Re: Un-scientific definitions
Russell Garber ( (no email) )
Sat, 20 Nov 1999 06:54:15 -0500
I thought the other two examples were more specific. I will explain a bit
more, but do not wish to expand this thread to cover these examples:
For more information on the example I gave of the problems with Maxwell's
equations I suggest you read some of Tom Beardens articles (again, still
theory, but it will give you an idea).. One such article can be read at the
following URL: http://atlantisrising.com/issue12/ar12bearden.html
The other example I gave was with the definition of a Photon.
Here are some definitions of a Photon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- a quantum of electromagnetic radiation
--- Quantum of electromagnetic energy
--- the carrier of electromagnetic radiation
--- A subatomic particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an
indefinitely long lifetime
--- a unit of energy
--- Particle of zero rest mass, capable of travelling infinite distances, or
until it meets an "eye."
--- A quantum unit of light energy.
--- A particle that has no rest mass, no electrical charge and whose energy is
determined by its electromagnetic wavelength. A photon is considered to be an
amount of electromagnetic radiation energy that is proportional to the
frequency of that radiation.
--- A photon is a quantum of light, or the smallest possible packet of light at
a given wavelength. It is emitted by an atom during a transition from one
energy state to another
--- Theoretical particle of light. Tremendous controversies exist over whether
light is a pure electromagnetic waveform, or is made of particles. Those who
feel it forms into particles are further divided as to the nature and charge of
these particles
--- Quantized bundle of light
--- Discrete portion of electromagnetic energy. A small packet of light
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granted some of the definitions are similar, but some do have a different
meaning, and only one of them says that it is a "theoretical" particle of
light. If we go back to the thread on the speed of light, the definition of a
photon needs a particular definition for it to be possible for the speed to be
constant in all frames without the existence of something like the ether, and
thus the widespread confusion on that subject, and the various ether theories.
And as the speed of light is the bases for relativity, we should at least be
clear on what definition is being used for the photon as it plays a key role.
There are other terms and theories, but those are what comes to mind at the
moment. Again, granted, not all the definitions are put forth by scientists,
but to have to wade through all the different definitions, you would be as
well off, making one up yourself that works for you, and then none of us would
be on the same page, so to speak. Anyway, I do not want to go into this any
further, as a lot of it is theoretical, and spending to much time on it will
only take us off topic. At some point in time, a lot of the definitions being
used are going to have to be changed as the result of new information, and I
can only hope that it is done in such a way as to follow logic based on fact,
and not changed to reflect the old definitions.
Any further replies from me on this topic will be answered privately, unless it
is something new and relevant to the main topic of this thread, so as to not
clutter up this discussion list with off topic subject matter.
-Russ
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------