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

Groups > sci.physics > #598250 > unrolled thread

"Opposite spin"

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 04:19 -0700
    Re: "Opposite spin" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 16:44 +0000
      Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 10:05 -0700
        Re: "Opposite spin" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-26 01:26 +0000
          Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 05:10 -0700
            Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 05:16 -0700
              Re: "Opposite spin" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-26 16:57 +0000
                Re: "Opposite spin" "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-26 10:11 -0700
                  Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 12:20 -0700
                    Re: "Opposite spin" "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-26 12:37 -0700
                      Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 13:34 -0700
                        Re: "Opposite spin" "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-26 14:58 -0700
                    Re: "Opposite spin" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:11 -0500
                  Re: "Opposite spin" poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 04:42 -0700
      Re: "Opposite spin" poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 04:39 -0700
    Re: "Opposite spin" Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-09-25 13:15 -0700
      Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 13:38 -0700
        Re: "Opposite spin" Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-09-25 14:50 -0700
          Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:37 -0700
            Re: "Opposite spin" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:13 -0500
              Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 06:52 -0700
                Re: "Opposite spin" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:05 -0500
                Re: "Opposite spin" Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-09-26 14:43 -0700
    Re: "Opposite spin" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:44 -0500
    Re: "Opposite spin" "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 15:35 -0700
      Re: "Opposite spin" "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-25 16:09 -0700
    Re: "Opposite spin" "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 15:06 -0700
      Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 17:28 -0700
        Re: "Opposite spin" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-27 01:07 +0000
          Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 19:46 -0700
            Re: "Opposite spin" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-27 03:13 +0000
        Re: "Opposite spin" "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 18:18 -0700
          Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 19:49 -0700
            Re: "Opposite spin" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 09:03 -0500
              Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 07:08 -0700
                Re: "Opposite spin" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 09:21 -0500
                  Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 07:41 -0700
                    Re: "Opposite spin" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 10:12 -0500
                    Re: "Opposite spin" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 11:18 -0500
                      Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 09:29 -0700
                        Re: "Opposite spin" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 12:10 -0500
                          Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 10:18 -0700
                            Re: "Opposite spin" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 12:24 -0500
                              Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 13:07 -0700
                                Re: "Opposite spin" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 16:06 -0500
                                Re: "Opposite spin" poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 00:08 -0700
                            Re: "Opposite spin" poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 00:01 -0700
                              Re: "Opposite spin" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 01:51 +0000
                                Re: "Opposite spin" HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 06:23 -0700
                                  Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 07:41 -0700
            Re: "Opposite spin" "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 17:51 -0700
              Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 18:05 -0700
                Re: "Opposite spin" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-28 03:42 +0000
                Re: "Opposite spin" "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 02:24 -0700
                Re: "Opposite spin" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:36 -0500
                  Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 10:54 -0700
                    Re: "Opposite spin" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:37 -0500
                Re: "Opposite spin" "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 11:54 -0700
                  Re: "Opposite spin" "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-29 11:59 -0700
              Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 18:12 -0700
                Re: "Opposite spin" john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 19:10 -0700
                Re: "Opposite spin" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-28 03:49 +0000
      Re: "Opposite spin" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-27 01:02 +0000
    Re: "Opposite spin" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-27 15:24 +1000
      Re: "Opposite spin" noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 14:07 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#598350

Odd said
"
(john)> If we slowly ramp BOTH spin and 
> precession up, while keeping them 
> locked at 1 to 2, will the resistance 
> INCREASE or DECREASE? 
> And how fast can we go? 

How do you propose to lock the ratio at 1 to 2, John. I mean,
physically, what are the details of that? "

There should be many ways.
Engineers?

My idea was to groove the pathway
on the inside of a sphere, mount an
electromagnet on a gimbal 
so it is centered inside the sphere with its
contacts riding in the groove, then
each time the ends make contact
they receive a push from
outside-mounted electromagnets.

Then vary the current.

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

#598353

On 9/26/2016 8:52 AM, john wrote:
> Odd said
> "
> (john)> If we slowly ramp BOTH spin and
>> precession up, while keeping them
>> locked at 1 to 2, will the resistance
>> INCREASE or DECREASE?
>> And how fast can we go?
>
> How do you propose to lock the ratio at 1 to 2, John. I mean,
> physically, what are the details of that? "
>
> There should be many ways.
> Engineers?

Gee, I dunno, John. Consider the experiment I suggested to you, which 
you can replicate. Doesn't seem to be straightforward to do the lock as 
you suggest. Perhaps you should take your idea to an engineer first to 
see what he says about a scheme to enforce the lock as you imagine it, 
and THEN we can address your question about how fast it should be able 
to go. Or better yet, you can ask the engineer that question.

What a PHYSICIST will tell you is that as the spin increases, the 
precession rate DECREASES normally, and it does not stay locked in any 1 
to 2 ratio.

>
> My idea was to groove the pathway
> on the inside of a sphere, mount an
> electromagnet on a gimbal
> so it is centered inside the sphere with its
> contacts riding in the groove, then
> each time the ends make contact
> they receive a push from
> outside-mounted electromagnets.
>
> Then vary the current.

So build it. Solve your engineering problems.

>


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

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

#598397

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Odd said
> "
> (john)> If we slowly ramp BOTH spin and 
> > precession up, while keeping them 
> > locked at 1 to 2, will the resistance 
> > INCREASE or DECREASE? 
> > And how fast can we go? 
> 
> How do you propose to lock the ratio at 1 to 2, John. I mean,
> physically, what are the details of that? "
> 
> There should be many ways.
> Engineers?
> 
> My idea was to groove the pathway
> on the inside of a sphere, mount an
> electromagnet on a gimbal 
> so it is centered inside the sphere with its
> contacts riding in the groove, then
> each time the ends make contact
> they receive a push from
> outside-mounted electromagnets.
> 
> Then vary the current.


I think NASA has some machines that work like that to rotate astronauts in several directions at once, to train them to deal with disorientation, and also to place side bets on how long they can keep down their lunch!

Double-A

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

#598279

On 9/25/2016 6:19 AM, john wrote:
> People talk about "opposite spin".
> Look at a Ferris wheel from one side,
> it is rotating one way.
> Look at it from the other side,
> it is rotating the other way.
> Just perspective.
>
> Same for a merry go round. Look at it
> from above- rotating one way.
> Look at it from below- other way.
> Just perspective.
>
> Plain spin has no "opposite".
> It's just spin.
>
> BUT.
>
> Combine the two spins- lock them
> together so X rotations of one will
> always be Y rotations of the other.
>
> Put the Ferris wheel on the merry go round
> so every time the merry go round
> completes a rotation, the bottom bucket
> on the Ferris wheel has gone around
> once, and is back. Or has gone around
> twice, which is what I think happens
> in atoms, but the "Hubius helix" is the
> path for just once (a figure of eight
> lying on a sphere from North Pole to
> south.) it was DERIVED from electron data.
>
> Anyway, make the merry go round go
> backwards while keeping
> the Ferris wheel the same-
> THEN you have a true opposite spin.
> (Which is antimatter.)
>
> Otherwise, spin is just spin. No such
> thing as opposite.
>

I think it would help if you knew what spin-up and spin-down means. It 
does not mean looking along the axis from the other direction.

In classical mechanics, orientation of a spinning object is arbitrary in 
3D space. One way you can ask this is, suppose there is something that 
determines a specific direction at the location of spinning object, like 
an electric or magnetic field; how big is the projection of the object's 
spin along the line defined by this field at that point? As you may 
know, the size of the projection related to the angle between those two 
directions (it's the cosine of the angle). In classical mechanics, that 
projection can take on any value between 1 and -1.

But for fermions with spin 1/2, we find out experimentally that there 
are only two orientations: one where the projection is positive (the 
cosine is sqrt[3/4]), and one where the projection is negative (the 
cosine is -sqrt[3/4]).

Turning around and looking at it from the other direction does not 
change these results at all, because it's not the viewing angle of the 
observer that counts at all. It's the angle between the object's spin 
and the physical characteristic of the system that sets a particular 
direction. Atoms have fields that set that particular direction, and 
then electrons will take slots with either positive or negative 
projections with respect to THAT direction.

Your looking at ferris wheels from opposite sides uses similar words, 
but has no other relevance or bearing. But this is how you attempt, 
John, to guess what physics terms like spin mean -- "sounds something 
like this other thing, must be related" -- because you DON'T READ.

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

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

#598292

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:19:58 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> People talk about "opposite spin".
> Look at a Ferris wheel from one side,
> it is rotating one way.
> Look at it from the other side,
> it is rotating the other way.
> Just perspective.
> 
> Same for a merry go round. Look at it
> from above- rotating one way.
> Look at it from below- other way.
> Just perspective.
> 
> Plain spin has no "opposite".
> It's just spin.
> 
> BUT.
> 
> Combine the two spins- lock them
> together so X rotations of one will
> always be Y rotations of the other.
> 
> Put the Ferris wheel on the merry go round
> so every time the merry go round
> completes a rotation, the bottom bucket
> on the Ferris wheel has gone around
> once, and is back. Or has gone around
> twice, which is what I think happens
> in atoms, but the "Hubius helix" is the
> path for just once (a figure of eight
> lying on a sphere from North Pole to
> south.) it was DERIVED from electron data.
> 
> Anyway, make the merry go round go
> backwards while keeping
> the Ferris wheel the same-
> THEN you have a true opposite spin.
> (Which is antimatter.)
> 
> Otherwise, spin is just spin. No such
> thing as opposite.

Up and down .Left and right.+ and - Black and white Hot and cold and keep in mind without spin no coupling could be in. treBert

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

#598296

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
Up and down .Left and right.+ and - Black and white Hot and cold 
and keep in mind without spin no coupling could be in" just
like with <http://tinyurl.com/Recalcitrant-Swine-Glazier> that
was <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine>, who 
>
.... LIKES to be referred to as Cretin & Full Swine Glazier.
>
"Full Swine Glazier", because Bert threatened & wrote:
"I'll be sitting on Benj Jacoby's, Saul Levi's & Campbell's 
HVAC face to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide".
"Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh".
>
"Cretin", because Bert is incapable or too stupid and NOT
clever enough to exculpate himself by posting one single
line that says:
_______  "I, Glazier made a wrong prediction" _________
>
Glazier, if you are clever enough, then do that & all these
daily reminders will fade away. Your ShEater-slaves will 
love you even more, since the list they are on, will desist.
>
So, Glazier, "Get the picture", "Go figure", "O ya"

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

#598403

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:19:58 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> People talk about "opposite spin".


> Anyway, make the merry go round go
> backwards while keeping
> the Ferris wheel the same-
> THEN you have a true opposite spin.
> (Which is antimatter.)

  So, when a free hydrogen atom's single electron flips its spin from parallel to that of the proton to antiparallel, you think it becomes a positron?

  Seriously?

  And when a diatomic hydrogen molecule goes from the ortho state (both proton spins in the same direction) to the para state (proton spins opposed), you think one of the protons suddenly becomes an antiproton?

  Seriously?


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#598411

Mark
"On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:19:58 AM UTC-7, john wrote: 
> People talk about "opposite spin". 


> Anyway, make the merry go round go 
> backwards while keeping 
> the Ferris wheel the same- 
> THEN you have a true opposite spin. 
> (Which is antimatter.) 

  So, when a free hydrogen atom's single electron flips its spin from parallel to that of the proton to antiparallel, you think it becomes a positron? 

  Seriously? 

  And when a diatomic hydrogen molecule goes from the ortho state (both proton spins in the same direction) to the para state (proton spins opposed), you think one of the protons suddenly becomes an antiproton? 

  Seriously? "

No.
The matter structure precesses one way.
The antimatter structure precesses the
other.
When you put the positron into
the "down" position,
in the matter structure,
IT RUNS BACKWARDS!!!'

How many times do you need to
try to process that?

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

#598413

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>The matter structure precesses one way.
>The antimatter structure precesses the
>other.
>When you put the positron into
>the "down" position,
>in the matter structure,
>IT RUNS BACKWARDS!!!'

WTF is that gibberish supposed to mean?

Anyway, it's wrong.  Put a positron into a "matter structure" you get a
couple of powerful gammas, real quick.

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

#598417

Michael. please
Don't try to think.

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

#598419

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael. please
>Don't try to think.

You definitely gave up thinking long ago.

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

#598415

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 5:28:43 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Mark
> "On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:19:58 AM UTC-7, john wrote: 
> > People talk about "opposite spin". 
> 
> 
> > Anyway, make the merry go round go 
> > backwards while keeping 
> > the Ferris wheel the same- 
> > THEN you have a true opposite spin. 
> > (Which is antimatter.) 
> 
>   So, when a free hydrogen atom's single electron flips its spin from
> parallel to that of the proton to antiparallel, you think it becomes a
> positron? 
> 
>   Seriously? 
> 
>   And when a diatomic hydrogen molecule goes from the ortho state (both
> proton spins in the same direction) to the para state (proton spins opposed),
> you think one of the protons suddenly becomes an antiproton? 
> 
>   Seriously? "
> 
> No.
> The matter structure precesses one way.

  Oh? Which way, compared against what in a single atom or molecule?

  What evidence can you point at to support this assertion?

> The antimatter structure precesses the other.

  Oh? Which way, compared against what, in a single atom or molecule?

  What evidence can you point at to support this assertion?

> When you put the positron into
> the "down" position,
> in the matter structure,
> IT RUNS BACKWARDS!!!'

  Word salad. One does not "put a positron into the down position" in any way other than by flipping its spin. It DOES NOT then instantly become an electron.

  If you "put" a positron into any matter it rapidly finds an electron to annihilate with regardless of their mutual spin, precession, or anything else.

  You keep saying that opposite spin states for ordinary particles are actually matter vs. antimatter. I gave you two examples where they clearly are not and you responded with gibberish.

> How many times do you need to
> try to process that?

  I only have to process bullshit once to know it's bullshit.


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#598418

Mark 
How is antimatter opposite from
matter?
Put it forward, don't be shy.
Explain- you sound very sure

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

#598440

On 9/26/2016 9:49 PM, john wrote:
> Mark
> How is antimatter opposite from
> matter?

Already answered, John, a couple of weeks ago. It ISN'T spin.

> Put it forward, don't be shy.
> Explain- you sound very sure
>


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

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

#598446

Odd
"
Already answered, John, a couple of weeks ago. It ISN'T spin. "

You couldn't answer a phone, Odd.
You have no clue.
You have to start thinking for yourself,
and not believe everything that you read.
:)
You will be alright, Odd.

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

#598450

On 9/27/2016 9:08 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> Already answered, John, a couple of weeks ago. It ISN'T spin. "
>
> You couldn't answer a phone, Odd.
> You have no clue.
> You have to start thinking for yourself,
> and not believe everything that you read.
> :)
> You will be alright, Odd.
>

John, if you ask a question like "what is the difference between a 
particle and an antiparticle", are you really looking for an answer to 
absorb, or are you looking for an answer you can slap to the ground and 
dismiss?

Here's the bottom line, John. You are using technical terms when you say 
"particle" and "antiparticle". You can learn what they mean, or you can 
try to invent your own meanings for the words. If you invent your own 
meanings, this is not laudable "thinking for yourself"; this is foolish 
nonsense that just generates word salad.

So if you learn that "particle" and "antiparticle" don't mean what you 
thought they meant, and you take that opportunity to dismiss what they 
really mean and stick to what you want them to mean, then you're being a 
boob.

And if you want to be a boob, and you ask questions of people about what 
these things mean, and it turns out you really aren't interested in the 
answers anyway, people are just not going to bother taking your 
questions seriously.

Your choice.

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

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

#598452

Odd 
Here's the bottom line:
the "Science" that you believe in-
and it IS belief, believe me-
predicates "nothingness", in that
there are (you believe):
particles whose dimensions are NOTHING,
electrons that accelerate constantly
and yet give off NOTHING, and
consume NOTHING,
photons that travel forever and lose NOTHING,
a Universe that expands 'universally'
into NOTHING, and evidence for whatever
Magic would cause that is NOTHING.

You believe in NOTHING, Odd.

Sad

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

#598456

On 9/27/2016 9:41 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Here's the bottom line:
> the "Science" that you believe in-
> and it IS belief, believe me-
> predicates "nothingness", in that
> there are (you believe):
> particles whose dimensions are NOTHING,
> electrons that accelerate constantly
> and yet give off NOTHING, and
> consume NOTHING,
> photons that travel forever and lose NOTHING,
> a Universe that expands 'universally'
> into NOTHING, and evidence for whatever
> Magic would cause that is NOTHING.
>
> You believe in NOTHING, Odd.
>
> Sad
>

So what you BELIEVE instead is that
- all things must have nonzero volume
- anything that moves must be fed energy to continue moving, or else it 
will eventually necessarily stop
- expansion of something necessarily means that it has a border 
separating inside from outside that is pushing into whatever is outside
- that even to acknowledge zero in anything (like zero charge, zero 
mass, zero density) is to deny existence

These are your BELIEFS, and you further claim that anyone who does not 
share these beliefs is being illogical, nonsensical, and generally 
unthinking.

And so you say, to hell with what scientists mean be "particle" and 
"antiparticle" because scientists do not hold the same beliefs you hold. 
And so if "particle" and "antiparticle" do not mean what you thought 
they mean, then that's just a mark of scientists being unthinking, 
illogical idiots.

Have I got that right, John?

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

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

#598462

On 9/27/2016 9:41 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Here's the bottom line:

> electrons that accelerate constantly
> and yet give off NOTHING, and
> consume NOTHING,
> photons that travel forever and lose NOTHING,

As a further word in this area, you may recall something that was 
developed by Galileo around 1605 and became the first law of motion that 
Newton wrote down in the 1670s. This says that "An object at rest stays 
at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and 
in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

This means that no energy input is needed for an object to continue in 
motion FOREVER.

Now, John, you may think this is nonsense, and that your common sense 
tells you that physics since Galileo and Newton is all bogus. If that's 
the case, just say so.


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

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

#598463

Odd
"
Now, John, you may think this is nonsense, and that your common sense 
tells you that physics since Galileo and Newton is all bogus. "

Yes.
A particle continues.
Unless Space ISN'T Nothing.
In which case it is slowed down by
the interaction, gradually.
In the case of a photon, this would
be revealed by the photon
slowly red-shifting.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web