On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:54:43 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

So it is because of Newtonian mechanics that an RF power meter is
actually measuring power rather than indicating power. What is the
value gained by this strain on credulity?

Hi Jim,

Sounds like you should talk to your Chaplain about these issues.

I've often wondered how one might go about recognizing a
photo-electron out of a group of other, less prominent electrons? :-)

It is like complaining the Nobel winners are indistinguishable from
the crowd in the ceremonial hall.

Prominent is key, certainly. How many electrons can you motivate to
leap over the barrier of the work function of a metal? In Physics, a
simple population count would reveal the prominence. Tubes usually
have to boil them off incandescent filaments, or rip them out of their
matrix with 10's of kilovolts of nearby potential.

Hi All,

Let's examine those last two motivators. Photons hardly raise the
temperature of a metal vane to, what, 1000 degrees? And as for
kilovolts of excitation, how much potential is there in a photon?

Well, too often this group starves for information in response when I
toss these questions out - too technical for this forum of light
nappers I suppose. Too often, these threads turn into strings of
slaps at the snooze button (and "ether" has been the biggest snooze of
them all - self-fulfilling if one were to enlarge on the term's
rhetorical baggage).

Place a vane coated with sodium into an evacuated quartz tube.
Illuminate the sodium coated plate such that it absorbs one microwatt
per square meter. This is sufficient power to evoke the
photo-electric response (hopefully this is not too arcane a term). The
bulk of absorption will occur within a layer depth of 10 atoms.
Sodium, one atom thick, measures out to 10^19 atoms per square meter,
so we are absorbing the power throughout 10^20 atoms. Hence each atom
is illuminated with 10^-26 Watts OR 10^-7 eV/sec. (eV: electron Volt,
perhaps another prominence hard to embrace.)

The conundrum (sorry for hard words - but even those who use English
as a second language manage to cope) here is that to build a potential
to at least 1eV (and usually 3 to 5 times that for many metals) would
take nearly a year for a single electron to leap the Work Function
barrier. In reality, it occurs in less than a nanosecond.

It would be interesting to see Arthur's Newtonian math achieving a
10,000,000,000,000,000:1 leap of faith. False idolatry in place of
work is like putting a lottery ticket into the collection plate.

Strip away my stylistic excess and the facts fill maybe three
sentences. Still, I am four sentences ahead of the rest. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In my present state of thought, this directly relates to the speed of
light; further, I suspect, the ether is responsible in establishing the,
seeming, barrier of the speed of light. As you approach the speed of
light, things are not linear, you must apply magnitudes more energy
is point, I am just happy to be in the company of others who will,
at least, accept the possibility of the ether, and the possibility it
can/does have real effects/affects on our material world.

Regards,
JS

John
The universe is made of many things. Most all are held within the
confines of a gravitational force.
There are many of these gravitational orbits but one thing is for sure
is all these individual orbits
or gravitational forces are in equilibrium with each other even to the
magnetude of including all
the stars and the galaxies. All mass known is in the final borders of
the total equilibrium outside
of which there is no mass or external forces which has been named the
AETHER. Equilibrium of moving parts
means changes of the shape of the extreme borders within equilibrium
is held .When the equilibrium boundaries change
the shape of the eather also must change and eventually must be
included in an equilibrium of sorts
Art

On Sep 5, 5:02 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
....

I'd like to offer m = E/c^2 as a guess.

73, ac6xg

A link is worth a thousand words (perhaps 10k-100k of Richard's...):
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00332.htm
(in particular the first paragraph of the second response).

art wrote:

...
AETHER. Equilibrium of moving parts
means changes of the shape of the extreme borders within equilibrium
is held .When the equilibrium boundaries change
the shape of the eather also must change and eventually must be
included in an equilibrium of sorts
Art


Equilibrium is a poor choice of words when you encompasses the ether, in
my humble opinion.

You are attempting to give known states/laws/rules/properties to a
material (ether) which Einstein himself tells you NOT to--Einstein
implies a proper model for the ether was not available during his
lifetime, I do not see where that has changed, to date.

Indeed, in pure form, equilibrium implies a static state--anything more
implies an over unity condition (perpetual motion), the forces which
drive the motion and birth of stars-planets and the expanding of the
universe is/are NOT in a static state, in six billion years a static
state has not come into being, in another six billion years it is not
expected for it to come into stasis--only if this will remain true
"forever" remains a question.

As long as matter exists, the above will, seemingly, remain true. A
state of "un-equilibrium" exists in the sheer fact that all matter has
been ripped from the very fabric of the ether--this I suspect is a most
unnatural state of affairs (no one can be sure, for sure--and we only
have one example to view! Other explanations exist ... ) ... we will
know when we have "seen" the ether and know of the laws/rules which
govern it and its' un-ponder-able properties.

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:

Still, I am four sentences ahead of the rest. ;-)

We now learn of the value in strained credulity. :-)

jk

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:47:46 -0700, K7ITM wrote:

On Sep 5, 5:02 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
...

I'd like to offer m = E/c^2 as a guess.

73, ac6xg

A link is worth a thousand words (perhaps 10k-100k of Richard's...):
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00332.htm
(in particular the first paragraph of the second response).

Hi Tom,

Your link is over valued (there is no second response), but it
maintains the standard of excellence here in the tradition of 10k-100k
more words than quantifiables - and someone else doing the work.

Care to walk us through your proffered math?

Well, I doubt it. Others may be interested in the curious form of
argument offered to a 15 year old however.

"For a particle with no mass, the relation reduces to E=pc."

The long and short of it is that there is no discussion of mass for a
photon (it is simply defined not to exist) and instead there is a
shuffle of math that youngster must imagine this bozo is pulling the
wool over his eyes through substituting p for Planck's constant h, and
c for Planck's energy formula variable v. This wool pulling is
another favorite past time here too.

Of course, there may be other meanings behind
"E=pc."
but in the model of thorough work, the description of terms is sadly
poor.

The typical legacy of offering links. It has all the appeal of a
Physicist's joke:
"How many milliseconds does it take to do a 5 minute car wash?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sep 6, 2:53 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
....(there is no second response)...

Pity you have so much trouble reading...

Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:47:46 -0700, K7ITM wrote:


On Sep 5, 5:02 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
...

I'd like to offer m = E/c^2 as a guess.

73, ac6xg

"E=pc."

Yes, and p=mv, so when v=c as is true for photons, and we substitute
mc for p in the equation above and then solve for m (the mass of a
photon was the original question), we're back at the equation offered
previously.

But we usually relate more directly to the frequency (or wavelength)
of the photon rather than its energy or momentum, so in such a case
E=h*nu would provide a more direct route to its mass equivalent.

ac6xg

John Smith wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:35:50 -0400, Ed Cregger
wrote:

And who was this Schroedinger guy anyway?


He was Lucia's boyfriend who played the Pianoforte. Their lives were
humorously chronicled in an illustrated fiction called "Goober Peas."
Continuing themes of their friends and relatives populated this series
with such stories as the "strange attractors" of kites and trees, or
the wave function of a football that couldn't be kicked. The
illustrator was purported to be one Eisenstein, but this was later
found to be erroneously inferred from earlier cinematic work with
similar themes found in "Aleksandr Nevskiy."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Interesting.

Did it/he/they have anything to say about visions of silvery and copper
colored fingers plucking the harp strings of the seemingly invisible ether?

Regards,
JS

The main character in Woody Allen's "Annie Hall" was based upon ether.

On 6 Sep, 13:14, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:

...

AETHER. Equilibrium of moving parts
means changes of the shape of the extreme borders within equilibrium
is held .When the equilibrium boundaries change
the shape of the eather also must change and eventually must be
included in an equilibrium of sorts
Art

Equilibrium is a poor choice of words when you encompasses the ether, in
my humble opinion.

You are attempting to give known states/laws/rules/properties to a
material (ether) which Einstein himself tells you NOT to--Einstein
implies a proper model for the ether was not available during his
lifetime, I do not see where that has changed, to date.

Indeed, in pure form, equilibrium implies a static state--anything more
implies an over unity condition (perpetual motion), the forces which
drive the motion and birth of stars-planets and the expanding of the
universe is/are NOT in a static state, in six billion years a static
state has not come into being, in another six billion years it is not
expected for it to come into stasis--only if this will remain true
"forever" remains a question.

As long as matter exists, the above will, seemingly, remain true. A
state of "un-equilibrium" exists in the sheer fact that all matter has
been ripped from the very fabric of the ether--this I suspect is a most
unnatural state of affairs (no one can be sure, for sure--and we only
have one example to view! Other explanations exist ... ) ... we will
know when we have "seen" the ether and know of the laws/rules which
govern it and its' un-ponder-able properties.

Regards,
JS

I believe we view aether differently as well as the term equilibrium.
The later describes what is balanced within a border and where
momement of the
interned is reacted by countermovement in the shape of the border.
This is why I keep comming back to Gauss
and his description of static particles. True the border varies in
shape exposing
cracks or deformation of its borders where particles can escape before
equilibrium
is reformed as internal forces or orbits correct their positions so
the retaining border
becomes of uniform strength again. If the innards were not mobile and
adaptive to change
then once the border was fractured it could not adapt and heal itself.
This bordcer in itself
is balanced as part of other gravitational borders all of which are
expanding and regenerating into
different border and thus expanding into the aether which has nothing
to provide resistance.
The main point is that all that is contained must have movement so
when the balanc eof equilibrium is momentarily broken
it is in a position to adapt its internal movements to attain
equilibrium again. How else can one adapt to escaping particles and
collisions
if there were not constant movementof that which holds together
because of equilibrium.
True Richard will take exception to this as he views himself as
Einsteins successor and is determined to block in his own eyes
everything
except what spills from his own mouth with the suggestion that he
knows all but has not yet decided to disclose it. The same with
respect to his credentials that allows him to judge thoughts of
others.
Art