Re: photons


"sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4263b9c8$0$79457$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Dr ***" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1113824495.32126.2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4262e2d9$0$79466$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "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.
> dr
> And as the it is only a shadow of its former self having been spread out
by
> 1/r^2 it only a very feeble photon.
> s
> Anything like a spinning charge just resurrected it.
> dr
> Yep out of bits of other photons, a spinning charge can be seen in some
> cases as a cosmic vortex dustbin that all the little old bits of Electric
> field of the right shape get sucked into to make new photons.
s
I must confess, I have an unfounded aversion to whirlpool
vortex types of models. From Ampere, Maxwell right on
through Tomasz Radozycki's recent paper it proves a useful
tool. Where there is smoke the must be fire so I intend to
study those aspects a bit more.
Dr
I do agree that much confusion can be created by these effects even more
than rotation, although vortex in the sense that I used it may not be the
same as others. For example if a passing field fragment is of sufficient
attraction to the atom via it resonance's, energy, polarity and vector it
might get draw in to contribute to the structure of the atom and latter
produce a photon. This I see as
a vortex it is not something that exists without the necessary components
being supplied by both the atom and the field fragment. Mind you magnetic
effects generate a circular polarisation that translates in to a helix
effect due to combined vectors but this I prefer to see as different effect
to try to avoid confusion. IMHO.
>
> > > 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. >>
> dr
> Question answered ?
s
No... Those aren't the only two possibilities. They're Just an
excuse to throw unknowns into a holding bin and call it "duality".
dr
Try me with some unknows if you please.:-)

>
> > > http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1918/planck-lecture.html
> > >

> 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.
> dr
> Ye it was a tough choice but your lot seemed much more fun:-)
> s
> 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.
> dr
> Ye I clued into that after a few swipes at my head so I think I will
> continue to let them play mind games untill they are feed up with them and
> are prepared to talk my language but thats up to them.
s
They are no more "mind games" than is a Smith-chart or an
impedance plot. The confusion, just as in Hilbert space, is caused
by forgetting that some bold and quite abstract assumptions are
made to create the calculating-space. Assumptions must be either
proven or undone in the interpretation.
dr
Fine if they are prepared to demonstrate their abstract assumptions are not
abstract and real effects and that the language they have invented to
support their abstraction is not a valid tool for proving it then fine but I
think most supporters of this methodology are *abstract* mind game players
against real mind game players and the criteria for success in the former is
ego size were in the latter it can be social benefit even if its personal
social benefit as the former tends to be constrained to the individual
whereas the latter tends to rub off on others. End social lecture :-) I
liked you page of quotes, they nearly called the white coates in to take me
away:-)

> s
> IOW... this is a beer and ale pub.
> No mixed drinks. :-)
> dr
> I have a machine that lets you poor all the drinks into one big barrel and
> on it are marked beer, better beer, ale, red wine, white wine etc . Do you
> want one for your pub ? it works by distillation on a cosmic scale.

Thank you but I expect I can get the entire U.S. Star Wars II
fuel system for about three cents on the dollar.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2566843.stm

I'd only be risking that the execssive government testing
consumed the stores.
http://www.willthomas.net/911/Bush/

> Relative velocity = voltage: Relative area = current: Relative depth =
> duration: All in a relativly total vacuum.
s
That is stretching fluidic analogy past the breaking point.
dr
You need some better elastic:-) elastic vely cheap nickers not fall down in
public:-)
Dr ***
Sue...




.

Quantcast