Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life -- Clifford M. Will

Indeed! All that is required is a good imagination.

<<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply
that the Academy recognised the particle
nature of light? The Nobel Committee says
that Einstein had found that the energy exchange
between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting
or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv .

As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta
(in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the
law that an electron emitted from a substance by
monochromatic light with the frequency has to have
a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to
remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews
Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a
period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this
law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however,
found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange.

The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html


Sue...

 

Anyone who has studied the development of GTR rejects your argument.
Why bother trying to convince you?

 

Yawn

 

Sam makes a good point when he says:
"A medium, in the classical sense, is not required for propagation
of photons (electromagnetic radiation)."

The fact of the matter is,
even the concept of photons is not needed,
as the only thing that exists between a cause and an effect
is an interaction time.

A cause event happens.
After some time interval,
an effect event happens.

You don't need a medium.
You don't need a photon.

All you need is a cause,
an interaction time,
an effect,
and three dimensional geometry.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

Bhanwara wrote:
<all snipped due to the extreme cretinism of Mukesh Prasad>

If you keep eating your shit you'll get more cretin than you already
are.

 

No need to read what you "wrote". Too imbecilic, Mukesh Prasad.

 

Thanks Tom!

 

No Sam,
what "gets my goat"
are cultists who worship models and personalities,
and who blindly parrot dogma without comprehension,
and attack folks who dare question their Gods.

It is interesting to see that you are using Willy Lowman as your sig.
As you apparently know, Willy Loman was a sponge, was unhappy,
had thoughts of suicide, much as you do around Christmas.

Is that poem about the guy contemplating suicide on Christmas
still your favorite poem?

As you can see from the pictures on my web sites,
I am a happy, independent, self-reliant, positive, upbeat guy.
Just the opposite of you and Willy.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

I was right. You are utterly unable to come to terms with any modern
physics. Your inability to grasp the simpl mathematical concepts
regarding the use of GR and the GPS have proved that to me. You cannot
cite any source for your "Galileo equation" and even cannot even date
it.

As further proof you are a crank, you have returned to your pre-written
screed. As the surest sign of mental illness is to continually repeat
the same process and expect a change, I am going to do the intelligent
thing here.

Whats quite sad is you were obviously once quite intelligent.

<Pushes the big red button as a chord, believed to be A Minor, rings>

*PLONK*

 

Sounds more like your utter ignorance of modern physics, Potter.

 

Sometimes Sam, things happen that really make you smile. Coincidences I
mean.

I just opened my copy of Gravity by J Hartle. It fell open on page 119.
Guess what eqn is there....

\omega_\infty = \left( 1 - \frac{GM}{Rc^2}) \omega_*

I nearly wet myself laughing...

Oh well, back to reading "The Road to Reality". I should really bre
reading about sub-mm galaxies for next year but I fancy a giggle..

 

So what are you saying jon?
You want to include me on the list of things that
generate more heat than light?

Okay.
I added me as number 6.
Do you know of more things that
generate more heat than light?

1. The Bible.
2. General Relativity
3. Communism vs. free markets.
4. Liberal vs conservative
5. Action vs energy (As the unit of change)
6. Tom Potter

But the real question is:
Is the propensity to generate babble
nature (Genetics)
or nurture (Religion and home upbringing)?

Is the propensity to create babble
nature or nurture?

And do people generate babble because they are stupid,
or because they want to exploit stupid people?

In other words,
why would any rational, intelligent, moral person
promote stuff like the bible, communism,
Freudism, energy as the quantum of change, etc.?

What do you think jon???

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

Hail Mary full of grace.....

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

Potter, why don't you hop on a plane... I'll pick you up
in Des Moines... bring you back to my place, where me good
wife and I will put you up for a day or two... we can have
some good physics discussions over some good wine and food.

We could drive down into Missouri and visit Clifford Will
to continue our discussions. You could fly back from Des
Moines or St. Louis. I'll provide all the ground
transportation, your meals and lodging.

-Sam

 

Actually, when it comes down to it, everybody says something
like what you are saying and gets out of it. Some of these
appear to be GR practitioners. So can I be blamed for thinking
even those who are very good GR parrots have no clue
about things like this:

http://www.mukesh.ws/grmisc4.html

They just learn mechanical techniques, and have absolutely
no clue what it's all about. I think most of them just rote-memorize
words like Minkowskian, Lorentzian, Reimannian etc, and
do all calculations out of rote-memorization.

We have people who can parrot GR, but don't even
understand the meaning of the very first premise, that
M is locally Minkowskian as per GR. Then when I explain
that premise in other words, they all get very huffy,
and start saying WRONG in upper-case.

 

Potter, why don't you hop on a plane... I'll pick you up
in Des Moines... bring you back to my place, where me good
wife and I will put you up for a day or two... we can have
some good physics discussions over some good wine and food.

We could drive down into Missouri and visit Clifford Will
to continue our discussions. You could fly back from Des
Moines or St. Louis. I'll provide all the ground
transportation, your meals and lodging.

-Sam

 

Jon already plonked you Potter.

Potter, why don't you hop on a plane... I'll pick you up
in Des Moines... bring you back to my place, where me good
wife and I will put you up for a day or two... we can have
some good physics discussions over some good wine and food.

We could drive down into Missouri and visit Clifford Will
to continue our discussions. You could fly back from Des
Moines or St. Louis. I'll provide all the ground
transportation, your meals and lodging.

-Sam

 

He had at least four,
the planets,
the moons,
the Earth's rotation,
pendulums,
and he probably gave a lot of thought
to such things as spring mass systems,
and spinning tops.

I suggest that you read:
"Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican."
"Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences "

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

 

Ok, let me spell it out more, since if people don't understand the
actual meaning of terms and have just rote memorized it, it
might not make sense. "Locally Minkowskian" basically means
SR holds at any given point (according to GR.) And that's how
GR is built upon SR.

 

Why do you say...