Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| ...
| | Hexenmeister wrote:
| | "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message
| | ...
| |
| | Mission accomplished.
| | Androcles
| |
|
| If you've anything to say, ****, put back what I said and respond to
that
| first.
| Mission accomplished.
|
|
| Androcles.
Mission accomplished.

On Wed, 10 May 2006 07:26:21 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Wed, 10 May 2006 05:26:05 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
|
| |
| | I suggested that each photon has a 'cross section' that is considerably
| greater
| | than the slit spacing.
|
| The **** you did, plagiarist.
| It's funny how your "suggestions" appear after I've explained what a
photon
| is.
|
| You think


Indeed I do.
You should try it sometime instead of dreaming up Wombat's Wedge-shaped
Wedge-on Worbits Pty.


| it is a squiggly line in space, shaped like a sine wave.

Not at all. That is a mathematical model. When you can tell me the
wavelength
of my car and the frequency of a road we'll talk about it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...escatalina.gif


| I have produced an animation of part of a photon. Where is yours?
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe

Your photon is like this animal's tail:
http://www.alligatorfarm.us/main.html
and you are ****ing "useless-friendly".
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lsonPhoton.PNG

Why not make a gif? There a plenty of gif animators around, nobody
wants to download a ****ing executable just for a picture of your wild
imagination.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Animator&meta=

Mine is he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.gif

So a photon is a squiggly line in space, eh?


I've included the magnetic field.

....and it's phase is wrong.

Androcles.



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

On Wed, 10 May 2006 14:54:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:33:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



You don't listen do you Paul. My photons have 'intrinsic waves'....and these
will obey normal diffraction rules...more or less.

I suggested that each photon has a 'cross section' that is considerably greater
than the slit spacing. If the photon hits the slits symmetrically, its image
will appear directly behind the slits.
If it hits slightly off centre, it will be deflected at an angle determined by
its own intrinsic wavelength.
This concept is perfectly in order.

No, it isn't.
If we have a grating, the diffraction pattern is very
different from a double slit.
So how big is your "particle" spanning over the whole grid?
And how can this huge "particle" hit at one pixel only?

This is a different situation altogether. One doesn't normally use a grating
for ONE solitary photon.
Adapting my earlier suggestion to the grating in a pretty complicated business.

It makes no sense, Henri.

You don't even try Paul.


Whatever light is, the wavelength measured in a spectrometer
is the wavelength of a wave which behaves as a wave.


You must draw a distinction between a single photon and a large group.

I said that single photons possess intrinsic waves. Groups can possess an
additional 'phase related' wave.

And what the hell is this supposed to mean?

That RF signals are fundamentally different from single photons Paul.

That light behaves as a wave just like I said?

.....the hand of the queen of England behaves like a wave when she drives along
in a car too, Paul.

I have shown how this wave MUST behave according to
the ballistic theory. The predicted Doppler shift is not
observed. Ballistic theory falsified.


You are refusing to discuss anything outside your religion.

What a stupid statement. :-)
We are discussing the ballistic theory,
which is YOUR religion. Definitely not mine!

You don't even try to reason intelligently.

I said:
I have shown how this wave MUST behave according to
the ballistic theory. The predicted Doppler shift is not
observed. Ballistic theory falsified.

remind me...


See?
It's all about the ballistic theory which you
claim I refuse to discuss.

But have we ever discussed anything else, Henri?

(I'm too busy at present on a couple of projects. Sorry I cannot discuss this
for longer time).


Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 10 May 2006 07:26:21 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| wrote:

| Mine is he
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.gif
|
| So a photon is a squiggly line in space, eh?

No, a squiggly line in time. You always did confuse the time axis wth
spatial axes.


| I've included the magnetic field.
|
| ...and it's phase is wrong.


Hahaha...what do they call tusselader in Australian, ****head?
Androcles

On Thu, 11 May 2006 18:26:45 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Wed, 10 May 2006 07:26:21 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| wrote:

| Mine is he
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.gif
|
| So a photon is a squiggly line in space, eh?

No, a squiggly line in time. You always did confuse the time axis wth
spatial axes.

A squiggly line is a squiggly line is a squiggly line....

| I've included the magnetic field.
|
| ...and it's phase is wrong.


Hahaha...what do they call tusselader in Australian, ****head?
Androcles



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
news
On Wed, 10 May 2006 14:54:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:33:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



You don't listen do you Paul. My photons have 'intrinsic waves'....and
these
will obey normal diffraction rules...more or less.

I suggested that each photon has a 'cross section' that is considerably
greater
than the slit spacing. If the photon hits the slits symmetrically, its
image
will appear directly behind the slits.
If it hits slightly off centre, it will be deflected at an angle
determined by
its own intrinsic wavelength.
This concept is perfectly in order.

No, it isn't.
If we have a grating, the diffraction pattern is very
different from a double slit.
So how big is your "particle" spanning over the whole grid?
And how can this huge "particle" hit at one pixel only?

This is a different situation altogether. One doesn't normally use a
grating
for ONE solitary photon.

Yes one does. One collimates the beam from a telescope,
bounces it off a grating and counts the individual
photons or the total accumulated CCD detector, that's
how most astronomical spectra are obtained.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 11 May 2006 18:26:45 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Wed, 10 May 2006 07:26:21 GMT, "Hexenmeister"

| | wrote:
|
| | Mine is he
| | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.gif
| |
| | So a photon is a squiggly line in space, eh?
|
| No, a squiggly line in time. You always did confuse the time axis wth
| spatial axes.
|
| A squiggly line is a squiggly line is a squiggly line....

A wilson is a wabo is a moron...


|
| | I've included the magnetic field.
| |
| | ...and it's phase is wrong.
|
|
| Hahaha...what do they call tusselader in Australian, ****head?
| Androcles
|
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
|

On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:37:01 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
news
On Wed, 10 May 2006 14:54:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:33:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



You don't listen do you Paul. My photons have 'intrinsic waves'....and
these
will obey normal diffraction rules...more or less.

I suggested that each photon has a 'cross section' that is considerably
greater
than the slit spacing. If the photon hits the slits symmetrically, its
image
will appear directly behind the slits.
If it hits slightly off centre, it will be deflected at an angle
determined by
its own intrinsic wavelength.
This concept is perfectly in order.

No, it isn't.
If we have a grating, the diffraction pattern is very
different from a double slit.
So how big is your "particle" spanning over the whole grid?
And how can this huge "particle" hit at one pixel only?

This is a different situation altogether. One doesn't normally use a
grating
for ONE solitary photon.

Yes one does. One collimates the beam from a telescope,
bounces it off a grating and counts the individual
photons or the total accumulated CCD detector, that's
how most astronomical spectra are obtained.

Haw Haw Haw


George



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:37:01 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
news

... One doesn't normally use a grating
for ONE solitary photon.

Yes one does. One collimates the beam from a telescope,
bounces it off a grating and counts the individual
photons or the total accumulated CCD detector, that's
how most astronomical spectra are obtained.

Haw Haw Haw

This is after all an astronomy group Henry, you
should make an effort to be aware of these things.
How did you imagine spectra were obtained? I can't
believe you didn't know that gratings are just as
effective for individual photons.

George

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 14:54:47 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:33:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:




You don't listen do you Paul. My photons have 'intrinsic waves'....and these
will obey normal diffraction rules...more or less.

I suggested that each photon has a 'cross section' that is considerably greater
than the slit spacing. If the photon hits the slits symmetrically, its image
will appear directly behind the slits.
If it hits slightly off centre, it will be deflected at an angle determined by
its own intrinsic wavelength.
This concept is perfectly in order.

No, it isn't.
If we have a grating, the diffraction pattern is very
different from a double slit.
So how big is your "particle" spanning over the whole grid?
And how can this huge "particle" hit at one pixel only?


This is a different situation altogether. One doesn't normally use a grating
for ONE solitary photon.

Yes, one does.
And it isn't a very different situation.

Adapting my earlier suggestion to the grating in a pretty complicated business.

Pretty complicated, indeed! :-)

Your giant "particle" is nonsense, Henri.
The wave-particle duality doesn't work that way.


It makes no sense, Henri.


You don't even try Paul.

Try what?


Whatever light is, the wavelength measured in a spectrometer
is the wavelength of a wave which behaves as a wave.


You must draw a distinction between a single photon and a large group.

I said that single photons possess intrinsic waves. Groups can possess an
additional 'phase related' wave.

And what the hell is this supposed to mean?


That RF signals are fundamentally different from single photons Paul.

Are they?
In what way are they fundamentally different?


That light behaves as a wave just like I said?


....the hand of the queen of England behaves like a wave when she drives along
in a car too, Paul.

But you did say that light behave as a wave, didn't you?

I have shown how this wave MUST behave according to
the ballistic theory. The predicted Doppler shift is not
observed. Ballistic theory falsified.


You are refusing to discuss anything outside your religion.

What a stupid statement. :-)
We are discussing the ballistic theory,
which is YOUR religion. Definitely not mine!


You don't even try to reason intelligently.

But you do? :-)
That's why you utter such intelligent remarks as above, eh?

I said:
I have shown how this wave MUST behave according to
the ballistic theory. The predicted Doppler shift is not
observed. Ballistic theory falsified.


remind me...


See?
It's all about the ballistic theory which you
claim I refuse to discuss.

But have we ever discussed anything else, Henri?


(I'm too busy at present on a couple of projects. Sorry I cannot discuss this
for longer time).

Fine with me if you throw your cards.
This is no real discussion anyway.

Paul