Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #466147 > unrolled thread

Re: What is a particle?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: What is a particle? Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> - 2018-07-29 19:42 +0000
    Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-29 13:01 -0700
    Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-30 17:04 +0000
      Re: What is a particle? Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> - 2018-07-30 19:15 +0000
        Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-31 17:35 -0700
          Re: What is a particle? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-01 11:32 -0700
            Re: What is a particle? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-02 01:40 +0200
              Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-01 21:27 -0700
                Re: What is a particle? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-04 14:16 +0200
                  Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-04 17:23 -0700
                    Re: What is a particle? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-05 03:29 +0200
                      Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-04 22:05 -0700
                        Re: What is a particle? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-05 13:02 +0200
                          Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-05 15:40 -0700
                          Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-05 15:43 -0700
                Re: What is a particle? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-04 10:45 -0700
                  Re: What is a particle? Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho> - 2018-08-06 12:00 +0000
                    Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-06 12:23 -0700
                    Re: What is a particle? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-06 15:33 -0700
                      Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-06 19:49 -0700
                      Re: What is a particle? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-07 09:11 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#466147 — Re: What is a particle?

the shark in Physics spamming troll Michael Moroney wrote:

> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: 
>>Better leave lots of space at the bottom of your particle tables.
> 
> Like what? In many, many decades science hasn't found a single one
> smaller than electrons/neutrinos/photons (and technically gluons). Nada.

This is so wrong, can't even parses grammatically using regular 
expressions. How stupid can you be. I can't believe it.

A bachelor in computer science, tuff in hompage design in colors, you too??

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#466153

Particles are energy points...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466231

The nymshifting troll, trolling as Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> trolls:

>the shark in Physics spamming troll Michael Moroney wrote:

>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: 
>>>Better leave lots of space at the bottom of your particle tables.
>> 
>> Like what? In many, many decades science hasn't found a single one
>> smaller than electrons/neutrinos/photons (and technically gluons). Nada.

>This is so wrong, can't even parses grammatically using regular 
>expressions. How stupid can you be. I can't believe it.

Too bad you didn't learn English better, if you are too dumb to parse
that. Stick to your Serbian. I'm sure you are much better with it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466248

the spamming uneducated troll Michael Moroney wrote:
>the wonderful Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> trolls:
>>the shark in Physics spamming troll Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>Better leave lots of space at the bottom of your particle tables.
>>> 
>>> Like what? In many, many decades science hasn't found a single one
>>> smaller than electrons/neutrinos/photons (and technically gluons).
>>> Nada.
> 
>>This is so wrong, can't even parses grammatically using regular
>>expressions. How stupid can you be. I can't believe it.
> 
> Too bad you didn't learn English better, if you are too dumb to parse
> that. Stick to your Serbian. I'm sure you are much better with it.

You are the one incapable to put two words together, lying hypocrite. 
Can't you sense, that sentence/paragraph is morphologically wrong? Are you 
really that STUPID. And no one is Serbian in here, you nazi. If not 
mistaken, Nikola Tesla was a Serbian, born under Austrian regime. Have 
shame.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466392

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 12:16:03 PM UTC-7, Wayne Dial wrote:
> the spamming uneducated troll Michael Moroney wrote:
> >the wonderful Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> trolls:
> >>the shark in Physics spamming troll Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>Better leave lots of space at the bottom of your particle tables.
> >>> 
> >>> Like what? In many, many decades science hasn't found a single one
> >>> smaller than electrons/neutrinos/photons (and technically gluons).
> >>> Nada.
> > 
> >>This is so wrong, can't even parses grammatically using regular
> >>expressions. How stupid can you be. I can't believe it.
> > 
> > Too bad you didn't learn English better, if you are too dumb to parse
> > that. Stick to your Serbian. I'm sure you are much better with it.
> 
> You are the one incapable to put two words together, lying hypocrite. 
> Can't you sense, that sentence/paragraph is morphologically wrong? Are you 
> really that STUPID. And no one is Serbian in here, you nazi. If not 
> mistaken, Nikola Tesla was a Serbian, born under Austrian regime. Have 
> shame.

Light can be a wave point...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466486

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 12:16:03 PM UTC-7, Wayne Dial wrote:
> > the spamming uneducated troll Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >the wonderful Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> trolls:
> > >>the shark in Physics spamming troll Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> > >>>>Better leave lots of space at the bottom of your particle tables.
> > >>>
> > >>> Like what? In many, many decades science hasn't found a single one
> > >>> smaller than electrons/neutrinos/photons (and technically gluons).
> > >>> Nada.
> > >
> > >>This is so wrong, can't even parses grammatically using regular
> > >>expressions. How stupid can you be. I can't believe it.
> > >
> > > Too bad you didn't learn English better, if you are too dumb to parse
> > > that. Stick to your Serbian. I'm sure you are much better with it.
> >
> > You are the one incapable to put two words together, lying hypocrite.
> > Can't you sense, that sentence/paragraph is morphologically wrong? Are you
> > really that STUPID. And no one is Serbian in here, you nazi. If not
> > mistaken, Nikola Tesla was a Serbian, born under Austrian regime. Have
> > shame.
> 
> Light can be a wave point...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

i didn't know waves had points...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466546

The Starmaker wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>> Light can be a wave point...
> 
> i didn't know waves had points...

A wave is actually a set of points, and the coordinates of those points (in
space and time) are defined by a wave equation.

But that is not what Mitchell Raemsch meant, and what he meant is nonsense.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466579

On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 4:40:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Light can be a wave point...
> > 
> > i didn't know waves had points...
> 
> A wave is actually a set of points, and the coordinates of those points (in
> space and time) are defined by a wave equation.
> 
> But that is not what Mitchell Raemsch meant, and what he meant is nonsense.


What about the Photon?

Light is not a particle. It can be a wave point.


Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466814

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 4:40:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Light can be a wave point...
>>> i didn't know waves had points...
>> A wave is actually a set of points, and the coordinates of those points (in
>> space and time) are defined by a wave equation.
>>
>> But that is not what Mitchell Raemsch meant, and what he meant is nonsense.
> 
> What about the Photon?

The photon (which is usually not written with a capital “P”) is a quantum
object.

> Light is not a particle.

It consists of particles, which are quantum objects, called “photons”.

> It can be a wave point.

No.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466910

On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 5:16:20 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 4:40:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Light can be a wave point...
> >>> i didn't know waves had points...
> >> A wave is actually a set of points, and the coordinates of those points (in
> >> space and time) are defined by a wave equation.
> >>
> >> But that is not what Mitchell Raemsch meant, and what he meant is nonsense.
> > 
> > What about the Photon?
> 
> The photon (which is usually not written with a capital “P”) is a quantum
> object.
> 
> > Light is not a particle.
> 
> It consists of particles, which are quantum objects, called “photons”.


Why did Einstein detract from his 1921 Nobel photon in 1937?
It is just a wave oscillating. Protons are particles, electrons
are particles and when they combine there is a new particle...


> 
> > It can be a wave point.
> 
> No.

When it is stored it is a wave point.

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466914

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 5:16:20 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Light is not a particle.
>> It consists of particles, which are quantum objects, called “photons”.
> 
> Why did Einstein detract from his 1921 Nobel photon in 1937?

Pardon?

> It is just a wave oscillating.

No.

> Protons are particles, electrons are particles and when they combine
> there is a new particle...

Yes.

>>> It can be a wave point.
>> No.
> 
> When it is stored it is a wave point.

No.  You have no clue.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466924

On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 6:29:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 5:16:20 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Light is not a particle.
> >> It consists of particles, which are quantum objects, called “photons”.
> > 
> > Why did Einstein detract from his 1921 Nobel photon in 1937?
> 
> Pardon?

Pardoning ignorance is uncalled for...

> 
> > It is just a wave oscillating.
> 
> No.

It is not a standing wave.

> 
> > Protons are particles, electrons are particles and when they combine
> > there is a new particle...
> 
> Yes.


You don't need quarks particles for those fundamentals
protons and electron make the neutron not quarks.


> 
> >>> It can be a wave point.
> >> No.
> > 
> > When it is stored it is a wave point.
> 
> No.  You have no clue.

If you are against a light point when stored with
point particles why do you believe the photon?

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466932

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 6:29:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 5:16:20 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Light is not a particle.
>>>> It consists of particles, which are quantum objects, called “photons”.
>>> Why did Einstein detract from his 1921 Nobel photon in 1937?
>> Pardon?
> 
> Pardoning ignorance is uncalled for...

“(I beg your) pardon?” is not request for pardon, but an English idiom of
politeness meaning “I did not understand (why you said) what you just said.
Please explain what you mean.”

>>> It is just a wave oscillating.
>> No.
> 
> It is not a standing wave.

A photon is not a wave in the classical sense at all.

>>> Protons are particles, electrons are particles and when they combine
>>> there is a new particle...
>> Yes.
> 
> You don't need quarks particles for those fundamentals
> protons and electron make the neutron not quarks.

But one does.  The reaction of electron capture that you are referring to is
superficially

  p⁺ + e⁻ → n⁰ + ν_e.

But, actually, protons and neutrons are both hadrons and baryons –
*composite* particles: they do NOT interact with leptons like electrons
directly.

Instead, an intermediary W-boson communicates the weak interaction between
a quark and a lepton; in this case, when an up-quark of the proton
spontaneously changes flavor into a down-quark (the third component of the
particle’s weak isospin I₃ changes from +½ to −½):

  uud     → udd + W⁺
  e⁻ + W⁺ → ν_e
                    __
  udd               ,'| ν_e
   ^^^        W⁺  ,'
    \\\   _   .->.__
     \\\,' '-'   /`.
     ///            `.
    ///               ` e⁻
   ///                  __
  udu                  |PE

and

  e⁻        → W⁻ + ν_e
  uud + W⁻  → udd

  udd
   ^^^             __
    \\\     W⁻      .| ν_e
     \\\<-.   _   .'
     ///   `-' '.'_     __
    ///         /`.    |PE
   ///             `.
  udu                ` e⁻

A hadron/baryon with two up-quarks and one down-quark  is a proton.
A hadron/baryon with one up-quark  and two down-quarks is a neutron.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction#Charged-current_interaction>
<http://www.lppp.lancs.ac.uk/higgs/pop-ups/feynman.html>

>>>>> It can be a wave point.
>>>> No.
>>> When it is stored it is a wave point.
>> No.  You have no clue.
> 
> If you are against a light point when stored with
> point particles why do you believe the photon?

Your question is so confused that one cannot tell whether
the thought behind it, if any, is nonsense.  Learn English first.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466998

On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 4:02:55 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 6:29:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 5:16:20 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Light is not a particle.
> >>>> It consists of particles, which are quantum objects, called “photons”.
> >>> Why did Einstein detract from his 1921 Nobel photon in 1937?
> >> Pardon?
> > 
> > Pardoning ignorance is uncalled for...
> 
> “(I beg your) pardon?” is not request for pardon, but an English idiom of
> politeness meaning “I did not understand (why you said) what you just said.
> Please explain what you mean.”
> 
> >>> It is just a wave oscillating.
> >> No.
> > 
> > It is not a standing wave.
> 
> A photon is not a wave in the classical sense at all.
> 
> >>> Protons are particles, electrons are particles and when they combine
> >>> there is a new particle...
> >> Yes.
> > 
> > You don't need quarks particles for those fundamentals
> > protons and electron make the neutron not quarks.
> 
> But one does.  The reaction of electron capture that you are referring to is
> superficially
> 
>   p⁺ + e⁻ → n⁰ + ν_e.
> 
> But, actually, protons and neutrons are both hadrons and baryons –
> *composite* particles: they do NOT interact with leptons like electrons
> directly.
> 
> Instead, an intermediary W-boson communicates the weak interaction between
> a quark and a lepton; in this case, when an up-quark of the proton
> spontaneously changes flavor into a down-quark (the third component of the
> particle’s weak isospin I₃ changes from +½ to −½):
> 
>   uud     → udd + W⁺
>   e⁻ + W⁺ → ν_e
>                     __
>   udd               ,'| ν_e
>    ^^^        W⁺  ,'
>     \\\   _   .->.__
>      \\\,' '-'   /`.
>      ///            `.
>     ///               ` e⁻
>    ///                  __
>   udu                  |PE
> 
> and
> 
>   e⁻        → W⁻ + ν_e
>   uud + W⁻  → udd
> 
>   udd
>    ^^^             __
>     \\\     W⁻      .| ν_e
>      \\\<-.   _   .'
>      ///   `-' '.'_     __
>     ///         /`.    |PE
>    ///             `.
>   udu                ` e⁻
> 
> A hadron/baryon with two up-quarks and one down-quark  is a proton.
> A hadron/baryon with one up-quark  and two down-quarks is a neutron.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction#Charged-current_interaction>
> <http://www.lppp.lancs.ac.uk/higgs/pop-ups/feynman.html>
> 
> >>>>> It can be a wave point.
> >>>> No.
> >>> When it is stored it is a wave point.
> >> No.  You have no clue.
> > 
> > If you are against a light point when stored with
> > point particles why do you believe the photon?
> 
> Your question is so confused that one cannot tell whether
> the thought behind it, if any, is nonsense.  Learn English first.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Imbecile PE. Einstein turned away from his Nobel photon in 1937
for what he said "light is a spherical wavelet."
He could no longer reconcile the particle of light
with the light spherical wavelet.
Einstein has been proven the winner of the historical argument
against quantum mechanics.


Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466999

On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 4:02:55 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 6:29:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 5:16:20 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Light is not a particle.
> >>>> It consists of particles, which are quantum objects, called “photons”.
> >>> Why did Einstein detract from his 1921 Nobel photon in 1937?
> >> Pardon?
> > 
> > Pardoning ignorance is uncalled for...
> 
> “(I beg your) pardon?” is not request for pardon, but an English idiom of
> politeness meaning “I did not understand (why you said) what you just said.
> Please explain what you mean.”
> 
> >>> It is just a wave oscillating.
> >> No.
> > 
> > It is not a standing wave.
> 
> A photon is not a wave in the classical sense at all.
> 
> >>> Protons are particles, electrons are particles and when they combine
> >>> there is a new particle...
> >> Yes.
> > 
> > You don't need quarks particles for those fundamentals
> > protons and electron make the neutron not quarks.
> 
> But one does.  The reaction of electron capture that you are referring to is
> superficially
> 
>   p⁺ + e⁻ → n⁰ + ν_e.
> 
> But, actually, protons and neutrons are both hadrons and baryons –
> *composite* particles: they do NOT interact with leptons like electrons
> directly.
> 
> Instead, an intermediary W-boson communicates the weak interaction between
> a quark and a lepton; in this case, when an up-quark of the proton
> spontaneously changes flavor into a down-quark (the third component of the
> particle’s weak isospin I₃ changes from +½ to −½):
> 
>   uud     → udd + W⁺
>   e⁻ + W⁺ → ν_e
>                     __
>   udd               ,'| ν_e
>    ^^^        W⁺  ,'
>     \\\   _   .->.__
>      \\\,' '-'   /`.
>      ///            `.
>     ///               ` e⁻
>    ///                  __
>   udu                  |PE
> 
> and
> 
>   e⁻        → W⁻ + ν_e
>   uud + W⁻  → udd
> 
>   udd
>    ^^^             __
>     \\\     W⁻      .| ν_e
>      \\\<-.   _   .'
>      ///   `-' '.'_     __
>     ///         /`.    |PE
>    ///             `.
>   udu                ` e⁻
> 
> A hadron/baryon with two up-quarks and one down-quark  is a proton.
> A hadron/baryon with one up-quark  and two down-quarks is a neutron.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction#Charged-current_interaction>
> <http://www.lppp.lancs.ac.uk/higgs/pop-ups/feynman.html>
> 
> >>>>> It can be a wave point.
> >>>> No.
> >>> When it is stored it is a wave point.
> >> No.  You have no clue.
> > 
> > If you are against a light point when stored with
> > point particles why do you believe the photon?
> 
> Your question is so confused that one cannot tell whether
> the thought behind it, if any, is nonsense.  Learn English first.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

No quarks needed for "electric" force protons and electrons to combine
into a new "strong" force particle.


Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466862

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 4:40:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Light can be a wave point...
> > >
> > > i didn't know waves had points...
> >
> > A wave is actually a set of points, and the coordinates of those points (in
> > space and time) are defined by a wave equation.
> >
> > But that is not what Mitchell Raemsch meant, and what he meant is nonsense.
> 
> What about the Photon?
> 
> Light is not a particle. It can be a wave point.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch


i mean...if it has a point then there is no wave. 


points don't....curl.

the moment
you see
a point..
the wave is gone.

So, how can you have a wave and a point at the same time?


if  you take a pencil
and draw a wave..
the minute you draw
a point in the wave
the wave ends.

wave the magic wand...

then point to the hat..

is there a rabbit in the hat?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467050

The Starmaker wrote:

>> What about the Photon?
>> Light is not a particle. It can be a wave point.
>
> i mean...if it has a point then there is no wave. points don't....curl.

As vectors, of course they does. Frequent mistakes you new beginners are 
committing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467123

On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:00:40 AM UTC-7, Owen Scharff wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> >> What about the Photon?
> >> Light is not a particle. It can be a wave point.
> >
> > i mean...if it has a point then there is no wave. points don't....curl.
> 
> As vectors, of course they does. Frequent mistakes you new beginners are 
> committing.

When light is stored with a point particle it is a wave point.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467148

Owen Scharff wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> >> What about the Photon?
> >> Light is not a particle. It can be a wave point.
> >
> > i mean...if it has a point then there is no wave. points don't....curl.
> 
> As vectors, of course they does. Frequent mistakes you new beginners are
> committing.



can you show me an illustration of photograph of what a "wave point" looks like? (i must be able to see the wave and the point at the same time)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467168

On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 3:33:17 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Owen Scharff wrote:
> > 
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > >> What about the Photon?
> > >> Light is not a particle. It can be a wave point.
> > >
> > > i mean...if it has a point then there is no wave. points don't....curl.
> > 
> > As vectors, of course they does. Frequent mistakes you new beginners are
> > committing.
> 
> 
> 
> can you show me an illustration of photograph of what a "wave point" looks like? (i must be able to see the wave and the point at the same time)

It is the size of the infinitely small point particles it is stored with.
Light is electric and is stored with the electric point particles.
Mathematical point energies are what they both are.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web