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	2023-02-20 00:22 -0600
Message-ID	<k5ghthFedckU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <7fda1c41-14c8-4fd2-bab0-f537528f66f7n@googlegroups.com> <tstifq$eckk$1@dont-email.me> <k5f83nF88adU2@mid.individual.net> <37138b20-bb30-4c53-b6a3-fb09bcb27918n@googlegroups.com> <tsuvtg$m3oe$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/19/2023 11:19 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 2/19/2023 9:11 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> On Sunday, 19 February 2023 at 23:59:16 UTC+5:30, whodat wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Rubbish. Total nonsense.
>> All the stars we see add up to the background radiation.
> 
> Not the 3 K black body radiation. If it was all from hot stars, wouldn't 
> be 3 K black body radiation, would it.
> 
>> The square law ensures that stars at infinite distances do not 
>> contribute to the local noise.
> 
> You are forgetting that in an infinite universe, if there were a certain 
> number of stars at a distance X, they would contribute a certain amount 
> of energy. At twice the distance, because of the inverse square law, 
> each star would contribute 1/4 the energy as the closer stars. BUT... 
> there would be 4 times as many stars at that distance! Which cancels out 
> the inverse square contribution. The stars at 2x the distance contribute 
> the same energy as the closer ones. Similarly, at 3x the distance, each 
> star contributes 1/9 the energy, but there are 9 times as many stars! If 
> the universe is infinite, each "layer" of stars contributes the same 
> amount to roasting us. And in an infinite universe, there are an 
> infinite number of layers...
> 
> The Big Bang explanation resolves this. There WAS enough energy to roast 
> us, but it has been redshifted to the point where this hot universe is 
> now only 3 K.
> 
>>> 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.
>>
>> Foad, whodumbo.
> 
> He's right, you know.

Sad to say that not talking about shit is real progress for Arindam
Banerjee. He does claim credit for all sorts of things on behalf of
the Hindu gods and goddesses, so I find his response a little odd.

No matter. No worries.

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