Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [TeslaTurbine] Absurdities of a wave model for light

Expand Messages
  • McGalliard, Frederick B
    Did you mean 3*10^8 Hertz? (That is, 300 MhZ). I recall standard crystalography uses Xray diffraction at a lot higher frequency than this??? An inertial
    Message 1 of 2 , May 28, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      Did you mean 3*10^8 Hertz? (That is, 300 MhZ).

      I recall standard crystalography uses Xray diffraction at a lot higher frequency than this???

      An “inertial” electron? Your microwave pumps the microwave cavity with more or less free electrons accelerated by only a KV or so. Does this qualify? (Sorry but I forget the exact frequency the microwave uses. ROM around 1.5 GHZ isn’t it?)

      Quantum electron jumps are not at all like free electron motion.

      Frequencies greater than light speed? Do you mean wave lengths less than a centimeter, or less than a meter, or less than a foot or a mile?

      BTB. Any physicist with a brain cell or two left functioning has to admit that the particle model of the electron (and all other objects at least to large scale clusters of molecules) needs to be changed to reflect the wave behavior observed in such examples as electron diffraction crystalography. Odd that one would have any dificulty after that with recognizing that light waves have photons with similar (ie. Quantum mechanical) implications.


      From: sorincosofret [mailto:sorincosofret@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:47 PM
      To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Absurdities of a wave model for light


      Absurdities of a wave model for light
      A new text is presented at:
      http://www.elkadot. com/corpuscular/ Absurdities% 20of%20a% 20wave%20model% 20for%20light. htm
      The present text analyses the actual wave model of photon at frequency greater then 3 ×108 Hz, corresponding to light speed. Few principal problems are raised:
      Why the electric field generated at these frequencies at different moments does not interfere and produce interference fringes?
      Does a quantum electron jump between two atomic orbits produce an oscillating electromagnetic field?
      Can someone trust in classical mechanism of electromagnetic wave generation at these frequencies? Does an inertial electron oscillate with these superluminal frequencies?
      Any ,,common sense'' intelligence and only one synapse in a common theoretical mind will admit that actual wave model of photon need to be changed at least for frequencies greater then light speed.
      The future discussion will be about electronic polarization at frequencies greater or close to 3×108 Hz, and how electric charges are forced to move at these frequencies.

      From the multitude of messages received, I will try to comment one of must lucid answer made by Vince Morgan for a previous link:
      http://www.elkadot. com/magneticity/ Electric% 20current% 20cut%20off% 20experiments. htm
      The Vince's text:
      I've been watching this post, anticipating some lively debate. Should I be surprised that no one has responded, I don't think so.
      Seems that some prefer the warm fuzziness of knowing that they, and or their peers, already know what there is to know. It's so personaly comforting that they aren't likely to give it up in a hurry. It's posts like these, especialy where the experiment is so very easily replicated, that seem to attract the least responces.
      Many who've been challenged by the above online material will tomorrow claim that they've seen nothing. Science has more in common with religion today than most realize. …..

      My comment:
      I have sent for about 15 years a lot of texts for publishing to all relevant physics journals with a impact factor greater then 1. All, without exception, had denied publishing my papers.
      I have sent messages to quite all world physics and chemistries academies. All of them ignored the texts.
      I have sent texts to all well known organizations working in the field of physics or chemistry: NASA, ESA, great universities from all around world, or personal to professors at these universities. No answer.
      I still support the comments of some non physicists working in the field of physics, when I try to make advertising to a new theory of physics on discussions forums. .
      If I had made these and I support all these is because the proposed theory is becoming an affair. The time when I would be happy if one journal publishes one of my papers is gone. Now I'm not interested to publish in all these ,,recognized' ' journals. Their incompetence and the incompetence of all (non) physicists working in the key position in actual structures help me to gain monopole of a new theory covering physics and chemistry. With every day which passes the monopole enlarges…

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.