Post by: guest39538 on 21/03/2019 10:40:58
The truth is, it doesn't have its own speed at all , the speed is the transitional property , from high state energy to a lower state energy. The light is not emitted from a light bulb , it is pulled out of the light bulb by the lesser state energy of the surrounding Rⁿ space .
The speed of light now explained
→
p(c)= F(<E) where p is momentum
This can be observed in spectral emissions . ::)
Post by: Kryptid on 21/03/2019 16:10:59
How can something have a speed when it has no propulsion ?
Newton's first law.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/03/2019 16:21:59
How can something have a speed when it has no propulsion ?
Newton's first law.
An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force .
Can a photon be classed as an object?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum
Quote
The emission spectrum of a chemical element or chemical compound is the spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation emitted due to an atom or molecule making a transition from a high energy state to a lower energy state.
In regards to spectral emission and the transitional period of high energy to a lower energy state , geometrical position .
The speed of this process is ?
The force of this displacement is ?
Wouldn't my equation for this process be correct ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2019 18:55:41
Can a photon be classed as an object?Yes.
Wouldn't my equation for this process be correct ?The "equation" doesn't mean anything, so it's hard to say.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/03/2019 19:03:00
Can a photon be classed as an object?Yes.Wouldn't my equation for this process be correct ?The "equation" doesn't mean anything, so it's hard to say.
What do you mean the equation doesn't mean anything ?
It explains the process and equates the speed of light in being a transitional property of light !
What do you disagree with about it ?
Please show the error in the equation .
It reads the momentum of light 299792458 m/s is equal to the force of a less than energy state .
Quite clearly
= v (c)F
=<EThus momentum ;
→
p(c)= F(<E)
Additionally applied to Newtons first law
→
p(m)= F(<E)
The higher state energy of the mass being attracted to the less than energy state space-time energy ahead of it .
Post by: guest39538 on 22/03/2019 19:28:24
[ Invalid Attachment ]
::) You're welcome science .
Post by: mad aetherist on 22/03/2019 22:11:57
The speed of light in a vacuum 299792458 m/s constantly . How can something have a speed when it has no propulsion ?U made a bad start. The speed of light in vacuum is not constant. Einstein predicted that. Shapiro & Co have prooven it. So where is your equation now?
The truth is, it doesn't have its own speed at all , the speed is the transitional property , from high state energy to a lower state energy. The light is not emitted from a light bulb , it is pulled out of the light bulb by the lesser state energy of the surrounding Rⁿ space . The speed of light now explained
→
p(c)= F(<E) where p is momentum
This can be observed in spectral emissions . ::)
A photon propagates throo the aether at c in vacuum if well away from mass etc, ie never.
Your equation gives no inkling as to how a photon propagates at up to c in the aether as primarily a helical annihilation & excitation process of aether plus a radially emanating process (photaenos) involving additional annihilation (probly) plus excitation (a different kind of excitation to the primary), the photaenos being responsible for the slowing near mass etc (due to a feedback process)(due to interference with other photaenos from other photons).
Is your equation meant to explain these kinds of processes, or is it just the usual kind of equation that tries to ascribe numbers to what happens & what is measured or predicted, based partly on using a constant to cover some ignorance (nothing wrong with that)(but just asking).
But it looks to me like your equation is based on photons being just math, hencely having an algebraic speed based on a math creation & a math existence & a math annihilation, & having math interactions when meeting geometry, slowed down by arithmetic here or there, but nothing that cant be handled by an Einstein friendly trigonometrical transform.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 01:39:44
The speed of light in vacuum is not constant. Einstein predicted that. Shapiro & Co have prooven it. So where is your equation now?
Actually , you are incorrect , the speed of light in a vacuum is constant , observers clocks in difference frames of reference are not constant . I guess you don't understand simultaneity of events .
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 01:51:09
SR says that the speed of light appears constant, & GR says that the speed of light appears constant. Which means that the speed of light is not constant.The speed of light in vacuum is not constant. Einstein predicted that. Shapiro & Co have prooven it. So where is your equation now?Actually , you are incorrect , the speed of light in a vacuum is constant , observers clocks in difference frames of reference are not constant . I guess you don't understand simultaneity of events .
The simultaneity of events is simple. They are simultaneous, or not. The perception or measurement of simultaneity is of course a problem.
Crothers has shown that Einsteinian simultaneity is a math trick with no basis in reality.
Rather than two simultaneous events in one frame being non-simultaneous in every other frame Crothers has shown that Einsteinian simultaneity (& the speed of light c) is dependent on choice of origin.
In other words the correct wording for Einsteinian simultaneity is that any & all pairs of events can be seen to be simultaneous by a suitable choice of origin & frame (or something like that).
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 01:56:35
It is constant , 1 light second per light second regardless of who's timing it . The velocity betweenSR says that the speed of light appears constant, & GR says that the speed of light appears constant. Which means that the speed of light is not constant.The speed of light in vacuum is not constant. Einstein predicted that. Shapiro & Co have prooven it. So where is your equation now?Actually , you are incorrect , the speed of light in a vacuum is constant , observers clocks in difference frames of reference are not constant . I guess you don't understand simultaneity of events .
is unaltered unless traversing through a medium , the denser the medium the slower it traverses through the medium . Post by: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 02:09:44
My photaeno drag theory says that there is no basic difference tween the slowing of light in a medium to the slowing of light near mass, they are both caused by photaeno drag, the difference being a matter of degree (in a medium will of course usually give stronger slowing).It is constant , 1 light second per light second regardless of who's timing it . The velocity betweenSR says that the speed of light appears constant, & GR says that the speed of light appears constant. Which means that the speed of light is not constant.The speed of light in vacuum is not constant. Einstein predicted that. Shapiro & Co have prooven it. So where is your equation now?Actually , you are incorrect , the speed of light in a vacuum is constant , observers clocks in difference frames of reference are not constant . I guess you don't understand simultaneity of events .
But timing & measuring will be a problem. Because the nearness of mass affects length & ticking. Einsteinologists & Aetherists are all ignorant of this.
Post by: evan_au on 23/03/2019 08:52:54
Quote from: OP
How can something have a speed when it has no propulsion ?This statement presumes the laws of motion as understood by the ancient Greek philosophers.
It was a natural assumption, since everything around us experiences friction and air resistance - it is natural to assume that all moving objects naturally slow down and halt - even the roundest ball on a highly polished floor.
The idea of a vacuum was hard for them to grasp - in fact, Aristotle said:
Quote from: Aristotle
Nature abhors a vacuumhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)
But, once people had developed barometers, and discovered that air pressure decreased with altitude, it became pretty clear that most of the universe is a pretty good vacuum, and Aristotle had got it wrong. So for planets and stars in the galaxy, they don't slow down and stop, which is where Newton's first law comes in (as Kryptid said).
Light is even more special, because it is a disturbance which propagates on the basic properties of spacetime, so in a vacuum, it always travels at a fixed speed (as measured by someone in their lab).
In a non-vacuum (eg air or glass), the speed of light is lower, but as soon as light returns to a vacuum, it returns to the original speed, based on the properties of spacetime. And this increase in speed does not require any additional energy, since all the energy was in the original photon.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 09:31:30
A photon is the point ''quanta'' of space-time that traverses point to pointQuote from: OPHow can something have a speed when it has no propulsion ?This statement presumes the laws of motion as understood by the ancient Greek philosophers.
It was a natural assumption, since everything around us experiences friction and air resistance - it is natural to assume that all moving objects naturally slow down and halt - even the roundest ball on a highly polished floor.
The idea of a vacuum was hard for them to grasp - in fact, Aristotle said:Quote from: AristotleNature abhors a vacuumhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)
But, once people had developed barometers, and discovered that air pressure decreased with altitude, it became pretty clear that most of the universe is a pretty good vacuum, and Aristotle had got it wrong. So for planets and stars in the galaxy, they don't slow down and stop, which is where Newton's first law comes in (as Kryptid said).
Light is even more special, because it is a disturbance which propagates on the basic properties of spacetime, so in a vacuum, it always travels at a fixed speed (as measured by someone in their lab).
In a non-vacuum (eg air or glass), the speed of light is lower, but as soon as light returns to a vacuum, it returns to the original speed, based on the properties of spacetime. And this increase in speed does not require any additional energy, since all the energy was in the original photon.
, through the space-time field carrier . The increase in speed when the point quanta exits a medium is because of density decrease of the ''space'' , thus allowing the point quanta to traverse point to point with less opposing permeability . The speed increase being the maximum speed of point quanta's transitional state traversing point to point at c when 0 permeability . A point quanta will continue in motion if
A) The point ahead is a less energy state
B) The space-time field is a neutral polarity
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/03/2019 10:50:13
Post by: xersanozgen on 23/03/2019 11:42:42
The speed of light in a vacuum 299792458 m/s constantly . How can something have a speed when it has no propulsion ?
The truth is, it doesn't have its own speed at all , the speed is the transitional property , from high state energy to a lower state energy. The light is not emitted from a light bulb , it is pulled out of the light bulb by the lesser state energy of the surrounding Rⁿ space .
The speed of light now explained
→
p(c)= F(<E) where p is momentum
This can be observed in spectral emissions .
Laser have high energy. What is Laser's velocity according to your mentality? Does the difference of energy reason larger velocity?
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 11:52:56
@Thebox You need to consider conservation of energy. Photons are not made to move from one energy level to another through space. They are a consequence of this conservation of energy. It is the relationship of their frequency to this conservation law that is important. You know that I am going to keep on trying to educate you, don't you?Einsteinologists havent a clue about photons. They dont know what photons are, how they are created, how they propagate, why they propagate at the speed that they propagate at, why they are slowed in air water glass, why they are slowed near mass, why they bend, why they refract, why they diffract, why they reflect, why they are sticky & fond of forming formations & waves.
And they believe that photons arise from conservation of energy.
Hell Einsteinologists still believe that photons are em radiation & em radiation is photons.
We are in an Einsteinian dark age of science. But the times they are a'changin.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 13:08:12
What do you mean the equation doesn't mean anything ?Someone has stuck a < sign in it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 13:08:43
You know that I am going to keep on trying to educate you, don't you?It may take (us) some time...
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 13:40:20
@Thebox You need to consider conservation of energy. Photons are not made to move from one energy level to another through space. They are a consequence of this conservation of energy. It is the relationship of their frequency to this conservation law that is important. You know that I am going to keep on trying to educate you, don't you?Hello Jeffrey , you do realise that in accordance with what a frequency is and what a wave length is , a single photon has neither a wave length or frequency ?
A wave length is the plural of photon , photons , the frequency is an amount of photons passing a point in time .
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 13:57:58
That would be a less than sign , signifying the force itself was <EWhat do you mean the equation doesn't mean anything ?Someone has stuck a < sign in it.
=<hfQuite simple Mr Chemist .
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 14:04:29
That would be a less than sign , signifying the force itself was <EWhat do you mean the equation doesn't mean anything ?Someone has stuck a < sign in it.
Quite simple Mr Chemist .
Since you can't use the symbols correctly, perhaps you should write out what you mean in words.
Also, it makes no sense to say the force is less than the energy because it's dimensionally wrong.
It's like saying I weigh more than ten days, or under I'm six feet old.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 14:22:11
That would be a less than sign , signifying the force itself was <EWhat do you mean the equation doesn't mean anything ?Someone has stuck a < sign in it.
Quite simple Mr Chemist .
Since you can't use the symbols correctly, perhaps you should write out what you mean in words.
Also, it makes no sense to say the force is less than the energy because it's dimensionally wrong.
It's like saying I weigh more than ten days, or under I'm six feet old.
It is very simple Mr chemist ,
If we take volume of energy E and we have a surrounding spatial volume that has a lesser magnitude of energy than the surrounded volume E , the surrounding space is <E
and the speed of the process is c , the force involved is the <E state . Ok ?
That easy , I can explain lots of ways .
→
p(c) = F<E
→
p(m) = F<E
→
E =
*hf^3 / F<E = vol / t :P That one is space-time
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 17:58:03
volume of energy EEnergy doesn't have volume.
Nothing you have posted is actually an explanation of anything.
It's just a sequence of meaningless words and phrases.
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/03/2019 18:18:44
You know that I am going to keep on trying to educate you, don't you?It may take (us) some time...
I saw the dead horse and couldn't resist.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 18:29:59
volume of energy EEnergy doesn't have volume.
Nothing you have posted is actually an explanation of anything.
It's just a sequence of meaningless words and phrases.
Energy doesn't have a volume ? Of course it does , the mass energy equivalent is a volume of energy .
I've explained everything clear and precise , you can pretend you don't understand . You should know the famous light clock thought experiment ''off by heart'' . 6 mins + onwards
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 19:10:19
Mass doesn't have a volume either.volume of energy EEnergy doesn't have volume.
Nothing you have posted is actually an explanation of anything.
It's just a sequence of meaningless words and phrases.
Energy doesn't have a volume ? Of course it does , the mass energy equivalent is a volume of energy .
I've explained everything clear and precise , you can pretend you don't understand . You should know the famous light clock thought experiment ''off by heart'' . 6 mins + onwards
You really need to start with learning the basics.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 19:14:44
xyz= m yes it does .Mass doesn't have a volume either.volume of energy EEnergy doesn't have volume.
Nothing you have posted is actually an explanation of anything.
It's just a sequence of meaningless words and phrases.
Energy doesn't have a volume ? Of course it does , the mass energy equivalent is a volume of energy .
I've explained everything clear and precise , you can pretend you don't understand . You should know the famous light clock thought experiment ''off by heart'' . 6 mins + onwards
You really need to start with learning the basics.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 19:34:00
You really need to start with learning the basics.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 19:47:15
Just restating something that's wrong doesn't magically make it right.
You really need to start with learning the basics.
That's typically funny , I can probably explain the basics more precise than you can . The speed of light is not lights speed .
Sorry for posting the td link , got my threads mixed up .
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 20:44:25
No one seems to know much about a single photon. How long -- one wave length probly. How wide -- infinite width probly (due to emitted photaenos).@Thebox You need to consider conservation of energy. Photons are not made to move from one energy level to another through space. They are a consequence of this conservation of energy. It is the relationship of their frequency to this conservation law that is important. You know that I am going to keep on trying to educate you, don't you?Hello Jeffrey , you do realise that in accordance with what a frequency is and what a wave length is , a single photon has neither a wave length or frequency ? A wave length is the plural of photon , photons , the frequency is an amount of photons passing a point in time .
Einsteinologists do i think have lots of theories that require waves, ie lots of photons in formations, & these theories are useless re the action of a single photon (eg bending of light near the Sun)(refraction)(etc).
But i dont agree with u that a single photon doesnt have a wave length or frequency.
The main central inner half of a photon (the outer half is the photaenos which are em radiation) has a helical shape (or a double helix if u like)(both work i think), propagating axially at c kmps, but propagating along the helix at more than c kmps, & the helix gives the wave effect & the frequency effect.
Plus the emitted photaenos (propagating out at praps 5c kmps in the near field) must of course reveal some kind of wave property & frequency property in sympathy with the parent helix).
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 21:08:12
That's typically funny , I can probably explain the basics more precise than you can . The speed of light is not lights speed .
Just restating something that's wrong doesn't magically make it right.
You really need to start with learning the basics.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 21:22:17
But i dont agree with u that a single photon doesnt have a wave length or frequency.
You don't have to agree , because the semantics and physics does agree objectively . A point particle has no length to begin with , a frequency is the plural of one photon passing a point in time . A single photon can not make a frequency of photons .
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 21:30:48
Ah i see. Yes i think u are correct, Einsteinologists do like to consider a single photon as a point in some instances if not in all instances.But i dont agree with u that a single photon doesnt have a wave length or frequency.You don't have to agree , because the semantics and physics does agree objectively . A point particle has no length to begin with , a frequency is the plural of one photon passing a point in time . A single photon can not make a frequency of photons .
Yes, Einsteinologists spit their dummy if their waves & wave fronts & wave trains are taken away from them.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 21:49:44
A single photon can not make a frequency of photons .Nobody ever said that it did.
You really need to start with learning the basics.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 11:23:56
Really ? another science forum closed my thread saying a single photon has a frequency and a wavelength which is impossible . I don't think science knows what it is on about at times because once it is questioned , they fall apart in answers .A single photon can not make a frequency of photons .Nobody ever said that it did.You really need to start with learning the basics.
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/03/2019 13:36:23
Really ? another science forum closed my thread saying a single photon has a frequency and a wavelength which is impossible . I don't think science knows what it is on about at times because once it is questioned , they fall apart in answers .A single photon can not make a frequency of photons .Nobody ever said that it did.You really need to start with learning the basics.
Study the electric and magnetic field variations described here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 13:48:55
Really ? another science forum closed my thread saying a single photon has a frequency and a wavelength which is impossible .They may have closed your thread because it contained lots of nonsense, rather than because you got one thing right.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 13:51:24
Thank you , I do have my own set of math for this but no doubt the math you provided works .Really ? another science forum closed my thread saying a single photon has a frequency and a wavelength which is impossible . I don't think science knows what it is on about at times because once it is questioned , they fall apart in answers .A single photon can not make a frequency of photons .Nobody ever said that it did.You really need to start with learning the basics.
Study the electric and magnetic field variations described here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html
My math is simple generalisation math that demonstrates the process
=ρ0 where ρ is density 
=ρ0 where ρ is density (-Q) + (+Q) / t = ρ(1E)
→
E =
= 4/3 pi r^3 / t →
F = <Q(1E)
?????
Added - The work ω being done
ω =
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 15:52:05
Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/03/2019 16:42:37
Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.
I can already see him justifying the lack of such agreeing parties as evidence that he is the only one smart enough to understand it.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 16:56:39
Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.
I can already see him justifying the lack of such agreeing parties as evidence that he is the only one smart enough to understand it.
You claim not to understand even though they are the same symbols science uses in math and formula ?
I suggest you go learn what symbols science uses .
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 16:58:38
None of that makes any sense.Perhaps you need to learn how to ''read'' ?
Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.
Can you read this F=ma2 or this one E=mc² ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 17:08:15
You claim not to understand even though they are the same symbols science uses in math and formula ?I wasn't sure if I should demonstrate the stupidity of that with something like this
Rydych yn honni nad ydych yn deall er mai nhw yw'r un symbolau gwyddoniaeth sy'n cael eu defnyddio mewn mathemateg a fformiwla
or with something like this
Yettasacyeenmllrtrosaetomdmtcnhnfarahooenyubtisioencshotenuiuvgehadmnesuuhamedlss
But I decided just to reiterate a point made earlier
Then on what you've just said , you have just shown the light clock thought experiment is invalid to begin with because Einstein also uses a light second in the light clock though experiment .No.
His thought experiment is valid because he uses it correctly.
You should try it.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 17:11:21
You claim not to understand even though they are the same symbols science uses in math and formula ?I wasn't sure if I should demonstrate the stupidity of that with something like this
Rydych yn honni nad ydych yn deall er mai nhw yw'r un symbolau gwyddoniaeth sy'n cael eu defnyddio mewn mathemateg a fformiwla
or with something like this
Yettasacyeenmllrtrosaetomdmtcnhnfarahooenyubtisioencshotenuiuvgehadmnesuuhamedlss
But I decided just to reiterate a point made earlierThen on what you've just said , you have just shown the light clock thought experiment is invalid to begin with because Einstein also uses a light second in the light clock though experiment .No.
His thought experiment is valid because he uses it correctly.
You should try it.
Oh right , so Einstein's thought is correct although I've shown the error ?
Don't talk absurd .
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 17:27:40
None of that makes any sense.
Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 17:29:40
I've shown the error ?No.
Have you forgotten?
You didn't show an error.
You made an error (well actually two errors)
First you thought that a light second was a unit of time (and it isn't)
Second you thought it was measured in m/s (and it isn't)
You really need to learn the basics of physics.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 17:48:05
Return when you can actually can think, this isn't even the time dilation thread . This thread demonstrated light is not lights speed , something else physics has wrong .I've shown the error ?No.
Have you forgotten?
You didn't show an error.
You made an error (well actually two errors)
First you thought that a light second was a unit of time (and it isn't)
Second you thought it was measured in m/s (and it isn't)
You really need to learn the basics of physics.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 17:57:54
Do you remember saying this
You claim not to understand even though they are the same symbols science uses in math and formula ?
Well, I was illustrating the point that you keep making the same mistake.
You use the symbols incorrectly- just as you used the concept of a light second incorrectly.
An that's either because you are trolling, or because you don't know how to use tem correctly which is why I keep saying
"
You really need to learn the basics of physics.
So, when are you going to learn what the symbols actually mean and how to manipulate them correctly?
OK, in the meantime:
This thread demonstrated light is not lights speedNo, it did not.
It didn't illustrate anything.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 19:57:08
No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.
That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand . I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle :-\
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 20:03:27
If it walks like a duck...No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.
That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand . I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle :-\
Anyway,
None of that makes any sense.
Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 20:08:20
You know what Mr Chemist , I couldn't care less if anybody agrees or not because I know I'm correct and even if it isn't established in my life time , I know it will be in the future . You can keep saying my sentencing doesn't make sense because you don't have the ability to understand my notions , they are way advanced .If it walks like a duck...No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.
That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand . I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle :-\
Anyway,
None of that makes any sense.
Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 20:27:42
You know what Mr Chemist , I couldn't care less if anybody agrees or not because I know I'm correct and even if it isn't established in my life time , I know it will be in the future . You can keep saying my sentencing doesn't make sense because you don't have the ability to understand my notions , they are way advanced .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/03/2019 20:41:37
No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.
That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand . I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle :-\
Stop being a troll.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 21:03:59
Mr Chemist is quite clearly fishing for the reaction . He or maybe even she does not discuss theories , they just keep saying things like that's gibberish or that I don't understand when they know very well that I do .No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.
That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand . I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle :-\
Stop being a troll.
Light speed is not lights speed , the speed of light is a transition speed and the force of transition is F<E .
Do you disagree ?
If so why ?
It makes logical sense and is in accordance with spectral emissions .
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 21:56:08
Do you disagree ?Because I have measured it.
If so why ?
Post by: mad aetherist on 24/03/2019 22:18:35
A photon is indeed a particle. All quantum things are photonic.No, it did not. It didn't illustrate anything.That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand . I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle :-\
However what u call a photon i call a free photon.
And what u call a particle i call a confined photon (eg electrons quarks etc)(Jeans)(Williamson)(Ranzan).
Here i prefer to not call a free photon a particle. Its a quasi-particle praps.
But most of that is semantics. For example u might prefer electrons & quarks to be called elementary particles. Which combine to form sub-atomic particles. Which combine to form atomic particles. Which combine to form molecular particles. Which combine to form particles. Most of this is semantics.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 22:29:43
A photon is indeed a particle
No , a photon is point quanta traversing point to point ,
.It is potential energy pE .
Post by: mad aetherist on 24/03/2019 22:39:48
No i dont agree. I reckon that nothing can be a point. Everything has 3 dimensions. This must be true of quantum things, & subquantum things, eg aether, & the fundamental essence praether (my name). Alltho praps praether is 100 orders of size smaller than an electron.A photon is indeed a particleNo , a photon is point quanta traversing point to point ,
If a free photon bites its own tail to form a loop which we call a confined photon (which Jeans called a bottled photon) then this cant happen if a free photon is merely a point.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 22:55:23
I reckon that nothing can be a point.Well , correct ! nothing can be a point because a point is 0 dimensions . A point is the centre of a minute volume .
The smallest possible vector is two adjoining points 0+0=1x
Post by: mad aetherist on 25/03/2019 00:46:18
Yes. And no. An Einsteinian blackhole is a point. Or at least it is a singularity. And the distance tween binary singularities is 0+0=1x, u could call these binularities, or pairularities, or blackularities, or pointularities. But what is the diff tween a point & a singularity. But there must be another end, the blunt end, the bluntularity.I reckon that nothing can be a point.Well , correct ! nothing can be a point because a point is 0 dimensions . A point is the centre of a minute volume .
The smallest possible vector is two adjoining points 0+0=1x