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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #463134 > unrolled thread

Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept

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

Contents

  Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 19:59 -0700
    Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-30 21:55 -0700
      Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-01 13:09 +0000
        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 10:58 -0700
          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-07 13:12 +0000
            Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-07 21:42 -0700
    Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-01 04:14 -0700
      Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-01 13:19 +0000
        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-01 15:43 +0200
          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-01 16:42 +0000
    Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 10:09 -0700
      Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-02 12:24 +0000
        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-02 13:02 +0000
          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-03 07:06 +0000
        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 13:16 -0700
          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-03 07:03 +0000
    Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 19:41 +0000
      Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 13:12 -0700
        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 03:24 +0200
          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 18:52 -0700
            Re: Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-02 02:07 +0000
              Re: Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 19:35 -0700
                Re: Re: Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-02 02:46 +0000
                  Re: Re: Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-02 11:27 -0700
            Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 04:54 +0200
              Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-02 10:12 +0200
                Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-02 10:21 +0200
                Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-03 18:11 +0000
                  Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-03 22:44 +0200
                    Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-03 21:49 +0000
                      Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-03 15:39 -0700
                        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-04 10:33 +0000
                          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-04 10:54 -0700
      Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-02 06:15 -0700
        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a fl awed concept Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 13:56 +0000
          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a fl awed concept kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 07:08 -0700
            Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a fl awed concept Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 15:32 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#463134 — Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept

Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept.

Why?

The observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the claim of light-particle. Why? Because if light were  make up of particles, light from distance star will not be able to lense around the sun to reach us on earth.

Instead, light is composed of wave-packets.....they are being transmitted by a continuous medium called the E-Matrix. The geometry of the E-Matrix is curved around the sun and these light-wave packets follows the curved geometry of the E-Matrix around the sun and give the observed effect of  lensing and aberration.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#463143

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:00:00 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept.
> 
> Why?
> 
> The observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the claim of light-particle. Why? Because if light were  make up of particles, light from distance star will not be able to lense around the sun to reach us on earth.
> 
> Instead, light is composed of wave-packets.....they are being transmitted by a continuous medium called the E-Matrix. The geometry of the E-Matrix is curved around the sun and these light-wave packets follows the curved geometry of the E-Matrix around the sun and give the observed effect of  lensing and aberration.

Light is three dimensional.
Light as a Round radial Sin curve wave...

Einstein turned away from his Nobel photon.
He called it a spherical wavelet instead in 1937.

The world never wanted to go along with Einstein for that.
His second truth about light was the most objective.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#463159

mitchrae3323 wrote:

>> Instead, light is composed of wave-packets.....they are being
>> transmitted by a continuous medium called the E-Matrix. The geometry of
>> the E-Matrix is curved around the sun and these light-wave packets
>> follows the curved geometry of the E-Matrix around the sun and give the
>> observed effect of  lensing and aberration.
> 
> Light is three dimensional. Light as a Round radial Sin curve wave...

Not around sharp corners.

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

#463179

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 6:09:18 AM UTC-7, Oren Woodcock wrote:
> mitchrae3323 wrote:
> 
> >> Instead, light is composed of wave-packets.....they are being
> >> transmitted by a continuous medium called the E-Matrix. The geometry of
> >> the E-Matrix is curved around the sun and these light-wave packets
> >> follows the curved geometry of the E-Matrix around the sun and give the
> >> observed effect of  lensing and aberration.
> > 
> > Light is three dimensional. Light as a Round radial Sin curve wave...
> 
> Not around sharp corners.

Do we see 3 dimensional light bend?

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#463694

mitchrae3323 wrote:

> On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 6:09:18 AM UTC-7, Oren Woodcock wrote:
>> mitchrae3323 wrote:
>> 
>> >> Instead, light is composed of wave-packets.....they are being
>> >> transmitted by a continuous medium called the E-Matrix. The geometry
>> >> of the E-Matrix is curved around the sun and these light-wave
>> >> packets follows the curved geometry of the E-Matrix around the sun
>> >> and give the observed effect of  lensing and aberration.
>> > 
>> > Light is three dimensional. Light as a Round radial Sin curve wave...
>> 
>> Not around sharp corners.
> 
> Do we see 3 dimensional light bend? Mitchell Raemsch

Sharp edges are not allowing round radials sin curvatures. Among others, 
the frequency goes to infinity. This is elementary in Physics. Sharp edges 
is where the round radials sin curves cancels, leaking out.

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

#463775

On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 6:12:27 AM UTC-7, Oren Woodcock wrote:
> mitchrae3323 wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 6:09:18 AM UTC-7, Oren Woodcock wrote:
> >> mitchrae3323 wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> Instead, light is composed of wave-packets.....they are being
> >> >> transmitted by a continuous medium called the E-Matrix. The geometry
> >> >> of the E-Matrix is curved around the sun and these light-wave
> >> >> packets follows the curved geometry of the E-Matrix around the sun
> >> >> and give the observed effect of  lensing and aberration.
> >> > 
> >> > Light is three dimensional. Light as a Round radial Sin curve wave...
> >> 
> >> Not around sharp corners.
> > 
> > Do we see 3 dimensional light bend? Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> Sharp edges are not allowing round radials sin curvatures. Among others, 
> the frequency goes to infinity. This is elementary in Physics. Sharp edges 
> is where the round radials sin curves cancels, leaking out.

What is that cancel of part of light measurement observed?
Light waves bends around corners...?

"Sharp edges" are still as empty as atoms are.
How can they cancel and how do we know?
Show how can they end a spherical radial light Sin
wave curve partially... can they cancel light out completely?
and how would we know?

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#463158

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:00:00 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept.

Einstein didn't invent the word "photon."  He merely showed that light
traveled in discrete packets of energy.

> Why?
> 
> The observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the
> claim of light-particle. Why? Because if light were  make up of particles,
> light from distance star will not be able to lense around the sun to
> reach us on earth.

You must be ignorant of the concept of wave-particle duality.  Waves can
behave like particles and particles can behave like waves:

Lambda = h/p

> [Ignorant arrogant bull plop deleted because there is not a shred of
> evidence supporting it]

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

#463160

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:00:00 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>> Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept.
> 
> Einstein didn't invent the word "photon."  He merely showed that light
> traveled in discrete packets of energy.

Impossible, you can't show something like that.

>> light from distance star will not be able to lense around the sun to
>> reach us on earth.
> 
> You must be ignorant of the concept of wave-particle duality.  Waves can
> behave like particles and particles can behave like waves:

Of course not. Must be something you don't know. 

The behavioural of LF EM (light) is wave-like dominated. Meanwhile the HF 
behavioural is particle-like dominated.

> Lambda = h/p
>> [Ignorant arrogant bull plop deleted because there is not a shred of
>> evidence supporting it]

Not you of course. The domain of applicability of IRT E-Matrix is 
restricted to the Low Frequency light, as the domain of interest. And 
since all light in the universe is red-shifted, dr. Kenseto makes pretty 
much sense.

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

#463165

The ’nym-shifting troll demonstrated their ignorance as "Oren Woodcock"
<uw@osiweoq.lp>:
            ^^
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:00:00 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>>> Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept.
>>
>> Einstein didn't invent the word "photon."  He merely showed that light
>> traveled in discrete packets of energy.

No, he did not.

> Impossible, you can't show something like that.

I would not be so sure about that.  What can be shown, though, is that
light *interacts with matter* _as_ discrete packets of energy E = ℎ f.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect>

>>> light from distance star will not be able to lense around the sun to
>>> reach us on earth.
>> You must be ignorant of the concept of wave-particle duality.  Waves can
>> behave like particles and particles can behave like waves:
> 
> Of course not.

True.  That is _not_ what “wave–particle duality” means.  Instead, it means
that entities known as particles exhibit wave–*like* *behavior*, *too*.
This also means that a particle can be associated with every wave.

For example, the (confirmed) particle associated with electromagnetic waves
is the photon, the (quasi-)particle associated with sound waves is the
phonon, and the (hypothetical) particle associated with gravitational waves
is the graviton.

> The behavioural of LF EM (light) is wave-like dominated. Meanwhile the HF 
> behavioural is particle-like dominated.

Nonsense.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#463170

the extreme crank uneducated troll Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> The behavioural of LF EM (light) is wave-like dominated. Meanwhile the
>> HF behavioural is particle-like dominated.
> 
> Nonsense.

Accurate indicates a severe lack of education, void of experience in 
physics, and no university affiliation ever, whatsoever. Thanks making it 
obvious.

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

#463175

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:00:00 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept.
> 
> Why?
> 
> The observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the claim of light-particle. Why?

You need to study QFT first to understand what "photon" in fact denotes.
You are wasting your time debating nonexistent issues.

--
Jan

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

#463245

JanPB wrote:

> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:00:00 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>> Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept. Why?
>> The observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the
>> claim of light-particle. Why?
> 
> You need to study QFT first to understand what "photon" in fact denotes.
> You are wasting your time debating nonexistent issues.

Amore mio, that denotation is NEVER observed. It's just a metaphore of a 
not-existent. (what you can't see it's not-existent, fictitious at best), 
Hopefully you just got a lesson you never forget.

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

#463247

The nonexistent poster Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> supposedly writes:

>JanPB wrote:

>> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:00:00 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>> Einstein's light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept. Why?
>>> The observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the
>>> claim of light-particle. Why?
>> 
>> You need to study QFT first to understand what "photon" in fact denotes.
>> You are wasting your time debating nonexistent issues.

>Amore mio, that denotation is NEVER observed. It's just a metaphore of a 
>not-existent. (what you can't see it's not-existent, fictitious at best), 
>Hopefully you just got a lesson you never forget.

What's this? The nymshifting troll trying to teach us English? You had
better learn English first, nymshifter, before trying to demonstrate
your nonexistent English skills to us.

Tell you what.  You don't try to teach us English and we won't try to
teach you Serbian. OK, nymshifter?

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

#463324

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>Amore mio, that denotation is NEVER observed. It's just a metaphore of a
>>not-existent. (what you can't see it's not-existent, fictitious at
>>best),
>>Hopefully you just got a lesson you never forget.
> 
> What's this? The nymshifting troll trying to teach us English? You had
> better learn English first, nymshifter, before trying to demonstrate
> your nonexistent English skills to us.
> Tell you what.  You don't try to teach us English and we won't try to
> teach you Serbian. OK, nymshifter?

Not sure whom you are fighting, but I'm bangladeshian. All I know from 
serbians is Tesla, hundreds of patents, without which you'll still be 
hanging in trees and darkness. Basic knowledge. Show a little respect.

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

#463290

On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 5:24:37 AM UTC-7, Oren Woodcock wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:00:00 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >> Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept. Why?
> >> The observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the
> >> claim of light-particle. Why?
> > 
> > You need to study QFT first to understand what "photon" in fact denotes.
> > You are wasting your time debating nonexistent issues.
> 
> Amore mio, that denotation is NEVER observed. It's just a metaphore of a 
> not-existent.

Not even wrong. Word salad.

--
Jan

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

#463323

JanPB wrote:

> On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 5:24:37 AM UTC-7, Oren Woodcock wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:00:00 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>> >> Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept. Why? The
>> >> observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the
>> >> claim of light-particle. Why?
>> > 
>> > You need to study QFT first to understand what "photon" in fact
>> > denotes.
>> > You are wasting your time debating nonexistent issues.
>> 
>> Amore mio, that denotation is NEVER observed. It's just a metaphore of
>> a not-existent.
> 
> Not even wrong. Word salad.

Another mathematician thinking not only he can see photons and light, but 
also their shapes and internal crystal structure. Depressing.

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

#463187

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept.
> 
> Why?
> 
> The observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the
> claim of light-particle. Why? Because if light were  make up of
> particles, light from distance star will not be able to lense around the
> sun to reach us on earth.

Why not? Protons also lens around the sun. Why not light particles?

> 
> Instead, light is composed of wave-packets.....they are being transmitted
> by a continuous medium called the E-Matrix. The geometry of the E-Matrix
> is curved around the sun and these light-wave packets follows the curved
> geometry of the E-Matrix around the sun and give the observed effect of 
> lensing and aberration.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#463189

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 12:41:36 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> > Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept.
> > 
> > Why?
> > 
> > The observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the
> > claim of light-particle. Why? Because if light were  make up of
> > particles, light from distance star will not be able to lense around the
> > sun to reach us on earth.
> 
> Why not? Protons also lens around the sun. Why not light particles?

Einstein in 1937 said he had to give up his photon
for what he called spherical wavelets. He could no
longer reconcile the particle to the wave.

Mitchell Raemsch

Mitchell Raemsch

> > 
> > Instead, light is composed of wave-packets.....they are being transmitted
> > by a continuous medium called the E-Matrix. The geometry of the E-Matrix
> > is curved around the sun and these light-wave packets follows the curved
> > geometry of the E-Matrix around the sun and give the observed effect of 
> > lensing and aberration.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#463208

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:

> Einstein in 1937 said he had to give up his photon

Get your facts straight:

The concept of what we NOW call “photon” was Max Planck’s idea in 1900.

It was used by Albert Einstein in 1905 to explain the photoelectric effect,
mainly for what he received the Nobel Prize in Physics 1921.

The term ”photon” was coined by Leonard T. Troland in 1916.  It was first
used with its current meaning, which Planck in 1900 and Einstein in 1905
still called “light-quantum” (German: „Lichtquant“), by Arthur Compton in 1928.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon>

> for what he called spherical wavelets. He could no
> longer reconcile the particle to the wave.

Cite evidence.

Also, consider that Einstein, despite he helped spawn the field, was opposed
to quantum mechanics (QM), and that his attempts at a unified theory without
QM, after general relativity (1915), failed.  Consider that Einstein was
also wrong on many accounts, for example quantum entanglement (derided by
him as “ghostly action at a distance” „spukhafte Fernwirkung“).

And learn to quote.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#463214

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Einstein in 1937 said he had to give up his photon
> 
> Get your facts straight:
> 
> The concept of what we NOW call “photon” was Max Planck’s idea in 1900.
> 
> It was used by Albert Einstein in 1905 to explain the photoelectric effect,
> mainly for what he received the Nobel Prize in Physics 1921.
> 
> The term ”photon” was coined by Leonard T. Troland in 1916.  It was first
> used with its current meaning, which Planck in 1900 and Einstein in 1905
> still called “light-quantum” (German: „Lichtquant“), by Arthur Compton in 1928.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon>
> 
> > for what he called spherical wavelets. He could no
> > longer reconcile the particle to the wave.
> 
> Cite evidence.

No...

> 
> Also, consider that Einstein, despite he helped spawn the field, was opposed
> to quantum mechanics (QM), and that his attempts at a unified theory without
> QM, after general relativity (1915), failed.  Consider that Einstein was
> also wrong on many accounts, for example quantum entanglement (derided by
> him as “ghostly action at a distance” „spukhafte Fernwirkung“).
> 
> And learn to quote.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Einstein gave up on his Nobel particle of light...

Mitchell Raemsch

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web