Waves need a medium

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 1:23:52 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/1/17 7:17 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Waves need a medium.
>
> No, they do not. Waves need only a system where the relevant laws are in
> the form of the wave equation, period, end of story. No medium is required.

Only if the abstract is real, which suits the frauds but not engineers.

> Somewhere in your education, you got the misinformation that waves
> require a medium. Where?

From water waves requiring water
From sound waves requiring air/solid
From Mexican waves requiring humans
From vibration waves requiring a string

Since these waves require a medium, electromagnetic waves need a medium.
Because it is the medium which must support and pass on the disturbance.

The presence of electromagnetic waves can be physically seen when one does
VSWR measurements using a slotted coaxial line, and microwave generator and a
VSWR meter.

While testing antenna and other microwave equipment from 1977 to 1987 I used
the above apparatus.

Evidently waves exist and as waves cannot exist without a medium there has to
be a medium and that medium we call aether.

It is quite another thing to neglect the medium for practical purposes.
But to say that a wave exists but there is no medium to propagate it, is
preposterous.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[john]

Black Holes are vortices in the aether. When atoms, which are constructed from aether, and also somehow have charge, fall into a black hole, they are accelerated around it faster and faster until the magnetism created by the two opposite charges blows them apart, and two jets of high-energy particles leave in opposite directions at right angle to the disk.
It will be found that the two opposite jets are oppositely-charged.

[Mushnik]

that is old old old school back to the 1800's, throw away your
cellphone, and your computer, and car,

[pora...@gmail.com]

============================
did you here the rumor that
EM waves - has mass ???
======
Y.Porat
==================

[pora...@gmail.com]

is there a difference between water and EM
waves
THAT TAVELL IN ENDLESS SPACE -ALONG THOUSANDS OF LIGHT YEARS ??

----
Y.Porat
============================

[Double-A]

Only if there is no endless ocean.

Double-A

[reber G=emc^2]

Ocean waves its water.Sound waves its air.Magnetisum needs no medium.Think of Jupiters great magnetic waves going far out.Heat from sun does not come to Earth in waves.Think of photons that create heat. I have posted all this over 25 years ago when I turned 65 Trebert

[hanson]

Devious "reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> aka
Glazier, <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal>
alias <http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>,
you are a sanctimonious Pig. Whatever you post belongs
into the <http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017>
in which you try to cover up that you are a Face Shitter & a
Hatemonger, whose Glazierola you designed to get a response
from "Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com>
who SwineBert Glazier hopes to be another new filthy misfits
who'll join your existing crowd of 8 pigs who laid themselves
under your sphincter, to get this:

<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>.
from you, ___ Glazier, the Turd-man of Anaheim___, who for
the sake of **sheer spite**, perversion & bigotry refuses to
accept <http://tinyurl.com/Herbert-Glazier-s-Reprieve>, as
he waits for <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker>

[Arindam Banerjee]

Yes, based upon e=mcc which is a lie.

[Michael Moroney]

On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> From water waves requiring water
> From sound waves requiring air/solid
> From Mexican waves requiring humans
> From vibration waves requiring a string
>
> Since these waves require a medium, electromagnetic waves need a medium.

From cats giving live birth to kittens
From cows giving live birth to calves
From Mexicans giving live birth to babies
From dogs giving live birth to puppies

Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to
give live birth to their offspring.

[pora...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10:15:01 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 1:23:52 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > On 8/1/17 7:17 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > Waves need a medium.
> > >
> > > No, they do not. Waves need only a system where the relevant laws are in
> > > the form of the wave equation, period, end of story. No medium is required.
> >
> > Only if the abstract is real, which suits the frauds but not engineers.
> >
> > > Somewhere in your education, you got the misinformation that waves
> > > require a medium. Where?
> >
> > From water waves requiring water
> > From sound waves requiring air/solid
> > From Mexican waves requiring humans
> > From vibration waves requiring a string
> >
> > Since these waves require a medium, electromagnetic waves need a medium.
> > Because it is the medium which must support and pass on the disturbance.
> >
> > The presence of electromagnetic waves can be physically seen when one does

> > ============================
> did you here the rumor that
> EM waves - has mass ???
> ======
> Y.Porat
> ==================

Arindam
o hope you are not dumb !!

I TOLD YOU THAT EM WAVES HAS MASS - THE ONLY MASS
I TOLD YOU THAT

THE MAXWELL WEQUATIONS HAS MASS IN IT
IT IS HIDDEN IN ITS CONSTANTS !!
SO IT IS WRONG THAT
EM WAVES HAS NO MASS
DID YOU GET IT ??!!
2
I TOLD YOU THAT

HAD THERE NO ABSOLUTE EMPTY DPACE
NO MOTION COULD BE DON
2
EM waves has mass !!
if here was not absolute location of empty space
no motion could be done
is it complicated to understand
if so
and you go on boggling the balls about
dense Aether and loose Aether that has no mass
if no mass
what is there that is ''more dense and more loos'''

don't you realize that what you say is not science ??!
it i s Baba Yagga stories !!

even the(experimental fact ??
that you brought about
slowing velocity of EM waves in an "electric conductor

is against you and your Aether

because in free space there is no
slowing down of Em wave !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

in an electric conductor material (mass )
it is the friction(or collisions ) between em wave
and matter of conductor
that is causing some slowing of EM wave
THAT HAD MSSS AS WELL - !!
or even lengthening the way of en wave ??

moreover !!
WE KNOW THAT EM WAVE (current) IN MATTER IS CAUSING ****LOSS OF ENERY (BY HEAT !!)******

WAS IT massless AETHER IN IT THAT conductor -
-NO LOSS OF ENERGY WOULD BECOME !!!
etc etc !!
iow
creation of heat in a electric conductor
is caused
by mass against(or beside ) mass friction !!
complicated ??
yet
not babba Yaga 'stories
====================

and you keep boggling the boles
and wasting your life and others with massless
Aether

just do the dimension analysis of MAXWEL EQUATIJS
AND YOU WIL FIND the mass of em wave THER !!
not in absolute empty space
==========================================
NO MASS '' THE ONLY MASS!! = NO REAL PHYSICS !
=================================================
IE
REAL PHYSICS ----IS IN EMPTY SPCADE!! ---AND! MASS IN IT
(mass in its many kinds ? and quantities) !!!
----
ATB
Y.Porat
===============

[Arindam Banerjee]

All those who hold e is mcc are Frauds. Waves have no mass. Em waves are an aetheric disturbance. I have already talked enough about this. Now i will move on to other areas of physics. Cheers. Arindam banerjee.

[Arindam Banerjee]

A photon is a gull cycle em wave. It is caused by the stretching of the electron orbit to create a changing electric field. When it comes back to the original shape the wave is completed. Quantum theory is a patch and past its due date.

[Sylvia Else]

Quantum mechanics predicts the wave-like properties of light very well,
but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in
the mathematics.

Sylvia.

[john]

Silly

"but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in
the mathematics. "

Thd trouble is that reality is not math.
You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it

[pora...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 12:38:13 PM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> All those who hold e is mcc are Frauds. Waves have no mass. Em waves are an aetheric disturbance. I have already talked enough about this. Now i will move on to other areas of physics. Cheers. Arindam banerjee.

===========================
ok
anyway you ignored a n important issue that I showed you
indeed not vary famous
I would say
known only to experts and I wonder why
because it is very important theoretically
ie
to know that em waves HAS MASS!

indeed it is no widely known because it is hidden in the
constant of the Maxwell equations
in its constants
it need taking some 'trouble ' to make
a dimension analysis of them !!
and find the mass hidden there !
anyway
keep well
and go on by innovating
but not just quick superficial 'drawings'

hope we will go on' keeping in touch''
I somehow appreciate your non conformism ..
==
ATB
Y.Porat
====================

[Serg Io]

same kind of logic;

a man has two legs
a monkey has two legs
therefore all men are monkeys

[reber G=emc^2]

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 4:00:44 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Particles go as twins and they share a wave between.This fits well with entangelment.The furter these twin particles seperate the weaker gets the wave,but never to 0 no matter the distance between them.This theory I have posted over 25 years.It is well excepted.I was clever then and more clever at 89.I eat my MSP.Trebert

[Double-A]

Identical particles can cause interference waves, interfere with themselves, and become entangled. Dissimilar particles cannot.

Double-A

[hanson]

SwineBert "reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> the
devious <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal>

alias <http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>,
you are a sanctimonious Pig. Whatever you post belongs
into the <http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017>

in which you try to cover up that you are only a Face Shitter
& a Hatemonger, trying again to get a response from
"Arindam Banerjee" <banerjee...@gmail.com>
who is smart enough NOT to eat SwineBert's Glazierola.
>
LOL

[benj]

On 8/4/2017 7:44 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> A photon is a gull cycle em wave. It is caused by the stretching of the electron orbit to create a changing electric field. When it comes back to the original shape the wave is completed. Quantum theory is a patch and past its due date.
>

\
Utter babbling engineering drool from a primitive who knows no real
science.

[benj]

Actually, Sylvia, light is waves and the particles are in the
mathematics. And NO I'm not going to explain it to you nor to Mr. dumb
as a box of anvils, Banjo.

[benj]

Your photons go in pairs theory obviously explains the double slit
experiment. That is right on the money! You theory indeed is quite well
excepted in the scientific community! Eat your MSP.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Thd trouble is that reality is not math.
>You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it

The math shows stuff like structure (if any) and so forth.
That's part of its job.

For example, y = ±sqrt(1-x²) describes a circle as well as a drawing of a
circle, and is more accurate since you know it's a circle mathematically,
not any sort of "almost circle".

[benj]

You miss the point. The mathematical circle is a fantasy. It simply does
not exist. y = ±sqrt(1-x²) doesn't "describe" a mathematical circle, it
DEFINES it! When you see that equation there are no drawings, no
objects, no lines in space. There is only tinkerbell fantasy in
someone's mind. And you KNOW it's a circle, not because when you loo at
it it's round or or equidistant from a point or whatever. There is
NOTHING to look at! You KNOW it's a circle because in math the word
circle is defined by the equation and all it represents.

Nothing real can ever be a circle because it's never going to b e
perfect and hence perfectly represent that equation which is a
definition. Hence the word "circle" means something different for real
circular objects than it does for mathematical one. OK?

[MaryK]

for his stories he gets free drinks at bars.......

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+10, Serg Io wrote:
> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >> From water waves requiring water
> >> From sound waves requiring air/solid
> >> From Mexican waves requiring humans
> >> From vibration waves requiring a string
> >>
> >> Since these waves require a medium, electromagnetic waves need a medium.
> >
> > From cats giving live birth to kittens
> > From cows giving live birth to calves
> > From Mexicans giving live birth to babies
> > From dogs giving live birth to puppies
> >
> > Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to
> > give live birth to their offspring.

Like sharks!

A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress.

Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate.

I don't see how this is a more strange concept than alternate universes,
neutrinos, quarks, continuously distorted space-time, invariance of c, etc.

How is the notion of the entire infinite universe getting filled with
infinitely small particles of solid matter more difficult to grasp, I cannot
understand.

Electrons and protons (which make up matter) go through the aether as thin
steel mesh through sticky sand.

Well, we will investigate this a bit further, in due course. How forces and
velocities make up the structure of the universe and that there is only one
force and that is electro-magnetic.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

> >
>
>
>
>
> same kind of logic;
>
> a man has two legs
> a monkey has two legs
> therefore all men are monkeys

Or descended from a common ancestor if we believe in evolution.
But that is not my point.

A wave is a disturbance.
Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation.

I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive.

Deductive logic:
1. It rained
2. The streets are wet

Inductive logic:
1. The streets are wet
2. It rained

So once we agree that light is a wave
We have to agree that light must have medium for propagation.
No sliming out!

The Eisnteinians (not all are as stupid as benj) know this, so they insist
that light is a particle at times, and a wave at another times; this
schizophrenic nature of light was hypothesised by one de Broglie.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[MaryK]

an EM wave needs no medium, it is just equations, E field and H field

>
> I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive.
>
> Deductive logic:
> 1. It rained
> 2. The streets are wet
>
> Inductive logic:
> 1. The streets are wet
> 2. It rained
>
> So once we agree that light is a wave
> We have to agree that light must have medium for propagation.
> No sliming out!
>
> The Eisnteinians (not all are as stupid as benj) know this,

is that like a club they join? get a newsletter ?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 9:44:09 PM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> A photon is a gull cycle em wave. It is caused by the stretching of the electron orbit to create a changing electric field. When it comes back to the original shape the wave is completed. Quantum theory is a patch and past its due date.

Oops, I had meant to write "a photon is FULL cycle electromagnetic wave".
I had been parted from my computer at the hotel I spent last night. My skills
with texting on my tablet are not great.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 12:55:55 AM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 12:38:13 PM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > All those who hold e is mcc are Frauds. Waves have no mass. Em waves are an aetheric disturbance. I have already talked enough about this. Now i will move on to other areas of physics. Cheers. Arindam banerjee.
>
> ===========================
> ok
> anyway you ignored a n important issue that I showed you
> indeed not vary famous
> I would say
> known only to experts and I wonder why
> because it is very important theoretically
> ie
> to know that em waves HAS MASS!

A disturbance does not have mass. It has other properties. It impacts on mass.
When the disturbance is periodic and repetitive we call it a travelling wave.
When the disturbance is one-time but progresses down some medium it travels
as a wave.
When the disturbance that is travelling wave gets reflected back and gets
added to the forward wave we get a standing wave. Now this is too advanced a
concept for non-microwave guys.

If we allow that electromagnetic radiation is a wave (like gamma rays) and
not particles (like alpha and beta rays) then we have to note that it is a
disturbance.

So it cannot have mass.
But it will impact upon mass.

>
> indeed it is no widely known because it is hidden in the
> constant of the Maxwell equations
> in its constants
> it need taking some 'trouble ' to make
> a dimension analysis of them !!
> and find the mass hidden there !

The force between the charges relate to mass in a dimensional way. That does
not mean the waves have mass. It shows that waves contain energies manifesting
as forces which will impact upon mass. And they certainly do impact upon the
electrons around the atom. They move them around, and in this movement the
wave energy is diminished and the atom energy goes up. Just as when we get
sunshine we block the rays and get warm.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

Those equations deal with the reality of the electric and magnetic fields.
Electric and magnetic field exist.
To pretend they do not is dishonesty.
That we can neglect aether as the medium of propagating radiation does not
mean that it does not exist.
I do hope the world gets out of the stupid-ostrich benj state soon.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Sylvia Else]

The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math
says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you
cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference)
to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real
waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open
question until other relevant evidence is found.

In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that
the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates
question of what the medium might be.

Sylvia.

[pora...@gmail.com]

===========================
that was not my point !!
my point was
your remark /prove that
em waves while moving in a electric conductor
are slower than (velocity of light c
in comparison of that movement in free space
----
if they move slower in a conductor

PLUS CREATION OF HEAT ...
while keeping in minds your assertion that in the conductor there is
Aethr ''(that is massless'' )
(and is not interacting with anything ''')
so
why move slower c '' in a mass conductor ??

WHLE IN 'EMPTY SPACE ''that is ''full of Aether'''' --

--THERE IS** NO**!!!! slower MOVEMENT of c !!
====
Y.Porat
========================

[pora...@gmail.com]

================================================
and another point :
I showed you that(analyzing properly the
Maxwell equation
that em waves
HAS MASS!!!! THE ONLY MASS !


Em waves including photons
has mass the only mass !!
so
even according to the Newton first law of movement
light and em waves will always move in a constant velocity
forever !!(because it has mass !!!)
unless disturbed by something (that should have mass )
IF SO
WE DONT NEED AETHER TO DO IT

OR TO DO ANYTINHG ELSE !!!!!!!
and if we dont need it
why deal with it so much ??
and waist our precious time on it ??
--
Y.Porat
==========================


s

[john]

Ari

"Those equations deal with the reality of the electric and magnetic fields.
Electric and magnetic field exist.
To pretend they do not is dishonesty.
That we can neglect aether as the medium of propagating radiation does not
mean that it does not exist.
I do hope the world gets out of the stupid-ostrich benj "

Some people think a "field" is something that exists
without anything else there, on its own.
Made of mathematical points, I guess.
Like MaryK, apparently.

[pora...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:53:11 AM UTC+3, john wrote:
> Ari
> "Those equations deal with the reality of the electric and magnetic fields.
> Electric and magnetic field exist.
> To pretend they do not is dishonesty.

======
ok !!??
===

> That we can neglect aether as the medium of propagating radiation does not
> mean that it does not exist.

------------------------------
why not withes on brooms ??
=====

> I do hope the world gets out of the stupid-ostrich benj "
>
> Some people think a "field" is something that exists
> without anything else there, on its own.

===========
why not ??!!
==

> Made of mathematical points, I guess.

======
that is your own stupid guess !!
=====
> Like MaryK, apparently.
=======
I don't know who is he
and don't need to know who is he
===
I explained that
listen carefully
did you know that
======
=EM WAVWS HASMASS THE ONLY MASS ?!

is so
according to Newts first law of motion
the move(MOVE !!) in a straight line
SO THEY***** MOVE**!!! IN A STRIGHT LINE
UNTILL DISTURBED BY ANOTHR MASS

and don't need your f en Aether !!
2
please don't forget who told you that the first time !!
=====================
old copyright
Y.Porat
====================================

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 6:13:54 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:53:11 AM UTC+3, john wrote:
> > Ari
> > "Those equations deal with the reality of the electric and magnetic fields.
> > Electric and magnetic field exist.
> > To pretend they do not is dishonesty.
> ======
> ok !!??
> ===
> > That we can neglect aether as the medium of propagating radiation does not
> > mean that it does not exist.
> ------------------------------
> why not withes on brooms ??

it is not scientific

> =====
> > I do hope the world gets out of the stupid-ostrich benj "
> >
> > Some people think a "field" is something that exists
> > without anything else there, on its own.
> ===========
> why not ??!!
> ==
> > Made of mathematical points, I guess.
> ======
> that is your own stupid guess !!
> =====
> > Like MaryK, apparently.
> =======
> I don't know who is he
> and don't need to know who is he
> ===
> I explained that
> listen carefully
> did you know that
> ======
> =EM WAVWS HASMASS THE ONLY MASS ?!

You are
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
Write a hundred times that you idea that waves have mass is
WRONG

>
> is so
> according to Newts first law of motion
> the move(MOVE !!) in a straight line
> SO THEY***** MOVE**!!! IN A STRIGHT LINE
> UNTILL DISTURBED BY ANOTHR MASS

Don't try to fool around with the definition of inertia.
It is not mass but force that disturbs inertia.
Read the most elementary text on physics first.

Or else you will look like the fool AP who thinks my formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
is dimensionally inaccurate! What a fool. Don't be such a fool, Porat. Read
the basic physics texts instead of screwing them up.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Virtual reality has much to answer for; it has made even so-called scientific
people confuse some abstraction with reality.

Abstractions like simulation and modelling are there for explanation and
optimisation.

They do not replace reality, not in the practical world of the engineer at
any rate.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory.
Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century.
No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum
theory, etc.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

The facts are that
In a coaxial conductor with air dielectric
the electromagnetic wave propagation is as the speed of light
but
In a coaxial cable with a plastic dialectric
the electromagnetic wave propagation has a speed LOWER than the speed of light.


LIght travels SLOWER in denser medium.
Because it moves slower it explains the
phenomenon of
REFRACTION
which also shows the wave nature of light.

Light bends thus due to change in the refractive index.
And this accounts for the shifting of the stars' position due to a total
eclipse.
The Sun's atmosphere was acting like a lens which bent the light from the stars.
And so the position of the stars were displaced.

This was a simple optical effect.
However it was used to "prove" the General Theory of Relativity.
It was used to show that Sun's gravity bent the rays of light from the stars.
But to repeat, it was the Sun's atmosphere that bent the light.
Just as bending of light is used in every optical lens.

What a trick!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Sylvia Else]

On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote:
>>> Silly
>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in
>>> the mathematics. "
>>>
>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math.
>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it
>>>
>>
>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math
>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you
>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference)
>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real
>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open
>> question until other relevant evidence is found.
>>
>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that
>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates
>> question of what the medium might be.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory.

Then explain it.

In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold
frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of
photons regardless of how weak the incident light.

> Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century.
> No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum
> theory, etc.

The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like
behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves.

Sylvia.

[pora...@gmail.com]

again
in free space does not slow
becaue
em has mass
and according to Newton s first law of movement
light (having mass )or any mass !!
MOVWES EDLESSLY WITH c **according Newton*
BEAUSE A MASS IS MOVING ELDESLY
at c because of inertia EVEN IN FULL VACUM
and not because it needs a medium AS AETHE
or anything else !!
BUT IT DOES IT*** WITHUT AETHER*
AS I EXPLAINED ABOVE

so what are you bubbling around the bush ???!!

is it that I am a bad explainer
or because you blocked you mind on yourself ?
and want to obfuscate the issue ??
--
Y.Porat
================================

[pora...@gmail.com]

=======================
Sylvia
lets make it shorter

is there Aether
or not ?
or
can we live n physics or practice
without Aether or not
TIA
Y.Porat
==========================

[Sylvia Else]

I'd say not. Physics works perfectly well without it, and if it existed,
it would have to have some very odd properties indeed (even by the bar
set by quantum mechanics).

Sylvia.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:13:20 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote:
> >>> Silly
> >>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in
> >>> the mathematics. "
> >>>
> >>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math.
> >>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it
> >>>
> >>
> >> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math
> >> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you
> >> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference)
> >> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real
> >> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open
> >> question until other relevant evidence is found.
> >>
> >> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that
> >> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates
> >> question of what the medium might be.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory.
>
> Then explain it.
>
> In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold
> frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of
> photons regardless of how weak the incident light.

Very simple.
To begin with, when we take classical theory we have to consider wave motion
of the light.
And wave motion in aether.
So the photon is explained as the emission of an electromagnetic pulse.
This happens when a dipole is formed temporarily.
A dipole is formed temporarily when an atom is subjected to external stimuli.
The atom gets hit.
As a result, its electronic structure gets flattened.
There are more electrons on one side, and less on the other side where the
nucleus is.
Thus there are two poles - one negative and one positive.
In the formation of this dipole a half-pulse is emitted.
When the dipole collapses, to its original shape, the other half-pulse is emitted.
The frequency of the wave will correspond to the linear dimension of the separation as per antenna theory.

Now as for the photoelectric effect.
It means that over a certain frequency there is electron emission.
From the classical point of view this means that at a certain level of
aetheric vibration in spatial terms (relating to the wavelength) the electron
will be so disturbed from its attachment to the atom, that it will escape the
atom.
If the frequency is too low, then the aetheric vibration in terms of distance
will be too low, no matter how much the amplitude, and the electron will
stay attached to the atom.
When the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration in terms of
wavelength will relate to the dipole dimensions. It will thus shake the
electron out of its orbit.
Which will create the photoelectric effect.

In short when the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration will distort
the electronic structure in the atom such that electron escape will be
possible.

When the frequency is low, such a distortion will not be possible and so there
will be no photoelectric effect.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[MaryK]

On 8/5/2017 6:28 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote:
>>> Silly
>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in
>>> the mathematics. "
>>>
>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math.
>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it
>>>
>>
>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math
>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you
>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference)
>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real
>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open
>> question until other relevant evidence is found.
>>
>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that
>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates
>> question of what the medium might be.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory.

wrong! you get an F ! the two have nothing in common!

> Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century.

wrong again!

> No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum
> theory, etc.

generalized misleading statement that is wrong!


> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>

3 strikes, you are out.

[MaryK]

you use so many undefined unrelated general terms, no math, wandering
down the path and end up in Palookaville.

my dog had 'aetheric vibration' so we had him stuffed.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/4/17 10:17 AM, Serg Io wrote:
> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> From water waves requiring water
>>> From sound waves requiring air/solid
>>> From Mexican waves requiring humans
>>> From vibration waves requiring a string
>>>
>>> Since these waves require a medium, electromagnetic waves need a medium.
>>
>> From cats giving live birth to kittens
>> From cows giving live birth to calves
>> From Mexicans giving live birth to babies
>> From dogs giving live birth to puppies
>>
>> Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to
>> give live birth to their offspring.
>>
>
>
>
>

> same kind of logic;
>
> a man has two legs
> a monkey has two legs
> therefore all men are monkeys

What you see exhibited here is a shallowness of thinking. Sure, there is
a correlation between the presence of a water wave and of the water.
Sure there is a correlation between sound and the presence of air.
However, the correlation does not provide the explanation.

It helps to ask questions like:
- What is it about the medium that a disturbance propagates instead of
just sit there and oscillate?
- Why is it that the initial displacement in the original location is
followed by a displacement in the other direction?
- Why do the waves tend to follow a sinusoidal shape in the simplest cases?

When you actually try to answer these with some depth, you find that the
behavior of a wave in a medium is determined by using Newton's laws of
motion in that medium, and there is a common trait that the acceleration
of a bit of the medium is proportional to the displacement, and
furthermore, the time derivative of the displacement is proportional to
the spatial derivative of the displacement. The latter is what couples
the spatial and time derivatives that are so critical to wave behavior.
In other words, it isn't JUST the presence of the medium that is
critical, it is the relationship between the time and spatial
derivatives of the displacement that is critical. Without that
mathematical relationship, the presence of the medium would mean nothing.

What's even more astounding is that once you know that the wave behavior
comes from Newton's law and the relationship between the derivatives,
then this behavior will emerge EVEN WITHOUT a medium to support it. It's
not hard to find cases where the relationship between the derivatives is
present with no medium to point to.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/4/17 9:34 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+10, Serg Io wrote:
>> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> From water waves requiring water
>>>> From sound waves requiring air/solid
>>>> From Mexican waves requiring humans
>>>> From vibration waves requiring a string
>>>>
>>>> Since these waves require a medium, electromagnetic waves need a medium.
>>>
>>> From cats giving live birth to kittens
>>> From cows giving live birth to calves
>>> From Mexicans giving live birth to babies
>>> From dogs giving live birth to puppies
>>>
>>> Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to
>>> give live birth to their offspring.
>
> Like sharks!
>
> A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress.
>
> Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate.

Again, what is it about the medium SPECIFICALLY that results in
propagation? Do you know the answer to this question? Physicists do.

[Odd Bodkin]

Yes, they exist. They are not an aether, notice.

> To pretend they do not is dishonesty.
> That we can neglect aether as the medium of propagating radiation does not
> mean that it does not exist.

Your supposed aether may exist, but since it is not necessary for the
propagation of disturbances in electric and magnetic fields (both of
which are real), then what purpose does this aether serve?

> I do hope the world gets out of the stupid-ostrich benj state soon.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
>>>
>>> I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive.
>>>
>>> Deductive logic:
>>> 1. It rained
>>> 2. The streets are wet
>>>
>>> Inductive logic:
>>> 1. The streets are wet
>>> 2. It rained
>>>
>>> So once we agree that light is a wave
>>> We have to agree that light must have medium for propagation.
>>> No sliming out!
>>>
>>> The Eisnteinians (not all are as stupid as benj) know this,
>>
>> is that like a club they join? get a newsletter ?
>>
>>
>>> so they insist
>>> that light is a particle at times, and a wave at another times; this
>>> schizophrenic nature of light was hypothesised by one de Broglie.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>>
>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/5/17 2:53 AM, john wrote:
> Ari
> "Those equations deal with the reality of the electric and magnetic fields.
> Electric and magnetic field exist.
> To pretend they do not is dishonesty.
> That we can neglect aether as the medium of propagating radiation does not
> mean that it does not exist.
> I do hope the world gets out of the stupid-ostrich benj "
>
> Some people think a "field" is something that exists
> without anything else there, on its own.

Yup. Quite a bit of evidence for that, actually.

> Made of mathematical points, I guess.

Nope. Fields exist.

> Like MaryK, apparently.

[Odd Bodkin]

Prove this, Arindam. Show that a vibration of too low a frequency will
not be able to dislodge an electron from an atom. In particular show
that this result is INDEPENDENT of the amplitude.

Classical wave theory and classical antenna theory predict the OPPOSITE,
that sufficiently high amplitude would be able to dislodge electrons,
regardless of frequency. You claim otherwise. Prove it.

> If the frequency is too low, then the aetheric vibration in terms of distance
> will be too low, no matter how much the amplitude, and the electron will
> stay attached to the atom.
> When the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration in terms of
> wavelength will relate to the dipole dimensions. It will thus shake the
> electron out of its orbit.
> Which will create the photoelectric effect.
>
> In short when the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration will distort
> the electronic structure in the atom such that electron escape will be
> possible.
>
> When the frequency is low, such a distortion will not be possible and so there
> will be no photoelectric effect.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
>
>>
>>> Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century.
>>> No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum
>>> theory, etc.
>>
>> The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like
>> behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>

[reber G=emc^2]

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 4:00:44 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 1:23:52 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 8/1/17 7:17 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > Waves need a medium.
> >
> > No, they do not. Waves need only a system where the relevant laws are in
> > the form of the wave equation, period, end of story. No medium is required.
>
> Only if the abstract is real, which suits the frauds but not engineers.
>
> > Somewhere in your education, you got the misinformation that waves
> > require a medium. Where?

>
> From water waves requiring water
> From sound waves requiring air/solid
> From Mexican waves requiring humans
> From vibration waves requiring a string
>
> Since these waves require a medium, electromagnetic waves need a medium.

> Because it is the medium which must support and pass on the disturbance.
>
> The presence of electromagnetic waves can be physically seen when one does
> VSWR measurements using a slotted coaxial line, and microwave generator and a
> VSWR meter.
>
> While testing antenna and other microwave equipment from 1977 to 1987 I used
> the above apparatus.
>
> Evidently waves exist and as waves cannot exist without a medium there has to
> be a medium and that medium we call aether.
>
> It is quite another thing to neglect the medium for practical purposes.
> But to say that a wave exists but there is no medium to propagate it, is
> preposterous.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

Identical twins.Born in pairs and never lose contact with each other.They share the quantum realm.Two electrons last from the beginning of time till the end of time.That is the infinity of their history.Trebert

[reber G=emc^2]

> Particles go as twins and they share a wave between.This fits well with entangelment.The furter these twin particles seperate the weaker gets the wave,but never to 0 no matter the distance between them.This theory I have posted over 25 years.It is well excepted.I was clever then and more clever at 89.I eat my MSP.Trebert

Neutrinos go as twins.They are the smallest particle and share the tiniest wave.This has been proven in the lab.It is said they can go through LYs of lead without hitting anything WOW.Fer

[reber G=emc^2]

> Identical particles can cause interference waves, interfere with themselves, and become entangled. Dissimilar particles cannot.
>
> Double-A

[reber G=emc^2]

On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 3:16:45 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:

> Your photons go in pairs theory obviously explains the double slit
> experiment. That is right on the money! You theory indeed is quite well
> excepted in the scientific community! Eat your MSP.

MSP keeps me thinking.Stuff I thought about when only 8 and looking at my gyro spin I am postion now

[john]

Odd

"critical, it is the relationship between the time and spatial
derivatives of the displacement that is critical. Without that
mathematical relationship, the presence of the medium would mean nothing. "

Time.
You discovered that Time is involved.
Awesome

[Odd Bodkin]

I didn't discover it. It's been known for 3 centuries.
Also, a bit more nailed down than "time is involved".

[john]

Odd

"
I didn't discover it. It's been known for 3 centuries.
Also, a bit more nailed down than "time is involved".
"

Good job.
Math is still not reality.
Zero volume is still impossible.
Zero size is still impossible (or 'infinitely small').
Structure is still required for objects.
As you were.

[Odd Bodkin]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "
> I didn't discover it. It's been known for 3 centuries.
> Also, a bit more nailed down than "time is involved".
> "
>
> Good job.
> Math is still not reality.
> Zero volume is still impossible.
> Zero size is still impossible (or 'infinitely small').

Prove that.

> Structure is still required for objects.

Prove that.

> As you were.

[john]

Odd

"e that.

> Structure is still required for objects.

Prove that. "

This guy wants me to prove that
his imaginary friend is not real.
:)
He's real if you believe he is, Odd.
Remember to take your pills.

[hanson]

"reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
"I was never more clever at 89 and still I bleat because of
my "My Stupid Palaver" (MSP) even without shitting
anything WOW".Trebert

[hanson]

[hanson]

reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip ididotc Glazier-Gutter physics & Glazierola>
and read what Arindam Banerjee said to you, Bert.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Math is still not reality.

But math in physics describes reality.

>Zero volume is still impossible.

Why do you claim this?

>Zero size is still impossible (or 'infinitely small').

Why do you claim this?

>Structure is still required for objects.

Why do you claim this?

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"e that.

>> Structure is still required for objects.

> Prove that. "

>This guy wants me to prove that
>his imaginary friend is not real.
>:)
>He's real if you believe he is, Odd.

Completely different. You cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove that
dragons don't exist, nor can I prove that your imaginary friend doesn't
exist. Proving that structure is necessary isn't proving a negative, so
you can (and should) do it, if true.

[hanson]

You, ___ Glazier, the Turd-man of Anaheim___, alias
Glazier, <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal>
said on 03Aug2017 to "benj" <nob...@gmail.com>: "benj,
you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears"
>
So, Glazier you utterly filthy Face Shitter why did you say
that to Benj "... when you know that time has come for you to
accept <http://tinyurl.com/Herbert-Glazier-s-Reprieve>, as
you wait for <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker>
who has a gruesome end in store for Glazier. "It's a pity

[john]

MM

"exist. Proving that structure is necessary isn't proving a negative, so
you can (and should) do it, if true. "

If everything we've seen is structured, then it would seem that it is the no-structure case that needs proving.
And your only proof is.....

[Michael Moroney]

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> writes:

>On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+10, Serg Io wrote:
>> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>> >> From water waves requiring water
>> >> From sound waves requiring air/solid
>> >> From Mexican waves requiring humans
>> >> From vibration waves requiring a string
>> >>
>> >> Since these waves require a medium, electromagnetic waves need a medium.
>> >

>> > From cats giving live birth to kittens
>> > From cows giving live birth to calves
>> > From Mexicans giving live birth to babies
>> > From dogs giving live birth to puppies
>> >
>> > Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to
>> > give live birth to their offspring.

>Like sharks!

I knew you would either ignore the comparison or not get it and blow it
off. Thanks for proving me right!

>A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress.

Does not follow.

Besides, things like photons, electrons etc. have both wavelike and
particlelike properties. Not needing a medium is simply a particlelike
property they have.

>Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate.

Like a bullet needs something there to fly through? A bullet won't
propagate in a vacuum?

>How is the notion of the entire infinite universe getting filled with
>infinitely small particles of solid matter more difficult to grasp, I cannot
>understand.

With current theory, there simply isn't any need for any such thing.
No need for it, no way to detect it, so it gets discarded as useless.

Besides, if it was a solid, it would move as a unit. So we can detect its
velocity relative to us. I hear there were a couple of guys named
Michelson and Morley who had an answer to that.

>A wave is a disturbance.
>Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation.

Things like electrons and photons act only somewhat like waves.

>I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive.

No, you are regurgitating old 19th century thinking. You're like John
Sefton, thinking that if it doesn't go along with how he thinks, it must
be wrong. Not that John's thinking is wrong, he can't be wrong, so the
whole universe must be wrong.

[john]

MM
" Not that John's thinking is wrong, he can't be wrong, .."
Now ur starting to get it, Michael

[Mahipal]

That's so brilliantly funny, MichaelJi! Wish I'd written that! Wrong Universe?!

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes... Enjo(y)!”
Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace.

[john]

Waves do need a medium.
That is what is waving.
However, there are also High Energy Particles
that travel up to .9c, as well, that are referred to as Cosmic Waves, or Cosmic Rays. These are shot out from Black Holes as jets when Matter falls in.

[MaryK]

all valid questions.

[benj]

On 8/4/2017 10:14 PM, MaryK wrote:
> On 8/4/2017 5:08 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 8/4/2017 7:44 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> A photon is a gull cycle em wave. It is caused by the stretching of
>>> the electron orbit to create a changing electric field. When it comes
>>> back to the original shape the wave is completed. Quantum theory is a
>>> patch and past its due date.
>>>
>> \
>> Utter babbling engineering drool from a primitive who knows no real
>> science.
>
> for his stories he gets free drinks at bars.......

My guess would be he gets a free ride on a bouncer out the door.

[benj]

On 8/4/2017 10:44 PM, MaryK wrote:
> On 8/4/2017 9:34 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+10, Serg Io wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> From water waves requiring water
>>>>> From sound waves requiring air/solid
>>>>> From Mexican waves requiring humans
>>>>> From vibration waves requiring a string
>>>>>
>>>>> Since these waves require a medium, electromagnetic waves need a
>>>>> medium.
>>>>
>>>> From cats giving live birth to kittens
>>>> From cows giving live birth to calves
>>>> From Mexicans giving live birth to babies
>>>> From dogs giving live birth to puppies
>>>>
>>>> Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to
>>>> give live birth to their offspring.
>>
>> Like sharks!
>>

>> A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress.
>>

>> Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate.
>>

>> I don't see how this is a more strange concept than alternate universes,
>> neutrinos, quarks, continuously distorted space-time, invariance of c,
>> etc.
>>

>> How is the notion of the entire infinite universe getting filled with
>> infinitely small particles of solid matter more difficult to grasp, I
>> cannot
>> understand.
>>

>> Electrons and protons (which make up matter) go through the aether as
>> thin
>> steel mesh through sticky sand.
>>
>> Well, we will investigate this a bit further, in due course. How
>> forces and
>> velocities make up the structure of the universe and that there is
>> only one
>> force and that is electro-magnetic.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Arindam Banerjee
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> same kind of logic;
>>>
>>> a man has two legs
>>> a monkey has two legs
>>> therefore all men are monkeys
>>
>> Or descended from a common ancestor if we believe in evolution.
>> But that is not my point.
>>

>> A wave is a disturbance.
>> Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation.
>

> an EM wave needs no medium, it is just equations, E field and H field

So light is nothing but a fantasy. Got it. You been staying overnight
with Odd? Better get back to selling cosmetics.

>> I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive.
>>

>> Deductive logic:
>> 1. It rained
>> 2. The streets are wet
>>
>> Inductive logic:
>> 1. The streets are wet
>> 2. It rained
>>
>> So once we agree that light is a wave
>> We have to agree that light must have medium for propagation.
>> No sliming out!
>>
>> The Eisnteinians (not all are as stupid as benj) know this,
>
> is that like a club they join? get a newsletter ?

Secret organization. You know like all Lib media belong to secret
Marxistians.

[benj]

On 8/4/2017 10:46 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 9:44:09 PM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> A photon is a gull cycle em wave. It is caused by the stretching of the electron orbit to create a changing electric field. When it comes back to the original shape the wave is completed. Quantum theory is a patch and past its due date.
>

> Oops, I had meant to write "a photon is FULL cycle electromagnetic wave".
> I had been parted from my computer at the hotel I spent last night. My skills
> with texting on my tablet are not great.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
Your skills at doing
ANYTHING are obviously
not great!

[benj]

On 8/5/2017 12:35 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote:
>> Silly
>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in
>> the mathematics. "
>>
>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math.
>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it
>>
>
> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math
> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you
> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference)
> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real
> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open
> question until other relevant evidence is found.
>
> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that
> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates
> question of what the medium might be.
>
> Sylvia.
>
>

You place your finger directly on the problem but you have no solution
to it, so you simply regress into fantasy. Fine for your mental health I
suppose but does little to provide enlightenment as to the mechanisms of
light (and the rest of EM)

But the photoelectric effect does not obviate real waves. Feynman showed
that already. That is a given. Oh ya.

[john]

MaryK
"all valid questions. "
I claim this because no such things have ever been demonstrated.
Everything large enough for us to comprehensively examine has volume, has size, has structure. The only things in question are those too small to tell, as of yet. Attophysics will change this.

People didn't believe there were bacteria, either, because they weren't visible. Stuck in the mud. Are you stuck in the mud, MaryK?

[benj]

On 8/5/2017 3:53 AM, john wrote:
> Ari
> "Those equations deal with the reality of the electric and magnetic fields.
> Electric and magnetic field exist.
> To pretend they do not is dishonesty.
> That we can neglect aether as the medium of propagating radiation does not
> mean that it does not exist.
> I do hope the world gets out of the stupid-ostrich benj "
>
> Some people think a "field" is something that exists
> without anything else there, on its own.
> Made of mathematical points, I guess.
> Like MaryK, apparently.
>
Made of fantasy like Tinkerbell. We all know how real she is.

[benj]

On 8/5/2017 8:13 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote:
>>>> Silly
>>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in
>>>> the mathematics. "
>>>>
>>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math.
>>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it
>>>>
>>>
>>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math
>>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you
>>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference)
>>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real
>>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open
>>> question until other relevant evidence is found.
>>>
>>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that
>>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates
>>> question of what the medium might be.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>

>> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory.
>
> Then explain it.

Watching Banjo try to explain this will be rich! Of course the theory
needed to explain it all is not antenna theory but Phlogiston theory!
But I already have said to much as I promised NOT to give you any hints
on this question.

> In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold
> frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of
> photons regardless of how weak the incident light.

Yes indeed!

>> Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th
>> century.
>> No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity,
>> quantum
>> theory, etc.
>
> The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like
> behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves.

Or turn it around how can real waves act like particles? Ask Feynman.

[benj]

On 8/5/2017 10:02 AM, MaryK wrote:
> On 8/5/2017 8:26 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:13:20 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> how weak the incident light.
>>

>> Very simple.
>> To begin with, when we take classical theory we have to consider wave
>> motion
>> of the light.
>> And wave motion in aether.
>> So the photon is explained as the emission of an electromagnetic pulse.
>> This happens when a dipole is formed temporarily.
>> A dipole is formed temporarily when an atom is subjected to external
>> stimuli.
>> The atom gets hit.
>> As a result, its electronic structure gets flattened.
>> There are more electrons on one side, and less on the other side where
>> the
>> nucleus is.
>> Thus there are two poles - one negative and one positive.
>> In the formation of this dipole a half-pulse is emitted.
>> When the dipole collapses, to its original shape, the other half-pulse
>> is emitted.
>> The frequency of the wave will correspond to the linear dimension of
>> the separation as per antenna theory.
>
>> Now as for the photoelectric effect.
>> It means that over a certain frequency there is electron emission.
>> From the classical point of view this means that at a certain level of
>> aetheric vibration in spatial terms (relating to the wavelength) the
>> electron
>> will be so disturbed from its attachment to the atom, that it will
>> escape the
>> atom.
>> If the frequency is too low, then the aetheric vibration in terms of
>> distance
>> will be too low, no matter how much the amplitude, and the electron will
>> stay attached to the atom.
>> When the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration in terms of
>> wavelength will relate to the dipole dimensions. It will thus shake the
>> electron out of its orbit.
>> Which will create the photoelectric effect.
>>
>> In short when the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration
>> will distort
>> the electronic structure in the atom such that electron escape will be
>> possible.
>>
>> When the frequency is low, such a distortion will not be possible and
>> so there
>> will be no photoelectric effect.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Arindam Banerjee
>
>
> you use so many undefined unrelated general terms, no math, wandering
> down the path and end up in Palookaville.
>
> my dog had 'aetheric vibration' so we had him stuffed.
>
Babbling nonsense! Correct statement is my dog has "Radionic Vibration"
so we had him stuff after he died. Best not to stuff live dogs
possessing dangerous vibrations.

[benj]

So exactly at what scale does structure disappear? Mary's idea is that
if something is too small to see then you can make up whatever fantasy
you wish about it and it will remain correct until someone can prove you
wrong. Good enough for her. Logic and reason do not enter in to it.

[MaryK]

true, no volume and no size is possable, you cant see it, but you could
hold it, lots of it. But dont drop it, you will never find it. whatever
it is. IF you have something in a volume and remove it, then that
volume is not taken up anymore, it is zero.

must have 0, like when the arabs had a numbering system without 0, then
ended up having to add 0 to it. we do need nothing.


structure and objects

an object is something someone can see. what kind of 'structure' does
mud have ? or Air ?

anyhow, seems we are discussing context of word usage

[Odd Bodkin]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "e that.
>
>> Structure is still required for objects.
>
> Prove that. "
>
> This guy wants me to prove that
> his imaginary friend is not real.

You made a statement that is your own, not mine.
Your statement is that zero size is IMPOSSIBLE. Prove it.
Your statement is that structure is REQUIRED for objects. Prove it.

> :)
> He's real if you believe he is, Odd.
> Remember to take your pills.
>

[Odd Bodkin]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Waves do need a medium.

Nope

> That is what is waving.

Not in the case of fields. Not unless you want to call the fields the
medium.

> However, there are also High Energy Particles
> that travel up to .9c, as well, that are referred to as Cosmic Waves, or
> Cosmic Rays. These are shot out from Black Holes as jets when Matter falls in.
>

[Odd Bodkin]

You know it's interesting but a while back you stepped away from the
"everything is just like our previous experience" argument, saying it
didn't hold water. Especially since you're the one proposing flat atoms
that have never been seen before. Instead, you said that "everything has
structure" comes from pure logic, though when pressed you couldn't form
that argument either.

[pora...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 4:23:08 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 5/08/2017 11:01 PM, pora...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 3:13:20 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote:
> >>>>> Silly
> >>>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in
> >>>>> the mathematics. "
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math.
> >>>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math
> >>>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you
> >>>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference)
> >>>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real
> >>>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open
> >>>> question until other relevant evidence is found.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that
> >>>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates
> >>>> question of what the medium might be.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory.
> >>
> >> Then explain it.
> >>

> >> In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold
> >> frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of

> >> photons regardless of how weak the incident light.

> >>
> >>> Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century.
> >>> No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum
> >>> theory, etc.
> >>
> >> The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like
> >> behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves.
> >>

> >> Sylvia.
> > =======================
> > Sylvia
> > lets make it shorter
> >
> > is there Aether
> > or not ?
> > or
> > can we live n physics or practice
> > without Aether or not
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ==========================
> >
> I'd say not. Physics works perfectly well without it, and if it existed,
> it would have to have some very odd properties indeed (even by the bar
> set by quantum mechanics).
>
> Sylvia.
==================================
THANK YOU SYLVIA !!
NO MORE QUESTIONS

so please tell it tour fellow Arindam
we have no spare time time
to deal with nonsense
iow
we have much more important useful issues to deal with
to advance our life
and our science !!!

Thanks
Y.Porat
====================================

[pora...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 7:41:39 PM UTC+3, Odd mathematical relationship, the presence of the medium would mean nothing.
>
> What's even more astounding is that once you know that the wave behavior
> comes from Newton's law and the relationship between the derivatives,
> then this behavior will emerge EVEN WITHOUT a medium to support it. It's
> not hard to find cases where the relationship between the derivatives is
> present with no medium to point to.

>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

========================
thank you BODKIN !!however why do you speak too long to make a point ?
you are not before students in a class to fill our obligations to
'fill an hour of teaching ''
we have to invest in more useful issues !!
anyway
thank again
Y.Porat
=======================

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"exist. Proving that structure is necessary isn't proving a negative, so
>you can (and should) do it, if true. "
>If everything we've seen is structured,

But we've seen (or rather observed) electrons, neutrinos etc. So your "if"
is false. However,....

>If everything we've seen is structured, then it would seem that it is
>the no-structure case that needs proving.

The Appeal to Probability and the Onus Probandi fallacies here.

That's not how logic works. *PROVE* matter needs to be structured, don't
simply repeat that the macroscopic matter you've seen is structured.
Remember, we're not discussing the macroscopic world here, things are
different when h becomes significant.

Anyway, it's your claim. The burden of proof is on the person who makes
the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim.
(a.k.a. the Onus Probandi fallacy here. Also known as "Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence")

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>MaryK
>"all valid questions. "
>I claim this because no such things have ever been demonstrated.

The Appeal to Probability fallacy again.

>Everything large enough for us to comprehensively examine has volume,
>has size, has structure.

Well duh! Everything big enough is too big to have a zero size! What an
amazing piece of logic that is!! We're not discussing big things here, but
small things.

> The only things in question are those too small
>to tell, as of yet.

We've already been told a lot.

> Attophysics will change this.

Keep dreaming!

>People didn't believe there were bacteria, either, because they weren't
>visible.

Yes, you are just like those people. Can't imagine the concept of pointlike
things because you have never seen a pointlike thing before.

Stuck in the mud.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 11:55:39 PM UTC+10, MaryK wrote:

> On 8/5/2017 6:28 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote:
> >>> Silly
> >>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in
> >>> the mathematics. "
> >>>
> >>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math.
> >>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it
> >>>
> >>
> >> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math
> >> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you
> >> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference)
> >> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real
> >> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open
> >> question until other relevant evidence is found.
> >>
> >> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that
> >> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates
> >> question of what the medium might be.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory.
>

> wrong! you get an F ! the two have nothing in common!

Ah Mary. I have seen in another post what you are like.
Your opinion is just your opinion.
It means NOTHING to any scientist.

>
> > Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century.
>

> wrong again!

>
> > No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum
> > theory, etc.
>

> generalized misleading statement that is wrong!
>
>
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> >
>
> 3 strikes, you are out.

And so are you. I won't bother about you any more.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 2:56:15 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 8/4/17 9:34 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+10, Serg Io wrote:
> >> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>> From water waves requiring water
> >>>> From sound waves requiring air/solid
> >>>> From Mexican waves requiring humans
> >>>> From vibration waves requiring a string
> >>>>
> >>>> Since these waves require a medium, electromagnetic waves need a medium.
> >>>
> >>> From cats giving live birth to kittens
> >>> From cows giving live birth to calves
> >>> From Mexicans giving live birth to babies
> >>> From dogs giving live birth to puppies
> >>>
> >>> Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to
> >>> give live birth to their offspring.
> >
> > Like sharks!
> >
> > A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress.
> >
> > Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate.
>

> Again, what is it about the medium SPECIFICALLY that results in
> propagation? Do you know the answer to this question? Physicists do.

The 19th century physicists did.
I have been elaborating upon their concepts of aether.
I have extended them to include aether in the intra-atomic space.
As the electron moves back into its normal position it disturbs the
surrounding aether.
This disturbance propagates through space.

Modern physicists hold that em radiation is matter following
e(v)=hv where v is frequency and h is Planck's constant and e is the energy
of the photon
and m=e(v)/c^2 where m is the mass of the photon following Einstein's relation.

So light is a particle of mass, and so as it has mass it bends with gravity.
So light from the stars got bent during the eclipse of the sun with respect to
their nightly positions.

But...
as the bending of light was an optical effect caused by the Sun's atmosphere,
there is at the least the scope for DOUBLE COUNTING
or
we have to accept that light is aetheric disturbance with NO MASS
and
if light has no mass the it is not a particle
it is a disturbance.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

>
> >
> > I don't see how this is a more strange concept than alternate universes,
> > neutrinos, quarks, continuously distorted space-time, invariance of c, etc.
> >
> > How is the notion of the entire infinite universe getting filled with
> > infinitely small particles of solid matter more difficult to grasp, I cannot
> > understand.
> >
> > Electrons and protons (which make up matter) go through the aether as thin
> > steel mesh through sticky sand.
> >
> > Well, we will investigate this a bit further, in due course. How forces and
> > velocities make up the structure of the universe and that there is only one
> > force and that is electro-magnetic.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> same kind of logic;
> >>
> >> a man has two legs
> >> a monkey has two legs
> >> therefore all men are monkeys
> >
> > Or descended from a common ancestor if we believe in evolution.
> > But that is not my point.
> >
> > A wave is a disturbance.
> > Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation.
> >

> > I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive.
> >
> > Deductive logic:
> > 1. It rained
> > 2. The streets are wet
> >
> > Inductive logic:
> > 1. The streets are wet
> > 2. It rained
> >
> > So once we agree that light is a wave
> > We have to agree that light must have medium for propagation.
> > No sliming out!
> >

> > The Eisnteinians (not all are as stupid as benj) know this, so they insist
> > that light is a particle at times, and a wave at another times; this
> > schizophrenic nature of light was hypothesised by one de Broglie.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 2:57:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/4/17 10:00 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 12:45:28 PM UTC+10, MaryK wrote:

> >> On 8/4/2017 9:34 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+10, Serg Io wrote:
> >>>> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>>>> From water waves requiring water
> >>>>>> From sound waves requiring air/solid
> >>>>>> From Mexican waves requiring humans
> >>>>>> From vibration waves requiring a string
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since these waves require a medium, electromagnetic waves need a medium.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From cats giving live birth to kittens
> >>>>> From cows giving live birth to calves
> >>>>> From Mexicans giving live birth to babies
> >>>>> From dogs giving live birth to puppies
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to
> >>>>> give live birth to their offspring.
> >>>
> >>> Like sharks!
> >>>
> >>> A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress.
> >>>
> >>> Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate.
> >>>

> >>> I don't see how this is a more strange concept than alternate universes,
> >>> neutrinos, quarks, continuously distorted space-time, invariance of c, etc.
> >>>
> >>> How is the notion of the entire infinite universe getting filled with
> >>> infinitely small particles of solid matter more difficult to grasp, I cannot
> >>> understand.
> >>>
> >>> Electrons and protons (which make up matter) go through the aether as thin
> >>> steel mesh through sticky sand.
> >>>
> >>> Well, we will investigate this a bit further, in due course. How forces and
> >>> velocities make up the structure of the universe and that there is only one
> >>> force and that is electro-magnetic.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Arindam Banerjee
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> same kind of logic;
> >>>>
> >>>> a man has two legs
> >>>> a monkey has two legs
> >>>> therefore all men are monkeys
> >>>
> >>> Or descended from a common ancestor if we believe in evolution.
> >>> But that is not my point.
> >>>
> >>> A wave is a disturbance.
> >>> Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation.
> >>

> >> an EM wave needs no medium, it is just equations, E field and H field
> >

> > Those equations deal with the reality of the electric and magnetic fields.
> > Electric and magnetic field exist.
>

> Yes, they exist. They are not an aether, notice.

They are not aether but they use aether for propagation when they vary with
time to create an em wave.

>
> > To pretend they do not is dishonesty.
> > That we can neglect aether as the medium of propagating radiation does not
> > mean that it does not exist.
>

> Your supposed aether may exist, but since it is not necessary for the
> propagation of disturbances in electric and magnetic fields (both of
> which are real), then what purpose does this aether serve?

It serves to carry them as a medium.

One way as well ask what purpose water serves for sea or river or lake transport.

Yes, when seas dry up such transport stops.

Such cannot be the case with aether so we take it for granted.

As to why we need aether -
It is to show how energy is getting created and destroyed with force upon
electrons, with their inter-action with aether.

Something new here, I think.

And fundamental to my new physics. More in due course...

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

> > I do hope the world gets out of the stupid-ostrich benj state soon.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee

> >
> >>>
> >>> I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive.
> >>>
> >>> Deductive logic:
> >>> 1. It rained
> >>> 2. The streets are wet
> >>>
> >>> Inductive logic:
> >>> 1. The streets are wet
> >>> 2. It rained
> >>>
> >>> So once we agree that light is a wave
> >>> We have to agree that light must have medium for propagation.
> >>> No sliming out!
> >>>
> >>> The Eisnteinians (not all are as stupid as benj) know this,
> >>

> >> is that like a club they join? get a newsletter ?
> >>
> >>

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 3:02:52 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/5/17 8:26 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:13:20 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:

> >> On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote:
> >>>>> Silly
> >>>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in
> >>>>> the mathematics. "
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math.
> >>>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math
> >>>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you
> >>>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference)
> >>>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real
> >>>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open
> >>>> question until other relevant evidence is found.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that
> >>>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates
> >>>> question of what the medium might be.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory.
> >>

> >> Then explain it.
> >>
> >> In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold
> >> frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of
> >> photons regardless of how weak the incident light.
> >

> > Very simple.
> > To begin with, when we take classical theory we have to consider wave motion
> > of the light.
> > And wave motion in aether.
> > So the photon is explained as the emission of an electromagnetic pulse.
> > This happens when a dipole is formed temporarily.
> > A dipole is formed temporarily when an atom is subjected to external stimuli.
> > The atom gets hit.
> > As a result, its electronic structure gets flattened.
> > There are more electrons on one side, and less on the other side where the
> > nucleus is.
> > Thus there are two poles - one negative and one positive.
> > In the formation of this dipole a half-pulse is emitted.
> > When the dipole collapses, to its original shape, the other half-pulse is emitted.
> > The frequency of the wave will correspond to the linear dimension of the separation as per antenna theory.
> >
> > Now as for the photoelectric effect.
> > It means that over a certain frequency there is electron emission.
> > From the classical point of view this means that at a certain level of
> > aetheric vibration in spatial terms (relating to the wavelength) the electron
> > will be so disturbed from its attachment to the atom, that it will escape the
> > atom.
>

> Prove this, Arindam. Show that a vibration of too low a frequency will
> not be able to dislodge an electron from an atom. In particular show
> that this result is INDEPENDENT of the amplitude.

A matter of slopes in aetheric space, this is.

High frequency increases the *slope* of the aetheric field.

You have to visualise this.
Think of the wind blowing upon you when you are on a football field.
You won't be blown off.
Now think you are standing upon the football with even lower magnitude wind.
You will be blown off.

Now from this analogy:
1. you are the electron
2. the wind is the amplitude of radiation
3. the slope relates to the frequency

Nice to use the game of football to make a point in fundamental physics!

Hurray for the Footscray Bulldogs!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

>
> Classical wave theory and classical antenna theory predict the OPPOSITE,
> that sufficiently high amplitude would be able to dislodge electrons,
> regardless of frequency. You claim otherwise. Prove it.

>
> > If the frequency is too low, then the aetheric vibration in terms of distance
> > will be too low, no matter how much the amplitude, and the electron will
> > stay attached to the atom.
> > When the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration in terms of
> > wavelength will relate to the dipole dimensions. It will thus shake the
> > electron out of its orbit.
> > Which will create the photoelectric effect.
> >
> > In short when the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration will distort
> > the electronic structure in the atom such that electron escape will be
> > possible.
> >
> > When the frequency is low, such a distortion will not be possible and so there
> > will be no photoelectric effect.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> >
> >
> >>

> >>> Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century.

> >>> No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum
> >>> theory, etc.
> >>

> >> The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like
> >> behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
>
>

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:37:03 AM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> writes:
>

> >On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+10, Serg Io wrote:
> >> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >> >> From water waves requiring water
> >> >> From sound waves requiring air/solid
> >> >> From Mexican waves requiring humans
> >> >> From vibration waves requiring a string
> >> >>
> >> >> Since these waves require a medium, electromagnetic waves need a medium.
> >> >
> >> > From cats giving live birth to kittens
> >> > From cows giving live birth to calves
> >> > From Mexicans giving live birth to babies
> >> > From dogs giving live birth to puppies
> >> >
> >> > Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to
> >> > give live birth to their offspring.
>
> >Like sharks!
>

> I knew you would either ignore the comparison or not get it and blow it
> off. Thanks for proving me right!

I was disappointed with the low quality of implied criticism which confused
matters instead of clarifying them.

>
> >A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress.
>

> Does not follow.
>
> Besides, things like photons, electrons etc. have both wavelike and
> particlelike properties. Not needing a medium is simply a particlelike
> property they have.

Photons are not particles. They are the basic element of electromagnetic
radiation. Photons are not particles as they do not have mass.

No one has PROVED that photons have mass.

Electrons have mass and so they are particles.

Electrons can go off into empty space with no need for aether.

Such is NOT the case for photons.

>
> >Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate.
>

> Like a bullet needs something there to fly through? A bullet won't
> propagate in a vacuum?

It will for it is not a disturbance. It is a mass with a velocity.
On the other hand sound will not fly through a vacuum.

> >How is the notion of the entire infinite universe getting filled with
> >infinitely small particles of solid matter more difficult to grasp, I cannot
> >understand.
>

> With current theory, there simply isn't any need for any such thing.
> No need for it, no way to detect it, so it gets discarded as useless.
>
> Besides, if it was a solid, it would move as a unit. So we can detect its
> velocity relative to us. I hear there were a couple of guys named
> Michelson and Morley who had an answer to that.
>

> >A wave is a disturbance.
> >Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation.
>

> Things like electrons and photons act only somewhat like waves.
>

> >I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive.
>

[Arindam Banerjee]

Okay what about this poem about you, stupid-ostrich benj.

Will he swank in heaven? Will he rot in hell?
Where will be benj, the boring man of drivel?

No he won't swank in heaven, he won't rot in hell;
In his next life he will be a noisy cockerel.

heh-heh
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Serg io]

she's right. and you got an F,

[Odd Bodkin]

Prove 3.

[Odd Bodkin]

Photons do not have mass. Physicists say photons have no mass.
You are the one incorrectly using an equation m=e/c^2 to say that photons
are supposed by physicists to have mass. But you are the one using the
equation incorrectly to make a false claim.

To repeat: no physicist today will say that photons have mass. So what is
your complaint about physics??

[Serg io]

how does aether carry electric and/or magnetic fields ? be specific.

> One way as well ask what purpose water serves for sea or river or lake transport.

boats on rivers, are not EM waves, that is dishonest.

>
> Yes, when seas dry up such transport stops.

and they put stuff on trucks. this has nothing to do with physics,
aether, it is simply a dodge.

>
> Such cannot be the case with aether so we take it for granted.

who says aether cannot dry up ?

Aether is not needed for anything, it was a thought crutch in the old
days, replaced by fact, and measurements that disproved its existance.

>
> As to why we need aether -
> It is to show how energy is getting created and destroyed with force upon
> electrons, with their inter-action with aether.

there is no known interaction of aether and anything else, it was
imagination.