structure of a photon
John Chelen
the internal structure of the photon. If any particle (photon,
electron, etc.), is comprised of sub-units that move in an internal
cyclical pattern (ellipses, etc.) then these sub-units will interact
with slits by producing a banded pattern. The number of bands and
their distances will be determined by the relative positions of the
internal sub-units and the relative position of the slits.
You can quantify this by assuming a set of momenta for these
sub-units. As they approach a slit, they will be moving as a set of
vectors with varying degrees of obliqueness to the plane of the slit.
These sub-units will pass through the slit(s), some may be
desconstructively blocked or their momenta changed, but those
remaining will reassemble after the slit(s). Their combined momenta
will then produce a resultant particle with a new combinatorial
location.
Uncle Al
>
> The interference pattern response of the photon is direct evidence of
> the internal structure of the photon.
Wrong. Horribly wrong. Stooopidly wrong. Scale size is energy via
h(nu). If you want to probe a point particle, yer gonna need more
than a 10 micron slit.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Repeating Decimal
jo...@chelen.net wrote on 5/17/02 12:44 PM:
I hope that we are not seeing the birth of another Hammond! All the
interference patterns made with photons, using photography or
photomultipliers, use *MULTIPLE* photons! Just because the interference
pattern created from many photons has structure does not mean that the
individual photons do.
Bill
Charles Francis
Chelen <jo...@chelen.net> writes
>The interference pattern response of the photon is direct evidence of
>the internal structure of the photon.
Oh no it isn't
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Joshua B
The interference patterns of a photon indicate its behaviors, not it's
internal structure. Light behaves as a wave when it thinks that no one
is looking, but when it thinks someone is looking at it, it quickly
behaves as a particle. Yet we know light is neither a wave nor a
particle, but all we know is how it behaves, and its behavior is close
to that of a "particle-wave." So the question is "What is light?" I'm
affraid you are seeking answeres according to classicle physics and
mechanics. Light behaves in a way unlike what our senses interpret it
to be. Yes, Bill, the experiment has been done on a beam of light so
dim that only one quanta of light was allowed through. Still the
results were the same. But this does not indicate a photons internal
structure. Give this some though - If an electron is slowed from one
energy sate to another, a photon is emitted with the frequency of the
energy difference. Therefore
KEi-KEf = hv. So the loss of kenetic energy of an electron equals a
photon. Also this can be reversed. If a photon at the correct
frequency is absorbed into the nucleus of an atom, it can likely
result in the dissapearance of the photon with a creation of a
particle and its antiparticle. The momentum is then transferred to the
nucleus. So -> hv(min) = 2(mo)c^2 So the minimum amount of energy
required for this is twice the mass of the particle(measured in
eV/c^2). I think things like this give us a better picture of the
internal structure of the photon than interference patterns do. If
anyone can find a good relationship between the two descriptions I
gave, then let me hear about it!
Josh
Spaceman
"Joshua B" <thewol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3262406f.02051...@posting.google.com...
> The interference patterns of a photon indicate its behaviors, not it's
> internal structure. Light behaves as a wave when it thinks that no one
> is looking, but when it thinks someone is looking at it, it quickly
> behaves as a particle. Yet we know light is neither a wave nor a
> particle,
EXCUSE ME!
WE KNOW LIGHT produces
a wave made of particles.
Light IS a particle wave.
Electricity/Radio is a electron wave
Sound is a molecule wave.
all must have smaller parts to wave at all.
If you have no particles.
You have NO wave.
If you have a wave,
It's made of particles (parts)
You can't have one without the other.
As Albert said I think a long time ago.
a particle is to a wave as beer is to the pint.
without the "beer", (the substance) you have no pint.
Robert J. Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
>>
>
> EXCUSE ME!
>
> WE KNOW LIGHT produces
> a wave made of particles.
We do? I don't. Photons can be emmitted one at a time. Where is the wave
of photons then?
And there are people where he think of particles being made of waves.
Bob Kolker
>
Ian Taylor
only one photon incident on the slit. My understanding, from Dirac's QM book
was that each photon interfered with itself rather than with another photon.
However, despite these comments, the original suggestion that the
interference pattern is evidence of some internal structure of the photon
is, of course completely wrong.
Ian Taylor
Spaceman
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CE655AB...@attbi.com...
> We do? I don't. Photons can be emmitted one at a time. Where is the wave
> of photons then?
emitted?
First of all,
photons are not EMITTED.
they transmit motion to the next photon over
photon do not move any more
than thier wavelength.
they hit/vibrate the next photon over and the chain
reaction of the sound (newtons cradle)
transmits the kinetic vibration.
Light IS a sound.
It's not a magical nothingess force that moves from
A to B
It's a vibration of all photons in between
like a newtons cradle in tiny form..
> And there are people where he think of particles being made of waves.
particles are actully made of waves too.
inside a particle is a tiny world of it's own
that waves exist and are made of even smaller
parts.
there is no limit to smallest.
Making such a limit is your fault
The small less complex sounds that you can't hear
but can see well, are what light is.
What do you think light is?
Magic?
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<3CE57BAC...@hate.spam.net>...
> John Chelen wrote:
> >
> > The interference pattern response of the photon is direct evidence of
> > the internal structure of the photon.
>
> Wrong. Horribly wrong. Stooopidly wrong.
I cordially concordant with you, Uncle Al.
The mathematical chimera "photon" does not exist in a nature,
the virtual mathematical chimera "photon" exists only in heads
of the theorists.
The marasmus strenuously blossoms in heads
of the marasmic theorists. :-)
> Scale size is energy via
> h(nu). If you want to probe a point particle, yer gonna need more
> than a 10 micron slit.
Marasmus about "a point particle "photon" strenuously blossoms
in heads of the marasmic theorists. :-)
Start ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Question: interference patterns.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle, sci.physics
Date: 2002-05-18 03:31:01 PST
gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message
news:<giwuu2h...@pusch.xnet.com>...
> Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> writes:
[snip]
> Yes, yes, now try to explain away how LORAN and SHORAN radio navigation
> systems work. LORAN and SHORAN installations use two independent, highly
> stable phase-locked transmitters separated by many wavelengths, but they
> produce RF interference fringes just fine! And if one of the transmitters
> loses its phase lock, the maxima and minima of the fringes don't
disappear;
> they simply drift in space as the relative phase of the transmitters drift
> --- exactly as classical wave theory predicts!
>
>
> > I should like to at least partially answer Mike's question, but I am
> > pretty hesitant as to whether I know any of the answer. I don't know
> > whether it has been done, I find it almost inconceivable that it hasn't
> > been done.
>
>
> It was performed in 1968 by Leonard Mandel.
> <http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-8/p62.html>.
>
> One notable aspect of this paper is that its publication was delayed for
> many months because the referees believed that it was physically
> impossible
> to observe interference effects between two independent free-running
> lasers
> --- since after all, Dirac has told us that ``a photon can only interfere
> with itself.''
In VLBI (an interferometer) there is no physical connection
between signals in arms, that proves a glaring logic inaccuracy
of a hypothesis about "photon" as about a particle, as about a
particle basically existing in a Nature.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3973363099d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&selm=e16a4a22.0204030114.17e2e469%40posting.google.com
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: The detection of "photons" in Bell tests
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Date: 2002-04-03 01:14:10
[AT]
Dear Eric Prebys, be kind, please, give us description of your
physical gear of transiting of "photon" simultaneously through
two antennas of a VLBI interferometer, and then show us by what
method ("the heart of quantum mechanics and/or other ) "photon"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(passing simultaneously through two antennas of
a VLBI interferometer, which one are on distance of a terrestrial
globe from each other) hits on a particular videotape from two
videotapes. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :-)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> (Apparently the referees had never bothered to think about
> how LORAN and SHORAN work, either!)
"Apparently the referees had never bothered to think about
how" VLBI (interferometer) work:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3973363099d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&selm=3CAB2554.78425CE0%40fnal.gov
From: Eric Prebys (pre...@fnal.gov)
Subject: Re: The detection of "photons" in Bell tests
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Date: 2002-04-03 07:52:55
[AT]
Dear Eric Prebys, be kind, please, give us description of your
physical gear of transiting of "photon" simultaneously through
two antennas of a VLBI interferometer, and then show us by what
method "photon" (passing simultaneously through two antennas of
a VLBI interferometer, which one are on distance of a terrestrial
globe from each other) hits on a particular videotape from two
videotapes. ;-)
[EP]
EM radiation *propagates* more or less like a completely classical
wave; it satisfies Maxwell's Equations, it can interfere with
itself, etc. The effects of quantization come in in the
interaction with other particles (e.g. those that make up
your detector). The classical intensity (including any interference
effects) corresponds to the *probability* of an interaction.
It the intensity is low enough, then you'll observe individual
interactions. If the intensity is higher than the number
of individual interactions becomes so large that statistical
fluctuations are negligible.
[EP]
... so quantum effects would be totally washed out
and the wave would appear completely classical.
Write it to two tapes or twenty.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In this place Eric Prebys makes the absolutely error statement,
since in VLBI (an interferometer) there is no physical connection
between signals in arms,
=============================================================
that proves a glaring logic inaccuracy of a hypothesis about
"photon" as about a particle,
the interference picture is received in the computer during
abstract mathematical addition of signals, which are registered
on videotapes earlier.
The mathematical chimera a "photon" has not a physical
possibility to pass simultaneously through two slots and to
be "swallowed up" by one tape.
=============================================================
> > In a laser it is impossible to say when, during the entire emission,
> > each photon is emitted. I think the answer is that if you have two
> > lasers set up in such a way that the beams combine it becomes
> > impossible to say from which laser each photon is emitted, and as a
> > result you do get the interference patterns.
>
> Yes, yes, that's the usual handwaving argument: Invoke the Heisenberg
> Uncertainty Principle to argue that you can't determine which laser the
> photon came from, so it must have somehow come from ``both of them.''
> Now go try to use the HUP explain how the Hanbury-Brown Twiss effect
> works, where one is clearly and unequivocally observing an interference
> effect between =TWO= photons !!!
The mathematical chimera "photon" does not exist in a nature,
the virtual mathematical chimera "photon" exists only in heads
of the theorists.
The marasmus strenuously blossoms in heads
of the marasmic theorists. :-)
This fact experimentally is proved by existence of a VLBI
interference picture obtained in the computer during abstract
mathematical addition of signals, which are registered on
videotapes earlier.
end ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ca314159
> If you have no particles.
> You have NO wave.
> If you have a wave,
> It's made of particles (parts)
Arithmetic:
cos(x) is not a wave unless one provides it
with some number of discrete values of x.
Algebra/Geometry:
cos(x) is a wave and it's not made of any points
Quantum Microscopes:
http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/workgroups/boyd/presentations/quel01.pdf
Spaceman
"ca314159" <ca31...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:3CE663DC...@bestweb.net...
> Spaceman wrote:
>
> > If you have no particles.
> > You have NO wave.
> > If you have a wave,
> > It's made of particles (parts)
>
> Arithmetic:
> cos(x) is not a wave unless one provides it
> with some number of discrete values of x.
>
> Algebra/Geometry:
> cos(x) is a wave and it's not made of any points
and,
both are math and not REALity.
Can you have a pint of liquid,
without the liquid?
You can't have a wave,
without something waving.
I won't fall for the photon momentum without mass crap.
It's too much magic instead of REAL for
any REAL person.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
single bucky ball going through both holes at once. We have a single
virus going through both holes at once.To top that off we have one
photon going through a million holes at once. In the photons case we
call all those photons "phantom photons" In the two other cases we say
objects travel in pairs. Seems a quanta of light is a million photons.
Well 6 trillion photons can sit on the head of a pin,so what is so far
out thinking about a million. These thought are not my ideas they came
out of a S.A. mag. I do think they are worth discussing Best regards
Herb
Boris Mohar
wrote:
It is certainly not the way you describe it. How far apart are these
photons that you speak of?
ca314159
>
> "ca314159" <ca31...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
> news:3CE663DC...@bestweb.net...
> > Spaceman wrote:
> >
> > > If you have no particles.
> > > You have NO wave.
> > > If you have a wave,
> > > It's made of particles (parts)
> >
> > Arithmetic:
> > cos(x) is not a wave unless one provides it
> > with some number of discrete values of x.
> >
> > Algebra/Geometry:
> > cos(x) is a wave and it's not made of any points
>
> and,
> both are math and not REALity.
>
> Can you have a pint of liquid,
> without the liquid?
A friend of mine owes me a pint of beer.
It's a very REAL beer that he owes me.
I have it and I don't have it, at the same time.
It's simple quantum mechanics.
> You can't have a wave,
> without something waving.
How many somethings does it take to make a wave ?
Spaceman
> A friend of mine owes me a pint of beer.
> It's a very REAL beer that he owes me.
> I have it and I don't have it, at the same time.
> It's simple quantum mechanics.
No,
that is twisting Quantum Mechanics
for you do not have it yet,
and when you do have it
he won't owe you it anymore.
and being owed is not "having"
> How many somethings does it take to make a wave ?
It takes one thing to start the wave and at least one more to
propagate it from there.
how many balls does it take to start newtons cradle?
a photon is a vibration of smaller mass
the propagation of such vibration happens just like
sound would in a smaller form.
a photon is a like a sound wave in the atom
that vibrates the next atoms atmosphere too
and so on and so on.
until the first vibrating "thing" stops.
Repeating Decimal
R.I.T...@btinternet.com wrote on 5/18/02 7:11 AM:
> My impression was that an interference pattern is produced even if there is
> only one photon incident on the slit. My understanding, from Dirac's QM book
> was that each photon interfered with itself rather than with another photon.
> However, despite these comments, the original suggestion that the
> interference pattern is evidence of some internal structure of the photon
> is, of course completely wrong.
> Ian Taylor
The wave function for a photon is a complex amplitude of the wave intensity.
Agreed. But that only tells where a photon is likely to be found if
detected. The self interference is just a way to explain behavior the wave
function. Thje wave function be definitively verified before detection
without screwing up the interference. Separate photons, even though prepared
identicaly, if detected, will not show up in the same spot. This presumes
that the detector is able to determin where the photon hit. I fluorexcent
screen and an eye would be a simple detection system. An arry of small
detectors will also do.
Bill
Joshua B
Spaceman, show me two. I don't mean right out the number "2" or show
me two objects... show me two........
Randy Poe
>
> "ca314159" <ca31...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
> news:3CE663DC...@bestweb.net...
> > Spaceman wrote:
> >
> > > If you have no particles.
> > > You have NO wave.
> > > If you have a wave,
> > > It's made of particles (parts)
> >
> > Arithmetic:
> > cos(x) is not a wave unless one provides it
> > with some number of discrete values of x.
> >
> > Algebra/Geometry:
> > cos(x) is a wave and it's not made of any points
>
> and,
> both are math and not REALity.
This is the guy who said "you can divide numbers infinitely
many times, therefore that proves you can divide particles
infinitely many times."
> You can't have a wave,
> without something waving.
But it doesn't have to be particles physically moving
up and down.
- Randy
Y.Porat
> In message <ac5nen$kk5$1...@paris.btinternet.com>, Ian Taylor
> <R.I.T...@btinternet.com> writes
> > >was that each photon interfered with itself rather than with another photon.
>
> detector, so it only produces a single point in the interference
> pattern. However, the location of that point has a probability
> distribution identical with the interference pattern. The complete
> pattern is built up from many single-photon self-interference events.
>
---------------
is that so ??????!!!!!!
why dont you say it before and louder?!
do you know what that means?
it means that people who were talking about
a single photon interfering with it itself
didt know what they are talking about
they were just jumping to conclutiions.
and now it starts to make sense.
> >interference pattern is evidence of some internal structure of the photon
> >is, of course completely wrong.
all the best
Y.Porat
Richard Herring
<por...@netvision.net.il> writes
>Richard Herring <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
>news:<MQtVs4Hl...@baesystems.com>...
>> In message <ac5nen$kk5$1...@paris.btinternet.com>, Ian Taylor
>> <R.I.T...@btinternet.com> writes
>> > >was that each photon interfered with itself rather than with
>> > >another photon.
>>
>> Just so, except that a single photon can only be absorbed by one
>> detector, so it only produces a single point in the interference
>> pattern. However, the location of that point has a probability
>> distribution identical with the interference pattern. The complete
>> pattern is built up from many single-photon self-interference events.
>>
>---------------
>is that so ??????!!!!!!
>why dont you say it before and louder?!
Why? It's hardly an original or controversial message, and shouting is
usually counter-productive.
>do you know what that means?
>it means that people who were talking about
>a single photon interfering with it itself
>didt know what they are talking about
>they were just jumping to conclutiions.
No, it means they were correct.
>and now it starts to make sense.
Delighted to hear it.
--
Richard Herring
Y.Porat
Mr herring
may be i misunderstood what was the description
so lets clarify it:
is it right that a single photon marks only
one dot on the detection screen?
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------
Richard Herring
Yes.
--
Richard Herring
dave orton
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_unified.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_unified2.htm
main theory:
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_dorton.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_elspacec.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_haupt.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_elmodel.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/index.html
dave orton
jo...@chelen.net (John Chelen) wrote in message news:<446a7bf9.02051...@posting.google.com>...
Y.Porat
so how is that leading to interference and to self interference?
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------
Uncle Al
>
> it would be fair for me to plug my subcules here:
The brain of a slug in the body of a moron.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Give physics an empirical boot to the head.
Richard Herring
Through the probability distribution of where that dot occurs, which has
a form identical with a classical wave interference pattern.
--
Richard Herring
franz heymann
John Chelen <jo...@chelen.net> wrote in message
news:446a7bf9.02051...@posting.google.com...
> The interference pattern response of the photon is direct evidence of
> the internal structure of the photon
Not on your nellie.
The radial extent of a photon is compatible with its being a point
particle to some fantastic resolution.
The wave associated with the photon governs its dynamics, not its size.
Franz Heymann
Y.Porat
but we are dealing now with a single specific photon
and we have to examine at this stage what happese
with a single photon, not with many of them
so while we examine a single one, we do not mind
what happense to others
please remember the claime:
the clame is that :
' a single photon is interferring with itself'
a dot, a single dot, is not an interference pathern
IOW there is nothing in common between a single dot
and an interference pathern.
or am i missing something?
TIA
Y.Porat
------------
Richard Herring
There is. Where the interference pattern has a null, you will *never*
get a dot, even if a classical analysis says this is a possible
trajectory for a particle. Conversely if the interference pattern has
the right form, you may get a dot where a classical-particle analysis
says it would be impossible.
>or am i missing something?
Only the limitations of statistics with a population of one.
--
Richard Herring
Y.Porat
My bet is on a hellix shape movement
can such a suggestion fit the experimental data?
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------
franz heymann
Y.Porat <por...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
news:c91f39eb.02052...@posting.google.com...
[Snip]
> ------------------
> but we are dealing now with a single specific photon
> and we have to examine at this stage what happese
> with a single photon, not with many of them
> so while we examine a single one, we do not mind
> what happense to others
> please remember the claime:
> the clame is that :
> ' a single photon is interferring with itself'
> a dot, a single dot, is not an interference pathern
> IOW there is nothing in common between a single dot
> and an interference pathern.
> or am i missing something?
Yes, you are.
Think of an observation in which the light beam is so feeble that there
can never be more than one photon at a time in a region around the
slits. What does this photon interfere with, except itself?
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
No. Please read what I wrote.
Franz Heymann
John P David
> No. Please read what I wrote.
>
> Franz Heymann
In the same way that an education in laws and doctrines, equations and
formulae, and a capacity to remember and compute can lead to the false
impression that there is an intuitive, human mind which is holding and
manipulating all that data; just so, it is a false assumption to presume the
existence of that mythical object known as a "particle" of light, the
so-called "photon", as judging by observation of the wave dynamics that are
falsely presumed to emanate from "it". The only thing which actually has
existence is the event in space from which the light is generated.
When light has been defined conclusively and finally as *infinite mass* it
is impossible for any part of it to be a "part" or "particle" and localized
in space as anything but wave borne information about that light. Despite
the incredible capacity for light to exhibit all the properties of a
material particle, even so, that particle is *not* there--it is the greatest
mystery of the universe, but of course the Buddhists and Hindus have known
about it for many centuries.
Possession of large amounts of scientific data in a brain is one thing, any
crumby Compac Presario has that capacity, but knowing how to logically
organize and think about it, to obtain fresh insights about that information
is quite another, and it is absurd to suppose that a walking human computer
located beneath a backward baseball cap and a thatch of hair is a moral
being with a sense of awe for nature, humor, justice or beauty.
After all is said and done, this silly person to whom I reply is just one
more pathetic android of a networked human PC, a herd-think nerd wagging
his tongue through the gap of that strap in his backward baseball cap--and
he ought to go smoke a joint, read the Sermon on the Mount and thereby join
the truly cool part of the human race.
Kindness and individualism is bravery
Gang Meanness is total cowardice.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. --Friedrich
Nietzsche
Get hip, little fella.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"When you get to heaven, leave your dog outside. Heaven goes by favor. If
it went by merit, you would stay out, and the dog would go in." -- Mark
Twain
"Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." -- Albert Einstein
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. --Friedrich
Nietzsche
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of
tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson
"I like Vincent because, like me, he has the habit of alienating almost
everyone he meets. --Toulouse Lautrec
Uncle Al
>
> "franz heymann" <franz....@nospamcare4free.net> wrote in message
> news:uenttmn...@corp.supernews.com...
> > No. Please read what I wrote.
> >
> > Franz Heymann
>
> In the same way that an education in laws and doctrines, equations and
> formulae, and a capacity to remember and compute can lead to the false
> impression that there is an intuitive, human mind which is holding and
> manipulating all that data; just so, it is a false assumption to presume the
> existence of that mythical object known as a "particle" of light, the
> so-called "photon", as judging by observation of the wave dynamics that are
> falsely presumed to emanate from "it". The only thing which actually has
> existence is the event in space from which the light is generated.
Photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, inverse Compton scattering,
single photon counting (as in Raman spectrometers 30 years ago or
modern channel plate amplifiers)... you ineducable psychotic boring
dunce.
John P David
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3CEC1F9A...@hate.spam.net...
> Photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, inverse Compton scattering,
> single photon counting (as in Raman spectrometers 30 years ago or
> modern channel plate amplifiers)... you ineducable psychotic boring
> dunce.
Bunkle Al doesn't get it. Einstein himself knew the photon for a mythical
particle, as Bohr knew the structural model for the atom was mythical. So
for the physics of Einstein the particle model is purely instrumental. The
information/energy that is borne on waves of light radiation has the
capacity to behave as a particle would behave.
But you don't get it, Bunkle. You keep refering back to the data in the RAM
circuits of your head, but you have no capacity to interpret or understand
that data, to see it within the defined strictures of logical thought. So
all you ever do is refer to anecdotal cases that you select to make your
point which is no point, to state the common doctrinal scuttlebutt that you
take as "knowledge".
All the while you are incapable of addressing your mind to the central
matter which is the logical contradiction in the false notion that *Infinite
Mass* can be localized in time and space. That is the sort of question you
do not have the mental equipment for, Bunkle. You don't have it because you
haven't the guts for it, you're afraid of the kind of flack you try to blast
at a guy like me, as you refuse to learn from the courage of your betters,
namely Aristotle and Kant who would teach you how to think.
You don't know how to think, Bunk. You can only recite. You can only cast
nasty ad hominem aspersions which you take to be "logic".
You're just *bunk*, Al, until you read Aristtole or the nutshell
presentation of his thought as given in the post, "The Genius of Aristotle".
But I don't think you have the intelligence to read it all the way through,
Bunk.
I really don't. But until you get it, you have no basis whatsoever to
address what I'm saying. You don't know what I'm saying. You are so full
of bunk that you still believe that old Grasshopper Myth which has been
recently debunked right here by that guy from Colorado.
Wake up and smell the grasshopper guts, Bunkle Alfonse. It'll do you a
world of good.
Mike Varney
"John P David" <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acha01$8k7$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3CEC1F9A...@hate.spam.net...
> > Photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, inverse Compton scattering,
> > single photon counting (as in Raman spectrometers 30 years ago or
> > modern channel plate amplifiers)... you ineducable psychotic boring
> > dunce.
>
> Bunkle Al doesn't get it.
Twit
Robert J. Kolker
John P David wrote:
>> at a guy like me, as you refuse to learn from the courage of your betters,
> namely Aristotle and Kant who would teach you how to think.
Kant thought up the synthetic apriori which is a contradiction in terms.
A synthetic judgment can be made only after the fact are experienced.
Kant is DOA. Apparently his encounter with David Hume scrambled his
brains.
Aristotele is the man who told us heavier things fall faster than
lighter things, everywhere and forever and there is no such thing as a
vacuum. Well there is and everything falls at equal rates in it.
I won't even get into the matter of the number of ribs and the number of
teath which could have been checked by one of the Master's students. But
Aristotele did not believe in checking.
Bob Kolker
Maleki
> >
> > "franz heymann" <franz....@nospamcare4free.net> wrote in message
> > news:uenttmn...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > No. Please read what I wrote.
> > >
> > > Franz Heymann
> >
> > In the same way that an education in laws and doctrines, equations and
> > formulae, and a capacity to remember and compute can lead to the false
> > impression that there is an intuitive, human mind which is holding and
> > manipulating all that data; just so, it is a false assumption to presume the
> > existence of that mythical object known as a "particle" of light, the
> > so-called "photon", as judging by observation of the wave dynamics that are
> > falsely presumed to emanate from "it". The only thing which actually has
> > existence is the event in space from which the light is generated.
> [snip]
>
> Photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, inverse Compton scattering,
> single photon counting (as in Raman spectrometers 30 years ago or
> modern channel plate amplifiers)... you ineducable psychotic boring
> dunce.
>
Of all these evidences I only remember (fully) the photoelectric
effect. And that by itself is enough proof and landed the Nobel
for Einstein. You have all these other evidences right there in
your head accessible to you in a flash. This is impressive for
a chemist. You're a google yourself :-)
Dan Bloomquist
Mike Varney wrote:
One minute my pinhole camera works, the next it doesn't. I hate it when
my apparatus is at the mercy of usenet probability. :)
Best, Dan.
John P David
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CEC3CB2...@attbi.com...
>
>
> John P David wrote:
>
> >> at a guy like me, as you refuse to learn from the courage of your
betters,
> > namely Aristotle and Kant who would teach you how to think.
>
>
> Kant thought up the synthetic apriori which is a contradiction in terms.
> A synthetic judgment can be made only after the fact are experienced.
> Kant is DOA. Apparently his encounter with David Hume scrambled his
> brains.
You are dead wrong. If that is what you think, you have completely failed
to understand what Kant means by "synthetic judgments _a priori_. Had you
been a little less full of the conceit of your own false knowledge, you
might have read the "Genius of Aristotle" post entire, in which case you
would have seen an example of _a priori_ synthetic reasoning in action. You
have failed to understand that there are many concepts which appear to the
human intuition which have absolutely *no* basis in fact, such concepts as
are nevertheless treated in an instrumental fashion as facts. Kant gives
the example of all the theorems of Geometry which exist only as abstractions
of the Pure Reason, which then are manipulated as if they were facts
according to inductive intuitions, as relations that are seen intuitively
and _a priori_ arise in the minds eye by no other authority than the
capacity of the Pure Reason to see symmetry or the lack thereof.
You really do need to stop relying on the authority of what you've heard,
and have been taught in lectures given by pedagogues who repeat the
scuttlebutt of the pedagogues who preceded them, you need to quit doing that
so that you then do the work to find out for yourself from the original
texts. Instead of hearing about Kant and reading about him, you do as I have
done and you read Kant; you read Freud, you read Einstein and Aristotle and
you get it from the horse's mouth instead of the horse's ass of plain old
garden variety academic God damn gossip.
That's what.
> Aristotele is the man who told us heavier things fall faster than
> lighter things . . .
You really don't recognize how dim that is, do you--for you to hold an
absurd thing like that against a man in 400 b.c.e. who was so right in so
many other things? What manner of reason do you propose that you are
engaging there? How dim can you get, that you should be so prejudiced by
hindsight? Don't you know how dense that is, that you can't allow that
Aristotle should not have to know all the things which were discovered later
in time?
Good night! Aristotle didn't know the theory of Universal Gravitation
either. So hold that against him as well, why don't you? Newton know
nothing of spacetime curvature so henceforth regard him as a dimwit. That's
about your speed isn't it?
Don't you even so much as know that such things as Aristotle did have the
time in his life to perfect in terms of Logic, and setting the foundation
for all time of biological taxonomy was perfectly *enough*? You damned well
better believe it is more than enough, because his principles of Logic are
altogether as viable and correct and totally in use today as they were when
he had first introduced them to the world. And if you even so much as begin
to think that the work Galileo did to discover the law of falling bodies
could have gone forth without the foundations that had been set by Aristotle
to guide a scientific man's mind toward reasoned thought, then you've got
another big think coming, you disrespectful snot.
How do you really get so dim?
I'll tell you: you are a fool for gossip.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
Y.Porat
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >---------------
> >> >> >> >is that so ??????!!!!!!
thank you Herring
anyway i think we got here something important:
a single photon *does not interfere with itself*
it is only many of them.
yet may be we can learn something about the way
the photon moves:
my suggestion is the movement of a hellix:
lets start to examine it (here we need the help
of geometry expert
first, i have more than one reason to suggest the hellix
but lets start to examine it in light of the current issue:
my suggestion is that the hellix photon, can hit the
slit *at many positions of the hellix movement*
for example: it can hit it while it is at its uppermost
position (of the hellix)
it can hit while it is in 'down' position
it can hie wile left or 'right' etc etc
if you examine it each case and draw a line
from slit, down ,up ,left or ;right'
and draw lines (potential lines)
you will get the potential *interference patern*
that you are talking about,
does this suggetion reconcile between my understanding
and yours ?
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------
John P David
Formerly, I mentioned a visit I had with a professor of physics at the
University of Minnesota to whom I had brought some crudely calculated
figures. What I had to present to him was nothing your average astronomer
would not be perfectly familiar with, had he ever taken an interest to
consider it. Yet, as it happened, oddly enough, this particular physicist
had never taken occasion to check these numbers out in quite the fashion I
had in mind.
I said to the Physicist, "The average distance from Earth to the sun is
around 93,000,000 miles, right?" He affirmed it. So I said, "Okay, that
would be the average radius of the orbit?" Again with slight reservation he
nodded. "So if you want to know the full circumference of the orbit, you
just double that radius and multiply times pi?"
Now as I recall, he was messing around with his slide rule, as he then came
to mention that for an elliptical orbit there would be an error due to the
orbital eccentricity (of 0.017) but it wasn't enough to worry about and
that we could get a fair approximation by this method.
Fine. I went on: "Okay, so 93 million times two is 186 million, right?" He
nodded. I smiled. He wrinkled his brow at my grin. "I said, don't you get
it?" He wondered what's to get. I said, "That's a pretty funny
coincidence, isn't it? I mean considering the speed of light?" He just
shrugged. I said, "Okay if that's not far out enough for you, Professor,
then check it out: If you multiply times pi, what do you get?"
He gave a couple tugs to his slide-rule, then looked up and said, "It's
approximately 584,560,800 miles."
I nodded to that and said, "Cool. So rounding it off, we take a trip of
about 600 million miles every year around the sun."
"Yep, sure do."
"Okay, so if you want to find out how far we go in a day we can just divide
that by 365, is that right?" He nodded indicating that would work; he
pulled on the thing again and then looked up to tell me it came out to about
1,601,536 miles a day.
"Fine, so how far do we go in an hour?" He divided by 24 and told me it was
around 66,730 miles."
That idea was blowing my mind all over again, even though I already knew it
from when I worked it out on my own. But just to think that here we sit
right now, rocketing through space at a speed of about 67 thousand miles an
hour--well, that is quite a ride.
"Okay," I said. "Fasten your seat-belt, Professor. How many miles per second
is that?" He deftly put his slide-rule in motion again to divide again by
60, and this time he wasn't so quick to look up, as nevertheless I watched
his eyes widen. Then with a bit of a smile, he looked up to say, "It works
out to about 18,600 miles per second."
I nodded. "There's that way too weird 186 again."
When I queried him as to the meaning of it, he was at a loss to say. He
asked me if I thought I had any idea.
I said to him that it was all the proof I needed to give further credibility
to the mystical notion that all things are one, that material reality is an
illusion and that what's behind it all is nothing but Light. I said that
the very speed of the earth itself is in an astonishingly even proportion to
the speed of light, which ought to tell us about an order in nature even
more perfect than immediately meets the eye.
As to just exactly what a perfect proportion like that in Earth Speed to
Light Speed would amount to as respecting the laws of physics, in practical
terms?
Go figure.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"When you get to heaven, leave your dog outside. Heaven goes by favor. If
Richard Herring
<dadd...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
>news:3CEC1F9A...@hate.spam.net...
>> Photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, inverse Compton scattering,
>> single photon counting (as in Raman spectrometers 30 years ago or
>> modern channel plate amplifiers)... you ineducable psychotic boring
>> dunce.
>
>Bunkle Al doesn't get it.
Playground name-calling is a last resort. When you start with it, what
does that say about the intellectual force of the rest of your argument?
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
[attribution attrition has occurred]
>> >but we are dealing now with a single specific photon
>> >and we have to examine at this stage what happese
>> >with a single photon, not with many of them
>> >so while we examine a single one, we do not mind
>> >what happense to others
>> >please remember the claime:
>> >the clame is that :
>> >' a single photon is interferring with itself'
>> >a dot, a single dot, is not an interference pathern
>> >IOW there is nothing in common between a single dot
>> >and an interference pathern.
>>
>> There is. Where the interference pattern has a null, you will *never*
>> get a dot, even if a classical analysis says this is a possible
>> trajectory for a particle. Conversely if the interference pattern has
>> the right form, you may get a dot where a classical-particle analysis
>> says it would be impossible.
>>
>> >or am i missing something?
>>
>> Only the limitations of statistics with a population of one.
>-------------
>thank you Herring
>anyway i think we got here something important:
>a single photon *does not interfere with itself*
>it is only many of them.
(This is where we came in. You are not missing something, you are not
even missing something.)
No, it interferes with itself. There is nothing else there for it to
interfere with.
>
>yet may be we can learn something about the way
>the photon moves:
>my suggestion is the movement of a hellix:
>lets start to examine it (here we need the help
>of geometry expert
>first, i have more than one reason to suggest the hellix
>but lets start to examine it in light of the current issue:
>my suggestion is that the hellix photon, can hit the
>slit *at many positions of the hellix movement*
>for example: it can hit it while it is at its uppermost
>position (of the hellix)
>it can hit while it is in 'down' position
>it can hie wile left or 'right' etc etc
>if you examine it each case and draw a line
>from slit, down ,up ,left or ;right'
>and draw lines (potential lines)
>you will get the potential *interference patern*
>that you are talking about,
>
>does this suggetion reconcile between my understanding
>and yours ?
No.
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
<dadd...@yahoo.com> writes
[alt groups snipped by server]
[2 AU equals...]
>Fine. I went on: "Okay, so 93 million times two is 186 million, right?" He
>nodded. I smiled. He wrinkled his brow at my grin. "I said, don't you get
>it?" He wondered what's to get. I said, "That's a pretty funny
>coincidence, isn't it? I mean considering the speed of light?"
Somebody doesn't understand dimensional analysis.
>He just
>shrugged. I said, "Okay if that's not far out enough for you, Professor,
>then check it out: If you multiply times pi, what do you get?"
>
>He gave a couple tugs to his slide-rule, then looked up and said, "It's
>approximately 584,560,800 miles."
A 7-digit slide-rule. Cool! With that many digits, perhaps we can
forgive the fact that only the first three are accurate.
[snip more appalling approximations]
>"Okay," I said. "Fasten your seat-belt, Professor. How many miles per second
>is that?" He deftly put his slide-rule in motion again to divide again by
>60, and this time he wasn't so quick to look up, as nevertheless I watched
>his eyes widen. Then with a bit of a smile, he looked up to say, "It works
>out to about 18,600 miles per second."
That's a *weird* slide-rule. Put the correct AU and year length in and
you get 18.5 miles/sec.
>
>I nodded. "There's that way too weird 186 again."
Not on this planet.
>
>When I queried him as to the meaning of it, he was at a loss to say. He
>asked me if I thought I had any idea.
>
>I said to him that it was all the proof I needed to give further credibility
>to the mystical notion that all things are one, that material reality is an
>illusion and that what's behind it all is nothing but Light. I said that
>the very speed of the earth itself is in an astonishingly even proportion to
>the speed of light, which ought to tell us about an order in nature even
>more perfect than immediately meets the eye.
>
>As to just exactly what a perfect proportion
If that's "perfect", you have very low standards.
>like that in Earth Speed to
>Light Speed would amount to as respecting the laws of physics, in practical
>terms?
Nothing, even if it were so. What's so special about powers of 10? Or
this planet?
--
Richard Herring
Boris Mohar
wrote:
>Fun With Numbers!
Snip..
>As to just exactly what a perfect proportion like that in Earth Speed to
>Light Speed would amount to as respecting the laws of physics, in practical
>terms?
>
>Go figure.
Nobody spreads as much darkness as one who thinks that they have seen the
light.
Ron Miller
averages and approximations, so the "perfect proportion" you ended up with is
hardly that at all. In fact, it was arrived at by manipulating the figures
arbitrarily.
R
Y.Porat
heymann
i am now rereading some qm just in order that
people wont be able to tell me stories.
not yet an expert, but wait a while (:-)
so as i undestand (please correct if wrong)
that intensity of light has nothing to do
with the number of photons nor with photon counting
so before talking about a single photon
we must make sure it is realy a *single photon*
i saw there a picture of single dots (havent got there yet)
how about a hellix movement, that i suggest for the photon?
TIA
--
Y.Porat
------
all the best
Y.Porat
tadchem
"Ron Miller" <rmi...@crosslink.com> wrote in message
news:3CECD110...@crosslink.com...
> You are too easily impressed. You admit you're working with rounded
numbers,
> averages and approximations, so the "perfect proportion" you ended up with
is
> hardly that at all. In fact, it was arrived at by manipulating the figures
> arbitrarily.
He is also dead wrong.
> John P David wrote:
> > "Fine, so how far do we go in an hour?" He divided by 24 and told me it
was
> > around 66,730 miles."
> > "Okay," I said. "Fasten your seat-belt, Professor. How many miles per
second
> > is that?" He deftly put his slide-rule in motion again to divide again
by
> > 60, and this time he wasn't so quick to look up, as nevertheless I
watched
> > his eyes widen. Then with a bit of a smile, he looked up to say, "It
works
> > out to about 18,600 miles per second."
66,730 / 3600 = 18,600 ???
The mean orbital velocity of earth around the sun is 29.80 km/sec or 18.52
miles/sec.
One of the problems with slide rules is that they require an operator with
enough wit to track decimal points.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
Chic McGregor
Continental Europe uses a comma for the decimal point and a period for
three digit indication. However, given his name and previous working
I suspect he is not Continental European and has just misremembered
it.
There is of course no possible connection since the units and
subdivisions of time and length have been defined in an arbitrary
manner.
regards
chic
Robert J. Kolker
John P David wrote:
>
>
>>Aristotele is the man who told us heavier things fall faster than
>>lighter things . . .
>>
>
> You really don't recognize how dim that is, do you--for you to hold an
> absurd thing like that against a man in 400 b.c.e. who was so right in so
> many other things? What manner of reason do you propose that you are
> engaging there?
He could have dropped a big rock and a little rock from the nearest
cliff or tall building. The problem with Aristtotle is that he did not
check.
How dim can you get, that you should be so prejudiced by
> hindsight? Don't you know how dense that is, that you can't allow that
> Aristotle should not have to know all the things which were discovered later
> in time?
Save for gunpowder and the telescope, every technology that Galileo used
was available to the Greeks. Inclined planes, round smooth balls, drip
clocks. Aristotle not only did not check and experiment, he did not even
know that he * ought * to check and experiment. Aristotole. D.O.A.
>
> Good night! Aristotle didn't know the theory of Universal Gravitation
> either. So hold that against him as well, why don't you?
Not at all. Aristotle did not have the benefit of telescopes.
Newton know
> nothing of spacetime curvature so henceforth regard him as a dimwit. That's
> about your speed isn't it?
No. Newton checked. His theory was tight and good up to the resolutions
available to him. Newton was a good experimenter (see his works on
Opticks). Newton checked.
>
> Don't you even so much as know that such things as Aristotle did have the
> time in his life to perfect in terms of Logic, and setting the foundation
> for all time of biological taxonomy was perfectly *enough*? You damned well
> better believe it is more than enough, because his principles of Logic are
> altogether as viable and correct and totally in use today as they were when
> he had first introduced them to the world.
Aristotle's logic was cramped and constitupated. He could not handle
general relations. Nor did he investigate induction, which Euclid did.
And if you even so much as begin
> to think that the work Galileo did to discover the law of falling bodies
> could have gone forth without the foundations that had been set by Aristotle
> to guide a scientific man's mind toward reasoned thought, then you've got
> another big think coming, you disrespectful snot.
Galileo had to * overcome * Aristotle's approach and he did not fully
succeed in that. Both Galileo and Kopernic bought the notion of circular
orbits and uniform velocities. It took a neurotic like Kepler to work
out the ellipses and kinametics. Kepler checked. He had Tycho's numbers
and he would not rest until he got a tight fit and a clean system.
Kepler made Newton's law of gravitation possible, since Newton derived
the inverse square law, mostly from Kepler's third law. Newton stood on
the shoulders of giants, and Aristotle was not one of them.
>
> How do you really get so dim?
>
> I'll tell you: you are a fool for gossip.
Aristotle was constipated in his thinking. If you want to see a Greek
with a great mind, even by modern standards, look to Archimedes.
His laws of hydrostatics are as good today as they ever were.
Eureka!
Bob Kolker
>
Gordon D. Pusch
<*!PLONK!*>
Gordon D. Pusch
<*!PLONK!*>
Mike Varney
"John P David" <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aci75o$ml5$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
> Fun With Numbers!
><SNIP>
Dolt.
Eric Prebys
You're pretty easily amused. I recommend that you avoid
all that way cool pyramid numerology; it might send you right into a
seizure.
> (...Snip all content-free, uninteresting content, which leaves...)
> Now as I recall, he was messing around with his slide rule, as he then came
Do they really still use slide rules at University of Minesota?!?!?!
-Eric
Uncle Al
>
> Fun With Numbers!
[snip]
> "Okay," I said. "Fasten your seat-belt, Professor. How many miles per second
> is that?" He deftly put his slide-rule in motion again to divide again by
> 60, and this time he wasn't so quick to look up, as nevertheless I watched
> his eyes widen. Then with a bit of a smile, he looked up to say, "It works
> out to about 18,600 miles per second."
The Earth does NOT orbit the sun at 18,600 miles/second, you vastly
disgusting spewing moron. A disgorged product of American zero-goal
education knows better than that. Escape velocity at the visible
surface of the sun is only 383.82 miles/second. One astronomical unit
is 499.004783806 light-seconds or 92,955,807 miles radius. 2(pi)r is
584,058,563 miles
(584,058,563 miles) divided by
(365.2422 days/year)(24 hrs/day)(60 min/hr)(60 sec/min)
is 18.5 miles/second
It requires a particulary inferior jackass to be off by a factor of
1000. You can't even do three lines of math without farting 70 lines
of text. Who died and made you Plato? The minor correction for
ellipticity is left as an exercise for the functional reader.
[snip]
> As to just exactly what a perfect proportion like that in Earth Speed to
> Light Speed would amount to as respecting the laws of physics, in practical
> terms?
No relationship whatsover, and it isn't "perfect." It isn't there at
all. Lightspeed is *defined* as 299792458 m/s. How does it stack up
as furlongs/fortnight or cubits/baktun?
Imbecile.
Patrick Reany
"Gordon D. Pusch" wrote:
> (gnus-kill "Subject" "Myth of the Photon")
>
> <*!PLONK!*>
There is truth on both sides of this issue.
There is something mythical about the photon
because there is something mythical about
all human models of putatively "real" things.
There are three basic views to take while
taking for granted the independent existence
of physical things external to our minds and
while noting that these are presented as formal
dogmas to be used within science proper:
1) Our mental models of these "things" implied
by our senses are true whenever we can find
a workable theory that contains the model.
(- scientific realism -)
2) Our mental models are either abstract,
or their "truthfulness" is irrelevant to building
mental pictures and "explaining" the world;
in short, they are merely instruments to the
task of inventing theories that work.
(- instrumentalism -)
3) Our mental models have some direct
or indirect (or metaphoric) correspondence
to real things, but the exact nature of this
correspondence is empirically unknowable.
(- "metaphoric" or Kantian realism -)
Take your pick. You can invent useful models
under any of the above self-justifying "delusions"!
For myself, I choose instrumentalism as my
formal philosophy of science, and Kantian realism
for my philosophy of nature. I find scientific
realism, in fact an form of realism, to be
meaningless as they have no compelling
reason to believe in this notion of mind grasping
the TRUTH. It seems so circular to me: The
truth is implied by the way it works; it works
because it is true. Go figure.
Instrumentalism is NOT about destroying the
search for a wider meaning to our existence and
finding our relationship to the external world. It
simply wants to place all that outside of science
proper and put it back where it belongs: within
philosophy, metaphysics, natural philosophy.
In truth, instrumentalism requires only the belief
in the existence of self and of sense impressions.
You can add more ontology to that but you
do so only as a heuristic. All the questions that
instrumentalism seems to be restrained from asking
can be asked from natural philosophy, so nothing
is really lost, except the pretense that those
questions are not really philosophical in nature.
(A related viewpoint is called "constructive empiricism.")
There's even a model of angels dancing on the
head of a pin. Now, I know how to model an
angel; it's modeling the head of a pin that's hard!
;-)
Patrick
danek
special case called circular polarization.
However, all the versions of the double slit experiment that I have seen assume incident plane waves; parallel
wavefronts, linear polarization. Of course it becomes cylindrical after it passes through the slit.
Does anyone know if the double slit experiment has been done with elliptically polarized light? I don't see that
the polarization would make any difference as the effect you really need is coherent phase in order to produce the
interference. It just complicates the mathematics.
P. Danek
Uncle Al
>
> "Gordon D. Pusch" wrote:
>
> > (gnus-kill "Subject" "Myth of the Photon")
> >
> > <*!PLONK!*>
>
> There is truth on both sides of this issue.
You are ghastly. Go philosophize a burned out incandescent lightbulb
into working again. Everything and its opposite are true in the
social "sciences." That is why $20 trillion dumped into the "poor"
since bleeding heart Liberal Johnson's Great Society has resulted in
voluminous whining crap. One one-thousandth of that has given you all
the Intel processors together - and it didn't cost you a stolen penny
except for sales tax.
National Science Foundation annual budget - $4 billion.
War on Drugs annual budget - $18 billion.
What has the War on Drugs bought us?
> There is something mythical about the photon
> because
you are an untutored git.
[snip]
> 1) Our mental models of these "things" implied
> by our senses are true whenever we can find
> a workable theory that contains the model.
> (- scientific realism -)
Read that again. It doesn't make any sense at all. How 'bout an
"unworkable theory that contains the model?" What about limiting
cases? What about heuristics? What about numerical methods? I can
approximate to arbitrary accuracy a sine curve with a polynomial fit.
The polynomial is explicitly wrong, but it as good as I wish it to
be. How does that fit into your kneejerk freshman essay?
> 2) Our mental models are either abstract,
> or their "truthfulness" is irrelevant to building
> mental pictures and "explaining" the world;
> in short, they are merely instruments to the
> task of inventing theories that work.
> (- instrumentalism -)
That doesn't make any sense either. What book are you cribbing?
Science is about how not why. If you want the answer to "why" go
bother religion. They'll gladly trade eventual infinite wisdom
(generally held in post mortem escrow) for money up front. To quote
James Tiberius Kirk, "why does God need a starship?"
> 3) Our mental models have some direct
> or indirect (or metaphoric) correspondence
> to real things, but the exact nature of this
> correspondence is empirically unknowable.
> (- "metaphoric" or Kantian realism -)
Now that is a sack of fuming crap. Why don't you tell us how
something can be conjectured to be connected to something else if the
connection is unknowable? Do you worship the Keebler Elves just in
case Yahweh is a metaphor? (A metaphor for what? Unknowable!
Sheeit.) Analytic geometry and algebra are unified through Euler's
equation. Apply your thesis to validate or invalidate the Euler
equation and the correspondence it forms. (For the hard of thinking,
e^[i(pi)]=-1, then expand as a trigonometric series.)
> Take your pick. You can invent useful models
> under any of the above self-justifying "delusions"!
> For myself, I choose instrumentalism as my
> formal philosophy of science, and Kantian realism
> for my philosophy of nature. I find scientific
> realism, in fact an form of realism, to be
> meaningless as they have no compelling
> reason to believe in this notion of mind grasping
> the TRUTH. It seems so circular to me: The
> truth is implied by the way it works; it works
> because it is true. Go figure.
[snip]
You "chose?" Phsyical reality doesn't care what you think. It will
dispassionately crush you like a grape. Let's cut to the chase,
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.
Had they known anything about the real world they would have applied
it and hauled themselves out of a dreadful life. Uncle Al offers a
one word proof of the intellectual bankrupty of 5000 years of recorded
philosophy planetwide: Dentistry. If you want to keep your teeth you
drink fluoridated water. One part-per-million fluoride makes the
difference between empty gums adn a full set of teeth by age 40.
Metaphor that.
John P David
> The Earth does NOT orbit the sun at 18,600 miles/second, you vastly
> disgusting spewing moron. A disgorged product of American zero-goal
> education knows better than that.
Allowing a moment for Monkey's Uncle to wipe the drool off his chin.
We count to ten. Good. On we go . . .
> It requires a particulary inferior jackass to be off by a factor of
> 1000. You can't even do three lines of math without farting 70 lines
> of text. Who died and made you Plato? The minor correction for
> ellipticity is left as an exercise for the functional reader.
Then you've left it for a pack of functional idiots, these various loyal
nephews of yours and yourself, Monkey's Uncle. Indeed, if this subject has
proved anything, it has decidedly shown that you are incapable of seeing the
*significance* in an approximate relation of proportionality which is for
one thing reflective of your lack of insight into the whole foundation of
Quantum theory, these leaps that occur by intervals of whole number
multiples.
Look at these quantum leaps! We go from an earth speed either at aphelion
or perihelion (as the angular velocity varies from one to the other) at some
point in the orbit of *exactly* 18.6 thousand miles per second (the speed of
18.5k is itself the approximate figure, it is an average rate of speed for
the whole orbit, and the earth moves faster at perihelion than it does at
aphelion). From this we go to an orbital diameter of approximately
186,000,000 miles. Then after having looked at all that we observe another
approximate figure which is light-speed. Even if you want to freak out
about the figure after the decimal point, you can't ignore those first two
digits, "18".
To seek after perfect precision in these matters is the mental behavior of
an anally retentive bean counter, it is the appearance of one monkey that is
so busy looking for nits and fleas in the hair of another that he never
raises his eyes to the larger picture.
It's just downright schtupping amazing to watch these nitwits denying the
numerical evidence that is right before their faces, that they can't see the
operation of the Quantum Interval being reflected in these statistics.
Now Carbuncle Al, the Wannabee School Yard Bully, this uncle to every
screeching monkey in these groups has said . . .
> Who died and made you Plato?
Jealous huh? You never saw these relations yourself and now you're jealous,
Booby? Typical. Learn to deal with it.
> The minor correction for
> ellipticity is left as an exercise for the functional reader.
No, Mr. Monkey Uncle Alfonso, *you* do it. Go on! Get busy and try to
prove me wrong or shut up. Get out your little toy calculator and do that
math according to the mathematical formula for finding the circumference of
an ellipse, since that's what you are told this the orbit is.
Get on it!
> No relationship whatsover, and it isn't "perfect." It isn't there at
> all. Lightspeed is *defined* as 299792458 m/s. How does it stack up
> as furlongs/fortnight or cubits/baktun?
Hey Dude, anybody with a mind that does not perceive variance in nature and
immediately correct for that to see the figure of 300,000,000 m/s in order
to understand what is relevant in that figure in terms of proportionality?
Is such a low order of intuitional intelligence that . . .Okay, what are you
calling me?
>
> Imbecile.
By that you mean to imply that you are smarter than I am? Or are you really
saying something else by that, because I distinctly hear you saying by this
that you must be smarter than me. You must count yourself smart by
comparison to what you see as an "imbecile". So you are smarter than I am,
is that what you said by that, Monkey Uncle? Well, it must have been you
saying that, because I don't see anybody else here. I mean, is this me you
are talking to, Bunkie? If so then you have just shown yourself to be
stupid, too plain ignorant to know the consequences of saying a stupid thing
like that. And what are those consequences? Why you idiot, you "dolt"
obviously it is now necessary for me to clue you in to the truth in the news
that I am smarter than you--way smarter. You are the one who proves it
because there is no worse idiot on earth than the sort of moron who is not
capable to recognize the intelligence of another when he sees it. I'm a
regular schtupping Einstein compared to you Al. Even so I'm really *not*
anywhere *near* that smart, so where does that leave you, Monkey Man?
Now go make yourself useful and calculate that putative elliptical orbit.
There's a good boy.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"I like Vincent because, like me, he has the habit of alienating almost
Mike Varney
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3CED19D2...@hate.spam.net...
>
> > The Earth does NOT orbit the sun at 18,600 miles/second, you vastly
> > disgusting spewing moron. A disgorged product of American zero-goal
> > education knows better than that.
>
> Allowing a moment for Monkey's Uncle to wipe the drool off his chin.
>
> We count to ten. Good. On we go . . .
What is with you JP? Are you attempting to be the worlds biggest dope? What
is your problem?
And why did you snit the simple calculation Al gave? Was it too hard for
you? Did it not fall in your narrow world view?
> > It requires a particulary inferior jackass to be off by a factor of
> > 1000. You can't even do three lines of math without farting 70 lines
> > of text. Who died and made you Plato? The minor correction for
> > ellipticity is left as an exercise for the functional reader.
>
> Then you've left it for a pack of functional idiots, these various loyal
> nephews of yours and yourself, Monkey's Uncle. Indeed, if this subject
has
> proved anything, it has decidedly shown that you are incapable of seeing
the
> *significance* in an approximate relation of proportionality which is for
> one thing reflective of your lack of insight into the whole foundation of
> Quantum theory, these leaps that occur by intervals of whole number
> multiples.
Look you stupid piece of afterbirth, the math is not hard. You are fighting
emperical evedidence.
> Look at these quantum leaps! We go from an earth speed either at aphelion
> or perihelion (as the angular velocity varies from one to the other) at
some
> point in the orbit of *exactly* 18.6 thousand miles per second (the speed
of
> 18.5k is itself the approximate figure, it is an average rate of speed for
> the whole orbit, and the earth moves faster at perihelion than it does at
> aphelion). From this we go to an orbital diameter of approximately
> 186,000,000 miles. Then after having looked at all that we observe
another
> approximate figure which is light-speed. Even if you want to freak out
> about the figure after the decimal point, you can't ignore those first two
> digits, "18".
You stupid shit. I am beyond words to describe how stupid and utterly
worthless you are JP. You make Spaceman and Frazer look like sane people.
You need to be castrated and your seed wiped from the Earth.
Patrick Reany
Uncle Al wrote:
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> >
> > "Gordon D. Pusch" wrote:
> >
> > > (gnus-kill "Subject" "Myth of the Photon")
> > >
> > > <*!PLONK!*>
> >
> > There is truth on both sides of this issue.
>
> You are ghastly.
Define science.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
Uncle Al wrote:
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> >
> > "Gordon D. Pusch" wrote:
> >
> > > (gnus-kill "Subject" "Myth of the Photon")
> > >
> > > <*!PLONK!*>
> >
> > There is truth on both sides of this issue.
>
> You are ghastly. Go philosophize a burned out incandescent lightbulb
> into working again. Everything and its opposite are true in the
> social "sciences." That is why $20 trillion dumped into the "poor"
> since bleeding heart Liberal Johnson's Great Society has resulted in
> voluminous whining crap. One one-thousandth of that has given you all
> the Intel processors together - and it didn't cost you a stolen penny
> except for sales tax.
>
> National Science Foundation annual budget - $4 billion.
> War on Drugs annual budget - $18 billion.
> What has the War on Drugs bought us?
Irrelevant drivel a usual!
> > There is something mythical about the photon
> > because
>
> you are an untutored git.
Are you saying the photon is real?
Patrick
John P David
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3CED19D2...@hate.spam.net...
. . . compared to . . .
> John P David and his Fun With Numbers!
. . . really?
Well get a load of this . . .
>
> [snip]
>
> The Earth does NOT orbit the sun at 18,600 miles/second, you vastly
> disgusting spewing moron. A disgorged product of American zero-goal
> education knows better than that. Escape velocity at the visible
> surface of the sun is only 383.82 miles/second. One astronomical unit
> is 499.004783806 light-seconds or 92,955,807 miles radius. 2(pi)r is
> 584,058,563 miles
>
See what's happening there? Bunkle Al, the Wannabee Schoolyard Fatso at
first totally refused to believe that the earth was going anywhere near that
speed. He had never even so much as taken the notion of Earth's velocity
into his mind. Look what he says as he jumps off into some spiel about
escape velocity from the sun? As if that had the least thing to do with it?
But JPDavid, the great "imbecile" and "dolt" a guy with a crumby B.A. in
Sociology of all things got there before all these all-knowing physicists
here. I crunched the numbers to discover with grade school math, for sake
of my own interest how fast the earth is going, as I wondered about that,
only to discover that it goes damn near a whopping 67,000 miles per hour!
But Uncle Alfonse never knew that. He never knew it. He doesn't have the
sort of mind that wonders about such things and then takes off on its own to
discover the answers. Bean counters like Al don't do that. They accept the
teaching of others, and hold to that stuff like it was the Word of God.
So what does Unkie Bunkie do? Just to be on the safe side he did what he
was told and he crunched the numbers to find out I was right about the earth
traveling in excess of 18k mph in its orbit! I was right. So he couldn't
stand for that, could he? No. He's the Smartest Guy on the Block, and he
has to prove it, and prove it, and prove it. So he starts to quibble over a
few miniscule quantities back behind the decimal point like the true
bean-counting anally retentive bully boy wannabee he is.
Well, forget Uncle Alfonse. He's no longer the King of the Hill. Let him
retire to Florida to go fishing in a striped bathrobe at the edge of his
swimming pool. Give the man a cigar to keep him happy.
What I have shown by this is nothing less than a great deal of strong
evidence to support the theory that the Equivalence Principle is all we need
to know about "gravity". It is indeed nothing more than an effect of
inertial momentum got from the immense angular velocity of the earth's
transit through space as it rides the curve. We are all sitting here
pressed back in our seats and against the door as we go for a ride in this
Cosmic Cadillac, planet earth at 67k mph.
And that's just about all she wrote, except as we take into consideration
how the rotational speed of earth which I seem to recall is about 1,000 mph
is sufficient to counteract whatever centrifugal force which would serve to
throw our bodies off into space. Yet since the earth is turning in two
ways, even three if you count galactic motion, then it all works out so that
the vector force of our inertia is continually pressed toward the center of
mass on the planet.
Furthermore, the centrifugal force of earth's rotation and revolution is the
mere effect, it is the reaction to the action of the centripetal force which
is center-tending. That center tending force acts on smaller bodies like
human bodies more than it would upon a larger mass which is more apt to be
taken by the centrifugal motion. If you had a body the size of the Moon
resting on the surface of the earth, the chances are pretty good that the
centrifugal force of earth would throw that body off into space.
How do I justify all this? By math? Not. By what I have seen in nature,
how that works in a gold pan. Given a circular motion in the water, the
larger rocks go flying off over the rim of the pan, while the smaller masses
along with those of greater density, most strangely, tend toward the center
of the pan.
Has it something to do with the Coriolis effect?
Go figure.
And Al, listen up Buddy. Your days of calling me an "imbecile" and "dolt"
are over. You are not smarter than I am. I am smarter than you. Remember
that, get it into your head as an item of great knowledge, okay?
That's a boy.
Now you just got smarter.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"When you get to heaven, leave your dog outside. Heaven goes by favor. If
it went by merit, you would stay out, and the dog would go in." -- Mark
Twain
"I like Vincent because, like me, he has the habit of alienating almost
Greg Neill
news:acjfpc$abf$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> You stupid shit. I am beyond words to describe how stupid and utterly
> worthless you are JP. You make Spaceman and Frazer look like sane people.
Good heavens man! Has he truly gone so far as to warrant
such extreme retaliation? :-)
John P David
> How stupid is . . .
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3CED19D2...@hate.spam.net...
>
> . . . compared to . . .
>
Damn near as idiotic as his howler monkey nephew, Mikey.
But once in a while I can be pretty dumb myself, as e.g. . . .
> So what does Unkie Bunkie do? Just to be on the safe side he did what he
> was told and he crunched the numbers to find out I was right about the
earth
> traveling in excess of 18k mph in its orbit!
That was supposed to be 18.6 miles per second, i.e. as derived from 66,730
miles per hour, 1,112 miles per minute and 18.536 miles per second.
Think of that! Every second we've gone another 18.5 or 18.6 miles --
depending upon where we are in the plane of orbit.
So, just for my own information: Who is knowledgable enough in these
matters to tell me at what dates we are precisely at perihelion and
aphelion? Does it vary?
John P David
> You stupid shit.
Go away boy, you bother me.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"When you get to heaven, leave your dog outside. Heaven goes by favor. If
it went by merit, you would stay out, and the dog would go in." -- Mark
Twain
"Ayn Rand told us that she would blow up the Warner Brothers lot if we
changed one word of her script, and we believed her. Even Jack Warner
believed her." -- Henry Blanke
"Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." -- Albert Einstein
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. --Friedrich
Nietzsche
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of
tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson
Mike Varney
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3CED19D2...@hate.spam.net...
>
> . . . compared to . . .
>
> > John P David and his Fun With Numbers!
>
> . . . really?
>
> Well get a load of this . . .
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > The Earth does NOT orbit the sun at 18,600 miles/second, you vastly
> > disgusting spewing moron. A disgorged product of American zero-goal
> > education knows better than that. Escape velocity at the visible
> > surface of the sun is only 383.82 miles/second. One astronomical unit
> > is 499.004783806 light-seconds or 92,955,807 miles radius. 2(pi)r is
> > 584,058,563 miles
> >
> See what's happening there? Bunkle Al, the Wannabee Schoolyard Fatso at
> first totally refused to believe that the earth was going anywhere near
that
> speed. He had never even so much as taken the notion of Earth's velocity
> into his mind. Look what he says as he jumps off into some spiel about
> escape velocity from the sun? As if that had the least thing to do with
it?
Your lack of brains prevent you from seeing the simple connection between
the escape velocity of the sun to the orbital speed of objects orbiting.
> But JPDavid, the great "imbecile" and "dolt"
Do not forget dumbshit and crackpot.
> a guy with a crumby B.A. in
> Sociology
That explains quite a bit actually.
> of all things got there before all these all-knowing physicists
> here. I crunched the numbers to discover with grade school math, for sake
> of my own interest how fast the earth is going, as I wondered about that,
> only to discover that it goes damn near a whopping 67,000 miles per hour!
You are an idiot. First you fuck up and state the speed as 67000
miles/second. Now, rather than admitting that you fucked up you change your
answer to the more reasonable answer given by Al.
Answer some questions:
1. How far are we from the center of the sun on average?
2. What is the circumference of a circle with a radius of our average
distance from the center of the sun?
3. Divide that distance by your velocity. How long is the time you get?
4. How long is a year?
5. What is the definition of a solar year?
I want to see your simple grade school math applied to this simple problem.
The answer is simple.
> But Uncle Alfonse never knew that. He never knew it. He doesn't have the
> sort of mind that wonders about such things and then takes off on its own
to
> discover the answers. Bean counters like Al don't do that. They accept
the
> teaching of others, and hold to that stuff like it was the Word of God.
You dipshit, Al did the calculation for you.
> So what does Unkie Bunkie do? Just to be on the safe side he did what he
> was told and he crunched the numbers to find out I was right about the
earth
> traveling in excess of 18k mph in its orbit! I was right.
No idiot, you stated that it was 18k mps.
"Then with a bit of a smile, he looked up to say, "It works
out to about 18,600 miles per second."
I nodded."
You are a liar.
> So he couldn't
> stand for that, could he? No. He's the Smartest Guy on the Block, and he
> has to prove it, and prove it, and prove it. So he starts to quibble over
a
> few miniscule quantities back behind the decimal point like the true
> bean-counting anally retentive bully boy wannabee he is.
You fucked up. Sociologists might be able to fuck up by 10 orders of
magnitude and get away with it... NASA might be able to do the same and blow
the units.
Physics is a different story.
<SNIP>
> What I have shown by this is nothing
In that you are correct.
<SNIP>
> And Al, listen up Buddy. Your days of calling me an "imbecile" and "dolt"
> are over. You are not smarter than I am. I am smarter than you. Remember
> that, get it into your head as an item of great knowledge, okay?
Oh brother! I will save Al the trouble and post this link for your
edification.
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Mike Varney
>
> "Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
> news:acjfpc$abf$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> > You stupid shit.
>
> Go away boy, you bother me.
Good. Now, go shit on someone else's porch.
Mike Varney
>
> "John P David" <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:acjh0e$1hh$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
> > How stupid is . . .
> >
> > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > news:3CED19D2...@hate.spam.net...
> >
> > . . . compared to . . .
> >
> > > John P David and his Fun With Numbers?
>
> Damn near as idiotic as his howler monkey nephew, Mikey.
>
> But once in a while I can be pretty dumb myself, as e.g. . . .
>
> > So what does Unkie Bunkie do? Just to be on the safe side he did what
he
> > was told and he crunched the numbers to find out I was right about the
> earth
> > traveling in excess of 18k mph in its orbit!
>
> That was supposed to be 18.6 miles per second, i.e. as derived from 66,730
> miles per hour, 1,112 miles per minute and 18.536 miles per second.
Duh! Finally admitting that you are unable to do simple math?
> Think of that! Every second we've gone another 18.5 or 18.6 miles --
> depending upon where we are in the plane of orbit.
So what? This is old news.
> So, just for my own information: Who is knowledgable enough in these
> matters to tell me at what dates we are precisely at perihelion and
> aphelion?
I am, but I already gave you a fish. Now to let you drown.
www.google.com
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>>
>
> Are you saying the photon is real?
As real as the electron.
Bob Kolker
John P David
> You are an idiot. First you fuck up and state the speed as 67000
> miles/second. Now, rather than admitting that you fucked up you change
your
> answer to the more reasonable answer given by Al.
Anyone who read the original post knows that for downright broad-daylight
robbery. Here is that text . . .
> "Okay, so if you want to find out how far we go in a day we can just
divide
> that by 365, is that right?" He nodded indicating that would work; he
> pulled on the thing again and then looked up to tell me it came out to
about
> 1,601,536 miles a day.
>
> "Fine, so how far do we go in an hour?" He divided by 24 and told me it
was
> around 66,730 miles."
> You dipshit, Al did the calculation for you.
Same attempt at a terrorist hijacking of the truth. Here's the text . . .
> That idea was blowing my mind all over again, even though I already knew
it
> from when I worked it out on my own. But just to think that here we sit
> right now, rocketing through space at a speed of about 67 thousand miles
an
> hour--well, that is quite a ride.
>
> "Okay," I said. "Fasten your seat-belt, Professor. How many miles per
second
> is that?" He deftly put his slide-rule in motion again to divide again by
> 60, and this time he wasn't so quick to look up, as nevertheless I watched
> his eyes widen. Then with a bit of a smile, he looked up to say, "It
works
> out to about 18,600 miles per second."
Whoops! My error was to say 18,600 miles per second, when any fool would
have recognized that what I'd meant to say was 18.6 miles per second--give
or take one-tenth of a decimal.
Only the Uncle of Monkey Mikey and his Nephew would take the obvious typo
for an intended meaning.
>
> You are a liar.
>
Go away, Boy, you bother me.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." -- Albert Einstein
Mike Varney
>
> "Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
> news:acjid4$bv6$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> > You are an idiot. First you fuck up and state the speed as 67000
> > miles/second. Now, rather than admitting that you fucked up you change
> your
> > answer to the more reasonable answer given by Al.
>
> > "Okay," I said. "Fasten your seat-belt, Professor. How many miles per
> second
> > is that?" He deftly put his slide-rule in motion again to divide again
by
> > 60, and this time he wasn't so quick to look up, as nevertheless I
watched
> > his eyes widen. Then with a bit of a smile, he looked up to say, "It
> works
> > out to about 18,600 miles per second."
>
> Whoops! My error was to say 18,600 miles per second,
And that was why Al statement of your mental ability was correct. Do you
trust all the numbers that come out of your calculator?
> when any fool would
> have recognized
That you are an absolute idiot who cannot do simple math.
> Only the Uncle of Monkey Mikey and his Nephew would take the obvious typo
> for an intended meaning.
You have not shown any ability in math or physics. You have not earned the
benefit of doubt when it comes to your theories and calculations.
QED.
Spaceman
> Think of that! Every second we've gone another 18.5 or 18.6 miles --
> depending upon where we are in the plane of orbit.
Try a lot more than that,
The Sun and all planets are also spinning around another thing.
and that thing and all the stuff spinning around it is also spinning
around another "center"
We are actually moving close to the speed (maybe even over)
of light WRT the center of the Universe.
How far away from the center of the Milky way is the Sun?
How far and fast does it travel with relation to the big "gravitational
force"
holding the milky way together? (thought Black Hole)
Tis flying around that.
speed around the sun is nothing compared to it,
nevermind
speed of entire Galaxy around the Universe.
FTL?
Maybe..
:).
<G>
John P David
> > You dipshit, Al did the calculation for you.
You stinking, burglarizing, no-count punk. Despite the obvious error in the
final figure which any damned fool could recognize for a mistake on the
order of a typo, knows that this simple matter of calculation was shown in
the original post.
You can't stand the truth on its head like that, rob one man of his effort
and give it to another who stands in the favor of your smelly cluelessnes.
Nothing on earth is more despicable.
Now I'm telling you for the last time, you theiving, robbing, burglarizing,
jive idiot schlameil. You have neither the manners nor the morality to come
into the company and conversation of gentlemen, so bug off!
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"Ayn Rand told us that she would blow up the Warner Brothers lot if we
John P David
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
news:ueqljci...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "John P David" <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:acji8b$2gi$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
> > Think of that! Every second we've gone another 18.5 or 18.6 miles --
> > depending upon where we are in the plane of orbit.
>
> Try a lot more than that,
> The Sun and all planets are also spinning around another thing.
> and that thing and all the stuff spinning around it is also spinning
> around another "center"
> We are actually moving close to the speed (maybe even over)
> of light WRT the center of the Universe.
I have often wondered about just that myself, Mr. Spaceman. Oh yes. Just
last night as I was puzzling over the photoelectric effect as to the
particle-wave paradox, I came just a little closer to seeing how what you
say is quite the case: consider the speed at which every electron in our
boides is moving. How close is that to C? That's why these figures of 18.5-6
miles/sec for earth velocity 186.000.000 miles for diameter of earth orbit,
and 186,000 mile/sec lightspeed are significant. Think how blind a person
must be not to see it. How dim a man's soul-light must be not to find it a
miracle.
I saw another thing about wave-dynamics and the quantum phenomenon which can
describe the photo-electric effect without resort to the photon mythology.
It won't be easy to describe. But right now, I have some earth to turn over
in the garden for some big, fat Hubbard squash I want to plant.
>
> How far away from the center of the Milky way is the Sun?
> How far and fast does it travel with relation to the big "gravitational
> force"
> holding the milky way together? (thought Black Hole)
>
> Tis flying around that.
> speed around the sun is nothing compared to it,
> nevermind
> speed of entire Galaxy around the Universe.
> FTL?
> Maybe..
> :).
You got it man.
"Little wheel run by fire and rod,
Big wheel turn by the grace of God,
And every time that wheel go round,
It's bound to cover just a little more ground."
--The Grateful Dead
Yeah.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." -- Albert Einstein
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
Mike Varney
>
> "John P David" <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:acjjv2$3t5$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
> > > You dipshit, Al did the calculation for you.
>
> You stinking, burglarizing, no-count punk.
We already know what you are.
> Despite the obvious error in the
> final figure which any damned fool could recognize
As an obvious indication of your incompetence.
> Now I'm telling you for the last time, you theiving, robbing,
burglarizing,
> jive idiot schlameil. You have neither the manners nor the morality to
come
> into the company and conversation of gentlemen, so bug off!
You are telling me for the last time or else what?
You have neither the brains nor the will to learn to come into the company
of your betters.
Go back to humping your mother and leave the physics to people who know how
to do it.
Mike Varney
>
> "Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
> news:ueqljci...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "John P David" <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:acji8b$2gi$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
> > > Think of that! Every second we've gone another 18.5 or 18.6 miles --
> > > depending upon where we are in the plane of orbit.
> >
> > Try a lot more than that,
> > The Sun and all planets are also spinning around another thing.
> > and that thing and all the stuff spinning around it is also spinning
> > around another "center"
> > We are actually moving close to the speed (maybe even over)
> > of light WRT the center of the Universe.
>
> I have often wondered about just that myself,
> You got it man.
Cool! A crackpot orgy!
John P David
> You are telling me for the last time or else what?
Or else I show you for the kind of total punk full of kneejerk bunk that
goes around asking . . .
> You are telling me for the last time or else what?
There is no "or else", punk. There is only the "last time". The last time
is the end which does not provide for an "or else" you snot-drooling puppy.
The last time is the last time.
You're history, you daylight sneak-thief.
And I don't want to have to tell you again. Go find someplace else to play.
Try the railroad track for some needed study of SR and embankments and some
headlights on them moving trains.
And . . .
"When you get to heaven, leave your dog outside. Heaven goes by favor. If
it went by merit, you would stay out, and the dog would go in." -- Mark
Twain
--
Eric Prebys
Someone should introduce this guy to Don Shead. This whole post
reminds me of the time Shead got so excited because he realized that
the specific gravity of water was 1. in both metric AND English units!!!
-Eric
franz heymann
Y.Porat <por...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
news:c91f39eb.02052...@posting.google.com...
[Snip]
> thank you Herring
> anyway i think we got here something important:
> a single photon *does not interfere with itself*
> it is only many of them.
Absolute nonsense. Are you aware of weak beam experiments? So weak that
the mean time between emitted photons is large compared to the time
taken to go between the source and the detector, so that at any moment
there is either 0 or 1 test photon in flight in the laboratory? (approx
300km mean separation between successive photons, if they had been
allowed to continue undetected) The interference patterns are
indistinguishable from those of experiments with intense beams.
[Snip]
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
news:<uenttjo...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > news:c91f39eb.02052...@posting.google.com...
> > [Snip]
Wrong. In a beam, the intensity is proportional to the number of
photons per square centimetre per second passing through a plane
perpendicular to the beam direction.
> nor with photon counting
Wrong. See above.
> so before talking about a single photon
> we must make sure it is realy a *single photon*
That is not too difficult at all. All you have to do is to reduce the
beam intensity until the count rate at the detector is negligible
compared to the resolving time and the dead time of the system.
> i saw there a picture of single dots (havent got there yet)
> how about a hellix movement, that i suggest for the photon?
> TIA
You are drivelling.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
Prolate spheroids.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
> > No. Please read what I wrote.
> >
> > Franz Heymann
>
[Snip all John P David's nonsense]
Learn some physics if you want to avoid having all your burblings
snipped mercilessly.
With your level of ignorance, you should be asking questions, not
pontificating.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
[Snip]
Boo
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
[Snip the vapidities]
>
What happened to the headers of this thread?
Who are you replying to?
Considering the inanity of your reply, why did you bother?
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
Greg Neill <gnei...@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:QTbH8.5005$XE.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
Actually, yes. :-)
Franz Heymann
>
>
>
>
>
franz heymann
>
[Snip]
> Look at these quantum leaps! We go from an earth speed either at
aphelion
> or perihelion (as the angular velocity varies from one to the other)
at some
> point in the orbit of *exactly* 18.6 thousand miles per second (the
speed of
> 18.5k is itself the approximate figure, it is an average rate of speed
for
> the whole orbit, and the earth moves faster at perihelion than it does
at
> aphelion).
You demented idiot, can you not see that the actual speed is a mere
29.80 km/sec or 18.52 miles/sec. as more than one poster has now shown?
[Snip the droolings]
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
> "Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
> news:acjfpc$abf$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> > You stupid shit.
>
> Go away boy, you bother me.
Are you really too stupid to see that that is the general intention?
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
[Snip]
> Think of that! Every second we've gone another 18.5 or 18.6 miles --
> depending upon where we are in the plane of orbit.
That is peanuts compared to the additional velocity due to the motion of
the solar system in the galaxy.
So what?
[Snip]
Franz Heymann
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > Patrick Reany wrote:
> > >
> > > "Gordon D. Pusch" wrote:
> > >
> > > > (gnus-kill "Subject" "Myth of the Photon")
> > > >
> > > > <*!PLONK!*>
> > >
> > > There is truth on both sides of this issue.
> >
> > You are ghastly.
>
> Define science.
Science is empirical knowledge and its application. The whole of
Liberal Arts plus the soft sciences taken jointly and severally cannot
aspire to such spare and efficient reliable lucidity. Flick a light
switch on, then off. Now, pray it on. We'll wait.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Spaceman
> [Snip absolutely no physics from franzy boy as usual.]
>
Learn some physics if you want to avoid having all your burblings
snipped mercilessly.
With your level of ignorance, you should be asking questions, not
pontificating and insulting without logical reason.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
http://www.realspaceman.com
news://realspaceman.net/spacemans.space
tj Frazir
John P David
"franz heymann" <franz....@nospamcare4free.net> wrote in message
news:ueqnuo2...@corp.supernews.com...
> . . . can you not see that the actual speed is a mere
> 29.80 km/sec or 18.52 miles/sec. as more than one poster has now shown?
I was that poster, and you are the clown that takes a typo literally--to the
purpose of further robbery, as you ignore the truth of that in the correct
integers which I gave. They say you lie.
Now you absurd nincompoop, go find Nephew Monkey Mikey down on the railroad
track. Because you totally from the wrong side of those tracks to be comin'
over to my house, Chump.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"Ayn Rand told us that she would blow up the Warner Brothers lot if we
changed one word of her script, and we believed her. Even Jack Warner
believed her." -- Henry Blanke
"Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." -- Albert Einstein
Dirk Bruere
"franz heymann" <franz....@nospamcare4free.net> wrote in message
news:ueqnuo2...@corp.supernews.com...
>
It makes more sense if it is measured in pyramid inches.
Dirk
Everett Hickey
have some sort of serious debate on attempts at numerology, or are just
having a fit of particularly abuse humor, or both.
--
"John P David" <dadd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acjeac$v56$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3CED19D2...@hate.spam.net...
>
> > The Earth does NOT orbit the sun at 18,600 miles/second, you vastly
> > disgusting spewing moron. A disgorged product of American zero-goal
> > education knows better than that.
>
> Allowing a moment for Monkey's Uncle to wipe the drool off his chin.
>
> We count to ten. Good. On we go . . .
>
> > It requires a particulary inferior jackass to be off by a factor of
> > 1000. You can't even do three lines of math without farting 70 lines
> > of text. Who died and made you Plato? The minor correction for
> > ellipticity is left as an exercise for the functional reader.
>
> Then you've left it for a pack of functional idiots, these various loyal
> nephews of yours and yourself, Monkey's Uncle. Indeed, if this subject
has
> proved anything, it has decidedly shown that you are incapable of seeing
the
> *significance* in an approximate relation of proportionality which is for
> one thing reflective of your lack of insight into the whole foundation of
> Quantum theory, these leaps that occur by intervals of whole number
> multiples.
<snipped>
Mike Varney
"Everett Hickey" <lit...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3ced647e$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
> Ok... I'm still trying to figure out if these guys are actually trying to
> have some sort of serious debate on attempts at numerology, or are just
> having a fit of particularly abuse humor, or both.
It is not hard to figure out that JP is a dolt.
Go back to the start of the thread and read. Lurk longer next time.
And don't top post.
Mike Varney
"tj Frazir" <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3452-3CE...@storefull-2152.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Anything you can do with light can be done with sound .
How about propagation through a vacuum?
Dolt.
Mike Varney
>
> "Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
> news:acjm8e$e1l$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> > You are telling me for the last time or else what?
>
> Or else I show you
You are incapable of showing anything but your total ignorance and
stupidity.
<SNIP>
>
> You're history, you daylight sneak-thief.
Ohhh... a threat from an imbecile!
It is rather hard to understand you when your head is buried between your
mothers legs.