Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #610274 > unrolled thread

I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 04:56 +0000
    Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-09 21:59 -0700
    Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-05-10 15:03 +1000
      Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 07:09 +0000
        Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-05-10 19:25 +1000
          Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 23:46 +0000
            Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-11 11:04 -0700
              Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-11 23:23 +0000
                Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-11 19:23 -0700
                  Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Domingo Vassilopulos <gdag@iipmugao.op> - 2023-05-12 11:49 +0000
                  Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-13 00:20 +0000
                    Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-12 19:45 -0700
                      Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-14 01:27 +0000
                    Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-05-13 10:26 +0200
                      Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-14 01:33 +0000
                        Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-05-15 21:07 +0200
                          Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-17 01:51 +0000
                            Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-16 21:02 -0700
                              Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-17 23:09 +0000
                                Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-05-18 16:02 +0200
                                  Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-19 01:50 +0000
                            Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-05-17 10:41 -0700
                    Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-13 10:39 -0500
                      Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-14 02:41 +0000
                        Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-13 23:02 -0500
                          Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-15 00:01 +0000
                            Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-14 22:28 -0500
                              Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-16 02:25 +0000
                                Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-16 00:52 -0500
          Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-15 00:05 +0000
        Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 05:03 -0700
        Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-05-10 08:53 -0700
          Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 23:49 +0000
            Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 17:46 -0700
      Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-15 00:07 +0000
    Uncle Jane plays at being as scientist (was Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-10 00:39 -0500
      Re: Uncle Jane plays at being as scientist (was Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-10 23:32 +0000
        Re: Uncle Jane plays at being as scientist (was Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-05-11 01:40 +0200
          Re: Uncle Jane plays at being as scientist (was Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-11 12:41 +0000
    Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-05-09 23:50 -0700
    Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 10:07 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#611092

On Thu, 18 May 2023 16:02:39 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:
> 

>> > 
>> > Well, an actual physicist would still call that light, Jane... which
>> > pretty much eliminates you!
>> 
>> A RADIO astronomer would not.
> 
> Some RADIO astronomers certaily would.
> Google "radio telescope" + "first light" for 18 megahits.
> 
>> > An actual physicist would understand that light waves come in a
>> > continuous variety of sizes, frequencies and energies, a continuum
>> > known as the electromagnetic spectrum. Perhaps you have heard of this
>> > before? Of course, "visible light" only occupies about 1/1000th of
>> > that spectrum... but it is nevertheless *all* considered to be
>> > light...
>> 
>> Rubbish. It is all EM, dopey. EM has 'bands', including one which is
>> visible, called 'light'. gamma particles are not called light, stupid!
> 
> Of course they are too.
> Google gamma observatory + first light for another 6 megahits.
> 
> But what do they all know about it?
> They are merely professionals who have made their life's work out of it,
> instead of some rambling usenet nobody,

Listen fool I have worked with radio engineers at a real radio telescope. 
They would be insulted if anyone called their medium 'light'.

> Jan





-- 
-- lover of truth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611004

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:51:14 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2023 21:07:54 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> 
> > Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote: 
> > 
> >> On Sat, 13 May 2023 10:26:23 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> >> 
> >> > Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote: 
> >> > 
> >> >> The 'frequency of light' does not exist...nor does the frequency of 
> >> >> the balls or arrows UNLESS they are doing something special like 
> >> >> spinning. 
> >> > 
> >> > Of course light -with a source- has an intrisic frequence, 
> >> > just like your machine gun. 
> >> > It is the frequency in the frame in which the source is at rest. 
> >> > 
> >> > Your machine gun fires bullets at 10 Hz, 
> >> > as measured in your proper time. 
> >> > An exicited hydrogen atom at rest will emit hyperfine radiation with 
> >> > a frequency of 1.420 405 751 768(2) GHz (yes, it is known that 
> >> > accurately) 
> >> > again as mesured in its rest frame. 
> >> > All quite intrinsic. 
> >> 
> >> You poor brainwashed ...but otherwise perfectly decent person. Its 
> >> wavelength is measured accurately and used to divide c to produce that 
> >> number. It is not an intrinsic frequency, it is just a the wave 
> >> emission rate. Nobody has ever measured the 'frequency' of Ha. Ity 
> >> doesn't have one. 
> > 
> > Do look at how these things are actually measured. 
> > There just is no way of measuring that wavelengths to that accuracy.
> Wavelength is measured very accurately with interferometry.

Quantum mechanics says all measurement is uncertain.
The uncertainty principle shows that all measurement is inaccurate
even about accuracy.



> > Basically the reason is simple: 
> > Taking 10^12 wavelengths together is too long to measure, 
> > let alone to measure accurately. 
> > OTOH measuring the frequency is just counting for long enough.
> The H line is not light, It is in the IR/radio bandwidth. 
> What can be counted is its wave arrival rate. 
> The waves themselves do not oscillate.
> > Jan 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- lover of truth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610624

On 5/12/23 7:20 PM, Jane wrote:
> The 'frequency of light' does not exist...

Sure it does, and you have said so yourself (apparently without 
realizing it):

On 3/22/23 1:43 AM, Jane wrote:
> I prefer the classical form [for plane-wave solutions to Maxwell's
> vacuum equations]
> E = E0 sin(2pi[r/l - wt)] B = B0 sin(2pi[r/l - wt)]

There is the frequency of the wave, clear as day: w.

     [Ignore the mildly unusual notation; most writers use
      f for frequency and w for 2pif.]

As I have said before, you merely rely on unusual meanings of words and 
then complain about the linguistic confusion. Grow Up!

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610728

On Sat, 13 May 2023 10:39:42 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 5/12/23 7:20 PM, Jane wrote:
>> The 'frequency of light' does not exist...
> 
> Sure it does, and you have said so yourself (apparently without
> realizing it):
> 
> On 3/22/23 1:43 AM, Jane wrote:
>> I prefer the classical form [for plane-wave solutions to Maxwell's
>> vacuum equations]
>> E = E0 sin(2pi[r/l - wt)] B = B0 sin(2pi[r/l - wt)]
> 
> There is the frequency of the wave, clear as day: w.

Oh dear, Tommy simply refuses to learn. 
The dependent variabLe is AMPLITUDE (or intensity). Your above equations 
describe how the amplitude of E and B fields vary AT A FIXED value of 
l...as the 'frozen' wave moves past.
The wave shape DOES NOT OSCILLATE. it just moves past the point l and 
generates a 'frequency' that for radio or ocean waves, can be easily 
detected.

>      [Ignore the mildly unusual notation; most writers use
>       f for frequency and w for 2pif.]

Interestingly, for a radio signal, f and  are known. f is the AC frequency 
and/or the wave emission rate and λ = c/f, determined at the source (by the 
first cycle, say). Light does not have a known equivalent of an AC signal 
but it has a measureable wavelength and has been given a hypothetical 
frequency for no reason other than the fact that it appears to move at the 
same speed as radio. 

> As I have said before, you merely rely on unusual meanings of words and
> then complain about the linguistic confusion. Grow Up!

No Tommy, I rely on pure Pkysics and the correct meaning of the TWE.... so 
try to do your homework properly, like a good boy.

> Tom Roberts





-- 
-- lover of truth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610729

On 5/13/2023 9:41 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Sat, 13 May 2023 10:39:42 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
>> On 5/12/23 7:20 PM, Jane wrote:
>>> The 'frequency of light' does not exist...
>>
>> Sure it does, and you have said so yourself (apparently without
>> realizing it):
>>
>> On 3/22/23 1:43 AM, Jane wrote:
>>> I prefer the classical form [for plane-wave solutions to Maxwell's
>>> vacuum equations]
>>> E = E0 sin(2pi[r/l - wt)] B = B0 sin(2pi[r/l - wt)]
>>
>> There is the frequency of the wave, clear as day: w.
> 
> Oh dear, Tommy simply refuses to learn.
> The dependent variabLe is AMPLITUDE (or intensity). Your above equations
> describe how the amplitude of E and B fields vary AT A FIXED value of
> l...as the 'frozen' wave moves past.
> The wave shape DOES NOT OSCILLATE. it just moves past the point l and
> generates a 'frequency' that for radio or ocean waves, can be easily
> detected.

>>       [Ignore the mildly unusual notation; most writers use
>>        f for frequency and w for 2pif.]
> 
> Interestingly, for a radio signal, f and  are known. f is the AC frequency
> and/or the wave emission rate and λ = c/f, determined at the source (by the
> first cycle, say). Light does not have a known equivalent of an AC signal
> but it has a measureable wavelength and has been given a hypothetical
> frequency for no reason other than the fact that it appears to move at the
> same speed as radio.


See "polarization."



>> As I have said before, you merely rely on unusual meanings of words and
>> then complain about the linguistic confusion. Grow Up!
> 
> No Tommy, I rely on pure Pkysics and the correct meaning of the TWE.... so
> try to do your homework properly, like a good boy.

What is "pure physics" and provide an example as well as compare that
to all other kinds of physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610797

On Sat, 13 May 2023 23:02:41 -0500, whodat wrote:

> On 5/13/2023 9:41 PM, Jane wrote:

> 
>>> As I have said before, you merely rely on unusual meanings of words
>>> and then complain about the linguistic confusion. Grow Up!
>> 
>> No Tommy, I rely on pure Pkysics and the correct meaning of the TWE....
>> so try to do your homework properly, like a good boy.
> 
> What is "pure physics" and provide an example as well as compare that to
> all other kinds of physics.

Established physics as distinct from Tommy's imaginary version. Being a non 
scientist, you probably don't understand what that implies ...or really 
care.

As the name suggests, the 'traveling wave equation' describes a sine wave 
that moves (horizontally, say). it does not change in any way as it moves.
As it passes a point, (a fixed value of x, in the equation) its amplitudde 
varies sinusoidally.

That is the basis of radio broadcasting and the reason why a bouy goes up 
and down as waves pass it. It seems that Tommy, who constantly advises 
other people to learn some basic physics, knows very little himself.







-- 
-- lover of truth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610813

On 5/14/2023 7:01 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Sat, 13 May 2023 23:02:41 -0500, whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 5/13/2023 9:41 PM, Jane wrote:
> 
>>
>>>> As I have said before, you merely rely on unusual meanings of words
>>>> and then complain about the linguistic confusion. Grow Up!
>>>
>>> No Tommy, I rely on pure Pkysics and the correct meaning of the TWE....
>>> so try to do your homework properly, like a good boy.
>>
>> What is "pure physics" and provide an example as well as compare that to
>> all other kinds of physics.
> 
> Established physics as distinct from Tommy's imaginary version. Being a non
> scientist, you probably don't understand what that implies ...or really
> care.

You keep attacking like there's no tomorrow. Guess what, I am engaged in
this conversation and asked a question based on what you wrote because I
do care and I don't know who the fuck you think you are with the sort of
response you made here. You used "pure physics" as though it were a
distinct field of study and now you have no rational reply in keeping
with what you wrote earlier. Get a grip, if you are able to. Your
behavior in recent times leaves the rational reader wondering what is
wrong with you.

It might behoove you to learn and understand what the term "scientist"
is. By definition, I am a scientist. I will go further and say that I am
not a professional scientist, but then those are in short supply in
these parts and based on your treatment of the subject matter you're
certainly no professional scientist, unless you're willing to admit that
you are in a very low percentile of that realm. You've had numerous
opportunities to explain what you mean when you use certain terms,
especially "frequency" and you have several times failed to define the
terms you are using in any way that could lead to meaningful
conversations. And here we are still attempting to have a discussion
with a party (you) who is thus far reticent to rationality. (I realize
and appreciate the oddness of that construct.)

> As the name suggests, the 'traveling wave equation' describes a sine wave
> that moves (horizontally, say).

Here you use a description that has no meaning, "horizontal." Compared
to???? Actually no matter. Any direction is fine.

> it does not change in any way as it moves.

You say here that a sine wave is created. Now please explain clearly in
physical terms what comprises this sine wave? Is it a string of atoms,
of ions, of photons, of WHAT?

> As it passes a point, (a fixed value of x, in the equation) its amplitudde
> varies sinusoidally.

This is a freshman year high school general science caliber of
explanation so far. Because you fail to provide enough detail it is just
a failed model that only partially explains what a radio wave is like,
in other words, a hamburger bun with no meat. Where's the beef?

> That is the basis of radio broadcasting and the reason why a bouy goes up
> and down as waves pass it. It seems that Tommy, who constantly advises
> other people to learn some basic physics, knows very little himself.

It seems to me, a non-professional seeker of the same truth you profess
to love, that there's a significant dearth of real(tm) understanding in
these parts.

Please explain to me what the sine wave you are talking about above is
composed of and what makes whatever that is maintain its shape as it
travels through space passing by charged and neutral particles and
crosses paths with other sinusoidal type of radio waved without any
alteration in its shape.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610892

On Sun, 14 May 2023 22:28:11 -0500, whodat wrote:

Im not going to waste time educating you. Any physicist would have no 
trouble understanding everything I have written. I realise you are 
interested in Einstein's theories but you are out of your depth here.

>> That is the basis of radio broadcasting and the reason why a bouy goes
>> up and down as waves pass it. It seems that Tommy, who constantly
>> advises other people to learn some basic physics, knows very little
>> himself.
> 
> It seems to me, a non-professional seeker of the same truth you profess
> to love, that there's a significant dearth of real(tm) understanding in
> these parts.
> 
> Please explain to me what the sine wave you are talking about above is
> composed of 

Did you not see my SWOP post?

> and what makes whatever that is maintain its shape as it
> travels through space passing by charged and neutral particles and
> crosses paths with other sinusoidal type of radio waved without any
> alteration in its shape.

That's another matter entirely, It has no bearing on this at all even 
though I agree it is very important. The fact that the wave diverges 
continuously is also relevant but it does not affect the intelligence 
carried by a radio signal. If a radio signal oscillated it would lose its 
detail.





-- 
-- lover of truth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610913

On 5/15/2023 9:25 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2023 22:28:11 -0500, whodat wrote:
> 
> Im not going to waste time educating you. 

Classic evasion tactic.

> Any physicist would have no
> trouble understanding everything I have written. I realise you are
> interested in Einstein's theories but you are out of your depth here.


Compounded evasion tactic.


>>> That is the basis of radio broadcasting and the reason why a bouy goes
>>> up and down as waves pass it. It seems that Tommy, who constantly
>>> advises other people to learn some basic physics, knows very little
>>> himself.
>>
>> It seems to me, a non-professional seeker of the same truth you profess
>> to love, that there's a significant dearth of real(tm) understanding in
>> these parts.
>>
>> Please explain to me what the sine wave you are talking about above is
>> composed of
> 
> Did you not see my SWOP post?
> 
>> and what makes whatever that is maintain its shape as it
>> travels through space passing by charged and neutral particles and
>> crosses paths with other sinusoidal type of radio waved without any
>> alteration in its shape.
> 
> That's another matter entirely, It has no bearing on this at all even
> though I agree it is very important. The fact that the wave diverges
> continuously is also relevant but it does not affect the intelligence
> carried by a radio signal. If a radio signal oscillated it would lose its
> detail.

So the short answer is you do not know what the "sine wave" is made of.

Without that information all the rest is a "partial model" with no
significant import. What exactly does the "sine wave model" predict?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610799

On Wed, 10 May 2023 19:25:15 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 10-May-23 5:09 pm, Jane wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 May 2023 15:03:02 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10-May-23 2:56 pm, Jane wrote:
>>>> Let's do an experiment.
>>>>
>>>> 1) We will fire golf balls from a machine gun at the rate of ten per
>>>> second. Their speed is v and spacing is L.
>>>> 2) We will then fire golf balls THAT ARE SPINNING at 20rps from the
>>>> machine gun at the rate of ten per second. Their speed is again v and
>>>> spacing is again L.
>>>
>>> Is that the rate of spin in the frame of the centres of the balls, or
>>> in the frame of the gun?
>> 
>> OK, let me redesign the experiment slightly Instead of golf balls we
>> will use arrows.
>> 
>> 1) We will fire arrows of length L from a machine gun at the rate of
>> ten per second. Their speed is v and spacing is now zero.
>> 2) We will fire SPINNING arrows of length L from a machine gun at the
>> rate of ten per second.  Again their speed is v and spacing is zero.
>> 
>> How would one ascribe a 'frequency' to the arrows in the two cases?
>> Does the line of arrows itself possess any definable 'frequency'?
>> 
>> 
> This brings us back to Jan's question, which you didn't answer: What do
> you mean by the frequency of the arrows?
> 
> Also, what do you think making the arrows spin has to do with anything?

The spin gives them a possible intrinsic oscillation...which they would not 
otherwise have. If you think they do have another, please define it.

> Sylvia.





-- 
-- lover of truth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610311

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 12:11:54 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2023 15:03:02 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> 
> > On 10-May-23 2:56 pm, Jane wrote: 
> >> Let's do an experiment. 
> >> 
> >> 1) We will fire golf balls from a machine gun at the rate of ten per 
> >> second. Their speed is v and spacing is L. 
> >> 2) We will then fire golf balls THAT ARE SPINNING at 20rps from the 
> >> machine gun at the rate of ten per second. Their speed is again v and 
> >> spacing is again L. 
> > 
> > Is that the rate of spin in the frame of the centres of the balls, or in 
> > the frame of the gun?
> OK, let me redesign the experiment slightly 
> Instead of golf balls we will use arrows. 
> 
> 1) We will fire arrows of length L from a machine gun at the rate of ten 
> per second. Their speed is v and spacing is now zero. 
> 2) We will fire SPINNING arrows of length L from a machine gun at the 
> rate of ten per second. Again their speed is v and spacing is zero. 
> 
> How would one ascribe a 'frequency' to the arrows in the two cases? 
> Does the line of arrows itself possess any definable 'frequency'? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Sylvia.
> -- 
> -- lover of truth

The frequency of at the receiver is how many arrows hit him per second.

Ahh the slings and arrows of time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610320

Jane wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 10 May 2023 15:03:02 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> > On 10-May-23 2:56 pm, Jane wrote:
> >> Let's do an experiment.
> >>
> >> 1) We will fire golf balls from a machine gun at the rate of ten per
> >> second. Their speed is v and spacing is L.
> >> 2) We will then fire golf balls THAT ARE SPINNING at 20rps from the
> >> machine gun at the rate of ten per second. Their speed is again v and
> >> spacing is again L.
> >
> > Is that the rate of spin in the frame of the centres of the balls, or in
> > the frame of the gun?
> 
> OK, let me redesign the experiment slightly
> Instead of golf balls we will use arrows.
> 
> 1) We will fire arrows of length L from a machine gun at the rate of ten
> per second. Their speed is v and spacing is now zero.
> 2) We will fire SPINNING arrows of length L from a machine gun at the
> rate of ten per second.  Again their speed is v and spacing is zero.
> 
> How would one ascribe a 'frequency' to the arrows in the two cases?
> Does the line of arrows itself possess any definable 'frequency'?
> 
> 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> --
> -- lover of truth



    Arrows fired without spinning:
    When we shoot arrows without spinning from a machine gun, we launch
ten arrows every second. Imagine you have a toy that pops out of a box
ten times in one second. We can say the arrows come out with a frequency
of 10 times per second. So, the frequency of the arrows is 10.

    Spinning arrows fired:
    Now, let's imagine we fire spinning arrows from the machine gun.
Again, we shoot ten arrows every second, but these arrows are spinning
as they fly through the air. When something spins, it goes around in
circles. So, it's like the spinning arrows are going around in circles
while they move forward. If you have a toy car with wheels that spin
around two times in one second, you can say the car has a spinning
frequency of 2 times per second. Similarly, the spinning arrows have a
spinning frequency of 2.

Now, regarding the line of arrows itself, we can say that the line
doesn't have a frequency of its own. The frequency refers to how many
times something happens in a given amount of time. It's about the
individual arrows and how often they appear or spin, but not about the
entire line as a whole.

To summarize:

    Arrows fired without spinning: The arrows come out with a frequency
of 10 times per second.
    Spinning arrows fired: The spinning arrows have a spinning frequency
of 2 times per second.
    The line of arrows itself doesn't have a frequency.



I am the most knowledgeable person on Earth! I'm a fuckin genius !!!

I'm high above the spectrum...in the sky with diamonds.


i tink i'm a mistake of nature...

wat am i doing here? i am not suppose to be here. someone made a
mistake. i wasn't suppose to get through...



Jane and Sylivia...i'm in panties heaven! sell your used panties on
ebay. (i supply to japan vending machines.)


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610348

On Wed, 10 May 2023 08:53:54 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

> Jane wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 10 May 2023 15:03:02 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> 
>> 
> 
>     Arrows fired without spinning:
>     When we shoot arrows without spinning from a machine gun, we launch
> ten arrows every second. Imagine you have a toy that pops out of a box
> ten times in one second. We can say the arrows come out with a frequency
> of 10 times per second. So, the frequency of the arrows is 10.
> 
>     Spinning arrows fired:
>     Now, let's imagine we fire spinning arrows from the machine gun.
> Again, we shoot ten arrows every second, but these arrows are spinning
> as they fly through the air. When something spins, it goes around in
> circles. So, it's like the spinning arrows are going around in circles
> while they move forward. If you have a toy car with wheels that spin
> around two times in one second, you can say the car has a spinning
> frequency of 2 times per second. Similarly, the spinning arrows have a
> spinning frequency of 2.
> 
> Now, regarding the line of arrows itself, we can say that the line
> doesn't have a frequency of its own. The frequency refers to how many
> times something happens in a given amount of time. It's about the
> individual arrows and how often they appear or spin, but not about the
> entire line as a whole.
> 
> To summarize:
> 
>     Arrows fired without spinning: The arrows come out with a frequency
> of 10 times per second.
>     Spinning arrows fired: The spinning arrows have a spinning frequency
> of 2 times per second.
>     The line of arrows itself doesn't have a frequency.
> 
> 
> 
> I am the most knowledgeable person on Earth! I'm a fuckin genius !!!
> 
> I'm high above the spectrum...in the sky with diamonds.
> 
> 
> i tink i'm a mistake of nature...
> 
> wat am i doing here? i am not suppose to be here. someone made a
> mistake. i wasn't suppose to get through...

Aha! At last an intelligent answer. Starmaker I congratulate you on being 
clearly the second most intelligent person on his NG....




-- 
-- lover of truth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610355

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:50:44 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2023 08:53:54 -0700, The Starmaker wrote: 

> > i tink i'm a mistake of nature... 
> > 
> > wat am i doing here? i am not suppose to be here. someone made a 
> > mistake. i wasn't suppose to get through...

> Aha! At last an intelligent answer. Starmaker I congratulate you on being 
> clearly the second most intelligent person on his NG....

Holy Cow, you have just aligned yourself with the second biggest crank here... or maybe the third, since you have arrived...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610800

On Wed, 10 May 2023 15:03:02 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 10-May-23 2:56 pm, Jane wrote:
>> Let's do an experiment.
>> 
>> 1) We will fire golf balls from a machine gun at the rate of ten per
>> second. Their speed is v and spacing is L.
>> 2) We will then fire golf balls THAT ARE SPINNING at 20rps from the
>> machine gun at the rate of ten per second. Their speed is again v and
>> spacing is again L.
> 
> Is that the rate of spin in the frame of the centres of the balls, or in
> the frame of the gun?

Why would it differ? Rotation is absolute and frame independent.

> Sylvia.





-- 
-- lover of truth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610287 — Uncle Jane plays at being as scientist (was Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again)

On 5/9/2023 11:56 PM, Jane wrote:
> Let's do an experiment.
> 
> 1) We will fire golf balls from a machine gun at the rate of ten per
> second. Their speed is v and spacing is L.
> 2) We will then fire golf balls THAT ARE SPINNING at 20rps from the
> machine gun at the rate of ten per second. Their speed is again v and
> spacing is again L.
> 
> Q. What is the frequency of the golf balls in each case?

As a "scientist" you are supposed to know you have to precisely
define your terms. So why haven't you? Probably because you are
no scientist. But like a madwoman you do give good screech.

=========================================================================
1
: the fact or condition of occurring frequently
the frequency of automobile accidents
2
a
: the number of times that a periodic function repeats the same sequence 
of values during a unit variation of the independent variable
b
: the number, proportion, or percentage of items in a particular 
category in a set of data
3
: the number of repetitions of a periodic process in a unit of time: such as
a
: the number of complete alternations (see ALTERNATION sense 1) per 
second of an alternating current
b
: the number of complete oscillations (see OSCILLATION sense 3) per 
second of energy (such as sound or electromagnetic radiation) in the 
form of waves

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frequency

=========================================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610344 — Re: Uncle Jane plays at being as scientist (was Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again)

On Wed, 10 May 2023 00:39:25 -0500, whodat wrote:

> On 5/9/2023 11:56 PM, Jane wrote:
>> Let's do an experiment.
>> 
>> 1) We will fire golf balls from a machine gun at the rate of ten per
>> second. Their speed is v and spacing is L.
>> 2) We will then fire golf balls THAT ARE SPINNING at 20rps from the
>> machine gun at the rate of ten per second. Their speed is again v and
>> spacing is again L.
>> 
>> Q. What is the frequency of the golf balls in each case?
> 
> As a "scientist" you are supposed to know you have to precisely define
> your terms. So why haven't you? Probably because you are no scientist.
> But like a madwoman you do give good screech.
> 
> 
=========================================================================
> 1
> : the fact or condition of occurring frequently the frequency of
> automobile accidents 2
> a
> : the number of times that a periodic function repeats the same sequence
> of values during a unit variation of the independent variable b
> : the number, proportion, or percentage of items in a particular
> category in a set of data 3
> : the number of repetitions of a periodic process in a unit of time:
> such as a
> : the number of complete alternations (see ALTERNATION sense 1) per
> second of an alternating current b
> : the number of complete oscillations (see OSCILLATION sense 3) per
> second of energy (such as sound or electromagnetic radiation) in the
> form of waves

Yes it is wrong like everyone else since radio engineers introduced the 
terminology.

> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frequency
> 
> 
=========================================================================





-- 
-- lover of truth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610345 — Re: Uncle Jane plays at being as scientist (was Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again)

Jane wrote:
...
> Yes it is wrong like everyone else since radio engineers introduced the
> terminology.

Sure.

Jane, as you are here, can I ask you a favor?

Could you pee for me on your uncle's (John Parker, aka Androcle) grave.

Thank you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610396 — Re: Uncle Jane plays at being as scientist (was Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again)

On Thu, 11 May 2023 01:40:30 +0200, Python wrote:

> Jane wrote:
> ...
>> Yes it is wrong like everyone else since radio engineers introduced the
>> terminology.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Jane, as you are here, can I ask you a favor?
> 
> Could you pee for me on your uncle's (John Parker, aka Androcle) grave.

That is not very nice. Are you very drunk?

> Thank you.





-- 
-- lover of truth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610291

Jane wrote:
> 
> Let's do an experiment.
> 
> 1) We will fire golf balls from a machine gun at the rate of ten per
> second. Their speed is v and spacing is L.
> 2) We will then fire golf balls THAT ARE SPINNING at 20rps from the
> machine gun at the rate of ten per second. Their speed is again v and
> spacing is again L.
> 
> Q. What is the frequency of the golf balls in each case?
> 
> --
> -- lover of truth


    Golf balls fired without spinning:
    When we fire the golf balls without any spinning, we shoot ten balls
every second. 
So, if you imagine a clock ticking, it's like the golf balls are going
around the clock ten times in one second. We say the frequency of the
golf balls is 10 times per second, or 10 Hz.

    Golf balls fired with spinning at 20 revolutions per second (rps):
    Now, let's imagine the golf balls are spinning as they fly out of
the machine gun. We still shoot ten balls every second, but because of
the spinning, each ball 
goes around in a circle not once, but twice during that time. So, if you
think about the clock again, it's like the golf balls are going around
the clock two times in one second. 
This means the frequency of the golf balls, with the spinning, is 2
times per second, or 2 Hz.

To summarize:

    Golf balls fired without spinning: The golf balls go around the
clock 10 times in one second, so the frequency is 10 times per second
(10 Hz).
    Golf balls fired with spinning at 20 rps: The golf balls go around
the clock 2 times in one second because of the spinning, so the
frequency is 2 times per second (2 Hz).



i'm a fuckin genuies..


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web