Androcles Spewed:
Old Man
In the case of em radiation (light) energy can alternate between
being electrical energy and magnetic energy.
Once more, with miniscule hope of succeeding, Old Man reiterates:
Like a standing EM wave, Androcles' energy oscillates back and
forth, but never goes anywhere. His magnetic finger and his electric
keyboard are 90 degrees out of phase.
Like a traveling EM wave, Old Man's energy travels at the speed
of light. His electric energy and his magnetic charm are in phase.
[Old Man]
Androcles
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message news:QaWdna3eActtSVTY...@prairiewave.com...
> Androcles spewed:
>
Hey fuckhead, this is your spew:
> In the case of em radiation (light) energy can alternate between
> being electrical energy and magnetic energy.
>
> Once more, with miniscule hope of succeeding, Old Man reiterates:
>
> Like a standing EM wave, Androcles' energy oscillates back and
> forth, but never goes anywhere.
The energy of any spinning wheel goes nowhere until you stick
your finger in it or it rolls down the road and bowls you over.
> His magnetic finger and his electric keyboard are 90 degrees out of phase.
curl(E) = -dB/dt. See Maxwell if you want to argue, old fart.
>
> Like a traveling EM wave, Old Man's energy travels at the speed
> of light.
Old Fart is too stupid to understand the PoR.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm
> His electric energy and his magnetic charm are in phase.
He's a fuckhead without any mathematics, then.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/eqn1.gif
Chant your magic charms, fuckhead, but do it in a different
newsgroup, this is physics. You are over the hill, Old Fart.
Fuck off, come back when you can understand Maxwell's equations.
Old Man
news:NHmyh.254448$Kh7.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:QaWdna3eActtSVTY...@prairiewave.com...
> Androcles spewed:
>
Hey fuckhead, this is your spew:
> In the case of em radiation (light) energy can alternate between
> being electrical energy and magnetic energy.
>
> Once more, with miniscule hope of succeeding, Old Man reiterates:
>
> Like a standing EM wave, Androcles' energy oscillates back and
> forth, but never goes anywhere.
The energy of any spinning wheel goes nowhere until you stick
your finger in it or it rolls down the road and bowls you over.
> His magnetic finger and his electric keyboard are 90 degrees out of phase.
curl(E) = -dB/dt. See Maxwell if you want to argue, old fart.
Fine equation for a lossless inductor whereof the field energy
goes nowhere: half the field and a quarter of Maxwell's equations
that govern EM wave propagation; Androcles is 7 / 8 blind.
8/8 sight yields: S = E x H
for which wave energy doesn't go anywhere in Androcles'
out of phase universe: E = E0 sin(wt), H = H0 cos(wt)
S = S0 sin( 2 w t ),
moving back and forth, going nowhere at all, just like the
fields of a lossless inductor, not at all like that of a traveling
wave: E = E0 sin(wt), H = H0 sin(wt)
S = S0 [ sin( w t ) ]^2
Pulsing, but always traveling in the direction of S0.
[Old Man]
Androcles
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message news:4a2dnfOp56G4m1HY...@prairiewave.com...
> "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:NHmyh.254448$Kh7.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:QaWdna3eActtSVTY...@prairiewave.com...
>> Androcles spewed:
>>
>
> Hey fuckhead, this is your spew:
>
>> In the case of em radiation (light) energy can alternate between
>> being electrical energy and magnetic energy.
>>
>> Once more, with miniscule hope of succeeding, Old Man reiterates:
>>
>> Like a standing EM wave, Androcles' energy oscillates back and
>> forth, but never goes anywhere.
>
>
> The energy of any spinning wheel goes nowhere until you stick
> your finger in it or it rolls down the road and bowls you over.
>
>> His magnetic finger and his electric keyboard are 90 degrees out of phase.
>
> curl(E) = -dB/dt. See Maxwell if you want to argue, old fart.
>
> Fine equation for a lossless inductor whereof the field energy
> goes nowhere: half the field and a quarter of Maxwell's equations
> that govern EM wave propagation; Androcles is 7 / 8 blind.
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
> 8/8 sight yields: S = E x H
Indeed lossless. Like a photon, Androcles' energy oscillates
back and forth between its magnetic and electric states, but
forever goes somewhere. Photons have a strange habit of
making it across 'illions of inches of empty space from nowhere
to somewhere.
Senile Old Fart's standing wave is Senile Old Fart's bullshit.
> for which wave energy doesn't go anywhere in Androcles'
> out of phase universe: E = E0 sin(wt), H = H0 cos(wt)
You've got it 30% right, Senile Old Fart.
E = E0 sin(wt), B = B0 sin(wt+pi/2).
The 70% you got wrong is Androcles doesn't have waves in
his out-of-phase universe, he has out-of-phase photons.
Waves only describe the path the photons takes in the time domain.
Senile Old Fart deludes that which doesn't exist.
>
> S = S0 sin( 2 w t ),
>
> moving back and forth, going nowhere at all, just like the
> fields of a lossless inductor, not at all like that of a traveling
> wave: E = E0 sin(wt), H = H0 sin(wt)
Hahahaha!
Delusional Senile Old Fart just made E and H both zero at epoch t,
denying conservation of energy and doubling the frequency.
Delusional Senile Old Fart is clearly a fuckhead, listens to Uncle Fuckwit.
Delusional Senile Old Fart has minimal chance of succeeding.
"Ignorance is educable, stooopity is forever." - Uncle Fuckwit.
One photon traces TWO waves at right angles in the time domain.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~laserweb/woodbury/journeys%20gif%20files/Wave1.gif
> S = S0 [ sin( w t ) ]^2
>
> Pulsing, but always traveling in the direction of S0.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif
Pulsating, always moving relative to the transmitter which emitted it
at the epoch of emission with velocity 300,000 km/s.
Red, +ve
Blue, -ve
Gold, North
Purple, South.
Energy of photon is NEVER zero, sin^2+cos^2 = 1.
E = -dB/dt -- Faraday
Maxwell can take running jump into rho, epsilon and mu,
there is no aether.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
Hail Aether,
Full of Light,
Einstein is with thee.
Blessed art thou among absolute frames of reference,
and blessed is the fruit of thy tomb, Lorentz Transform.
Holy Aether,
Daughter of Lunacy,
prey on us morons now,
and at the dilated hour of death.
1) Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora.
It is vain to do with more what can be done with less.
-- William of Ockham circa 1288 - 1348
2) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton, 1643 - 1727
3) Everything should be as psychotic as possible, but not simpler. --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
4) "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
5) "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light." --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
6) "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena." --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
Edward Green
> "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
I admit I couldn't have told you offhand if the electric and magnetic
fields in monochromatic light were in phase or pi/2 or pi out of
phase. Well, I guess "pi out of phase" amounts to in phase, since we
could merely redefine H0 <= -H0. [*]
Let's see... does that make sense? E and H [**] are in phase, hence
their derivatives both pass through a zero at the same event, as do
their curls? That makes sense by symmetry: equivalent in planes***,
the curl can only arise (in the sense of Stokes theorem) by tracing a
loop lying out of the plane. But tracing equivalent**** loops
(including in orientation) above and below a plane of symmetry of the
field would yield equal and opposite results: hence the result must be
zero.
It's interesting that a simple EM solution can't manage a smooth flux
of energy. The energy desity, E^2 + B^2, is lumpy too. Am I correct
in thinking that this is in contrast to deBroglie waves, which
maintain a smooth momentum flux along their length (and I guess by
implication, energy flux), by the device of having their real and
imaginary components out of phase?
This is a bit of a blow of a desire to understand the EM field as the
wave function of the photon.
*[My traitor fingers make most interesting typos... "monochromate
light" -- a kind of chemical luminence?]
** but isn't H the material field, or does that establish my prejudice
in unit systems?
*** I was striving for a single word meaning "equal valued", first
noticed the chemical implication, and only second that this was the
usual English word! -- although not quite idiomatic
****here idiomatically
Re: Old Man prophesied
Alie...@gmail.com
> On Feb 9, 12:26 am, "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote:
>
> > "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
>
Buncha philosophers.
You guys keep yapping about what the E and H fields of photons
_ought_ to be. If you were face-to-face you'd be flailing your arms,
index fingers extended, in circles and spirals all over hell and back
a la Olive Oyl. Whyncha look in the horse's mouth?
Visible light photons' fields are hard to measure directly, yes.
OTOH, down in the meter-wavelength RF, slapping together tools to
directly measure direction of propagation, E-field and H-field values
(and phases) is dead easy.
So unless someone wants to claim there's a difference of kind rather
than degree between RF photons and visible photons, I'll refer the
participants to the ARRL Antenna handbook.
> Let's see... does that make sense? E and H [**] are in phase, hence
> their derivatives both pass through a zero at the same event, as do
> their curls? That makes sense by symmetry: equivalent in planes***,
> the curl can only arise (in the sense of Stokes theorem) by tracing a
> loop lying out of the plane. But tracing equivalent**** loops
> (including in orientation) above and below a plane of symmetry of the
> field would yield equal and opposite results: hence the result must be
> zero.
Of course they are, ever and always. But it's an odd kind of zero in
that they're always _passing through_ zero.
> It's interesting that a simple EM solution can't manage a smooth flux
> of energy. The energy desity, E^2 + B^2, is lumpy too. Am I correct
> in thinking that this is in contrast to deBroglie waves, which
> maintain a smooth momentum flux along their length (and I guess by
> implication, energy flux), by the device of having their real and
> imaginary components out of phase?
>
> This is a bit of a blow of a desire to understand the EM field as the
> wave function of the photon.
The energy density in deBroglie waves is also lumpy. If it weren't,
we wouldn't talk about "localization" of matter, neh?
Um, and what means deBroglie waves "maintain a smooth momentum flux
along their length"? And, and, in what sense are their "real and
imaginary components out of phase"? And, and, and, where'd you get the
idea that the EM field is the wavefunction of a photon?
Ah, crap, too much philosophizing. Define your terms physically and
we'll see if it can be reduced to hardware.
> *[My traitor fingers make most interesting typos... "monochromate
> light" -- a kind of chemical luminence?]
Well, if one's aricraft's wheel wells luminesced, one wouldn't need
landing lights.
> ** but isn't H the material field, or does that establish my prejudice
> in unit systems?
What do you mean by "the material field", that which carries the
momentum?
> *** I was striving for a single word meaning "equal valued", first
> noticed the chemical implication, and only second that this was the
> usual English word! -- although not quite idiomatic
You were maybe thinking "amphoteric"? A word to conjure with, that
is.
Mark L. Fergerson
Timo A. Nieminen
> I admit I couldn't have told you offhand if the electric and magnetic
> fields in monochromatic light were in phase or pi/2 or pi out of
> phase. Well, I guess "pi out of phase" amounts to in phase, since we
> could merely redefine H0 <= -H0. [*]
>
> Let's see... does that make sense? E and H [**] are in phase, hence
> their derivatives both pass through a zero at the same event, as do
> their curls? That makes sense by symmetry: equivalent in planes***,
> the curl can only arise (in the sense of Stokes theorem) by tracing a
> loop lying out of the plane. But tracing equivalent**** loops
> (including in orientation) above and below a plane of symmetry of the
> field would yield equal and opposite results: hence the result must be
> zero.
Yes. For a plane wave, one can choose coordinate axes so that the same
result follows from very simple differentiation (k = k_z, dE/dx = 0, dE/dy
= 0, and then it's easy to find the curl).
> It's interesting that a simple EM solution can't manage a smooth flux
> of energy. The energy desity, E^2 + B^2, is lumpy too.
But it can, it can indeed. A circularly polarised plane wave is a simple
solution, and not lumpy at all. One could even say it's a more fundamental
solution, corresponding to photon spin +/- 1, and the plane polarised
plane wave is merely the superposition of the +1 and -1 spin waves.
But why would lumpy matter? The "lumps" (infinite sheets, for a plane
wave) all move along in the direction of propagation at the expected
speed.
> Am I correct
> in thinking that this is in contrast to deBroglie waves, which
> maintain a smooth momentum flux along their length (and I guess by
> implication, energy flux), by the device of having their real and
> imaginary components out of phase?
Similar to the circularly polarised wave noted above, especially if you
use a complex phasor to represent the direction of the instantaneous E
field.
In this case, the de Broglie wave / solution to the Schroedinger equation
is complex, whereas E and H are real. When we use complex amplitudes for
them, there's an implied "Re(..)" in there.
> This is a bit of a blow of a desire to understand the EM field as the
> wave function of the photon.
Why? What's wrong with lumpy? So there are positions along the wave where
you won't find the photon. Take a radio wave and you get zero
instantaneous current driven in an antenna at those times too. It's as
lumpy as a 2 slit Fraunhofer diffraction pattern, and as noted above also
results from interference of 2 sources.
To do anything with this assumes you know the phase. Without that, you
don't know where/when the nulls along the direction of propogation are.
Does the complex amplitude (constant for a plane wave) make a suitable
ersatz wavefunction for photons (in this case, equal probability of
finding it anywhere, for a wonderful 0 probability of finding it in any
finite volume - a nice illustration of why plane waves suck)?
Perhaps instead of trying to understand the EM field as the wavefunction
of the photon, it's better to understand the photon as the quantisation of
the EM field. Oops! This makes sense for monochromatic EM waves, and we
can always Fourier transform EM waves with more general time-dependence.
What about more general EM fields? Indeed, if we take a non-plane
time-harmonic wave, it's only time-harmonic in a particular reference
frame - what does this mean about photons? Perhaps this is why so many
prefer only to talk about photons as quantisations of monochromatic
plane-wave modes, plane waves being special in the sense of being
monochromatic in all inertial frames. But then, one has to deal with the
general suckiness of plane waves.
As an exercise, look up Iwo Bialynicki-Birula's photon wavefunction papers
(they're available on his web site) and see whether he's talking about the
fields as wavefunction, or complex amplitudes as wavefunction.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Old Man
"Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1171023053.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
The normal rules of optics (WRT reflection & refraction)
don't work if E and B are out of phase.
> Well, I guess "pi out of phase" amounts to in phase, since we
> could merely redefine H0 <= -H0. [*]
> Let's see... does that make sense? E and H [**] are in phase, hence
> their derivatives both pass through a zero at the same event, as do
> their curls? That makes sense by symmetry: equivalent in planes***,
> the curl can only arise (in the sense of Stokes theorem) by tracing a
> loop lying out of the plane. But tracing equivalent**** loops
> (including in orientation) above and below a plane of symmetry of the
> field would yield equal and opposite results: hence the result must be
> zero.
>
> It's interesting that a simple EM solution can't manage a smooth flux
> of energy. The energy desity, E^2 + B^2, is lumpy too. Am I correct
> in thinking that this is in contrast to deBroglie waves, which
> maintain a smooth momentum flux along their length (and I guess by
> implication, energy flux), by the device of having their real and
> imaginary components out of phase?
Don't know, but, WRT to energy partition, there's an intriguing
connection between Maxwell / Einstein and De Broglie and
Compton:
{1/ wl_compton}^2 = {1/wl_einstein}^2 - {1/wl_debroglie}^2
> This is a bit of a blow of a desire to understand the EM field as the
> wave function of the photon.
Makes Old Man dizzy: what are the EM fields of a photon,
but doesn't an EM field consist of photons ?
> *[My traitor fingers make most interesting typos... "monochromate
> light" -- a kind of chemical luminence?]
>
> ** but isn't H the material field, or does that establish my prejudice
> in unit systems?
Old Man used H to avoid cluttering the equation with mu0.
> *** I was striving for a single word meaning "equal valued", first
> noticed the chemical implication, and only second that this was the
> usual English word! -- although not quite idiomatic
>
> ****here idiomatically
>
> Re: Old Man prophesied
Elusive
[Old Man]
Timo A. Nieminen
> "Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 12:26 am, "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> a traveling
>>> wave: E = E0 sin(wt), H = H0 sin(wt)
[cut]
>> I admit I couldn't have told you offhand if the electric and magnetic
>> fields in monochromatic light were in phase or pi/2 or pi out of
>> phase.
>
> The normal rules of optics (WRT reflection & refraction)
> don't work if E and B are out of phase.
>
>> Well, I guess "pi out of phase" amounts to in phase, since we
>> could merely redefine H0 <= -H0. [*]
Yes, but then the wave propogates in the opposite direction.
>> This is a bit of a blow of a desire to understand the EM field as the
>> wave function of the photon.
>
> Makes Old Man dizzy: what are the EM fields of a photon,
> but doesn't an EM field consist of photons ?
An EM field consists of photons just as much as the wavefunction of an
electron consists of electrons.
Conversely, is the field of an electron its wavefunction? If not, why does
a photon have an EM field?
hanson
Jako Epke aka "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:4a2dnfOp56G4m1HY...@prairiewave.com...
> "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:NHmyh.254448$Kh7.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:QaWdna3eActtSVTY...@prairiewave.com...
>> Androcles spewed:
>>
> Hey fuckhead, this is your spew:
>
>> In the case of em radiation (light) energy can alternate between
>> being electrical energy and magnetic energy.
>> Once more, with miniscule hope of succeeding, Old Man reiterates:
>> Like a standing EM wave, Androcles' energy oscillates back and
>> forth, but never goes anywhere.
>
> The energy of any spinning wheel goes nowhere until you stick
> your finger in it or it rolls down the road and bowls you over.
>
>> His magnetic finger and his electric keyboard are 90 degrees out of
>> phase.
>
> curl(E) = -dB/dt. See Maxwell if you want to argue, old fart.
>
> Fine equation for a lossless inductor whereof the field energy
> goes nowhere: half the field and a quarter of Maxwell's equations
> that govern EM wave propagation; Androcles is 7 / 8 blind.
>
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
[Jako]
> 8/8 sight yields: S = E x H
>
[Andro]
Indeed lossless. Like a photon, Androcles' energy oscillates
back and forth between its magnetic and electric states, but
forever goes somewhere. Photons have a strange habit of
making it across 'illions of inches of empty space from nowhere
to somewhere.
Senile Old Fart's standing wave is Senile Old Fart's bullshit.
>
[Jako]
> for which wave energy doesn't go anywhere in Androcles'
> out of phase universe: E = E0 sin(wt), H = H0 cos(wt)
>
[Andro]
You've got it 30% right, Senile Old Fart.
E = E0 sin(wt), B = B0 sin(wt+pi/2).
The 70% you got wrong is Androcles doesn't have waves in
his out-of-phase universe, he has out-of-phase photons.
Waves only describe the path the photons takes in the time domain.
Senile Old Fart deludes that which doesn't exist.
>
[Jako]
> S = S0 sin( 2 w t ),
> moving back and forth, going nowhere at all, just like the
> fields of a lossless inductor, not at all like that of a traveling
> wave: E = E0 sin(wt), H = H0 sin(wt)
>
[Andro]
Hahahaha!
Delusional Senile Old Fart just made E and H both zero at epoch t,
denying conservation of energy and doubling the frequency.
Delusional Senile Old Fart is clearly a fuckhead, listens to Uncle Fuckwit.
Delusional Senile Old Fart has minimal chance of succeeding.
"Ignorance is educable, stooopity is forever." - Uncle Fuckwit.
One photon traces TWO waves at right angles in the time domain.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~laserweb/woodbury/journeys%20gif%20files/Wave1.gif>[Jako]>S = S0 [ sin( w t ) ]^2> Pulsing, but always traveling in thedirection ofS0.>[hanson]in phase, nopi/2offset.http://www.edumedia-sciences.com/a185_l2-transverse-electromagnetic-wave.htmlhttp://www.astronomynotes.com/light/emanim.gifhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.htmlhttp://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/physics/E_M.htmlhttp://www.crcs.k12.ny.us/physics/notes/modern/e_m_wave.jpghttp://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/electromagnetic/index.htmlhttp://www.fignewton.net/moodle/mod/resource/view.php?id=4038http://www.nasaexplores.com/show_58_teacher_st.php?id=030106132121http://astro.uchicago.edu/cara/outreach/se/ysi/1999/lightandsound.htmlshows the classical picture of asimplePLANE (polarized)electromagnetic wave. to be in phase, nopi/2offset.circualr polarization90°offsethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_of_classical_electromagnetic_waveshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_polarizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_modulationhttp://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CircularPolarization.htmlRight-hand circularly polarized light isdefinedsuch that the electricfield is rotating clockwise as seen by anobservertowards whomthe wave is moving. Left-hand circularly polarized lightisdefinedsuch that the electric field is rotating counterclockwise asseenbyan observer towards whom the waveismoving.Bothhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/polclas.htmlhttp://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo4.htmhttp://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo5.htm--------- Andro's ode to EinsteinDingleberries --------[Andro]http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gifPulsating,always moving relative to the transmitter which emitteditat the epoch ofemission with velocity 300,000 km/s.Red, +veBlue, -veGold,NorthPurple,South.Energy of photon is NEVER zero, sin^2+cos^2 = 1. E= -dB/dt --FaradayMaxwell can take running jump into rho, epsilon andmu,there is noaether.http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htmHailAether,Fullof Light,Einstein is with thee.Blessed art thou among absoluteframes ofreference,and blessed is the fruit of thy tomb, LorentzTransform.HolyAether,Daughter of Lunacy,prey on us morons now,and at thedilated hour ofdeath.1) Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest perpauciora.It is vain todo with more what can be done with less.-- William ofOckham circa 1288 -13482) We are to admit no more causes of natural thingsthan such as arebothtrue and sufficient to explain their appearances. --Sir IsaacNewton,1643 - 17273) Everything should be as psychotic aspossible, but notsimpler. --AlbertEinstein 1879 - 19554) "But the ray movesrelatively to theinitial point of k, when measured inthe stationary system,with the velocityc-v" --Albert Einstein 1879 - 19555) "It follows, further,that the velocityof light c cannot be altered bycomposition with a velocityless than that oflight." --Albert Einstein1879 - 19556) "It is known thatMaxwell'selectrodynamics--as usually understood at thepresent time--whenapplied tomoving bodies, leads to asymmetries which donot appear to beinherent in thephenomena." --Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
Y.Porat
> "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:6AWyh.292169$MO2.2...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Jako Epke aka "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in messagenews:4a2dnfOp56G4m1HY...@prairiewave.com...
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
------------------
Hi hanse
i didnt undestand you:
do you caim that photons
(that move naturally in straight lines)
are the ***direct
mediator*** of electric force
or not
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
Y.Porat
> On Feb 9, 12:26 am, "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
>
yet dont forget
who was the **first one **to strike that 'blow'
some decency
and credit giving want hurt...... anyway
it seems that things start to move
after a too long period of freeze (od comonsense...(:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------
>
> *[My traitor fingers make most interesting typos... "monochromate
> light" -- a kind of chemical luminence?]
>
> ** but isn't H the material field, or does that establish my prejudice
> in unit systems?
>
> *** I was striving for a single word meaning "equal valued", first
> noticed the chemical implication, and only second that this was the
> usual English word! -- although not quite idiomatic
>
> ****here idiomatically
>
> Re: Old Man prophesied- Hide quoted text -
jmfb...@aol.com
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Old Man wrote:
>
>> "Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 12:26 am, "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> a traveling
>>>> wave: E = E0 sin(wt), H = H0 sin(wt)
>[cut]
>>> I admit I couldn't have told you offhand if the electric and magnetic
>>> fields in monochromatic light were in phase or pi/2 or pi out of
>>> phase.
>>
>> The normal rules of optics (WRT reflection & refraction)
>> don't work if E and B are out of phase.
>>
>>> Well, I guess "pi out of phase" amounts to in phase, since we
>>> could merely redefine H0 <= -H0. [*]
>
>Yes, but then the wave propogates in the opposite direction.
>
>>> This is a bit of a blow of a desire to understand the EM field as the
>>> wave function of the photon.
>>
>> Makes Old Man dizzy: what are the EM fields of a photon,
>> but doesn't an EM field consist of photons ?
>
>An EM field consists of photons just as much as the wavefunction of an
>electron consists of electrons.
>
>Conversely, is the field of an electron its wavefunction? If not, why does
>a photon have an EM field?
[emoticon inserts 100 mile-long straw into stratosphere]
But isn't a photon a snapshot of the thingie you're looking at?
If so, then would time be [I can't think of math term] the
constant? A dx/dt implies that you are holding the tail of the
time piece. A RTFM is an appropriate response; I've forgotten
my math again.
/BAH
/BAH
Edward Green
anathmatizing. :-)
On Feb 9, 4:23 pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Edward Green wrote:
<curl E -> 0 on maxima for linear polarized plane wave>
> For a plane wave, one can choose coordinate axes so that the same
> result follows from very simple differentiation (k = k_z, dE/dx = 0, dE/dy
> = 0, and then it's easy to find the curl).
Ah yes... I forgot the curl had a simple differential formulation.
> > It's interesting that a simple EM solution can't manage a smooth flux
> > of energy. The energy desity, E^2 + B^2, is lumpy too.
>
> But it can, it can indeed. A circularly polarised plane wave is a simple
> solution, and not lumpy at all. One could even say it's a more fundamental
> solution, corresponding to photon spin +/- 1, and the plane polarised
> plane wave is merely the superposition of the +1 and -1 spin waves.
So once again, maybe the math is smarter than we are. The classical
theory knows, even if we don't, that ultimately the quantized mode of
the field will be considered a spin 1 particle, and so reserves its
smoothest solutions for waves carrying angular momentum. Crafty.
> But why would lumpy matter? The "lumps" (infinite sheets, for a plane
> wave) all move along in the direction of propagation at the expected
> speed.
You have a way of putting a subtle twist to my musings in an unwonted
direction -- not just you; it seems to be human nature! Previously I
said "huh -- angular momentum looks like the first moment of
momentum... I wonder about the higher moments?", and you in effect
said "yeah... but what good are they?".
No good at all, probably, but it's not as if I were trying to sell
stock in them. My main observation was that "hey... this looks like a
moment! Why have I never seen that before! Where might it lead!" And
you go and crush my childlike enthusiasm under the jackboot of
utilitarian oppression. :-)
I guess it doesn't lead much of anywhere useful, and that's why this
is not a standard maneuver, and that's why I have never heard of it
before. That in itself makes an interesting little bit of story,
though.
Anyway, you say why should "lumpy" bother me? Of course you are
right: lumpy is the most obvious characteristic of wave functions in
general and quantum wave functions in particular -- the hydrogenic
atom is horribly lumpy, and localized to boot. Though actually here
we note a ground state which as unlumpy as localized states can muster
-- spherically symmetric.
Though a more relevant parallel here may be -- if memory serves me --
that completely filled hydrogenic _shells_ are also in some sense
spherically symmetric, though much less manifestly delumped. They
are not symmetric on the level of the complex amplitude, but when you
square it -- which is parallel to the unlumpy behavior of the plane
wave momentum eigenstate.
Anyway, I was not forming an objection to lumpiness, anymore than I
necessarily claiming a utility for higher moments of momentum, but
simply noting a failed parallel. Hmm... there is a parallel, the
noting of failed parallels. That must be a major category of
understanding, since science is all about parallels -- the parallel of
mathematical structures to observation, for example -- and failed
parallels flag a refinement.
The failed parallel is "the simplest possible solution for the free
space Schrodinger equation -- the momentum eigenstate -- has a
smoothness lacked by the simplest possible non-trivial free space
solution -- presumably also associated with a momentum eigenstate for
photons -- of Maxwell's equations: why?
And Timo Nieminen's answer is: because that may not be the most
fundamental solution, and the arguably most fundamental solution _has_
the property you are looking for!
Brilliant.
That makes a nice story, for while the linear plane wave solutions are
still traveling waves, they are evidently standing waves in the space
of angular momentum (a superposition of +/- 1 states), and so partake
partially in the general feature of standing waves everywhere -- they
are more spatially localized than their traveling counterparts).
I wonder -- can you derive Maxwell's equations starting with the
Schroedinger equation and some requirement for the simplest possible
extension allowing for intrinsic angular momentum -- i.e., capable of
telling the tale just told?
<reluctant ceding of the floor, and therefore snipping>
hanson
What I intended to show was that Andro & Jako were talking
past each other. One was describing unpolarized light. The other
one explained a circular polarized photon (stream) with a 90°, pi/2,
offset in the E vs M phases.
>
Yehiel "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171110292.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Hi hanson
i didnt undestand you:
do you caim that photons (that move naturally in straight lines)
are the ***direct mediator*** of electric force or not
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... I can't blame you, Yehi, but I didn't claim anything of the
sort. What I intended to show was that Andro & Jako were talking
past each other. One was describing unpolarized light. The other
one explained a circular polarized photon (stream) with a 90°, pi/2,
offset in the E vs M phases.
I found some beautiful animated links to illustrate the 2 situations
which I copied and pasted in. --- Everything looked ok and I hit
"send" and then the above "garbled formatting" showed up with
apparently hidden text etc .... ahahahaha... Apparently some
web-HTML stuff does put more than just ASCII into OE6....
.....I lost interest now in re-doing it. Just landed in Reykjavik. Flu
type weather here. On my way to meet Pretty Woman in the
Polar Bear lodge. Talk to you later.
ahahaha hanson
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:7mmzh.6792$Yn4.5996@trnddc03...
> Yehi, I can't blame you, but I didn't claim anything of the sort.
> What I intended to show was that Andro & Jako were talking
> past each other. One was describing unpolarized light. The other
> one explained a circular polarized photon (stream) with a 90°, pi/2,
> offset in the E vs M phases.
Senile Old Fart has retained the mechanical concept of light being a
wave in aether. He even talks about standing waves.
The sound/water wave concept where a medium moves
simply doesn't apply, there is no aether. Of course it helps
you think in x,y,z and don't try to draw time.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Differential.gif
(not perfected yet, but you get the idea)
Edward Green
> Yehi, I can't blame you, but I didn't claim anything of the sort.
> What I intended to show was that Andro & Jako were talking
> past each other. One was describing unpolarized light. The other
> one explained a circular polarized photon (stream) with a 90°, pi/2,
> offset in the E vs M phases.
An astute observation; I learned another oolie here.
Only 52756 more to go to scientific Nirvana, or death.
> .....I lost interest now <...> Just landed in Reykjavik. Flu
> type weather here. On my way to meet Pretty Woman in the
> Polar Bear lodge. Talk to you later.
Damn your eyes. I would certainly lose interest in this and all
intellectual discussions if I were on my way to meet Pretty Woman in
the Polar Bear lodge. Oh... interest would return, sometime later.
Maybe years, but sometime. :-) How long did it take Ulyses to get
tired of Circe?
The injustice of women is that inside the body of a goddess, lurks the
mind of Joe the Plumber -- our instinctual chemistry tells us it's
Joan of Arc crossed with Mary Magdelane crossed with Nefertiti; but
it's just Joe, all the same. It doesn't seem fair. But time always
has its revenge -- their bodies are only borrowed.
hanson
> Yehi, I can't blame you, but I didn't claim anything of the sort.
> What I intended to show was that Andro & Jako were talking
> past each other. One was describing unpolarized light. The other
> one explained a circular polarized photon (stream) with a 90°, pi/2,
> offset in the E vs M phases.
>
An astute observation; I learned another oolie here.
Only 52756 more to go to scientific Nirvana, or death.
>
I'll/ve post/ed another oolie that gives much deeper insight on
photon phase presentation, better than all those interpretations
of equations that were done in this thread by all those great
academics which oddly but not surprisingly didn't produce
any consensus of how the EM diagram of a photon ought to
look like.
>
[hanson to Yehi]
> .....I lost interest now <...> Just landed in Reykjavik. Flu
> type weather here. On my way to meet Pretty Woman in the
> Polar Bear lodge. Talk to you later.
>
Damn your eyes. I would certainly lose interest in this and all
intellectual discussions if I were on my way to meet Pretty Woman in
the Polar Bear lodge. Oh... interest would return, sometime later.
Maybe years, but sometime. :-) How long did it take Ulyses to get
tired of Circe?
The injustice of women is that inside the body of a goddess, lurks the
mind of Joe the Plumber -- our instinctual chemistry tells us it's
Joan of Arc crossed with Mary Magdelane crossed with Nefertiti; but
it's just Joe, all the same. It doesn't seem fair. But time always
has its revenge -- their bodies are only borrowed.
>
ahahaha... AHAHA.. Ed, for crying out loud, get your rocks off,
instead of suffering the agony of elective/erective hardening by
abstracted poetry... ahahaha... But thanks for the sentiment, Ed...
My dick is chafed and still tingles... PW is laughing her sweet ass
off over it...
We are on our way, with stopover in Cabo San Lucas or Acapulco
then over the big wide watern to our home in Raratonga ... Long,
fucking flight... Plenty time to post, kill time... Talk to you later.
ahahah... ahahnson
hanson
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:7mmzh.6792$Yn4.5996@trnddc03...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f0ec24e7092d5379
> What I intended to show was that Andro & Jako were talking
> past each other. One was describing unpolarized light. The other
> one explained a circular polarized photon (stream) with a 90°, pi/2,
> offset in the E vs M phases.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b7d1162213db6203
Senile Old Fart has retained the mechanical concept of light
being a wave in aether. He even talks about standing waves.
The sound/water wave concept where a medium moves
simply doesn't apply, there is no aether. Of course it helps
you think in x,y,z and don't try to draw time.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Differential.gif
(not perfected yet, but you get the idea)
>
Another way to look at photon representation via a sinodial EM
parameter display would be by citing/using the **fundamental**
observation that/of
"A collapsing E-field generates an expanding M-field & visa
versa and these first principles / conservation laws say that
1) If there is no field of neither M nor E: Nothing happens
2) If there is a field present but no change: Nothing happens.
3) If there is a Magnetic Field that starts to collapse, an E field arises.
4) If M becomes zero, the E will be max+ at pi/2, then
5) E starts to collapse at p/2 down to 0 at pi while
M rises from 0 at pi/2 to max at pi... ...etc & analog to/till 2pi
>
Displaying the E/M fields orthogonally, where ("rt" = risen to /
"ft" = fallen to / "mx" = max / "min" = min) along the propagation
axis it will yield/present:
Field 0 pi/2 pi 3pi/2 2 pi
E 0 rtmx+ ft0+ ftmx- rt0-
M mx- ft0- rtmx+ ft0+ ftmx-
So, by definition, there is a pi/2 offset in the E vs M field phase.
Now from this you can formulate the 2 Gauss equations & when
you combine them with Faraday's and Ampere's laws you'll get
the **General Purpose Equations of Maxwell**.
In/with these formulae you then can make/set any constraints &/or
assumptions to get any phase delay you wish, all the way even
to exclude one field, and conjecture the needed conditions for
purely electric or magnetic pulsations.
Like with any physics, such lamentations of theory do mostly end
up in useless wabniggering over unreal and irrational situations as
is so amply demonstrated by Einstein Dingleberries & their SR/GR.
So, it's a draw: ------- [ Andro 1 : Jako 1 ] --------,
Gentlemen, thanks you for all the fun. Andro, thanks for the
animation. Jako, thanks for your pretty Ice-wonderland pictures
and I am glad that you have not fallen victim to all this enviro
shit hysteria. BTW, Jako, has you eyesight stabilized?
hanson
>
>
>> -------------- orig ----------
Timo A. Nieminen
> On Feb 10, 12:25 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
>> Yehi, I can't blame you, but I didn't claim anything of the sort.
>> What I intended to show was that Andro & Jako were talking
>> past each other. One was describing unpolarized light. The other
>> one explained a circular polarized photon (stream) with a 90°, pi/2,
>> offset in the E vs M phases.
>
> An astute observation; I learned another oolie here.
Astute? Plain wrong. Old Man explicitly described plane polarised light.
In any case, monochromatic implies coherent and polarised (plane,
circular, or elliptical, but in any case, fully polarised), so invoking
the magic exp(iwt) or its real relatives means polarised.
Furthermore, for a circularly polarised beam/plane wave, we still have E
and H 90 degrees apart in space, and in phase in time. Wrong is wrong, and
what's the point of trying to justify another poster's persistent
wrongness about the relative phases of E and H? Just write down the
solutions to the Maxwell equations/Helmholtz equations, and see what the
phase relations is. Interestly though, the persistently wrongheaded poster
has multiply posted links to graphics of the 2 90 degree out-of-phase
plane-polarised components of E for a circularly polarised field under the
apparent impression that they're E and H for a plane wave.
> Only 52756 more to go to scientific Nirvana, or death.
>
>> .....I lost interest now <...> Just landed in Reykjavik. Flu
>> type weather here. On my way to meet Pretty Woman in the
>> Polar Bear lodge. Talk to you later.
>
> Damn your eyes. I would certainly lose interest in this and all
> intellectual discussions if I were on my way to meet Pretty Woman in
> the Polar Bear lodge. Oh... interest would return, sometime later.
> Maybe years, but sometime. :-) How long did it take Ulyses to get
> tired of Circe?
Wasn't it about 3 years? Ah, Circe, one of the first to loudly state "All
men are pigs!"
> The injustice of women is that inside the body of a goddess, lurks the
> mind of Joe the Plumber -- our instinctual chemistry tells us it's
> Joan of Arc crossed with Mary Magdelane crossed with Nefertiti; but
> it's just Joe, all the same. It doesn't seem fair. But time always
> has its revenge -- their bodies are only borrowed.
--
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:xEHzh.849$Aa5.825@trnddc01...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm#hanson
That's it, you've got it. Simple, isn't it?
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. --- Sir Ike with the eye of Newt. (Principia)
What a sweet lion he was. He doesn't mind anyone standing on
his shoulders to see further, it's those mice crawling around his
paws trying to trip him that he detests, especially that Einstein rat.
I've been trying to pull that thorn out of his paw for years.
Now that Michelson has dumped the aether, its time to dump the
properties of aether, epsilon0 and mu0. Maxwell can still have
epsilon1,2,3... and mu1,2,3 but epsilon0 and mu0 are zero.
The speed of light relative to the aether is undefined.
This is where it all went to hell in a handbasket full of crab apples:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
hanson
wrote in news:Pine.WNT.4.64.07...@serene.st...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2007, Edward Green wrote:
> On Feb 10, 12:25 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> Yehi, I can't blame you, but I didn't claim anything of the sort.
>> What I intended to show was that Andro & Jako were talking
>> past each other. One was describing unpolarized light. The other
>> one explained a circular polarized photon (stream) with a 90°, pi/2,
>> offset in the E vs M phases.
>
> An astute observation; I learned another oolie here.
>
Astute? Plain wrong.
>
[hanson]
You are not very astute in your fanatizim, are you, Timo... ahahaha..
>
[Timo to Ed]
Old Man explicitly described plane polarised light.
In any case, monochromatic implies coherent and polarised (plane,
circular, or elliptical, but in any case, fully polarised), so invoking
the magic exp(iwt) or its real relatives means polarised.
Furthermore, for a circularly polarised beam/plane wave, we still
have E and H 90 degrees apart in space, and in phase in time.
>
Jako said:
Old Man's electric energy and his magnetic charm are in phase.
Jako said:
Androcles' energy oscillates and are 90 degrees out of phase.
>
[Timo to Ed]
Wrong is wrong, and what's the point of trying to justify another poster's
persistent wrongness about the relative phases of E and H?
Just write down the solutions to the Maxwell equations/Helmholtz
equations, and see what the phase relations is. Interestly though,
the persistently wrongheaded poster has multiply posted links to
graphics of the 2 90 degree out-of-phase plane-polarised components
of E for a circularly polarised field under the apparent impression
that they're E and H for a plane wave.
>
... ahahaha... Wrong is wrong and right is right,.. right, Timo?
So, the short sense of your long story is what I said initially
above in 2 sentences... Thanks for the laughs, Timo....
>
[Ed to hanson]
> Only 52756 more to go to scientific Nirvana, or death.
>
>> .....I lost interest now <...> Just landed in Reykjavik. Flu
>> type weather here. On my way to meet Pretty Woman in the
>> Polar Bear lodge. Talk to you later.
>
> Damn your eyes. I would certainly lose interest in this and all
> intellectual discussions if I were on my way to meet Pretty Woman in
> the Polar Bear lodge. Oh... interest would return, sometime later.
> Maybe years, but sometime. :-) How long did it take Ulyses to get
> tired of Circe?
>
Wasn't it about 3 years? Ah, Circe, one of the first to loudly state
"All men are pigs!"
>
... but that citation of yours implies that you too, Timo, are a pig!
ahahaha... Now don't worry, Timo, my adviser used to broaden
the umbrella by saying: "Humankind is a vast herd of swine...
and each one of you is a member thereof!"... See, Timo, it
ain't that bad... a pig here, a pig there, and pretty soon you'll see
all 6 billion happy piggies, .... with only the Jews and the Islamists
"oink"-ing loudly in protest because they have learned to lie to
convince themselves... into believing that they are better then
the rest ..... or at worst just kosher pigs .... ahahaha....
Thanks for the laughs, Timo... ahahaha... ahahanson
>
>
[Ed to hanson]
Old Man
> "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ggnzh.298125$MO2.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:7mmzh.6792$Yn4.5996@trnddc03...
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f0ec24e7092d5379
>
> and I am glad that you have not fallen victim to all this enviro
> shit hysteria. BTW, Jako, has you eyesight stabilized?
You're welcome hanson. The illumination of "Ice-wonderland"
is in phase with Old Man's vision.
[Old Man]
> hanson
Androcles
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message news:YZadnbjC6-7dDlLY...@prairiewave.com...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:xEHzh.849$Aa5.825@trnddc01...
>> "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ggnzh.298125$MO2.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:7mmzh.6792$Yn4.5996@trnddc03...
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f0ec24e7092d5379
>>
>> Jako, thanks for your pretty Ice-wonderland pictures
>> and I am glad that you have not fallen victim to all this enviro
>> shit hysteria. BTW, Jako, has you eyesight stabilized?
>
> You're welcome
Like to snip, don't you, Senile Old Fart?
Edward Green
wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2007, Edward Green wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 12:25 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> >> Yehi, I can't blame you, but I didn't claim anything of the sort.
> >> What I intended to show was that Andro & Jako were talking
> >> past each other. One was describing unpolarized light. The other
> >> one explained a circular polarized photon (stream) with a 90°, pi/2,
> >> offset in the E vs M phases.
>
> > An astute observation; I learned another oolie here.
>
> Astute? Plain wrong.
Ouch!
I am a fan of pointing out how parties are talking past each other
(not because I've ever received any grateful eurekas from either
involved party, though), and I was also still reveling in the oolie
about the relative lumpiness of plane vs. circularly polarized light,
so that is what I read here -- independent of what hanson actually
wrote, and certainly of what the original parties were actually
saying.
I'm only human, gov'ner.
> Old Man explicitly described plane polarised light.
> In any case, monochromatic implies coherent and polarised (plane,
> circular, or elliptical, but in any case, fully polarised), so invoking
> the magic exp(iwt) or its real relatives means polarised.
>
> Furthermore, for a circularly polarised beam/plane wave, we still have E
> and H 90 degrees apart in space, and in phase in time.
By george, you're right! (I understand you've actually studied EM for
one or two years ;-). I had sloppily misread the picture at
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/polclas.html#c3
I see the 90 degrees out of phase components are both _E_, from plane
polarized waves the circularly polarized wave is decomposed into.
> Wrong is wrong, and
> what's the point of trying to justify another poster's persistent
> wrongness about the relative phases of E and H? Just write down the
> solutions to the Maxwell equations/Helmholtz equations, and see what the
> phase relations is. Interestly though, the persistently wrongheaded poster
> has multiply posted links to graphics of the 2 90 degree out-of-phase
> plane-polarised components of E for a circularly polarised field under the
> apparent impression that they're E and H for a plane wave.
Maybe the same picture I mistakenly took to be E and H for a circular
polarization. Usually I take only one slap to correct (unless of
course I happen to be right, when I'm as stubborn as the next
crackpot).
> > How long did it take Ulyses to get tired of Circe?
>
> Wasn't it about 3 years? Ah, Circe, one of the first to loudly state "All
> men are pigs!"
Yes, and she said it in the emphatic mode. I had forgotten that part.
Did Ulysses wind up eating his men at a barbeque? He doesn't seem
like the type who would have needed any post-traumatic stress
counseling: just a mild regret, and a memory that they were tasty with
the special sauce.
hanson
> > On Feb 10, 12:25 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >> What I intended to show was that Andro & Jako were talking
> >> past each other. One was describing unpolarized light. The other
> >> one explained a circular polarized photon (stream) with a 90°, pi/2,
> >> offset in the E vs M phases.
>
> > An astute observation; I learned another oolie here.
>
>
[Ed to Timo]
Ouch!
I am a fan of pointing out how parties are talking past each other
>
... ahahaha... and that's where you should have stopped... hahaha
>
[Ed to Timo]
(not because I've ever received any grateful eurekas from either
involved party, though), and I was also still reveling in the oolie
about the relative lumpiness of plane vs. circularly polarized light,
so that is what I read here -- independent of what hanson actually
wrote, and certainly of what the original parties were actually
saying. I'm only human, gov'ner.
>
> Old Man explicitly described plane polarised light.
> In any case, monochromatic implies coherent and polarised (plane,
> circular, or elliptical, but in any case, fully polarised), so invoking
> the magic exp(iwt) or its real relatives means polarised.
> Furthermore, for a circularly polarised beam/plane wave, we still have E
> and H 90 degrees apart in space, and in phase in time.
>
By george, you're right!
>
Yes, Timo for Timo himself is right. But both of you (Ed and Timo) are
wrong in the context of you crtitizing Andro and Old Man Jako,.....
because both of them were discussing ONE wave, ONE packet
NOT TWO or many. --- Now Ed, again, you can be "pointing out how
parties are talking past each other" because in your link below it states
right under the diagrams: === "If light is composed of TWO plane
waves of equal amplitude but differing in phase by 90° == etc....
ahahahaha....
>
[Ed to Timo]
(I understand you've actually studied EM for
one or two years ;-). I had sloppily misread the picture at
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/polclas.html#c3
..... Usually I take only one slap to correct (unless of course I
happen to be right, when I'm as stubborn as the next crackpot).
>
[snip]
>
[Timo to Ed]
>>>Ah, Circe, one of the first to loudly state "All men are pigs!"
>
[hanson to Ed]
...ahahaha... Ed, why are you denigrating yourself as a crackpot?
Timo said that he was a pig (unless his beytsim had fallen off and
gummed up a phase delay)... ahaha Andro, Jako and me have all
been anointed with such and more fabled attributes and labels
in this grand and august cyber menagerie which is a funny as a
ménage a troi... So, let'em sing!.. All of'em!... It's a beautiful choir!
ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
PS. The proudest label I have ever received was my promotion to
"hanson, the chauffeur of Organized Corporate Crime Lords" ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/bfc409059ea7a9d2
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA....