|
Gaussian statics law
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Photons are not particles because they have no rest mass; particles by definition do. Quantum ElectroDynamics tells us that nothing except particles exist. Photons are *particles* with zero rest mass. QED! (Get it? :-) Cecil, do you ever tire of playing semantic games? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Gaussian statics law
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Quantum ElectroDynamics tells us that nothing except particles exist. Photons are *particles* with zero rest mass. QED! (Get it? :-) Cecil, do you ever tire of playing semantic games? I never tire of semantic humor. A double meaning or, even better, a triple meaning, is one of the things that makes English so enjoyable. (And I really enjoy the "wench for sell" over on rec.radio.swap.) But seriously, QED indicates that everything that exists is a particle, even if it has no rest mass, even if it is only virtual. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Gaussian statics law
wrote:
... No, I am far from thinking light is actually "something." (at least not a "something" we are familiar with or have "true" examples of ...) It is unthinkable that any object/particle can exist without mass ... the discovery and absolute proof of that being possible is in our future; presently we only have theories ... I don't argue that it is impossible, rather only improbable. It is more than likely, like has happened so many times, when we know why rf waves appear to be both wave and particle, that physicists and mathematicians will go scurrying to their dens and emerge with new "laws." And, finally we will have a more complete picture of the phenomenon. We only see a puzzle, although we can "work with the puzzle", although we can "seem" to get meaningful data from this puzzle, or manipulate it to do useful things for us, although we "seem" to have laws, equations and formulas to describe this puzzle--we have been there and done that before--that is, we have rewritten those laws, equations and formulas to fit our new findings and started pretending we have reached the final conclusions and "know" the phenomenon--but then, at some future date, we do it all over again ... JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
Gaussian statics law
Cecil Moore wrote:
... the "wench for sell" over on rec.radio.swap.) ... How much is the wench? What does that wench look like, there a pic? grin JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
Gaussian statics law
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote: Really? I am going to have to see that one to believe it (not saying it is incorrect though), a "something" with no mass--kinda like a "ghost particle!" It's old hat knowledge, John, and one of the reasons why standing wave energy doesn't just stand there or just "slosh around" as one guru asserted. If a photon is slowed to zero velocity, its mass vanishes and it ceases to be detectable. A photon's mass derives from its speed-of-light velocity, i.e. it is 100% kinetic. Any particle with a resting mass would necessarily have infinite mass at the speed of light. Therefore, any particle with a finite mass at the speed of light must necessarily have a zero rest mass. Cecil: I know that is argued, and I suspect it all hogwash. If "they" have to create theories depending on disappearing particles, when you get one where you can take a look at one of them dern "particles", that is just TOO desperate. However, it does, in my personal opinion, suggest a STRONG relationship of the "particles" to the ether--the ether cannot be seen nor detected either ... (that is, IF it really exists, as I suspect it does ... ) JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
Gaussian statics law
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... No, I am far from thinking light is actually "something." (at least not a "something" we are familiar with or have "true" examples of ...) It is unthinkable that any object/particle can exist without mass ... the discovery and absolute proof of that being possible is in our future; presently we only have theories ... I don't argue that it is impossible, rather only improbable. It is more than likely, like has happened so many times, when we know why rf waves appear to be both wave and particle, that physicists and mathematicians will go scurrying to their dens and emerge with new "laws." And, finally we will have a more complete picture of the phenomenon. We only see a puzzle, although we can "work with the puzzle", although we can "seem" to get meaningful data from this puzzle, or manipulate it to do useful things for us, although we "seem" to have laws, equations and formulas to describe this puzzle--we have been there and done that before--that is, we have rewritten those laws, equations and formulas to fit our new findings and started pretending we have reached the final conclusions and "know" the phenomenon--but then, at some future date, we do it all over again ... Ignorant nonsense. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Gaussian statics law
wrote:
... Jim: I do believe much of higher academia, and the subjects which drives it, is above you, and confuses you--frankly, I think it all or most appears as BS to you ... That is too bad man. Perhaps a group centered around appliance usage would better suit you ... JS -- http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com |
Gaussian statics law
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote: Really? I am going to have to see that one to believe it (not saying it is incorrect though), a "something" with no mass--kinda like a "ghost particle!" It's old hat knowledge, John, and one of the reasons why standing wave energy doesn't just stand there or just "slosh around" as one guru asserted. If a photon is slowed to zero velocity, its mass vanishes and ... Cecil: One more thing ... On those those frisky, frolicking photons. What would you attribute the fact the "photons" in HF behave much differently then then the photons of VHF/UHF/SHF/LIGHT to? JS |
Gaussian statics law
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:45:31 GMT, Dave
wrote: Gauss' Law is for static electric charges and fields. It is usually used for problems in electrostatics, but it is not confined to such problems. The differential form of it is just one of the Maxwell equations: div E(x,t) = 4\pi\rho(x,t) Integrate it over a fixed surface and you get the integral form, which is Gauss's law. It is valid with time-dependent charge densities and time-dependent electric fields. --John |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com