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 whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-18 22:00 -0500
                                      Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-19 07:40 +0000
                                    Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-18 22:00 -0700
                                      Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-19 07:34 +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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#610274 — I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#610275

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 9:56:52 PM UTC-7, 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? 

Define "the frequency of the golf balls".

--
Jan

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

#610277

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?

Sylvia.

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

#610295

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

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

#610305

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?

Sylvia.

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

#610347

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?

What do YOU mean by the frequency of light? Can you define it?
 
> Also, what do you think making the arrows spin has to do with anything?

Ah you should have realised what. It gives them an intrinsic 
frequency...something light does not have.
 
 Sylvia.





-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#610411

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:48:12 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> 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?
> 
> What do YOU mean by the frequency of light? Can you define it?

So what do you mean by "the frequency of the golf balls"? Don't
ask another question, this is not an answer.

--
Jan

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

#610438

On Thu, 11 May 2023 11:04:29 -0700, JanPB wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:48:12 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>> 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?
>> 
>> What do YOU mean by the frequency of light? Can you define it?
> 
> So what do you mean by "the frequency of the golf balls"? Don't ask
> another question, this is not an answer.

You just asked a question. It was not an answer. Here is one answer.
The frequency of the golf balls is synonymous with the frequency of light 
if wavelengths of the latter were substituted for the golf balls.







-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#610465

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:24:58 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2023 11:04:29 -0700, JanPB wrote: 
> 
> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:48:12 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: 
> >> 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? 
> >> 
> >> What do YOU mean by the frequency of light? Can you define it? 
> > 
> > So what do you mean by "the frequency of the golf balls"? Don't ask 
> > another question, this is not an answer.
> You just asked a question. It was not an answer. Here is one answer. 
> The frequency of the golf balls is synonymous with the frequency of light 
> if wavelengths of the latter were substituted for the golf balls.
> -- 
> -- lover of truth

So you mean the frequency of light does not change in transit?

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

#610501

gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:24:58 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
>> You just asked a question. It was not an answer. Here is one answer.
>> The frequency of the golf balls is synonymous with the frequency of
>> light if wavelengths of the latter were substituted for the golf balls.
>> -- -- lover of truth
> 
> So you mean the frequency of light does not change in transit?

yet another disinfo khazar on the rampage.

 *_US_‘disinfo_overlord’_sues_Fox_News_*
Nina Jankowicz blamed “destructive” media lies for the downfall of her 
‘Ministry of Truth’ 
https://%72%74.com/news/576152-nina-jankowicz-sues-fox/

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

#610546

On Thu, 11 May 2023 19:23:16 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:24:58 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 May 2023 11:04:29 -0700, JanPB wrote:

>> >> >> 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?
>> >> 
>> >> What do YOU mean by the frequency of light? Can you define it?
>> > 
>> > So what do you mean by "the frequency of the golf balls"? Don't ask
>> > another question, this is not an answer.
>> You just asked a question. It was not an answer. Here is one answer.
>> The frequency of the golf balls is synonymous with the frequency of
>> light if wavelengths of the latter were substituted for the golf balls.
>> --
>> -- lover of truth
> 
> So you mean the frequency of light does not change in transit?

The 'frequency of light' does not exist...nor does the frequency of the 
balls or arrows UNLESS they are doing something special like spinning.

The frequency incorrectly ascribed to light and radio is the AC frequency 
applied to the antenna. It exists nowhere except at the antenna. It is a 
useful convention for radio signals but not for light. 
In fact the only evidence that any such a frequency is involved in 
light's creation comes from the fact that it exhibits definite 'spatial 
regularities' that must have been caused by some kind of oscillation at 
its source.  





-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#610567

On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 5:22:00 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2023 19:23:16 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
> > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:24:58 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote: 
> >> On Thu, 11 May 2023 11:04:29 -0700, JanPB wrote: 
> 
> >> >> >> 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? 
> >> >> 
> >> >> What do YOU mean by the frequency of light? Can you define it? 
> >> > 
> >> > So what do you mean by "the frequency of the golf balls"? Don't ask 
> >> > another question, this is not an answer. 
> >> You just asked a question. It was not an answer. Here is one answer. 
> >> The frequency of the golf balls is synonymous with the frequency of 
> >> light if wavelengths of the latter were substituted for the golf balls. 
> >> -- 
> >> -- lover of truth 
> > 
> > So you mean the frequency of light does not change in transit?
> The 'frequency of light' does not exist...nor does the frequency of the 
> balls or arrows UNLESS they are doing something special like spinning. 
> 
> The frequency incorrectly ascribed to light and radio is the AC frequency 
> applied to the antenna. It exists nowhere except at the antenna. It is a 
> useful convention for radio signals but not for light. 
> In fact the only evidence that any such a frequency is involved in 
> light's creation comes from the fact that it exhibits definite 'spatial 
> regularities' that must have been caused by some kind of oscillation at 
> its source.
> -- 
> -- lover of truth

I guess you have to prove that.

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

#610722

On Fri, 12 May 2023 19:45:41 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 5:22:00 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 May 2023 19:23:16 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:24:58 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 May 2023 11:04:29 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> >> >> >> 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?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> What do YOU mean by the frequency of light? Can you define it?
>> >> > 
>> >> > So what do you mean by "the frequency of the golf balls"? Don't
>> >> > ask another question, this is not an answer.
>> >> You just asked a question. It was not an answer. Here is one answer.
>> >> The frequency of the golf balls is synonymous with the frequency of
>> >> light if wavelengths of the latter were substituted for the golf
>> >> balls.
>> >> --
>> >> -- lover of truth
>> > 
>> > So you mean the frequency of light does not change in transit?
>> The 'frequency of light' does not exist...nor does the frequency of the
>> balls or arrows UNLESS they are doing something special like spinning.
>> 
>> The frequency incorrectly ascribed to light and radio is the AC
>> frequency applied to the antenna. It exists nowhere except at the
>> antenna. It is a useful convention for radio signals but not for light.
>> In fact the only evidence that any such a frequency is involved in
>> light's creation comes from the fact that it exhibits definite 'spatial
>> regularities' that must have been caused by some kind of oscillation at
>> its source.
>> --
>> -- lover of truth
> 
> I guess you have to prove that.

Don't you know how radio signals are broadcast and received? It is very 
similar to recording music on magnetic tape....but notice, nothing on the 
tape oscillates. (Note also, Tom Roberts cannot understand  this)





-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#610594

Jane <Jane@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.

Moving observers (with respect to it)
will of course see it Doppler shifted,
but that is irrelevant and easily corrected for,
if desired,

Jan

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

#610724

On Sat, 13 May 2023 10:26:23 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Jane <Jane@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.

> Moving observers (with respect to it)
> will of course see it Doppler shifted,
> but that is irrelevant and easily corrected for,
> if desired,
> 
> Jan





-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#610864

Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 May 2023 10:26:23 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > Jane <Jane@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.

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.

Jan

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

#610973

On Mon, 15 May 2023 21:07:54 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 13 May 2023 10:26:23 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> 
>> > Jane <Jane@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.
 
> 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]

#610976

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:51:14 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

> The H line is not light, It is in the IR/radio bandwidth. 

Well, an actual physicist would still call that light, Jane... which pretty much eliminates you!

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...

You can only bluff your way here for so long, Jane, and you are *way* past your expiration date now... just sayin'... maybe you move on to troll somewhere else?

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

#611025

On Tue, 16 May 2023 21:02:50 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:51:14 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> 
>> The H line is not light, It is in the IR/radio bandwidth.
> 
> Well, an actual physicist would still call that light, Jane... which
> pretty much eliminates you!

A RADIO astronomer would not.
 
> 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!
In actual fact there is no real reason to believe it is all the same 
stuff.
 
> You can only bluff your way here for so long, Jane, and you are *way*
> past your expiration date now... just sayin'... maybe you move on to
> troll somewhere else?

There is no way to count frequencies as high as those claimed for visible 
light...and even if it were possible, the result would only signify 'wave 
arrival rate', which is certainly not an intrinsic 'frequency'.

Are you incapable of understanding the difference?





-- 
-- lover of truth

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

#611054

Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 16 May 2023 21:02:50 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:51:14?PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> > 
> >> The H line is not light, It is in the IR/radio bandwidth.
> > 
> > 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,

Jan

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web