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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #673755 > unrolled thread

Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-25 12:00 +0000
    Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-25 11:09 -0700
      Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-26 10:16 +0000
        Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-26 09:02 -0700
    Why can one not define the frequency of light? (was: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'?) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-26 13:32 +0200
      Re: Why can one not define the frequency of light? (was: Why Can't an  Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'?) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-26 09:23 -0700
    Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-26 22:13 +0200
      Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-27 09:19 +0000

#673755 — Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'?

After all, it is arguably the most important quantity not just for 
supporting Einstein but also for the whole of modern Physics...and 
apparently, it  doesn't even exist.  

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#673762

HenryWilson wrote:
> 
> After all, it is arguably the most important quantity not just for
> supporting Einstein but also for the whole of modern Physics...and
> apparently, it  doesn't even exist.


Well, there are a lot of "Einstein fans" who know nothing about Einstein
physics.

They just like to put a poster of Einstien on their wall..makes them
look smarter.

Or an Einstein t-shirt. Those are fans.

You must mean "Einsteinian Fans"...meaning related to einstein physics,
not t-shirts fans.









-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

#673778

On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 11:09:25 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

> HenryWilson wrote:
>> 
>> After all, it is arguably the most important quantity not just for
>> supporting Einstein but also for the whole of modern Physics...and
>> apparently, it  doesn't even exist.
> 
> 
> Well, there are a lot of "Einstein fans" who know nothing about Einstein
> physics.
> 
> They just like to put a poster of Einstien on their wall..makes them
> look smarter.
> 
> Or an Einstein t-shirt. Those are fans.
> 
> You must mean "Einsteinian Fans"...meaning related to einstein physics,
> not t-shirts fans.

An Einsteinian fan would blow hot air that smelt like bullshit.

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

#673795

HenryWilson wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 11:09:25 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > HenryWilson wrote:
> >>
> >> After all, it is arguably the most important quantity not just for
> >> supporting Einstein but also for the whole of modern Physics...and
> >> apparently, it  doesn't even exist.
> >
> >
> > Well, there are a lot of "Einstein fans" who know nothing about Einstein
> > physics.
> >
> > They just like to put a poster of Einstien on their wall..makes them
> > look smarter.
> >
> > Or an Einstein t-shirt. Those are fans.
> >
> > You must mean "Einsteinian Fans"...meaning related to einstein physics,
> > not t-shirts fans.
> 
> An Einsteinian fan would blow hot air that smelt like bullshit.


Well then, who is your post directed too????


 






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

#673785 — Why can one not define the frequency of light? (was: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'?)

HenryWilson wrote:
> [Why can one not define the frequency of light?]
Because light is more complicated than you think, and probably are able
to understand.  If you had watched the videos in the playlist that I
referred you to, you would have already known.

And BTW, that has nothing to do with being an "Einstein fan".

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#673794 — Re: Why can one not define the frequency of light? (was: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'?)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> HenryWilson wrote:
> > [Why can one not define the frequency of light?]
> Because light is more complicated than you think, and probably are able
> to understand.  If you had watched the videos in the playlist that I
> referred you to, you would have already known.
> 
> And BTW, that has nothing to do with being an "Einstein fan".



"videos"??? which Star Trek episode are you referring to?  750
terahertz?


> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

#673800

HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:

> After all, it is arguably the most important quantity not just for 
> supporting Einstein but also for the whole of modern Physics...and 
> apparently, it  doesn't even exist.  

Go tell those people at NIST, or BIPM,
or any other metrology institute.
They have defined all of physics measurement
in terms of measuring frequencies.

See how far you will get with them,

Jan

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

#673813

On Sat, 26 Sep 2026 22:13:41 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> 
>> After all, it is arguably the most important quantity not just for
>> supporting Einstein but also for the whole of modern Physics...and
>> apparently, it  doesn't even exist.
> 
> Go tell those people at NIST, or BIPM,
> or any other metrology institute.
> They have defined all of physics measurement in terms of measuring
> frequencies.
> 
> See how far you will get with them,

I'll just send them my book free of charge, signed by the author. It 
explains that light does not possess a 'frequency'.  I suppose you think a 
radio signal oscillates as it travels. If you think it does please define 
it for me. You seen to know everything about modern physics so surely you 
have an answer.
> 
> Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web