Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #644100 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-02 16:00 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-08-19 21:51 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 16:00 -0700
Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 18:27 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Mushnik <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-02 20:46 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 00:14 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 00:20 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-03 12:55 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 15:18 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 23:08 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 02:38 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-04 07:55 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 19:58 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 13:26 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-03 13:37 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 04:44 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-04 18:08 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> - 2017-08-04 21:14 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:02 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 19:46 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:08 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 05:50 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-07 17:39 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-04 03:44 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Serg Io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-04 10:17 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 19:34 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> - 2017-08-04 21:44 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 20:00 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-04 22:24 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-04 23:08 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 00:53 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-05 01:13 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 04:24 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 04:26 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:58 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:17 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 04:53 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-05 05:17 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:57 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 22:55 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 08:57 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 19:23 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 08:24 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-07 14:14 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:25 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-08 22:26 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:07 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:56 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 22:46 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 15:57 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 20:17 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-07 08:40 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 08:25 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:51 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 02:13 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 19:25 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:20 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 04:32 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 07:47 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-08 19:34 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 17:12 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-08 13:15 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 06:39 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:20 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 08:03 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:03 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 10:39 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 14:43 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 16:24 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 03:17 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 16:27 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 23:52 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 17:44 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 17:47 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 01:34 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 22:22 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 22:34 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-09 20:52 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-09 20:49 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 01:34 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-09 23:27 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 22:01 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 11:55 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 16:31 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-08 19:14 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-08 19:11 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-05 23:37 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 16:46 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 17:01 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 17:36 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 03:03 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 23:12 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 13:19 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 17:03 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 17:09 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 02:36 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:41 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:35 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 18:13 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:40 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:57 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-05 23:16 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 16:32 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 03:03 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-06 04:18 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 02:49 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 08:28 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-05 23:04 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> - 2017-08-05 19:59 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 18:12 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 22:13 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> - 2017-08-05 21:39 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-07 17:23 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-08 12:19 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-06 04:32 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-05 21:09 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "Eduardo Fahqtardo" <Dave3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 18:46 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-04 21:57 +1000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 06:21 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-04 23:03 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-04 19:15 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-05 14:35 +1000
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 04:28 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-05 22:13 +1000
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-05 06:01 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-05 23:22 +1000
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-05 21:00 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 06:26 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> - 2017-08-05 09:02 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:25 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 12:02 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 23:03 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 13:19 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 08:29 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 17:06 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 07:51 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 16:49 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 15:52 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 00:00 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 17:08 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 02:36 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 20:21 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 19:47 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:21 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> - 2017-08-05 08:54 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 22:38 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 08:13 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 17:00 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 20:55 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 23:37 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-07 08:30 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-07 17:44 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 08:31 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 07:29 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-07 10:59 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 13:22 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 13:23 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-07 17:27 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-08 12:39 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:12 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-04 18:10 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 10:06 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-04 13:44 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:21 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-05 15:44 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-04 14:31 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-04 18:16 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:24 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-05 16:19 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:20 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-05 15:43 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:14 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-05 15:57 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 19:51 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium zubeneschgenubi@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 17:16 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-09 21:05 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium zubeneschgenubi@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 20:01 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-09 23:38 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 21:52 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 22:15 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 02:12 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 02:29 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-10 17:29 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 15:45 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-10 19:13 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:55 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-10 20:09 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 18:57 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-11 18:04 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 21:26 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 13:54 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-16 16:39 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-16 21:25 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 02:27 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 02:49 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 06:20 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 06:58 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 07:19 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 07:27 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:12 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-10 22:39 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 20:51 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-11 18:15 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-16 17:56 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 16:50 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-16 21:41 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 19:05 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 19:34 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 15:59 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 09:43 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium zubeneschgenubi@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 18:45 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 19:08 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 11:27 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-17 12:40 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-17 17:57 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium raymond.yohros@gmail.com - 2017-08-17 13:51 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-17 20:57 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 12:08 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-18 14:12 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-19 21:51 -0400
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 14:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eul097Fo967U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #644355 |
On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote: > Silly > "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in > the mathematics. " > > Thd trouble is that reality is not math. > You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it > The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference) to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open question until other relevant evidence is found. In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates question of what the medium might be. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 04:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49c1d0d6-3e98-4526-8469-99bf55562abe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644471 |
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote: > > Silly > > "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in > > the mathematics. " > > > > Thd trouble is that reality is not math. > > You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it > > > > The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math > says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you > cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference) > to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real > waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open > question until other relevant evidence is found. > > In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that > the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates > question of what the medium might be. > > Sylvia. The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory. Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century. No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum theory, etc. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 22:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eulr2oFu5lqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #644503 |
On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote: >>> Silly >>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in >>> the mathematics. " >>> >>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math. >>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it >>> >> >> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math >> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you >> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference) >> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real >> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open >> question until other relevant evidence is found. >> >> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that >> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates >> question of what the medium might be. >> >> Sylvia. > > The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory. Then explain it. In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of photons regardless of how weak the incident light. > Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century. > No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum > theory, etc. The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 06:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5680adb7-1c72-4b1b-9a0d-80c09a53c483@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644510 |
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 3:13:20 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote: > >>> Silly > >>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in > >>> the mathematics. " > >>> > >>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math. > >>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it > >>> > >> > >> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math > >> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you > >> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference) > >> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real > >> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open > >> question until other relevant evidence is found. > >> > >> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that > >> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates > >> question of what the medium might be. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory. > > Then explain it. > > In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold > frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of > photons regardless of how weak the incident light. > > > Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century. > > No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum > > theory, etc. > > The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like > behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves. > > Sylvia. ======================= Sylvia lets make it shorter is there Aether or not ? or can we live n physics or practice without Aether or not TIA Y.Porat ==========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 23:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eulv5kFibaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #644517 |
On 5/08/2017 11:01 PM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 3:13:20 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote: >>>>> Silly >>>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in >>>>> the mathematics. " >>>>> >>>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math. >>>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it >>>>> >>>> >>>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math >>>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you >>>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference) >>>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real >>>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open >>>> question until other relevant evidence is found. >>>> >>>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that >>>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates >>>> question of what the medium might be. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory. >> >> Then explain it. >> >> In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold >> frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of >> photons regardless of how weak the incident light. >> >>> Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century. >>> No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum >>> theory, etc. >> >> The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like >> behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves. >> >> Sylvia. > ======================= > Sylvia > lets make it shorter > > is there Aether > or not ? > or > can we live n physics or practice > without Aether or not > TIA > Y.Porat > ========================== > I'd say not. Physics works perfectly well without it, and if it existed, it would have to have some very odd properties indeed (even by the bar set by quantum mechanics). Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 21:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ceac8c51-806f-45a5-b6b2-44c158d713b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644522 |
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 4:23:08 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 5/08/2017 11:01 PM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 3:13:20 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote: > >>>>> Silly > >>>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in > >>>>> the mathematics. " > >>>>> > >>>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math. > >>>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math > >>>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you > >>>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference) > >>>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real > >>>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open > >>>> question until other relevant evidence is found. > >>>> > >>>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that > >>>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates > >>>> question of what the medium might be. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory. > >> > >> Then explain it. > >> > >> In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold > >> frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of > >> photons regardless of how weak the incident light. > >> > >>> Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century. > >>> No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum > >>> theory, etc. > >> > >> The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like > >> behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > ======================= > > Sylvia > > lets make it shorter > > > > is there Aether > > or not ? > > or > > can we live n physics or practice > > without Aether or not > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ========================== > > > I'd say not. Physics works perfectly well without it, and if it existed, > it would have to have some very odd properties indeed (even by the bar > set by quantum mechanics). > > Sylvia. ================================== THANK YOU SYLVIA !! NO MORE QUESTIONS so please tell it tour fellow Arindam we have no spare time time to deal with nonsense iow we have much more important useful issues to deal with to advance our life and our science !!! Thanks Y.Porat ====================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 06:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0754845-da54-461c-b5f4-d2b9c6e6df2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644510 |
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:13:20 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote: > >>> Silly > >>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in > >>> the mathematics. " > >>> > >>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math. > >>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it > >>> > >> > >> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math > >> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you > >> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference) > >> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real > >> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open > >> question until other relevant evidence is found. > >> > >> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that > >> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates > >> question of what the medium might be. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory. > > Then explain it. > > In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold > frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of > photons regardless of how weak the incident light. Very simple. To begin with, when we take classical theory we have to consider wave motion of the light. And wave motion in aether. So the photon is explained as the emission of an electromagnetic pulse. This happens when a dipole is formed temporarily. A dipole is formed temporarily when an atom is subjected to external stimuli. The atom gets hit. As a result, its electronic structure gets flattened. There are more electrons on one side, and less on the other side where the nucleus is. Thus there are two poles - one negative and one positive. In the formation of this dipole a half-pulse is emitted. When the dipole collapses, to its original shape, the other half-pulse is emitted. The frequency of the wave will correspond to the linear dimension of the separation as per antenna theory. Now as for the photoelectric effect. It means that over a certain frequency there is electron emission. From the classical point of view this means that at a certain level of aetheric vibration in spatial terms (relating to the wavelength) the electron will be so disturbed from its attachment to the atom, that it will escape the atom. If the frequency is too low, then the aetheric vibration in terms of distance will be too low, no matter how much the amplitude, and the electron will stay attached to the atom. When the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration in terms of wavelength will relate to the dipole dimensions. It will thus shake the electron out of its orbit. Which will create the photoelectric effect. In short when the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration will distort the electronic structure in the atom such that electron escape will be possible. When the frequency is low, such a distortion will not be possible and so there will be no photoelectric effect. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > > Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century. > > No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum > > theory, etc. > > The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like > behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves. > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 09:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <om4j7r$1fvp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644523 |
On 8/5/2017 8:26 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:13:20 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: how weak the incident light. > > Very simple. > To begin with, when we take classical theory we have to consider wave motion > of the light. > And wave motion in aether. > So the photon is explained as the emission of an electromagnetic pulse. > This happens when a dipole is formed temporarily. > A dipole is formed temporarily when an atom is subjected to external stimuli. > The atom gets hit. > As a result, its electronic structure gets flattened. > There are more electrons on one side, and less on the other side where the > nucleus is. > Thus there are two poles - one negative and one positive. > In the formation of this dipole a half-pulse is emitted. > When the dipole collapses, to its original shape, the other half-pulse is emitted. > The frequency of the wave will correspond to the linear dimension of the separation as per antenna theory. > Now as for the photoelectric effect. > It means that over a certain frequency there is electron emission. > From the classical point of view this means that at a certain level of > aetheric vibration in spatial terms (relating to the wavelength) the electron > will be so disturbed from its attachment to the atom, that it will escape the > atom. > If the frequency is too low, then the aetheric vibration in terms of distance > will be too low, no matter how much the amplitude, and the electron will > stay attached to the atom. > When the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration in terms of > wavelength will relate to the dipole dimensions. It will thus shake the > electron out of its orbit. > Which will create the photoelectric effect. > > In short when the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration will distort > the electronic structure in the atom such that electron escape will be > possible. > > When the frequency is low, such a distortion will not be possible and so there > will be no photoelectric effect. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee you use so many undefined unrelated general terms, no math, wandering down the path and end up in Palookaville. my dog had 'aetheric vibration' so we had him stuffed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 21:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59866fff$0$43756$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #644532 |
On 8/5/2017 10:02 AM, MaryK wrote: > On 8/5/2017 8:26 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:13:20 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > how weak the incident light. >> >> Very simple. >> To begin with, when we take classical theory we have to consider wave >> motion >> of the light. >> And wave motion in aether. >> So the photon is explained as the emission of an electromagnetic pulse. >> This happens when a dipole is formed temporarily. >> A dipole is formed temporarily when an atom is subjected to external >> stimuli. >> The atom gets hit. >> As a result, its electronic structure gets flattened. >> There are more electrons on one side, and less on the other side where >> the >> nucleus is. >> Thus there are two poles - one negative and one positive. >> In the formation of this dipole a half-pulse is emitted. >> When the dipole collapses, to its original shape, the other half-pulse >> is emitted. >> The frequency of the wave will correspond to the linear dimension of >> the separation as per antenna theory. > >> Now as for the photoelectric effect. >> It means that over a certain frequency there is electron emission. >> From the classical point of view this means that at a certain level of >> aetheric vibration in spatial terms (relating to the wavelength) the >> electron >> will be so disturbed from its attachment to the atom, that it will >> escape the >> atom. >> If the frequency is too low, then the aetheric vibration in terms of >> distance >> will be too low, no matter how much the amplitude, and the electron will >> stay attached to the atom. >> When the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration in terms of >> wavelength will relate to the dipole dimensions. It will thus shake the >> electron out of its orbit. >> Which will create the photoelectric effect. >> >> In short when the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration >> will distort >> the electronic structure in the atom such that electron escape will be >> possible. >> >> When the frequency is low, such a distortion will not be possible and >> so there >> will be no photoelectric effect. >> >> Cheers, >> Arindam Banerjee > > > you use so many undefined unrelated general terms, no math, wandering > down the path and end up in Palookaville. > > my dog had 'aetheric vibration' so we had him stuffed. > Babbling nonsense! Correct statement is my dog has "Radionic Vibration" so we had him stuff after he died. Best not to stuff live dogs possessing dangerous vibrations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 12:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <om4tnn$1tsg$12@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644523 |
On 8/5/17 8:26 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:13:20 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote: >>>>> Silly >>>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in >>>>> the mathematics. " >>>>> >>>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math. >>>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it >>>>> >>>> >>>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math >>>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you >>>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference) >>>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real >>>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open >>>> question until other relevant evidence is found. >>>> >>>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that >>>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates >>>> question of what the medium might be. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory. >> >> Then explain it. >> >> In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold >> frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of >> photons regardless of how weak the incident light. > > Very simple. > To begin with, when we take classical theory we have to consider wave motion > of the light. > And wave motion in aether. > So the photon is explained as the emission of an electromagnetic pulse. > This happens when a dipole is formed temporarily. > A dipole is formed temporarily when an atom is subjected to external stimuli. > The atom gets hit. > As a result, its electronic structure gets flattened. > There are more electrons on one side, and less on the other side where the > nucleus is. > Thus there are two poles - one negative and one positive. > In the formation of this dipole a half-pulse is emitted. > When the dipole collapses, to its original shape, the other half-pulse is emitted. > The frequency of the wave will correspond to the linear dimension of the separation as per antenna theory. > > Now as for the photoelectric effect. > It means that over a certain frequency there is electron emission. > From the classical point of view this means that at a certain level of > aetheric vibration in spatial terms (relating to the wavelength) the electron > will be so disturbed from its attachment to the atom, that it will escape the > atom. Prove this, Arindam. Show that a vibration of too low a frequency will not be able to dislodge an electron from an atom. In particular show that this result is INDEPENDENT of the amplitude. Classical wave theory and classical antenna theory predict the OPPOSITE, that sufficiently high amplitude would be able to dislodge electrons, regardless of frequency. You claim otherwise. Prove it. > If the frequency is too low, then the aetheric vibration in terms of distance > will be too low, no matter how much the amplitude, and the electron will > stay attached to the atom. > When the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration in terms of > wavelength will relate to the dipole dimensions. It will thus shake the > electron out of its orbit. > Which will create the photoelectric effect. > > In short when the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration will distort > the electronic structure in the atom such that electron escape will be > possible. > > When the frequency is low, such a distortion will not be possible and so there > will be no photoelectric effect. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > > >> >>> Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century. >>> No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum >>> theory, etc. >> >> The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like >> behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves. >> >> Sylvia. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 23:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa9440e7-875e-455b-bff2-fab5555907c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644578 |
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 3:02:52 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/5/17 8:26 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:13:20 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote: > >>>>> Silly > >>>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in > >>>>> the mathematics. " > >>>>> > >>>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math. > >>>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math > >>>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you > >>>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference) > >>>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real > >>>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open > >>>> question until other relevant evidence is found. > >>>> > >>>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that > >>>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates > >>>> question of what the medium might be. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory. > >> > >> Then explain it. > >> > >> In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold > >> frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of > >> photons regardless of how weak the incident light. > > > > Very simple. > > To begin with, when we take classical theory we have to consider wave motion > > of the light. > > And wave motion in aether. > > So the photon is explained as the emission of an electromagnetic pulse. > > This happens when a dipole is formed temporarily. > > A dipole is formed temporarily when an atom is subjected to external stimuli. > > The atom gets hit. > > As a result, its electronic structure gets flattened. > > There are more electrons on one side, and less on the other side where the > > nucleus is. > > Thus there are two poles - one negative and one positive. > > In the formation of this dipole a half-pulse is emitted. > > When the dipole collapses, to its original shape, the other half-pulse is emitted. > > The frequency of the wave will correspond to the linear dimension of the separation as per antenna theory. > > > > Now as for the photoelectric effect. > > It means that over a certain frequency there is electron emission. > > From the classical point of view this means that at a certain level of > > aetheric vibration in spatial terms (relating to the wavelength) the electron > > will be so disturbed from its attachment to the atom, that it will escape the > > atom. > > Prove this, Arindam. Show that a vibration of too low a frequency will > not be able to dislodge an electron from an atom. In particular show > that this result is INDEPENDENT of the amplitude. A matter of slopes in aetheric space, this is. High frequency increases the *slope* of the aetheric field. You have to visualise this. Think of the wind blowing upon you when you are on a football field. You won't be blown off. Now think you are standing upon the football with even lower magnitude wind. You will be blown off. Now from this analogy: 1. you are the electron 2. the wind is the amplitude of radiation 3. the slope relates to the frequency Nice to use the game of football to make a point in fundamental physics! Hurray for the Footscray Bulldogs! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > Classical wave theory and classical antenna theory predict the OPPOSITE, > that sufficiently high amplitude would be able to dislodge electrons, > regardless of frequency. You claim otherwise. Prove it. > > > If the frequency is too low, then the aetheric vibration in terms of distance > > will be too low, no matter how much the amplitude, and the electron will > > stay attached to the atom. > > When the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration in terms of > > wavelength will relate to the dipole dimensions. It will thus shake the > > electron out of its orbit. > > Which will create the photoelectric effect. > > > > In short when the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration will distort > > the electronic structure in the atom such that electron escape will be > > possible. > > > > When the frequency is low, such a distortion will not be possible and so there > > will be no photoelectric effect. > > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > > >> > >>> Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century. > >>> No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum > >>> theory, etc. > >> > >> The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like > >> behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 13:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om751t$1rpm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644746 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 3:02:52 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/5/17 8:26 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:13:20 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote: >>>>>>> Silly >>>>>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in >>>>>>> the mathematics. " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math. >>>>>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math >>>>>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you >>>>>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference) >>>>>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real >>>>>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open >>>>>> question until other relevant evidence is found. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that >>>>>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates >>>>>> question of what the medium might be. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory. >>>> >>>> Then explain it. >>>> >>>> In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold >>>> frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of >>>> photons regardless of how weak the incident light. >>> >>> Very simple. >>> To begin with, when we take classical theory we have to consider wave motion >>> of the light. >>> And wave motion in aether. >>> So the photon is explained as the emission of an electromagnetic pulse. >>> This happens when a dipole is formed temporarily. >>> A dipole is formed temporarily when an atom is subjected to external stimuli. >>> The atom gets hit. >>> As a result, its electronic structure gets flattened. >>> There are more electrons on one side, and less on the other side where the >>> nucleus is. >>> Thus there are two poles - one negative and one positive. >>> In the formation of this dipole a half-pulse is emitted. >>> When the dipole collapses, to its original shape, the other half-pulse is emitted. >>> The frequency of the wave will correspond to the linear dimension of >>> the separation as per antenna theory. >>> >>> Now as for the photoelectric effect. >>> It means that over a certain frequency there is electron emission. >>> From the classical point of view this means that at a certain level of >>> aetheric vibration in spatial terms (relating to the wavelength) the electron >>> will be so disturbed from its attachment to the atom, that it will escape the >>> atom. >> >> Prove this, Arindam. Show that a vibration of too low a frequency will >> not be able to dislodge an electron from an atom. In particular show >> that this result is INDEPENDENT of the amplitude. > > A matter of slopes in aetheric space, this is. > > High frequency increases the *slope* of the aetheric field. > > You have to visualise this. > Think of the wind blowing upon you when you are on a football field. > You won't be blown off. > Now think you are standing upon the football with even lower magnitude wind. > You will be blown off. > > Now from this analogy: > 1. you are the electron > 2. the wind is the amplitude of radiation > 3. the slope relates to the frequency Prove 3. > > Nice to use the game of football to make a point in fundamental physics! > > Hurray for the Footscray Bulldogs! > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > >> >> Classical wave theory and classical antenna theory predict the OPPOSITE, >> that sufficiently high amplitude would be able to dislodge electrons, >> regardless of frequency. You claim otherwise. Prove it. >> >>> If the frequency is too low, then the aetheric vibration in terms of distance >>> will be too low, no matter how much the amplitude, and the electron will >>> stay attached to the atom. >>> When the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration in terms of >>> wavelength will relate to the dipole dimensions. It will thus shake the >>> electron out of its orbit. >>> Which will create the photoelectric effect. >>> >>> In short when the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration will distort >>> the electronic structure in the atom such that electron escape will be >>> possible. >>> >>> When the frequency is low, such a distortion will not be possible and so there >>> will be no photoelectric effect. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Arindam Banerjee >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century. >>>>> No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum >>>>> theory, etc. >>>> >>>> The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like >>>> behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 08:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <om9pvi$1qa$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644793 |
On 8/6/17 8:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 3:02:52 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/5/17 8:26 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:13:20 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote: >>>>>>>> Silly >>>>>>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in >>>>>>>> the mathematics. " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math. >>>>>>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math >>>>>>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you >>>>>>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference) >>>>>>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real >>>>>>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open >>>>>>> question until other relevant evidence is found. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that >>>>>>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates >>>>>>> question of what the medium might be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory. >>>>> >>>>> Then explain it. >>>>> >>>>> In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold >>>>> frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of >>>>> photons regardless of how weak the incident light. >>>> >>>> Very simple. >>>> To begin with, when we take classical theory we have to consider wave motion >>>> of the light. >>>> And wave motion in aether. >>>> So the photon is explained as the emission of an electromagnetic pulse. >>>> This happens when a dipole is formed temporarily. >>>> A dipole is formed temporarily when an atom is subjected to external stimuli. >>>> The atom gets hit. >>>> As a result, its electronic structure gets flattened. >>>> There are more electrons on one side, and less on the other side where the >>>> nucleus is. >>>> Thus there are two poles - one negative and one positive. >>>> In the formation of this dipole a half-pulse is emitted. >>>> When the dipole collapses, to its original shape, the other half-pulse is emitted. >>>> The frequency of the wave will correspond to the linear dimension of >>>> the separation as per antenna theory. >>>> >>>> Now as for the photoelectric effect. >>>> It means that over a certain frequency there is electron emission. >>>> From the classical point of view this means that at a certain level of >>>> aetheric vibration in spatial terms (relating to the wavelength) the electron >>>> will be so disturbed from its attachment to the atom, that it will escape the >>>> atom. >>> >>> Prove this, Arindam. Show that a vibration of too low a frequency will >>> not be able to dislodge an electron from an atom. In particular show >>> that this result is INDEPENDENT of the amplitude. >> >> A matter of slopes in aetheric space, this is. >> >> High frequency increases the *slope* of the aetheric field. >> >> You have to visualise this. >> Think of the wind blowing upon you when you are on a football field. >> You won't be blown off. >> Now think you are standing upon the football with even lower magnitude wind. >> You will be blown off. >> >> Now from this analogy: >> 1. you are the electron >> 2. the wind is the amplitude of radiation >> 3. the slope relates to the frequency > > Prove 3. Waiting, Arindam. Or are you too busy waving your hands and calling it science? > >> >> Nice to use the game of football to make a point in fundamental physics! >> >> Hurray for the Footscray Bulldogs! >> >> Cheers, >> Arindam Banerjee >> >>> >>> Classical wave theory and classical antenna theory predict the OPPOSITE, >>> that sufficiently high amplitude would be able to dislodge electrons, >>> regardless of frequency. You claim otherwise. Prove it. >>> >>>> If the frequency is too low, then the aetheric vibration in terms of distance >>>> will be too low, no matter how much the amplitude, and the electron will >>>> stay attached to the atom. >>>> When the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration in terms of >>>> wavelength will relate to the dipole dimensions. It will thus shake the >>>> electron out of its orbit. >>>> Which will create the photoelectric effect. >>>> >>>> In short when the frequency is high enough, the aetheric vibration will distort >>>> the electronic structure in the atom such that electron escape will be >>>> possible. >>>> >>>> When the frequency is low, such a distortion will not be possible and so there >>>> will be no photoelectric effect. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Antenna theory was not well developed in the early part of the 20th century. >>>>>> No designer of phased array antennas can have any use for relativity, quantum >>>>>> theory, etc. >>>>> >>>>> The designer of a phased array needs to consider the wave-like >>>>> behaviour. They don't need to consider whether there are any real waves. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 17:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ecef304-fd96-4758-bdf4-edabbf9130b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644937 |
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:29:27 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/6/17 8:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 3:02:52 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> On 8/5/17 8:26 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:13:20 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>> On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote: > >>>>>>>> Silly > >>>>>>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in > >>>>>>>> the mathematics. " > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math. > >>>>>>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math > >>>>>>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you > >>>>>>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference) > >>>>>>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real > >>>>>>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open > >>>>>>> question until other relevant evidence is found. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that > >>>>>>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates > >>>>>>> question of what the medium might be. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory. > >>>>> > >>>>> Then explain it. > >>>>> > >>>>> In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold > >>>>> frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of > >>>>> photons regardless of how weak the incident light. > >>>> > >>>> Very simple. > >>>> To begin with, when we take classical theory we have to consider wave motion > >>>> of the light. > >>>> And wave motion in aether. > >>>> So the photon is explained as the emission of an electromagnetic pulse. > >>>> This happens when a dipole is formed temporarily. > >>>> A dipole is formed temporarily when an atom is subjected to external stimuli. > >>>> The atom gets hit. > >>>> As a result, its electronic structure gets flattened. > >>>> There are more electrons on one side, and less on the other side where the > >>>> nucleus is. > >>>> Thus there are two poles - one negative and one positive. > >>>> In the formation of this dipole a half-pulse is emitted. > >>>> When the dipole collapses, to its original shape, the other half-pulse is emitted. > >>>> The frequency of the wave will correspond to the linear dimension of > >>>> the separation as per antenna theory. > >>>> > >>>> Now as for the photoelectric effect. > >>>> It means that over a certain frequency there is electron emission. > >>>> From the classical point of view this means that at a certain level of > >>>> aetheric vibration in spatial terms (relating to the wavelength) the electron > >>>> will be so disturbed from its attachment to the atom, that it will escape the > >>>> atom. > >>> > >>> Prove this, Arindam. Show that a vibration of too low a frequency will > >>> not be able to dislodge an electron from an atom. In particular show > >>> that this result is INDEPENDENT of the amplitude. > >> > >> A matter of slopes in aetheric space, this is. > >> > >> High frequency increases the *slope* of the aetheric field. > >> > >> You have to visualise this. > >> Think of the wind blowing upon you when you are on a football field. > >> You won't be blown off. > >> Now think you are standing upon the football with even lower magnitude wind. > >> You will be blown off. > >> > >> Now from this analogy: > >> 1. you are the electron > >> 2. the wind is the amplitude of radiation > >> 3. the slope relates to the frequency > > > > Prove 3. I thought it was self-evident. Higher the frequency, lower the wavelength as per c=l*f where l is the wavelength and f the frequency of radiation. Aetheric vibration means that aether is sloping with the frequency. As the frequency increases, then, the playing field for the electron diminishes as the wavelength decreases and the slope increases. So the electron is oscillated more rapidly with higher frequency, for the playing field diminishes. With the lower frequency the oscillation is correspondingly less. So for the photoelectric material there is a limit. Over a certain frequency, the electron will get the energy to go over the aetheric slope in the reduced field and out of the atom. This can be shown graphically with aether points in intra-atomic space. How the aether points change with the frequency can be shown for various frequencies. Thus for low frequencies it is flat. No slope. But for high frequencies the slope is high over the wavelength region. The electrons gets the momentum from the electromagnetic wave to climb over the slope and out. Someone should do this on Internet. He can take a part of the credit, if he references my work here to explain the photoelectric effect with classical physics. This should be a neat physics project. I have other things to do, like trying to get attention and funding for my new motors. One would have to correlate the wavelength of the em radiation to the atomic dimensions. Of course! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-08 07:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omcc3r$8iq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #645048 |
On 8/7/17 7:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:29:27 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/6/17 8:19 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 3:02:52 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 8/5/17 8:26 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:13:20 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Silly >>>>>>>>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in >>>>>>>>>> the mathematics. " >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math. >>>>>>>>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math >>>>>>>>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you >>>>>>>>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference) >>>>>>>>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real >>>>>>>>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open >>>>>>>>> question until other relevant evidence is found. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that >>>>>>>>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates >>>>>>>>> question of what the medium might be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then explain it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold >>>>>>> frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of >>>>>>> photons regardless of how weak the incident light. >>>>>> >>>>>> Very simple. >>>>>> To begin with, when we take classical theory we have to consider wave motion >>>>>> of the light. >>>>>> And wave motion in aether. >>>>>> So the photon is explained as the emission of an electromagnetic pulse. >>>>>> This happens when a dipole is formed temporarily. >>>>>> A dipole is formed temporarily when an atom is subjected to external stimuli. >>>>>> The atom gets hit. >>>>>> As a result, its electronic structure gets flattened. >>>>>> There are more electrons on one side, and less on the other side where the >>>>>> nucleus is. >>>>>> Thus there are two poles - one negative and one positive. >>>>>> In the formation of this dipole a half-pulse is emitted. >>>>>> When the dipole collapses, to its original shape, the other half-pulse is emitted. >>>>>> The frequency of the wave will correspond to the linear dimension of >>>>>> the separation as per antenna theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now as for the photoelectric effect. >>>>>> It means that over a certain frequency there is electron emission. >>>>>> From the classical point of view this means that at a certain level of >>>>>> aetheric vibration in spatial terms (relating to the wavelength) the electron >>>>>> will be so disturbed from its attachment to the atom, that it will escape the >>>>>> atom. >>>>> >>>>> Prove this, Arindam. Show that a vibration of too low a frequency will >>>>> not be able to dislodge an electron from an atom. In particular show >>>>> that this result is INDEPENDENT of the amplitude. >>>> >>>> A matter of slopes in aetheric space, this is. >>>> >>>> High frequency increases the *slope* of the aetheric field. >>>> >>>> You have to visualise this. >>>> Think of the wind blowing upon you when you are on a football field. >>>> You won't be blown off. >>>> Now think you are standing upon the football with even lower magnitude wind. >>>> You will be blown off. >>>> >>>> Now from this analogy: >>>> 1. you are the electron >>>> 2. the wind is the amplitude of radiation >>>> 3. the slope relates to the frequency >>> >>> Prove 3. > > I thought it was self-evident. > > Higher the frequency, lower the wavelength as per > c=l*f where l is the wavelength and f the frequency of radiation. > Aetheric vibration means that aether is sloping with the frequency. When you say the aether is sloping, what does this mean? What property of the aether has a slope? Recall that a slope is dg/dx where g is some function or property. So what is the property here. It makes no sense to say that aether is sloping any more than it makes sense to say that air is sloping, though it does make sense to say that the DENSITY of air is sloping. So what do you mean by saying that the aether is sloping? > As the frequency increases, then, the playing field for the electron diminishes > as the wavelength decreases and the slope increases. Why does the playing field of an ELECTRON diminish with increased slope of AETHER? > So the electron is oscillated more rapidly with higher frequency, for the > playing field diminishes. > With the lower frequency the oscillation is correspondingly less. > So for the photoelectric material there is a limit. > Over a certain frequency, the electron will get the energy to go over the > aetheric slope in the reduced field and out of the atom. > > This can be shown graphically with aether points in intra-atomic space. > How the aether points change with the frequency can be shown for various > frequencies. > Thus for low frequencies it is flat. No slope. > But for high frequencies the slope is high over the wavelength region. > The electrons gets the momentum from the electromagnetic wave to climb over > the slope and out. > > Someone should do this on Internet. > He can take a part of the credit, if he references my work here to explain > the photoelectric effect with classical physics. > This should be a neat physics project. > > I have other things to do, like trying to get attention and funding for my > new motors. > > One would have to correlate the wavelength of the em radiation to the > atomic dimensions. > > Of course! > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 16:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <om82tl$1d5k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644746 |
On 8/6/2017 1:03 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 3:02:52 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/5/17 8:26 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 10:13:20 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 5/08/2017 9:28 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:35:58 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/08/2017 11:21 PM, john wrote:
>>>>>>> Silly
>>>>>>> "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in
>>>>>>> the mathematics. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thd trouble is that reality is not math.
>>>>>>> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The math shows that if you have particles that behave the way the math
>>>>>> says, then those particles will show wave-like characteristics. So you
>>>>>> cannot use the observed wave-like characteristics (such as interference)
>>>>>> to show that there are real waves involved. Thus the existence of real
>>>>>> waves in anything that shows wave-like characteristics is an open
>>>>>> question until other relevant evidence is found.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the case of light, things like the photoelectric effect suggest that
>>>>>> the quantum model is correct, and the lack of real waves obviates
>>>>>> question of what the medium might be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> The photoelectric effect can easily be explained with antenna theory.
>>>>
>>>> Then explain it.
>>>>
>>>> In particular, explain the absence of an effect below a threshold
>>>> frequency. Also explain the absence of any delay in the emission of
>>>> photons regardless of how weak the incident light.
>>>
>>> Very simple.
>>> To begin with, when we take classical theory we have to consider wave motion
>>> of the light.
>>> And wave motion in aether.
>>> So the photon is explained as the emission of an electromagnetic pulse.
>>> This happens when a dipole is formed temporarily.
what kind of dipole ?
>>> A dipole is formed temporarily when an atom is subjected to external stimuli.
>>> The atom gets hit.
dipoles and atoms dont mix.
>>> As a result, its electronic structure gets flattened.
>>> There are more electrons on one side, and less on the other side where the
>>> nucleus is.
you have photos of this or are you just making stuff up ?
>>> Thus there are two poles - one negative and one positive.
>>> In the formation of this dipole a half-pulse is emitted.
>>> When the dipole collapses, to its original shape, the other half-pulse is emitted.
>>> The frequency of the wave will correspond to the linear dimension of the separation as per antenna theory.
wrong. antenna theory does not apply to atoms.
>>>
>>> Now as for the photoelectric effect.
>>> It means that over a certain frequency there is electron emission.
what certain frequency ? what type of electron emission?
>>> From the classical point of view this means that at a certain level of
>>> aetheric vibration in spatial terms (relating to the wavelength)
amplitude to wavelength conversion ?
>> the electron
>>> will be so disturbed from its attachment to the atom, that it will escape the
>>> atom.
verbal hand waving, show us the MATH
>>
>> Prove this, Arindam. Show that a vibration of too low a frequency will
>> not be able to dislodge an electron from an atom. In particular show
>> that this result is INDEPENDENT of the amplitude.
>
> A matter of slopes in aetheric space, this is.
>
> High frequency increases the *slope* of the aetheric field.
what is slope ? how does frequency change a field ?
>
> You have to visualise this.
> Think of the wind blowing upon you when you are on a football field.
> You won't be blown off.
> Now think you are standing upon the football with even lower magnitude wind.
> You will be blown off.
atoms and football are modeled by completly different laws of physics,
they are entirely seperate.
>
> Now from this analogy:
> 1. you are the electron
> 2. the wind is the amplitude of radiation
> 3. the slope relates to the frequency
you be bullshitting,
I'm not an electron (laws of physics used are complety different)
what is amplitude of radiation ? which radiation ?
what slope of what ? what frequency of what ?
>
> Nice to use the game of football to make a point in fundamental physics!
you get an F. you make physics pointless.
>
> Hurray for the Footscray Bulldogs!
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86692a08-612c-4ec6-be59-977688363f9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644850 |
Sergio and Odd Your textbooks are wrong. You are so deluded that you think a "field" is an entity unto itself. You are so deluded you think a "wave" is an entity unto itself. You are so deluded you think that "virtual" is the real thing. You are so deluded that you think that math controls and creates reality somehow. You are deluded- wouldn't want to be ya. Have a good day!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 00:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om8ajr$1nb9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644853 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Sergio and Odd > Your textbooks are wrong. And what makes you think that YOU are right and the textbooks wrong. Other than psycho-scale egotism? > You are so deluded that you think a "field" is an entity unto itself. Yup. > You are so deluded you think a "wave" is an entity unto itself. A wave is a behavior of a system controlled by laws of physics. No system, no laws, no waves. > You are so deluded you think that "virtual" is the real thing. "Virtual" is just a word, a label. > You are so deluded that you think that math controls and creates reality somehow. Reality is well described by mathematics, even if you hate math, don't understand math, don't want to have to deal with math. Remember your struggles to find coordinates for a tetrahedron? Simple exercise, you needed help. > You are deluded- wouldn't want to be ya. > Have a good day! > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 17:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9212301-8dd6-4ae4-8515-f6c36a1a20ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644857 |
Odd " > (john)You are so deluded that you think that math controls and creates reality somehow. Reality is well described by mathematics, even if you hate math, don't ..." Reality may be well-described by mathematics, or not. That wasn't what I said. You confuse 'describing' with 'creating'. It's that darn imagination of yours. Yes, it was created in your head. No. You can't create a real wave without a medium.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 02:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om8jnm$3ij$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644862 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > " >> (john)You are so deluded that you think that math controls and creates reality somehow. > > Reality is well described by mathematics, even if you hate math, don't ..." > > Reality may be well-described by mathematics, or not. > That wasn't what I said. > > You confuse 'describing' with 'creating'. It's that darn imagination of > yours. Yes, it was created in your head. No. > You can't create a real wave without a medium. > I never said math creates waves. Not once. I said the laws of physics are responsible for waves, not a medium, when those laws have a particular form. That isn't math creating anything. Laws of physics are real, John, not imaginary. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web