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

Groups > sci.physics > #580837 > unrolled thread

Re: Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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: Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-27 11:58 +1000
    Re: Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-27 00:20 -0700
      Re: Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-28 18:19 +1000
        Re: Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-28 06:34 -0700
    Re: Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 12:53 -0700
      Re: Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-27 17:01 -0700

#580837 — Re: Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction?

On 23/05/2016 5:10 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sam quoted...
>> Yes, you're right--but the details of the photoelectric effect come out differently depending on whether light consists of particles or waves. If it's waves, the energy contained in one of those waves should depend only on its amplitude--that is, on the intensity of the light. Other factors, like the frequency, should make no difference. So, for example, red light and ultraviolet light of the same intensity should knock out the same number of electrons, and the maximum kinetic energy of both sets of electrons should also be the same. Decrease the intensity, and you should get fewer electrons, flying out more slowly; if the light is too faint, you shouldn't get any electrons at all, no matter what frequency you're using.
>
> This is typical of the lies and misinformation used by critics
> of the wave model to discredit a wave model.
> First of all it is a fundamental observation of resonant
> systems, as with atoms in a wave  model, that only narrow
> ranges of input frequencies can generate a sympathetic
> resonance in the same system. In other words classical
> resonant systems only respond to input frequencies in
> narrow input frequency ranges. Exactly as observed in the
> photoelectric effect.

Exactly as not observed in the photoelectric affect. There is a 
threshold frequency, below which the effect is absent, and above which 
the effect is noted. If this were a resonance effect, then frequencies 
significantly above the threshold frequency would also not produce the 
effect. This is hugely at variance with the experimental result.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#580897

Sylvia wrote
> Exactly as not observed in the photoelectric affect. There is a threshold frequency, below which the effect is absent, and above which the effect is noted. If this were a resonance effect, then frequencies significantly above the threshold frequency would also not produce the effect. This is hugely at variance with >the experimental result.

Its a complex picture I admit. But notice that the lower 
threshold *varies* for each element. Thats consistent 
with different resonant frequencies for each element. 
Different resonant systems have different responses. 

But if your argument were true, and yes Ive looked at the
kinetic energy vs frequency graphs you refer to, one 
would not get different spectral responsivity for different 
elements in solar panels. Obviously certain frequencies
above threshold  levels are NOT producing the effect the
graph insinuates of a smooth ever increasing response
to frequency.
Your model gets around this with various excuses ( like 
bandgaps) based on various particle based theoretical 
explanations.
A resonant system can also have more  than one resonant
frequency. This is obvious from spectra of atoms. At certain 
frequencies the atomic spectra varies in intensity.  Thats 
how we measure redshift for instance.

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

#581147

On 27/05/2016 5:20 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sylvia wrote
>> Exactly as not observed in the photoelectric affect. There is a threshold frequency, below which the effect is absent, and above which the effect is noted. If this were a resonance effect, then frequencies significantly above the threshold frequency would also not produce the effect. This is hugely at variance with >the experimental result.
>
> Its a complex picture I admit. But notice that the lower
> threshold *varies* for each element. Thats consistent
> with different resonant frequencies for each element.
> Different resonant systems have different responses.

It's also consistent with the electrons in different elements requiring 
different energies to escape.

>
> But if your argument were true, and yes Ive looked at the
> kinetic energy vs frequency graphs you refer to, one
> would not get different spectral responsivity for different
> elements in solar panels. Obviously certain frequencies
> above threshold  levels are NOT producing the effect the
> graph insinuates of a smooth ever increasing response
> to frequency.

Solar panels are semiconductors, with hugely more complexity than just 
ejecting electrons into a vacuum.

Sylvia.

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

#581174

Sylvia wrote
>>> > > Its a complex picture I admit. But notice that the lower > threshold *varies* for each element. Thats consistent > with different resonant frequencies >>for each element. > Different resonant systems have different responses.

>It's also consistent with the electrons in different elements requiring different energies to escape.

Exactly. You have erroneously constructed a model that is based on particles to
explain what is actually a wave only based  resonance. 

>> > But if your argument were true, and yes Ive looked at the > kinetic energy vs frequency graphs you refer to, one > would not get different spectral responsivity for different > elements in solar panels. Obviously certain frequencies > above threshold levels are NOT producing the effect the > graph >>insinuates of a smooth ever increasing response > to frequency.

>Solar panels are semiconductors, with hugely more complexity than just ejecting electrons into a vacuum.

Having looked in more detail at your erroneous claims I realize
now where you have fiddled the data.
Your models claim that the only difference between photoelectric
and photovoltaic effects are that the imaginary " electrons" are ejected
into a vacuum or a conductor respectively. In fact this is a lie.
Photolectric effect  has a potential difference applied. Whereas
Photovoltaic does not. In other words you and others claim that
the electrical discharge is caused only by a photon impacting
on the metal. That is total nonsense, propagated for a hundred
years.  In fact thats what happens only in the photovoltaic effect.
And it is not a smooth continuum vs frequency contrary to your
claims
In the photoelectric effect would you get your imaginary electron
ejected without the pd? No.

Shine a light on a solar panel without an applied potential
and you do still get a current induced, but only at particular
resonant frequencies.

Obviously you cannot claim that the photoelectric effect can
be explained solely by a photon hitting the metal. Why? Because
you conveniently forgot to mention the applied pd.

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

#581062

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 6:58:20 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23/05/2016 5:10 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> > Sam quoted...
> >> Yes, you're right--but the details of the photoelectric effect come out differently depending on whether light consists of particles or waves. If it's waves, the energy contained in one of those waves should depend only on its amplitude--that is, on the intensity of the light. Other factors, like the frequency, should make no difference. So, for example, red light and ultraviolet light of the same intensity should knock out the same number of electrons, and the maximum kinetic energy of both sets of electrons should also be the same. Decrease the intensity, and you should get fewer electrons, flying out more slowly; if the light is too faint, you shouldn't get any electrons at all, no matter what frequency you're using.
> >
> > This is typical of the lies and misinformation used by critics
> > of the wave model to discredit a wave model.
> > First of all it is a fundamental observation of resonant
> > systems, as with atoms in a wave  model, that only narrow
> > ranges of input frequencies can generate a sympathetic
> > resonance in the same system. In other words classical
> > resonant systems only respond to input frequencies in
> > narrow input frequency ranges. Exactly as observed in the
> > photoelectric effect.
> 
> Exactly as not observed in the photoelectric affect. There is a 
> threshold frequency, below which the effect is absent, and above which 
> the effect is noted. If this were a resonance effect, then frequencies 
> significantly above the threshold frequency would also not produce the 
> effect. This is hugely at variance with the experimental result.
> 
> Sylvia.

red light can never knock electrons around as intense as it can get.My bulb in my dark room proves this. TreBert

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

#581116

<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Glazier "reber" with his g=emc^2"
which is short for "Glazier exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism", wrote:
red light can never knock electrons around as intense as it can get.
My bulb in my dark room proves this. TreBert
>
hanson wrote:
That seems to you to be that way, Glazier you Swine,
because your dark room is that space in your brain. Pity

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web