Cecil Moore wrote:

In modern physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible
for electromagnetic phenomena. It mediates electromagnetic
interactions and is the fundamental constituent of all forms of
electromagnetic radiation, that is, light. The photon has zero rest
mass and, in empty space, travels at a constant speed c;
According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields, and are
themselves the product of requiring that physical laws have a certain
symmetry at every point in spacetime.

Nevertheless, all semiclassical theories were refuted definitively in
the 1970's and 1980's by elegant photon-
correlation experiments.

Sounds impressive. Are you running for office by any chance?


So, should momentum change? Or should we expect it to be conserved?


Momentum is conserved. A change in momentum is a change in
the direction of momentum, not a change in the magnitude.
Hams call that a reflection. What do you call it?

So is your claim that, to "hams", a change in the magnitude of
momentum is not called a change in momentum?

I still like "Cecil's 4th Mechanism of Reflection" best.


If you don't like the word "reflection" for what happens at
a non-reflective thin-film coating, please give me another
word for it. I could easily call the physical happening by
another name. "A rose by any other name ..."

Actually an antireflective coating does not reflect energy. Hence the
name. If I had to give it a name I guess I'd call it an
anti-reflection. Howz that?


Ask again after you've come to understand the difference between a
unit of measurement and a defined physical quantity.


Jim, in engineering, all watts are power. That's an engineering
convention. I'm sorry that your physicist conventions are different
but amateur radio is part of RF engineering. Sorry about that.

I get it that you're sorry. That wouldn't be rhetorical sorrow by any
chance, would it? As I said, please let us know when you come
understand the difference between units and physical quantities. I
don't need to give you the energy in 25 candy bars divided by the
number of minutes in a regulation NBA game example again, do I?

73, Jim AC6XG

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:21:28 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:



Cecil Moore wrote:

In modern physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible
for electromagnetic phenomena.

Sounds like the egg is responsible for sex. What happened to
electrons?

It mediates electromagnetic
interactions and is the fundamental constituent of all forms of
electromagnetic radiation, that is, light. The photon has zero rest
mass and, in empty space, travels at a constant speed c;

That speed is hardly constant, it is relative. Or so Einstein would
have us believe.

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields,

Baloney cut thick.

and are
themselves the product of requiring that physical laws have a certain
symmetry at every point in spacetime.

Nevertheless, all semiclassical theories were refuted definitively in
the 1970's and 1980's by elegant photon-
correlation experiments.

What a short attention span from between the copy machine to the
keyboard.

Sounds impressive. Are you running for office by any chance?

Sounds like bull**** Xeroxed off at random.

So, should momentum change? Or should we expect it to be conserved?

"Should momentum change?" Is this a moral or ethical question? Is
this a debate about the nature of free will?

Momentum is conserved. A change in momentum is a change in
the direction of momentum, not a change in the magnitude.
Hams call that a reflection. What do you call it?

It's called acceleration - G force. We call it "the question that
hasn't an answer from Cecil."

So is your claim that, to "hams", a change in the magnitude of
momentum is not called a change in momentum?

Jim,

He can't put a name to it, and he is at a loss to find a value for it.
It is lost in all the other baggage of forfeited claims.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
What happened to electrons?

Electrons absorb and emit photons.

That speed is hardly constant, it is relative. Or so Einstein would
have us believe.

I think Einstein would object to your statement. The theory
of relativity says everything is relative to the speed of
light fixed at the constant 'c' in free space.

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields,

Baloney cut thick.

I obtained this material from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Maybe you should volunteer to rewrite their material. Be sure
and tell them about your theory that anti-reflective glass is
brighter than the surface of the sun. That should really
impress them. :-)
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:20:34 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

That speed is hardly constant, it is relative. Or so Einstein would
have us believe.

I think Einstein would object to your statement. The theory
of relativity says everything is relative to the speed of
light fixed at the constant 'c' in free space.

-Sigh-

Another opportunity for you to Fumble an excuse not to perform a
simple computation:

For a dry observer standing on the bank of a pool,
what is the speed of light in water?

This should even be Xeroxable.

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:55:24 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Another opportunity for you to Fumble an excuse not to perform a
simple computation:

For a dry observer standing on the bank of a pool,
what is the speed of light in water?

No point in waiting for that fumbling excuse (the dolphin ate my
flashlight) when this simple computation is performed here everyday:

2.25408 * 10^8 m/s

Jim Kelley wrote:
Actually an antireflective coating does not reflect energy. Hence the
name. If I had to give it a name I guess I'd call it an
anti-reflection. Howz that?

You must have one of your special tricky-dicky narrow-
minded physics definitions for "reflect" like you do for
"power" and "transfer". It is a fact that the internal
reflection is reflected at the outside surface of the
thin-film. Constructive interference energy due to wave
cancellation joins that reflection energy and becomes
inseparable from it. It has been commonly called a
reflection (actually a re-reflection) for decades.

As I said, please let us know when you come
understand the difference between units and physical quantities.

Please let us know when you come to understand the difference
in definitions between two technical disciplines. Unfortunately
for your definitions, amateur radio is a subset of RF engineering,
not physics. You may, in time, succeed in your quest to change
the definitions previously accepted as valid in the field of RF
engineering. Then again, you may not. Time will tell.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
As I said, please let us know when you come understand the difference
between units and physical quantities.


Please let us know when you come to understand the difference
in definitions between two technical disciplines.

Differences between disciplines in the definitions of fundamental
principles can only be in your understanding of them.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Differences between disciplines in the definitions of fundamental
principles can only be in your understanding of them.

Please realize that it's not the definitions of fundamental
principles that are different. It is the definitions of the
random grouping of letters called words that are different.
The same word represents different valid fundamental principles
in different disciplines. "A rose by any other name ..."

Physics simply does NOT have a monopoly on the word "power".
There are 32+ definitions of power in my dictionary.

P-O-W-E-R has a different definition in RF engineering than
it does in physics. It doesn't mean that there's anything
wrong with anyone's fundamental principles. After all, the
Russians and Japanese don't even use the word "power" for
any of their fundamental principles which are just as valid
as yours.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

As I said, please let us know when you come understand the difference
between units and physical quantities.


Please let us know when you come to understand the difference
in definitions between two technical disciplines. Unfortunately
for your definitions, amateur radio is a subset of RF engineering,
not physics. You may, in time, succeed in your quest to change
the definitions previously accepted as valid in the field of RF
engineering. Then again, you may not. Time will tell.

Cecil

EVERYTHING is a subset of physics. Even biology.

tom
K0TAR

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:12:06 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

As I said, please let us know when you come understand the difference
between units and physical quantities.


Please let us know when you come to understand the difference
in definitions between two technical disciplines. Unfortunately
for your definitions, amateur radio is a subset of RF engineering,
not physics. You may, in time, succeed in your quest to change
the definitions previously accepted as valid in the field of RF
engineering. Then again, you may not. Time will tell.

Cecil

EVERYTHING is a subset of physics. Even biology.

Or, as Lord Kelvin would ammend this: The rest is stamp collecting.