On 05/27/2010 09:53 AM, wrote:
Cecil wrote:
On May 27, 10:59 am, Bill wrote:
I am wondering how a wave, light, can be affected by a black hole as has
been seen by the Hubble space telescope. This goes deeply into the
nature of light it self, like how is a wave with no real mass affected?

Photons have mass because of their velocity (speed of light). m = E/
c^2 Photons have no rest mass but they are never at rest. An
experiment long ago proved Einstein to be correct when he claimed that
light was affected by gravity. A black hole is no exception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

And if you read that article you will find it says that space itself is
warped which means the path is changed and not that the photons are
put on a different path because they have mass.


I bookmarked it since it will involve more thought than I can muster
while working my way through various sites/groups.
It looks interesting enough, so I may have to go into serious math mode.
Thanks,
Bill Baka

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 27, 8:27 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In plasma physics are particles.
S*

well, at least you have one sentence that says something true.

And are this true: "We also assumed, perfectly arbitrarily, that the
direction of these vortices is such that, on looking along a line of force
from south to north, we should see the vortices revolving in the direc- tion
of the hands of a watch. We found that the velocity of the circumference of
each vortex must be proportional to the intensity of the magnetic force, and
that the density of the substance of the vortex must be propor- tional to
the capacity of the medium for magnetic induction." From:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force

"the density of the substance of the vortex "
As you see in Maxwell's hypothesis was the mass. The all waves need mass and
inertia.
But all movements (also waves) can be described dynamically (with mass) or
geometrically (only directions and speed).
The famous Heaviside's equations are the geometrical description of the
waves.
S*

On May 27, 12:20*pm, Bill Baka wrote:
I probably should not have breached the subject since it will be a war
of opinions. If light was indeed a particle (photon) it could be
affected, but light is just really super high frequency radio in nature.
Radio is not particulate so why the hang-up over photons???

Quoting Roger Miller from the movie: "Water Hole Number Three"; "If
fishes had wishes, they'd fly".

Actually, it has nothing to do with opinions and everything to do with
actual experiments. EM wave energy, which includes visible light and
RF waves, has been proven beyond any doubt to be quantized which
implies a particle nature and not a continuously variable analog
field. In fact, quantum electrodynamics, which has an uncanny ability
to predict sub-atomic physics experimental outcomes, tells us that
nothing can exist outside of its existence as a particle. Have you
ever tried to prove that something can actually exist without a
particle nature being involved?

From the lowest level of light detectable by the human brain, the next
step up in brightness is 11.1111% greater than that first level - not
0.000001% as your opinion seems to desire. Following is the URL for an
interesting paper on the subject.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...902.2896v1.pdf
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

I downloaded the pdf file so I can read it this evening. I may be back
on this topic later after doing some reading. Of course I may disagree
with the particle nature, but hey, I have an opinion too.
Cheers,
Bill Baka

On 05/27/2010 11:47 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 27, 12:20 pm, Bill wrote:
I probably should not have breached the subject since it will be a war
of opinions. If light was indeed a particle (photon) it could be
affected, but light is just really super high frequency radio in nature.
Radio is not particulate so why the hang-up over photons???

Quoting Roger Miller from the movie: "Water Hole Number Three"; "If
fishes had wishes, they'd fly".

Actually, it has nothing to do with opinions and everything to do with
actual experiments. EM wave energy, which includes visible light and
RF waves, has been proven beyond any doubt to be quantized which
implies a particle nature and not a continuously variable analog
field. In fact, quantum electrodynamics, which has an uncanny ability
to predict sub-atomic physics experimental outcomes, tells us that
nothing can exist outside of its existence as a particle. Have you
ever tried to prove that something can actually exist without a
particle nature being involved?

From the lowest level of light detectable by the human brain, the next
step up in brightness is 11.1111% greater than that first level - not
0.000001% as your opinion seems to desire. Following is the URL for an
interesting paper on the subject.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...902.2896v1.pdf
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 27, 12:20Â*pm, Bill Baka wrote:
I probably should not have breached the subject since it will be a war
of opinions. If light was indeed a particle (photon) it could be
affected, but light is just really super high frequency radio in nature.
Radio is not particulate so why the hang-up over photons???

Quoting Roger Miller from the movie: "Water Hole Number Three"; "If
fishes had wishes, they'd fly".

Actually, it has nothing to do with opinions and everything to do with
actual experiments. EM wave energy, which includes visible light and
RF waves, has been proven beyond any doubt to be quantized which
implies a particle nature and not a continuously variable analog
field. In fact, quantum electrodynamics, which has an uncanny ability
to predict sub-atomic physics experimental outcomes, tells us that
nothing can exist outside of its existence as a particle. Have you
ever tried to prove that something can actually exist without a
particle nature being involved?

Not quite.

You can observe the particle nature of EM or you can observe the wave
nature of EM, but you can't observe both at the same time.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 27, 5:29*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On May 27, 8:27 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In plasma physics are particles.
S*
well, at least you have one sentence that says something true.

And are this true: "We also assumed, perfectly arbitrarily, that the
direction of these vortices is such that, on looking along a line of force
from south to north, we should see the vortices revolving in the direc- tion
of the hands of a watch. We found that the velocity of the circumference of
each vortex must be proportional to the intensity of the magnetic force, and
that the density of the substance of the vortex must be propor- tional to
the capacity of the medium for magnetic induction." From:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force

"the density of the substance of the vortex "
As you see in Maxwell's hypothesis was the mass. The all waves need mass and
inertia.
But all movements (also waves) can be described dynamically (with mass) or
geometrically (only directions and speed).
The famous Heaviside's equations are the geometrical description of the
waves.
S*

as has already been pointed out this paper predates the publication of
the full set of maxwell's equations, and even the publication of
gauss' law... so much development was done in em theories after that
date. just because something is written down doesn't make it right or
we would still be living with 4 elements and letting blood to cure
disease.

On May 27, 9:53*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 26, 6:52*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
snip

Nope, what we can say is that waves and their associated particles are
dual manifestations of the same physical phenomena.

Now just hold on right there!
As I have stated before, wave is a descriptive word
and not a noun as described by a particle. Just as a
amount of moisture does not become equal to a cloud. You are using
existing positions and theories
without the required accompanying proof
The truth is that none of the existing theories stand up to
examination to explain the phenomina of radiation upto and including
the super string theory.
Thus they are all suspect in one way or another.
Right at the very beginning I used Gauss's definition to describe a
particle, no where is the term wave mentioned Now we come to Maxwells
equations he also does not mention waves because he is considering a
instant of time which includes every function required to perform the
function of displacement of a particle as refferred to by Gauss. He
also reinforced the idea of equilibrium per Newtons laws by assuring
that all components involved in the equation equalled zero.
Thus one can say using long existant rules that what is made dynamic
must also be resonant and where the sum is in equilibrium. Now all the
expressions you are using comes from discredited theories, where as
mine comes from the existance of the Newtons boundary rules, gaussian
postulate and and the combination of many inputs from the masters of
that time that provided Maxwells laws.
I am just using the existing classical rules of the day
nothing is new and there is no reinvention of any kind.
So I put it to you again that it unreasonable to quote
hypothesis that have been proved not up to the task
and to not provide supporting reason to discredit Maxwell,Gauss and
the other masters on whose shoulders we stand on today. Forget about
your beloved photons which you habitually use as a shell game to
confuse onlookers and review which is considered correct up to "this
particular point" instead of making giant hops up the ladder of
knowledge like jumping the Grand canyon in two jumps. If you have good
reason to diss the work of the masters then I am sure others will want
to hear about it.
Best regards, nothing personal intended
Art
snip
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 27, 9:53Â*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 26, 6:52Â*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
snip

Nope, what we can say is that waves and their associated particles are
dual manifestations of the same physical phenomena.

Now just hold on right there!
As I have stated before, wave is a descriptive word
and not a noun

Actually, the word "wave" can be an intransitive verb, a transitive verb,
or a noun depending on usage.

Go argue with the dictionary.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 27, 8:45*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 27, 9:53*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 26, 6:52*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
snip

Nope, what we can say is that waves and their associated particles are
dual manifestations of the same physical phenomena.

Now just hold on right there!
As I have stated before, wave is a descriptive word
and not a noun

Actually, the word "wave" can be an intransitive verb, a transitive verb,
or a noun depending on usage.

Go argue with the dictionary.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

If you can prove your point against those of Gauss and Maxwell I will
certainly follow you on your path
that you advocate to describe and resolve the issue of radiation. If
you are transcribing from a text book I will be happy to read it to
ensure what you say is in context with respect to useage of the term
"waves" before I get into the lock step mode.
The bottom line is, neither mentioned waves and it is not meant for
you or I to determine what he should have said in relating to what you
believe he meant to say and if he agreed with any dictionary relevant
to those times.
But then you can introduce a king James version of what he meant
together with a dictionary to match present day useage of the word!
(smile)
Have a happy day and push your anger aside.
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

snip 13 lines of babbling nonsense

Have a happy day and push your anger aside.

You mistake pity for anger.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.