|
|
Post by jonbain on May 2, 2023 18:37:36 GMT
Most seem to say it has neither charge, which makes no sense if it is part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Here is a good reading for this topic of the photoelectric effect:
And as the photon displaces an electron, it seems clear that this would only be feasible if they repelled each other.
So then the photon must be negative?
Or is this just another example of the science and the technology having little or nothing to do with one another?
As it is, this is often seen as a 'proof' of the 'wave-particle duality' paradigm. Which is itself blatantly wrong because a wave is a mathematical relationship between objects; or the same object changing its position over time.
Any thoughts welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 3, 2023 19:49:46 GMT
Most seem to say it has neither charge, which makes no sense if it is part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Here is a good reading for this topic of the photoelectric effect:
And as the photon displaces an electron, it seems clear that this would only be feasible if they repelled each other.
So then the photon must be negative?
Or is this just another example of the science and the technology having little or nothing to do with one another?
As it is, this is often seen as a 'proof' of the 'wave-particle duality' paradigm. Which is itself blatantly wrong because a wave is a mathematical relationship between objects; or the same object changing its position over time.
Any thoughts welcome.
Your obsession with physics, as being the dominating factor of reality, entraps you within the realm of forms, thus an entrapment within relativity (as all forms are relative). |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 3, 2023 21:14:35 GMT
Most seem to say it has neither charge, which makes no sense if it is part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Here is a good reading for this topic of the photoelectric effect:
And as the photon displaces an electron, it seems clear that this would only be feasible if they repelled each other.
So then the photon must be negative?
Or is this just another example of the science and the technology having little or nothing to do with one another?
As it is, this is often seen as a 'proof' of the 'wave-particle duality' paradigm. Which is itself blatantly wrong because a wave is a mathematical relationship between objects; or the same object changing its position over time.
Any thoughts welcome.
Your obsession with physics, as being the dominating factor of reality, entraps you within the realm of forms, thus an entrapment within relativity (as all forms are relative).
Its a focus on the mind of the pseudo-scientist, and is thus more psychology than anything else.
Physics is just the axiomatic foundation - the medium of discourse.
One either uses the forms to alter the psycho-social nature of reality, or their shadows control you.
This is especially true in the light of physics, both real and
their imaginary shadows.
It has been said we only use a small fraction of our minds, but its clear to me that most of the mind is lost in believing in
the false idols of materialist pseudo-science.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 4, 2023 13:14:27 GMT
I'm not a physicist, so there's no much to say of me, except for I would agree that a wave is mathematical. However I see no connections between this view and what xxxxxxxxx said about the view of forms as well as that all the forms are relative. Jung, as far as I know, said about archetypes in our nature, in behaviour, society, etc. It's not very good, but it's possible to say that the view of Ogustus Kont and Karl Jung were against each other about the transgression of our mind. While Kont insisted the mankind (phylogenesis) as well as an individual (ontogenesis) went from the more primitive forms (believing in anima, etc) to the most advances (science), Jung said that that collective unconsciousness is always presented in as our daily live so in the role of society. Since we don't see that the other views eclipsed, but we see that any metaphysical views are even alive today (for instance, the dark matter, etc), I would say that Jung was right, not Kont. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2023 18:20:51 GMT
Your obsession with physics, as being the dominating factor of reality, entraps you within the realm of forms, thus an entrapment within relativity (as all forms are relative).
Its a focus on the mind of the pseudo-scientist, and is thus more psychology than anything else.
Physics is just the axiomatic foundation - the medium of discourse.
One either uses the forms to alter the psycho-social nature of reality, or their shadows control you.
This is especially true in the light of physics, both real and
their imaginary shadows.
It has been said we only use a small fraction of our minds, but its clear to me that most of the mind is lost in believing in
the false idols of materialist pseudo-science.
Forms are boundaries that allow for identity, they are synonymous to the term "limits". Physics is a study of forms. Psychology is also a study of forms. Forms are relative due to their nature of connection and/or contrast. The study of either is an immersion in relativity. And to build off of this nature of relativity further (as an example); 1. Physics is a starting point as it is an observation of matter. 2. Psychology is a starting point as it is matter observing. 3. Matter observes matter and observation of matter is observation. 4. These fields are relative starting points, it can be argued that either can be the starting point. 5. As to starting points any other field of knowledge can be equated as such: mathematics, sociology, history, chemistry, biology...etc. 6. So we are left with a meta-knowledge that guides these branches of knowledge; this meta-knowledge is that any of the branches can be chosen as a starting point but there is no rule as to when and where to start. Dually these branches expand with the expanse in knowledge thus paradoxically with the more you know the more fragmented the sciences become. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 5, 2023 18:53:04 GMT
'Relativity' and logic are mutually exclusive ideas.
Psychology is not always about observation,
as the realm of phenomenology is first-most about being.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 5, 2023 19:00:19 GMT
'Relativity' and logic are mutually exclusive ideas. Psychology is not always about observation, as the realm of phenomenology is first-most about being. You mean by being a personal being? Like ego? I don't know so well phenomenology. I still don't understand it completely. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2023 19:36:27 GMT
'Relativity' and logic are mutually exclusive ideas. Psychology is not always about observation, as the realm of phenomenology is first-most about being. A leads to B. Considering A leads to B, A relates to B. Being is observation. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 5, 2023 21:19:55 GMT
'Relativity' and logic are mutually exclusive ideas. Psychology is not always about observation, as the realm of phenomenology is first-most about being. You mean by being a personal being? Like ego? I don't know so well phenomenology. I still don't understand it completely.
The ego exists as a reflection of the world, it is the observed world, behaving as a singular person.
Phenomenology, is akin to transcendental movements, it dissociates itself from the artificially constructed world-view ego.
Its about constructing reality, rather than being constructed by it, but this is realized by appreciating the extent to which the world
can and does often construct us.
Being is a verb, not a noun, not a static observation, but a dynamic creator of that which becomes observed.
Seeking the ontology within the phenomenon, beyond the experience of being.
But that primal ontology is an eternal dynamic of awareness. Logic itself IS being. There can be no understanding without the person who understands. But that understanding must always necessarily be constructive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 6, 2023 6:28:48 GMT
You mean by being a personal being? Like ego? I don't know so well phenomenology. I still don't understand it completely.
The ego exists as a reflection of the world, it is the observed world, behaving as a singular person.
Phenomenology, is akin to transcendental movements, it dissociates itself from the artificially constructed world-view ego.
Its about constructing reality, rather than being constructed by it, but this is realized by appreciating the extent to which the world
can and does often construct us.
Being is a verb, not a noun, not a static observation, but a dynamic creator of that which becomes observed.
Seeking the ontology within the phenomenon, beyond the experience of being.
But that primal ontology is an eternal dynamic of awareness. Logic itself IS being. There can be no understanding without the person who understands. But that understanding must always necessarily be constructive.
Thank you for adding the info about phenomenology. This subject is uneasy. What do you mean by constructive understanding? I'm asking because two days ago I discussed a little with an unknown person something about mathematics (I don't remember exactly), but then the talk came to constructivism – the direction in math that tells that for a certain object in math this object exist (in math ontology) if and only if there is a proof for that object to be constructed (drawn, or calculated). So, that's why I'm asking. I don't know much about constructive things, except for that. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 7, 2023 9:26:53 GMT
The ego exists as a reflection of the world, it is the observed world, behaving as a singular person.
Phenomenology, is akin to transcendental movements, it dissociates itself from the artificially constructed world-view ego.
Its about constructing reality, rather than being constructed by it, but this is realized by appreciating the extent to which the world
can and does often construct us.
Being is a verb, not a noun, not a static observation, but a dynamic creator of that which becomes observed.
Seeking the ontology within the phenomenon, beyond the experience of being.
But that primal ontology is an eternal dynamic of awareness. Logic itself IS being. There can be no understanding without the person who understands. But that understanding must always necessarily be constructive.
Thank you for adding the info about phenomenology. This subject is uneasy. What do you mean by constructive understanding? I'm asking because two days ago I discussed a little with an unknown person something about mathematics (I don't remember exactly), but then the talk came to constructivism – the direction in math that tells that for a certain object in math this object exist (in math ontology) if and only if there is a proof for that object to be constructed (drawn, or calculated). So, that's why I'm asking. I don't know much about constructive things, except for that.
Constructed implies creation, though many may not like that word.
The world imposes war upon us, but when we comprehend war through
phenomenology, then we construct upon the war, the ideal which we choose.
Whether that be peace thru victory, or any other result is not my point. My point is that we construct the outcome of the struggle by how we
engage it actively in some or other way. Construction is willful.
Its especially subtle through language. The words we choose to describe our situation begin to dictate what that situation becomes, emotionally, and materially.
Or we can allow others to construct our world by imposing language upon us.
Digression !
How does this effect photons?
When people construct their 'cosmology' or ideology on the basis of illogical ideas, this pseudoscience grows.
When they misconstrue belief and knowledge, then that idea turns out to be false, and this becomes THE NORM in academic circles, then the next generation,
will descend into random and unnecessary strife, like petty wars.
But war is itself the ultimate proving ground of BOTH physics and psychology.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 7, 2023 18:48:23 GMT
i question this "photon" and this "atom"
Because both are to small to ever be seen literally
And the reson i have an issue with this is because we create this reality but we do so in a way that we don't quite fully understand
if we go looking for something that no one has ever found we will find it eventually because we will create the answer through belief and repetition and previous beliefs the problem with this is we can't use it in a way to where we can control the outcome despite the confidence some might have
there is no method for guaranteeing that when something is discovered it will be exactly the way we wanted it to be and this becomes dangerous when we start dabbling with things that the human senses cannot register and require magic in order to even dabble with because that's dangerous territory and with the neurotic mind of man we're going to eventually create something that we wish we never had
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 8, 2023 7:09:15 GMT
i question this "photon" and this "atom" Because both are to small to ever be seen literally And the reson i have an issue with this is because we create this reality but we do so in a way that we don't quite fully understand if we go looking for something that no one has ever found we will find it eventually because we will create the answer through belief and repetition and previous beliefs the problem with this is we can't use it in a way to where we can control the outcome despite the confidence some might have there is no method for guaranteeing that when something is discovered it will be exactly the way we wanted it to be and this becomes dangerous when we start dabbling with things that the human senses cannot register and require magic in order to even dabble with because that's dangerous territory and with the neurotic mind of man we're going to eventually create something that we wish we never had
I don't know what you mean by not being able to see photons for being too small? Photons are defined as the very thing by which we see anything at all!
The atom is easily understood by the concept of a pure element. By applying various forces and temperature changes, we can reduce air to its core elements. For example, oxygen and nitrogen freeze at different temperatures, so its easy to see how they can be separated.
The individual nature of what it means for something to be separate particles,
rather than a single continuous flow, is of course way beyond mere atoms, but relates to how language describes the world in all senses.
We infer the existence of objects by their consistent effect, not only by direct observation.
Vital here is the very nature of 'quantum' theory, of which 99% that has been written is mere sophistry. So formal definitions, have all but lost their meaning here.
Start with Planck, and ignore the rest is a good rule of thumb.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 9, 2023 6:49:02 GMT
i question this "photon" and this "atom" Because both are to small to ever be seen literally And the reson i have an issue with this is because we create this reality but we do so in a way that we don't quite fully understand if we go looking for something that no one has ever found we will find it eventually because we will create the answer through belief and repetition and previous beliefs the problem with this is we can't use it in a way to where we can control the outcome despite the confidence some might have there is no method for guaranteeing that when something is discovered it will be exactly the way we wanted it to be and this becomes dangerous when we start dabbling with things that the human senses cannot register and require magic in order to even dabble with because that's dangerous territory and with the neurotic mind of man we're going to eventually create something that we wish we never had
I don't know what you mean by not being able to see photons for being too small? Photons are defined as the very thing by which we see anything at all!
The atom is easily understood by the concept of a pure element. By applying various forces and temperature changes, we can reduce air to its core elements. For example, oxygen and nitrogen freeze at different temperatures, so its easy to see how they can be separated.
The individual nature of what it means for something to be separate particles,
rather than a single continuous flow, is of course way beyond mere atoms, but relates to how language describes the world in all senses.
We infer the existence of objects by their consistent effect, not only by direct observation.
Vital here is the very nature of 'quantum' theory, of which 99% that has been written is mere sophistry. So formal definitions, have all but lost their meaning here.
Start with Planck, and ignore the rest is a good rule of thumb.
Your missing my point completely which is my fault so i will clairify a bit on my previous statement while adressing what you have just said. Science may say that photons are how we see things but science ould of called them panda farts and people would believe it all the same And when you freze air you now have 2 different things and had the previous inference been totally different that would have made the reason and inference for why freezing air derives two different products would be different than the one we used today In other words the terrible flaw on the western thinking and the scientific mind is just because you can predict the outcome of something does not mean that the reason you give for that predictions accuracy is there for the fundamental truth when the reality is is all you've done is shown that you can predict the outcome of something that's it anything more than just being able to predict the outcome of something is your imagination building upon a fact but the thing you built upon that fact is not a fact and our imagination has a hard time differentiating the two and so we end up believing whatever science says is the fact of life when is all it is is 2% inference 98% BS and 0% reality |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 9, 2023 13:03:34 GMT
MAYA-ELThe problem with your statement is that you are claiming that you thus know what reality is. If you reckon science is 0% reality, then how do you know this? What is your method or process of deciding? Yes, predicting and explaining are not the same, and many 'splanations are sophistic pseudo-science. But your explanation/prediction is somehow better? The simple fact is that prediction implies a certain understanding of the reality (ontology). Air always consisted of at least oxygen and nitrogen, regardless of your wording. Its about being able to reduce the universe to its fundamental structure. And the weapons of war that decide who takes power, operate most efficiently on the periodic table, whatever the panda bear does, or whatever Winnie the Xi decides. A better example is whether it makes sense to put a ski-jump (aka a ramp) on an aircraft-carrier. The Americans, Japanese and French never performed such a faux pas. So i trust their judgement more than I do the Russians, Chinese, Indians and British.
|
|
