Crap Physics

John K Clark (
Thu, 4 Jun 1998 22:06:49 -0700 (PDT)


On Wed, 3 Jun 98 (Tony Hollick) Wrote:

>Northbound blue passes southbound blue at 2c. Northbound red passes
>southbound red at 2c. The situational logic is unbreakable.

Yes, so what? It's called phase velocity and it's easy to come up with
scenarios where it's much faster than c, or even 2c. I sent a post about a
year ago listing a bunch of stuff that's faster than light, but none of it
contradicts Einstein because none of them allow you to transfer energy or
information faster than c.

>Black Holes are implicit in Newtonian gravitation with a ballistic
>('corpuscular') theory of light. If the velocity of emission of
>light-particles is less than the escape velocity of the emitting
>body, the light-particle cannot escape the gravitational field and
>will eventually fall back.

That's true, the earliest reference I can find is 1783 by John Michell, he
called them "dark stars", however it had very different properties from a
modern Black Hole. If I was far from one of Michell's dark stars I could not
see it, but unlike a Black Hole, I could obtain a picture of it and print it
in the newspaper, I'd just have to get closer in a powerful spaceship.
I could even land on the classical dark star, get a sample of it and then
return to Earth, that sort of thing would be impossible with a Black Hole.

>The photo-electric effect preceded Einstein & Lenard's [1905].

Lenard discovered the effect in 1902, Einstein explained it in 1905.

>You simply don't understand how far-reaching and powerful Classical
>Mechanics is as a system. What is it about lasers you think we
>can't explain?

It can't explain why a photon in the vicinity of an excited atom but is not
absorbed by it can nevertheless in about one time in a million somehow induce
the atom to emit a photon of the exact same wavelength, phase, and

>A classical model of the atom (based on Bohr's baroque neo-classical
>[1913] model) explains photon emission perfectly well

Yes, but only for the simplest of all atoms, hydrogen, it can't explain the
emission lines of any other element, not even helium.

>> Nor can [classical mechanics explain] polarizing filters on cameras.
>Simple: the light-particles spin (on up to 3 orthogonal axes).

My friend, you're going to need a hell of a lot more than nine words and one
single digit integer to explain the weird behavior of polarized particles,
and there is nothing "simple" about it.

John K Clark

Version: 2.6.i