Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

On 5 Sep, 04:33, Denny wrote:
On the other hand, the absence of porous plates in operating
radiometers tends to cast some doubt on your claim that the plates
must be porous.

Not "my claim," my report. The claim they must be porous arrives
through the math necessary to balance the kinetic forces.
Again, which radiometer? If you are arguing a "perfect" vacuum, then
like a free lunch, I would agree there's no such thing. The Crookes
radiometer requires a partial atmosphere to work, other radiometers
work quite fine with much less.

Depends entirely on what one intends to measure.

Despite the photon torpedoes fired at me, I have not seen a convincing
physics experiment that deflates my previous arguement...

Where the F=MA arguement fails in a radiometer is that the photons
impact both sides of the paddles leaving a zero net force for
rotation...

The fact that a Crookes Radiometer requires an atmosphere is proof of
its mode of operation. The fact that it has to be a partial vacuum
further proves how it operates (more air density means too much air
drag to allow rotation by the weak local differential pressure across
the paddle)...

Those who reject local differential pressure changes due to local
heating by claiming the pressure in the bulb is static ignore the
factor of time in molecular exchange of thermal energy gains...
Carrying their argument to the logical end means sun heating cannot
cause the winds to ever blow across the ground because the net air
pressure of Terra is static...

denny
It's 10PM somewhere, have you hugged your radio today?

Perhaps people should take look at other things that creat radiation!
For instance the explosion from a energy container such as a
transformer feeding a spark plug.
The frequency band is widespread leaving time varient current,
capacitance and inductance and neglecting resonant lengths. Can a
capacitance store a particle or can it blow away a particle formed on
its own material?Time varient obviously dependes on the size of the
capacitor therefore the time current is applied to the capacitor is
irrelevent.
I have left off references to icecream, snorkels e.t.c. even tho
apparently they are necessary.
Art

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Denny wrote:
On the other hand, the absence of porous plates in operating
radiometers tends to cast some doubt on your claim that the plates
must be porous.

Not "my claim," my report. The claim they must be porous arrives
through the math necessary to balance the kinetic forces.

Again, which radiometer? If you are arguing a "perfect" vacuum, then

like a free lunch, I would agree there's no such thing. The Crookes
radiometer requires a partial atmosphere to work, other radiometers
work quite fine with much less.

Depends entirely on what one intends to measure.


Despite the photon torpedoes fired at me, I have not seen a convincing
physics experiment that deflates my previous arguement...

Where the F=MA arguement fails in a radiometer is that the photons
impact both sides of the paddles leaving a zero net force for
rotation...

The fact that a Crookes Radiometer requires an atmosphere is proof of
its mode of operation. The fact that it has to be a partial vacuum
further proves how it operates (more air density means too much air
drag to allow rotation by the weak local differential pressure across
the paddle)...

Those who reject local differential pressure changes due to local
heating by claiming the pressure in the bulb is static ignore the
factor of time in molecular exchange of thermal energy gains...
Carrying their argument to the logical end means sun heating cannot
cause the winds to ever blow across the ground because the net air
pressure of Terra is static...

denny
It's 10PM somewhere, have you hugged your radio today?

Hi Denny -

The thing that seems to have certain people confused here is the fact
that, with regard to radiometers, there are two different effects at
work. Radiation pressure is in fact quite measurable, but is an
orders of magnitude smaller force than the thermal/molecular effect
that toy store radiometers demonstrate.

Radiation pressure is such a small effect that it cannot be observed
unless the vessel is first evacuated to an ultra high vacuum.
Ordinarily, one would use a torsion or micro balance to measure this
effect. But in a radiometer type arrangement, the vanes rotate in a
direction away from the more reflective side because the change in
momentum is twice as high for a reflected photon as it is for an
absorbed photon.

But in the case of the thermal, partially evacuated (toy store)
radiometer, the black side of the vanes absorbs more thermal energy
and is therefore hotter than the white side which absorbs less and
reflects more energy. Gas molecules which encounter the vanes in a
partially evacuated radiometer are ejected more energetically from the
hotter side than from the cooler side thus creating a net force in the
direction away from the black (less reflective) side. This is as you
described.

73, ac6xg

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:33:11 -0700, Denny wrote:

Despite the photon torpedoes fired at me, I have not seen a convincing
physics experiment that deflates my previous arguement...

Hi Denny,

You need a better reading list. Researching the historical names
offered would be a start.

Where the F=MA arguement fails in a radiometer is that the photons
impact both sides of the paddles leaving a zero net force for
rotation...

Well, the Newtonian math certainly fails (as does the Quantum math);
but not because photons hit (more properly absorbed by) both vanes
equally for a net zero force (an appeal to F=MA already dismissed). If
you observe the Crookes radiometer (and its brethren), it has distinct
differences in reflection/absorption characteristics which impart a
very considerable differential in the net force; which, again, do not
balance with the energy applied. This is not to dismiss the obvious
reaction, however; but no one here has offered any quantifiable forces
other than myself.

The fact that a Crookes Radiometer requires an atmosphere is proof of
its mode of operation. The fact that it has to be a partial vacuum
further proves how it operates (more air density means too much air
drag to allow rotation by the weak local differential pressure across
the paddle)...

Unfortunately (and as mentioned several many times), the so-called
differential in pressure does not balance with the applied energy.
Even if it did, it would require a porous vane to make it work
(another negative hit). It would be useful if someone could offer
even one line of quantifiable data to support ANYTHING. So much of
this is testimonial that this should be called rec.radio.tent.meeting
given the general inclination to veer from facts towards faith.

Those who reject local differential pressure changes due to local
heating by claiming the pressure in the bulb is static ignore the
factor of time in molecular exchange of thermal energy gains...
Carrying their argument to the logical end means sun heating cannot
cause the winds to ever blow across the ground because the net air
pressure of Terra is static...

Hmmm, who could those heathens be? Perhaps the scurvy Nichols and
Tear whose radiometer works so well in a more complete Vacuum?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:04:23 -0000, Jim Kelley
wrote:


Richard Clark wrote:


The description you offer requires a porous plate which is absent in
every radiometer that has come down the pike

On the other hand, the absence of porous plates in operating
radiometers tends to cast some doubt on your claim that the plates
must be porous.


Not "my claim," my report.

So be it. The absence of porous plates in operating radiometers tends
to cast doubt on your report that the plates must be porous.

The claim they must be porous arrives
through the math necessary to balance the kinetic forces.

But a balance of forces would result in the absence of an observable
effect. An imbalance in forces is required in order to produce
movement.

Now, if we simply move to another radiometer (Nichols, Tear, Hull, and
Webb already recited) without that partial vacuum, the vanes still
move, and expressely by Radiation Pressure.

By a different mechanism and in the opposite direction, yes.

In essence, these instruments indicate,
not measure.

A description which applies beautifully to power meters as well, don't
you agree? ;-)

The coy context of the thread was measuring the mass of a Photon.
Absolutely no SI Units have been named or any quantitative values
offered (the rather standard omission from claims made here).
However, feel free to introduce your own side thread's goal or even offer a
guess (your own quatitative value for the mass).

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

73, ac6xg

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:02:38 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Not "my claim," my report.

So be it. The absence of porous plates in operating radiometers tends
to cast doubt on your report that the plates must be porous.

Hi Jim,

You should distinguish between reporting, claims, and what you see.
The point about being porous is to substantiate the expectation of
explaining the full energy budget (and specifically for the Crookes
radiometer). I don't know how many times I have to emphasize this,
but NO METHOD achieves that balance.

The claim they must be porous arrives
through the math necessary to balance the kinetic forces.

But a balance of forces would result in the absence of an observable
effect. An imbalance in forces is required in order to produce
movement.

The balance is in the energy applied and the energy expended. You put
an HP into a car, and it will accelerate 550 foot-pounds/sec. You put
x photons into ANY radiometer, and the change in inertia WILL NOT
balance.

[This is why I expressed my question in Newtonian terms for the
benefit of the twins who are so devoted to the master (that they are
wholly lost in a simple 2 variable computation). The difference
between that computation and performance is extreme. What is more
compelling, is that it is quite a departure from what Quantum
Mechanics would predict. NO METHOD achieves that balance.]

Now, if we simply move to another radiometer (Nichols, Tear, Hull, and
Webb already recited) without that partial vacuum, the vanes still
move, and expressely by Radiation Pressure.

By a different mechanism and in the opposite direction, yes.

In essence, these instruments indicate,
not measure.

A description which applies beautifully to power meters as well, don't
you agree? ;-)

No. Power meters to even uncommonly high accuracy still conform to
Newtonian mechanics.

The coy context of the thread was measuring the mass of a Photon.
Absolutely no SI Units have been named or any quantitative values
offered (the rather standard omission from claims made here).
However, feel free to introduce your own side thread's goal or even offer a
guess (your own quatitative value for the mass).

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

The photo-electron appears to even depart from that. More to follow.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

John Smith wrote:
Why has ether become synonymous with "kook?"

From Wikipedia:
"Einstein in later years proposed calling empty space equipped
with gravitational and electromagnetic fields the "ether",
whereby, however, this word is not to denote a substance with
its traditional attributes. Thus, in the "ether" there are to
be no determinable points, and it is meaningless to speak of
motion relative to the "ether." Such a use of the word "ether"
is of course admissible, and when once it has been sanctioned
by usage in this way, probably quite convenient."

Ives was the first to positively measure the effect of speed on clock
rates. He wrote in 1940 in a paper in Science:

"I have considered the popular claim that the ether has been "abolished"
[...]. Reverting to experimental findings I have reviewed the experiment
of Sagnac, having in mind the claim that the ether can not be detected
experimentally. I have asserted that, in the light of the experimentally
found variation of clock rate with motion, this experiment does detect
the ether."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

I have asserted that, in the light of the experimentally
found variation of clock rate with motion, this experiment does detect
the ether."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Me neither... The old bull dozer refused to start and I hunted all
over the place for a can of ether... Didn't detect one either... Mind
you it was 92 degrees yesterday and rooting around through the
toolshed with the sun beating on the steel roof for ether was no
picnic... I doubt that Michaelson and Morley worked up that much
sweat looking for it...

denny

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
"I have considered the popular claim that the ether has been "abolished"
[...]. Reverting to experimental findings I have reviewed the experiment
of Sagnac, having in mind the claim that the ether can not be detected
experimentally. I have asserted that, in the light of the experimentally
found variation of clock rate with motion, this experiment does detect
the ether."

Yes, that annoying fact, clocks slow when you place 'em on jet aircraft,
refuel the aircraft in flight, and make a few trips around the
circumference of the earth.

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
without corresponding gains in speed. And, although I tend to believe
the math which "proves" this, it ends up just another thing I fail to
completely be able to wrap my mind around. But, it seems at the speed
of light, traversing the ether with matter offers such a resistance to
the speed of matter, any further increases of speed are impossible--no
matter the amount of expenditure in energy ...

At this 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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Denny wrote:

...
Me neither... The old bull dozer refused to start and I hunted all
over the place for a can of ether... Didn't detect one either... Mind
you it was 92 degrees yesterday and rooting around through the
toolshed with the sun beating on the steel roof for ether was no
picnic... I doubt that Michaelson and Morley worked up that much
sweat looking for it...

denny


Denny:

If you should be fortunate enough to find/purchase a can of that
"ether", be careful not to breath the vapors--they may have a
detrimental effect on ones cognitive abilities! :-)

Regards,
JS

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Richard Clark wrote:

In essence, these instruments indicate,
not measure.

A description which applies beautifully to power meters as well, don't
you agree? ;-)


No. Power meters to even uncommonly high accuracy still conform to
Newtonian mechanics.

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?

The coy context of the thread was measuring the mass of a Photon.
Absolutely no SI Units have been named or any quantitative values
offered (the rather standard omission from claims made here).
However, feel free to introduce your own side thread's goal or even offer a
guess (your own quatitative value for the mass).

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


The photo-electron appears to even depart from that.

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

73, ac6xg

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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).

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Richard Clark wrote:

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

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

jk

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Pity you have so much trouble reading...

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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.

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

art wrote:

...
Art


Art:

You seek to answer the unanswerable, you seek to explain the
unexplainable ... this is far from "being wrong." It simply proves that
our knowledge is incomplete, at present. This is something we all hope
to cure in the future. Now, we simply debate the different explanations
which exist. Magnetic fields certainly play a prominent part in
manipulations of EM waves/particles, and the opposite ... what is going
on precisely is up for grabs, again, in my humble opinion.

The fact is, although I think we can see the stress lines in the ether
with the simple iron filings, paper and magnet, we know nothing about
it--indeed, the "proof of its' existence" I am citing might have yet
another explanation. Indeed, at this point, ether almost requires a
"leap of faith" such as necessary with a belief in God. By sheer
definition we cannot even devise a bottle to hold a sample of ether.

However, cowards will run from the unknown, brave men will sit and
discuss how to attempt to prove it, one way or another.

A system with equilibrium will, at some point, cease movement, unless
there is an input of energy from an external source, this energy might
appear cloaked in many forms. Can we at least agree upon this single
point, first?

Regards,
JS

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

art wrote:

...
I believe we view aether differently as well as the term equilibrium.
...
Art


Art:

I found an interesting fellow on the net, here is a .pdf of his free
ebook: (chapter 8 I found very interesting)

http://www.teslaphysics.com/files/Detection.pdf

If you would like to read it in .html instead:

http://www.teslaphysics.com/

Look near the bottom of the page for the book, but this page itself is
interesting.

He has done some experimenting and claims to have detected the ether.
He cites another fellows experiments which his own experiments followed.

Beware and be warned, his thinking challenges Einsteins' own ...

Regards,
JS

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:07:09 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

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,

Hi Jim,

Tom opines about my reading, but it is about the writing from the good
doctor that we find (in regard to your snippet above):
"we find that the momentum relation p=mv is
only an approximation. It is only correct when speed (v) is much
smaller than the speed of light (c).
which distinctly contradicts your tie-in:
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.

The circularity of Dr. Ken Mellendorf's foggy writing might suggest
it, if it weren't otherwise nipped in the bud by the bald statement.
"For a particle with no mass, the relation reduces to E=pc.
This works for a photon."

Hence the proximity of this to p=mv is textual, not factual.

What is the term p? Could it be (p)hoton? I've speculated about
Planck's constant (which you comment upon, below), but I find it very
sloppy writing for Dr. Mellendorf to wander into his own naming
conventions. Migrating through
E = mc²
something all can agree is a fair basis to begin with, we then have
expressly for a (p)hoton:
E = pc
Substituting for the previous E
pc = mc²
divide both sides by c
p = mc
which to me is new territory. What is mass times the speed of light
for a particle that has no mass?

Perhaps Tom's special reading skills can rescue this p term from the
oblivion of E = 0 for a (p)hoton.

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.

Yes, and it seems your daughter trumped me on Planck once before. ;-)

It is exceedingly obvious that the link offered amounts to
considerable wool gathering. Or maybe its the late hour....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Richard Clark wrote:
What is mass times the speed of light
for a particle that has no mass?

A nonsense question since "no mass" for a
photon is associated with it being *at rest*,
i.e. *not moving at the speed of light*.

Perhaps Tom's special reading skills can rescue this p term from the
oblivion of E = 0 for a (p)hoton.

For a photon possessing zero rest mass,
traveling at the speed of light yields
a finite measurable mass.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

On Sep 7, 12:51 am, Richard Clark wrote:

The circularity of Dr. Ken Mellendorf's foggy writing might suggest
it, if it weren't otherwise nipped in the bud by the bald statement.

On the other hand perhaps Dr. Mellendorf has some expertise in the
subject.

What is the term p? Could it be (p)hoton? I've speculated about
Planck's constant (which you comment upon, below), but I find it very
sloppy writing for Dr. Mellendorf to wander into his own naming
conventions.

I think you should make those comments directly to him so that he an
opportunity to respond. Shall I forward them for you? :-)

What is mass times the speed of light
for a particle that has no mass?

Seems like something is wrong in that sentence, doesn't it.

Perhaps Tom's special reading skills can rescue this p term from the
oblivion of E = 0 for a (p)hoton.

It's also possible that since E=0 is wrong, the assumption that p=0
might also be wrong. If not, then you'll need to explain radiation
pressure in an all new way.

Yes, and it seems your daughter trumped me on Planck once before. ;-)

She's better at math than I ever was.

73, ac6xg

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

On 6 Sep, 22:21, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:
...
I believe we view aether differently as well as the term equilibrium.
...
Art

Art:

I found an interesting fellow on the net, here is a .pdf of his free
ebook: (chapter 8 I found very interesting)

http://www.teslaphysics.com/files/Detection.pdf

If you would like to read it in .html instead:

http://www.teslaphysics.com/

Look near the bottom of the page for the book, but this page itself is
interesting.

He has done some experimenting and claims to have detected the ether.
He cites another fellows experiments which his own experiments followed.

Beware and be warned, his thinking challenges Einsteins' own ...

Regards,
JS

John, I have only stated how I as an individual views things.
Since I have not studied physics all that much it can be seen as just
guessing.
Reading Planck at the moment while wife is in hospital ICU so time is
limited all the way around
Regards
Art

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

John Smith wrote:

way...
(no Virginia, that is not a vacuum inside the radiometer, just high
altitude - and yes there is no Santa Claus - now come over here and
sit on my lap)

denny


Really? So, someone should tell the engineers who have proposed the
"solar sail?" A massive silvered mylar sail which would be unfolded in
space and sail spacecraft on the "solar winds", photons reflected
mass--actually.

You guys missed your calling ... you could have been "fact debunkers!"


I'm no expert (although play one on TV), but I thought that the
process at work was reflection of the photon, which shows a measurable
doppler shift. The doppler shift lowers it's wavelength. The wavelength
increases, and energy decreases. That energy has to go somewhere, and
it goes into the sail and takes the spacecraft or whatever is attached
along for the ride. So it really isn't a mass issue - although it is
possible that the solar wind which does have mass and may contribute
some small push on the sail. But that is another issue.Photon push is a
radiation pressure energy transfer mechanism.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 06:00:46 -0700, Denny wrote:

Uhhh, gawd, I hate to even get into THIS mess... But, somebody has
gotta do it...

Hi Denny,

Well, for such a melodramatic dip of your toe into this cesspool, I
hope you brought your snorkel.

Or at least a fork and spoon...


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
some small push on the sail. But that is another issue.Photon push is a
radiation pressure energy transfer mechanism.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Ahhh, you are such a "jokester!" I always enjoy a good laugh, ha ha ha.

JS

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

On Sep 7, 9:08 am, Jim Kelley wrote:
On Sep 7, 12:51 am, Richard Clark wrote:

The circularity of Dr. Ken Mellendorf's foggy writing might suggest
it, if it weren't otherwise nipped in the bud by the bald statement.

On the other hand perhaps Dr. Mellendorf has some expertise in the
subject.

What is the term p? Could it be (p)hoton? I've speculated about
Planck's constant (which you comment upon, below), but I find it very
sloppy writing for Dr. Mellendorf to wander into his own naming
conventions.

I think you should make those comments directly to him so that he an
opportunity to respond. Shall I forward them for you? :-)

What is mass times the speed of light
for a particle that has no mass?

Seems like something is wrong in that sentence, doesn't it.

Perhaps Tom's special reading skills can rescue this p term from the
oblivion of E = 0 for a (p)hoton.

It's also possible that since E=0 is wrong, the assumption that p=0
might also be wrong. If not, then you'll need to explain radiation
pressure in an all new way.

Yes, and it seems your daughter trumped me on Planck once before. ;-)

She's better at math than I ever was.

73, ac6xg

For the lurkers who may care to sift a tiny bit of wheat from the
chaff, see common physics symbol usage at http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference...s/symbols.html,
http://selland.boisestate.edu/jbrenn...cs_symbols.htm,
http://www.hazelwood.k12.mo.us/~gric...b/formulas.htm and
others. If you're reading physics writings, it helps to have an
understanding of the language of the physicist.

See concise explanations about photon momentum and relativistic
momentum, energy and mass in general at
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...iv/relmom.html,
http://physics.mtsu.edu/~phys2020/Le..._momentum.html
and others.

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

John Smith wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

...
some small push on the sail. But that is another issue.Photon push is
a radiation pressure energy transfer mechanism.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Ahhh, you are such a "jokester!" I always enjoy a good laugh, ha ha ha.

At your service!


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Hi Denny,

Well, for such a melodramatic dip of your toe into this cesspool, I
hope you brought your snorkel.

Or at least a fork and spoon...

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Yeah, there are rather large chunks floating in the effluent...

denny / k8do

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

John Smith wrote:
"The photon/wave properties of rf still remains a mystery ... and proof
is hard to come by."

Osama, Obama, and Chelsea`s mama are real, alive and on TV. The particle
theory of light, like the myth that Elvis lives, should only be accepted
to the level that gives us comfort. We don`t need light particles to
calculate antenna dimensions.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Dave Oldridge wrote:

...
Quite so. And there is no "vs." here. Just two different ways of looking
at the same physical phenomena.



Yeah, exactly, and LDE is just a figment of the imagination!

And, all the antennas possible have already been built, etc. ...

:-)

Regards,
JS

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

John Smith wrote:

...
And, no, this motor doesn't come apart at this speed--the metal the
motor is made of came from the UFO crash in Roswell NM ;-)

Regards,
JS

OK. So now you are all setting there with a big fat carrier right around
1 Mhz, and peering out yer windows.

However, and by the way, the answer was I was charged with creating a
disturbance in the gravitational ether ... just in case you were
wondering :)

But, 'ya already knew that! :)

Regards,
JS