How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?

[Zero999]

Are you spamming now? I Googled aetherwind and got loads of pictures of this character.

https://www.google.com/search?q=aetherwind&source=lmns&bih=895&biw=1920&client=firefox-b-d&hl=en-GB&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjItqDp3Pf8AhVmhCcCHa_sBhwQ_AUoAHoECAEQAA

[aetherist]

Are you spamming now? I Googled aetherwind and got loads of pictures of this character.

https://www.google.com/search?q=aetherwind&source=lmns&bih=895&biw=1920&client=firefox-b-d&hl=en-GB&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjItqDp3Pf8AhVmhCcCHa_sBhwQ_AUoAHoECAEQAA

I suspect that that lizard is the gatekeeper for the Einsteinian mafia -- & the mafia control wiki -- the first para when u google wiki aetherwind says that MMXs are all null -- when in fact no proper MMX has ever  been null.

The 1887 MMX found an aetherwind of 8 km/s – hence STR in 1905 was stillborn.
STR is krapp, & GTR is mainly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science, but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return, it never left.

[TimFox]

More ad hominem conspiracy blather.

[aetherist]

More ad hominem conspiracy blather.

It duznt need a round-table meeting of Einsteinist goons to bring about a conspiracy.
Wiki is controlled by Einsteinists -- koz everything is controlled by Einsteinists -- the institutions, the universitys, the top journals, funding groups -- the Nobel committee.
Once they took complete control there were no more meetings needed.
However, the internet can/has saved the day -- except for persons that are happy & contented to be fools.

[aetherist]

More ad hominem conspiracy blather.

And now it seems that u dont know the difference between a lizard & a human.

ad hominem
/ˌad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/  adjective  (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response" adverb
1.  in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
2.  in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.



Aetherwind Basker ......................Its frill inspired the design of efficient aether collectors.
I have never heard of aether collectors.  Nor aetherwind collectors.

[tszaboo]

Are you spamming now? I Googled aetherwind and got loads of pictures of this character.

https://www.google.com/search?q=aetherwind&source=lmns&bih=895&biw=1920&client=firefox-b-d&hl=en-GB&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjItqDp3Pf8AhVmhCcCHa_sBhwQ_AUoAHoECAEQAA

Wow, 7/7 attack and defense, that is quite a card.
Damn, I  think it has been 20 years since I played magic.

[TimFox]

This argument is much like playing chess with a pigeon.
First, the pigeon knocks over all the pieces.
Then, it craps all over the board.
Finally, it flies back to its nest claiming victory.

Attacking Albert Einstein as a person is ad hominem.

[aetherist]

We know how an electron makes a photon in an LED. It jump from a higher orbital to a lower one emitting a photon. But in an antenna its occupying the same valance just with a different nucleus each hop.  How is the energy transferred to a radio frequency photon?

Further to my earlier answers to your question -- re How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?
Electrons dont make electricity on a wire, nor on an antenna.
Electricity on a wire is made by photons (ELEKTONS) hugging the surface of the Cu.
Hence electricity on (u said in but in is wrong, its on) an antenna means that there is already a photon on the antenna.
Hence your question duznt arise in the first place.
However, u are of course actually referring to the radio signal --  u are asking how are the radio signal photons created (ie in the air between the transmitter & receiver).
However, as i explained earlier, radio signals are not photons, they are em radiation.
Hence your question duznt arise in the 2nd place.

Funny that – when we have the correct model & the correct reality lots of questions evaporate.

[aetherist]

This argument is much like playing chess with a pigeon.
First, the pigeon knocks over all the pieces.
Then, it craps all over the board.
Finally, it flies back to its nest claiming victory.

Attacking Albert Einstein as a person is ad hominem.

1. Attacking Einstein the person is ad hominem -- but i don’t remember ever attacking Einstein as a person.
2. Your pigeon gedanken is as silly & wrong as Einstein's silly gedankens.
3. U said "this argument"—which argument is that?

[AVGresponding]

You should go and write science fiction or fantasy novels. At least there, you aren't required to provide any evidence to back up your ideas.

Here, we do, and you consistently fail to provide any maths for us to examine, or physical experimental set up for us to use to test your ideas. Your ideas, are in fact, self descriptive, in that they are insubstantial and intangible.

[Zero999]

You should go and write science fiction or fantasy novels. At least there, you aren't required to provide any evidence to back up your ideas.

Here, we do, and you consistently fail to provide any maths for us to examine, or physical experimental set up for us to use to test your ideas. Your ideas, are in fact, self descriptive, in that they are insubstantial and intangible.

No one would publish him, because his spelling and grammar are abysmal.

[iMo]

Our entire known Universe consists of electrons and other particles. Any movement of any electron in the Universe is influencing other electrons in the entire Universe (mind the "entire Universe" used here, as all the existing electrons affect each other).
When you move an electron by 1mm all the electrons in our entire Universe will be affected and they move into a new positions where all the forces among them go to a new equilibrium.
The force an electron affects the others drops with the distance, thus an 1mm movement in your smartphone antenna will affect electrons on the Proxima Centauri a very little, but it will affect them and they will move a little bit.
This way electrons moving up and down (a simplification) in your antenna affect all electrons in the entire Universe, such they move up and down (while looking for the new equilibrium in their position in the field of the Universe).
The propagation speed is the speed of light, as we know it today. For simplicity the "quantum" of the "energy" they "emit towards other electrons" while they moving people call a "photon". Thus "emitting a photon" means the electron has somehow affected other electrons in our entire Universe.
The faster the kick into the electron (ie. the stronger "acceleration"), the more energetic kick to all electrons in our entire Universe will be. Thus we have photons with low energies and photons with large energies.
Not sure we know why the electrons affect each other, as of today, though..

[aetherist]

You should go and write science fiction or fantasy novels. At least there, you aren't required to provide any evidence to back up your ideas.
Here, we do, and you consistently fail to provide any maths for us to examine, or physical experimental set up for us to use to test your ideas. Your ideas, are in fact, self descriptive, in that they are insubstantial and intangible.

If my ELEKTONS are true then every experiment has tested my ELEKTONS (ie while experimenters were thinking that they were testing some kind of silly electron).

If the maths works for (silly) electrons then it works for my (true) ELEKTONS.
Mass, charge, spin, angular momentum – my ELEKTONS are ok for all the math.

Self descriptive.
What is wrong with my ELEKTON elekticity theory being self descriptive?  – did Einstein write any self descriptive stuff?
Insubstantial -- lacking substance or material nature. : lacking firmness or solidity : flimsy.
My ELEKTON elekticity idea is physical.
Intangible -- incapable of being touched.
My ELEKTONS elekticity idea is tangible – however the (silly) electron electricity idea, being non-true, must fail any tangibility test.

[aetherist]

You should go and write science fiction or fantasy novels. At least there, you aren't required to provide any evidence to back up your ideas.

Here, we do, and you consistently fail to provide any maths for us to examine, or physical experimental set up for us to use to test your ideas. Your ideas, are in fact, self descriptive, in that they are insubstantial and intangible.

No one would publish him, because his spelling and grammar are abysmal.

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.
My grammar is proper.
I accept that my ideas are very deep.

[aetherist]

Our entire known Universe consists of electrons and other particles. Any movement of any electron in the Universe is influencing other electrons in the entire Universe (mind the "entire Universe" used here, as all the existing electrons affect each other).
When you move an electron by 1mm all the electrons in our entire Universe will be affected and they move into a new positions where all the forces among them go to a new equilibrium.
The force an electron affects the others drops with the distance, thus an 1mm movement in your smartphone antenna will affect electrons on the Proxima Centauri a very little, but it will affect them and they will move a little bit.
This way electrons moving up and down (a simplification) in your antenna affect all electrons in the entire Universe, such they move up and down (while looking for the new equilibrium in their position in the field of the Universe).
The propagation speed is the speed of light, as we know it today. For simplicity the "quantum" of the "energy" they "emit towards other electrons" while they moving people call a "photon". Thus "emitting a photon" means the electron has somehow affected other electrons in our entire Universe.
The faster the kick into the electron (ie. the stronger "acceleration"), the more energetic kick to all electrons in our entire Universe will be. Thus we have photons with low energies and photons with large energies.
Not sure we know why the electrons affect each other, as of today, though..

Yes we dont know what charge etc is, or what magnetism etc is, or what em radiation is, or what a photon is.
But we know that radio involves em radiation.
And we know that electricity on a wire involves ELEKTONS.
And we know that photons & em radiation (in the far field) propagate at the speed of light.
And we know what gravity is -- & we know that it acts at at least 20 billion c.

Electrons exist, but the silly electrons that supposedly orbit in an atom do not exist – these silly electrons are actually my ELEKTRONS orbiting in the atom.
Atoms are elektric – ie bottled elekticity.

However, it’s a bit rich to talk of a 1mm movement of any charge or particle influencing every other charge or particle in our infinite & eternal universe.
Why not just say that it influences everything in our cosmos, ie in out part of the universe.
Or that it influences everything in our solar system.

U say that all existing electrons affect each other.
This raises some interesting questions.
I think that according to the BB theory the light from some stars has not yet reached some other stars – & i think that furthermore BB theory says that the light from some stars will never reach some other stars – hence your statement duznt accord with BB theory.

[Zero999]

You should go and write science fiction or fantasy novels. At least there, you aren't required to provide any evidence to back up your ideas.

Here, we do, and you consistently fail to provide any maths for us to examine, or physical experimental set up for us to use to test your ideas. Your ideas, are in fact, self descriptive, in that they are insubstantial and intangible.

No one would publish him, because his spelling and grammar are abysmal.

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.
My grammar is proper.
I accept that my ideas are very deep.

What is an ELECTON? Is it an initialism?

How does one pronounce ELECTON? I read it as elec tun; is that correct?

[aetherist]

You should go and write science fiction or fantasy novels. At least there, you aren't required to provide any evidence to back up your ideas.

Here, we do, and you consistently fail to provide any maths for us to examine, or physical experimental set up for us to use to test your ideas. Your ideas, are in fact, self descriptive, in that they are insubstantial and intangible.

No one would publish him, because his spelling and grammar are abysmal.

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.
My grammar is proper.
I accept that my ideas are very deep.

What is an ELEKTON? Is it an initialism?
How does one pronounce ELEKTON? I read it as elec tun; is that correct?

I pronounce ELEKTON like electron without the r.
E-LEK-TON.
The name needs to accord with it being a photon -- & might possibly include electric or electricity.
I karnt remember the choices – but ELEKTON looks best – unfortunately there are lots of things in the world that have been called electon – plus we see millions of cases where people have miss spelled electron without the r.

If electricity is named after the electron that is supposed to make electricity – then electricity made by ELEkTONS should be called ELEkTICITY.

Actually – i do believe in electrons – here they are photons or ELEKTRONS that have formed a loop by biting their own tails.
And i believe that the movement of electrons on a surface makes a kind of electricity – ie due to the movement of static charge. Hence this slowish kind of electricity could retain the word electricity, while my ELEKTON elekticity can be called ELEKTICITY.

[PlainName]

(ie while experimenters were thinking that they were testing some kind of silly electron).

If the maths works for (silly) electrons then

Isn't that Trumps play style - giving descriptive derogatory names to things (people, in his case) he doesn't like?

[iMo]

..
U say that all existing electrons affect each other.
This raises some interesting questions.
I think that according to the BB theory the light from some stars has not yet reached some other stars – & i think that furthermore BB theory says that the light from some stars will never reach some other stars – hence your statement duznt accord with BB theory.

There is not such thing like light or a photon. Those are just words people invented to describe some known effects.
When you look at the Sun you will see a bright star. That is not because the photons or light flights off the Sun like small balloons towards the Earth and you can see it. It is because the electrons inside the Sun vibrate/move, while they vibrate they affect the electrons inside your chemical bonds in your eyes (there are electron based receptors in your eyes) which then generate electrical pulses/currents your brain evaluates as the "light".
If you see a green LED blinking it is not because some photons or light are flying off the LED, it is because the electrons inside the semiconductor jumps up and down, while their movement fits the electron's constellation within the chemical bonds inside your eyes (and forcing them to follow in sync).

When in an antenna the electrons jump up and down, they affect other electrons in the entire Universe forcing them to jump up and down (a vertical polarization).
When the electrons jump left-right they force other electrons in the entire Universe to jump left-right (a horizontal polarization).
When they are moving in a circle, for example, all electrons in an entire Universe tend to follow their movement (a circular polarization).
Therefore the signal with a polarization mismatch (transmitting antenna vertical, receiving antenna horizontal) produces low signal compared to a matching polarization.

The electrons exist in a space-time thus their movement is pretty complex, therefore you can "see" (detect) the Universe as we understand it today with all its beauties.
When a star flies away your eyes you see it more "red" as the electrons and their field created inside the star follow a complex space-time trajectory, with an end effect of "red-shift" (a Doppler effect basically).

If there was the Sun and an absolutely empty space around it you would not see it shining, as there would be nothing to follow the vibration (interact with) of those electrons inside the Sun..

[daqq]

Wow, 7/7 attack and defense, that is quite a card.
Damn, I  think it has been 20 years since I played magic.

Pretty costly in terms of mana though. There's a fair amount of cards in the game that have crazy powers but cost so much that by the time you can afford they game will be almost over. One of the philosophies is to not bother with high cost cards at all - I recently looked at some professional decks and I've noticed a few that didn't even have cards with a cost of over 5.

For me, it's been 15 years since I last played, good times.

And yes, at this on topic, or at least just as on topic as the rest of this thread, since the topic seems to be a sort of general insanity.

[iMo]

..
And yes, at this on topic, or at least just as on topic as the rest of this thread, since the topic seems to be a sort of general insanity.

Luckily we all can now use the ChatGPT to generate these scientific dialogues..

[Zero999]

(ie while experimenters were thinking that they were testing some kind of silly electron).

If the maths works for (silly) electrons then

Isn't that Trumps play style - giving descriptive derogatory names to things (people, in his case) he doesn't like?

Oh no, don't make this thread political. It's already bad enough as it is.

..
U say that all existing electrons affect each other.
This raises some interesting questions.
I think that according to the BB theory the light from some stars has not yet reached some other stars – & i think that furthermore BB theory says that the light from some stars will never reach some other stars – hence your statement duznt accord with BB theory.

There is not such thing like light or a photon. Those are just words people invented to describe some known effects.
When you look at the Sun you will see a bright star. That is not because the photons or light flights off the Sun like small balloons towards the Earth and you can see it. It is because the electrons inside the Sun vibrate/move, while they vibrate they affect the electrons inside your chemical bonds in your eyes (there are electron based receptors in your eyes) which then generate electrical pulses/currents your brain evaluates as the "light".
If you see a green LED blinking it is not because some photons or light are flying off the LED, it is because the electrons inside the semiconductor jumps up and down, while their movement fits the electron's constellation within the chemical bonds inside your eyes (and forcing them to follow in sync).

When in an antenna the electrons jump up and down, they affect other electrons in the entire Universe forcing them to jump up and down (a vertical polarization).
When the electrons jump left-right they force other electrons in the entire Universe to jump left-right (a horizontal polarization).
When they are moving in a circle, for example, all electrons in an entire Universe tend to follow their movement (a circular polarization).
Therefore the signal with a polarization mismatch (transmitting antenna vertical, receiving antenna horizontal) produces low signal compared to a matching polarization.

The electrons exist in a space-time thus their movement is pretty complex, therefore you can "see" (detect) the Universe as we understand it today with all its beauties.
When a star flies away your eyes you see it more "red" as the electrons and their field created inside the star follow a complex space-time trajectory, with an end effect of "red-shift" (a Doppler effect basically).

If there was the Sun and an absolutely empty space around it you would not see it shining, as there would be nothing to follow the vibration (interact with) of those electrons inside the Sun..

Don't bother wasting your time with him.

The Doppler effect is interesting, together the way light can exert a physical force on an object. If you take a reflective object, moving away from you and shine a green laser at it. The reflected radiation will be red-shifted, but remember lower frequencies have less energy, so where did the energy go? It gave the object a little push, causing its velocity to increase slightly. The reverse is true for an object travelling towards you. The reflected radiation will be blue shifted and the object will slow down a little, as the extra energy in the blue shifting is robbed from the object's momentum.

[PlainName]

Isn't that Trumps play style - giving descriptive derogatory names to things (people, in his case) he doesn't like?

Oh no, don't make this thread political. It's already bad enough as it is.

Please don't attribute things to me that aren't true. My comment has nothing whatsoever to do with politics - it is about the way a person foes about things. I could equally (but erroneously, of course) had said "Isn't that The Pope's play style" and that wouldn't have made it about religion either. Hey, isn't that Harry's play style - no, that doesn't make it about royalty either.

Get a grip, please.

[aetherist]

U say that all existing electrons affect each other.
This raises some interesting questions.
I think that according to the BB theory the light from some stars has not yet reached some other stars – & i think that furthermore BB theory says that the light from some stars will never reach some other stars – hence your statement duznt accord with BB theory.

There is not such thing like light or a photon. Those are just words people invented to describe some known effects.
When you look at the Sun you will see a bright star. That is not because the photons or light flights off the Sun like small balloons towards the Earth and you can see it. It is because the electrons inside the Sun vibrate/move, while they vibrate they affect the electrons inside your chemical bonds in your eyes (there are electron based receptors in your eyes) which then generate electrical pulses/currents your brain evaluates as the "light".
If you see a green LED blinking it is not because some photons or light are flying off the LED, it is because the electrons inside the semiconductor jumps up and down, while their movement fits the electron's constellation within the chemical bonds inside your eyes (and forcing them to follow in sync).

When in an antenna the electrons jump up and down, they affect other electrons in the entire Universe forcing them to jump up and down (a vertical polarization).
When the electrons jump left-right they force other electrons in the entire Universe to jump left-right (a horizontal polarization).
When they are moving in a circle, for example, all electrons in an entire Universe tend to follow their movement (a circular polarization).
Therefore the signal with a polarization mismatch (transmitting antenna vertical, receiving antenna horizontal) produces low signal compared to a matching polarization.

The electrons exist in a space-time thus their movement is pretty complex, therefore you can "see" (detect) the Universe as we understand it today with all its beauties.
When a star flies away your eyes you see it more "red" as the electrons and their field created inside the star follow a complex space-time trajectory, with an end effect of "red-shift" (a Doppler effect basically).

If there was the Sun and an absolutely empty space around it you would not see it shining, as there would be nothing to follow the vibration (interact with) of those electrons inside the Sun.

I like your first point & your last point. Your last point of course raises the topic of aether -- & whether aether or some such thing is needed to accommodate waves or some such – but a discussion of aether & electricity & radio would better need a new thread.

[aetherist]

The Doppler effect is interesting, together the way light can exert a physical force on an object. If you take a reflective object, moving away from you and shine a green laser at it. The reflected radiation will be red-shifted, but remember lower frequencies have less energy, so where did the energy go? It gave the object a little push, causing its velocity to increase slightly. The reverse is true for an object travelling towards you. The reflected radiation will be blue shifted and the object will slow down a little, as the extra energy in the blue shifting is robbed from the object's momentum.

So, according to your theory(s), a green laser light reflecting between 2 stationary mirrors, will quickly end up red.
If the mirrors are say 1 m apart then there will be say 300,000,000 reflexions per second – how many seconds would u say it would take to turn red? – i don’t remember this sort of computation – but it is interesting – i am thinking that an experiment would not support that the laser quickly turns red.

But what about a radio signal reflecting between 2 mirrors – ie em radiation reflecting between 2 mirrors – would the signal looz frequency? – if radio acted similarly to photons then i suppose that according to me the radio signal would not looz frequency.