John:

Thanks for your reply. The additional quotation that you provided is
interesting to me, and I'm simply trying to sort out fact from fiction
in science.


John Zinni wrote:

[ text omitted ]

Oh, you sly so-n-so Ralph.
In the quote above, you stop just short of the name of the second process
(did you think I was incapable of clicking on a link and reading it myself).

The above quote should end ...

"... Consequently, due to this inelastic collision, the photon emerges with
a different energy, the Raman process (after Sir Chandrasekhar Venkata Raman
(1888-1970), the first Asian to win a Nobel Prize, in 1930)."

And yet on Jan 26 of this year, in the thread "TIRED LIGHT [ = NO BB ]" when
I asked you specifically ...

"As far as I can tell, no such experiment exists (Might you mean "Raman
scattering"???)."
- John Zinni -

Your responses was ...

"No."
- Ralph Hertle -

Any comment Ralph???

[ text omitted ]


Don't get me wrong. The summary of Rayleigh's photon-hydrogen inelastic
collision experiment was what I was referring to. I wasn't referring to
Raman's work, and that is also interesting.

I believe that several scientists work will be found to be true and even
more basic that previously thought, e.g., Max Planck, and that theories
of the photon that identify energy level and integral frequency or
dynamic properties will ultimately prevail over theories of non-physical
and non-existent or etherian waves.

When the prime focus of science is in finding out what exists in the
universe, and how existents function, instead of trying to make
mathematical concepts into metaphysical existents, the path to
discovering the causes of light and gravity will be open.

Ralph Hertle