"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 5:36:52 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Where can I find the knowledge on photons?

Here's a pretty good overview:

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

Father of photon wrote:
"Had there not seemed to be insuperable objections, one might have been
tempted to adopt the hypothesis that we are dealing here with a new type of
atom, an identifiable entity, uncreatable and indestructible, which acts as
the carrier of radiant energy and, after absorption, persists as an
essential constituent of the absorbing atom until it is later sent out again
bearing a new amount of energy. If I now advance this hypothesis of a new
kind of atom, I do not claim that it can yet be proved, but only that a
consideration of the several objections that might be adduced shows that
there is not one of them that can not be overcome."
http://www.nobeliefs.com/photon.htm

Is it proved?


For information on EM radiation, superposition, and interference, I would
recommend:

"Optics", 4th edition, by Eugene Hecht, available from www.abebooks.com

"8 Polarization 319"

Could you look at this?

Is in Hecht's the polarised light as the transverse wave (Fresnel,
Heaviside) or,

The longitudinal waves transmitted from the two sources (dipole) (Faraday,
Lorenz, Tesla).
S*

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:20:15 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Is it proved?

Yes, proved to be pure fantasy. The Standard Model is as close to reality as we have gotten so far. The modern-day atom smashers have proved just how ignorant the speculations of the earlier physicists really were.

"8 Polarization 319" Could you look at this?

In my 4th edition, Chapter 8 starts on page 325. The first sentence says: "... light may be treated as a transverse electromagnetic wave." Nowhere does it say that light may be treated as a longitudinal wave.
--

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:20:15 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Is it proved?

Yes, proved to be pure fantasy. The Standard Model is as close to reality
as we have gotten so far. The modern-day atom smashers have proved just
how ignorant the speculations of the earlier physicists really were.

"8 Polarization 319" Could you look at this?

In my 4th edition, Chapter 8 starts on page 325. The first sentence says:
"... light may be treated as a transverse electromagnetic wave." Nowhere
does it say that light may be treated as a longitudinal wave.

"" In 1817, Young had proposed a small transverse component to light, while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel

As you see the Fresnel model is simpler than Young.
In the texbooks are only simple things.

The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote: "light may be treated". MAY
instead "Without of any doubts".
S*


--

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:20:15 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Is it proved?

Yes, proved to be pure fantasy. The Standard Model is as close to reality
as we have gotten so far. The modern-day atom smashers have proved just
how ignorant the speculations of the earlier physicists really were.

"8 Polarization 319" Could you look at this?

In my 4th edition, Chapter 8 starts on page 325. The first sentence says:
"... light may be treated as a transverse electromagnetic wave." Nowhere
does it say that light may be treated as a longitudinal wave.

"" In 1817, Young had proposed a small transverse component to light, while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel

Yeah, so what?

Light can be viewed as a transverse electromagnetic wave, that has been
established.

As you see the Fresnel model is simpler than Young.

Actually, no it is not, but it is all mute as that crap is almost
200 years old and knowledge, except for yours, has improved greatly
since then.

In the texbooks are only simple things.

How would you know, you babbling moron, you have never read one
because even high school level textbooks are to difficult for you
to understand.

The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote: "light may be treated". MAY
instead "Without of any doubts".

Nope, this just shows how stupid, ignorant, and ineducable you are, moron.

Light may also be treated as photons.

You are so utterly stupid you will NEVER be able to understand that
elecromagnetic radiation can be viewed both as waves or photons.

You are a babbling idiot and a laughingstock.

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


"" In 1817, Young had proposed a small transverse component to light,
while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could
be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel


Light may also be treated as photons.

Yes. In one chapter as waves and in the next as particles.

But it means only that you do not know what the light is.
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


"" In 1817, Young had proposed a small transverse component to light,
while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could
be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel


Light may also be treated as photons.

Yes. In one chapter as waves and in the next as particles.

What in the hell are you babbling about with "one chapter" and "next"?

But it means only that you do not know what the light is.

Everyone but you knows what light is.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about anything.

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Is it because you have built zero antennas and you are trying to say all
the people that have successfully built hundreds that they are all wrong
and you don't want to admit you are an ignorant, inducable, idiot?

Why can't you obtain and read a university level textbook on anything
in any language?

Is it because you are too stupid to be able to understand the material?

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:04:22 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote: "light may be treated". MAY
instead "Without of any doubts".

Of course, technical authors avoid absolute assertions because they know that almost all knowledge is proven inaccurate sooner or later by the additional acquisition of human knowledge driven by finer-tuned experiments. What you don't seem to understand is that technical knowledge builds upon technical knowledge so that the latest theories that support the latest experiments are the best "knowledge" that we have so far. Without the 19th century giants in the field of physics, we couldn't have progressed this far, but those giants were simply ignorant of 21st century physics. Today we too, are still ignorant to a certain extent, but hopefully less ignorant than 19th century folk.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On 7/22/2012 5:14 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:04:22 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote:"light may be treated". MAY
instead"Without of any doubts".

Of course, technical authors avoid absolute assertions because they know that almost all knowledge is proven inaccurate sooner or later by the additional acquisition of human knowledge driven by finer-tuned experiments. What you don't seem to understand is that technical knowledge builds upon technical knowledge so that the latest theories that support the latest experiments are the best "knowledge" that we have so far. Without the 19th century giants in the field of physics, we couldn't have progressed this far, but those giants were simply ignorant of 21st century physics. Today we too, are still ignorant to a certain extent, but hopefully less ignorant than 19th century folk.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

But authors then said different. They say things that are not agreed to
by author today who no knowing what they are meaning.

Or something like that.

tom
K0TAR

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:04:22 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote: "light may be treated". MAY
instead "Without of any doubts";.

Of course, technical authors avoid absolute assertions because they know
that almost all knowledge is proven inaccurate sooner or later by the
additional acquisition of human knowledge driven by finer-tuned
experiments. What you don't seem to understand is that technical knowledge
builds upon technical knowledge so that the latest theories that support
the latest experiments are the best "knowledge" that we have so far.
Without the 19th century giants in the field of physics, we couldn't have
progressed this far, but those giants were simply ignorant of 21st century
physics.

The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow of
electrons.

Today we too, are still ignorant to a certain extent, but hopefully less
ignorant than 19th century folk.

In XX century was done the first rectenna: "A rectenna is a rectifying
antenna, a special type of antenna that is used to convert microwave energy
into direct current electricity. "
In XXI century are the optical rectennas.

But the first were the crystal radio:
"The simplest crystal radio receiver, employing an antenna and a
demodulating diode (rectifier), is actually a rectenna".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna

You wrote "latest theories that support the latest experiments are the best
"knowledge" that we have so far".

But there are plenty of theories. Which one is the best?

To have knowledge means know the facts not theories.
S*

Every time yet another post on this subject arrives, I can't help
thinking of the limerick about the 'Young man of Devizes' (a small town
in Wiltshire, England). Those who have no idea what I'm talking about
can Google.

Perhaps there's a similar one about a radio amateur whose dipole had
unequal wire sizes?
--
Ian