Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke
Date	2023-02-19 12:29 -0600
Message-ID	<k5f83nF88adU2@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <k5d3koFse5iU1@mid.individual.net> <d90bfed1-5cd4-4c00-9ba1-fca9ed781e6dn@googlegroups.com> <tssoo5$bo20$1@dont-email.me> <7fda1c41-14c8-4fd2-bab0-f537528f66f7n@googlegroups.com> <tstifq$eckk$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/19/2023 10:24 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 2/19/2023 5:14 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 14:35:15 UTC+5:30, Volney wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2023 9:07 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 04:30:45 UTC+5:30, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 17-Feb-23 11:33 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 12:31:46 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> To maintain the wrong quantum theory of light, the schizophrenic 
>>>>>>> de Broglie hypothesis was created to give light a dual nature - 
>>>>>>> both particle and wave. What nonsense!
>>>>>> Really, nothing could be more ridiculous except the theories of 
>>>>>> relativity leading to big bang bonkers.
>>>>> And of course, the nearly isotropic[*] 3 degree kelvin background
>>>>> radiation has nothing to do with this.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. It is the sum of the radiation from all the stars.
>>> Then it wouldn't be isotropic, would it.
> 
>> Galaxies exist in clumps.
> 
> Exactly. The background radiation certainly wouldn't look like 
> near-perfect black body radiation at 3 K, would it.
> 
> Which reminds me. The background radiation wouldn't be at 3 K with all 
> those infinite stars. It would be at thousands of degrees instead.
> 
>> Like stars to another in a galaxy.
> 
> ???
> 
>> Olbers pradox is a joke.
>> It is an infinite Universe.
>> No big bang nonsense.
> 
> In an infinite universe, we'd all be roasted at thousands of degrees. 
> Any direction from earth would eventually reach the surface of a star. 
> Conversely, starlight from every direction would impinge on earth, and 
> the entire sky would be as hot as the surface of all those stars and 
> roast us.
> 
> Instead, a variation of Olber's paradox has the heat of the Big Bang in 
> every single direction, or rather the heat from when the universe cooled 
> enough to be transparent in all directions, except it is extremely 
> redshifted. Any infinite universe explanation needs to explain why we 
> are not roasted.

Except for those that have Hindu gods magic in them. You're not dealing
with a same man. Remember what they say about "a little bit of
knowledge." This is a particularly bad example.

Thread

de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-12 17:31 -0800
  Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-02-12 17:54 -0800
  Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-12 19:13 -0800
    Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-02-12 19:37 -0800
      Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-12 21:28 -0800
        Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-02-13 07:50 -0800
  Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Trolidan7 <x@x.net> - 2023-02-15 23:28 -0800
    Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-16 00:13 -0800
      Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Trolidan7 <x@x.net> - 2023-02-16 07:08 -0800
        Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-16 07:58 -0800
          Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-02-16 08:15 -0800
            Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-16 08:52 -0800
              Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-02-16 09:07 -0800
            Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-16 14:11 -0500
              Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-02-16 11:28 -0800
              Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-16 11:39 -0800
                Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-16 20:37 -0500
                Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-16 17:50 -0800
                Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-02-16 18:25 -0800
      Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-02-16 07:51 -0800
        Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-16 11:41 -0800
          Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-02-16 11:53 -0800
  Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 04:33 -0800
    Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-02-17 07:48 -0800
    Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-02-19 10:00 +1100
      Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 18:07 -0800
        Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-19 04:05 -0500
          Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-19 02:14 -0800
            Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-19 11:24 -0500
              Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-02-19 12:29 -0600
                Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-19 18:11 -0800
                Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-02-19 18:36 -0800
                Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-20 00:19 -0500
                Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-02-20 00:22 -0600
                Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 00:21 -0800
                Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 00:21 -0800
                Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-20 12:12 -0500
                Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-02-20 09:24 -0800
  Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 17:20 -0800
    Re: de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 21:46 -0800

csiph-web