Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #423285 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-23 09:36 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-07-19 19:32 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-23 09:36 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-23 10:49 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 23:37 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-23 17:09 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-23 00:36 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:08 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 16:49 -0400
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 10:21 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-22 18:53 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 10:50 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-24 04:29 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 11:42 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-23 07:34 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 16:55 -0400
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 09:43 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-23 09:08 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-06-23 12:14 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 16:57 -0400
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-23 22:40 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Iorgas Gerakis <grura@agsiskswk.ai> - 2017-06-24 12:10 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-24 08:42 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-24 16:28 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-24 23:08 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-24 21:40 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 14:56 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-24 22:14 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-26 11:16 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-25 18:54 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-26 19:30 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-25 10:21 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-25 22:23 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-26 19:50 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 06:03 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-26 10:05 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 08:23 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 15:43 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 09:19 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-27 08:15 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-30 17:43 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-30 11:36 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-05 11:20 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Oveho Trofyzikovu <zfeuur@ceuuwi.ku> - 2017-07-05 17:10 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-06 03:49 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-06 11:11 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-06 20:19 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:05 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-06 20:40 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-07 09:43 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-07 22:49 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-07 09:11 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-08 09:44 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-08 00:09 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 10:06 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-08 18:01 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 12:56 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-08 20:45 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-10 09:50 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 10:58 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-10 19:58 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-10 23:57 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:22 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-11 14:54 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:23 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-12 03:07 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-13 09:42 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-13 03:15 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-14 09:34 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-14 05:24 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 10:20 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-19 15:20 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2017-07-19 19:56 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-30 17:40 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-03 11:37 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 07:26 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 07:42 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 07:51 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-25 23:58 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-26 19:52 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 06:06 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 06:14 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 15:39 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Ernardin Ignace <ee@wrrawiwidir.ic> - 2017-06-25 09:13 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 11:50 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 10:00 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 12:20 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 10:40 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 17:33 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 15:49 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 18:31 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 18:12 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 12:14 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-25 12:05 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 10:10 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-25 12:33 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 10:48 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <Poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 16:40 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Iorgas Gerakis <grura@agsiskswk.ai> - 2017-06-24 17:28 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 09:20 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-24 17:04 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 10:44 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-24 17:54 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 03:14 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-24 20:50 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 15:05 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 16:37 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-26 11:47 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-26 18:02 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 16:30 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-06-26 16:31 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 23:30 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 10:24 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 01:26 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 19:32 +1000
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 11:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Doednf-ZsZsrjMDEnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423676 |
On 6/30/17 6/30/17 - 10:43 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 6/26/17 6/26/17 - 4:50 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >>> Light interacts weakly with other EM, particularly in very high vacuum. >> Hmnmmm. Not directly. > > I beg your pardon – “not *directly*”? Yes, not directly. That is, there is no 2-photon vertex in QED. Two photons can interact via an electron/positron loop, but that requires higher order diagrams, and is thus quite small. Experiments measuring light traversing large magnetic fields (> 10 T) have shown no significant interaction. Experiments with intersecting laser beams also found no significant interaction. These are of course performed in vacuum. > What do you think “interact weakly” > and “EM” means (in Wilson’s world)? Well, EM surely means electromagnetism. For the rest I have no idea -- from his writings it's clear that not even Wilson knows what he means. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oveho Trofyzikovu <zfeuur@ceuuwi.ku> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 17:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojj6ig$oad$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424018 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> I beg your pardon – “not *directly*”? > > Yes, not directly. That is, there is no 2-photon vertex in QED. Two > photons can interact via an electron/positron loop, but that requires > higher order diagrams, and is thus quite small. I don't understand a word of what you say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 03:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1540089.vCJZsxu672@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #424018 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/30/17 6/30/17 - 10:43 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 6/26/17 6/26/17 - 4:50 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >>>> Light interacts weakly with other EM, particularly in very high vacuum. >>> Hmnmmm. Not directly. >> >> I beg your pardon – “not *directly*”? > > Yes, not directly. That is, there is no 2-photon vertex in QED. You cannot possibly believe that he remotely meant anything like that. > Two photons can interact via an electron/positron loop, […] Not only: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics#Processes> > Experiments measuring light traversing large magnetic fields (> 10 T) have > shown no significant interaction. Experiments with intersecting laser > beams also found no significant interaction. These are of course performed > in vacuum. Apparently you are not up-to-date. >> What do you think “interact weakly” >> and “EM” means (in Wilson’s world)? > > Well, EM surely means electromagnetism. […] And the statement “light interacts weakly with other electromagnetism” is not even wrong. Thanks for your attention. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 11:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oNOdne37yOO7_MPEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #424079 |
On 7/5/17 7/5/17 - 8:49 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 6/30/17 6/30/17 - 10:43 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 6/26/17 6/26/17 - 4:50 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >>>>> Light interacts weakly with other EM, particularly in very high vacuum. >>>> Hmnmmm. Not directly. >>> I beg your pardon – “not *directly*”? >> Yes, not directly. That is, there is no 2-photon vertex in QED. > > You cannot possibly believe that he remotely meant anything like that. Of course not -- Wilson (HGW) is profoundly ignorant of very basic physics. But that's what _I_ meant. I do not attempt to "explain" what other people say, I just discuss how modern physics addresses the issues. >> Two photons can interact via an electron/positron loop, […] > > Not only: > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics#Processes> Those diagrams do NOT show two photons interacting. A diagram for two photons interacting would have two incoming photons and two outgoing photons. You'll find that all such diagrams either have two non-interacting photons, or they contain one or more fermion loops. >> Experiments measuring light traversing large magnetic fields (> 10 T) have >> shown no significant interaction. Experiments with intersecting laser >> beams also found no significant interaction. These are of course performed >> in vacuum. > > Apparently you are not up-to-date. References? Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 20:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojl2ql$1kt9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424018 |
On 06/07/17 02:20, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/30/17 6/30/17 - 10:43 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Experiments measuring light traversing large magnetic fields (> 10 T) > have shown no significant interaction. Experiments with intersecting > laser beams also found no significant interaction. These are of course > performed in vacuum. > >> What do you think “interact weakly” >> and “EM” means (in Wilson’s world)? > > Well, EM surely means electromagnetism. For the rest I have no idea -- > from his writings it's clear that not even Wilson knows what he means. Nobody in the whole physics establishment knows anything about what happens to light in transit. The conditions in space cannot be simulated in the lab and it is more than likely that EM elements which start out as individual 'photons' do not remain completely individual for very long. You know no more than anyone else...which is 'nothing'... you are not in a position to say I am wrong. It is hard to know what one means when there is absolutely nothing to go on except speculation about the reasons for some of anomalies found in variable star analysis. > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 09:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojlg2u$c2k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424093 |
On 7/6/17 5:19 AM, HGW... wrote: > > Nobody in the whole physics establishment knows anything about what > happens to light in transit. > You know no more than anyone else...which is 'nothing'... you are not in > a position to say I am wrong. I have known for a long time this is the post you hang your hat on. You want things to be unknown and uncertain so that anyone can speculate as much as anyone else. I'm sorry, Ralph, but your attempts to lower everyone else to your level of general ignorance and fuzziness just won't fly. Even a woodworker is aware of more than you are. Does that concern you? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 20:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojm77j$fgm$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424093 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >... you are not in a position to say I am wrong. You're always wrong, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 09:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojmhu4$6u7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424138 |
On 07/07/17 06:40, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: > >> ... you are not in a position to say I am wrong. > > You're always wrong, Henry. Light exists only in transit yet physics knows only about the states of matter that creates it and the effect that light has on matter when it is absorbed. We also know it moves very quickly relative to its source. If Mickey the Moron knows anything else about what happens in between light's creation and absorption, he should tell the world about it instead of whining like a sick puppy. For instance, light is created as individual quanta. How does that fit in with the fact that it is coherent over the whole area of a telescope mirror or an array of radio receivers? or... What role do individual photons play in a radio signal? So com'on Mickey the Moron, give us all the answers...or STFU... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 22:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojp36h$fpi$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424146 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 07/07/17 06:40, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >> >>> ... you are not in a position to say I am wrong. >> >> You're always wrong, Henry. See what I mean, Ralph? You can't even quote me without getting it wrong!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 09:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0cmdndsN8-8YC8LEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #424093 |
On 7/6/17 7/6/17 5:19 AM, HGW... wrote: > Nobody in the whole physics establishment knows anything about what happens to > light in transit. NONSENSE! We have accurate models, which is the best that humans can do. > The conditions in space cannot be simulated in the lab Sure they can. Perhaps not exactly so, but very close. > and it > is more than likely that EM elements which start out as individual 'photons' do > not remain completely individual for very long. Blah Blah Blah. When you have a model THAT WORKS ACCURATELY, let us know. Until then, you have nothing. Your "BaTh" does NOT work.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 09:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojp6ck$3sk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424180 |
On 08/07/17 00:11, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/6/17 7/6/17 5:19 AM, HGW... wrote: >> Nobody in the whole physics establishment knows anything about what >> happens to light in transit. > > NONSENSE! We have accurate models, which is the best that humans can do. > >> The conditions in space cannot be simulated in the lab > > Sure they can. Perhaps not exactly so, but very close. > >> and it is more than likely that EM elements which start out as >> individual 'photons' do not remain completely individual for very long. > > Blah Blah Blah. When you have a model THAT WORKS ACCURATELY, let us > know. Until then, you have nothing. Your "BaTh" does NOT work.... BaTh works perfectly well. ...and it is quite obvious that much apparent star variability is due to the variable speed of emitted light caused by the presence of orbiting planets. Every frequency present in a star curve (with period > ~4 days )is indicative of an orbiting body. > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 00:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8ZmdnQjWUNSf9P3EnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #424216 |
On 7/7/17 7/7/17 6:44 PM, HGW... wrote: > On 08/07/17 00:11, Tom Roberts wrote: >> Blah Blah Blah. When you have a model THAT WORKS ACCURATELY, let us know. >> Until then, you have nothing. Your "BaTh" does NOT work.... > > BaTh works perfectly well. So what does "BaTh" predict for ANY experiment involving quantum optics? Can you even name one? Hint: lasers exist. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 10:06 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojrs2s$1hch$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424232 |
On 08/07/17 15:09, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/7/17 7/7/17 6:44 PM, HGW... wrote: >> On 08/07/17 00:11, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> Blah Blah Blah. When you have a model THAT WORKS ACCURATELY, let us >>> know. Until then, you have nothing. Your "BaTh" does NOT work.... >> >> BaTh works perfectly well. > > So what does "BaTh" predict for ANY experiment involving quantum optics? > Can you even name one? The emitted light moves at c relative to the source and c+v relative to a moving object. Happy now? > Hint: lasers exist. So fucking what?...so does a lot of bullshit from the dingleberries on this NG. > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 18:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7055616-cae2-4b3e-bacb-6742c334201d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424310 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 6:06:57 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote: > > On 08/07/17 15:09, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > On 7/7/17 7/7/17 6:44 PM, HGW... wrote: > > > > > > On 08/07/17 00:11, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > > Blah Blah Blah. When you have a model THAT WORKS ACCURATELY, let us > > > > know. Until then, you have nothing. Your "BaTh" does NOT work.... > > > > > > BaTh works perfectly well. > > > > So what does "BaTh" predict for ANY experiment involving quantum optics? > > Can you even name one? > > The emitted light moves at c relative to the source and c+v relative to > a moving object. Happy now? Which is refuted by experiment. > > Hint: lasers exist. > > So fucking what?...so does a lot of bullshit from the dingleberries on > this NG. YOU should know since you produce it in quantity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 12:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ojs60a$1sdb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424315 |
On 09/07/17 11:01, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 6:06:57 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote: >>>> >>>> BaTh works perfectly well. >>> >>> So what does "BaTh" predict for ANY experiment involving quantum optics? >>> Can you even name one? >> >> The emitted light moves at c relative to the source and c+v relative to >> a moving object. Happy now? > > Which is refuted by experiment. > >>> Hint: lasers exist. >> >> So fucking what?...so does a lot of bullshit from the dingleberries on >> this NG. > > YOU should know since you produce it in quantity. poor widdle gawy...should have been born a sheep........ ....maybe he was.... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 20:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <088365f5-5d0e-4164-9b64-c6ef3c8be8a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424330 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:56:15 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote: > > On 09/07/17 11:01, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 6:06:57 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote: > > > > > > The emitted light moves at c relative to the source and c+v relative to > > > a moving object. Happy now? > > > > Which is refuted by experiment. > > > > > > Hint: lasers exist. > > > > > > So fucking what?...so does a lot of bullshit from the dingleberries on > > > this NG. > > > > YOU should know since you produce it in quantity. > > poor widdle gawy...should have been born a sheep........ > ....maybe he was.... Still producing nothing but bullshit, I see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 09:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tbydncPFKYnQCf7EnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #424310 |
On 7/8/17 7/8/17 - 7:06 PM, HGW... wrote: > On 08/07/17 15:09, Tom Roberts wrote: >> So what does "BaTh" predict for ANY experiment involving quantum optics? >> Can you even name one? > > The emitted light moves at c relative to the source and c+v relative to a moving > object. Clearly you don't even know what I asked. It is truly remarkable how frequently and repeatedly you display your personal ignorance of physics. Obviously you can't even name one experiment involving quantum optics. Even with my very strong hint: >> Hint: lasers exist. > > So fucking what? If you understood what "quantum optics" means, you would know. Obviously you don't. How silly, and sad, that you posture and pose as if you were expert in physics, when you actually know so very little about the subject. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 10:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ok17sb$sb4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424432 |
On 11/07/17 00:50, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/8/17 7/8/17 - 7:06 PM, HGW... wrote: >> On 08/07/17 15:09, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> So what does "BaTh" predict for ANY experiment involving quantum optics? >>> Can you even name one? >> >> The emitted light moves at c relative to the source and c+v relative >> to a moving object. > > Clearly you don't even know what I asked. It is truly remarkable how > frequently and repeatedly you display your personal ignorance of physics. If you measure the OW speed of light from a moving car you will find it is c+v. That's a simple enough experiment. > Obviously you can't even name one experiment involving quantum optics. > Even with my very strong hint: > >>> Hint: lasers exist. >> >> So fucking what? > > If you understood what "quantum optics" means, you would know. Obviously > you don't. Quantum optics is a fields of physics that has no idea where it is going and has produced nothing concrete. BaTh already knows more about light in transit that the whole of QO. > How silly, and sad, that you posture and pose as if you were expert in > physics, when you actually know so very little about the subject. ...but idiots like you and the QO mob still think light has a 'frequency'. It doesn't. A photon is a static wave function. I prefer to spend my time searching for truth than deluding myself with fairy tales. > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 19:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <761de05e-4b1b-4aef-a1e9-5c0929358a2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424463 |
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:58:56 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote: > > If you measure the OW speed of light from a moving car you will find it > is c+v. That's a simple enough experiment. “Have you ever listened to someone for a while and wondered … ‘Who ties your shoelaces for you?’” – Mom’s Got Ink
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 23:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9e2dnWzEe4Zcx_nEnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #424463 |
On 7/10/17 7/10/17 7:58 PM, HGW... wrote: > Quantum optics is a fields of physics that has no idea where it is going and has > produced nothing concrete. <sarcasm> Yeah, lasers don't exist, and are useless. </sarcasm> I am repeatedly amazed at how ignorant you are, and how you actually seem to glory in it. How sad. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web