Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #409082

Re: The constancy of light

From	Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: The constancy of light
Date	2017-02-13 18:32 +0000
Organization	Sanjuanita Peeples Institute
Message-ID	<o7su3k$1b3p$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <o7hnkd$fls$1@dont-email.me> <f57f3b70-4cf8-4aa9-975d-e9714086d393@googlegroups.com> <7uqdnWzGoPi0HwHFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <3e98f9c6-3c55-47ce-9adb-9d22dbef420f@googlegroups.com> <6d3aa8d9-897b-f3a2-d70a-1e1bbc8e1a42@sbcglobal.net>

Show all headers | View raw

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Yes, they are good examples, because when a light beam is applied,
> electrons begin getting emitted immediately, far faster than a wave
> could build up enough energy to reach the threshold.

Are you pretty much sure? You are not violating causality, am I? They
cannot just start being emitted without reaching a threshold. This is the
number one lesson in embedded systems (CRTs included). Without a
threshold, nothing may happen.

> Nope. Without the incident light beam, no electrons are emitted. But
> it's more complicated than just light being present or not: there is a
> work function associated with electrons being able to leave the surface,
> and each electron must be given at least that much energy in order for
> it to be emitted; when h*f for a photon is below that value, no
> electrons are emitted, and when h*f is above that threshold, electrons
> are emitted with kinetic energy equal to the difference between h*f and
> the work function.

What kinetic energy? Does not really matter, in a conductor. It's rather
about a current, something you can measure. You cannot possibly measure an
electron(s)'s kinetic energy.

Even know, that current is a DC, not AC wave. It's clear, since the
electrons cannot oscillate at the incident light frequency.

> I have no idea where you got this notion; I have not seen it. It is
> quite clearly wrong, and the MMX by itself does not rule out light as a
> wave [#]. But many other experiments do (mostly ones performed many
> decades after the MMX).

The fringes depends on which half of the wave is hitting the detector
first.

> 	(And once you learn enough to try a specific wave theory,
> you will find it is already refuted by experiments.) Tom Roberts

Excellent post, thank you.

Thread

The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 17:11 -0800
  Cretin Peter Riedt at it again "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 17:16 -0800
    Re: Cretin Peter Riedt at it again, was re: constancy of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 12:38 -0800
  Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 12:25 +1100
    Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 20:26 -0800
      Peter Riedt eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 20:36 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 06:56 +0100
      Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 19:31 +1100
        Re: The constancy of light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-07 00:39 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:07 -0500
      Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:22 -0600
        Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 16:02 -0800
          Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:11 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 18:16 -0800
              Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:31 -0800
              Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:33 -0600
                Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 06:53 -0800
          Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:32 -0600
    Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 10:36 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-08 05:07 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 05:25 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-08 05:59 -0800
          Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 06:14 -0800
          Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:15 +0100
            Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 03:44 -0800
              Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 13:36 +0100
                Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 04:51 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-09 05:36 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 15:12 +0100
                Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-09 08:52 -0600
                Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 10:20 -0800
                Imbecile Jay Mosley back with a vengeance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 10:44 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 10:16 -0600
                Re: The constancy of light Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 18:32 +0000
                Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 11:01 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-10 12:49 -0800
              Re: The constancy of light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-10 14:47 +0100
                Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-10 07:48 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 10:34 -0600
                Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 10:34 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 14:16 -0600
                Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 14:31 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-14 09:33 -0600
                Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-14 08:18 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-14 12:24 -0600
                Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-14 10:40 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-13 21:16 +0100
      Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:00 +0100
  Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 14:59 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 15:51 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:06 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:09 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 12:53 +1100
        Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:19 -0800
          Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 14:08 +1100
        Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:24 -0800
          Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 14:11 +1100
  Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 11:24 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 12:10 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 12:45 +1100
  Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 10:36 -0800
  Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 12:57 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 14:56 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-11 14:42 -0800
  Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:09 -0800
  Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:23 -0800
  Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:27 -0800
  Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:23 -0800
  Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 14:56 -0800
  Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:44 -0800

csiph-web