John
I have the internet through a cable television box and I have it hooked up to a thirteen inch television. Many thing on the web are of a print size that are too small for me to read and many other page can't be accessed by this cable box because it lacks storage and computing power.
Or perhaps your cable box is unable to access files with the extension .pdf for which Adobe Acrobat is required (free download). If so, I apologize for the "how convenient."
I can tell we have a different understanding of the properties of light...
Your understanding however, is a serious misunderstanding.
...so I will briefly describe the classical mechanical view of light quanta as having both quanta and wave properties, as first proposed by Einstein.
Quanta is not a property of light. Quanta is a measurement. You probably mean wave/particle properties of light, which was first proposed by de Broglie who theorized that not just light, but everything can exhibit wave/particle duality. Einstein proposed that light consists of particles, or quanta, each with an energy of Planck's constant times its frequency. Einstein actually won a Nobel prize with his work on the photoelectric effect.
On a star, before there is a reaction that results in the production of photons, there must be sub-photonic particles that are subsequently acted upon by a force to become radient.
Sub-photonic particles ? I'm feeling a bout of pseudo-babble coming on.
The instant of those sub-photonic particles being acted upon by a force and becoming radient is described as the action of illumination, the point when a sub-photonic particle becomes a photon. Photons are illuminated at the speed of light and are physically pushed into the light stream by the next photon behind it being iluminated and being pushed out of the way by the photon behind it being illuminated.
Complete hogwash. The propagation of one photon has nothing to do with another's. They do not push each other out of the way.
All of the light streams from a given star are what constitute a photon field. A photon field, where every photon is pressed on every side by other photons, behaves as waves.
Nonsense. Photons do not press up against each other, especially to behave like a wave.
For a photon that is activated at illuminaion to move to a coordinate point one photon's distance from illumination means that photon is in flux, which means that photon is in a changing state. All matter follows the preservation principle which states that matter will assume a stable posture as soonest as is possible and for a photon to achieve that preservation state it must exit the photon field and disengage from other photons.
Photon is in flux ? Preservation state ? Exit the photon field ? Disengage from other photons ? You're certainly cranking up the pseudo-babble, or are you just making this up as you go along ?
When photons reach a point in space where they are no longer in contact with and being agitated by other photons, the self preservation principle forces them to assume a stable state and they will then become non-radient and sub-photonic.
My balderdash/poppycock indicator gauge just went off the scale.
As they will have lost some energy while being activated in their radient state, the sub-photons will be a different particle than they were when they were a pre-photonic sub-photonic particle.
So much nonsense, so few words.
As Einstein's elegant equation e=mc squared proves that energy can be altered but it cannot be destroyed...
Actually, Einstein showed that mass and energy are the same thing.
those post-radient sub-photnic particles must occupy space in some manner and are what some scientists rather obliquely refer to as dark matter.
Yeah, sure. You may want to consider reading those so-called "drudge reports" and also perhaps a few books. Clearly, if you're going to attempt explanation, you should learn something about the topic in question. The 'baffle-them-with-bullshit' approach does not work, especially on a science forum.
And since this is getting completely off-topic and I do not wish to high-jack this thread further, I'll not continue this discussion here but will be happy to disembowel your pseudo-babble claims in a more appropriate thread.
![Wink ;) ;)]()