The RF Photonists in these NG are long on personal abuse but
short on knowledge and explanation; the sure signs of blathering ignorance?

Now, whereas it cannot be disputed that quantised objects such as atoms
and sub-atominc particles emit quantised radiation, and all the experimental
evidence and theories are very much based upon the observance of such
atomic and sub-atomic objects and not upon large scale objects such
as antennae, the energy that gets radiated from antennae
does not come from intra-atomic activity, but the compression of electrons
in a current
, compressing against their natural mutual repulsion.

What is the shape of the supposed RF photon?

How many cycles make up the RF photon?

Wy cannot the strident infantile abusers of the RF photonists answer such
questions?

Consider a single spike of static which generates wide-band noise over a
large spectrum.
As any photon is only at a single frequency, how many of the supposed RF
photons
(each with a fixed defined energy of hv) have been created by that spike?

An infinite number? If so the RF photonists among you must therefore hold
that any
spike of static, whether from a lightning strike, or an unsuppressed spark
plug must contain
infinite energy.

This alone shows that RF radiation, when nor created by atomic processes, is
continuous and
not quantised.

On 9/10/2015 4:43 AM, gareth wrote:

Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

"John S" wrote in message
...
On 9/10/2015 4:43 AM, gareth wrote:
Read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

You read it, and then come back and contribute to the debate.

"John S" wrote in message
...
On 9/10/2015 4:43 AM, gareth wrote:

Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

No good for Beanie, he's as thicK as at least _TWO_ short planKs.
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.uk

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
The RF Photonists in these NG are long on personal abuse but

There is no such word as "Photonists".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

All your questions are addressed in the main article and the 110 references
at the end of the article.


--
Jim Pennino

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"John S" wrote in message
...
On 9/10/2015 4:43 AM, gareth wrote:
Read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

You read it, and then come back and contribute to the debate.

There is nothing to debate; the science was firmly established long ago.

Debating the existance of the photon makes as much sense as debating
whether the Earth is round or flat.



--
Jim Pennino

"gareth" wrote in
:

The RF Photonists in these NG are long on personal abuse but
short on knowledge and explanation; the sure signs of blathering
ignorance?

Oh, the irony!


Now, whereas it cannot be disputed that quantised objects such as
atoms and sub-atominc particles emit quantised radiation, and all the
experimental evidence and theories are very much based upon the
observance of such atomic and sub-atomic objects and not upon large
scale objects such as antennae, the energy that gets radiated from
antennae does not come from intra-atomic activity, but the compression
of electrons in a current
, compressing against their natural mutual repulsion.

Nonsense. The radiation in this case is produced when charges are
accelerated. It's as simple as that.


What is the shape of the supposed RF photon?

How many cycles make up the RF photon?

Wy cannot the strident infantile abusers of the RF photonists answer
such questions?

Because they are bogus, meaningless questions arising from a failure to
understand the matter at hand. But you've been told this already. So much
for your "open mind".


Consider a single spike of static which generates wide-band noise over
a large spectrum.
As any photon is only at a single frequency,

Where did you get that ludicrous notion from? A single frequency of what?

how many of the supposed
RF photons
(each with a fixed defined energy of hv) have been created by that
spike?

An infinite number?

Strawman approaching!

If so the RF photonists among you must therefore
hold that any
spike of static, whether from a lightning strike, or an unsuppressed
spark plug must contain
infinite energy.

How many photons are there in a flash of white light? Now scale your
answer for the much longer wavelength at RF.


This alone shows that RF radiation, when nor created by atomic
processes, is continuous and
not quantised.

It shows nothing of the sort.

On 9/10/2015 2:57 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"John S" wrote in message
...
On 9/10/2015 4:43 AM, gareth wrote:
Read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

You read it, and then come back and contribute to the debate.

There is nothing to debate; the science was firmly established long ago.

Debating the existance of the photon makes as much sense as debating
whether the Earth is round or flat.

Don't keep us in suspence...

--

Rick

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
On 9/10/2015 2:57 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"John S" wrote in message
...
On 9/10/2015 4:43 AM, gareth wrote:
Read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

You read it, and then come back and contribute to the debate.

There is nothing to debate; the science was firmly established long ago.

Debating the existance of the photon makes as much sense as debating
whether the Earth is round or flat.

Don't keep us in suspence...

For those out of touch for the last half millennia when the debate
ended, round.

The debate seems to have started with Herodotus in the 5th Century BC.

There are always some late to the party...


--
Jim Pennino

On 10/09/2015 10:43, gareth wrote:
The RF Photonists in these NG are long on personal abuse but
short on knowledge and explanation; the sure signs of blathering ignorance?

Now, whereas it cannot be disputed that quantised objects such as atoms
and sub-atominc particles emit quantised radiation, and all the experimental
evidence and theories are very much based upon the observance of such
atomic and sub-atomic objects and not upon large scale objects such
as antennae, the energy that gets radiated from antennae
does not come from intra-atomic activity, but the compression of electrons
in a current
, compressing against their natural mutual repulsion.

What is the shape of the supposed RF photon?

It is a packet of energy (or a knot of string or a bubble of quantum
foam or any of the other competing theories), it does not have a shape
as such. You may as well ask just how wet a single water molecule is.

How many cycles make up the RF photon?

Define cycle?
Is it a wavelength you are referring to?

Wy cannot the strident infantile abusers of the RF photonists answer such
questions?

Why can't you ask questions that are straightforward and free from odd
terminology?

Consider a single spike of static which generates wide-band noise over a
large spectrum.
As any photon is only at a single frequency, how many of the supposed RF
photons

No a photon is a quantised packet of energy created by a single
frequency, it is not 'at a single frequency' any more than the speed of
rotation of my old electric drill is created and defined by a 50Hz
supply. It is not at 50Hz. The frequency bit has been and gone.

(each with a fixed defined energy of hv) have been created by that spike?

An infinite number? If so the RF photonists among you must therefore hold
that any
spike of static, whether from a lightning strike, or an unsuppressed spark
plug must contain
infinite energy.

No. Just lots and lots of photons all carrying a different amount of energy.
Lots and lots of tiny steps can seem like a smooth surface as the step
size decreases - this is a basic tenet of calculus, it also relates to
grain size in photography, sample size in music, curve fitting etc.
Since photons are so small as to be imperceptible to the human eye as
individuals, enough of them together appears to be a continuum.

However if you list all the individual frequencies I will calculate how
many photons are created.

This alone shows that RF radiation, when nor created by atomic processes, is
continuous and
not quantised.

If you are going to overturn decades of accepted physics I propose that
you have a stronger arguement than this. You need to work on your maths
and you will need to be able to show why Einstein's Nobel-winning work
on the photo electic effect is wrong.

Andy