Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 7/5/2022 10:48 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:49:11 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 7/2/22 9:09 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> [... much nonsense and many false claims] Police radar guns measure
> >>> the difference between c and c+v countless times per day.
> >> NONSENSE!
> >>
> >> Police radar guns measure the frequency difference between their emitted
> >> wave and the reflected wave from the desired target. This is comparing
> >> FREQUENCIES, not speeds.
> >
> > So, you believe the police give tickets for traveling at illegal
> > FREQUENCIES??
>
> You are arguing with a physicist. You really should at least pay
> attention to him before shooting off your mouth and making a fool of
> yourself.
>
> > Can't you understand that frequencies can be converted to speeds???
>
> Of course he does. Radar gun measures frequency difference--> multiply
> by constant--> display result as the speed reading for police officer.
>
> > Can't you understand that the difference in frequencies RESULTS from
> > the PHOTON traveling at c hitting a target at c+v,
>
> Violation of second postulate.
>
> > which means that the PHOTON
> > hits with the c+v ENERGY, not the c ENERGY? And the target sends back a
> > PHOTON with the c+v ENERGY.
>
> So, you believe the police give tickets for traveling at illegal ENERGIES??
> >
> > The Energy of a photon is determined by its ELECTRIC and MAGNETIC FIELD
> > OSCILLATION FREQUENCIES.
>
> Photons don't oscillate. You shouldn't present as factual your
> uneducated opinion that they do.
>
> > If the photon from a radar gun has oscillation
> > frequencies of 35,000,000,000 times per second,
>
> Photons don't oscillate.
>
> > and if that photon hits an
>
> Rest skipped since it assumes photons oscillate so is incorrect.

Photons are wholly beside the point anyway.
Radar guns work well into the classical regime.
Maxwell rules,

Jan

El martes, 5 de julio de 2022 a las 16:14:34 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 1:42:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El martes, 5 de julio de 2022 a las 12:09:10 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 10:09:51 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > > > You have and have commented of a book who deals with radar. The book is "Principles of Modern Radar Vol III Radar Applications", which in chapter 16 discussed how "Police Radar" works. That book completely disagrees with your opinions.
> >
> > > Not really. The book NEVER USES THE WORD "PHOTON."
> > >
> > Precisely and that is due to the fact that photons are not needed to explain how a police radar works. Note that that book is from 2014, so you can't say it is obsolete. Furthermore the following below quote from yours reafirm that concept.
> Okay. I think we're beginning to find an area of agreement.
>
> Radar guns emit photons, but Quantum Mechanics cannot use its
> mathematical model for particles to explain how radars work, so
> they use their mathematical model for waves. It isn't because the
> wave mathematical model is "correct," it is merely because the
> wave mathematical model works BEST.
>

And that wave model (which as you say works the best) is what engineers have been using for the last 100 years, to design and built radio systems.
In most of those radio systems (including radar), you have the following elements:

At the transmitter side:
1) An oscillator, providing the working frequency of the radio system. This element provides a continuos sinusoidal electrical wave (for instance x(t)=Acoswt).
2) A modulator, which allows to incorporate the information signal into the oscillator wave. For instance, in AM, the modulating signal is A(t) and the modulated wave is x_AM(t) = A(t)coswt.
3) An antenna, which couples the modulated signal to the media (air, or space). In the case of police radars, that antenna concentrates the transmission into a small angle (around 15 degrees). See, for example, the Voyager information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_program).

At the reception side:

1) An antenna, which couples the received radio signal to the radio receptor.
2) A receptor, which filters from all the received radio signals the signal we are interested in receiving. For instance, in a TV system you have multiple channels transmitting in your area and the receptor receives all of those signals. The filter selects one of those signals to further processing.
3) Demodulator, which extracts the information from the received modulated signal. For instance, if the received signal is x_AM(t) = A(t)coswt, to get A(t) you multiply x_AM(t) by coswt to obtain r(t) = A(t) cos^2(wt) = A(t)/2 + A(t)cos(2wt)/2. A filter allows to recover r(t)= A(t)/2 which is the signal we need.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 4:21:28 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 7/5/2022 4:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > A photon is a moving electromagnetic charge. When you have lots of photons,
> > you have a greater electromagnetic charge.
> Idjit. Photons have NO charge! You didn't even understand what you
> copied-and-pasted.

Okay. I equated "charge" with "energy." I was in error.

"Electric charge is the physical property of matter that causes it to experience a
force when placed in an electromagnetic field. Electric charge can be positive or
negative (commonly carried by protons and electrons respectively). Like charges
repel each other and unlike charges attract each other."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge

Photons have no charge, just electromagnetic energy.

Ed

On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 5:26:17 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> On July 5, wrote:
> >>> The Energy of a photon is determined by its ELECTRIC and MAGNETIC FIELD
> >>> OSCILLATION FREQUENCIES.
> >
> >> Suppose we construct a cavity, mirrored at both ends, trapping a
> >> single photon. We want to determine if this magnetic field exists,
> >> and measure it. How to do that? What is its physical observable effect?
> >
> > There's no way to do that. To get the photon into the "cavity," you
> > would have to move faster than the speed of light in order to do the
> > capture.
> Well, it's true, you have to run fast, if you want rabbit stew -
> > We KNOW that photons have oscillating electric and magnetic fields
> > because EXPERIMENTS show that light consists of PHOTONS.
> um, if light consists of photons, that doesn't tell me that a photon
> has electric and magnetic fields. Really, Ed, your logic has grown rusty -
>
> You dodged the question. What EXPERIMENTS can one do,
> to address the following:
> i) Does a photon carry its own personal magnetic field?
> ii) If so, how does one measure the strength of its field?
> iii) What are the physical effects of those fields? That is, imagine
> a universe whose photons don't carry magnetism. How would that
> universe differ from ours?

"It is not actually possible to directly measure the frequency of a single
photon of light. This is because a single photon is going to behave more
like a particle than a wave, and the concept of frequency (cycles or
alternations per second) only applies to waves.

"A spectrometer is a device that disperses the path of impinging photons
through an angle that is dependent on their wavelength. In this way it is
possible to closely estimate the wavelength of the photons."

Source: http://www4.hcmut.edu.vn/~huynhqlinh/olympicvl/tailieu/physlink_askexpert/ae442.cfm.htm

That's about all I can give your right now.

Ed

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 8:42:12 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El martes, 5 de julio de 2022 a las 16:14:34 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 1:42:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > El martes, 5 de julio de 2022 a las 12:09:10 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 10:09:51 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > >
> > > > > You have and have commented of a book who deals with radar. The book is "Principles of Modern Radar Vol III Radar Applications", which in chapter 16 discussed how "Police Radar" works. That book completely disagrees with your opinions.
> > >
> > > > Not really. The book NEVER USES THE WORD "PHOTON."
> > > >
> > > Precisely and that is due to the fact that photons are not needed to explain how a police radar works. Note that that book is from 2014, so you can't say it is obsolete. Furthermore the following below quote from yours reafirm that concept.
> > Okay. I think we're beginning to find an area of agreement.
> >
> > Radar guns emit photons, but Quantum Mechanics cannot use its
> > mathematical model for particles to explain how radars work, so
> > they use their mathematical model for waves. It isn't because the
> > wave mathematical model is "correct," it is merely because the
> > wave mathematical model works BEST.
> >
> And that wave model (which as you say works the best) is what engineers have been using for the last 100 years, to design and built radio systems.

Correct. It would be IDEAL to use a mathematical model for photons with
oscillating electric and magnetic fields. But THERE IS NO SUCH MODEL.
So, they use the best model they have that allows them to get the job done.

Ed

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 2:58:45 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 7/5/2022 10:48 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:49:11 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 7/2/22 9:09 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> [... much nonsense and many false claims]
> >>> Police radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v countless times per day.
> >> NONSENSE!
> >>
> >> Police radar guns measure the frequency difference between their emitted
> >> wave and the reflected wave from the desired target. This is comparing
> >> FREQUENCIES, not speeds.
> >
> > So, you believe the police give tickets for traveling at illegal FREQUENCIES??
> You are arguing with a physicist. You really should at least pay
> attention to him before shooting off your mouth and making a fool of
> yourself.

HIS BELIEFS ARE DEBUNKED BY EXPERIMENTS. That means I'm arguing with
a physicist who shoots his mouth off and makes a fool of himself.

> > Can't you understand that frequencies can be converted to speeds???
> Of course he does. Radar gun measures frequency difference--> multiply
> by constant--> display result as the speed reading for police officer.
> > Can't you understand that the difference in frequencies RESULTS from
> > the PHOTON traveling at c hitting a target at c+v,
> Violation of second postulate.

NONSENSE. The Second Postulate is: "light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
of the EMITTING body." It says NOTHING about what a receiving body will
see or measure.

> > which means that the PHOTON
> > hits with the c+v ENERGY, not the c ENERGY? And the target sends back a
> > PHOTON with the c+v ENERGY.
> So, you believe the police give tickets for traveling at illegal ENERGIES??

It can be viewed that way, if you want to be argumentative. A target that is
traveling beyond the speed limit possesses KINETIC energy that can be
considered to be "illegal energies."

> >
> > The Energy of a photon is determined by its ELECTRIC and MAGNETIC FIELD
> > OSCILLATION FREQUENCIES.
> Photons don't oscillate. You shouldn't present as factual your
> uneducated opinion that they do.

Photons don't oscillate, but photons consist of electromagnetic fields which DO
oscillate. So, it all depends upon your definition of "photon."

Here is how Encyclopedia Britannica defines the word "photon":

"photon, also called light quantum, minute energy packet of electromagnetic radiation. The concept originated (1905) in Albert Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect, in which he proposed the existence of discrete energy packets during the transmission of light. Earlier (1900), the German physicist Max Planck had prepared the way for the concept by explaining that heat radiation is emitted and absorbed in distinct units, or quanta. The concept came into general use after the U.S. physicist Arthur H. Compton demonstrated (1923) the corpuscular nature of X-rays. The term photon (from Greek phōs, phōtos, “light”), however, was not used until 1926. The energy of a photon depends on radiation frequency; there are photons of all energies from high-energy gamma- and X-rays, through visible light, to low-energy infrared and radio waves. All photons travel at the speed of light. Considered among the subatomic particles, photons are bosons, having no electric charge or rest mass and one unit of spin; they are field particles that are thought to be the carriers of the electromagnetic field."

The link: https://www.britannica.com/science/photon

"The energy of a photon depends on radiation frequency."
Photons "are field particles that are thought to be the carriers of the electromagnetic field."

(snip repetitious arguments)

Ed

Okay, it seems clear these issues cannot be resolved on this forum.
One thing that is needed is some way to ILLUSTRATE various ideas.

For example, how would you illustrate a telescope focusing WAVES?
With photons it is simple. Individual photons do not carry enough energy
to be visible to the human eye. It takes about 9 photons arriving at the
same time for an eye to see a spot of light.

Photons are far apart when they hit the lens or a mirror of a telescope.
The curvature of the lens or mirror is designed to cause the photons to
be brought closer together. When that is done, and a second lens is used
to focus the photons, the scattered photons are seen to be photons from
individual sources - such as stars.

Isn't a telescope an experimental device that demonstrates that light
consists of individual photons NOT WAVES? And when you produce
an image using those photons, the image has COLORS. Different
light sources can show different colors. That says that the individual
photons contain all that is needed to determine and show colors.

Here's a good article about telescopes and astrophotography: https://milky-way.kiwi/astronomy/astrophotography-capturing-photons-from-across-the-universe/

Ed

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:08:15 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 2:21:28 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > On 7/5/2022 4:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > > A photon is a moving electromagnetic charge. When you have lots of
> > > > photons, you have a greater electromagnetic charge.
> > > Idjit. Photons have NO charge! You didn't even understand what you
> > > copied-and-pasted.
> >
> > Photons are virtual moments in magnetic fields which have energy.
> >
> > These are electronic photons, though.
> As opposed to quarkonic photons?
>
> Jan

No, quarks are part of hadrons, these are leptops.

Or "what obey the statistics, fermions and bosons and so on".

Quarks and gluons, exhibit asymptotic freedom which is so great.

I'm sorry if you're asking, does the wavepacket have energy in electron volts?

In a Dirac positronic sea, these are the electrical fields' "photons".

Here whatever is the force carrier of energy of exchange, happening
to be in the same wave-front, according to statics: these are photons.

El miércoles, 6 de julio de 2022 a las 11:40:43 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> Okay, it seems clear these issues cannot be resolved on this forum.
> One thing that is needed is some way to ILLUSTRATE various ideas.
>
> For example, how would you illustrate a telescope focusing WAVES?
> With photons it is simple. Individual photons do not carry enough energy
> to be visible to the human eye. It takes about 9 photons arriving at the
> same time for an eye to see a spot of light.
>

You are confused. Radar guns do not use LIGHT, they use radio frequencies around 10 GHz (1 x 10^10 Hz), while the visible light frequency (from a telescope) is from 4 × 10^14 to 8 × 10^14 Hz!!!!

> Photons are far apart when they hit the lens or a mirror of a telescope.
> The curvature of the lens or mirror is designed to cause the photons to
> be brought closer together. When that is done, and a second lens is used
> to focus the photons, the scattered photons are seen to be photons from
> individual sources - such as stars.
>
> Isn't a telescope an experimental device that demonstrates that light
> consists of individual photons NOT WAVES? And when you produce
> an image using those photons, the image has COLORS. Different
> light sources can show different colors. That says that the individual
> photons contain all that is needed to determine and show colors.
>

There is another thread where Paul Andersen discusses this subject (how CCD detectors work)

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 9:02:37 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:08:15 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 2:21:28 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > On 7/5/2022 4:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A photon is a moving electromagnetic charge. When you have lots of
> > > > > photons, you have a greater electromagnetic charge.
> > > > Idjit. Photons have NO charge! You didn't even understand what you
> > > > copied-and-pasted.
> > >
> > > Photons are virtual moments in magnetic fields which have energy.
> > >
> > > These are electronic photons, though.
> > As opposed to quarkonic photons?
> >
> > Jan
> No, quarks are part of hadrons, these are leptops.
>
> Or "what obey the statistics, fermions and bosons and so on".
>
> Quarks and gluons, exhibit asymptotic freedom which is so great.
>
> I'm sorry if you're asking, does the wavepacket have energy in electron volts?
>
> In a Dirac positronic sea, these are the electrical fields' "photons".
>
> Here whatever is the force carrier of energy of exchange, happening
> to be in the same wave-front, according to statics: these are photons.

No, I mean leptons.

I see that photons are being called hadrons whether they are hadrons or leptons,
here the hadrons are matter and the leptons are charge, that "photon" being
"massless hadron" or "chargeless lepton", is about same.

("Light-like")

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 11:03:56 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 6 de julio de 2022 a las 11:40:43 UTC-4, escribió:
> > Okay, it seems clear these issues cannot be resolved on this forum.
> > One thing that is needed is some way to ILLUSTRATE various ideas.
> >
> > For example, how would you illustrate a telescope focusing WAVES?
> > With photons it is simple. Individual photons do not carry enough energy
> > to be visible to the human eye. It takes about 9 photons arriving at the
> > same time for an eye to see a spot of light.
> >
> You are confused. Radar guns do not use LIGHT, they use radio frequencies around 10 GHz (1 x 10^10 Hz), while the visible light frequency (from a telescope) is from 4 × 10^14 to 8 × 10^14 Hz!!!!

That appears to be another language problem. The speed of "light" is
299,792,458 meters per second. That includes "visible light" AND "light"
that human eyes cannot see. What words would you use for the photons
we cannot see?

And aren't you just changing the subject to avoid discussing how telescopes
collect PHOTONS? How would a telescope collect waves?

Ed

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 9:18:31 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 11:03:56 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El miércoles, 6 de julio de 2022 a las 11:40:43 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > Okay, it seems clear these issues cannot be resolved on this forum.
> > > One thing that is needed is some way to ILLUSTRATE various ideas.
> > >
> > > For example, how would you illustrate a telescope focusing WAVES?
> > > With photons it is simple. Individual photons do not carry enough energy
> > > to be visible to the human eye. It takes about 9 photons arriving at the
> > > same time for an eye to see a spot of light.
> > >
> > You are confused. Radar guns do not use LIGHT, they use radio frequencies around 10 GHz (1 x 10^10 Hz), while the visible light frequency (from a telescope) is from 4 × 10^14 to 8 × 10^14 Hz!!!!
> That appears to be another language problem. The speed of "light" is
> 299,792,458 meters per second. That includes "visible light" AND "light"
> that human eyes cannot see. What words would you use for the photons
> we cannot see?
>
> And aren't you just changing the subject to avoid discussing how telescopes
> collect PHOTONS? How would a telescope collect waves?
>
> Ed

Some people say 2.998, or even 3.0.

For others it's "1.0 infinity".

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 9:16:24 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 9:02:37 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:08:15 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 2:21:28 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > > On 7/5/2022 4:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A photon is a moving electromagnetic charge. When you have lots of
> > > > > > photons, you have a greater electromagnetic charge.
> > > > > Idjit. Photons have NO charge! You didn't even understand what you
> > > > > copied-and-pasted.
> > > >
> > > > Photons are virtual moments in magnetic fields which have energy.
> > > >
> > > > These are electronic photons, though.
> > > As opposed to quarkonic photons?
> > >
> > > Jan
> > No, quarks are part of hadrons, these are leptops.
> >
> > Or "what obey the statistics, fermions and bosons and so on".
> >
> > Quarks and gluons, exhibit asymptotic freedom which is so great.
> >
> > I'm sorry if you're asking, does the wavepacket have energy in electron volts?
> >
> > In a Dirac positronic sea, these are the electrical fields' "photons".
> >
> > Here whatever is the force carrier of energy of exchange, happening
> > to be in the same wave-front, according to statics: these are photons.
> No, I mean leptons.
>
> I see that photons are being called hadrons whether they are hadrons or leptons,
> here the hadrons are matter and the leptons are charge, that "photon" being
> "massless hadron" or "chargeless lepton", is about same.
>
> ("Light-like")

Wiki's pretty great these days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_forces_and_virtual-particle_exchange

El miércoles, 6 de julio de 2022 a las 12:18:31 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 11:03:56 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El miércoles, 6 de julio de 2022 a las 11:40:43 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > Okay, it seems clear these issues cannot be resolved on this forum.
> > > One thing that is needed is some way to ILLUSTRATE various ideas.
> > >
> > > For example, how would you illustrate a telescope focusing WAVES?
> > > With photons it is simple. Individual photons do not carry enough energy
> > > to be visible to the human eye. It takes about 9 photons arriving at the
> > > same time for an eye to see a spot of light.
> > >
> > You are confused. Radar guns do not use LIGHT, they use radio frequencies around 10 GHz (1 x 10^10 Hz), while the visible light frequency (from a telescope) is from 4 × 10^14 to 8 × 10^14 Hz!!!!

> That appears to be another language problem. The speed of "light" is
> 299,792,458 meters per second. That includes "visible light" AND "light"
> that human eyes cannot see. What words would you use for the photons
> we cannot see?
>

It sure is your language problem. A telescope see light and, for sure, the speed of light has nothing to do with how a telescope operates. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescope for more information (particularly the light comparison table).

> And aren't you just changing the subject to avoid discussing how telescopes
> collect PHOTONS? How would a telescope collect waves?
>

Again, telescopes are used to see electromagnetic radiant energy, by frequencies which according to the Encyclopedia of Radar Technology: "Because the energy transported by large numbers of photons is, on the average, equivalent to the energy transferred in a classical electromagnetic wave, for macroscopic applications, including radar and communications, Maxwell’s field equations are accurate and extremely useful tools".

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 7:26:49 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> It would be IDEAL to use a mathematical model for photons with
> oscillating electric and magnetic fields.

You are totally confused, because the usual analysis based on the classical Maxwell’s equations is in terms of oscillating electric and magnetic fields, not photons, whereas quantum electrodynamics describes things in terms of the quantum probability field, which is mediated by photons (which are nothing like what you, Ed, have in your mind when you use the word “photon”). This is what produces, on a large scale, the phenomena that exhibit the wavelike behavior of the classical fields.

> But THERE IS NO SUCH MODEL.

That's not true. I’ve explained it to you in detail. You habitually just snip the explanation and disregard it, and then go on complaining that no one has ever explained it to you. That is not productive behavior.

>How would you illustrate a telescope focusing WAVES?

This is covered in countless text books, available to anyone. Fundamentally you should look up Huygen’s Principle of wave propagation.

> Isn't a telescope an experimental device that demonstrates that light
> consists of individual photons NOT WAVES?

No, telescopes were analyzed and perfected and understood for centuries based on the wave theory of light, long before quantum electrodynamics was invented. The reason scientists adopted a wave model of light, rather than a classical particle model, was that light clearly behaves in ways that simply cannot be explained in terms of a classical particle model, meaning tiny entities that follow individual paths. The only way it was eventually possible to reconciles the quantum behavior of light was by the concept of superposition and probability amplitudes that are (apparently) far above your comprehension. (Remember the two-slit experiment? And look up quantum eraser experiments, and EPR experiments, and the Hanbury-Brown-Twiss effect.) The concept of a photon in quantum electrodynamics is nothing like what you have in your mind when you use the word “photon”.

> And when you produce an image using those photons, the image
> has COLORS. Different light sources can show different colors.

Goodness no, the experimenters apply coloring to their images based on different energy levels. They can do that even for energy levels (x-rays) outside the range of visible light, just to make the image more clear. An individual photon striking a plate in a discrete click doesn’t exhibit any frequency, it merely has a certain amount of energy, that you can analytically map to the frequency of the source. Also, waves have frequencies, so your frantic effots to claim that light does not exhibit wavelike behavior are pointless.

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:08:15 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 2:21:28 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > On 7/5/2022 4:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A photon is a moving electromagnetic charge. When you have lots of
> > > > > photons, you have a greater electromagnetic charge.
> > > > Idjit. Photons have NO charge! You didn't even understand what you
> > > > copied-and-pasted.
> > >
> > > Photons are virtual moments in magnetic fields which have energy.
> > >
> > > These are electronic photons, though.
> > As opposed to quarkonic photons?
> >
> > Jan
>
> No, quarks are part of hadrons, these are leptops.

Some of your detectors need retuning,

Jan

On 7/6/2022 10:49 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 2:58:45 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/5/2022 10:48 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:49:11 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/22 9:09 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> [... much nonsense and many false claims]
>>>>> Police radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v countless times per day.
>>>> NONSENSE!
>>>>
>>>> Police radar guns measure the frequency difference between their emitted
>>>> wave and the reflected wave from the desired target. This is comparing
>>>> FREQUENCIES, not speeds.
>>>
>>> So, you believe the police give tickets for traveling at illegal FREQUENCIES??
>> You are arguing with a physicist. You really should at least pay
>> attention to him before shooting off your mouth and making a fool of
>> yourself.
>
> HIS BELIEFS ARE DEBUNKED BY EXPERIMENTS.
No, they are not. I'm sure during his education he DID those experiments
and would know if they were debunked or not.
Your job was some sort of beancounter, correct? Why do you think a
beancounter knows more about physics than a physicist?
If your OPINION is that Experiment X debunks some belief of his, why not
try to discuss Experiment X and its results with him?
> That means I'm arguing with
> a physicist who shoots his mouth off and makes a fool of himself.
No, the physicist is arguing with someone who shoots his mouth off and
makes a fool of himself. :-)
>
>>> Can't you understand that frequencies can be converted to speeds???
>> Of course he does. Radar gun measures frequency difference--> multiply
>> by constant--> display result as the speed reading for police officer.
>>> Can't you understand that the difference in frequencies RESULTS from
>>> the PHOTON traveling at c hitting a target at c+v,
>> Violation of second postulate.
>
> NONSENSE. The Second Postulate is: "light is always propagated in empty
> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
> of the EMITTING body."
That's part of the abstract, not the second postulate, but no matter.
It's quite obvious it means the receiver/observer (in this case the
front of the car) will receive the photon at c, regardless of the motion
or lack thereof of the photon's source (radar gun).
> It says NOTHING about what a receiving body will
> see or measure.
It implies an observer observing the light at c, but that's just what an
abstract states.
The second postulate makes it clear, the light is always observed moving
at c in the single frame introduced at that point, the observer's frame,
which he calls the stationary frame.
>
>>> which means that the PHOTON
>>> hits with the c+v ENERGY, not the c ENERGY? And the target sends back a
>>> PHOTON with the c+v ENERGY.
Well yeah, the Doppler effect states the photon returns at a higher
frequency, and since E=hf, it also has a higher energy. Or E=hc/lambda
if you prefer. (lambda=wavelength)
But the returned photon doesn't have energy E=E0*(c+v)/c, rather it has
energy E=E0*sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)). (an approaching car has negative speed)
>> So, you believe the police give tickets for traveling at illegal ENERGIES??
>
> It can be viewed that way, if you want to be argumentative. A target that is
> traveling beyond the speed limit possesses KINETIC energy that can be
> considered to be "illegal energies."
Zoom. Right over your head. You were trying to poke fun at "police give
tickets for traveling at illegal FREQUENCIES" but you did the same thing
using energy instead of frequency. I guess you'll be sitting around for
a while mumbling: "I don't get it!"
>
>>>
>>> The Energy of a photon is determined by its ELECTRIC and MAGNETIC FIELD
>>> OSCILLATION FREQUENCIES.
>> Photons don't oscillate. You shouldn't present as factual your
>> uneducated opinion that they do.
>
> Photons don't oscillate, but photons consist of electromagnetic fields which DO
> oscillate.
Nope. Oscillating electromagnetic fields are made of photons, not the
other way around. "Bricks aren't made of houses" as someone just said here.
> So, it all depends upon your definition of "photon."
I'll go with science's definition, not your "Laketon".
>
> Here is how Encyclopedia Britannica defines the word "photon":
>
> "photon, also called light quantum, minute energy packet of electromagnetic radiation. The concept originated (1905) in Albert Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect, in which he proposed the existence of discrete energy packets during the transmission of light. Earlier (1900), the German physicist Max Planck had prepared the way for the concept by explaining that heat radiation is emitted and absorbed in distinct units, or quanta. The concept came into general use after the U.S. physicist Arthur H. Compton demonstrated (1923) the corpuscular nature of X-rays. The term photon (from Greek phōs, phōtos, “light”), however, was not used until 1926. The energy of a photon depends on radiation frequency; there are photons of all energies from high-energy gamma- and X-rays, through visible light, to low-energy infrared and radio waves. All photons travel at the speed of light. Considered among the subatomic particles, photons are bosons, having no electric charge or rest mass and one unit of spin; they are field particles that are thought to be the carriers of the electromagnetic field."
>
> The link: https://www.britannica.com/science/photon
>
> "The energy of a photon depends on radiation frequency."
Yes. E=hf.
> Photons "are field particles that are thought to be the carriers of the electromagnetic field."
As in a bunch of photons create electromagnetic fields. Not like your
oscillating Laketons.

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 2:33:15 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/6/2022 10:49 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 2:58:45 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >> On 7/5/2022 10:48 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:49:11 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>> On 7/2/22 9:09 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>> [... much nonsense and many false claims]
> >>>>> Police radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v countless times per day.
> >>>> NONSENSE!
> >>>>
> >>>> Police radar guns measure the frequency difference between their emitted
> >>>> wave and the reflected wave from the desired target. This is comparing
> >>>> FREQUENCIES, not speeds.
> >>>
> >>> So, you believe the police give tickets for traveling at illegal FREQUENCIES??
> >> You are arguing with a physicist. You really should at least pay
> >> attention to him before shooting off your mouth and making a fool of
> >> yourself.
> >
> > HIS BELIEFS ARE DEBUNKED BY EXPERIMENTS.
> No, they are not. I'm sure during his education he DID those experiments
> and would know if they were debunked or not.
>
> Your job was some sort of beancounter, correct? Why do you think a
> beancounter knows more about physics than a physicist?
>
> If your OPINION is that Experiment X debunks some belief of his, why not
> try to discuss Experiment X and its results with him?
> > That means I'm arguing with
> > a physicist who shoots his mouth off and makes a fool of himself.
> No, the physicist is arguing with someone who shoots his mouth off and
> makes a fool of himself. :-)
> >
> >>> Can't you understand that frequencies can be converted to speeds???
> >> Of course he does. Radar gun measures frequency difference--> multiply
> >> by constant--> display result as the speed reading for police officer.
> >>> Can't you understand that the difference in frequencies RESULTS from
> >>> the PHOTON traveling at c hitting a target at c+v,
> >> Violation of second postulate.
> >
> > NONSENSE. The Second Postulate is: "light is always propagated in empty
> > space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
> > of the EMITTING body."
> That's part of the abstract, not the second postulate, but no matter.
> It's quite obvious it means the receiver/observer (in this case the
> front of the car) will receive the photon at c, regardless of the motion
> or lack thereof of the photon's source (radar gun).
> > It says NOTHING about what a receiving body will
> > see or measure.
> It implies an observer observing the light at c, but that's just what an
> abstract states.
>
> The second postulate makes it clear, the light is always observed moving
> at c in the single frame introduced at that point, the observer's frame,
> which he calls the stationary frame.
> >
> >>> which means that the PHOTON
> >>> hits with the c+v ENERGY, not the c ENERGY? And the target sends back a
> >>> PHOTON with the c+v ENERGY.
> Well yeah, the Doppler effect states the photon returns at a higher
> frequency, and since E=hf, it also has a higher energy. Or E=hc/lambda
> if you prefer. (lambda=wavelength)
>
> But the returned photon doesn't have energy E=E0*(c+v)/c, rather it has
> energy E=E0*sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)). (an approaching car has negative speed)
> >> So, you believe the police give tickets for traveling at illegal ENERGIES??
> >
> > It can be viewed that way, if you want to be argumentative. A target that is
> > traveling beyond the speed limit possesses KINETIC energy that can be
> > considered to be "illegal energies."
> Zoom. Right over your head. You were trying to poke fun at "police give
> tickets for traveling at illegal FREQUENCIES" but you did the same thing
> using energy instead of frequency. I guess you'll be sitting around for
> a while mumbling: "I don't get it!"
> >
> >>>
> >>> The Energy of a photon is determined by its ELECTRIC and MAGNETIC FIELD
> >>> OSCILLATION FREQUENCIES.
> >> Photons don't oscillate. You shouldn't present as factual your
> >> uneducated opinion that they do.
> >
> > Photons don't oscillate, but photons consist of electromagnetic fields which DO
> > oscillate.
> Nope. Oscillating electromagnetic fields are made of photons, not the
> other way around. "Bricks aren't made of houses" as someone just said here.
> > So, it all depends upon your definition of "photon."
> I'll go with science's definition, not your "Laketon".
> >
> > Here is how Encyclopedia Britannica defines the word "photon":
> >
> > "photon, also called light quantum, minute energy packet of electromagnetic radiation. The concept originated (1905) in Albert Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect, in which he proposed the existence of discrete energy packets during the transmission of light. Earlier (1900), the German physicist Max Planck had prepared the way for the concept by explaining that heat radiation is emitted and absorbed in distinct units, or quanta. The concept came into general use after the U.S. physicist Arthur H. Compton demonstrated (1923) the corpuscular nature of X-rays. The term photon (from Greek phōs, phōtos, “light”), however, was not used until 1926. The energy of a photon depends on radiation frequency; there are photons of all energies from high-energy gamma- and X-rays, through visible light, to low-energy infrared and radio waves. All photons travel at the speed of light. Considered among the subatomic particles, photons are bosons, having no electric charge or rest mass and one unit of spin; they are field particles that are thought to be the carriers of the electromagnetic field."
> >
> > The link: https://www.britannica.com/science/photon
> >
> > "The energy of a photon depends on radiation frequency."
> Yes. E=hf.
> > Photons "are field particles that are thought to be the carriers of the electromagnetic field."
> As in a bunch of photons create electromagnetic fields. Not like your
> oscillating Laketons.

"Charginos"

On Wednesday, 6 July 2022 at 23:33:15 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

>
> The second postulate makes it clear, the light is always observed moving
> at c in the single frame introduced at that point, the observer's frame,
> which he calls the stationary frame.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your insane religion GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:47:38 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:08:15 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 2:21:28 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > > On 7/5/2022 4:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A photon is a moving electromagnetic charge. When you have lots of
> > > > > > photons, you have a greater electromagnetic charge.
> > > > > Idjit. Photons have NO charge! You didn't even understand what you
> > > > > copied-and-pasted.
> > > >
> > > > Photons are virtual moments in magnetic fields which have energy.
> > > >
> > > > These are electronic photons, though.
> > > As opposed to quarkonic photons?
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > No, quarks are part of hadrons, these are leptops.
> Some of your detectors need retuning,
>
> Jan

When I bother to think about leptons,
after hadrons, is that I am not abusing the language.

If I could understand, say, a laboratory,
and, electricity arrives in the form of a contact,
then this "solid insulating ilght" and
"vacuum insulating current" is power semiconductors.

Then under the current detector, if you mention it,
it is re-tuning the detector or antenna, no I really
made the point of having the photon as both a hadron,
and a lepton, and ....

Then I expect in these terms that the photonic, cicrcuits,
and electronic, circuits, in what results "build a board
and apply contact", is that matter-of-fact I do expect that
in those terms.

"Photonic leptons", or "'lectrons", now why I have
these are only "photo-leptons".

So, to be sure, if I just automatiically ascribe all photon's
properties in leptons, it should be about same.

But, I won't, because without explaining that, again,
now that I just discovered it according to grammar,
then I would have to constantly retract why I said
"photons should be called leptons instead of hadrons".

Or that the radiant or infra-red is baryonic,
but radio is leptonic or electro-weak,
it's at least electro.

"Or baryons."

Here photon is "anything at about the wavefront with c,
for example a significant percentage of c in a constant image,
massless, chargeless, particles".

That's though plasma, usual background ether, background plasma ether.

Now I am staring at it all wrong.

No, I meant leptons.

Not sure what I thought I typed, ..., sure it was 'leptons".

Alright then "photons are defined hadrons".

The systolic at c or pump, here notice this is optical, thermo, radio front,
that is a point in area terms and a contact. Hadronic and leptonic.

"Photons"

So, yeah, no, I meant leptons.

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 10:50:47 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:47:38 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:08:15 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 2:21:28 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > On 7/5/2022 4:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > A photon is a moving electromagnetic charge. When you have lots of
> > > > > > > photons, you have a greater electromagnetic charge.
> > > > > > Idjit. Photons have NO charge! You didn't even understand what you
> > > > > > copied-and-pasted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Photons are virtual moments in magnetic fields which have energy.
> > > > >
> > > > > These are electronic photons, though.
> > > > As opposed to quarkonic photons?
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > No, quarks are part of hadrons, these are leptops.
> > Some of your detectors need retuning,
> >
> > Jan
> When I bother to think about leptons,
> after hadrons, is that I am not abusing the language.
>
> If I could understand, say, a laboratory,
> and, electricity arrives in the form of a contact,
> then this "solid insulating ilght" and
> "vacuum insulating current" is power semiconductors.
>
> Then under the current detector, if you mention it,
> it is re-tuning the detector or antenna, no I really
> made the point of having the photon as both a hadron,
> and a lepton, and ....
>
> Then I expect in these terms that the photonic, cicrcuits,
> and electronic, circuits, in what results "build a board
> and apply contact", is that matter-of-fact I do expect that
> in those terms.
>
> "Photonic leptons", or "'lectrons", now why I have
> these are only "photo-leptons".
>
> So, to be sure, if I just automatiically ascribe all photon's
> properties in leptons, it should be about same.
>
> But, I won't, because without explaining that, again,
> now that I just discovered it according to grammar,
> then I would have to constantly retract why I said
> "photons should be called leptons instead of hadrons".
>
> Or that the radiant or infra-red is baryonic,
> but radio is leptonic or electro-weak,
> it's at least electro.
>
> "Or baryons."
>
> Here photon is "anything at about the wavefront with c,
> for example a significant percentage of c in a constant image,
> massless, chargeless, particles".
>
> That's though plasma, usual background ether, background plasma ether.
>
> Now I am staring at it all wrong.
>
> No, I meant leptons.
>
> Not sure what I thought I typed, ..., sure it was 'leptons".
>
> Alright then "photons are defined hadrons".
>
> The systolic at c or pump, here notice this is optical, thermo, radio front,
> that is a point in area terms and a contact. Hadronic and leptonic.
>
> "Photons"
>
> So, yeah, no, I meant leptons.

"The known force carrier bosons all have spin = 1 and are therefore vector bosons.
The hypothetical graviton has spin = 2 and is a tensor boson;
it is unknown whether it is a gauge boson as well."
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#Overview

Oh, these are spinless, too, massless, chargeless, spinless, photons.

"Photo-leptons: spinless photons"

"The other three leptons are neutrinos, ...".

Now I am getting into it.

"Quark hadronics"

What the theory leaves out according to units is particles, in a
usual enough sense, that the values, in the particles, are
dynamical, in the particles.

Or "according to the dimensional analysis these are still both
photons, in area or current terms, and leptons, neutrinos, ...".

When dynamical, ....

Reading the Wiki, that's just that for the current terms, sure
"the photon's erased inside the diagram, so it can be called
a photon according to the diagram that dynamics gives it,
it's current in electron-volts", is for because "photons are
massless, these leptons couldn't be massy or electrons, at all".

I.e. they are definitely what you'd expect, when "photons"
are what are under the dynamics, the point here is that
"the photon is a very inclusive particle". As are neutrinos,
in a Dirac positronic sea.

"These leptons couldn't be massy or charged, at all".

Yeah, as "particle" that constitutes, energy, the photon,
that travels only and exactly at the bradyonic/tachyonic
speed, results that traveling image besides hologram
includes a radiant component.

I suppose then that's rays.

Rays, here is this "radiant component" included, which are
waves, result particles in current in effect.

Here this is basically that "photons like electrons are used to
define current in effect, which in space terms is space current",
also, "photons are frequency/wavelength numbers of a result
that according to electron gap, is the ratio of a quantum energy
level, that sums to a finite number".

The photons in the various are as various, when it's as "according
to the theory these particles could only be photons not the
plasma or rays or power, that was called particles again that
massless and c could only be photons".

Here I'm making the point whether area and current terms,
and particle terms, making sure they are defined, because
elementary theory really only has very few particles.

"Photons"

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 11:31:53 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 10:50:47 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:47:38 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:08:15 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 2:21:28 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > > On 7/5/2022 4:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A photon is a moving electromagnetic charge. When you have lots of
> > > > > > > > photons, you have a greater electromagnetic charge.
> > > > > > > Idjit. Photons have NO charge! You didn't even understand what you
> > > > > > > copied-and-pasted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Photons are virtual moments in magnetic fields which have energy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These are electronic photons, though.
> > > > > As opposed to quarkonic photons?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > No, quarks are part of hadrons, these are leptops.
> > > Some of your detectors need retuning,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > When I bother to think about leptons,
> > after hadrons, is that I am not abusing the language.
> >
> > If I could understand, say, a laboratory,
> > and, electricity arrives in the form of a contact,
> > then this "solid insulating ilght" and
> > "vacuum insulating current" is power semiconductors.
> >
> > Then under the current detector, if you mention it,
> > it is re-tuning the detector or antenna, no I really
> > made the point of having the photon as both a hadron,
> > and a lepton, and ....
> >
> > Then I expect in these terms that the photonic, cicrcuits,
> > and electronic, circuits, in what results "build a board
> > and apply contact", is that matter-of-fact I do expect that
> > in those terms.
> >
> > "Photonic leptons", or "'lectrons", now why I have
> > these are only "photo-leptons".
> >
> > So, to be sure, if I just automatiically ascribe all photon's
> > properties in leptons, it should be about same.
> >
> > But, I won't, because without explaining that, again,
> > now that I just discovered it according to grammar,
> > then I would have to constantly retract why I said
> > "photons should be called leptons instead of hadrons".
> >
> > Or that the radiant or infra-red is baryonic,
> > but radio is leptonic or electro-weak,
> > it's at least electro.
> >
> > "Or baryons."
> >
> > Here photon is "anything at about the wavefront with c,
> > for example a significant percentage of c in a constant image,
> > massless, chargeless, particles".
> >
> > That's though plasma, usual background ether, background plasma ether.
> >
> > Now I am staring at it all wrong.
> >
> > No, I meant leptons.
> >
> > Not sure what I thought I typed, ..., sure it was 'leptons".
> >
> > Alright then "photons are defined hadrons".
> >
> > The systolic at c or pump, here notice this is optical, thermo, radio front,
> > that is a point in area terms and a contact. Hadronic and leptonic.
> >
> > "Photons"
> >
> > So, yeah, no, I meant leptons.
> "The known force carrier bosons all have spin = 1 and are therefore vector bosons.
> The hypothetical graviton has spin = 2 and is a tensor boson;
> it is unknown whether it is a gauge boson as well."
> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#Overview
>
>
> Oh, these are spinless, too, massless, chargeless, spinless, photons.
>
> "Photo-leptons: spinless photons"
>
> "The other three leptons are neutrinos, ...".
>
> Now I am getting into it.
>
>
> "Quark hadronics"
>
> What the theory leaves out according to units is particles, in a
> usual enough sense, that the values, in the particles, are
> dynamical, in the particles.
>
> Or "according to the dimensional analysis these are still both
> photons, in area or current terms, and leptons, neutrinos, ...".
>
> When dynamical, ....
>
> Reading the Wiki, that's just that for the current terms, sure
> "the photon's erased inside the diagram, so it can be called
> a photon according to the diagram that dynamics gives it,
> it's current in electron-volts", is for because "photons are
> massless, these leptons couldn't be massy or electrons, at all".
>
> I.e. they are definitely what you'd expect, when "photons"
> are what are under the dynamics, the point here is that
> "the photon is a very inclusive particle". As are neutrinos,
> in a Dirac positronic sea.
>
> "These leptons couldn't be massy or charged, at all".
>
>
> Yeah, as "particle" that constitutes, energy, the photon,
> that travels only and exactly at the bradyonic/tachyonic
> speed, results that traveling image besides hologram
> includes a radiant component.
>
> I suppose then that's rays.
>
> Rays, here is this "radiant component" included, which are
> waves, result particles in current in effect.
>
> Here this is basically that "photons like electrons are used to
> define current in effect, which in space terms is space current",
> also, "photons are frequency/wavelength numbers of a result
> that according to electron gap, is the ratio of a quantum energy
> level, that sums to a finite number".
>
> The photons in the various are as various, when it's as "according
> to the theory these particles could only be photons not the
> plasma or rays or power, that was called particles again that
> massless and c could only be photons".
>
> Here I'm making the point whether area and current terms,
> and particle terms, making sure they are defined, because
> elementary theory really only has very few particles.
>
> "Photons"

Ha, "photo-hadrons", "photo-leptons", "spinless, empty photons", just like
the SI redefinition of units went I called all these what would be anti or
partner or virtual particles, "photons".

So, that's in STR, in a way.

Then, the photon is the massless, chargless, spinless, ..., particle
that moves at the speed of light, in electron-volts, and either in
current, or, instead, under quantum mechanics, either electromagnetic
and radio, or radiant and blazing, or optical and laser.

"Photons"

Then about quantum numbers in their field occupation, here is that some
of what are "could only be photons, must at least be virtual photons", have
diagrams besides arithmetic in the quantum numbers, why there are the
"dash less particles" that according to diagrams, are leptons, hadrons, and
so on, in "few elementary particles".

Ha, "photons".

The few elementary particles though more dimensionless proportionality,
results still in all the terms in their dimensions, why quantization or "seesaw"
under supersymmetry result in those dimensional terms, what are beyond
experiment, in terms what according to the theory are "photons".

Which like white holes and for gravitons in the virtual always exist everywhere,
in a Dirac positronic sea.

At least then all of GR, SR, QM, also now brane theory, can be put together,
in what results few units, and linearly of course exactly one.

Well, alright then, now I added three particles photohadrons, photoleptons,
lessphotons, they are simply virtual "particles" not much even needing a
theory, just following out definition in "quantum mechanics" and "the standard
model".

In STR, "STR's photons", next to "STR's electrons".

That in these other theories are "not STR's photons".

On Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 8:33:29 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 11:31:53 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 10:50:47 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:47:38 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:08:15 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 2:21:28 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 7/5/2022 4:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A photon is a moving electromagnetic charge. When you have lots of
> > > > > > > > > photons, you have a greater electromagnetic charge.
> > > > > > > > Idjit. Photons have NO charge! You didn't even understand what you
> > > > > > > > copied-and-pasted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Photons are virtual moments in magnetic fields which have energy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These are electronic photons, though.
> > > > > > As opposed to quarkonic photons?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jan
> > > > >
> > > > > No, quarks are part of hadrons, these are leptops.
> > > > Some of your detectors need retuning,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > When I bother to think about leptons,
> > > after hadrons, is that I am not abusing the language.
> > >
> > > If I could understand, say, a laboratory,
> > > and, electricity arrives in the form of a contact,
> > > then this "solid insulating ilght" and
> > > "vacuum insulating current" is power semiconductors.
> > >
> > > Then under the current detector, if you mention it,
> > > it is re-tuning the detector or antenna, no I really
> > > made the point of having the photon as both a hadron,
> > > and a lepton, and ....
> > >
> > > Then I expect in these terms that the photonic, cicrcuits,
> > > and electronic, circuits, in what results "build a board
> > > and apply contact", is that matter-of-fact I do expect that
> > > in those terms.
> > >
> > > "Photonic leptons", or "'lectrons", now why I have
> > > these are only "photo-leptons".
> > >
> > > So, to be sure, if I just automatiically ascribe all photon's
> > > properties in leptons, it should be about same.
> > >
> > > But, I won't, because without explaining that, again,
> > > now that I just discovered it according to grammar,
> > > then I would have to constantly retract why I said
> > > "photons should be called leptons instead of hadrons".
> > >
> > > Or that the radiant or infra-red is baryonic,
> > > but radio is leptonic or electro-weak,
> > > it's at least electro.
> > >
> > > "Or baryons."
> > >
> > > Here photon is "anything at about the wavefront with c,
> > > for example a significant percentage of c in a constant image,
> > > massless, chargeless, particles".
> > >
> > > That's though plasma, usual background ether, background plasma ether.
> > >
> > > Now I am staring at it all wrong.
> > >
> > > No, I meant leptons.
> > >
> > > Not sure what I thought I typed, ..., sure it was 'leptons".
> > >
> > > Alright then "photons are defined hadrons".
> > >
> > > The systolic at c or pump, here notice this is optical, thermo, radio front,
> > > that is a point in area terms and a contact. Hadronic and leptonic.
> > >
> > > "Photons"
> > >
> > > So, yeah, no, I meant leptons.
> > "The known force carrier bosons all have spin = 1 and are therefore vector bosons.
> > The hypothetical graviton has spin = 2 and is a tensor boson;
> > it is unknown whether it is a gauge boson as well."
> > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#Overview
> >
> >
> > Oh, these are spinless, too, massless, chargeless, spinless, photons.
> >
> > "Photo-leptons: spinless photons"
> >
> > "The other three leptons are neutrinos, ...".
> >
> > Now I am getting into it.
> >
> >
> > "Quark hadronics"
> >
> > What the theory leaves out according to units is particles, in a
> > usual enough sense, that the values, in the particles, are
> > dynamical, in the particles.
> >
> > Or "according to the dimensional analysis these are still both
> > photons, in area or current terms, and leptons, neutrinos, ...".
> >
> > When dynamical, ....
> >
> > Reading the Wiki, that's just that for the current terms, sure
> > "the photon's erased inside the diagram, so it can be called
> > a photon according to the diagram that dynamics gives it,
> > it's current in electron-volts", is for because "photons are
> > massless, these leptons couldn't be massy or electrons, at all".
> >
> > I.e. they are definitely what you'd expect, when "photons"
> > are what are under the dynamics, the point here is that
> > "the photon is a very inclusive particle". As are neutrinos,
> > in a Dirac positronic sea.
> >
> > "These leptons couldn't be massy or charged, at all".
> >
> >
> > Yeah, as "particle" that constitutes, energy, the photon,
> > that travels only and exactly at the bradyonic/tachyonic
> > speed, results that traveling image besides hologram
> > includes a radiant component.
> >
> > I suppose then that's rays.
> >
> > Rays, here is this "radiant component" included, which are
> > waves, result particles in current in effect.
> >
> > Here this is basically that "photons like electrons are used to
> > define current in effect, which in space terms is space current",
> > also, "photons are frequency/wavelength numbers of a result
> > that according to electron gap, is the ratio of a quantum energy
> > level, that sums to a finite number".
> >
> > The photons in the various are as various, when it's as "according
> > to the theory these particles could only be photons not the
> > plasma or rays or power, that was called particles again that
> > massless and c could only be photons".
> >
> > Here I'm making the point whether area and current terms,
> > and particle terms, making sure they are defined, because
> > elementary theory really only has very few particles.
> >
> > "Photons"
> Ha, "photo-hadrons", "photo-leptons", "spinless, empty photons", just like
> the SI redefinition of units went I called all these what would be anti or
> partner or virtual particles, "photons".
>
> So, that's in STR, in a way.
>
> Then, the photon is the massless, chargless, spinless, ..., particle
> that moves at the speed of light, in electron-volts, and either in
> current, or, instead, under quantum mechanics, either electromagnetic
> and radio, or radiant and blazing, or optical and laser.
>
> "Photons"
>
> Then about quantum numbers in their field occupation, here is that some
> of what are "could only be photons, must at least be virtual photons", have
> diagrams besides arithmetic in the quantum numbers, why there are the
> "dash less particles" that according to diagrams, are leptons, hadrons, and
> so on, in "few elementary particles".
>
> Ha, "photons".
>
> The few elementary particles though more dimensionless proportionality,
> results still in all the terms in their dimensions, why quantization or "seesaw"
> under supersymmetry result in those dimensional terms, what are beyond
> experiment, in terms what according to the theory are "photons".
>
> Which like white holes and for gravitons in the virtual always exist everywhere,
> in a Dirac positronic sea.
> At least then all of GR, SR, QM, also now brane theory, can be put together,
> in what results few units, and linearly of course exactly one.
>
> Well, alright then, now I added three particles photohadrons, photoleptons,
> lessphotons, they are simply virtual "particles" not much even needing a
> theory, just following out definition in "quantum mechanics" and "the standard
> model".
>
> In STR, "STR's photons", next to "STR's electrons".
>
> That in these other theories are "not STR's photons".

On Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 9:21:50 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 8:33:29 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 11:31:53 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 10:50:47 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:47:38 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:08:15 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 2:21:28 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2022 4:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A photon is a moving electromagnetic charge. When you have lots of
> > > > > > > > > > photons, you have a greater electromagnetic charge.
> > > > > > > > > Idjit. Photons have NO charge! You didn't even understand what you
> > > > > > > > > copied-and-pasted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Photons are virtual moments in magnetic fields which have energy.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These are electronic photons, though.
> > > > > > > As opposed to quarkonic photons?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, quarks are part of hadrons, these are leptops.
> > > > > Some of your detectors need retuning,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > > When I bother to think about leptons,
> > > > after hadrons, is that I am not abusing the language.
> > > >
> > > > If I could understand, say, a laboratory,
> > > > and, electricity arrives in the form of a contact,
> > > > then this "solid insulating ilght" and
> > > > "vacuum insulating current" is power semiconductors.
> > > >
> > > > Then under the current detector, if you mention it,
> > > > it is re-tuning the detector or antenna, no I really
> > > > made the point of having the photon as both a hadron,
> > > > and a lepton, and ....
> > > >
> > > > Then I expect in these terms that the photonic, cicrcuits,
> > > > and electronic, circuits, in what results "build a board
> > > > and apply contact", is that matter-of-fact I do expect that
> > > > in those terms.
> > > >
> > > > "Photonic leptons", or "'lectrons", now why I have
> > > > these are only "photo-leptons".
> > > >
> > > > So, to be sure, if I just automatiically ascribe all photon's
> > > > properties in leptons, it should be about same.
> > > >
> > > > But, I won't, because without explaining that, again,
> > > > now that I just discovered it according to grammar,
> > > > then I would have to constantly retract why I said
> > > > "photons should be called leptons instead of hadrons".
> > > >
> > > > Or that the radiant or infra-red is baryonic,
> > > > but radio is leptonic or electro-weak,
> > > > it's at least electro.
> > > >
> > > > "Or baryons."
> > > >
> > > > Here photon is "anything at about the wavefront with c,
> > > > for example a significant percentage of c in a constant image,
> > > > massless, chargeless, particles".
> > > >
> > > > That's though plasma, usual background ether, background plasma ether.
> > > >
> > > > Now I am staring at it all wrong.
> > > >
> > > > No, I meant leptons.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure what I thought I typed, ..., sure it was 'leptons".
> > > >
> > > > Alright then "photons are defined hadrons".
> > > >
> > > > The systolic at c or pump, here notice this is optical, thermo, radio front,
> > > > that is a point in area terms and a contact. Hadronic and leptonic.
> > > >
> > > > "Photons"
> > > >
> > > > So, yeah, no, I meant leptons.
> > > "The known force carrier bosons all have spin = 1 and are therefore vector bosons.
> > > The hypothetical graviton has spin = 2 and is a tensor boson;
> > > it is unknown whether it is a gauge boson as well."
> > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#Overview
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh, these are spinless, too, massless, chargeless, spinless, photons.
> > >
> > > "Photo-leptons: spinless photons"
> > >
> > > "The other three leptons are neutrinos, ...".
> > >
> > > Now I am getting into it.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Quark hadronics"
> > >
> > > What the theory leaves out according to units is particles, in a
> > > usual enough sense, that the values, in the particles, are
> > > dynamical, in the particles.
> > >
> > > Or "according to the dimensional analysis these are still both
> > > photons, in area or current terms, and leptons, neutrinos, ...".
> > >
> > > When dynamical, ....
> > >
> > > Reading the Wiki, that's just that for the current terms, sure
> > > "the photon's erased inside the diagram, so it can be called
> > > a photon according to the diagram that dynamics gives it,
> > > it's current in electron-volts", is for because "photons are
> > > massless, these leptons couldn't be massy or electrons, at all".
> > >
> > > I.e. they are definitely what you'd expect, when "photons"
> > > are what are under the dynamics, the point here is that
> > > "the photon is a very inclusive particle". As are neutrinos,
> > > in a Dirac positronic sea.
> > >
> > > "These leptons couldn't be massy or charged, at all".
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, as "particle" that constitutes, energy, the photon,
> > > that travels only and exactly at the bradyonic/tachyonic
> > > speed, results that traveling image besides hologram
> > > includes a radiant component.
> > >
> > > I suppose then that's rays.
> > >
> > > Rays, here is this "radiant component" included, which are
> > > waves, result particles in current in effect.
> > >
> > > Here this is basically that "photons like electrons are used to
> > > define current in effect, which in space terms is space current",
> > > also, "photons are frequency/wavelength numbers of a result
> > > that according to electron gap, is the ratio of a quantum energy
> > > level, that sums to a finite number".
> > >
> > > The photons in the various are as various, when it's as "according
> > > to the theory these particles could only be photons not the
> > > plasma or rays or power, that was called particles again that
> > > massless and c could only be photons".
> > >
> > > Here I'm making the point whether area and current terms,
> > > and particle terms, making sure they are defined, because
> > > elementary theory really only has very few particles.
> > >
> > > "Photons"
> > Ha, "photo-hadrons", "photo-leptons", "spinless, empty photons", just like
> > the SI redefinition of units went I called all these what would be anti or
> > partner or virtual particles, "photons".
> >
> > So, that's in STR, in a way.
> >
> > Then, the photon is the massless, chargless, spinless, ..., particle
> > that moves at the speed of light, in electron-volts, and either in
> > current, or, instead, under quantum mechanics, either electromagnetic
> > and radio, or radiant and blazing, or optical and laser.
> >
> > "Photons"
> >
> > Then about quantum numbers in their field occupation, here is that some
> > of what are "could only be photons, must at least be virtual photons", have
> > diagrams besides arithmetic in the quantum numbers, why there are the
> > "dash less particles" that according to diagrams, are leptons, hadrons, and
> > so on, in "few elementary particles".
> >
> > Ha, "photons".
> >
> > The few elementary particles though more dimensionless proportionality,
> > results still in all the terms in their dimensions, why quantization or "seesaw"
> > under supersymmetry result in those dimensional terms, what are beyond
> > experiment, in terms what according to the theory are "photons".
> >
> > Which like white holes and for gravitons in the virtual always exist everywhere,
> > in a Dirac positronic sea.
> > At least then all of GR, SR, QM, also now brane theory, can be put together,
> > in what results few units, and linearly of course exactly one.
> >
> > Well, alright then, now I added three particles photohadrons, photoleptons,
> > lessphotons, they are simply virtual "particles" not much even needing a
> > theory, just following out definition in "quantum mechanics" and "the standard
> > model".
> >
> > In STR, "STR's photons", next to "STR's electrons".
> >
> > That in these other theories are "not STR's photons".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics#Processes
>
> Mostly it seems "potentials is in Yukawa".
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen%E2%80%93Olesen_vortex
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_equation#Weyl_spinors
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-current#Physical_interpretation
>
> Basically "insulator physics" for current, is variously where
> again it's following not just super-symmetry, but isotropy,
> what is in terms of kinetics a Dirac positronic sea.
>
> (If rather "the old Quantum Mechanics".)
>
> Then, some "invariance bars" for "symmetry flex", this "seesaw" type
> approach, it's courtesy geometry what it results "gross error" or "gross
> precision", up over a bar of invariance, with the quasi-invariance,
> up after usual "quantization, linearisation and small-angle-approximation,
> seesaw, ..., renormalizability concerns".
>
>
> I try to keep this simple with "unified field theory: fall gravity unites,
> charge mediates, atom is real graviton", here that there are at least
> three photonic interfaces (some say "fields") and for each of those
> the stimulated interfaces, of charged and pumped particles, what
> make for parallel and bulk, transport. (Here that parallel transport
> is molecular as it were while bulk transport is current.)
>
> Ah, then excuse me there, it's important I be read as correct.

On July 6, Volney wrote:
>> The Second Postulate is: "light is always propagated in empty
>> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
>> of the EMITTING body."
>
> That's part of the abstract, not the second postulate, but no matter.
> It's quite obvious it means the receiver/observer (in this case the
> front of the car) will receive the photon at c, regardless of the motion
> or lack thereof of the photon's source (radar gun).

Not so obvious, to the novice ...

>> It says NOTHING about what a receiving body will
>> see or measure.
>
> It implies an observer observing the light at c, but that's just what an
> abstract states.
> The second postulate makes it clear, the light is always observed moving
> at c in the single frame introduced at that point, the observer's frame,
> which he calls the stationary frame.

Yes, it implies that light speed is constant with respect to any
inertial observer... but only when combined with the first postulate.
Which is not so obvious; i.e. if various observers measure
varying speeds, that violates the first postulate.

Einstein was admirably parsimonious in his writing. He didn't spell
this out, he left it as an exercise (his readership were professional physicists).

Ed Lake's misconception isn't unique, it's shared by generations of physics
students; ""Einstein only mentions the EMITTING body!"
--
Rich