Re: Is photon emission instanteous?
glird
> On Mar 15, 11:06 am, Bob_for_short <andro.kalitnikoff...@wanapee.fr> wrote:
>
> > No, quantum transitions are not instantaneous.
> If we use the definition of energy as the 'rate of action', then a photon such as E=hf == (h/t), should have 2 actions to establish that rate? >
If you invent definitions that fit whatever you want to prove, then
you will always be right, even if you are wrong.
In this case you are both right even if the proof is not.
(It will take 2pir/c' = 1.5791584 x 10^-16 seconds per emission per
photon.)
glird
Ken S. Tucker
Is that 2*pi*r/c' ?
Would you mind providing just a bit more detail?
(I find these ideas interesting).
Ken S. Tucker
spudnik
a new book on lighting for analog videographers
(Newton was *so* wrong (like,
he said that denser media made
for faster rocks o'light)).
> > photon.)
> > glird
thus:
I was just reading a nice, zero-level book
that came out of expositing the Wiles proof; basically,
the subjectum is Galois and reciprocity (and
I have a geometrical ideal for the latter, iff
it turns-out to apply .-)
the whole point of my digression into FLT is a)
that Fermat never revealed much of his method,
excepting his "reconstruction of Euclid's porisms,"
and b)
that the more important unsolved conjecture
of Fermat, remains (Next Theorem). but, yes,
there is certainly no conclusive evidence
that he had no proof of the so-called last theorem, and
it really does all hinge upon its relation to n=4!
> So... you are willing to reject the idea
> that he had no proof, because
> you think there is no evidence that
> he did *not* have one; on the other hand,
> you are perfectly willing to conjure up
> all sorts of ludicruous, evidence-lacking,
> fanciful scenarios to justify your unfounded opinion
> that he probably had one.
thus:
your statements are somewhat mealy-mouthed. anyway, if
you would just dysabuse yourself of the concept
of an absolute vacuum, then that of a "rock o'light,"
you'd see that there is no need of aether. to wit, if
you examine the concepts of permeability & permitivity, a)
you might have to do some simple math, and b)
you'd see that nothing has neither quality -- or
you'd have to show how your aether does have it.
(I suppose that an experiment has been done,
to show the relative p&p of various degrees
of relative vacuum, but maybe not.)
the wave just goes though both of Young's pinholes, and
that is that -- or, see what Young said about it!
thus:
anyway, Einstein's biggest blunder was
with "homopolar generators," and getting in over his head
with Maxwell's wunnerful theory, which is also problematic;
or, so saith my school (and Schroedinger's cat,
in Meowse Code .-)
thus:
most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results,
a la Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon,
in assinging all of the energy of the wave-front
as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) of a particle, whence
the wave-energy was somehow collected by the photo-
eletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a)
just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b)
show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned
to absorb a particular frequency of light.
so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period
of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just
one cycle of the frequency?
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, Pendergast and
ICC's 3rd Brutish invasion of Sudan!
http://larouchepub.com
BURT
>
> --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
>
> --Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, Pendergast and
> ICC's 3rd Brutish invasion of Sudan!http://larouchepub.com
If light is a wave what size does it start at?
When first emitted how large can a light wave be?
Mitch Raemsch
john
They haven't got a flying fuck of an idea of
the structure of a photon.
Look at the accretion disks of an AGN.
They get bigger and bigger and then are
shot away as two quasars
going in opposite directions.
That's what photon production looks like.
john
eric gisse
[...]
> They haven't got a flying fuck of an idea of
> the structure of a photon.
Neither do you.
>
> Look at the accretion disks of an AGN.
> They get bigger and bigger and then are
> shot away as two quasars
> going in opposite directions.
>
> That's what photon production looks like.
>
> john
How would you know? Name the last scholarly article you have read. Or are
you restricting yourself to comic books and astronomy picture of the days?
glird
> On Mar 15, 2:26 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> > (It will take 2pir/c' = 1.5791584 x 10^-16 seconds per
> > emission per photon.)
>
Yes.
> Would you mind providing just a bit more detail?
A quantum of action is the amount of actio, h, emitted by an atom
per photon. (A photon is the amount of energy, e, thereby emitted.)
Both of these amounts are quantities. the quantity of energy is given
thus:
e = hf
in which f is the frequency of the waves relative to an observer.
Since f is therefore a function of the velocity of the observer, and
there are an infinite number of possible observers each moving at a
different speed than the others, the value of e is not something that
exists of itself.
On the other hand, an atom does exist and so does its internal
structure. Inside an atom there are nuclei, and there are wave systems
circulating inside and around them.
Each such wavicle (defined in a prior posting) has a quantity of
energy and occupies a quantity of matter for an instant. These
quantities are measurable and are given a name when measured.
(Although a quantity is NOT a particle and depends on our self-
appointed units of measure as much as on the actual amount of smettinu
that is measured, almost ALL of the present terms of physics are, at
bottom, quantities. Unfortunately and despite the fact that few
physicists know it, too many times the meaning(s) of smetinae are
undefined, thus remain unknown.)
Getting back to the subject, here are the ingredients from which i
deduced my equation;
1. Atoms self-exist. An H atom is one of them.
2. The material of which they are made exists.
3. Being bodily compressible, the density (mass per unit volume,
where mass is a quantity of matter) of this omnipresent material is
variable. Density gradients therefore exist.
4. For reasons I spelled out in my books but not here, the structure
of the gradient around an atom's nucleus is such that wave systems
moving within it will curve enough that they remain within the
ponitron (circumnuclear cloud of matter) whose radius (the r in my
equation) in an H atom is 5.225 x 10^-9 cm.
(Since all atoms have a radius whose length is close to that number,
which is one of the reasons that their weights are proportional to
their mass, the difference in value of 2pir per different atom is too
small to affect the results discussed here).
5. The speed of a wavicle (in this case it is called an electron) is
c times the fine structure constant, Fs, which is a pure number (it
has no dimensions other than that).
Although I found a way to get this number several decades ago (by
putting any number at all on to my hand calculator and playing with it
by a repetitive series of mathematical operations the calculator could
do), and although i later reached a theory as to WHY that constant is
applicable to the actions of real things, and although that theory was
one of the reasons that I did multiply the speed of light (c = 1 light-
unit/second in the dilute matter filling a vacuum chamber) by the Fs
number in order to find the speed of a wavicular electron in its
ponitronic orbit (where the density is much greater than in vacuo) the
reason others will find the result important is that
c' = c x cFs = 2.1876923 x 10^8 cm/sec
is the experimentally discovered value of c' (the orbital speed of an
electron) reported in present textbooks.
5. About 2 years ago i decided to study Planck's landmark quantum-
theory paper as another way to understand what a photon is. After
downloading the file from the Internet I abstracted key portions to
study. Although its math was way over my head, there were two key
things in his paper that caught my attention.
One was something about a resonator being stationary, which to me
seemed impossible -- a resonator is something that VIBRATES, not
stands still.
I decided that the only thing that could match his wording is an
electron in an atom.
(Although elecrons in atoms are always circulating, an atom could be
stationary, or increasingly close to stationary the colder the back
body was -- and in Planck's
paper the temperatures he treated were as close to absolute zero as
possible.
Anyway, I ultimately decided to figure out what would happen if I
did treat orbiting electrons as the resonators in the box.
To do that I multiplied c by my pure number value of Fs, which gave
me the speed of the resonator while in orbit, and then to multiply the
result by 2*pi*r, which gave me the length of one cycle of its orbit
times its speed, and THEN -- just to see what would happen -- I
multiplied THAT result by my pure-number-found value of the "mass" of
an electron.
The result was
WHAMMM!!!!
Here is the result, as written in The Anpheon:
< The empirical numerical values of the mass m of an electron, the
radius r of its orbit, the velocity c of light in a vacuum, the Fine
structure constant Fs and the speed c’ of an electron in its orbital
path (taken herein as the speed of light in an outer ponitron) are
m = 9.1094 -28 gm; the radius of an average atom is r = 5.29177 -9 cm;
c = 2.997934 10 cm/sec; Fs = 137.03604; and c’ = c/Fs = 2.1876975 8.
An electron will take r/c’ seconds per orbit, so the frequency is
r/c’) = 6.5797053 15 beats per second. Since e = mc2 and the
local speed of light in a pon is c’ we thus have e = h [= hf]= mc’2,
from which we get h = mc’2/Solving the latter equation we get,
h = .1093603 -28 gm)(2.1876975 8 cm/sec)2/(6.5797053 15/sec) =
6.6260693 -27 gm cm2/sec.
That is precisely “the empirical measured value” of h reported on the
Internet in 2006.
Other than for some updated values for some of its numbers, our next
Chapter is taken almost verbatim from the 1990 book “The Theory of
Reality”. Indeed, if not for this new derivation of the value of h,
most of it (especially the tongue-in-cheek comments) would have been
omitted. Taken together with this derivation, however, they strongly
support the metaphysics herein presented, including that set forth in
the following passage from a 1989 book: "In past years I spent a great
deal of time … playing with a series of purely geometrically derived
numbers, which not only were within 99.6% of experimental atomic data
values but from which other such data values could be derived by
numerical manipulations. The trigonometric relations producing these
extremely close fits provided evidence to support the conclusion …
that there are no basic particles in Nature … that the cause of atomic
structures lies in these geometric relations between the energies
transmitting through a compressible material medium and the densities
that result, coupled with the rates of transmission that allow media
of such variable densities and internally radiating pressures to very
rapidly repeat initial conditions, thus achieve lasting internal and
external equilibrium." >
As reported in A Flower for Einstein (whose "flower" is the equation
itself), here's a bit of what happened next.
< I walked in my brother’s footsteps for many years before
understanding my own well enough to recognize a few days after rather
casually deriving it in Book One of The Anpheon that this flower would
become an essential part of what is therein called
”The Equation of Everything”
e = Fd = ma x d = mv2 = (mc2 ─> m(c/Fs)2
= mc’2 = 2pirmc’f = hf = eo.
If you want to understand its metaphysics (and that of everything
else) you will need the new mental operating program based on our
survival-honed senses, as presented in The Anpheon. >
__________________________________________
I drew the long line to separate what I'd thought were introductory
remarks from the actual answer to your question. I was a bit surprised
to find that i'd already done the little exercise of finding out how
long it would take an electron to orbit once.
As pasted above, it takes
r/c’ seconds per orbit.
Since r/c’ represents 2pir/c', it was a tiny step to realize that if
it takes ploop seconds for an electron to orbit once, then it would
take ploop seconds for a wavicle (electron) to get fully out of a
ponitron.
Therefore my reply is finished,,, for now.
glird
GogoJF
Sounds like a coup to me. I think, all we have to do,, is use our new
math, and figure out what is was- what advantage that we were trying
to gain from the older model? Are we satisfied at "being" in the
general area of a general idea, or are we looking for a "specific"
answer to a "specific" question?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Quasars are gravitationally red shifted and should be equally
distributed in the universe because everything in the universe had a
common origin and therefore a common age regardless of the so called
"light" distance.
Mitch Raemsch
Ken S. Tucker
> On Mar 15, 8:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 2:26 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > (It will take 2pir/c' = 1.5791584 x 10^-16 seconds per
> > > emission per photon.)
>
> > Is that 2*pi*r/c' ?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Would you mind providing just a bit more detail?
Ok, thanks, pardon top post, I was expecting a couple of
sentences, from I read you figure the following
"1.5791584 x 10^-16 seconds per emission per photon"
applies to all frequencies, (?) radio to gamma.
Regards
Ken
Y.Porat
--------------------
no !!
have a look to my much deeper insight
inmy thread:
'a better new definition for the real single
photon energy emission'
i used there for the first time
the **Plank time**and the samallest possible
time duration for photonenergy!!
it is
5.38 exp-44 seconds !!!!
and than i derived form it
the smallest possoble
PHOTON ENERGY !!!
if we will divide it by c^2
we wil get the revolutionary finding:
The mass of the smallest photon !!!
it will be in the order of magnitude
smallest photon mass:
ie
exp-90 Kilograms !!
alter i will bring the exact figure
in my above thread
and only now you start to understand
why the mass of the photon was considered as zero
it is close to zero
but in PRINCIPLE ** not zero** !!!
btw
since you involved here the math nG
i can tell all the mathematicians :
THAT IS EXACTLY THE DIFERENCE
BETWEEN A MATHEMATICIAN
AND A REAL PHYSICIST
physics is not leaded by mathematician !!
ie
people that heir mathematics understanding
is bigger than their physics understandings
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
spudnik
Burt also had a really good question, about (say)
How would Sun emit a photon -- what shape does it go?...
he must be using the new "mental operating system!"
thus:
most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results,
a l'Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon,
in assinging all of the God-am energy of the wave-front
as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) of a particle, whence
the wave-energy was somehow "caught" by the photo-
BURT
> ha, good question about every God-am frequency (1/period).
>
> Burt also had a really good question, about (say)
> How would Sun emit a photon -- what shape does it go?...
> he must be using the new "mental operating system!"
>
> thus:
> most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results,
> a l'Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon,
> in assinging all of the God-am energy of the wave-front
> as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) of a particle, whence
> the wave-energy was somehow "caught" by the photo-
> eletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a)
> just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b)
> show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned
> to absorb a particular frequency of light.
> so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period
> of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just
> one cycle of the frequency?
>
>
> --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
>
> --Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, Pendergast and
> ICC's 3rd Brutish invasion of Sudan!http://larouchepub.com
Does light as a wave appear all at once?
What size does it start at when created?
Mitch Raemsch
glird
>
> From what I read you figure the following
>
> "1.5791584 x 10^-16 seconds per emission per photon"
>
> applies to all frequencies, (?) radio to gamma.
No! the "frequency", which applies to a quantity of
energy, depends on the state of relative motion of the observer9s).
The time of "emission peer photon", which is independent of any
outside viewer, is how long it takes for ONE "electron" to fully
emerge from an atom.
When it does, it (meaning the matter and energy per electron)
is no longer part of the atom. Therefore the atom will weigh less
after
a quantum of action is released. Th difference in the weight of a
given atom B$ minus AFTER this happened in attributed to the "mass"
of the electron.When you understand the meaning of "mass'
(a quantity of matter) and how gravity works; and what an
"electron" physically is, you can begin to understand that electrons
are NOT all identical; that they come in whole number multiples of
mass (i.e. weight).
glird
glird
> On Mar 17, 12:54 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><< ha, good question about every God-am frequency (1/period).
Burt also had a really good question, about (say)
How would Sun emit a photon -- what shape does it go?... >
The Sun is a matter-unit made of a huge number of atoms.
Although light does come from the Sun, each photon is emitted from one
atom. Its "shape" depends oon the size of the emitting atom; thus on
which element in the periodic table emits it.
> > so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period
> > of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just
> > one cycle of the frequency?
THAT is a good question. I pondered it for a long time, a few
decades ago, and concluded that the answer is Yes.
sort of...
glird
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Quasars slow gravity time rate mean that they are younger age to
themselves and older in the universe as a whole.
Mitch Raemsch
glird
>
> Does light as a wave appear all at once?
> What size does it start at when created?
No. It takes about 10^-16 seconds for the first "wave' to begin
radiating.
It isn't "created". It starts when the material in the outer shell-
layer of an atom begins to escape during a quantum reaction. Its size
depends on what it is you are measuring and who's looking at it a bit
later.
glird
Ken S. Tucker
Thanks, I think I understand you're pov better.
I think it's smart.
I might fuck this up but I'll give it a shot.
You're using electrical potential energy to decompose (transform)
the electrical structure of an atom or nucleus to emit a photon.
Then (as I read above), you employ relativity as the rate at
which the emission occurs.
Am I close?
If so I think that is an insight.
One might say an electronic structure reduces in energy and
by doing so, emits photonic energy w.r.t. quantum rules,
OTOH, you introduce a variation of the mass of the consituents.
Ok with me
Ken S. Tucker
BTW, 'glird' what's your name?
The reason I ask is because I usually deal with people on a
personal level, you understand.
Y.Porat
-------------------------
all is very nice
except that the electron
is not orbiting the nuc
Y,P
----------------------
glird
>
> > > From what I read you figure the following
> > > "1.5791584 x 10^-16 seconds per emission per photon"
> > > applies to all frequencies, (?) radio to gamma.
>
The time of "emission per photon", which is independent of any
outside viewer, is how long it takes for ONE "electron" to fully
emerge from an atom.
When it does, it (meaning the matter and energy per electron) is no
longer part of the atom. Therefore the atom will weigh less after a
atom B4 minus AFTER this happened in attributed to the "mass" of the
electron.
When you understand the meaning of "mass" (a quantity of matter) and
how gravity works; and what an "electron" physically is, you can begin
to understand that electrons are NOT all identical; that they come in
whole number multiples of mass (i.e. weight). >>
>
No, not potential energy, nor necessarily electrical; just the
energy input by a passing series of light-waves whose structural
pattern happens to fit that of the given atom. And it doesn't
decompose or transform the "electrical structure" of an atom; it
causes the matter that fills and is the outer shell-layer of the atom
to eject, as the circulating wave system (called "electron") linearly
escapes
(where "linearly" is wrt the atom itself rather than the environment).
> Then (as I read above), you employ relativity as the rate
> at which the emission occurs.
No. Not relativity, which is unrelated to this discussion.
Just the rate, as measured by any clock at all. sort of...
> One might say an electronic structure reduces in energy and
> by doing so, emits photonic energy w.r.t. quantum rules,
Delete the word "electronic" and that would be ok.
> OTOH, you introduce a variation of the mass of the
> constituents.
If by "all" of the constituents you mean all of them before AND AFTER
the reaction, No.
If you mean all of them BEFORE the reaction, Yes.
To be precise, the mass (quantity of matter) is ALWAYS present,
whether or not it remains part of an organized pattern such as an
atom. HOWEVER!!!!! its WEIGHT (net pressure against a scale at rest in
a g-field) is
variable. Indeed, when it escapes from an organized pattern and
becomes a bit of continuous compressible matter, its weight is zero.
> BTW, 'glird' what's your name?
dr g i lEBAU
54 1 3 2 in that order.
glird
12345
spudnik
on me, dood!
> Does light as a wave appear all at once?
> What size does it start at when created?
thus:
all three of you bring to mind two particles,
associated with the "standard model"
of transmitting either a)
elecctromagnetism or b)
the implied force of gravity. so,
what if they are considered dually,
to be waves; do they transverally oscillate
through what medium?
if you're going to rely on the standard model
of saying that, somehow, these waves are their own media
-- if there were stationary particles, called photons,
they could transmit some thing, like H2Os --
well ... you've already got your package shrink-wrapped!
<clip clippings for supermarket>
> > > Obviously. We are discussing light and gravity. That doesn't mean the
> > > quanta are different. For example, light quanta propagates at 'c'
> > > while gravity quanta state is determined by its connections with the
> > > matter and the state of the neighboring quanta.
> > If a photon is a quantum of aether then space is filled with photons
> > in different states.
> > A photon propagating at 'c' with respect to the neighboring photons
> > (quanta) is light.
> The 'angular momentum' associated with quanta is determined by its
> connections with the matter.- Hide quoted text -
thus:
Young proved, a humdred years after Newton espoused
his "theory" of corpuscles, that light is simply waves
(in the air, if you will, viz permeability & permitivity);
among his proofs was the "two pin-hole experiment" --
2PHX? -- which gave a loveley moire' pattern
on the photographic (silver oxide?) emulsion. (his source
of light was another pinhole in the far wall,
admitting sunlight, quite coherently !-)
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
--Cheeny, Rice, Pendergast the ICC and Waxman's (sik)
Third British invasion -- their brain, our bronze -- of Sudan!
BURT
>
> --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
>
> --Cheeny, Rice, Pendergast the ICC and Waxman's (sik)
> Third British invasion -- their brain, our bronze -- of Sudan!
If an emitted light wave begins locally it must expand in space to
full wavelength.
A very large red shifted low energy wave needs to form at the speed of
light to be local.
Mitch Raemsch
glird
>
> ... you bring to mind two particles,
> associated with the "standard model"
> of transmitting either a)
> the implied force of gravity. so,
> what if they are considered dually,
> through what medium?
The standard model is wrong.
a, Electromagnetism is not made of particles.
b, The force of gravity is not made of waves and
does not transmit.
The electric aspect of electromagnetism is a
density gradient and the magnetic aspect is a
pressure gradient. The medium is whatever
material happens to be present in the space
where they exist.
Although em is a wave system and each wave has
those two components that vary perpendicularly to
each other per point -- thus are transverse to each
other -- the waves are a series of compressions that
travel linearly, thus are longitudinal rather than
transverse waves.
> > > > We are discussing light and gravity. That doesn't mean the quanta are different. For example, light quanta propagates at 'c' while gravity quanta state is determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the neighboring quanta. >
Since a quantum is a quantity and quanta are quantities, the examples
are meaningless.
> > > If a photon is a quantum of aether then space is filled with photons in different states. >
A photon is not a quantum of aether, it is a
quantity of energy IN the ether.
"Energy" is the ability to do work. That ability is
possessed and exerted by matter against other
bits of matter. "Ether" is the continuity aspect of
the material that fills a local space. The "continuity
aspect" refers to the fact that matter is continuous
everywhere, even if separate particles are part of
that continuum.
glird
spudnik
you agree that There Are No Photons?
if there is no vacuum, then what is the need
for an aether -- can you justify any
of this e-palimpsest?
> The standard model is wrong.
> a, Electromagnetism is not made of particles.
> b, The force of gravity is not made of waves and
> does not transmit.
>
> The electric aspect of electromagnetism is a
> density gradient and the magnetic aspect is a
> pressure gradient. The medium is whatever
> material happens to be present in the space
> where they exist.
> Although em is a wave system and each wave has
> those two components that vary perpendicularly to
> each other per point -- thus are transverse to each
> other -- the waves are a series of compressions that
> travel linearly, thus are longitudinal rather than
> transverse waves.
> A photon is not a quantum of aether, it is a
> quantity of energy IN the ether.
> "Energy" is the ability to do work. That ability is
> possessed and exerted by matter against other
> bits of matter. "Ether" is the continuity aspect of
> the material that fills a local space. The "continuity
> aspect" refers to the fact that matter is continuous
> everywhere, even if separate particles are part of
> that continuum.
thus:
what in Hell is "relativistic temporal effect?..." NB:
"need 4 semesters college physics to 'get it'."
Death to the lightcone -- long-live the great geometer,
Minkowski!
> I recommend http://www.jaypritzker.org/pages/GetBook.html "Geometry of Time"
thus:
Sir Stephen is in the Star Trek Sci-Trinity,
the secular church of England --
get ye to the holodeck & "relive theirstory!"
thus:
it is used in electronics:
all media & all circuits (taken as a whole) have permitivity and
permeability. it's fun to study those in "dimensional analysis," but
I only say that, because of the predominating gobbledy-gook
of "timespace," which is literally nothing but a phase space --
another thing, that we use in electronics.
it should be theoretically possible to measure the p&p
of different degrees of vacuum, but it must be difficult, and
it may not have been done.
look on Al's website; he has one cool experiment,
that was done in his pool, I think!
thus:
you mean, just like ordinary matter (ionized hydrogen and
dihydrogen e.g., predominantly between stars and
between galaxies; much more of the latter,
which is a recent finding).
> Aether Displacement does not requiring a flowing aether.
thus:
use L'Hopital's calculus (by Bernoulli) to prove that
some divergent sequence has a rational limit.
thus:
I didn't quite grok the whole generating process, but
it needs a twee more meta-analysis of Collatz!
> > Example. Be N =5000. Using de integers from 5 to 5000 as seeds,
> > we obtain 7183 different numbers < 10000. Then R = 7173 / 10000 =
> > 0.7183.
thus:
"120 New Glaciers Dyscovered on Continental Divide" (October 2001,
Sunday LATimes, near the back of the A section, just the top 1/5
of the page). well, yes, to some extent, you do have
to question the authority bumperstickers; that is to say,
the official interpretation of what ever dataset. then,
you have to question the data, two, to some degree.
that's what i like about the Truthers;
they find so many anomalies that have not
been explained by the Commission e.g. But, on the other hand,
neither have they (what melted the cars in the street, and
how in Hell was there molten metal underneath the rubble,
three *weeks* later?... e.g.).
and for _o_'s sake, please,
get rid of the chemtrail jokers (in the '70s and '80s,
they may have been looking *down* at funny white trails,
on the table-top !-)
thus quoth:
Should 9-11 truth Use Official Information Without Question?
thus:
look at Cahill's graph of these "zero" results, or
continue to insist on Einsteinmania *Xor* aether.
(I do not say any thing of such, or assume that
it is implied by the results!)
thus:
"sound particles" are known as "phonons," but
this is clearly a "quantization"
of sound that is not striclty analagous to the usual one
that is applied to the photoelectrical dffect -- the only aspect
of light that might seem corpuscular -- and it does not have to,
thus:
what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or,
one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory;
Young et al completely rid us of that theory,
which also had that denser media had faster light).
maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance
that "quantum" means "particle,"
your other Einstein's rock from the train; gah!... come on:
there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light.
--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
When light comes out of a radiating electric particle what size of
wave is it?
Does it take time to form its full wavelength across space? It is thus
a local phenomenon in its formation?
Mitch Raemsch
spudnik
he could configure what in Hell he meant!
time to hit the Shakespeare, dood -- and
I don't mean, your monkeys' Sonnet.
> When light comes out of a radiating electric particle what size of
> wave is it?
> Does it take time to form its full wavelength across space? It is thus
> a local phenomenon in its formation?
thus:
and of course, Fermat is not known to have made any
other mistake.
> that is, he corrected an error in the marginal statemnt,
> thus also ruling-out all powers of two, as exponential
> (from the lemma that you only need to work the prime powers).
thus:
the standard model is wrong about, What?... so, now,
you agree that There Are No Photons?
if there is no vacuum, then what is the need
for an aether -- can you justify any
of this e-palimpsest?
> A photon is not a quantum of aether, it is a
> quantity of energy IN the ether.
thus:
what in Hell is "relativistic temporal effect?..." NB:
"need 4 semesters college physics to 'get it'."
Death to the lightcone -- long-live the great geometer,
Minkowski!
> I recommend http://jaypritzker.org/pages/GetBook.html "Geometry of Time"
--les OEuvres!
BURT
The geometry of time is in the fact that it fills curved space.
Mitch Raemsch