studiot

Then your understanding is seriously flawed. How can a wave have no dimension? And if light gives up its energy, then it no longer exists therefore the wave no longer exists. It's that overmarinaded tuna agian.

There are good reasons to thinks we don't The lack of observable shadows is one such. Poincare had another topological one.

The idea is sound. But I also said that it is not pure maths. So I have been seeking a place in applied maths place for it, where many similar ideas already operate. However none of these run counter to the underlying pure maths - they all conform to it as the master plan. They also all have extra restrictions peculiar to their own application. That is also probably why uncool has spent so much time trying to work it out with you. You should thank him for that. The problem is that you want your idea to be more basic than the underlying maths rather than a restricted application like all the others. I'm sorry but this it can never be.

What do you expect stamping your foot and showing off your temper to achieve? I neither said that I did or that I did not like your explanations I said several times that I did not understand it. That is why I repeatedly asked for further explanation. I am still waiting for this.

I would like to make it quite plain before this thread is closed as unproductive that I have only argued with you once in my seven posts in this thread. You quickly agreed that I was right and that you cannot place all the real numbers in a table of any sort. I congratulated you on this. Apart from that all my post have been questions as I have tried to understand what your proposal actually is. Each time you have failed to answer and finally stated that you cannot answer. Each of my questions have been straightforward technical questions. As the author of a hypothesis, how do you expect it to be accepted if you cannot answer questions about it?

Strange and DrP I fear you will be waiting a very long time for your £20k. I am still waiting for a reasonable and proper response to my reasonable and proper comment and question on the first page of this charade. I am also considering reporting it as not being fit for the Physics section.

Conventional balances are not sensitive enough to measure the mass change effects you want to discuss. They can be observed by mass spectrometer. However as others have pointed out its more complicated than you are making out. One thing to note is that photon radiation is a dynamic phenomenon. So energy lost with escaping photons is at least partially replaced or even outwitghed by energy gained from radiatiion due to the surrounds. How about a simple prediction along the lines of "If a block of X milligrams of material A is cooled by Y degrees K then there will be a corresponding gain/loss of Z picograms of mass"

Oh dear thank you Prometheus +1 for spotting that. My excuse is that this was earlier than I usually post and to adapt the words of Bob Hope I don't think anything in the morning I don't think anyhthing until noon and then it's time for my nap. My apologies to all concerned obviously my equation should have the terms on its left hand side reversed. 1 - (0.5)n NO, it means there is no value, constant or otherwise. Zilch. So no we cannot correctly assert that h will happen, only that it becomes of increasingly greater probability. One thing that should be noted is that the axiom that all the probabilities add to 1 means that the possibilities (event) are disjoint. In other words each throw is entirely independent of the results of any other throw. This is not the case with geological phenomena, in particular the second comment by prometheus states otherwise.

To analyse Yellowstone or San Andreas or Mt St Helens you need a Bayesian statistical analysis, not the type I posted above.

Let us say you want to toss a head- call it H To analyse the possibility of there being some x number of throws by which an H must have been thrown proceed as follows. If you haven't tossed an H in any throw before x then all the tosses are Ts. The probability of tossing H is 0.5 and the probability of tossing T is also 0.5. in one throw. The probability of tossing T in both of two throws is (0.5) x (0.5) = 0.25 The probabiltiy of tossing T in all of three throws is (0.5) x (0.5) x (0.5) = 0.125 can you see the trend? (we need Two things) 1) The probability of tossing T in all of n throws is (0.5) x(0.5) x (0.5) x (0.5)........... n times = (0.5)n 2) The probability tossing at least one H is (the probability of tossing all Ts minus 1) = (0.5)n - 1 To be certain of an H we need this to equal one. (0.5)n - 1 = 1 So (0.5)n must equal zero So we are looking for an n for which (0.5)n = 0 To try to find this we need to investigate what mathematicians call a limit, which is a number (zero in this case) which the result of the expression gets closer and closer to the large n gets. [math]\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to x} {\left( {0.5} \right)^n}[/math] Now I hope you can see that this can never be zero since we have [math]\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } {\left( {0.5} \right)^n} = 0[/math] That is no matter how large an n we take the result is always greater than zero all the way to infinity. So there is no x for which the original proposition is true.

Well I think that that the equations found at the end of your post, labelled 85 and 86 tell something important about the phase relationship between the magnetic component and the electric component of an electromagnetic wave. Do you think either of those components could exist on their own?

This thread was inspired by a comment in a recent thread here on optics so I though I'd share my Wiki research on he subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement post#51

E=hf So observer A sees different energy of light then observer B yet at the source the light is evenly distributed.....You can describe those thing 'classically' but in order to explain it you need to study the particle behavior. Quantum mechanical collapse states that when light does not travel trough vacuum, the photons interact with particles of the transmission medium they are in. I didn't understand this let alone see how it connects to my point. Are you denying that we use the doppler shift to observe and measure many things about distant stars and galaxies? How can anything deflect from its path without an interaction? What do you mean with this: "that every particle is scattered a different variable amount in a different variable direction" The momentum decides how the photon is scattered, how is that random? Yes but we have a saying in English "It takes two to tango " A (momentum related) interaction is the photon striking a particle of the medium. This is random for two reasons. 1) All the medium particles are moving about in random directions, so the resultant momentum vectors will be randomly directed (scattered) 2) All the medium particles have a physical size (the unit of this used to be called rather picturesquely a barn). This means that there will be a random cross section of impact from full head on to just glancing or grazing. I have already mentioned this. Edit, If the phton doesn't strike the medium particles in this fashion but meets them in a regular way because they are all lined up in a crystsal then we get diffraction, not scattering.

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