Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #455482 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-10 15:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-18 10:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 15:02 -0700
The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-10 15:27 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 09:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 15:28 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 07:51 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 08:33 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 14:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-13 21:29 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 10:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 10:41 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 12:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 13:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 13:51 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 08:12 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 22:14 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> - 2018-04-11 15:31 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-12 04:46 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-12 15:13 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-11 05:47 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 08:21 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 08:36 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 10:21 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 10:32 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 11:02 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 13:07 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 13:19 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 11:27 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 11:37 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-11 05:58 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 08:23 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:19 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:32 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-12 04:52 -0700
The DUMBEST Belief in Physics Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 11:31 +0100
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 21:52 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 20:29 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-14 06:58 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 07:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-14 09:25 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-14 07:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 07:58 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 08:32 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-15 10:32 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 09:27 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-16 17:57 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-15 18:54 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 10:28 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:12 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 13:31 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:19 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-13 14:56 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 16:01 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 22:16 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-13 20:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-14 07:29 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 15:29 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-15 10:30 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 09:23 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 20:38 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-16 18:10 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-16 21:17 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 07:11 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 14:54 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-17 08:26 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 08:55 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 14:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-17 20:06 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 08:42 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 10:30 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-19 21:17 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 14:29 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-19 21:41 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 19:22 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-20 07:44 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:38 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 14:59 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 19:22 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 23:53 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:55 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 14:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-21 05:57 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 23:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 10:46 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:41 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 09:50 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 16:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-22 07:45 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-22 08:58 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 11:47 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:41 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-23 16:33 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:32 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:42 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-18 09:56 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-18 08:40 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 08:57 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-15 18:34 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-15 09:08 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 09:37 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 20:39 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 13:49 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 22:01 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 15:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 15:31 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 16:38 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 16:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 17:01 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 08:15 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-19 08:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 08:59 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-19 09:22 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-19 09:31 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-04-19 10:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-19 18:31 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-19 09:58 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-04-19 19:57 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-19 21:35 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-19 13:47 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 07:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 10:17 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-04-19 10:38 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 19:59 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-21 01:12 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics KronosPrime@outlook.com - 2018-04-22 12:06 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-19 09:08 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-18 21:15 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 10:07 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-13 11:33 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-14 18:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 09:07 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-15 20:27 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-16 05:40 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-15 20:55 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 07:07 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 12:25 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-16 23:28 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 07:18 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-17 08:57 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-17 20:03 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 08:56 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 09:11 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 09:12 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 10:40 -0700
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 15:02 -0700 |
| Subject | The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics |
| Message-ID | <aca582c6-4b13-424a-9885-afee2aea8e7d@googlegroups.com> |
The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." Source: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html Light is emitted from atoms as PHOTONS, which are emitted RANDOMLY in all directions. “This means you cannot predict the angular direction of any specific photon emitted." Source: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/radiationdir.html "Radio waves, gamma-rays, visible light, and all the other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be described in terms of a stream of mass-less particles, called photons, each traveling in a wave-like pattern at the speed of light." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html There wouldn’t be a “stream” of photons unless they were focused, as is done in a laser beam. Otherwise, the photons spread out like light radiating in all directions from a lightbulb. And the only “wave-like pattern” is the way each individual photon vibrates. "Each photon contains a certain amount of energy. The different types of radiation are defined by the amount of energy found in the photons. Radio waves have photons with low energies, microwave photons have a little more energy than radio waves, infrared photons have still more, then visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, and, the most energetic of all, gamma-rays." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html So, when you transmit radio signals using a standard antenna, the antenna emits trillions of radio photons RANDOMLY in every direction. To make the signals mean something, they are EMITTED in evenly spaced high-frequency PULSES erroneously called a “carrier wave.” AM radio, for example, is transmitted in the frequency range 535-1605 kHz. That means they send out a “carrier wave” of from 535,000 pulses to 1,605,000 pulses per second. The individual pulses vary in amplitude, meaning they are stronger or weaker depending upon the sound you want to create. The AM radio receiver can then decode the signals for a specific pulse frequency as music or people talking. FM radio is transmitted as a “carrier wave” in the frequency range of 88 to 108 Mhz, or 88,000,000 to 108,000,000 pulses per second. By varying the vibration frequency of the photons within a pulse, the pulses are coded to create whatever sounds you need to create. The FM radio receiver can then decode the signals as music or as people talking. Because the photons spread out as they leave the transmitter, the signal gets weaker and weaker the farther the receiver is from the transmitter. You can build a bigger antenna to capture more radio photons just the way you build a bigger telescope to capture more visible light photons. By building dish-shaped or tube-shaped transmitters you can also FOCUS the transmission of radio photons so that they do not spread out as much and so more will hit a target receiver. Light photons do NOT consist of waves, nor do radio photons. Evidently, that false image was created when it was believed that there needed to be some “medium” to transmit light waves, and they believed that “medium” was an invisible “ether” or “aether.” So, they envisioned light as moving wave-like just as sound moves wave-like through the air. It’s time to look at things the way they really are. Light does NOT travel as waves. Light travels as individual PHOTONS. Ed
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 15:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6523bf9-eb62-4417-8b08-76a2cc356a3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455482 |
Ed ..... that’s Purposeful Disruptive behavior
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-14 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b25b56ae-a79d-41ef-bc99-17947f513a6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455488 |
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 5:27:16 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Ed ..... that’s Purposefully Disruptive behavior https://youtu.be/crjjdzmoyio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 15:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <337edd05-8a0a-4922-ba26-977a158b5865@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455482 |
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:02:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." It doesn't. You need to study physics to find out how light wave is modelled. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-11 07:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ce2ba597-75c6-4a91-a7c1-8e435265aa77@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455489 |
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 5:28:33 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:02:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." > > It doesn't. You need to study physics to find out how light wave is > modelled. > > -- > Jan You're not making sense, Jan. I said the 8th dumbest belief in physics is that "light travels as waves." And you say "It doesn't." That means WE AGREE. If we agree, why do I need to study physics to find out how light is modeled? I KNOW how it is "modeled." It is "modeled" INCORRECTLY because people haven't bothered to find a CORRECT model. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-11 08:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2bfbfb2-fc92-43d7-bdb8-bb35d0a52ac5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455528 |
On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 9:51:30 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 5:28:33 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > It doesn't. You need to study physics to find out how light wave is > > modelled. > > > > -- > > Jan > > You're not making sense, Jan. I said the 8th dumbest belief in physics is that "light travels as waves." And you say "It doesn't." That means WE AGREE. > > If we agree, why do I need to study physics to find out how light is modeled? I KNOW how it is "modeled." It is "modeled" INCORRECTLY because people haven't bothered to find a CORRECT model. Photons are quantum objects. The sometimes display wave behavior, and sometimes display particle behavior. You have only the most rudimentary understanding about the subjects that you critique. Most definitely, you are in no position to call various beliefs "dumb".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-13 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80ad8211-781a-4ba1-8008-e267eba88e7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455528 |
On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 7:51:30 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 5:28:33 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:02:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." > > > > It doesn't. You need to study physics to find out how light wave is > > modelled. > > > > -- > > Jan > > You're not making sense, Jan. You cannot read. I said: "It doesn't. You need to study physics to find out how light wave is modelled." responding to your false statement: "The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." (Physics claims no such thing.) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-13 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <par7gj$10lo$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #455867 |
JanPB wrote: >> You're not making sense, Jan. > > You cannot read. I said: "It doesn't. You need to study physics to find > out how light wave is modelled." responding to your false statement: > "The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." (Physics > claims no such thing.) Right, it's guessing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 10:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <436b2f6e-3568-4b40-82a3-65e39a6ab0eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455528 |
On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 10:51:30 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 5:28:33 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:02:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." > > > > It doesn't. You need to study physics to find out how light wave is > > modelled. > > > > -- > > Jan > > You're not making sense, Jan. I said the 8th dumbest belief in physics > is that "light travels as waves." And you say "It doesn't." That means > WE AGREE. > > If we agree, why do I need to study physics to find out how light is modeled? > I KNOW how it is "modeled." It is "modeled" INCORRECTLY because > people haven't bothered to find a CORRECT model. > > Ed Hi Ed, simple question for you: Do you consider yourself to be a solid object? Or do you calculate your motions through the day by figuring out how all the atoms in your body need to move? Just as Newtonian mechanics works fine for calculating the flight of a satellite around the earth, but fails for Mercury around the sun, modeling light as waves or particles depends on the problem being solved. So it is useful to use wave theory for designing antenae and other E&M devices. Computing the design based on QM is possible but just too difficult to be practical for the gain in precision. Is it wrong? Well as a friend of mine says: "All theories are wrong, some are useful." To argue that one is more correct than another sometimes comes down to the context of the problem being solved. Enjoy, Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 10:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <882c0ee6-9ecc-4d07-8d4a-23cb6e4ab632@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456326 |
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 12:24:08 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 10:51:30 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 5:28:33 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:02:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." > > > > > > It doesn't. You need to study physics to find out how light wave is > > > modelled. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > You're not making sense, Jan. I said the 8th dumbest belief in physics > > is that "light travels as waves." And you say "It doesn't." That means > > WE AGREE. > > > > If we agree, why do I need to study physics to find out how light is modeled? > > I KNOW how it is "modeled." It is "modeled" INCORRECTLY because > > people haven't bothered to find a CORRECT model. > > > > Ed > > Hi Ed, > simple question for you: > Do you consider yourself to be a solid object? > Or do you calculate your motions through the day by figuring > out how all the atoms in your body need to move? > > Just as Newtonian mechanics works fine for calculating > the flight of a satellite around the earth, but fails > for Mercury around the sun, modeling light as waves > or particles depends on the problem being solved. > > So it is useful to use wave theory for designing antenae > and other E&M devices. Computing the design based on QM > is possible but just too difficult to be practical for > the gain in precision. > > Is it wrong? Well as a friend of mine says: > "All theories are wrong, some are useful." > > To argue that one is more correct than another sometimes > comes down to the context of the problem being solved. > > Enjoy, > Ed As I've said before, the idea that light travels as waves is #8 on the list of the 10 dumbest ideas in physics, but it would be higher on the list if it wasn't for the fact that the "dumb" idea CAN still be used to solve problems. http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html It is on the list because it is NOT TRUE. We should be looking for what IS true. But it seems too many mathematicians are content with using the DUMB idea, so they have no interest in learning exactly how light DOES work. If they learned how light actually DOES work, they'd have to learn new mathematical models and new techniques. That's what all the mathematicians had to do when they were forced to accept the reality that the sun does not orbit around the earth. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b905addd-9672-45a3-b5fd-56daddea34b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456335 |
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 12:24:08 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 10:51:30 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 5:28:33 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:02:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." > > > > > > > > It doesn't. You need to study physics to find out how light wave is > > > > modelled. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > > > > You're not making sense, Jan. I said the 8th dumbest belief in physics > > > is that "light travels as waves." And you say "It doesn't." That means > > > WE AGREE. > > > > > > If we agree, why do I need to study physics to find out how light is modeled? > > > I KNOW how it is "modeled." It is "modeled" INCORRECTLY because > > > people haven't bothered to find a CORRECT model. > > > > > > Ed > > > > Hi Ed, > > simple question for you: > > Do you consider yourself to be a solid object? > > Or do you calculate your motions through the day by figuring > > out how all the atoms in your body need to move? > > > > Just as Newtonian mechanics works fine for calculating > > the flight of a satellite around the earth, but fails > > for Mercury around the sun, modeling light as waves > > or particles depends on the problem being solved. > > > > So it is useful to use wave theory for designing antenae > > and other E&M devices. Computing the design based on QM > > is possible but just too difficult to be practical for > > the gain in precision. > > > > Is it wrong? Well as a friend of mine says: > > "All theories are wrong, some are useful." > > > > To argue that one is more correct than another sometimes > > comes down to the context of the problem being solved. > > > > Enjoy, > > Ed > > As I've said before, the idea that light travels as waves is #8 on the > list of the 10 dumbest ideas in physics, but it would be higher on the > list if it wasn't for the fact that the "dumb" idea CAN still be used > to solve problems. [] > > It is on the list because it is NOT TRUE. And you somehow have a direct link to what is TRUE? > We should be looking for what IS true. We seek the true, knowing that we may only be able to get better and better approximations. At least that is my pragmatic approach. Claiming to know what is TRUE, smacks of absolutism and elitism. > But it seems too many mathematicians are content with using the > DUMB idea, so they have no interest in learning exactly how light > DOES work. If they learned how light actually DOES work, they'd > have to learn new mathematical models and new techniques. That's > what all the mathematicians had to do when they were forced to accept > the reality that the sun does not orbit around the earth. I have been close friends with some mathematicians. Funny thing is, in all the discussions I've had with them, they never expressed any interest in the topic of light or other areas of physics. You must interact with some unusual mathematicians. As far as using what works, I'll ask again in a slightly different example: Do you use QED to calculate the motion of a baseball? Or do you use Newtonian mechanics? > > Ed As my college Chemistry Prof used to say: "If it works, use it." Enjoy, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c4cf64a-04d6-411a-a170-0596532ff56f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456349 |
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 2:39:22 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 12:24:08 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 10:51:30 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 5:28:33 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:02:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't. You need to study physics to find out how light wave is > > > > > modelled. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > You're not making sense, Jan. I said the 8th dumbest belief in physics > > > > is that "light travels as waves." And you say "It doesn't." That means > > > > WE AGREE. > > > > > > > > If we agree, why do I need to study physics to find out how light is modeled? > > > > I KNOW how it is "modeled." It is "modeled" INCORRECTLY because > > > > people haven't bothered to find a CORRECT model. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > Hi Ed, > > > simple question for you: > > > Do you consider yourself to be a solid object? > > > Or do you calculate your motions through the day by figuring > > > out how all the atoms in your body need to move? > > > > > > Just as Newtonian mechanics works fine for calculating > > > the flight of a satellite around the earth, but fails > > > for Mercury around the sun, modeling light as waves > > > or particles depends on the problem being solved. > > > > > > So it is useful to use wave theory for designing antenae > > > and other E&M devices. Computing the design based on QM > > > is possible but just too difficult to be practical for > > > the gain in precision. > > > > > > Is it wrong? Well as a friend of mine says: > > > "All theories are wrong, some are useful." > > > > > > To argue that one is more correct than another sometimes > > > comes down to the context of the problem being solved. > > > > > > Enjoy, > > > Ed > > > > As I've said before, the idea that light travels as waves is #8 on the > > list of the 10 dumbest ideas in physics, but it would be higher on the > > list if it wasn't for the fact that the "dumb" idea CAN still be used > > to solve problems. [] > > > > It is on the list because it is NOT TRUE. > > And you somehow have a direct link to what is TRUE? No, but I have web links to information that shows that the belief that light travels as waves is NOT TRUE. > > > We should be looking for what IS true. > > We seek the true, knowing that we may only be able to get better > and better approximations. At least that is my pragmatic approach. > Claiming to know what is TRUE, smacks of absolutism and elitism. The problem with discussing anything on this forum is that everything has to be endlessly qualified. So we're always arguing over definitions of words. That gets very tedious. Okay, maybe I should have written "We should be looking for what is as TRUE as we can possibly determine." > > > But it seems too many mathematicians are content with using the > > DUMB idea, so they have no interest in learning exactly how light > > DOES work. If they learned how light actually DOES work, they'd > > have to learn new mathematical models and new techniques. That's > > what all the mathematicians had to do when they were forced to accept > > the reality that the sun does not orbit around the earth. > > I have been close friends with some mathematicians. Funny thing is, > in all the discussions I've had with them, they never expressed any > interest in the topic of light or other areas of physics. You must > interact with some unusual mathematicians. I'm distinguishing between physicists who are mainly scientists looking to understand how the universe works and physicists who are mainly mathematicians defending their mathematical models of the universe. I call the latter "mathematicians" or when I feel like being more precise, I call them mathematician-physicists. > > As far as using what works, I'll ask again in a slightly different > example: > Do you use QED to calculate the motion of a baseball? > Or do you use Newtonian mechanics? I use a radar gun. > > > > > Ed > > As my college Chemistry Prof used to say: "If it works, use it." > > Enjoy, > ed My kindergarten teacher used to say, "There are always two choices. Two paths to take. One is easy. And its only reward is that it's easy.” Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d1f622b-741c-4651-9c6c-4ab8b5d08e55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456354 |
Eduardo Del Lago escrito The problem with discussing anything on this forum is that everything has to be endlessly qualified. So we're always arguing over definitions of words. That gets very tedious. Okay, maybe I should have written "We should be looking for what is as TRUE as we can possibly determine." No Eduardo.... the problem is “YOU” and only you. You are unwilling or unable to learn even basic Physics https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 08:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff32496f-c6d8-45d4-9326-ebfc6d943a1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456354 |
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 4:39:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 2:39:22 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 12:24:08 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: [] > > > > Just as Newtonian mechanics works fine for calculating > > > > the flight of a satellite around the earth, but fails > > > > for Mercury around the sun, modeling light as waves > > > > or particles depends on the problem being solved. > > > > > > > > So it is useful to use wave theory for designing antenae > > > > and other E&M devices. Computing the design based on QM > > > > is possible but just too difficult to be practical for > > > > the gain in precision. > > > > > > > > Is it wrong? Well as a friend of mine says: > > > > "All theories are wrong, some are useful." > > > > > > > > To argue that one is more correct than another sometimes > > > > comes down to the context of the problem being solved. > > > > > > > > Enjoy, > > > > Ed > > > > > > As I've said before, the idea that light travels as waves is #8 on the > > > list of the 10 dumbest ideas in physics, but it would be higher on the > > > list if it wasn't for the fact that the "dumb" idea CAN still be used > > > to solve problems. [] > > > > > > It is on the list because it is NOT TRUE. > > > > And you somehow have a direct link to what is TRUE? > > No, but I have web links to information that shows that the > belief that light travels as waves is NOT TRUE. Really? They say light is not waves? Or do they say (to quote Feynman) "light comes in clumps". Careful, these are two very different statements. > > > > > > We should be looking for what IS true. > > > > We seek the true, knowing that we may only be able to get better > > and better approximations. At least that is my pragmatic approach. > > Claiming to know what is TRUE, smacks of absolutism and elitism. > > The problem with discussing anything on this forum is that > everything has to be endlessly qualified. So we're always > arguing over definitions of words. That gets very tedious. > Okay, maybe I should have written "We should be looking for > what is as TRUE as we can possibly determine." Well some of us have had to deal with cranks that simply proclaim the TRUTH. I think you may be misunderstanding a few things, but I don't yet see you as a crank. > > > > > > But it seems too many mathematicians are content with using the > > > DUMB idea, so they have no interest in learning exactly how light > > > DOES work. If they learned how light actually DOES work, they'd > > > have to learn new mathematical models and new techniques. That's > > > what all the mathematicians had to do when they were forced to accept > > > the reality that the sun does not orbit around the earth. > > > > I have been close friends with some mathematicians. Funny thing is, > > in all the discussions I've had with them, they never expressed any > > interest in the topic of light or other areas of physics. You must > > interact with some unusual mathematicians. > > I'm distinguishing between physicists who are mainly scientists > looking to understand how the universe works and physicists who > are mainly mathematicians defending their mathematical models > of the universe. I call the latter "mathematicians" or when I > feel like being more precise, I call them mathematician-physicists. Just don't want honest Mathematicians to be tarnished with the same brush. 8^) > > > > > As far as using what works, I'll ask again in a slightly different > > example: > > Do you use QED to calculate the motion of a baseball? > > Or do you use Newtonian mechanics? > > I use a radar gun. So you use what works, not what is TRUE. That's good. Progress. > > > > As my college Chemistry Prof used to say: "If it works, use it." > > > > Enjoy, > > ed > > My kindergarten teacher used to say, > "There are always two choices. Two paths to take. > One is easy. And its only reward is that it's easy.” > > Ed Nice. Lets us see if we can follow her advice. Enjoy, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 22:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pjmidd1ul0pj2ad1dimeccges8pi90kg0d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #456354 |
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lake wrote: > No, but I have web links to information that shows that the belief > that light travels as waves is NOT TRUE. You'd better get on the phone to Helsinki right away and tell them about this so they can mail you your Nobel Prize. Just pick up the telephone, dial "0", and tell the operator to put you through to Helsinki. You'd better get on with it before someone else finds the Web and gets in touch with Helsinki before you do and gets your Prize. They'll put you through, the phone company will... unless they're part of the conspiracy. That's how you'll know the phone company is in on it: they won't put you through to Helsinki, they'll stall. In that case you'll need to report the phone company to the police. Just call them and tell them; they'll know what you're talking about. They've been following all this pretty closely. Given the level of discourse of some parties to this thread, it seems all too likely that it's too late already. Perhaps you can claim to be collaborators, share the riches. Go for it. Seize the day. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-11 15:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pal9nl$1bol$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #455489 |
JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:02:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: >> The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." > > It doesn't. You need to study physics to find out how light wave is > modelled. Nonsense, light is not modelled in physics, but in math modelling of physics models. Huge difference. You must be a new-beginner.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-12 04:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4938988.kjitHOUqA4@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #455534 |
The ’nym-shifting troll blathered nonsense as "Jed Serpa" <iul@enwlew.lc>: > JanPB wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:02:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: >>> The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." >> It doesn't. You need to study physics to find out how light wave is >> modelled. > > Nonsense, light is not modelled in physics, It most certainly is. And was. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Historical_theories_about_light,_in_chronological_order> > but in math modelling of physics models. Not even wrong. > Huge difference. Yes. > You must be a new-beginner. Hopeless. The word “new-beginner” does not even exist. *PLONK* PointedEars -- Q: Why is electricity so dangerous? A: It doesn't conduct itself. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-12 15:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pant3c$1ljv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #455645 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Nonsense, light is not modelled in physics, > > It most certainly is. And was. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Light#Historical_theories_about_light,_in_chronological_order> > >> but in math modelling of physics models. > > Not even wrong. dumbass pointedhead know nothing about math modelling. And physics, which nowadays is 90% testing and simulate models in multi-physics. Totally unemployable, as someone else said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-11 05:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6b68f10-3089-44a6-8e08-4756182dbe78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455482 |
El martes, 10 de abril de 2018, 19:02:03 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." Source: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > So, when you transmit radio signals using a standard antenna, the antenna emits trillions of radio photons RANDOMLY in every direction. To make the signals mean something, they are EMITTED in evenly spaced high-frequency PULSES erroneously called a “carrier wave.” > > AM radio, for example, is transmitted in the frequency range 535-1605 kHz. That means they send out a “carrier wave” of from 535,000 pulses to 1,605,000 pulses per second. The individual pulses vary in amplitude, meaning they are stronger or weaker depending upon the sound you want to create. The AM radio receiver can then decode the signals for a specific pulse frequency as music or people talking. > Sorry Edward, but that is not how radio engineers design and use modulation systems. No book in telecommunications engineering will use Quantum Mechanics to explain, design or test radio communication systems. Look the following videos which explain how a carrier wave is modulated to create pulses or amplitude modulation signals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I_e7gIyfQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wUjLWNgqMs You are again talking nonsense
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-11 08:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fba3f7fd-dd50-435d-bfec-25589a29aa01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455520 |
On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 7:47:15 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El martes, 10 de abril de 2018, 19:02:03 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." Source: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > > > So, when you transmit radio signals using a standard antenna, the antenna emits trillions of radio photons RANDOMLY in every direction. To make the signals mean something, they are EMITTED in evenly spaced high-frequency PULSES erroneously called a “carrier wave.” > > > > AM radio, for example, is transmitted in the frequency range 535-1605 kHz. That means they send out a “carrier wave” of from 535,000 pulses to 1,605,000 pulses per second. The individual pulses vary in amplitude, meaning they are stronger or weaker depending upon the sound you want to create. The AM radio receiver can then decode the signals for a specific pulse frequency as music or people talking. > > > > Sorry Edward, but that is not how radio engineers design and use modulation > systems. No book in telecommunications engineering will use Quantum Mechanics > to explain, design or test radio communication systems. Look the following > videos which explain how a carrier wave is modulated to create pulses or > amplitude modulation signals. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I_e7gIyfQg > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wUjLWNgqMs > > You are again talking nonsense The problem with those videos is that they do not look at THE BASICS. And that is what I'm talking about. Specifically, does light travel as a PHOTON or as a wave? You might try reading Richard Feynman's book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter." It says this on page 15: ----- start quote --- I want to emphasize that light comes in this form—particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave—like particles. You might say that it’s just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles. ---- end quote --- Some other quotes from the book: "Newton thought that light was made up of particles—he called them “corpuscles”—and he was right (but the reasoning that he used to come to that decision was erroneous). We know that light is made of particles because we can take a very sensitive instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it, and if the light gets dimmer, the clicks remain just as loud—there are just fewer of them. Thus light is something like raindrops—each little lump of light is called a photon—and if the light is all one color, all the “raindrops” are the same size." "the wave theory cannot explain how the detector makes equally loud clicks as the light gets dimmer." "The human eye is a very good instrument: it takes only about five or six photons to activate a nerve cell and send a message to the brain. If we were evolved a little further so we could see ten times more sensitively, we wouldn’t have to have this discussion—we would all have seen very dim light of one color as a series of intermittent little flashes of equal intensity." "For many years after Newton, partial reflection by two surfaces was happily explained by a theory of waves, but when experiments were made with very weak light hitting photomultipliers, the wave theory collapsed: as the light got dimmer and dimmer, the photomultipliers kept making full-sized clicks—there were just fewer of them. Light behaved as particles." I have 12 pages of quotes which I highlighted when I read "QED" on my Kindle. I can also cite specific experiments which show that light consists of photons which simply become fewer in number when you dim the light but each photon is still the same strength (has the same energy). Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web