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

Groups > sci.physics > #869639 > unrolled thread

de Broglie's hypothesis - a most embarrassing joke

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#869824

On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 03:01:09 UTC+11, Jim Pennino wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> <snip>
> > Two very different, like whip and whipping. 
> > A whip is not whipping, and whipping is not whip.
> Wrong yet again. 
> 
> Both whip and whipping can be either a verb or a noun and when used as 
> verbs both mean the same thing. 
> 
> You really have issues with understanding the dual nature of some 
> things, such as the dual nature of light crackpot. 

Idiot learn English grammar first. Never heard of a gerund before, I am sure.
> 
> <snip remaining>

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

#869825

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 03:01:09 UTC+11, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> 
>> <snip>
>> > Two very different, like whip and whipping. 
>> > A whip is not whipping, and whipping is not whip.
>> Wrong yet again. 
>> 
>> Both whip and whipping can be either a verb or a noun and when used as 
>> verbs both mean the same thing. 
>> 
>> You really have issues with understanding the dual nature of some 
>> things, such as the dual nature of light crackpot. 
> 
> Idiot learn English grammar first. Never heard of a gerund before, I am sure.

Context and grammar are two separate subjects and you provided no
context, crackpot.

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

#869857

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.

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

#869865

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.

Your never ending crackpot babble is pretty ridiculous.

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

#869953

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.

Sylvia

[*] When corrected for the Earth's motion.

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

#869967

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.
> 
> Sylvia 
> 
> [*] When corrected for the Earth's motion.

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

#869981

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.

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

#869986

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. Like stars to another in a galaxy.
Olbers pradox is a joke.
It is an infinite Universe.
No big bang nonsense.

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

#869998

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.

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

#870012

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.

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

#870042

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.
The square law ensures that stars at infinite distances do not contribute to the local noise.
In brief, because of the very huge intergalactic distances, the universe behaves as it does, no nonsense bigbang pseudo physics required. Simple maths involving actual numbers will suffice.
Again, moron, it is the square law at work to keep things as we find them.
Look fool, we do not believe in infinite layers of crystal spheres around us, as stupid Olbers did, following silly, wrong Aristotle. He had no clue about galaxies.

The universe is very different from what those idiots thought.
But morons will still believe them, as they are morons, too dull to change their moronic views.


> > 
> > 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.

We are not roasted because of the extreme intergalactic distances.
Simple maths will show that.

> 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.

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

#870046

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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.
> The square law ensures that stars at infinite distances do not contribute to the local noise.

Wrong on so many levels.

> In brief, because of the very huge intergalactic distances, the universe behaves as it does, no nonsense bigbang pseudo physics required. Simple maths involving actual numbers will suffice.

So show us this simple math using actual numbers crackpot.

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

#870052

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.

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

#870056

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.

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

#870061

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 11:52:47 UTC+5:30, whodat wrote:
> 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.

So do the world a favour, foad.

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

#870060

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 10:49:51 UTC+5:30, 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. 

That is just a bullshit slogan to maintain nonsense bigbang theories. They have to say some nonsense to justify extreme nonsense like e=mcc.

The background radiation is essentially all the radiation from the all stars of our galaxy, and the other galaxies which are equivalent to our stars from the intensity aspect.

> >>> 
> >>> 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.

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

#870077

On 2/20/2023 3:21 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 10:49:51 UTC+5:30, 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.
> 
> That is just a bullshit slogan to maintain nonsense bigbang theories. They have to say some nonsense to justify extreme nonsense like e=mcc.

Nope. The CMBR was discovered ACCIDENTALLY by Bell Labs in Holmdel, New 
Jersey when a super sensitive microwave receiver was getting a noise 
from all directions that they could not get rid of. They finally 
realized it was working fine and they were actually receiving the noise. 
It was not "created" to justify the Big Bang or anything else. It was 
determined to be a nearly perfect black body radiation source at 3 K.
> 
> The background radiation is essentially all the radiation from the all stars of our galaxy, and the other galaxies which are equivalent to our stars from the intensity aspect.

Again, it wouldn't be black body radiation at 3 K. You apparently don't 
understand what it means, so you ignore it and repeat your incorrect 
claim.  First, all the stars are at different temperatures, so the 
starlight wouldn't be black body radiation, and if it was, it would be 
at the stars' surface temperatures of thousands of degrees. Better known 
as starlight to us.
> 
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

No comment? Do you even know what black body radiation even is?

>>> 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.

No comment? You don't know what this means?

>>>> 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.

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

#870080

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 10:49:51 UTC+5:30, 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. 
> 
> That is just a bullshit slogan to maintain nonsense bigbang theories. They have to say some nonsense to justify extreme nonsense like e=mcc.

This "extreme nonsense" has been confirmed by innumerable experiments
crackpot.

Where is your experiment and data that would indicate otherwise
crackpot?

<snip remaining crackpot babble>

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

#869892

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 07:01:46 UTC+5:30, 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!

O what a tangled web we weave, when we set out to deceive! A well-known saying, that.
No web more tangled than the entropy-relativity-quantum stuff.

Alexandered it.

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

#869976

On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 06:50:53 UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 07:01:46 UTC+5:30, 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!
> O what a tangled web we weave, when we set out to deceive! A well-known saying, that. 
> No web more tangled than the entropy-relativity-quantum stuff. 
> 
> Alexandered it.

Now I need legions.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web