> 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
those two seem fine and agree
>
> --- the carrier of electromagnetic radiation
Hmm, I would say that it is EM radiation, but I don't see that as being incorrect
or contradictory
>
> --- A subatomic particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an
> indefinitely long lifetime
still seems fine with all past definitions.
>
> --- a unit of energy
yep of course
>
> --- Particle of zero rest mass, capable of travelling infinite distances, or
> until it meets an "eye."
yep, fine still
>
> --- A quantum unit of light energy.
sure
>
> --- 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.
yep
>
> --- 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
fine
>
> --- 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
Personally I don't find the so-called duality of light as a problem
>
> --- Quantized bundle of light
of course
>
> --- Discrete portion of electromagnetic energy. A small packet of light
aha
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
lets not go too far, the theory must be assumed to be correct given all the
evidence, we must say that somes things are real and true such as light being
composed of photons, it may be wrong and that will be studiedd, and maybe a
greater definition is needed (indeed it is) but I don't see any problem, we can't
call everything a theory, we have to assume things are strong enough to stand on as
we will never be really sure.
> 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,
there is an aether, it is not even slightly possible to have the speed of light
constant in all referances and directions, relativity only bluffs that it can
happen, but on closer inspection it doesn't make it possible.
I challenge anyone to find a mechanisim that can make light slow down that is
approaching it to stay at C that also makes light coming from behind faster so it
is at C also. Changes in the time rate may correct one but will make the other
doubly wrong, same with length contraction.
> 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/
> -------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
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/
-------------------------------------------------------------