit though, you have perfectly acquired
UCLA's freshman slang and to demonstrate your sub-
intellectual prowess, you strut around with an Einstein
hair mop under your donated JR Oppenheimer hat,
which you conned out of the sales-girl at the Goodwill
store in Santa Monica, claiming to be a refugee from
Madagascar & a bona fide (Pascalian) relative per se.
>
Impressive indeed, Quincy.... ahahaha... ROTFLMAO....
Brad Guth
May 20, 2013, 10:46:21 PM5/20/13
to
to absorb any significant number of photons.
Brad Guth
May 20, 2013, 10:47:50 PM5/20/13
to
but easily enough sequestered and then triggered as to propagate/
replicate at ‘c’ on demand. It’s actually capable of behaving very
“God Particle” magic like.
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2013, 11:47:58 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 9:47 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> Not only have photons been objectively slowed to near zero velocity,
> but easily enough sequestered and then triggered as to propagate/
> replicate at ‘c’ on demand. It’s actually capable of behaving very
> “God Particle” magic like.
>
Cite scientific publication of this, Brad.
>
> Not only have photons been objectively slowed to near zero velocity,
> but easily enough sequestered and then triggered as to propagate/
> replicate at ‘c’ on demand. It’s actually capable of behaving very
> “God Particle” magic like.
>
Brad Guth
May 21, 2013, 12:01:47 AM5/21/13
to
Sam Wormley
May 21, 2013, 12:41:12 AM5/21/13
to
Brad Guth
May 21, 2013, 9:28:14 AM5/21/13
to
inconsistencies in whatever you were indoctrinated to believe. Such
as, you want everyone to believe that our government agencies never
obfuscate or lie to us.
Do you have an example of a government agency that has never
obfuscated evidence or having otherwise lied to us?
I'll suggest that if a photon of 1000 nm has any mass whatsoever (even
1e-90 gram), then it can be slowed down and otherwise given the go-
ahead to speed back up. However, if individual photons don't actually
move, then it can also be made to do and/or being detected as to do
almost anything. Perhaps the mass of those photon particles are
identical regardless of their associated frequency wave.
Brad Guth
May 21, 2013, 9:32:08 AM5/21/13
to
master clown like yourself, I'd have be indoctrinated in order to
accept illusions exactly like yourself.
Absolutely Vertical
May 21, 2013, 9:57:14 AM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 8:32 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> In other words, if I wanted to study magic and become another FUD-
> master clown like yourself, I'd have be indoctrinated in order to
> accept illusions exactly like yourself.
it's the excuse of a fool to decline to educate himself out of fear of
> In other words, if I wanted to study magic and become another FUD-
> master clown like yourself, I'd have be indoctrinated in order to
> accept illusions exactly like yourself.
indoctrination.
Brad Guth
May 21, 2013, 10:04:06 AM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 6:57 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:
That's what GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Hitler thought, so you and most
other born-again faith-based bigots (especially including pretend-
Atheists) could be right.
Do you have any objective proof that an individual/singular photon
wave actually moves?
Or, is it just the quantum photon particle triggering new individual
waves along any given path?
wrote:
other born-again faith-based bigots (especially including pretend-
Atheists) could be right.
Do you have any objective proof that an individual/singular photon
wave actually moves?
Or, is it just the quantum photon particle triggering new individual
waves along any given path?
Brad Guth
May 21, 2013, 10:13:04 AM5/21/13
to
(or does it go back and forth as though vibrating at the given
frequency?)
Is a photon particle at all similar to that of an electron?
Is a photon wave spherical or is it flat disk like?
Absolutely Vertical
May 21, 2013, 11:15:21 AM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 9:04 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On May 21, 6:57 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 5/21/2013 8:32 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>> In other words, if I wanted to study magic and become another FUD-
>>> master clown like yourself, I'd have be indoctrinated in order to
>>> accept illusions exactly like yourself.
>>
>> it's the excuse of a fool to decline to educate himself out of fear of
>> indoctrination.
>
> That's what GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Hitler thought, so you and most
> other born-again faith-based bigots (especially including pretend-
> Atheists) could be right.
oh my. so anyone who tells you what i told you is like cheney and hitler?
> On May 21, 6:57 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 5/21/2013 8:32 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>> In other words, if I wanted to study magic and become another FUD-
>>> master clown like yourself, I'd have be indoctrinated in order to
>>> accept illusions exactly like yourself.
>>
>> it's the excuse of a fool to decline to educate himself out of fear of
>> indoctrination.
>
> That's what GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Hitler thought, so you and most
> other born-again faith-based bigots (especially including pretend-
> Atheists) could be right.
>
> Do you have any objective proof that an individual/singular photon
> wave actually moves?
being indoctrinated by opening something up and reading it. lol.
Sam Wormley
May 21, 2013, 11:32:08 AM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/13 9:13 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Is that photon particle at the end or beginning of each photon wave?
It's either particle or wave, but not both at the same time!
> Is that photon particle at the end or beginning of each photon wave?
Brad Guth
May 21, 2013, 1:15:36 PM5/21/13
to
mainstream parrot-speak that gets you a new cracker each time.
The aether or dark matter that represents the vast majority soup of
our universe is what regulates and FIFO conducts/relays our
interpretation of photons, at the maximum velocity of 'c'.
However, once a beam is established is where entangled photons get to
act/react at FTL, because individual photon waves don't actually move
other than twisting within their respective wavelength.
Brad Guth
May 21, 2013, 1:30:48 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 8:15 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
have always been right and they never obfuscate or having told us lies
in order to cover their butts and/or make themselves more important
and always innocent of any misleading or wrong doings. GW Bush, Dick
Cheney and Hitler each obfuscated their butts off, and at least at
times you and others of your sanctimonious kind seem to fit that
profile.
>
>
> > Do you have any objective proof that an individual/singular photon
> > wave actually moves?
>
> oh yes. you might want to read up on that. unless you are afraid of
> being indoctrinated by opening something up and reading it. lol.
>
>
>
> > Or, is it just the quantum photon particle triggering new individual
> > waves along any given path?
In other words, you physics wiseguys still have no special link(s) to
any objective proof of what an individual photon wave has to offer, or
is supposedly capable of magically moving itself along with no aether/
dark-matter medium of conduction, along with its conditional phantom
particle through an infinite distance of space with no apparent loss
of its initial frequency or energy. (is this magical photon packing a
God particle?)
wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 9:04 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 6:57 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/21/2013 8:32 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> In other words, if I wanted to study magic and become another FUD-
> >>> master clown like yourself, I'd have be indoctrinated in order to
> >>> accept illusions exactly like yourself.
>
> >> it's the excuse of a fool to decline to educate himself out of fear of
> >> indoctrination.
>
> > That's what GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Hitler thought, so you and most
> > other born-again faith-based bigots (especially including pretend-
> > Atheists) could be right.
>
> oh my. so anyone who tells you what i told you is like cheney and hitler?
Yes indeed, especially when you suggest that our peers of authority
> On 5/21/2013 9:04 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 6:57 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/21/2013 8:32 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> In other words, if I wanted to study magic and become another FUD-
> >>> master clown like yourself, I'd have be indoctrinated in order to
> >>> accept illusions exactly like yourself.
>
> >> it's the excuse of a fool to decline to educate himself out of fear of
> >> indoctrination.
>
> > That's what GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Hitler thought, so you and most
> > other born-again faith-based bigots (especially including pretend-
> > Atheists) could be right.
>
> oh my. so anyone who tells you what i told you is like cheney and hitler?
have always been right and they never obfuscate or having told us lies
in order to cover their butts and/or make themselves more important
and always innocent of any misleading or wrong doings. GW Bush, Dick
Cheney and Hitler each obfuscated their butts off, and at least at
times you and others of your sanctimonious kind seem to fit that
profile.
>
>
> > Do you have any objective proof that an individual/singular photon
> > wave actually moves?
>
> oh yes. you might want to read up on that. unless you are afraid of
> being indoctrinated by opening something up and reading it. lol.
>
>
>
> > Or, is it just the quantum photon particle triggering new individual
> > waves along any given path?
any objective proof of what an individual photon wave has to offer, or
is supposedly capable of magically moving itself along with no aether/
dark-matter medium of conduction, along with its conditional phantom
particle through an infinite distance of space with no apparent loss
of its initial frequency or energy. (is this magical photon packing a
God particle?)
Sam Wormley
May 21, 2013, 1:32:36 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/13 12:15 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> In other words, you don't have a clue, other than plagiarizing via
> mainstream parrot-speak that gets you a new cracker each time.
No Brad, the clueless one doesn't understand about wave–particle
> In other words, you don't have a clue, other than plagiarizing via
> mainstream parrot-speak that gets you a new cracker each time.
duality--that quantum object can exhibit both behaviors, but not
simultaneously.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality
> Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave
> and particle properties. *A central concept of quantum mechanics*, this
> duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle"
> and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects.
> Standard interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this paradox as
> a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative
> interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order
> consequence of various limitations of the observer. This treatment
> focuses on explaining the behavior from the perspective of the widely
> used Copenhagen interpretation, in which wave–particle duality is one
> aspect of the concept of complementarity, that a phenomenon can be
> *viewed in one way or in another, but not both simultaneously*.
Brad Guth
May 21, 2013, 1:59:06 PM5/21/13
to
places at the same time?
Absolutely Vertical
May 21, 2013, 2:11:02 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 12:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> And do tell as to how this one photon wave/particle can be in multiple
> places at the same time?
that's the wave aspect of the quantum field that is the photon. the
> And do tell as to how this one photon wave/particle can be in multiple
> places at the same time?
photon is not a particle so it doesn't have the property of being in
only one place at one time. but the photon is not a wave either, so it
doesn't have the property of delivering energy and momentum
continuously. the quantum field that is the photon has some properties
of waves and some properties of particles, but isn't either one. one of
the properties of the photon quantum field is that it's everywhere.
Brad Guth
May 21, 2013, 2:43:04 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 11:11 am, Absolutely Vertical
Perhaps just like the near zero Hz of gravity has always existed and
is everywhere, except by now (14+ billions years worth) there is
perhaps 1e100 photons existing for roughly each and every atom of our
universe, not to mention all those photons as having been absorbed to
date.
Aether as dark matter or vise versa seems to make a lot of sense, as
to what has been conducting and velocity limiting or regulating on
behalf of photons.
is everywhere, except by now (14+ billions years worth) there is
perhaps 1e100 photons existing for roughly each and every atom of our
universe, not to mention all those photons as having been absorbed to
date.
Aether as dark matter or vise versa seems to make a lot of sense, as
to what has been conducting and velocity limiting or regulating on
behalf of photons.
hanson
May 21, 2013, 4:00:02 PM5/21/13
to
"Absolutely Vertical" Fatso <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
Brad Guth wrote:
And do tell as to how this one photon wave/particle can
be in multiple places at the same time?
>
Fatso in "Absolutely Vertigo" wrote:
>
>
Brad Guth wrote:
And do tell as to how this one photon wave/particle can
be in multiple places at the same time?
>
<snip AV's parrot crap> .... one of the properties of
the photon quantum field is that it's everywhere.
>
>
Brad Guth wrote:
Perhaps just like the near zero Hz of gravity has always existed and
is everywhere, except by now (14+ billions years worth) there is
perhaps 1e100 photons existing for roughly each and every atom of our
universe, not to mention all those photons as having been absorbed to
date.
Aether as dark matter or vise versa seems to make a lot of sense, as
to what has been conducting and velocity limiting or regulating on
behalf of photons.
>
hanson wrote:
Perhaps just like the near zero Hz of gravity has always existed and
is everywhere, except by now (14+ billions years worth) there is
perhaps 1e100 photons existing for roughly each and every atom of our
universe, not to mention all those photons as having been absorbed to
date.
Aether as dark matter or vise versa seems to make a lot of sense, as
to what has been conducting and velocity limiting or regulating on
behalf of photons.
>
Fatso, shame on you. You are a very bad teacher!
Guth asked you a very valid question, which you
danced around but did not answer. Bad scene!
Now look how you confused Contra-Oligarch Brad.
>
People like you, Fatso, are responsible for folks
like Guth who can't stand nor understand the
"status quo". Fatso, you are guilty as charged!
>
Thanks for the laughs though, guys... ahahahahanson
Absolutely Vertical
May 21, 2013, 4:06:23 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 3:00 PM, hanson wrote:
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Fatso, shame on you. You are a very bad teacher!
> Guth asked you a very valid question, which you danced around but did
> not answer.
he asked how a photon can be in more than one place at a time.
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Fatso, shame on you. You are a very bad teacher!
> Guth asked you a very valid question, which you danced around but did
> not answer.
i said that it is a feature of quantum fields that they are everywhere.
you said this doesn't answer the question.
if someone asks me how it is possible that a square has corners, i will
say that it is a feature of squares that it has corners. does this not
answer the question?
Sam Wormley
May 21, 2013, 4:09:51 PM5/21/13
to
question again and again.
Brad Guth
May 21, 2013, 4:28:50 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 1:06 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Semantics is hardly a worthy analogy, especially when slit and
pinholes seem to multiply each photon, as materializing in multiple
places at the same time.
Perhaps the new and improved science via the Femto camera can image
individual(singular) photons as they interact with those slits and
pinholes.
wrote:
pinholes seem to multiply each photon, as materializing in multiple
places at the same time.
Perhaps the new and improved science via the Femto camera can image
individual(singular) photons as they interact with those slits and
pinholes.
Sam Wormley
May 21, 2013, 4:33:47 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/13 3:28 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Perhaps the new and improved science via the Femto camera can image
> individual(singular) photons as they interact with those slits and
> pinholes.
An interaction with an existing photon destroys it, Brad. If you will
> Perhaps the new and improved science via the Femto camera can image
> individual(singular) photons as they interact with those slits and
> pinholes.
remember, from the Quantum Mechanical perspective:
Absolutely Vertical
May 21, 2013, 4:45:47 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 3:28 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On May 21, 1:06 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 5/21/2013 3:00 PM, hanson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> hanson wrote:
>>> Fatso, shame on you. You are a very bad teacher!
>>> Guth asked you a very valid question, which you danced around but did
>>> not answer.
>>
>> he asked how a photon can be in more than one place at a time.
>> i said that it is a feature of quantum fields that they are everywhere.
>> you said this doesn't answer the question.
>>
>> if someone asks me how it is possible that a square has corners, i will
>> say that it is a feature of squares that it has corners. does this not
>> answer the question?
>>
>
> On May 21, 1:06 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 5/21/2013 3:00 PM, hanson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> hanson wrote:
>>> Fatso, shame on you. You are a very bad teacher!
>>> Guth asked you a very valid question, which you danced around but did
>>> not answer.
>>
>> he asked how a photon can be in more than one place at a time.
>> i said that it is a feature of quantum fields that they are everywhere.
>> you said this doesn't answer the question.
>>
>> if someone asks me how it is possible that a square has corners, i will
>> say that it is a feature of squares that it has corners. does this not
>> answer the question?
>>
>
> Semantics is hardly a worthy analogy, especially when slit and
> pinholes seem to multiply each photon, as materializing in multiple
> places at the same time.
'seem to' doesn't correspond to 'really does'. the photon is everywhere.
> pinholes seem to multiply each photon, as materializing in multiple
> places at the same time.
it does not need to split or multiply to go through multiple slits or
pinholes.
>
> Perhaps the new and improved science via the Femto camera can image
> individual(singular) photons as they interact with those slits and
> pinholes.
>
Brad Guth
May 21, 2013, 10:18:04 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 1:45 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
Why speculate when the femto camera supposedly has the imaging of
photons on the fly nailed?
photons on the fly nailed?
hanson
May 21, 2013, 11:00:12 PM5/21/13
to
> Brad Guth wrote:
>>>
>>>
hanson wrote:
>>>> Fatso, shame on you. You are a very bad teacher!
>>>> Guth asked you a very valid question, which you
>>>> danced around but did not answer.
>>>
Fatso wrote:
>>>
>>>
hanson wrote:
>>>> Fatso, shame on you. You are a very bad teacher!
>>>> Guth asked you a very valid question, which you
>>>> danced around but did not answer.
>>>
>>> Brad asked how a photon can be in more than
>>> one place at a time.
>>> i said that it is a feature of quantum fields that
>>> they are everywhere.
>>> you said this doesn't answer the question.
>>>
>>> if someone asks me how it is possible that a square
>>> has corners, i will say that it is a feature of squares
>>> that it has corners. does this not answer the question?
>>>
Brad wrote:
>> Semantics is hardly a worthy analogy, especially when slit and
>> pinholes seem to multiply each photon, as materializing in multiple
>> places at the same time.
>
>>> i said that it is a feature of quantum fields that
>>> they are everywhere.
>>> you said this doesn't answer the question.
>>>
>>> if someone asks me how it is possible that a square
>>> has corners, i will say that it is a feature of squares
>>> that it has corners. does this not answer the question?
>>>
Brad wrote:
>> Semantics is hardly a worthy analogy, especially when slit and
>> pinholes seem to multiply each photon, as materializing in multiple
>> places at the same time.
>
Fatso wrote:
> 'seem to' doesn't correspond to 'really does'. the photon is everywhere.
> it does not need to split or multiply to go through multiple slits or
> pinholes.
>
> 'seem to' doesn't correspond to 'really does'. the photon is everywhere.
> it does not need to split or multiply to go through multiple slits or
> pinholes.
>
Brad wrote:
>> Perhaps the new and improved science via the Femto camera can image
>> individual(singular) photons as they interact with those slits and
>> pinholes.
>>
Fatso wrote:
>> Perhaps the new and improved science via the Femto camera can image
>> individual(singular) photons as they interact with those slits and
>> pinholes.
>>
well, Brad you can speculate if you wish....
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, your last 1-liner above FINALLY gets to the
hub and center of this and many other issues that
Brad raises... But your "the photon is everywhere"
is EXTREMELY bad teaching. Horrible!.. because
>
Fatso, you come across with implying that, when you
turn on your flashlight in New York, @ exactly 1900 hrs,
a photon in that beam, when it is described as an energy
packet with a spatial expanse limit that is defined as/by
its measured wave-length, then...
>
... that same "piece" of energy, that said photon, can be
everywhwere", according to the way you portray it, ...
IOW you said that the same photon exists and manifests
itself, to be identified and measured, at the same temporal
instant "everywhere", e.g. in Japan, behind the moon, or
on Andromeda, etc.
>
Fatso, congratulations!... With your insistence that
"the photon is everywhere", you have successfully
destroyed all of your cherished SR and GR.
>
Apologize to Brad now, and tell him that your notion
of "the photon is everywhere" amounts to a Gedanken
fart that make Guth's speculations look like the views
of a most hardcore defender of the "status quo".
>
I hope that Brad is gonna nag you now, to explain to
him, how you physically managed...
>
(a) to be simultaneously in NY, Japan, or in some far
away galaxy, (elese how woould you know [1])
(b) how you engineered to convey that info with FTL,
so that it can be verified "everywhere", [1]
(c) & show where you got all that energy from to travel
instantly (FTL) to all those places, [1]
(d) & show why the needed acceleration did not kill
you instantly, and...
>
(e) If you have a proxy, an observer, who does these
feats above, then do convince Brad why said proxy
is able to do (a) to (c) and get away with/avoids (d), &
>
(f) If your are successful in convincing Brad with
(a) to (e), then tell Brad that it is so because
>
your "status quo" physics is really nothing more then
"Physics by hear-say"...and is the audio-echo that you
get because your "photon is everywhere"... and makes
all your arguments circular, .... but apparently valid in
your own mind....
>
Finally, let me repeat what you snipped, because it's
People like you, Fatso, who are responsible for folks
like Guth who can't stand nor understand the "status quo".
-------- Fatso, you are guilty as charged! ------------
Absolutely Vertical
May 22, 2013, 9:52:52 AM5/22/13
to
On 5/21/2013 9:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>> > >Perhaps the new and improved science via the Femto camera can image
>>> > >individual(singular) photons as they interact with those slits and
>>> > >pinholes.
>> >
>> >well, you can speculate if you wish....
> Why speculate when the femto camera supposedly has the imaging of
> photons on the fly nailed?
no, you've misunderstood what this camera does. it doesn't watch
>>> > >Perhaps the new and improved science via the Femto camera can image
>>> > >individual(singular) photons as they interact with those slits and
>>> > >pinholes.
>> >
>> >well, you can speculate if you wish....
> Why speculate when the femto camera supposedly has the imaging of
> photons on the fly nailed?
individual photons. it reconstructs an image of a light _pulse_ (many
photons) by sampling photons scattered from many identical light pulses.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second.html
Absolutely Vertical
May 22, 2013, 10:01:08 AM5/22/13
to
On 5/21/2013 10:00 PM, hanson wrote:
> hanson wrote:
> Fatso, your last 1-liner above FINALLY gets to the
> hub and center of this and many other issues that
> Brad raises... But your "the photon is everywhere"
> is EXTREMELY bad teaching. Horrible!.. because
>>
> Fatso, you come across with implying that, when you turn on your
> flashlight in New York, @ exactly 1900 hrs, a photon in that beam, when
> it is described as an energy packet with a spatial expanse limit that is
> defined as/by its measured wave-length, then...
photons are not described that way.
> hanson wrote:
> Fatso, your last 1-liner above FINALLY gets to the
> hub and center of this and many other issues that
> Brad raises... But your "the photon is everywhere"
> is EXTREMELY bad teaching. Horrible!.. because
>>
> Fatso, you come across with implying that, when you turn on your
> flashlight in New York, @ exactly 1900 hrs, a photon in that beam, when
> it is described as an energy packet with a spatial expanse limit that is
> defined as/by its measured wave-length, then...
what you seem to be complaining about is that my description of a photon
as being everywhere is in conflict with _your_ understanding of a photon
being a localized packet with size approximately equal to its
wavelength. but the problem is your understanding is wrong.
it's not that my statement is bad teaching. it's that your understanding
of what a photon is, is flat wrong.
>>
> ... that same "piece" of energy, that said photon, can be
> everywhwere", according to the way you portray it, ... IOW you said that
> the same photon exists and manifests itself, to be identified and
> measured, at the same temporal instant "everywhere", e.g. in Japan,
> behind the moon, or on Andromeda, etc.
>>
> Fatso, congratulations!... With your insistence that "the photon is
> everywhere", you have successfully
> destroyed all of your cherished SR and GR.
>>
> Apologize to Brad now, and tell him that your notion
> of "the photon is everywhere" amounts to a Gedanken
> fart that make Guth's speculations look like the views
> of a most hardcore defender of the "status quo".
you, and you can't accept it as true?
>>
> I hope that Brad is gonna nag you now, to explain to
> him, how you physically managed...
>>
> (a) to be simultaneously in NY, Japan, or in some far away galaxy,
> (elese how woould you know [1])
ways of verifying that. so you choose the easier ways to verify it, not
the really hard way that you propose.
> (b) how you engineered to convey that info with FTL, so that it can be
> verified "everywhere", [1]
> (c) & show where you got all that energy from to travel instantly (FTL)
> to all those places, [1]
> (d) & show why the needed acceleration did not kill you instantly, and...
>>
> (e) If you have a proxy, an observer, who does these
> feats above, then do convince Brad why said proxy
> is able to do (a) to (c) and get away with/avoids (d), &
>>
> (f) If your are successful in convincing Brad with
> (a) to (e), then tell Brad that it is so because
>>
> your "status quo" physics is really nothing more then "Physics by
> hear-say"...and is the audio-echo that you get because your "photon is
> everywhere"... and makes
> all your arguments circular,
are you under the impression that any explanation that boggles your mind
must somehow be circular and hearsay?
> .... but apparently valid in
> your own mind....
>>
> Finally, let me repeat what you snipped, because it's
> People like you, Fatso, who are responsible for folks
> like Guth who can't stand nor understand the "status quo".
mind, this is upsetting and makes people feel like they just can't
understand it. and that proper and good teachers should make people feel
good and feel like they understand it and that it's not weird at all.
Brad Guth
May 22, 2013, 10:28:48 AM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 7:01 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Speaking of "flat"; are photon waves 2D instead of 3D items?
Hanson is Harlow/HVAC, so don't expect any genuine help or anything
positive/constructive to come our way, because he tends to spin and
twist everything to suit his own closed mindset, without actually
helping others to figure out anything new or of a revised
interpretation.
However, in spite of others and possibly yourself, I'm thinking the
aether/dark-matter is what conducts photons everywhere, just like
gravity is invisibly everywhere, and the individual/singular quantum
photon event is just standing perfectly still because it really
doesn't have to move in order to propagate and thereby convey. If the
photon doesn't have to move, then its extremely momentary existence
doesn't have to lose any of its special 2D properties that must
coexist within our 3D universe.
In other words, each 2D photon wave event is limited as to a quantum
singular instant that never has to move. The photon replication
process is somewhat like a computer FIFO node, which insures the
frequency, intensity and direction are always exact, so that photon
propagation essentially gets to wherever is was intended.
Now, is that sufficiently confusing, or what?
wrote:
Hanson is Harlow/HVAC, so don't expect any genuine help or anything
positive/constructive to come our way, because he tends to spin and
twist everything to suit his own closed mindset, without actually
helping others to figure out anything new or of a revised
interpretation.
However, in spite of others and possibly yourself, I'm thinking the
aether/dark-matter is what conducts photons everywhere, just like
gravity is invisibly everywhere, and the individual/singular quantum
photon event is just standing perfectly still because it really
doesn't have to move in order to propagate and thereby convey. If the
photon doesn't have to move, then its extremely momentary existence
doesn't have to lose any of its special 2D properties that must
coexist within our 3D universe.
In other words, each 2D photon wave event is limited as to a quantum
singular instant that never has to move. The photon replication
process is somewhat like a computer FIFO node, which insures the
frequency, intensity and direction are always exact, so that photon
propagation essentially gets to wherever is was intended.
Now, is that sufficiently confusing, or what?
Poutnik
May 22, 2013, 11:08:25 AM5/22/13
to
Absolutely Vertical posted Wed, 22 May 2013 09:01:08 -0500
>
> photons are not described that way.
> what you seem to be complaining about is that my description of a photon
> as being everywhere is in conflict with _your_ understanding of a photon
> being a localized packet with size approximately equal to its
> wavelength. but the problem is your understanding is wrong.
I had always troubles
> photons are not described that way.
> what you seem to be complaining about is that my description of a photon
> as being everywhere is in conflict with _your_ understanding of a photon
> being a localized packet with size approximately equal to its
> wavelength. but the problem is your understanding is wrong.
with some rather philosophical aspects
of quantum probabilities and uncertainties.
Like here - being everywhere versus
having non-zero probability being here or there.
Do you know about resources
that are well addressing at level of chemical graduate
particularly this aspect of quantum physics ?
Just now I study this article
in context of virtual photons momentum and attractive EM force.
Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
--
Poutnik
Absolutely Vertical
May 22, 2013, 12:39:14 PM5/22/13
to
baggott's books on the meaning of quantum mechanics are very good.
Poutnik
May 22, 2013, 12:44:38 PM5/22/13
to
Absolutely Vertical posted Wed, 22 May 2013 11:39:14 -0500
Yes, Feymann QED IS very good, I started reading some months ago.
For some distractions of real life I suspended reading
in the 3rd chapter with e - photon interactions.
I have to resume reading.
I have never haerd about Baggott, I will search for some....
--
Poutnik
hanson
May 22, 2013, 1:48:11 PM5/22/13
to
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hanson is Harlow/HVAC,
Now, is that sufficiently confusing, or what?
>
hanson wrote:
>
ahahahaha... To you, it certainly is, Brad..
ROTFLMAO... thanks for the laugh though.
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
hanson
May 22, 2013, 2:03:07 PM5/22/13
to
Fatso is "Absolutely Vertical" & "everywhere"
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
hanson wrote:
Fatso, your "the photon is everywhere" is
EXTREMELY bad teaching. You are a
horrible teacher. Horrible!.. because
>>>
Fatso wrote:
my statement is bad teaching, that boggles your mind.
<snip more crap of the same Fatso genre>
>
hanson wrote
Fatso, you were guilty as charged! and
now you have indicted & convicted yourself .
>
Thanks for the laughs though, you splendid
Dreidel... ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
benj
May 22, 2013, 2:40:45 PM5/22/13
to
I'd have never guessed Harlow was Jewish!
No wonder they rule the world.
hanson
May 22, 2013, 3:14:58 PM5/22/13
to
"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
hanson wrote:
>
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hanson is Harlow/HVAC,
Now, is that sufficiently confusing, or what?
>>>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... To you, it certainly is, Brad..
ROTFLMAO... thanks for the laugh though.
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
Jacoby Ben wrote:
Oh SHIT! Hanson IS Harlow!
I'd have never guessed Harlow was Jewish!
No wonder they rule the world.
>
hanson wrote:
Oh SHIT! Hanson IS Harlow!
I'd have never guessed Harlow was Jewish!
No wonder they rule the world.
>
No, no. Not so fast. But those "ZNR Semites"
obviously rule over the brainlette in Brad Guth's
undesirable "status quo" world... ahahahaha...
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 23, 2013, 6:05:03 PM5/23/13
to
huh?
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 23, 2013, 9:53:50 PM5/23/13
to
Pascal was the greatest, but I don't know about "Pensee's,"
other than Pascal's wager.
Pascal and what's-his-name worked out the basics of probbility,
in a few short letters ... for you wagerers!
other than Pascal's wager.
Pascal and what's-his-name worked out the basics of probbility,
in a few short letters ... for you wagerers!
Yousuf Khan
May 25, 2013, 4:36:20 AM5/25/13
to
On 27/04/2013 8:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Why exactly is the speed of light constant in vacuum?
>> http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=21340
>
>> The key logic behind Special Relativity was that Maxwell's equations
>> for electromagnetism looked like exact, universal laws of physics,
>> and their solution gives light waves with a universal speed. Now it
>> was logically possible that those laws were only true in one special
>> reference frame, but by 1905 no experiment (including the famous
>> attempt by Michelson and Morley) provided any evidence that they
>> failed to work in any inertial frame. Einstein showed that there was
>> a logical, consistent framework (Special Relativity) in which
>> Maxwell's equations worked in all inertial frames, and Newton's laws
>> also almost worked for any objects moving slowly with respect to a
>> frame. From this new framework, all sorts of other effects could be
>> derived, and they were all confirmed. Among those many effects are
>> the energy-dependent lifetimes of particles, the exact dynamics of
>> fast-moving particles, the patterns of radiation from accelerating
>> particles, the magnetism-like velocity-dependent term accompanying
>> each fundamental force, etc.
But in the end, the real reason is because space-time is discrete and
not continuous, so it's made up of little grains that we call Planck
Length and Time, and the Speed of Light is exactly 1 PL per PT!
Yousuf Khan
> Why exactly is the speed of light constant in vacuum?
>> http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=21340
>
>> The key logic behind Special Relativity was that Maxwell's equations
>> for electromagnetism looked like exact, universal laws of physics,
>> and their solution gives light waves with a universal speed. Now it
>> was logically possible that those laws were only true in one special
>> reference frame, but by 1905 no experiment (including the famous
>> attempt by Michelson and Morley) provided any evidence that they
>> failed to work in any inertial frame. Einstein showed that there was
>> a logical, consistent framework (Special Relativity) in which
>> Maxwell's equations worked in all inertial frames, and Newton's laws
>> also almost worked for any objects moving slowly with respect to a
>> frame. From this new framework, all sorts of other effects could be
>> derived, and they were all confirmed. Among those many effects are
>> the energy-dependent lifetimes of particles, the exact dynamics of
>> fast-moving particles, the patterns of radiation from accelerating
>> particles, the magnetism-like velocity-dependent term accompanying
>> each fundamental force, etc.
But in the end, the real reason is because space-time is discrete and
not continuous, so it's made up of little grains that we call Planck
Length and Time, and the Speed of Light is exactly 1 PL per PT!
Yousuf Khan
HVAC
May 25, 2013, 6:41:01 AM5/25/13
to
On 5/20/2013 9:39 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> Photons given off by the BB some 22 billion years ago still go at c.
> Photons can not age. Photons never chasnge speed,nor do they bounce.
> TreBert
Kids, once again Bert is wrong. Every photon you see is going slower
than c.
But be nice to Bert. He's not long for this world.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
>
> Photons given off by the BB some 22 billion years ago still go at c.
> Photons can not age. Photons never chasnge speed,nor do they bounce.
> TreBert
Kids, once again Bert is wrong. Every photon you see is going slower
than c.
But be nice to Bert. He's not long for this world.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
0 new messages