Lenses

FYI: here is the report text just send:

"Gen.S& T 's thread "Lenses" post 40 is about as pointless and rude as it gets."

I hope at least someone will now look at this thread and comment about who is civil and correct.

For an unremovable record, here is post 40 in full:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you really want to know how much I hate and despise you, Billy? Do you even want me to get started?

You are so fucking disgusting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also, Billy, your messages on this thread suck ass bigtime.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Billy, you knowingly and deliberately wrote the most preposterous SHIT on the face of the planet just to upset me, just to trash this thread, and just to look good in front of total idiots. How can I help but hate you more than I have hated anyone, ever?

I was going the work. I was being polite. That is what you deliberately TRASHED.

It was a productive thread and you deliberately trashed it just to piss me off. What are you, four years old?

 

I am not too happy about your either. As many not well versed in physics come here to learn, I always try to correct nonsense when it is extreme. You keep me pretty busy.

The most recent case, prior to this one, was when you were explaining how pushing down on shorter arm of a see - saw lever would produce more energy out than the input energy as the tip of the longer arm would be moving up faster. (There have been several earlier extreme nonsense posts by you I have had to refute also. So many that I have lost exact count, but about 10 serious ones I think.)

Basis of your nonsense that time last time was the assumed fact* that momentum of smaller weight, m, on the longer arm end, which is being pushed up faster, at V, would equal the momentum of bigger weight, M, falling on and pushing down with speed v the shorter arm of the unequal length see-saw arms. (I.e. mV = Mv) and your correctly noting that the energy in smaller weight went as the square of its velocity. - Hence more energy out than the big weight had when striking the shorter see-saw end originally as the kinetic energy input.

In that case, I did not immediately tell what your mistake was as it does on the surface seem to be a violation of conservation of energy. Instead, in a long series of exchanged posts, I gave you increasing aids /hints. I was hoping for you to discover for yourself what was misleading you. Your attitude there too was that you were “obviously correct.” – The Ph.D. physicists were all wrong. - Net energy output could be produced. - You had solved the world's energy problem, etc.

I think you still do not understand that problem, even after I finally explained the paradox to you and worked it all out in the math for you.

In that exchange after many pages of your nonsense, I became annoyed and I admit to being a little cruel by pointing out that you could not even do the calculation of your incorrect model correctly. Sort of like here; Annoyed I finally noting you are not even internally consistent in your nonsense.

Please stop making so much work for me - correcting your frequent nonsense is getting tiring and taking too much of my time in correcting you.

---------------
* My final hint was the “give-away” one – I.e. I asked you to redo the problem’s calculations with the see-saw sitting on “tiny Earth,” whose mass was also M. That exposed the fact the there is momentum given to the Earth by dropping a weight on the short end of the see-saw due to the force of the fulcrum pushing down on the Earth with the impulse of the two weights being accelerated.

PS I do not mind abuse, but think you should think twice about calling eveyone who disagrees with you a "total idiot" as you do in post 44 here:

 

If you don't like correcting me don't do it. You're not doing it right anyway so don't bother. That thing about the size of a photon you did deliberately to piss me off.

 

You flatter yourself. What you think is of essentially no importance to me - in fact given your inability to learn and stubbornness, probably your oppinion POV etc. is the least important to me of all the posters active here.

I correct errors whenever I can. For example three times I have even corrected James R's errors. - I do take special delight when I can do that as he makes so very few - less than half as many as I do as I mainly rely on my memory for facts.

Correcting you gives no pleasure or joy - it is an onerous, unwelcome task I do for the innocent readers you might otherwise mislead. I do not look forward to doing it again, but fear I will need to if you continue to post your nonsense ideas as if they were facts of physics.

 

Billy, your corrections that last time were totally worthless and I gave you a chance to correct yourself.

 

So I was correct* - you still think it is posible to get more energy out than you put in.
-------------------
*In post 45 where I guessed: "you still do not understand that problem, even after I finally explained the paradox to you and worked it all out in the math for you."

 

Why am I even talking to you?

You denied what every reference on the subject says, that the range of wavelengths of visible photons runs from about 4000 to 7000 Angstrom units, and went into this drunken babble about something that was off on a tangent. Why? Were you off some kind of medication or do you need some kind of medication? The wavelength of a given photon has been accepted, since Einstein defined it that way, as the wavelength of a single particle with its own identity, zero electrical charge, whatever energy it contains, and so on. You kept on that denial just to drive me crazy and it worked. Now all that I want to do is hurl abuse on you, so we're not going to have sex anymore, OK?

 

False. You lie. I never denied that is approximately the visible light range.* - I only denied your false claim that photons are little balls one wavelenght in diameter. Typically, they are at least millions of wavelengths long. The sodium D lines I measured were ~30cm long. Some photons are several meters long.

I have spent four years working with visible light, spectrographs, Angstroms, interferometers, etc. for my Ph.D. I have FORGOTTEN 100 times more than you will ever know about the physics in this area.

For an example of one interesting fact (which no book except my Ph.D. dissertation records):

It is possible to adjust the separation between the two plates of a Fabry Perot interferometer to be an EXACTLY KNOWN SEPARATION to six significant figure accuracy ONLY BY LOOKING AT THE INTERFERENCE PATTERN. (I have done this.)

Here is how and why it is possible with a Helium light source:

9005 wavelengths of the blue line at 4471.48 Angstroms
6853 wavelengths of the yellow line at 5875.62 Angstroms
8028 wavelengths of the green line at 5015.68 Angstroms

All have the same physical length in an Argon** atmosphere.

Thus, they accidently fall exactly on top of each other and produce a uniquely colored ring in the interference pattern, which is easy to recognize just by looking at the pattern. When the FP is adjusted to make that ring shrink down to be the central bright spot (have zero radius), then the separation between the two plates is that exactly known length to better than six significant figures in accuracy!

-------------------
* For humans. For honey bees, their visible light range is twice as large. All the flowers that appear white to you have very different colors to the bee as "white" flowers do have selective absorption in the near UV. That is how the bees efficiently fly to the type of plant that is currently producing nectar. Presumably, these different UV colors are very beautful to the bee, each in its season of nectar flow.

** If you multiply each of the three wavelengths by the number of wavelengths given above and compare the three resulting products they will NOT be exactly the same total lengths. These published wavelengths are corrected to vacuum conditions, but I used dry argon inside my Fabry Perot to protect the silver films I had deposited on the plates from oxidation. Not only did that protect their reflective surface, but also by changing the argon presure I could fine tune the effective or optical separation to pass any wavelength I desired without changing the physical spacing between the plates.

To get exact agreement you must adjust for the wavelength dispersion of argon at these three wave lengths OR, and more interestingly, you can use the fact that in argon these three sets of wavelengths order number products all have exactly the same physical length to determine the relative dispersion of argon at these three wavelengths.

As I said: You will never know even 1% of what I have forgotten. (I had to look up the above data in my dissertation.)

Too bad for you that you are SUCH A STUBBORN FOOL that you cannot learn from one who really knows about all this, but you do serves as a useful tool/fool by giving me a excuse to help others learn.

 

Yeah, right, whatever you say, Billy.

Can you show me even one creditable or even vaguely credible source that supports your contention? I can show you several online that support mine:

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

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214455,00.html

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Photon.html

Wolfram says it best. It is the basic unit or "quantum" of electromagnetic energy.

Joke's over, Billy. It stopped being funny a long time ago.

 

More sources:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Light/photons.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-photon.html

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761574512

Photon
The carrier particle of the electromagnetic interaction. Depending on its frequency (and therefore its energy) photons can have different names such as visible light, X rays and gamma rays. We describe light in several ways. When we talk about "photons" we generally think of uncharged particles with out mass that carry energy (but be careful, there are other particles like this!). Photons of light are known by other names too, such as gamma rays and x-rays. Low-energy forms are called ultraviolet rays, infrared rays, even radio waves! A photon is one of the fundamental particle in nature and it plays an important role involving electron interactions. Photons are the most familiar particles in everyday existence. The light we see, the radiant heat we feel, microwaves we cook with, are make use of photons of different energies. An x-ray is simply a name given to the most energetic of these particles.

Maybe you forgot more physics than you think.

 

Sure is. Not one of your six links either states the photon is a little ball of diameter equal to the wavelength as you claim or any thing I disagree with. You are in disagreement with both the well established Fourier* theory and the experimental facts.**

I challenge you to find, then quote (and tell where it is), one sentence in all your links that even suggests the nonsense you claim: I.e. that the photon is the little ball photon of diameter equal to the wavelength. – That is a joke. It would be funny, except for the ignorance and arrogance it reflects. (Your very ideas are self contradictory! -A one cycle or wave length long photon cannot have a well defined frequence / wavelength.)*
--------------
*Fourier theory shows that very large number of cycles (number of wavelength) are required for there to be a well defined frequency. Fact that spectral lines exist means the wavelength and frequencies of each photon are sharp / well defined. Thus photons contain many cycles. For example the three helium lines I named in last post and gave wave lengths with 6 significant figures all have at least 5 million cycles in each photon. Some visible photon have wavelengths known 100 times more precisely. - They have at least half a billion cycles (wavelengths) in each photon. - Not exactly what any sane person would call a little ball, one wavelength in diameter.

All photons are "energy packets" and the longer they are (the more cycles they have) the more precisely is their energy defined. Anyone with even slight knowledge or understanding of Fourier theory knows this, but that obviously does not include you.

**Not only are photon lengths measurements by means I explained (in second ** footnote of post 38) to determine how long each photon (quantized energy packet) is but the shortest I have ever heard of is (at least) 10cm long and some are several meters long, but also the fact that they have a well defined energy (delta E is small) means it is impossible to know precisely when they were created because, in slight inappropriate classic terms you can understand, they are being made over an extended time period (Delta T). In somewhat more accurate terms, the lower their radiative decay transition probability is, the longer they are.

This is all related to the quantum uncertainty principle setting a minimum value for the product of (Delta E) x (Delta T) but quantum theory is something you have only heard of and have no understanding of.

 

Billy, your reasoning is way out in left field. Photons have a precise wavelength because of their nature as quantum units of electromagnetic energy. Dividing the speed of light by that wavelength gives you the frequency even if it is a single cycle, and it is definitely a single cycle. Everything I pointed you to says that the photon is a single quantum of electromagnetic energy. What are you doing, just trying to see how long you can keep me going?

This says exactly what I have been saying:

 

That is not necessary. He does serve a useful function as I noted before (at end of post 51). - His stubborness in his ignorance does give me opportunity to teach others who can learn. If I were just to post all I have in this thread about the nature of photons without that provocaton it would appear as pointless braging etc. - not as an effort to get the facts correctly stated there. Thanks for the offer anyway.

Perhaps you could briefly review most of my post to see if you can find any error and comment.

Later by Edit:
If one considers the Fourier Theory to be limited to the original basis set functions used by Fourier, namely the sin and cos functions then there is a subtle error IMPLICIT (I was careful not to actually state than one can analysis a photon in Fourier waves or functions and make the error explicit.) in my frequent references to Fourier theory. Fourier theory has come a long way since Fourier died. The more modern type of it that is required to be strictly correct was invented by Dennis Gabor, about60 years ago.

For some discussion of it see:

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

The implicit error is that the original Fourier theory can only be applied to periodic functions, which by definition are infinitely long and photons are not. The Gabor functions can replace the original sin/cos basis set (many are now known) and like them be mathematically "orthogonal" to make the transforms easy to find. All of the Gabor functions basis sets have the property of vanishing as one approaches + or - infinity. Thus unlike the original Fourier theory, they can be applied to photons without even an implicit error. If one were to apply the original basis set of Fourier to photons then one must ignore the fact that the result of a sum of periodic functions is also periodic. (A commonly done practice, for example in the determination of the frequency content of a single cycle such as a triangular pulse: ..._______/\_______... where time is the horizontal axis.) Gabor functions are a subset of the more general theory, which is usually called time analysis or time series analysis or something of that nature where the signal or function is not periodic. (No real signal is truly "periodic" as all have a beginning and presumably an end in time.)

I wanted to add this note of clarification about what I considered "Fourier Theory" to be (the modern extension of the original) as James is well informed and I did challenge him to find any error in my posts. If he tries hard (reads all of mine in this thread) I am quite confident he will learn a few things. - For example, I bet he did not know how to measure the length of photons, and like me will be impressed that one can adjust the space be two plates to an error of only one part in 10 million, just using your eye to look. - No "ruler" of any physical kind, etc.

 

Quoted so that you cannot edit out later. This forum has a rule against publicly posting moderator PMs. Also it looks like yet another insult to my intelligence.

Now, in what way was that an appropriate response to message #57?

What are you doing, trying to trash science altogether?

 

Why don't you both go and fuck yourselves? I've been thrown out of better places.

And by the way, that was extremely inappropriate, no matter if you are a moderator or what you are. Deliberate provocation is inappropriate.