On 2 jul, 20:32, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:
Hi hi, no, not Cheeta... Resnick & Halliday & Krane use "granularity"
metaphor, "granularity" and "texture" are words that denote same idea:
ligth photons are really very big Jerry Lee's "Great balls of fire",
80 m photons are very very tiny balls :) *For that reason your eyes
catch light photon, they (photons) are fat guys, you know?.
Glanularity is not about "cycles" but quantum energy = hv,
v=frequency, high frequency = high energy quantum = high
granularity, not cycles
**** warning: *Stylistic alert, skip to next comment ********
Mmmm, *that is at least the second time with glanularity that I cannot
allow to pass:
* * * * Ovarian waves? *Cyclic period? *Menstraphotons?
well, enough English....
Not "analogies", no, no, I am only comparing energy magnitud
differences! (I am not resigning my rights to analogies, with this),
10^8 more bigger cinetic E represents so much energy difference at any
scale; obviously a light photon has very, very much lower energy as a
1 t (Tm) car at 100 km/h (it has 3.6*10^-19 J) but 80 m photon it is
100000000 lower!, Can you hear 80 dB sounds below mosquito buzzing?
are you the six million dollar man? :)
Is a car crash 80dB down from mosquitos? *You have your magnitudes
inverted or you are crossing between metaphors (another failure
mechanism).
You talk about "fluctuations" OK, can you assure to me those
fluctuations are due quantized nature of RF signals? have you
references about that? Naturally I have my doubts, what you say do not
match my sacred Wiley & sons bible physics verses: remember at only 1
K, kt hv, *and for R, H & K elders, granularity can not be
perceived.
It isn't their field, but that doesn't mean science is invalid. Google
the terms (you already have one in quotes). *This has been around for
a decade or more.
"Quantized energy simply not reveales in large scale oscillators, the
smallness of the h Plank component make the granulosity very fine
(thin?) so that we can not detect it"
The problem with selective quoting is that the reader doesn't know the
boundaries - aside from it being a paraphrase and not a literal quote
- unless they write like Cheeta. *Sorry for the allusion to a monkey,
but the grammar reveals this is not a true source. *I can read between
the lines, but then I get to expand upon that to introduce my own
spin. *That doesn't get things very far, does it? *Don't pick up on
Cecil's bad habit of leaning on the Xerox copy button.
I bet you live a little more near them than I, Ask to them why they
said that. I am innocent, I am only the postman who brings the news
(where is Petrocelli?) 
Why don't I? *The price of email is the same from any location on
earth (or through a satellite link freely accessible from outerspace).
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Hi, hi, I do not quite understand/translate your jokes: do you dislike
Resnick's "granularity"? I think it is a sort of energy acne :)
You said you could hear an insect shooting your window then I asked
you if you can hear sound 80 dB below insect shooting your window. 80
dB example it is only a about difference (quotient) of magnitudes. Or
you do not read well or I not write well my sentences -the last has a
probability of 0,99- :)
Certainly, my book is in spanish, the original is "Physics" Vol II,
Extended version, 4th ed. ISBN 0-471-54804-9 (I do not have it), read
from here. Yes, it is dated 1992 a little old, doesn't it?. so... can
we today measure quantum acne from large scale 3,5 MHz oscillator at
room temperature? (Use caution to answer me because your words can
turn against us and someone may be tempted to postulate "The
uncerntainty VSWR principle" and rots all here :D )
Yes, yes, I by far prefer Xerox button to my own non senses :=D :=D.
(another sting to my friend Cecil?).
Well, I stop here because I think our friends are going to reprimand
me for not posting serious matters.
Thank you very much for your friendly and patient with me posts .
Miguel LU6ETJ.