Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #610274 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-05-10 04:56 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-05-20 20:44 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 66 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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 whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-19 08:39 -0500
Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-20 19:34 +0000
Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-20 17:57 -0500
Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-21 03:37 +0000
Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-20 23:17 -0500
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 Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-19 12:04 -0700
Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-20 00:32 +0000
Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 02:12 +0000
Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 21:15 -0700
Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 06:31 +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
Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2023-05-19 06:57 -0700
Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-19 07:31 -0700
Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2023-05-19 08:16 -0700
Re: I Received No Reply to My Question . Here it is Again whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-19 10:43 -0500
Dumbfuck computer programmer, physics crank, Julio Di Egidio is back. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-19 09:51 -0700
Re: Dumbfuck computer programmer, physics crank, Julio Di Egidio is back. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2023-05-19 11:42 -0700
Re: Dumbfuck computer programmer, physics crank, *Plonk* Julio Di Egidio is back. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-19 11:49 -0700
Re: Dumbfuck computer programmer, physics crank, Julio Di Egidio is back. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-19 15:34 -0400
Re: Dumbfuck computer programmer, physics crank, Julio Di Egidio is back. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-19 12:44 -0700
Re: Dumbfuck computer programmer, physics crank, Julio Di Egidio is back. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2023-05-19 17:31 -0700
Re: Dumbfuck computer programmer, physics crank, Julio Di Egidio is back. Eusebio Rompa <ebei@aooosree.si> - 2023-05-20 20:44 +0000
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-19 01:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17606862cf88932c$21$888494$11d39bdb@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611054 |
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]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-18 22:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kco735Fjo1mU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611092 |
On 5/18/2023 8:50 PM, Jane wrote: > 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'. Oh, a janitorial position in a very interesting venue. Good going girl!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-19 07:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17607b77e1490c18$3$833924$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611097 |
On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:00:48 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> 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'. > > Oh, a janitorial position in a very interesting venue. Good going girl! No....although we did have to clean up the site occasionally.... but actually we constructed very clever optical telescope right next door. We were photographing the sun....very interesting... Have you ever met a real physicist before now? -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-19 08:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kcpcg4Fp5ujU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611120 |
On 5/19/2023 2:40 AM, Jane wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:00:48 -0500, whodat wrote: > > > >>>> 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'. >> >> Oh, a janitorial position in a very interesting venue. Good going girl! > > No....although we did have to clean up the site occasionally.... > but actually we constructed very clever optical telescope right next > door. We were photographing the sun....very interesting... > > Have you ever met a real physicist before now? I've met quite a few actually, but I'm not engaging in conversation with one now despite your rather evasive claims to have been a journalist. Real(tm) physicists are never journalists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 19:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1760f105bcb61633$260$972675$c1d34bd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611134 |
On Fri, 19 May 2023 08:39:10 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/19/2023 2:40 AM, Jane wrote: >> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:00:48 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >> Have you ever met a real physicist before now? > > I've met quite a few actually, but I'm not engaging in conversation with > one now despite your rather evasive claims to have been a journalist. > Real(tm) physicists are never journalists. Why would they want to be. Journalists are very ordinary people who tell lies like relativists do.... -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 17:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kct1ipFdippU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611248 |
On 5/20/2023 2:34 PM, Jane wrote: > On Fri, 19 May 2023 08:39:10 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/19/2023 2:40 AM, Jane wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:00:48 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> > >>> Have you ever met a real physicist before now? >> >> I've met quite a few actually, but I'm not engaging in conversation with >> one now despite your rather evasive claims to have been a journalist. >> Real(tm) physicists are never journalists. > > Why would they want to be. Journalists are very ordinary people who tell > lies like relativists do.... On May 15 (about 5 days ago) you wrote: "No. I don't intend even trying to publish this as a formal scientific paper. Nobody would touch it because what it reveals will destroy thousands of reputations and millions of publications. It also has a lot of sensational stuff that would be plagiarized by useless academics like some who post here. It will be for sale in Ebook of PDF format, copyrighted.. Some of it has already been checked for grammar but I think I can handle that...being a science journalist for years." AFAIC a "science journalist" is a journalist, as you admit you have been, now claiming journalists are liars. Thanks. And if memory serves me this was not the only time you've made that admission. No mater how many times though, once was adequate, the point is made and complete. Perhaps you forgot because of your dementia now demonstrated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-21 03:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17610b5c1f27bd45$27$888494$11d39bdb@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611264 |
On Sat, 20 May 2023 17:57:21 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/20/2023 2:34 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Fri, 19 May 2023 08:39:10 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >>> On 5/19/2023 2:40 AM, Jane wrote: >>>> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:00:48 -0500, whodat wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Have you ever met a real physicist before now? >>> >>> I've met quite a few actually, but I'm not engaging in conversation >>> with one now despite your rather evasive claims to have been a >>> journalist. Real(tm) physicists are never journalists. >> >> Why would they want to be. Journalists are very ordinary people who >> tell lies like relativists do.... > > On May 15 (about 5 days ago) you wrote: > > "No. I don't intend even trying to publish this as a formal scientific > paper. Nobody would touch it because what it reveals will destroy > thousands of reputations and millions of publications. It also has a > lot of sensational stuff that would be plagiarized by useless > academics like some who post here. It will be for sale in Ebook of PDF > format, copyrighted.. Some of it has already been checked for grammar > but I think I can handle that...being a science journalist for years." > > AFAIC a "science journalist" is a journalist, as you admit you have > been, now claiming journalists are liars. Thanks. And if memory serves > me this was not the only time you've made that admission. > > No mater how many times though, once was adequate, the point is made and > complete. Perhaps you forgot because of your dementia now demonstrated. Science writers are very different. We have to stick to the truth. The other type lie their heads of to gain publicity. In fact I think media journalists are largely responsible for all the trouble in the world. Just as soldiers want wars and dentists want tooth decay, so do journalists want sensationalism. The last thing they want is a peaceful happy world where everybody is equal and nobody runs off with the wife of somebody important. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 23:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kctkb6Fft8lU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611282 |
On 5/20/2023 10:37 PM, Jane wrote: > On Sat, 20 May 2023 17:57:21 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/20/2023 2:34 PM, Jane wrote: >>> On Fri, 19 May 2023 08:39:10 -0500, whodat wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/19/2023 2:40 AM, Jane wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:00:48 -0500, whodat wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Have you ever met a real physicist before now? >>>> >>>> I've met quite a few actually, but I'm not engaging in conversation >>>> with one now despite your rather evasive claims to have been a >>>> journalist. Real(tm) physicists are never journalists. >>> >>> Why would they want to be. Journalists are very ordinary people who >>> tell lies like relativists do.... >> >> On May 15 (about 5 days ago) you wrote: >> >> "No. I don't intend even trying to publish this as a formal scientific >> paper. Nobody would touch it because what it reveals will destroy >> thousands of reputations and millions of publications. It also has a >> lot of sensational stuff that would be plagiarized by useless >> academics like some who post here. It will be for sale in Ebook of PDF >> format, copyrighted.. Some of it has already been checked for grammar >> but I think I can handle that...being a science journalist for years." >> >> AFAIC a "science journalist" is a journalist, as you admit you have >> been, now claiming journalists are liars. Thanks. And if memory serves >> me this was not the only time you've made that admission. >> >> No mater how many times though, once was adequate, the point is made and >> complete. Perhaps you forgot because of your dementia now demonstrated. > > Science writers are very different. We have to stick to the truth. Oh bullshit!!!!! > The > other type lie their heads of to gain publicity. In fact I think media > journalists are largely responsible for all the trouble in the world. > Just as soldiers want wars and dentists want tooth decay, so do > journalists want sensationalism. The last thing they want is a peaceful > happy world where everybody is equal and nobody runs off with the wife of > somebody important. Nicely jaded outlook with an overwide brush in this instance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-18 22:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66cee839-c9de-4f3e-8c6e-c083b2cba280n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611092 |
On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:50:37 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > Listen fool I have worked with radio engineers at a real radio telescope. > They would be insulted if anyone called their medium 'light'. My, my, you keep stepping in it, over and over again... https://hubblesite.org/contents/articles/the-electromagnetic-spectrum#:~:text=Other%20types%20of%20light%20include,second%20%E2%80%94%20the%20speed%20of%20light. "The light we can see, made up of the individual colors of the rainbow, represents only a very small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Other types of light include radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, ultraviolet rays, X-rays and gamma rays — all of which are imperceptible to human eyes." Just who is the fool here? Some lessons are harder than others... you don't even understand high-school physics!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-19 07:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17607b243fc0b653$2$833924$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611106 |
On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:00:49 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:50:37 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >> Listen fool I have worked with radio engineers at a real radio >> telescope. >> They would be insulted if anyone called their medium 'light'. > > My, my, you keep stepping in it, over and over again... > > https://hubblesite.org/contents/articles/the-electromagnetic- spectrum#:~:text=Other%20types%20of%20light%20include,second%20%E2%80%94%20the%20speed%20of%20light. > > "The light we can see, made up of the individual colors of the rainbow, > represents only a very small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. > Other types of light include radio waves, microwaves, infrared > radiation, ultraviolet rays, X-rays and gamma rays — all of which are > imperceptible to human eyes." Just who is the fool here? Did you get that from your local newspaper? Every physicist knows that EM radiation includes light, radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, ultraviolet rays, X-rays and gamma rays. > Some lessons are harder than others... you don't even understand > high-school physics! You should lift your self out of the 19th century. > > Some lessons are harder than others... you don't even understand > high-school physics! -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-19 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c54ae94d-f80e-4e77-902c-97b3b472d925n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611119 |
On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 12:35:57 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:00:49 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:50:37 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > > >> Listen fool I have worked with radio engineers at a real radio > >> telescope. They would be insulted if anyone called their medium 'light'. > > "The light we can see, made up of the individual colors of the rainbow, > > represents only a very small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. > > Other types of light include radio waves, microwaves, infrared > > radiation, ultraviolet rays, X-rays and gamma rays — all of which are > > imperceptible to human eyes." Just who is the fool here? > Did you get that from your local newspaper? Every physicist knows that EM > radiation includes light, radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, > ultraviolet rays, X-rays and gamma rays. Apparently you only just learned this, since you have earlier claimed that "... radio engineers at a real radio telescope... would be insulted if anyone called their medium 'light'." You should be embarrassed by your former ignorance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 00:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1760b2b13b4e9b2a$24$3071458$53d3d9df@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611106 |
On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:00:49 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:50:37 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >> Listen fool I have worked with radio engineers at a real radio >> telescope. >> They would be insulted if anyone called their medium 'light'. > > My, my, you keep stepping in it, over and over again... > > https://hubblesite.org/contents/articles/the-electromagnetic- spectrum#:~:text=Other%20types%20of%20light%20include,second%20%E2%80%94%20the%20speed%20of%20light. > > "The light we can see, made up of the individual colors of the rainbow, > represents only a very small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. > Other types of light include radio waves, microwaves, infrared > radiation, ultraviolet rays, X-rays and gamma rays — all of which are > imperceptible to human eyes." Just who is the fool here? Did you get that from your local newspaper? Every physicist knows that EM radiation includes light, radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, ultraviolet rays, X-rays and gamma rays. > Some lessons are harder than others... you don't even understand > high-school physics! You should lift your self out of the 19th century. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 02:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1761a3eb38ed5bd6$1875$468409$cbd341d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611106 |
On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:00:49 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:50:37 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >> Listen fool I have worked with radio engineers at a real radio >> telescope. >> They would be insulted if anyone called their medium 'light'. > > My, my, you keep stepping in it, over and over again... > > https://hubblesite.org/contents/articles/the-electromagnetic- spectrum#:~:text=Other%20types%20of%20light%20include,second%20%E2%80%94%20the%20speed%20of%20light. > > "The light we can see, made up of the individual colors of the rainbow, > represents only a very small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. > Other types of light include radio waves, microwaves, infrared > radiation, ultraviolet rays, X-rays and gamma rays — all of which are > imperceptible to human eyes." Just who is the fool here? > > Some lessons are harder than others... you don't even understand > high-school physics! Obviously lesser informed people will use the word 'light' because it is far easier to say than 'electromagnetic radiation'. Light came first so the word caught on...It's like saying, "I'll use a biro....". -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-22 21:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4cba5c52-a0b6-4d70-a200-3aa0b2c96f45n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611395 |
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 7:12:49 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:00:49 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:50:37 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > > >> Listen fool I have worked with radio engineers at a real radio > >> telescope. > >> They would be insulted if anyone called their medium 'light'. > > > > My, my, you keep stepping in it, over and over again... > > > > https://hubblesite.org/contents/articles/the-electromagnetic- > spectrum#:~:text=Other%20types%20of%20light%20include,second%20%E2%80%94%20the%20speed%20of%20light. > > > > "The light we can see, made up of the individual colors of the rainbow, > > represents only a very small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. > > Other types of light include radio waves, microwaves, infrared > > radiation, ultraviolet rays, X-rays and gamma rays — all of which are > > imperceptible to human eyes." Just who is the fool here? > > > > Some lessons are harder than others... you don't even understand > > high-school physics! > Obviously lesser informed people will use the word 'light' because it is > far easier to say than 'electromagnetic radiation'. Light came first so > the word caught on...It's like saying, "I'll use a biro....". Some *very* well informed people also use the term, since it is short and also all-inclusive. Clearly, you have not spent any significant amount of time in the company of such people... you can bob and weave all you want, but you will never be the person that you profess to be. You are just another in a very long line of pretenders here and I don't see you lasting much longer... after all, you have yet to present even a scintilla of evidence in support of *any* of your claims...just like your Uncle John. All hat but no cowgirl to be seen...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 06:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1761b2100af5b6a0$35$833924$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611405 |
On Mon, 22 May 2023 21:15:35 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: >> Obviously lesser informed people will use the word 'light' because it >> is far easier to say than 'electromagnetic radiation'. Light came first >> so the word caught on...It's like saying, "I'll use a biro....". > > Some *very* well informed people also use the term, since it is short > and also all-inclusive. > > Clearly, you have not spent any significant amount of time in the > company of such people... you can bob and weave all you want, but you > will never be the person that you profess to be. You are just another in > a very long line of pretenders here and I don't see you lasting much > longer... after all, you have yet to present even a scintilla of > evidence in support of *any* of your claims... Rubbish. I have presented loads of evidence for everything I have taught you people. You cannot get into your heads that you have a psychological block against the truth. The knowledge that I am right is too unpalatable for your little minds to accept. ..just like your Uncle John. > All that but no cowgirl to be seen... -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-17 10:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <449a739b-2332-430c-bb65-f24ddc6188d1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #610973 |
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]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-13 10:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jz6dnRxBuIGjMsL5nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #610546 |
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]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-14 02:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <175ee2495ac2d854$1$1605768$4bd3c1de@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #610624 |
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]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-13 23:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kcb4r9FdoblU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #610728 |
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]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-15 00:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <175f2821444f97d3$1$944188$c1d34bd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #610729 |
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]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web