Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Light is a field of energy
1 view
Skip to first unread message
micro...@hotmail.com
Jan 24, 2012, 4:52:56 PM1/24/12
to
Just as electric bond energy is spread out there is finite density
energy surrounding a particle's mass.
Light is sin wave energy oscillating; not a standing wave.
Sin wave is fundamental to the universe by particle and light wave.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
energy surrounding a particle's mass.
Light is sin wave energy oscillating; not a standing wave.
Sin wave is fundamental to the universe by particle and light wave.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
Poutnik
Jan 25, 2012, 1:33:05 AM1/25/12
to
In article <05487d45-ea59-4bc6-a132-67788f113a5a@
4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
light is not very similar to sin wave,
being very limited in space and time.
--
Poutnik
4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
>
> Just as electric bond energy is spread out there is finite density
> energy surrounding a particle's mass.
>
> Light is sin wave energy oscillating; not a standing wave.
>
> Sin wave is fundamental to the universe by particle and light wave.
>
At single particle level
> Just as electric bond energy is spread out there is finite density
> energy surrounding a particle's mass.
>
> Light is sin wave energy oscillating; not a standing wave.
>
> Sin wave is fundamental to the universe by particle and light wave.
>
light is not very similar to sin wave,
being very limited in space and time.
--
Poutnik
micro...@hotmail.com
Jan 25, 2012, 8:00:08 PM1/25/12
to
On Jan 24, 10:33 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <05487d45-ea59-4bc6-a132-67788f113a5a@
> 4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <05487d45-ea59-4bc6-a132-67788f113a5a@
>
> > Just as electric bond energy is spread out there is finite density
> > energy surrounding a particle's mass.
>
> > Light is sin wave energy oscillating; not a standing wave.
>
> > Sin wave is fundamental to the universe by particle and light wave.
>
> At single particle level
Einstein doubted his partical of light.
> > Just as electric bond energy is spread out there is finite density
> > energy surrounding a particle's mass.
>
> > Light is sin wave energy oscillating; not a standing wave.
>
> > Sin wave is fundamental to the universe by particle and light wave.
>
> At single particle level
After all all that is needed is light's waves to be absorbed.
You can skip the particle for a better theory of light absorption.
> light is not very similar to sin wave,
> being very limited in space and time.
>
> --
> Poutnik
Poutnik
Jan 26, 2012, 12:37:05 PM1/26/12
to
In article <e682745c-95e9-420d-9e47-
92e403...@pt5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com
says...
already IS good theory of light absorption.
( called sometimes "jewel of physics",
as some predictions are accurate to 10-12 digits )
Photon is essential part of it.
>
> > light is not very similar to sin wave,
> > being very limited in space and time.
> >
> > --
--
Poutnik
92e403...@pt5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com
says...
>
> On Jan 24, 10:33 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <05487d45-ea59-4bc6-a132-67788f113a5a@
> > 4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > > Just as electric bond energy is spread out there is finite density
> > > energy surrounding a particle's mass.
> >
> > > Light is sin wave energy oscillating; not a standing wave.
> >
> > > Sin wave is fundamental to the universe by particle and light wave.
> >
> > At single particle level
>
> Einstein doubted his partical of light.
> After all all that is needed is light's waves to be absorbed.
> You can skip the particle for a better theory of light absorption.
Quantum electrodynamics created in 1950s
> On Jan 24, 10:33 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <05487d45-ea59-4bc6-a132-67788f113a5a@
> > 4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > > Just as electric bond energy is spread out there is finite density
> > > energy surrounding a particle's mass.
> >
> > > Light is sin wave energy oscillating; not a standing wave.
> >
> > > Sin wave is fundamental to the universe by particle and light wave.
> >
> > At single particle level
>
> Einstein doubted his partical of light.
> After all all that is needed is light's waves to be absorbed.
> You can skip the particle for a better theory of light absorption.
already IS good theory of light absorption.
( called sometimes "jewel of physics",
as some predictions are accurate to 10-12 digits )
Photon is essential part of it.
>
> > light is not very similar to sin wave,
> > being very limited in space and time.
> >
> > --
> Light is a time sin wave form.
It is vague definition as not all time sin waves are light.
--
Poutnik
micro...@hotmail.com
Jan 27, 2012, 12:31:02 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26, 9:37 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <e682745c-95e9-420d-9e47-
> 92e403ce0...@pt5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
> Poutnik- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Light waves are stored in matter at absorption.
After vibrating they are emmited.
> In article <e682745c-95e9-420d-9e47-
> 92e403ce0...@pt5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Light waves are stored in matter at absorption.
After vibrating they are emmited.
Poutnik
Jan 27, 2012, 12:57:42 AM1/27/12
to
In article <22e7868f-4554-4076-a3cd-a60fa39ee744
@i10g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
without external force,
and furthermore vibrations are quantizied.
Unfortunately,
the energy quantization needed for changing vibration mode
is different to energy quantization of EM waves.
All you can say the energy of waves is converted to other forms.
Some of them is vibration energy, but of other frequencies.
Anybody can claim abything, it is physically possible.
But it is not always physically possible the claim is true.
Your claims are ad hoc hypothesis from the armchair,
without supporting evidence or even math analysis.
--
Poutnik
@i10g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >
> > > Einstein doubted his partical of light.
> > > After all all that is needed is light's waves to be absorbed.
> > > You can skip the particle for a better theory of light absorption.
> >
> > Quantum electrodynamics created in 1950s
> > already IS good theory of light absorption.
> > ( called sometimes "jewel of physics",
> > as some predictions are accurate to 10-12 digits )
> >
> > Photon is essential part of it.
> >
> >
> > > Einstein doubted his partical of light.
> > > After all all that is needed is light's waves to be absorbed.
> > > You can skip the particle for a better theory of light absorption.
> >
> > Quantum electrodynamics created in 1950s
> > already IS good theory of light absorption.
> > ( called sometimes "jewel of physics",
> > as some predictions are accurate to 10-12 digits )
> >
> > Photon is essential part of it.
> >
> > > Light is a time sin wave form.
> >
> > It is vague definition as not all time sin waves are light.
>
> >
> > It is vague definition as not all time sin waves are light.
>
> Light waves are stored in matter at absorption.
> After vibrating they are emmited.
Such vibration would be is often unpossible
> After vibrating they are emmited.
without external force,
and furthermore vibrations are quantizied.
Unfortunately,
the energy quantization needed for changing vibration mode
is different to energy quantization of EM waves.
All you can say the energy of waves is converted to other forms.
Some of them is vibration energy, but of other frequencies.
Anybody can claim abything, it is physically possible.
But it is not always physically possible the claim is true.
Your claims are ad hoc hypothesis from the armchair,
without supporting evidence or even math analysis.
--
Poutnik
micro...@hotmail.com
Jan 27, 2012, 1:07:47 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <22e7868f-4554-4076-a3cd-a60fa39ee744
> @i10g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <22e7868f-4554-4076-a3cd-a60fa39ee744
I believe in absolute truths.
> --
> Poutnik- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The world was Einstein's judge
Poutnik
Jan 27, 2012, 1:18:55 AM1/27/12
to
In article <325d50b3-e3d7-4da0-95a4-2ed5f733b753
@pt5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
as scientist you should notice that.
I can speak only about what you write.
BTW the truth about you is off topic in sci.physics.relativity.
Especially if the truth would be absolute ( joking )
--
Poutnik
@pt5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > Light waves are stored in matter at absorption.
> > > After vibrating they are emmited.
> >
> > Such vibration would be is often unpossible
> > without external force,
> > and furthermore vibrations are quantizied.
> >
> > Unfortunately,
> > the energy quantization needed for changing vibration mode
> > is different to energy quantization of EM waves.
> >
> > All you can say the energy of waves is converted to other forms.
> > Some of them is vibration energy, but of other frequencies.
> >
> > Anybody can claim abything, it is physically possible.
> > But it is not always physically possible the claim is true.
> >
> > Your claims are ad hoc hypothesis from the armchair,
> > without supporting evidence or even math analysis.
>
> Please substantiate here.
> I believe in absolute truths.
>
> > > Light waves are stored in matter at absorption.
> > > After vibrating they are emmited.
> >
> > Such vibration would be is often unpossible
> > without external force,
> > and furthermore vibrations are quantizied.
> >
> > Unfortunately,
> > the energy quantization needed for changing vibration mode
> > is different to energy quantization of EM waves.
> >
> > All you can say the energy of waves is converted to other forms.
> > Some of them is vibration energy, but of other frequencies.
> >
> > Anybody can claim abything, it is physically possible.
> > But it is not always physically possible the claim is true.
> >
> > Your claims are ad hoc hypothesis from the armchair,
> > without supporting evidence or even math analysis.
>
> Please substantiate here.
> I believe in absolute truths.
>
> Please tell me more about me...
>
I was not speaking about you, but about your claims,
>
as scientist you should notice that.
I can speak only about what you write.
BTW the truth about you is off topic in sci.physics.relativity.
Especially if the truth would be absolute ( joking )
--
Poutnik
micro...@hotmail.com
Jan 27, 2012, 1:35:35 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26, 10:18 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <325d50b3-e3d7-4da0-95a4-2ed5f733b753
> @pt5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <325d50b3-e3d7-4da0-95a4-2ed5f733b753
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Light waves are stored in matter at absorption.
> > > > After vibrating they are emmited.
>
> > > Such vibration would be is often unpossible
> > > without external force,
> > > and furthermore vibrations are quantizied.
>
> > > Unfortunately,
> > > the energy quantization needed for changing vibration mode
> > > is different to energy quantization of EM waves.
>
> > > All you can say the energy of waves is converted to other forms.
> > > Some of them is vibration energy, but of other frequencies.
>
> > > Anybody can claim abything, it is physically possible.
> > > But it is not always physically possible the claim is true.
>
> > > Your claims are ad hoc hypothesis from the armchair,
> > > without supporting evidence or even math analysis.
>
> > Please substantiate here.
> > I believe in absolute truths.
>
> > Please tell me more about me...
>
> I was not speaking about you, but about your claims,
Please show me where my wrong claim is in your opinion?
>
>
>
>
> > > > Light waves are stored in matter at absorption.
> > > > After vibrating they are emmited.
>
> > > Such vibration would be is often unpossible
> > > without external force,
> > > and furthermore vibrations are quantizied.
>
> > > Unfortunately,
> > > the energy quantization needed for changing vibration mode
> > > is different to energy quantization of EM waves.
>
> > > All you can say the energy of waves is converted to other forms.
> > > Some of them is vibration energy, but of other frequencies.
>
> > > Anybody can claim abything, it is physically possible.
> > > But it is not always physically possible the claim is true.
>
> > > Your claims are ad hoc hypothesis from the armchair,
> > > without supporting evidence or even math analysis.
>
> > Please substantiate here.
> > I believe in absolute truths.
>
> > Please tell me more about me...
>
> I was not speaking about you, but about your claims,
I rather think you are lying to me as you are doubt
based but cannot substatiate any of it.
Mitchell Raemsch
> as scientist you should notice that.
> I can speak only about what you write.
>
> BTW the truth about you is off topic in sci.physics.relativity.
>
> Especially if the truth would be absolute ( joking )
>
> --
> Poutnik- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mitchell Raemsch; Looking for Time energy math
>
> - Show quoted text -
Poutnik
Jan 27, 2012, 1:57:24 AM1/27/12
to
In article <679d5975-4dfb-4e98-88d0-
41870d...@ih8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com
says...
at least did not commented, you have switched to personal level
instead, which if off topic.
so I expected you must notice it.
And personality IS off topic in physics group.
If you do not hesitate to make moral claims
about people you do not know,
whay should we trust your claims about physics ?
--
Poutnik
41870d...@ih8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com
says...
>
> On Jan 26, 10:18 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <325d50b3-e3d7-4da0-95a4-2ed5f733b753
> > @pt5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Light waves are stored in matter at absorption.
> > > > > After vibrating they are emmited.
> >
> > > > Such vibration would be is often unpossible
> > > > without external force,
> > > > and furthermore vibrations are quantizied.
> >
> > > > Unfortunately,
> > > > the energy quantization needed for changing vibration mode
> > > > is different to energy quantization of EM waves.
> >
> > > > All you can say the energy of waves is converted to other forms.
> > > > Some of them is vibration energy, but of other frequencies.
> >
> > > > Anybody can claim abything, it is physically possible.
> > > > But it is not always physically possible the claim is true.
> >
> > > > Your claims are ad hoc hypothesis from the armchair,
> > > > without supporting evidence or even math analysis.
> >
> > > Please substantiate here.
> > > I believe in absolute truths.
> >
> > > Please tell me more about me...
> >
> > I was not speaking about you, but about your claims,
>
> Please show me where my wrong claim is in your opinion?
> I rather think you are lying to me as you are doubt
> based but cannot substatiate any of it.
I have already shown you, but you may did not read it,
> On Jan 26, 10:18 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <325d50b3-e3d7-4da0-95a4-2ed5f733b753
> > @pt5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Light waves are stored in matter at absorption.
> > > > > After vibrating they are emmited.
> >
> > > > Such vibration would be is often unpossible
> > > > without external force,
> > > > and furthermore vibrations are quantizied.
> >
> > > > Unfortunately,
> > > > the energy quantization needed for changing vibration mode
> > > > is different to energy quantization of EM waves.
> >
> > > > All you can say the energy of waves is converted to other forms.
> > > > Some of them is vibration energy, but of other frequencies.
> >
> > > > Anybody can claim abything, it is physically possible.
> > > > But it is not always physically possible the claim is true.
> >
> > > > Your claims are ad hoc hypothesis from the armchair,
> > > > without supporting evidence or even math analysis.
> >
> > > Please substantiate here.
> > > I believe in absolute truths.
> >
> > > Please tell me more about me...
> >
> > I was not speaking about you, but about your claims,
>
> Please show me where my wrong claim is in your opinion?
> I rather think you are lying to me as you are doubt
> based but cannot substatiate any of it.
at least did not commented, you have switched to personal level
instead, which if off topic.
>
> > as scientist you should notice that.
>
> Science cannot tell you who you are.
Yes, but science makes good observer,
> > as scientist you should notice that.
>
> Science cannot tell you who you are.
so I expected you must notice it.
>
> > I can speak only about what you write.
> >
> > BTW the truth about you is off topic in sci.physics.relativity.
>
> Why? Is someone editing it?
I was joking about absolute truth versus relativity group.
> > I can speak only about what you write.
> >
> > BTW the truth about you is off topic in sci.physics.relativity.
>
> Why? Is someone editing it?
And personality IS off topic in physics group.
If you do not hesitate to make moral claims
about people you do not know,
whay should we trust your claims about physics ?
--
Poutnik
micro...@hotmail.com
Jan 27, 2012, 4:52:43 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 26, 10:57 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <679d5975-4dfb-4e98-88d0-
> 41870d30e...@ih8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
I know what you want to do to me.
And I am not going along.
Go doubt someone else.
Mitchell Raemsch
> whay should we trust your claims about physics ?
>
> --
> In article <679d5975-4dfb-4e98-88d0-
> 41870d30e...@ih8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
And I am not going along.
Go doubt someone else.
Mitchell Raemsch
> whay should we trust your claims about physics ?
>
> --
Poutnik
Jan 27, 2012, 7:10:21 PM1/27/12
to
In article <c30d73c0-e4c7-4986-af80-39cf812bcbd5
@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
And, you were already encouraged to return to physical ground.
--
Poutnik
@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >
> > I have already shown you, but you may did not read it,
> > at least did not commented, you have switched to personal level
> > instead, which if off topic.
> >
> >
> > I have already shown you, but you may did not read it,
> > at least did not commented, you have switched to personal level
> > instead, which if off topic.
> >
> > I was joking about absolute truth versus relativity group.
> > And personality IS off topic in physics group.
> >
> > If you do not hesitate to make moral claims
> > about people you do not know,
> > And personality IS off topic in physics group.
> >
> > If you do not hesitate to make moral claims
> > about people you do not know,
> > whay should we trust your claims about physics ?
> I know what you want to do to me.
> And I am not going along.
> Go doubt someone else.
It is just another such a claim.
> And I am not going along.
> Go doubt someone else.
And, you were already encouraged to return to physical ground.
--
Poutnik
Clff Saunders
Jan 27, 2012, 10:17:09 PM1/27/12
to
L@@K!
A Google-poster with a hotmail address is attempting to make a point!
How cute!
A Google-poster with a hotmail address is attempting to make a point!
How cute!
micro...@hotmail.com
Jan 28, 2012, 3:23:54 PM1/28/12
to
On Jan 27, 4:10 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <c30d73c0-e4c7-4986-af80-39cf812bcbd5
> @o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <c30d73c0-e4c7-4986-af80-39cf812bcbd5
>
>
>
> > > I have already shown you, but you may did not read it,
> > > at least did not commented, you have switched to personal level
> > > instead, which if off topic.
>
> > > I was joking about absolute truth versus relativity group.
> > > And personality IS off topic in physics group.
>
> > > If you do not hesitate to make moral claims
> > > about people you do not know,
> > > whay should we trust your claims about physics ?
> > I know what you want to do to me.
> > And I am not going along.
> > Go doubt someone else.
>
> It is just another such a claim.
> And, you were already encouraged to return to physical ground.
>
> --
> Poutnik
And what claim is that?
>
>
> > > I have already shown you, but you may did not read it,
> > > at least did not commented, you have switched to personal level
> > > instead, which if off topic.
>
> > > I was joking about absolute truth versus relativity group.
> > > And personality IS off topic in physics group.
>
> > > If you do not hesitate to make moral claims
> > > about people you do not know,
> > > whay should we trust your claims about physics ?
> > I know what you want to do to me.
> > And I am not going along.
> > Go doubt someone else.
>
> It is just another such a claim.
> And, you were already encouraged to return to physical ground.
>
> --
> Poutnik
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
0 new messages