The extraordinary genius of Albert Einstein (DOC) | ScienceDump

On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:25:57 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:28:31 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


Mom: shrug

Good one Koobee....keep it up...

The grade school kid, Kinky Wobbly: Hey look, Wilson, aether has
to be there, it is OBVIOUS, and the speed of light is relative to aether.
shrug

You didn't read his whole post. It was quite good.

Yes I did and I agree it is quite good. Kinky's problem is his
religious-like faith in aether.

Well at least aether theory would work if there WAS and aether. SR simply
doesn't work at all.

...and there is no aether.....That's why lighj speed has to be source
dependent. Didn't you know that?

I know it but Kinky doesn't. Much of the problem is the term
"electromagnetic" -- there are electric waves and magnetic waves,
each dependent on the other and phase shifted 90 degrees,
but there are no electromagnetic waves.

I agree it is 90. Others say it is zero. I reckon these waves might exist
INSIDE a photon but not generally in space. I also reckon that traveling
photons must spread out and coalesce over large distances, which explains
why images of distant galaxies are reasonably detailed and why large radio
telescope arrays pick up the same wavefronts.

It's a language thing. He says light is a wave and therefore
needs a medium, and if it were one wave it would need a
medium, but light is two waves, one electric and one
magnetic. There are men and there are women but the unit of the
two is called a "family" or a "couple" or colloquially an "item",
but it is not called a ladygent.

I have a theory that the fields inside an atom act like a kind of aether
which causes photons to be emitted at c wrt it, according to Maxwell.
Before you rant and rave, do you have a better reason for light to travel at
c wrt its source?

On 5/27/12 4:23 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
SR simply
doesn't work at all.

Ralph Rabbidge, who is neither a Henry nor a Wilson and
most certainly not a DSc., fails to realize that there
has *never been an observation* that contradicts a prediction
of special relativity. Never!

The application of special relativity is essential for many
things in our lives.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified,[5] including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, contradicting the classical notion that the duration of the time interval between two events is equal for all observers.

On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:29:36 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 5/27/12 4:23 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
SR simply
doesn't work at all.

Henry Wilson, DSc, who is a Henry and a Wilson and
most certainly a DSc., fails to realize that there
has *never been an observation* that contradicts a prediction
of special relativity. Never!

I must correct your obvious typo...
There has *never been a sufficiently accurate observation* that appears to
support a prediction of special relativity and which does not have an
alternative Newtonian explanation.

The application of special relativity is essential for many
things in our lives.

HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHA! Another SRian dream!

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:25:57 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:28:31 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


Mom: shrug

Good one Koobee....keep it up...

The grade school kid, Kinky Wobbly: Hey look, Wilson, aether has
to be there, it is OBVIOUS, and the speed of light is relative to
aether.
shrug

You didn't read his whole post. It was quite good.

Yes I did and I agree it is quite good. Kinky's problem is his
religious-like faith in aether.

Well at least aether theory would work if there WAS and aether. SR simply
doesn't work at all.

...and there is no aether.....That's why lighj speed has to be source
dependent. Didn't you know that?

I know it but Kinky doesn't. Much of the problem is the term
"electromagnetic" -- there are electric waves and magnetic waves,
each dependent on the other and phase shifted 90 degrees,
but there are no electromagnetic waves.

I agree it is 90. Others say it is zero. I reckon these waves might exist
INSIDE a photon but not generally in space.

It's very easy to observe a magnetic field, every kid has or
should have seen iron filings with a bar or horseshoe magnet,
two North poles repelling and North and South poles attracting.
It is not quite as easy to observe an electric field because voltages
can bite, but it can be done. A 26,000V electric field exists in
TV tubes.
What you need to explain is what you think it is INSIDE?
The photon IS the field, the only difference is it is oscillating.



I also reckon that traveling
photons must spread out and coalesce over large distances, which explains
why images of distant galaxies are reasonably detailed and why large radio
telescope arrays pick up the same wavefronts.

Very large telescopes arrays are receiving a portion of the same
photon. Your mental model of a photon as a tiny thing simply
doesn't apply at low frequencies. Nets catch large fish, small
fish go right through them, whales break them. Your eyes only
catch one size of photon, you can't see big IR photons or
or small X ray photons.



It's a language thing. He says light is a wave and therefore
needs a medium, and if it were one wave it would need a
medium, but light is two waves, one electric and one
magnetic. There are men and there are women but the unit of the
two is called a "family" or a "couple" or colloquially an "item",
but it is not called a ladygent.

I have a theory that the fields inside an atom act like a kind of aether
which causes photons to be emitted at c wrt it, according to Maxwell.
Before you rant and rave, do you have a better reason for light to travel
at
c wrt its source?

Perhaps you should experimentally determine the speed of x-rays
wrt its source, or the speed of IR from your hotplate, before asserting
that it is c.
http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/...s-571969w.html

On Sun, 27 May 2012 23:16:47 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:25:57 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:



...and there is no aether.....That's why lighj speed has to be source
dependent. Didn't you know that?

I know it but Kinky doesn't. Much of the problem is the term
"electromagnetic" -- there are electric waves and magnetic waves,
each dependent on the other and phase shifted 90 degrees,
but there are no electromagnetic waves.

I agree it is 90. Others say it is zero. I reckon these waves might exist
INSIDE a photon but not generally in space.

It's very easy to observe a magnetic field, every kid has or
should have seen iron filings with a bar or horseshoe magnet,
two North poles repelling and North and South poles attracting.
It is not quite as easy to observe an electric field because voltages
can bite, but it can be done. A 26,000V electric field exists in
TV tubes.
What you need to explain is what you think it is INSIDE?
The photon IS the field, the only difference is it is oscillating.

That's what I have been telling you.

I also reckon that traveling
photons must spread out and coalesce over large distances, which explains
why images of distant galaxies are reasonably detailed and why large radio
telescope arrays pick up the same wavefronts.

Very large telescopes arrays are receiving a portion of the same
photon. Your mental model of a photon as a tiny thing simply
doesn't apply at low frequencies.

It is only tiny when it is emitted. I say it enlarges as it goes and
interacts with other photons going the same way. They all end up pretty well
coherent in both phase and speed.

Nets catch large fish, small
fish go right through them, whales break them. Your eyes only
catch one size of photon, you can't see big IR photons or
or small X ray photons.



It's a language thing. He says light is a wave and therefore
needs a medium, and if it were one wave it would need a
medium, but light is two waves, one electric and one
magnetic. There are men and there are women but the unit of the
two is called a "family" or a "couple" or colloquially an "item",
but it is not called a ladygent.

I have a theory that the fields inside an atom act like a kind of aether
which causes photons to be emitted at c wrt it, according to Maxwell.
Before you rant and rave, do you have a better reason for light to travel
at
c wrt its source?

Perhaps you should experimentally determine the speed of x-rays
wrt its source, or the speed of IR from your hotplate, before asserting
that it is c.
http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/...s-571969w.html

It is not easy to measure the speed of x rays or gammas but if their speed
is not c wrt their source it must be close to it.

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 May 2012 23:16:47 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:25:57 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:



...and there is no aether.....That's why lighj speed has to be source
dependent. Didn't you know that?

I know it but Kinky doesn't. Much of the problem is the term
"electromagnetic" -- there are electric waves and magnetic waves,
each dependent on the other and phase shifted 90 degrees,
but there are no electromagnetic waves.

I agree it is 90. Others say it is zero. I reckon these waves might
exist
INSIDE a photon but not generally in space.

It's very easy to observe a magnetic field, every kid has or
should have seen iron filings with a bar or horseshoe magnet,
two North poles repelling and North and South poles attracting.
It is not quite as easy to observe an electric field because voltages
can bite, but it can be done. A 26,000V electric field exists in
TV tubes.
What you need to explain is what you think it is INSIDE?
The photon IS the field, the only difference is it is oscillating.

That's what I have been telling you.

Then you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.



I also reckon that traveling
photons must spread out and coalesce over large distances, which
explains
why images of distant galaxies are reasonably detailed and why large
radio
telescope arrays pick up the same wavefronts.

Very large telescopes arrays are receiving a portion of the same
photon. Your mental model of a photon as a tiny thing simply
doesn't apply at low frequencies.

It is only tiny when it is emitted. I say it enlarges as it goes and
interacts with other photons going the same way. They all end up pretty
well
coherent in both phase and speed.

It isn't tiny when it is emitted. A 500 MHz - 1 GHz photon is as big as
a TV aerial, which, strangely, is why TV aerials are the size they are,
whether for transmission or reception.



Nets catch large fish, small
fish go right through them, whales break them. Your eyes only
catch one size of photon, you can't see big IR photons or
or small X ray photons.



It's a language thing. He says light is a wave and therefore
needs a medium, and if it were one wave it would need a
medium, but light is two waves, one electric and one
magnetic. There are men and there are women but the unit of the
two is called a "family" or a "couple" or colloquially an "item",
but it is not called a ladygent.

I have a theory that the fields inside an atom act like a kind of aether
which causes photons to be emitted at c wrt it, according to Maxwell.
Before you rant and rave, do you have a better reason for light to
travel
at
c wrt its source?

Perhaps you should experimentally determine the speed of x-rays
wrt its source, or the speed of IR from your hotplate, before asserting
that it is c.

http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/...s-571969w.html

It is not easy to measure the speed of x rays or gammas but if their speed
is not c wrt their source it must be close to it.

Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can easily
find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
"close to it" good enough for government work?
I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
some music.

On Mon, 28 May 2012 01:55:23 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 May 2012 23:16:47 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

I agree it is 90. Others say it is zero. I reckon these waves might
exist
INSIDE a photon but not generally in space.

It's very easy to observe a magnetic field, every kid has or
should have seen iron filings with a bar or horseshoe magnet,
two North poles repelling and North and South poles attracting.
It is not quite as easy to observe an electric field because voltages
can bite, but it can be done. A 26,000V electric field exists in
TV tubes.
What you need to explain is what you think it is INSIDE?
The photon IS the field, the only difference is it is oscillating.

That's what I have been telling you.

Then you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.

There are several things we know about 'photons'. 1) They are emitted
individually during energy transitions of charged particles. 2) They possess
wavelike properties.

ONE photon does not make a continuous wave. Light is not like a radio wave.
Radio waves consist of a great many photons, each emitted by an accelerating
charge in the antenna. I think the waveform of a radio wave is created by
varying the photon energy density with time. Photons are very small so
gigahertz frequencies are no problem.


I also reckon that traveling
photons must spread out and coalesce over large distances, which
explains
why images of distant galaxies are reasonably detailed and why large
radio
telescope arrays pick up the same wavefronts.

Very large telescopes arrays are receiving a portion of the same
photon. Your mental model of a photon as a tiny thing simply
doesn't apply at low frequencies.

It is only tiny when it is emitted. I say it enlarges as it goes and
interacts with other photons going the same way. They all end up pretty
well
coherent in both phase and speed.

It isn't tiny when it is emitted. A 500 MHz - 1 GHz photon is as big as
a TV aerial, which, strangely, is why TV aerials are the size they are,
whether for transmission or reception.

It isn't. Photons are emitted by accelerating charges. How many electrons
accelerate per second along a UHF antenna?


I have a theory that the fields inside an atom act like a kind of aether
which causes photons to be emitted at c wrt it, according to Maxwell.
Before you rant and rave, do you have a better reason for light to
travel
at
c wrt its source?

Perhaps you should experimentally determine the speed of x-rays
wrt its source, or the speed of IR from your hotplate, before asserting
that it is c.

http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/...s-571969w.html


It is not easy to measure the speed of x rays or gammas but if their speed
is not c wrt their source it must be close to it.

Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can easily
find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
"close to it" good enough for government work?

A TV signal is made of a great many photons that move at c wrt their source.

I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
some music.

Have you ever considered why FM and UHF signals wont go around corners?

Ask Tisseladd. He can bend light.

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 May 2012 01:55:23 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 May 2012 23:16:47 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

I agree it is 90. Others say it is zero. I reckon these waves might
exist
INSIDE a photon but not generally in space.

It's very easy to observe a magnetic field, every kid has or
should have seen iron filings with a bar or horseshoe magnet,
two North poles repelling and North and South poles attracting.
It is not quite as easy to observe an electric field because voltages
can bite, but it can be done. A 26,000V electric field exists in
TV tubes.
What you need to explain is what you think it is INSIDE?
The photon IS the field, the only difference is it is oscillating.

That's what I have been telling you.

Then you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.

There are several things we know about 'photons'. 1) They are emitted
individually during energy transitions of charged particles. 2) They
possess
wavelike properties.


That's vague. What's a "wavelike property"?
The turning of the Earth possesses a wavelike property:
http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide...ide/index.aspx
A piston, crankshaft and connecting rod possesses a wavelike
property. The phase between two pistons in a 4-stroke
twin cylinder engine isn't zero, it is 360 degrees because they
fire alternately. Anything that rotates or reciprocates possesses a
wavelike property. Your domestic AC electricity supply possesses
a wavelike property.




ONE photon does not make a continuous wave.

Yes it does.
ONE wheel on your car doesn't make continuous contact
with the road. If it did it would possess a wavelike property,
the air valve would move up and down.



Light is not like a radio wave.

Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.



Radio waves consist of a great many photons, each emitted by an
accelerating
charge in the antenna.

Rubbish. If photons were wheels then a radio wave would be a train,
each carriage spaced apart exactly and all wheels going at the
same speed. Light would be more like cars on a road, unequally
spaced and some passing others.



I think the waveform of a radio wave is created by
varying the photon energy density with time. Photons are very small so
gigahertz frequencies are no problem.

Rubbish. Low frequency radio waves are huge.
Roller skate wheels are small, they spin faster than
tractor tyres.




I also reckon that traveling
photons must spread out and coalesce over large distances, which
explains
why images of distant galaxies are reasonably detailed and why large
radio
telescope arrays pick up the same wavefronts.

Very large telescopes arrays are receiving a portion of the same
photon. Your mental model of a photon as a tiny thing simply
doesn't apply at low frequencies.

It is only tiny when it is emitted. I say it enlarges as it goes and
interacts with other photons going the same way. They all end up pretty
well
coherent in both phase and speed.

It isn't tiny when it is emitted. A 500 MHz - 1 GHz photon is as big as
a TV aerial, which, strangely, is why TV aerials are the size they are,
whether for transmission or reception.

It isn't. Photons are emitted by accelerating charges. How many electrons
accelerate per second along a UHF antenna?

The electrons work in concert to produce ONE magnetic field.



I have a theory that the fields inside an atom act like a kind of
aether
which causes photons to be emitted at c wrt it, according to Maxwell.
Before you rant and rave, do you have a better reason for light to
travel
at
c wrt its source?

Perhaps you should experimentally determine the speed of x-rays
wrt its source, or the speed of IR from your hotplate, before asserting
that it is c.

http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/...s-571969w.html


It is not easy to measure the speed of x rays or gammas but if their
speed
is not c wrt their source it must be close to it.

Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can easily
find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
"close to it" good enough for government work?

A TV signal is made of a great many photons that move at c wrt their
source.

Assertion carries no weight.


I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
some music.

Have you ever considered why FM and UHF signals wont go around corners?

Ask Tisseladd. He can bend light.

Irrelevant, you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.

On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:16:56 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 May 2012 01:55:23 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

That's what I have been telling you.

Then you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.

There are several things we know about 'photons'. 1) They are emitted
individually during energy transitions of charged particles. 2) They
possess
wavelike properties.


That's vague. What's a "wavelike property"?
The turning of the Earth possesses a wavelike property:
http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide...ide/index.aspx
A piston, crankshaft and connecting rod possesses a wavelike
property. The phase between two pistons in a 4-stroke
twin cylinder engine isn't zero, it is 360 degrees because they
fire alternately. Anything that rotates or reciprocates possesses a
wavelike property. Your domestic AC electricity supply possesses
a wavelike property.

All right, if you want to be pedantic, let's agree that 'aspects of their
observed behavior exhibit regular periodicity'.


ONE photon does not make a continuous wave.

Yes it does.
ONE wheel on your car doesn't make continuous contact
with the road. If it did it would possess a wavelike property,
the air valve would move up and down.

It would appear as a wave if plotted against time.

Light is not like a radio wave.

Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.

It is a totaly different entity. Monchromatic light is made up of many
identical individual photons, each with the same internal oscillation.
A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency although
each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute wavelength'.

A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated so
that the photon density carries the wave information.

A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
particular frequency..


Radio waves consist of a great many photons, each emitted by an
accelerating
charge in the antenna.

Rubbish. If photons were wheels then a radio wave would be a train,
each carriage spaced apart exactly and all wheels going at the
same speed. Light would be more like cars on a road, unequally
spaced and some passing others.

You don't understand that innumerable photons are being emitted continuously
from all the accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna.

I think the waveform of a radio wave is created by
varying the photon energy density with time. Photons are very small so
gigahertz frequencies are no problem.

Rubbish. Low frequency radio waves are huge.
Roller skate wheels are small, they spin faster than
tractor tyres.

Engineers should not get involved with physics.


coherent in both phase and speed.

It isn't tiny when it is emitted. A 500 MHz - 1 GHz photon is as big as
a TV aerial, which, strangely, is why TV aerials are the size they are,
whether for transmission or reception.

It isn't. Photons are emitted by accelerating charges. How many electrons
accelerate per second along a UHF antenna?

The electrons work in concert to produce ONE magnetic field.

Only because they are all accelerating the same direction at the same
instant.


Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can easily
find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
"close to it" good enough for government work?

A TV signal is made of a great many photons that move at c wrt their
source.

Assertion carries no weight.

Do you claim that they don't move at c wrt the antenna?

I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
some music.

Have you ever considered why FM and UHF signals wont go around corners?

Ask Tisseladd. He can bend light.

Irrelevant, you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.

A photon has length and cross section. Lots of things can happen inside one.

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:16:56 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 28 May 2012 01:55:23 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

That's what I have been telling you.

Then you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.

There are several things we know about 'photons'. 1) They are emitted
individually during energy transitions of charged particles. 2) They
possess
wavelike properties.


That's vague. What's a "wavelike property"?
The turning of the Earth possesses a wavelike property:
http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide...ide/index.aspx
A piston, crankshaft and connecting rod possesses a wavelike
property. The phase between two pistons in a 4-stroke
twin cylinder engine isn't zero, it is 360 degrees because they
fire alternately. Anything that rotates or reciprocates possesses a
wavelike property. Your domestic AC electricity supply possesses
a wavelike property.

All right, if you want to be pedantic, let's agree that 'aspects of their
observed behavior exhibit regular periodicity'.

We have to be pedantic, and you are right, I fully agree that "wavelike"
merely means regular periodicity. The difficulty arises only when waves
travel -- i.e. the water moves up and down, out of phase with other water
that is horizontally displaced but moving up and down. Then we get into
arguments about wavelength, frequency and speed. A standing wave has
wavelength and frequency, but no speed. If it did it wouldn't be called
"standing".
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...andingWave.gif



ONE photon does not make a continuous wave.

Yes it does.
ONE wheel on your car doesn't make continuous contact
with the road. If it did it would possess a wavelike property,
the air valve would move up and down.

It would appear as a wave if plotted against time.

Yes. So does the mass on a spring. The air valve plots a
cycloid against x and a sine wave against t. The cycloid
because the horizontal movement of the valve is not
constant. Where the tyre touches the ground it has no
movement in x. If it did you'd be leaving skid marks.
It is important to distinguish a plot against time and a
plot against distance, they are NOT the same.





Light is not like a radio wave.

Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.

It is a totaly different entity.

No it isn't.

Monchromatic light is made up of many
identical individual photons, each with the same internal oscillation.

Radio waves are monochromatic.

A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency

Yes it does. Tune in to 100 MHz FM. Any deviation from 100 MHz
is called "audio" which is why it is called "Frequency Modulation" (FM).

although
each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute wavelength'.

There is no such animal as 'absolute wavelength'.


A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated so
that the photon density carries the wave information.

Rubbish. A radio wave is a train of photons.

A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
particular frequency..

No it doesn't, but I'm not going the explain FM and AM radio to
an idiot here. There is a whole internet where you can find it. Use
Google.


Not true.


Radio waves consist of a great many photons, each emitted by an
accelerating
charge in the antenna.

Rubbish. If photons were wheels then a radio wave would be a train,
each carriage spaced apart exactly and all wheels going at the
same speed. Light would be more like cars on a road, unequally
spaced and some passing others.

You don't understand that innumerable photons are being emitted
continuously
from all the accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna.

"You don't understand..." You sound just like a relativist, a ****wit
like Shuba. He's the kind of **** that always claims "You don't
understand..."
What YOU don't understand is the magnetic field that all those
accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna contribute to
is ONE photon until they all move back again and do it again
and again.


I think the waveform of a radio wave is created by
varying the photon energy density with time. Photons are very small so
gigahertz frequencies are no problem.

Rubbish. Low frequency radio waves are huge.
Roller skate wheels are small, they spin faster than
tractor tyres.

Engineers should not get involved with physics.

Sheep shaggers should tend to their flocks.




coherent in both phase and speed.

It isn't tiny when it is emitted. A 500 MHz - 1 GHz photon is as big as
a TV aerial, which, strangely, is why TV aerials are the size they are,
whether for transmission or reception.

It isn't. Photons are emitted by accelerating charges. How many
electrons
accelerate per second along a UHF antenna?

The electrons work in concert to produce ONE magnetic field.

Only because they are all accelerating the same direction at the same
instant.

RIGHT!
And when the magnetic field collapses remote from the aerial it
leaves ONE electric field, out there in space. The photon is as
big as the aerial!




Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can easily
find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
"close to it" good enough for government work?

A TV signal is made of a great many photons that move at c wrt their
source.

Assertion carries no weight.

Do you claim that they don't move at c wrt the antenna?

Defining c = 300,000,000 m/s, yes.
TV signals move at c. Measure them, you have all the electronics
available, a D.Sc. and a theory to prove.
I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away.



I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
some music.

Have you ever considered why FM and UHF signals wont go around corners?

Ask Tisseladd. He can bend light.

Irrelevant, you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.

A photon has length and cross section. Lots of things can happen inside
one.

I'm not interested in "can", "maybe", "might be", "could be". If you
were a scientist you'd investigate and say "is".