 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / Design / July 2009Eureka: Light is Demystified
If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon", then I've very Advanced concept with in the Boundaries of Maxwell's concept of Light which is quite compatible with the concept of the Bending of the light, Black Holes and Photoelectric effect. Photon: - Photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic radiation, - Photon has zero Mass, - Bending of the Light is due to the Gravitational force of the near by Heavenly bodies, (Rebuttal): Photon has Zero mass, then how come it is getting attracted to that force? - Geometry of the spacetime is Curved( for others it is Torsion ) so Light is following that trajectory. At the end for the bending of Light there are 2 hypothesis.., 1.Gravitational force of the near by heavenly bodies, 2.Geometry of the spacetime. Black Holes: If the Light is not escaping from a heavenly body, then we would called it as a Black hole. (Rebuttal): If the Photon has zero mass then, how could the heavenly body attracts the light so intensively. with a single sweep now the Photon is going to be smashed. Lets see.., => Light is a EM wave - Faraday & Maxwell- Faraday Rotation. => (a) Bending of the Light in spacetime is not due to the gravitational force of the heavenly bodies, (b) At least Light is not following the trajectory(Curved or Torsion) of the spacetime. then, how to explain the above 3 phenomenon, Assuming that Light as a EM wave. _____ You have to agree with me that a rotating heavenly body produces a Magnetic field and therefore a rotating Magnetic field produces an Electric field proof:- (a) Ask your magnetic Compass needle, why it is always pointing in *One* direction when suspended freely. (b) Faraday's concepts of rotating motors. Now the stage is set ready...to explain why (a) Bending of the Light, (b) Black holes & (c) Photoelectric effect. Light Bending: Bending of the Light is due to the attractive and repulsive forces between the Light's and the respective heavenly body's Electric and Magnetics fields. Black Hole: If the field strength of that heavenly body is so *HUGE* then Light would not escape from its boundary region. Photoelectric effect: Ejecting of the electrons from a metal's surface is not the job of a photon, Jumping of those loose electrons from their respective orbitals is caused by the attractive and repulsive forces between the Electron's electric and magnetic field with the Light's electric and magnetic field. At the end there is no need of Photons any more. Any sarcasm..? > If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the > hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon" [...] It isn't. Get an education. Dear M.Parker: > If the photoelectric effect is the only concept > which can support the hypothesis of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bending of the light, Black Holes and > Photoelectric effect. Maxwell cannot do photoelectric effect. ... > Any sarcasm..? Yes. Chekc your pockets and the surfaces near you for some relevance. You seem to have none. David A. Smith > If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the > hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon", [snip crap] Pair formation, photon counting, light pressure, single molecule fluorescence, optical isotope separation, lasers, plasmon excitation, electroluminescence, positronium annihalation, nuclear photofragmentation, hydrogen hyperfine transition...  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the > > hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon", [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 Al, you left out atomic spectroscopy. Not much, I know, but historically it is the basis of quantum mechanics. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA > > > If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the > > > hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon", [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > electroluminescence, positronium annihalation, nuclear > > photofragmentation, hydrogen hyperfine transition... > Al, you left out atomic spectroscopy. Not much, I know, but > historically it is the basis of quantum mechanics. You know how the little stuff slips through. Bohr explained hydrogen, then mathematical induction for the other elements, right? When spin-orbit coupling appears for heavy elements we'll use permutation methods to avoid rewriting to an ab inito correct theory. That is how proper phusics is done - needs more study not more thought. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 >>>> If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the >>>> hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon", [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > methods to avoid rewriting to an ab inito correct theory. That is how > proper phusics is done - needs more study not more thought. I think the other elements are (and will probably remain) a bit tricky. As far as mem chips can recall, only He/Na/Li/K I/II/III have empirical formulas similar to Bohr's for H, but in the later years it's conceivable that the list has grown further. If anybody wants to have some serious physics fun, you can always ask someone to solve Schroedinger's equation for the simplest of these after H, say He. And see them fail spectacularly :-) Nevertheless, it's amazing what kind of acrobatics a copiously meticulous student can do with atomic spectroscopy, once certain parameters are into place. The following is based on NIST and is a bit longish, but it explains fairly well some of the major trends in the lighting industry. No physical experimentation in this doc. Only hard core thinking and programming. Consult as needed before you replace your kitchen light bulbs :-) http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/spectroscope/elements.html SignatureIoannis > >>>> If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the > >>>> hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon", [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > solve Schroedinger's equation for the simplest of these after H, say He. And see > them fail spectacularly :-) Back when I was a graduate student, in the late 1960's, one of my collegues used a purely numerical approach to "solve" Schroedingers wave equation for He. It worked tolerably well, and he was running his analysis on an IBM 7040/44 with 32k of 36-bit words of core memory at a clock rate of the order of a MHz. > Nevertheless, it's amazing what kind of acrobatics a copiously meticulous > student can do with atomic spectroscopy, once certain parameters are into place. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > >>>> If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the > >>>> hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon", [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I think the other elements are (and will probably remain) a bit tricky. Helium destroyed Bohr's phenomenological quantum theory. Successively heavier one-electron nuclei have increasingly larger Lamb shifts. Bohr still doesn't work. >As far > as mem chips can recall, only He/Na/Li/K I/II/III have empirical formulas [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > solve Schroedinger's equation for the simplest of these after H, say He. And see > them fail spectacularly :-) One starts by assuming the nucleus is stationary, diddle the two electrons with confocal ellipsoial coordinates, then append a geometric series of correction factors. In other words... perturbation methods will path the holes of having ab initio wrong theory. Being wrong and jury-rig corrected for calculation is OK as such (e.g., Mercator projection maps), but disastrous for theory (e.g., economically steaming from Japan to Seattle, WA). String and M-theory are mathematically elegant physical disasters, now boasting at least 10^(50,000) acceptable vacua. Simply put, both are rigorously derived and neither of them are correct. Uncle Al exposed the weakness in late 1999: It is trivially observed that the vacuum is isotropic in the massless sector (photons). Linearly polarized EM from quasars does not rotate its plane of polarization through distance by frequency, radio to annihalation radiation. There is no vacuum refraction, dispersion, dichroism, or gyrotropy over billion lightyear optical paths. NOBODY knows if the vacuum is isotropic in the massed sector. Do left and right shoes (chemically and macroscopically identical, opposite geometric parity atomic mass distributions) vacuum free fall identically? Load an Eotvos balance with opposed sets of solid single crystal test masses of left- and right-handed quartz. If a net non-zero signal emerges, all of physics is wrong without contradicting any prior observation. Hells bells, quantized gravitation theories require supplementing Einstein-Hilbert action with a parity-violating Chern-Simons term. The patch for ab initio wrong theory! The universe is screaming at physics to pull its thumbs out of its collective a.s. Somebody should look. > Nevertheless, it's amazing what kind of acrobatics a copiously meticulous > student can do with atomic spectroscopy, once certain parameters are into place. Given any two irrational numbers 'x' and 'y' it is always possible to find integers j, k, m, n such that |(j)(x^m) - (k)(y^n)| < epsilon, where "epsilon" is arbitrarily small. One should not be impressed by such a relationship since one could find an arbitrarily large number of relationships as good or better by picking any other irrational number, like the Napierian base 'e', Euler's constant gamma, the Golden Ratio, any irrational square root, etc. > The following is based on NIST and is a bit longish, but it explains fairly well > some of the major trends in the lighting industry. No physical experimentation > in this doc. Only hard core thinking and programming. Consult as needed before > you replace your kitchen light bulbs :-) > > http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/spectroscope/elements.html When pure theory cannot be reduced to practice, better is always the enemy of good enough The Senate of Rome thought they were above the stink. In AD 476 the stink rose to the challenge. The first kilowatt short arc lamp (police helicopter giant lights) refused to exist for a year of frenzied analysis and experimentation at Optical Radiation Corporation. There was a very big, literally armored sphere in which candidates would BOOM! every few days. Desperation set in during the last month of the military contract. So desperate was management that it allowed the quartzblower and the tungsten electrode fabricator - both tradesmen with no formal education - to take a whack at it where a whole room of sophisticated suit- and tie-wearing engineers had massively, sustainedly failed. One guy wanged together two tungsten electrodes that didn't look right at all. The quartzblower blew a fused silica envelope absent all calculations for stress - because it looked right to him. He sealed the electrodes in their ports. The lamp was pumped out and backfilled with a smidge of argon, a bit of mercury, and some lanthanide iodides to spread the specrum. It was mounted in the armored sphere, everybody cleared the Hell out, and an impressively large circuit breaker was thrown. 1100 watts. The lamp stayed lit, the armor shell eventually glowed dull red, the project went to prototyping. I knew Matt, the quartzblower. Management didn't even say "thank you." SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 idiot "Uncle rect-Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> aka anAl Alan Schwartz, the idiot, wrote: ["ab initio" corrected & snipped the idiot's rect-Al sh.t, for clarity] One starts by assuming & diddle ab initio wrong. Being wrong, jury-rig corrected for calculation is OK. Uncle rect-Al exposed the weakness in late 1999: It is trivially observed [like here in rect-Al's own post]: http://tinyurl.com/par3tq NOBODY knows Hells bells, quantized for ab initio to pull its thumbs out of its collective a.s. Somebody should look. [like here on rect-Al's own website]: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg Given any two irrational relationships as good or better by picking The Senate of Rome above the stink. In AD 476 the stink rose to at Optical Radiation Corporation. So desperate was management that it allowed both tradesmen with no formal education - [rect-Al refers here to Hebe Herbie, the hate filled, biogoted and racist kike G=EMC^2] to whack sophisticated suit- and tie-wearing engineers [snip rest of rect-Al' scrap] Hell, Management didn't even say "thank you." hanson wrote: ... ahahahaha... Schwartz is still sour and full of hate and anger because he never made it into management. So, the rect-Al idiot tries to manage in sci.physics, which he himself managed to label as a "river of sh.t" ... ahahahaha... Great rect-Al job, Schwartz, you Dreidel. Thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson >String and M-theory are mathematically elegant physical disasters, now >boasting at least 10^(50,000) acceptable vacua. Simply put, both are [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Somebody should look. The Chinese were looking a while ago. Then they said they pulled the plug. Their sudden reluctance to finish the experiment (or perhaps to share the rest of the data they intended to collect) had an odor about it. Then it seemed that you came up with a Plan B to test your hypothesis with benzil crystals. It sounded like a quicker, cheaper, more accessible way to test the same hypothesis. If it really is quicker, cheaper and more accessible, why hasn't someone done it? Why haven't /you/ done it? I have been reading your "Somebody should look" challenge for years. Why is "Somebody should look" to be read as "Somebody /else/ should look"? Stop buying ammo for a few weeks, use some of the bazillion dollars you made on your roach poison, and leverage it into Nobel prize money. Or is the experiment much more expensive or complicated than it seems from your assertion here? Message-ID: <4A4503A1.49233218@hate.spam.net> >Two calorimeters and two all-nighters could kill it all. An undergrad >p-chem lab section could irreversibly overturn the most esoteric >agglomeratiion of ditzy physical theory What happened to the gifted team who ran the simulations before the Chinese ran the Eotvos experiment? Can you not all chip in and make this benzil experiment happen? Or have they stopped believing that an experiment will confirm your hypothesis? From the same post referenced above: >You have something interesting, you do not have >something interesting, or you have comedy. If it takes nothing more than a weekend in an undergrad p-chem lab to look, what should it tell onlookers that no one, including Uncle Al, is making the effort to look? -- Adam --------- AHAHAHAHAHA... Priceless!... AHAHAHA... ---------- Uncle rect-Al wrote: [snip crap] Somebody should look. The Chinese were looking a while ago. Then they said they pulled the plug. Their sudden reluctance to finish the experiment (or perhaps to share the rest of the data they intended to collect) had an odor about it. hanson wrote: .... ahahahaha... IIRC, rect-Al performed one of his Yiddisher street corner performances for them & probably referred to them as "idiots" while he was claiming prior art... ahahahaha... So, they pulled the plug and let rect-Al die on the vine... ahahahaha... and NOBODY looked. Then it seemed that you [rect-Al] came up with a Plan B to test your hypothesis > with benzil crystals. It sounded like a quicker, cheaper, more accessible way to test the same hypothesis. If it really is quicker, cheaper and more accessible, why hasn't someone done it? Why haven't /you/ done it? hanson wrote: But rect-Al so did... And to his credit he spent $500 for a set of calorimetric analysis of the chiral Benzil xx. However when the results came back and told him what he didn't want to hear, he assumed that the testers in the lab were... well... "idiots"... I have been reading your "Somebody should look" challenge for years. Why is "Somebody should look" to be read as "Somebody /else/ should look"? hanson wrote: .. the reason why "nobody else looks" is because rect-All lives in a sea of "idiots".. ahahaha... rect-Al himself pointed out and said: :: UA:: ||||| ....Goyim could study for their entire lifetime and :: UA:: ||||| not come close to what is hardwired at birth for :: UA:: ||||| Yahweh's Chosen. So, what do you expect?... "oye weh!.. "Trust Me!"... "Go figure!" Stop buying ammo for a few weeks, use some of the bazillion dollars you made on your roach poison, and leverage it into Nobel prize money. hanson wrote: ... but rect-Al has no $$ from his unsellable cockroach repellent because the EPA "idiots" didn't approve it, & rect-Al's customers were "idiots" too since they didn't buy it... and Einstein didn't sweat neither, like rect-Al said that Albert should, because of rect-Al's Eotvoes experiment, and so rect-Al's only money available comes with his disability check, from when rect-Al burnt his a.s in a organo- metallic fire at his lab bench... or so his story went... ahahaha... And so rect-Al runs to the gun store as frequently as he can because in his rect-Al mind it's the "idiots" from the "diversity" that will be the "somebody should look" that will come looking for rect-Al... Thanks for the laughs guys,... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson >> If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the >> hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon", [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > electroluminescence, positronium annihalation, nuclear > photofragmentation, hydrogen hyperfine transition... It appears from Uncle Al's post, and from "David A. Smith's" comment: "Maxwell cannot do photoelectric effect." that they, like many people, have been brainwashed and diverted by mass media "photon" hype to ignore the fact that Maxwell explained all of the things noted quite well. The idea that chargeless point particles (photons) convey quanta of energy from one system to another has retarded the advancement of science. 1. Systems have various "ACTION INTERACTION" modes, and each mode has a natural frequency that depends upon the properties of the system. 2. Units of ACTION can be added to or taken from any mode of a system without changing the properties of the system, and thus the natural frequency of the system . ( Of the particular mode you are interacting with.) Think in terms of increasing or decreasing the "action level" of a playground swing. You can add or subtract ACTION ( Act as a source or a sink.) to increase or decrease the "action level" of the swing by slightly shifting the phase of how you interact with the swing. 3. The "photoelectric effect" has to do with modes of hydrogen atoms, and not with how units of ACTION are conveyed from sources to sinks in three dimensional space. Just like the playground swing, the "action level" of a hydrogen mode, or for that matter any mode of any system, can be changed by giving a unit (Quantum) push or pull to a particular mode. 4. Maxwell explained this very well when he pointed out that change was conveyed from sources to sinks by a process of "dielectric displacement" and what Einstein looked at as a chargeless point particle "photon" zooming through space, Maxwell looked at as a displaced bi-polar charge that interacted electrically in three dimensions ( Maxwell's del operator.) via the three dimensional permittivity of the environment, and interacted magnetically in three dimensions via the three dimensional permeability of the environment as the electric and magnetic fields were interrelated. Maxwell used his model to predict that radio waves existed and would be propagated from a source to a sink at a velocity dependent upon the linear permittivity and permeability environment between the source and the sink. "Dielectric displacements" are constantly occurring due to the rearrangement of charges in the three dimensional universe, and change begets change. It is interesting to see that Maxwell not only expanded Newton's model to include charges and their interaction in three dimensional spaces, he conceived "Dimensional Analysis", the model that ALL physical models must conform to, and he was the father of Quantum Mechanics, as he pointed out that the newly emerging field of statistics that was being used by businesses and governments would have to be used to model many body systems, and he demonstrated this with his "Maxwell's Statistics" and "Maxwell's Demon". Note that Bose and Fermi Statistics are nominal variations of Maxwell's Statistics. Maxwell's Statistics separate things from what happens to things Bose Statistics lumps things and what happens to things together, and Fermi Statistics recuperates things and what happens to things back to fit man's perception of reality, which has been demonstrated by the fact that every language ends up using nouns and verbs to model reality. The bottom line is that science needs to get back to 1. Nouns and verbs. (Things and what happens to things.) 2. Planck's quanta of ACTION. (There is NO quanta of energy.) 3. Maxwell's Dielectric Displacement. 4. Permeability and permittivity as properties of space. SignatureTom Potter http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com/ http://www.tompotter.us/misc.html http://webspace.webring.com/people/st/tdp1001/ http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm > > If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the > > hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon", [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 ------------ freedom of speech !! long live God vive la Republique !! God save the king!! liberte fraternite egalite !! (:-) Y.Porat -------------------------- M.Parker wrote on Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:09:54 +0000: > If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the > hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon", Is not. > then I've very Advanced > concept with in the Boundaries of Maxwell's concept of Light which is > quite compatible with the concept of the Bending of the light, Black > Holes and Photoelectric effect. Nonsense. > Photon: > > - Photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic radiation, Hum > - Photon has zero Mass, > - Bending of the Light is due to the Gravitational force of the near by > Heavenly bodies, > (Rebuttal): Photon has Zero mass, then how come it is getting attracted > to that force? Simple, because its EMT is non-zero. Using photon EMT gives the observed light bending. (...) Signaturehttp://www.canonicalscience.org/ > If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the > hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon", then I've very Advanced [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > Any sarcasm..? http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm If spacetime is curved, is the curvature convex or concave? Any clue? [...] > If spacetime is curved, is the curvature convex or concave? > Any clue? According to the works of Douglas Adams. spacetime is not merely curved but is instead positively twisted. He was the first to explain the observation of Comte Mede de Sivrac of France that the average gravitational gradient over any closed path was a positive nonzero value. >[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >average gravitational gradient over any closed path was a positive >nonzero value. In an episode of "Mork & Mindy", Raquel Welch played the "bad guy". She was dressed in a form-hugging outfit that I can still remember... Anyway Mork looks at Raquel and says something like this to Mindy: "Einstein was right, space IS curved". ;) -Dave Pollum [...] http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm If spacetime is curved, is the curvature convex or concave? Any clue? On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:26:07 +0100, "Androcles" > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm > >If spacetime is curved, is the curvature convex or concave? >Any clue? It all depends on whether your on the inside of the univers looking out or on the outside looking in :) H. > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:26:07 +0100, "Androcles" >> http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > H. Good answer, but I'm on the Earth looking out. Where do you live? Oh wait... Planet California... How's King Michael Jackson doing these days? L.A. smog will kill him. Ban smoking instead. --------- ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... -------- Eureka: Light is Demystified I've ....[said nothing new] Any sarcasm..? hanson wrote: ... ahahahahaha.... Parki-pooh, if you'd had paid attention in high school, there would be nothing mystifying about Light. But you have come to the right place, s.p., where a gang of idiots, morons and fanatics, from uncle rect-Al, at the bottom, to your namesake John Parker Andorcles at the top, are trying to rewrite physics as we know it. Then there are the hordes of Einstein Dingleberries, led by Tom Roberts & Bilge=Doug=Dono who dunno, because for them physics stopped between 1905 and 1916.... ahahaha... So, repost your tripe and a whole bunch of them will land on your fly paper and try to convince you with buzzwords that you are an idiot.. ... No sarcasm! But thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson, All the lonely people. Where do they all come from? Bob Signature== All google group posts are automatically deleted due to spam == >If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the >hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon", It's not. So start all over. John >>If the photoelectric effect is the only concept which can support the >>hypothesis of the existence of the "Photon", > > It's not. So start all over. > > John Hear here. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.