On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:21:28 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:



Cecil Moore wrote:

In modern physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible
for electromagnetic phenomena.

Sounds like the egg is responsible for sex. What happened to
electrons?

It mediates electromagnetic
interactions and is the fundamental constituent of all forms of
electromagnetic radiation, that is, light. The photon has zero rest
mass and, in empty space, travels at a constant speed c;

That speed is hardly constant, it is relative. Or so Einstein would
have us believe.

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields,

Baloney cut thick.

and are
themselves the product of requiring that physical laws have a certain
symmetry at every point in spacetime.

Nevertheless, all semiclassical theories were refuted definitively in
the 1970's and 1980's by elegant photon-
correlation experiments.

What a short attention span from between the copy machine to the
keyboard.

Sounds impressive. Are you running for office by any chance?

Sounds like bull**** Xeroxed off at random.

So, should momentum change? Or should we expect it to be conserved?

"Should momentum change?" Is this a moral or ethical question? Is
this a debate about the nature of free will?

Momentum is conserved. A change in momentum is a change in
the direction of momentum, not a change in the magnitude.
Hams call that a reflection. What do you call it?

It's called acceleration - G force. We call it "the question that
hasn't an answer from Cecil."

So is your claim that, to "hams", a change in the magnitude of
momentum is not called a change in momentum?

Jim,

He can't put a name to it, and he is at a loss to find a value for it.
It is lost in all the other baggage of forfeited claims.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:
Actually an antireflective coating does not reflect energy. Hence the
name. If I had to give it a name I guess I'd call it an
anti-reflection. Howz that?

You must have one of your special tricky-dicky narrow-
minded physics definitions for "reflect" like you do for
"power" and "transfer". It is a fact that the internal
reflection is reflected at the outside surface of the
thin-film. Constructive interference energy due to wave
cancellation joins that reflection energy and becomes
inseparable from it. It has been commonly called a
reflection (actually a re-reflection) for decades.

As I said, please let us know when you come
understand the difference between units and physical quantities.

Please let us know when you come to understand the difference
in definitions between two technical disciplines. Unfortunately
for your definitions, amateur radio is a subset of RF engineering,
not physics. You may, in time, succeed in your quest to change
the definitions previously accepted as valid in the field of RF
engineering. Then again, you may not. Time will tell.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:
What happened to electrons?

Electrons absorb and emit photons.

That speed is hardly constant, it is relative. Or so Einstein would
have us believe.

I think Einstein would object to your statement. The theory
of relativity says everything is relative to the speed of
light fixed at the constant 'c' in free space.

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields,

Baloney cut thick.

I obtained this material from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Maybe you should volunteer to rewrite their material. Be sure
and tell them about your theory that anti-reflective glass is
brighter than the surface of the sun. That should really
impress them. :-)
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Jim Kelley wrote:
If I had to give it a name I guess I'd call it an
anti-reflection.

That's looking forward into a Z0-match from the source
side. The opposite thing happens looking back into a
Z0-match from the load side. What's the opposite of
an anti-reflection?

Actually, in my energy analysis article, I defined
the word, "re-reflection", as used in the article
and as used by Walter Maxwell in "Reflections".

Since I cannot find an official definition of that word,
defining it within an article is a perfectly honest and
acceptable thing to do. Quoting my article:

"Note that the author is defining the word "re-reflection"
as any and all reversals in direction of flow of reflected
energy or reflected energy components."

My energy article can be accessed at the URL below.

P.S. I'll be in HOG heaven during the long weekend.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:20:34 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

That speed is hardly constant, it is relative. Or so Einstein would
have us believe.

I think Einstein would object to your statement. The theory
of relativity says everything is relative to the speed of
light fixed at the constant 'c' in free space.

-Sigh-

Another opportunity for you to Fumble an excuse not to perform a
simple computation:

For a dry observer standing on the bank of a pool,
what is the speed of light in water?

This should even be Xeroxable.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

If I had to give it a name I guess I'd call it an anti-reflection.


That's looking forward into a Z0-match from the source
side. The opposite thing happens looking back into a
Z0-match from the load side. What's the opposite of
an anti-reflection?

Actually, in my energy analysis article, I defined
the word, "re-reflection", as used in the article
and as used by Walter Maxwell in "Reflections".

Cecil,

Where you go wrong is your energy analysis. Your argument goes awry
in at least a couple of areas. 1. 'destructive interference causes
energy to reverse direction.' This is purely false. Interference is
the description we give to the result of the superposition of waves.
It is not a causal phenomenon. 2. Unless you're talking photochromic
properties, partially reflective media interfaces do not become 100%
reflective in response to illumination (or for any other reason). Any
"re-reflection" that takes place is ordinary partial reflection in the
other direction.

Have fun on the hog. Last weekend I was fortunate enough to drive 20
laps on a 1/2 mile banked track in a Busch class stock car. Holy cow.

73, Jim AC6XG

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
As I said, please let us know when you come understand the difference
between units and physical quantities.


Please let us know when you come to understand the difference
in definitions between two technical disciplines.

Differences between disciplines in the definitions of fundamental
principles can only be in your understanding of them.

73, ac6xg

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:55:24 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Another opportunity for you to Fumble an excuse not to perform a
simple computation:

For a dry observer standing on the bank of a pool,
what is the speed of light in water?

No point in waiting for that fumbling excuse (the dolphin ate my
flashlight) when this simple computation is performed here everyday:

2.25408 * 10^8 m/s

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

What has been known since long before you were born is that only
direct interaction with matter causes EM waves to reflect.


Would you say the changing characteristic impedance between
two waveguides in outer space is a direct interaction
with matter? There is no matter inside the waveguide with
which to interact.

Come on, Cecil. You propose a scenario with a change in
characteristic impedance, and then try to pretend there isn't any
matter involved?

I'll have to take a look at the math.

411 - People usually do that _before_ they announce their discovery of
a new natural phenomenon.

But no matter what it is called, the results are the same.
"A rose by any other name ..."

Yes. An enormous blunder is, by any other name..... :-)

73, Jim ac6xg

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:21:28 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are
responsible for producing all electric and magnetic fields

Sorry, Jim, for responding through you to these howlers courtesy of
Cecil's Xerographic talents.

Producing "all" electric "and" magnetic fields? This is just too
naive to contemplate. I suppose our compasses don't work in the dark,
do they? A light bulb would never illuminate unless it was ALREADY ON
illuminating the wire that conducted electricity.

The list of amusing contradictions to this catechism above goes on,
and on.... Now we return you to Cecil's lamentations about the
quality of work he puts to the copier's scanning screen. :-0

Imagine, cribbing notes from and then blaming Wikipedia indeed!