studiot

Nice +1

Good answer, Enthalpy and much shorter than mine. +1

I am going to put the your obstinacy down to the fact that English is not your first language. I also see that (at least) two others are frustrated about this because of the downvotes, but I think that excessive. So I am going to reverse one of them and try one last time to hold a discussion where each of us reads the other's post properly. 1) Yes observable light waves, but the observer has no power whasoever to alter the frequency of the oncoming light waves. I actually said that it was the circumstances which change the frequency and identified these circumstances as being relative velocity in the case of the Doppler effect. Consider two observers, Observer A is not in relative velocity vis-a-vis the source and sees particularly frequency light, Observer B is in relative velocity and observes a different frequency. Both measure frequency by the same method so interact with the light in identical fashion, so it is the circumstances not the interaction that matters. 2) I said nothing whatsoever about there being no interaction. I offered a list of different terms describing different effects following interaction. Why else do you think we have different terms? Note I was commenting on your definition/use of a single word - scattering - when I did this. And scattering was one of the terms I offered a description of. How else can we help overcome the language barrier and make your diiscussions in English more productive?

Would you like to explain further please?

Sorry you don't seem to have read my last post which answered the questions you posed in your previous reply.

+1 for reading the 'wall' at all

Sure. Take the gravitational PE in the standing water behind a dam. You can't access it directly without moving the water down or allowing it to move down. In order do do this energy must be converted to the energy of motion, or it couldn't move from standing there. So there must be a change in both the position and motion of the water. Coiled springs, elastic bands and so on cannot release their energy without motion and changing their shape. When you obtain electricity from electomagnetic fields, it is again the energy of motion that is converted not the PE of the field. The more you lower the PE of the field the less electricity you will obtain, unlike lowering the gravitational PE of the water where each drop of 1 metre produces the same amount. Even the piezoelectricity example I gave you has to have the strain energy supplied by another form - usually impact. Does this help?

I'm sorry, Dubbelosix and Vmedvil but my knowledge and enthusiasm for cosmology and particles physics waned with the closing of the 1960s so both your comments have rather passed me by. Would either of you like to comment on the OP itself and/ or explain your own contributions?

My catalogue call them laser diodes, perhaps because they are also diodes. I seem to remember the verb had a z in it when I last heard it, but I like to spread my bounty evenly and fairly between letters.

The short answer is No, it doesn't work like that. The short reason/explanation is that you can'r remove PE from something and expect no change in that something. The nearest you will get is the conversion of strain energy (which is a form of PE like your rubber band) directly to electricity by the piezoelectric effect.

The term LED is also a bit misleading. Some LEDs laze most don't. Also although chemical doping / composition sets the basic light frequency output range, filter correction is also engineered to offer desired colours.

Laser systems often use lenses (more usually converging or collimating) but the laser light retains its coherence. So I suppose that basic difference remains. https://www.thorlabs.com/tutorials.cfm?tabID=f7ed0dd5-3f31-4f84-9843-e0f7ac33f413

I didn't watch, but I assume he didn't actually say 63 kilograms of energy? Or was that why he is a former NASA engineer? Glass tends to have very high residual stresses compared to its strength, which is why it shatters so readily and suddenly, sometimes without apparent cause. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=residual+stresses+in+glass&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=I1nzWb2bJJyr4gSTipmYAw

I agree. The only problem that I see is that reality is not always rational. (chuckle) Gee This thought is deeper than it first looks. Because if we ask the question "Why bother with the organisation, why not just place all data in a gigantic database and retrieve any required bit when desired?" Apart from the obviousl economy of data saving and retrieval; We come up with the concept that the organisation process allows us to deduce new material from the data, that was not in the original. We can compare parts of the data with other parts, we can compare with models and thoughts we may have had as a result. We can propose new observations to extend the data. In other words we can do Philosophy. (and perhaps some Science to boot.)

The only response to all my attempts to discuss Physics has been inflated accusations followed by personal attacks. That would not be my response to someone who said to me "What you say is all very well and I'm sure you know some (or even many) things I don't. but I know some stuff you don't" I would be receptive to new ideas (to me) from any source. As it is well past 1 am, English time I repeat my quote and wish you goodnight.

Is this a claim that you or someone from Leeds (My family has relatives there) only use perfect English and never make a mistake?

The wave function can fundamentally slow, that there could be an intrinsic over-reaching statistical field that could be governing everything The verb slow is intransitive and works perfectly with the comma and makes sense in the context of Heisenberg. The following clause works if you strikeout the "that", and makes perfect sense within the context of QM.

Why what?

You wrote the word "show" I asked you if you meant slow (which means something in the interpretation of Heisenberg) or "be shown", since you followed a transitive verb with a comma. The only use I know of for the comma in this situation is to divorce the verb from the phrase or clause that follows it. This means that you did not provide your transitive verb with an object so I asked if you meant to use the passive voice, which would then make it correct.

I didn't suggest you added words. I asked if you has misspelled one word. So shall we leave it that you are more interested in squabbling over English than establishing some Physics?

I didn't say you were incapable of talking, or writing the English language. I said that one small (but very important, perhaps vital) part was not quite right, so I wanted to make certain that I had understood it correctly.

I didn't say you were wrong. How could I? I explained at great length that I didn't (and still don't) understand what you meant by your words. Pretty clearly I want to discuss the intended meaning and no other.

If it's not faulty, then you should have no difficulty explaining what you said. But you have so far declined to do this.

Well I could have observed that you would be slung out of the international conferences I have presented papers at, for language like that, but I chose a milder comment.

The post counter now stands at 33 and all that I have gathered so far is that you dislike preaching and that you wish to discuss something to do with probability. Some might observe that you have actually done a great deal of the former and very little of the latter.