| General > General Technical Chat |
| How does the electron make a photon in an antenna? |
| << < (31/38) > >> |
| Zero999:
--- Quote from: bigfoot22 on February 06, 2023, 04:21:03 pm --- --- Quote from: Zero999 on February 06, 2023, 03:10:26 pm ---Don't take medical advice from the Internet, is a standard disclaimer. It was not intended as a personal attack. --- End quote --- It wasn't intended as a personal attack and I didn't take it as one. However I thought it reasonable and commonplace around on this forum to pick out other peoples mistakes and correct them hence why I corrected your mistake also. The only issue with doing that that I see is that quite a lot of time can be spent fixing basic grammattical mistakes on a forum that is meant to be catering to electronics/technology problems. It can take up a lot of time. I'm not dissing the practice but don't you think that atherist also considers it annoying and rude? Much like how he might consider my pointing out his possible psychological problems as annoying and rude. :-// You could go down a very deep rabbit hole pointing out each others mistakes all week if you wanted to. --- End quote --- Which mistake of mind did you correct? I've obviously missed it. :-// |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on February 06, 2023, 01:33:05 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on February 05, 2023, 10:49:49 pm --- --- Quote from: Zero999 on February 05, 2023, 10:21:21 pm ---No energy is lost. If the object is moving away, the energy transferred from the reflected light, to the object's momentum. If the object is moving closer, energy is transferred from the object's momentum to the reflected light. In both cases, some energy will be absorbed by the mirror, which is not perfect, but it will not be lost, it will increase the mirror and object's temperature. --- End quote --- In that case then u agree with what i said – ie that a bit of energy is lost from the photon(s) in all 3 kinds of reflexions (even if that bit of loss is retained by the system). In which case u agree that multiple reflexions between stationary mirrors must gradually give redshift. --- Quote from: Zero999 on February 05, 2023, 10:21:21 pm --- --- Quote ---But, as an aetherist, i need to add that there is no such thing as a stationary mirror (nor a stationary antenna) – if an aetherwind blows throo Earth etc, then everything has an absolute velocity all the time – unless that thing is co-moving exactly with the aetherwind (nigh impossible). But i don’t want to waste time re that. --- End quote --- Everything is moving through space time. I'm talking about the relative velocity between the two mirrors being zero, i.e. they're both the same distance apart. The aetherist/wind stuff is complete rubbish. --- End quote --- Yes – in aether theory the relative velocity of the source of the photons & the mirror sort of trumps the individual absolute velocities in the aether (ie their aetherwinds) – hence in the lab the aetherwind can be ignored for many experiments. --- End quote --- I repeat. No energy is lost, because that would violate the first law of thermodynamics, which is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The tiny bit of radiation absorbed by the mirrors is not lost, but converted into heat. I know full well I'm being pedantic. It's fine to talk about energy losses for practical purposes, but in this case it's important to note that the energy doesn't just disappear. --- End quote --- But u agreed that a bit of energy is lost from photons in all 3 kinds of reflexions -- In which case u must agree with my previous statement that multiple reflexions between stationary mirrors must gradually give redshift. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: AVGresponding on February 06, 2023, 06:23:55 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on February 06, 2023, 04:49:22 am ---I am still waiting for one fact or factoid that strikes out my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY. --- End quote --- No, in fact we are all waiting for you to produce one piece of evidence to support your claims. The existence of trillions of dollars of industry that uses the accepted model is what contradicts your ideas. --- End quote --- My ELEKTON ELEKTICITY will not necessarily change any present model (alltho i notice that transmission line design models presently wrongly dont account for whether a transmission line etc is insulated)(underground transmission lines are insulated)(but if there is even a microscopic air gap in some parts between plastic & Cu then its much the same as being non-insulated in air). My ELEKTON ELEKTICITY gives us the benefit of knowing the reality truths facts of ELEKTICITY, & knowing the reality is likely to help progress & invention etc. But to get good numbers for designs etc we need good models -- & if ELEKTON ELEKTICITY results in better models then good – if not then ok. I doubt that ELEKTON ELEKTICITY will help re macro ELEKTICITY – but it might help re micro ELEKTICITY. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: Halcyon on February 06, 2023, 06:25:27 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on February 06, 2023, 04:49:22 am --- --- Quote from: Halcyon on February 06, 2023, 04:14:18 am ---Thanks for providing some very honest and personal insight bigfoot22. I've been fortunate enough to never have suffered from a mental illness in my life, but I have dealt with many patients who have. I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going through the mind of someone who isn't quite OK, but what you're saying makes absolutely perfect sense to me. The key takeaway from bigfoot22's post is that if everyone else seems to not understand your views, or are providing contradictory evidence which has a solid scientific (and easily verifiable) backing, then I think you need to reflect on yourself and question what you think you know. If you're not able to do that, then you're no better than the bat shit crazy flat earthers and gravity deniers. As I said before facts are facts and they don't change or stop existing just because you don't believe in them. You can't opt-out of reality because you disagree. --- End quote --- I am still waiting for one fact or factoid that strikes out my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY. --- End quote --- I guess the fact that it's not a real thing and doesn't exist should be the major giveaway? A simple Google search will tell you that. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it in red, capital letters, it doesn't make it a thing. Based on this reason alone, I suspect you are just trolling the forum. --- End quote --- My (1) ELEKTONS & my (2) ELEKTON ELEKTICITY & my (3) ELEKTRON ATOM (ie my ELEKTRIC ATOM), & my (4) non-photon radio signal (ie my EM RADIO SIGNAL) are i think novel & unique. I found a paper by Ohanian from 1984 that said that electrons don’t orbit in an atom – ie that light orbits. Ohanian 1984 what is spin electron is light orbiting……… https://physics.mcmaster.ca/phys3mm3/notes/whatisspin.pdf And i like Gaasenbeek's helical photon. http://www.heliwave.com/gaasenbeek/index.html#contents ……………In his theory, Helical Particle Waves, [www.heliwave.com], Mr. J. L. Gaasenbeek proposes that all particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons are made up of billions upon billions of photons orbiting in pairs within their particles and continuously being emitted as electric fields spiralling away along helical paths with three components of energy: forward linear motion, circular helication, and photon spin around itself as shown below: A Helical Particle Wave. Helical Particle Waves theory explains most, if not all of the observed phenomena naturally without having to resort to artificial arguments such as space-time curvature produces gravity, or magically the mass of a particle changes as a function of its velocity. It even explains that magnetism rises from the continuous spin of electrically charged particles and hence the curling of the linear motion component (the beam direction in the above diagram). Robert Ashworth https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Ashworth-2 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260829054_Confirmation_of_Helical_Travel_of_Light_through_Microwave_Waveguide_Analyses Adams 2009 http://www.heliwave.com/Helical.Particle.Waves.pdf |
| TimFox:
Aetherist: "My ELECTON ELECTICITY will not necessarily change any present model (alltho i notice that transmission line design models presently wrongly dont account for whether a transmission line etc is insulated)(underground transmission lines are insulated)(but if there is even a microscopic air gap in some parts between plastic & Cu then its much the same as being non-insulated in air)." Have you ever seen RG-62/U coaxial cable? The original type, with a hollow tube inside the shield braid and the center conductor spaced coaxially inside the tube with an air gap? https://www.teslacables.com/media/documents/en/rg-62-a-u-coaxial-cable-93-ohm.pdf (Note: in recent use, this is often superseded with a foam-dielectric insulation to achieve the same characteristic impedance.) |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |