In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:

There is no such word as "Photonists".

1. If your RF photons are merely a packet of energy for which it is
meaningless to
talk about frequency, what is the difference between your RF photons when
listening to a signal on 14.1 MHz and those of your RF photons when
listening
to a signal on 472 kHz?

As the energy is equal to Plancks constant times frequency, you are
starting off with a false premise.


2. If you claim that your RF photons are generated by the same intra-atomic
processes that generate light, then why do we need the so many trillions of
atoms
that make for a half-wave dipole?

Non sequitur.

3. Also, if your RF photons are generated by that same intra-atomic process,
then
what must be the laser / maser like process that induces all the atoms in a
half-wave dipole
to produce the photons in the appropriate phase relationship?

Non sequitur.

4. When I listen to a single dit, the E of Morse (Really Vail?) Code, if the
photon has no
beginning, no end, and no am modulation to bring about such a beginning and
end, then
why do I not hear a continuous never-ending dit?

Because you are stationary and the electromagnetic energy went past
you at the speed of light.

5. Why do some of you blithely quote URLs at me? Is it because you don't
really understand
matters yourselves and are thus incapable of joining in a gentlemanly
discussion, whether you agree, or not,
with what I propose?

Because no one wants to re-type in the pages of text that already exist.

6. To circumvent the decline of Usenet, is it not a good idea to foment
discussion, for in the amateur
radio club of my alma mater (G3UOE) it was commonplace to have such
discussions.

Discussion is great if based on a sound premise.

Discussion is meaningless if based on a false premise.


--
Jim Pennino