Re: photons


"Dr ***" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1113770068.30810.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> What is *waving* ?
> dr
> The vacuum state.

OK... your term for Coulomb force.

> s
> Hint: tiny loop antennaa and 1/ r^3.
> dr
> Hang on the photon I'm taking about has just come from another galaxy so
> 1/r^3 died of ages ago.

Anything like a spinning charge just resurrected it.


> > s
> > In the first case, the quantum would no longer be in the
> > position to concentrate energy upon a single point in
> > space in such a way as to release an electron from its
> > atomic bond, and in the second case, the main triumph
> > of the Maxwell theory - the continuity between the static
> > and the dynamic fields and, with it, the complete
> > understanding we have enjoyed, until now, of the fully
> > investigated interference phenomena - would have to be
> > sacrificed, both being very unhappy consequences for
> > today's theoreticians. >>
> > http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1918/planck-lecture.html
> >
> > << When this did not work, Planck decided, instead,
> > to make a very unusual assumption:
> > ATOMIC OSCILLATORS may not emit or absorb any energy E, but
> > only energies from a discrete set, made of integer multiples
> > of a smallest possible value:
> > dr
> > Yes dont disagree with that in priciple.
> >
> > (equation)
> > http://panda.unm.edu/courses/finley/p262/ThermalRad/img21.gif
> >
> > In this equation, f is the basic oscillator frequency.
> > Today, we describe this assumption by saying that
> > the energy of an ATOMIC OSCILLATOR is quantized. >>
> >
> > http://panda.unm.edu/courses/finley/p262/ThermalRad/ThermalRad.html
> >
> > dr
> > Yes dont disagree with that in priciple.
> > So where do you disagree with my description in part 3v032
> To be specific:
> Section 450.53, subsection 1, paragraph "b", 2 1
> and each section, paragraph, subsection, thereafer
> irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, paragraphs,
> or subsections may conflict with Section 450.53,
> subsection 2,3, paragraph "d", 2 1
> s
> Are you sure this isn't your homework?
> dr
> I am working from home but have retired from the rat race but I must miss it
> so I joined you lot.:-)
> s
> I think I already asked. :-)
> Again:
> 1) Label the axes of your diagram, IE time, GNP, earnings per share,
> volts.
> 2) Stop assuming spatial displacement for axes that don't represent a
> spatial dimension.
> dr
> Play it again Sam or in your case Sue:-) You seem unable to except that time
> and distance represent a spatial dimension that can be displaced. If you
> refuse to consider this fact them I'm stuffed as to how to convince you.:-)

Eh! You should have tho't of that before ya huffed out of "Tensor
Torquers Club" Suzy's pub only has three brands, x,y and z and
we keep a sharp eye on the clock... especially near closing time
when the rowdys like set it back claiming Prof. Einstein just ordered
a round for the house.

Fair warning, those "tensor torquers" get so tang-tongueled checking
everything for invariance, you might have a tough time transforming
anything back to 3D space that is qualitativly meaningful.

IOW... this is a beer and ale pub.
No mixed drinks. :-)

Sue...







> s
> Your brain is suppose to direct the graph, not the other way round. ;-)
> dr
> My brain directs my graphs. I like graphs some I draw up would make your
> toes curl so be thankful I'm only putting up the simple ones.:-)
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6f8daa65e0c04
> 5b2
> dr
> Is that your final word on this subject?
> ARRRRGGGH!...
> Dr ***
> Sue...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



.