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
        Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 03:25 +0200
          Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 18:39 -0700
          Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 07:01 +0000
            Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 11:27 +0200
              Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 07:31 +0000
                Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 10:46 +0200
                Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 08:13 -0700
            Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 06:36 -0700
              Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-09 11:24 -0700
              Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 07:33 +0000
                Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 08:16 -0700
                  Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 19:05 +0000
        Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-09 12:57 +0200
          Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-11 03:12 +0000
            Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-11 12:35 +0200
              Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Eladio Kartalov <ola@aaoaaait.ru> - 2026-10-11 11:47 +0000
              Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Emerson Bakurov <rnvum@roovnoe.ru> - 2026-10-11 11:52 +0000
                Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 07:40 -0700
                  Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Lucien Lutov <uul@euuv.ru> - 2026-10-11 16:43 +0000
                    Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 17:36 -0700
                      Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 18:14 -0700
                        Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 18:40 -0700
              Re: Why Can't an Einstein Fan Define Light's 'Frequency'? HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-11 22:56 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#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] | [next] | [standalone]

#674250

HenryWilson wrote:
> 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'.  [...]

Provided they bother to read it, they will surely have a good laugh.

The moment you realize that reality does not care about what you,
philosophizing in in your armchair, claim, but just is as it is,
including the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave (as Young's
double-slit experiment, among others, showed/-s) which like all waves
_does_ have a frequency, you will have a chance to become a mentally
sane person again.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#674251

On 10/07/2026 06:25 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HenryWilson wrote:
>> 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'.  [...]
>
> Provided they bother to read it, they will surely have a good laugh.
>
> The moment you realize that reality does not care about what you,
> philosophizing in in your armchair, claim, but just is as it is,
> including the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave (as Young's
> double-slit experiment, among others, showed/-s) which like all waves
> _does_ have a frequency, you will have a chance to become a mentally
> sane person again.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>
>


Light has "pure diffraction", EM radio "compounded refraction".

Light has "constant wave velocity", changes in radio signals do not.

Light has image information signal in "decoherence", radio in "coherence".


Notice they're different, then also that usual electron "emitters"
as of after Young's experiment are gather as of "rays" eg "cathode rays".

Propagation of radiation is shared among many varieties like heat,
the radionuclear, and so on, besides that light and radio are
quite like waves.

Thusly, there's room in the theory (in the formalism, in the data)
for why light and radio are different, and how they are.

Then, since "Arago/Poisson spot", science also falsifies that they're
not (different).



There are many forms of energy, ..., none exactly "pure".

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

#674293

On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 03:25:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> HenryWilson wrote:
>> 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'.  [...]
> 
> Provided they bother to read it, they will surely have a good laugh.
> 
> The moment you realize that reality does not care about what you,
> philosophizing in in your armchair, claim, but just is as it is,
> including the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave (as Young's
> double-slit experiment, among others, showed/-s) which like all waves
> _does_ have a frequency, you will have a chance to become a mentally
> sane person again.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>

Maybe you should stick with philosophy. As any good Physicist should know, 
transverse travelling waves do not have an intrinsic frequency. They have 
an absolute wavelength and will induce a frequency on being 
intercepted...namely 'wave arrival rate' 'WAR'...just like running a saw 
blade over a sharp edge...the teeth don't oscillate...but indoctrinees of 
Einstein and most of Physics top academics are too dumb to understand 
that. The 'frequency of light' appears everywhere in modern physics...yet 
it doesn't even exist. I'm not in the least worried about the fact that I 
am the only person in the world smart enough to know that.
Maxwell's equations describe what light DOES not what it IS...so it is 
natural to believe that whatever travels from A to B light is 
electromagnetic because that's what it generates...but that is not the 
whole story...and it might not be true.  

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

#674298

HenryWilson wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 03:25:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: 
>> HenryWilson wrote:
>>> 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'.  [...]
>>
>> Provided they bother to read it, they will surely have a good laugh.
>>
>> The moment you realize that reality does not care about what you,
>> philosophizing in in your armchair, claim, but just is as it is,
>> including the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave (as Young's
>> double-slit experiment, among others, showed/-s) which like all waves
>> _does_ have a frequency, you will have a chance to become a mentally
>> sane person again.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>
> 
> Maybe you should stick with philosophy. As any good Physicist should know, 
> transverse travelling waves do not have an intrinsic frequency. 

That is such a nonsense, it's not even wrong.

There is no such thing as a "transverse travelling wave".

Consider, for example, a water wave that is produced by a stone falling
into a pond.

If we would look at the pond from above, and marked the peaks of the
wave, it could look like this (you need to use a fixed-width font):

                             ^
                             :
                             : propagation
                             :
                             :
                             _
                       .  '     '  .
                    '    .  ' '  .    `
                  '   '     . .     `   '
                .   '   '         `   '   .
                   '  '   . ' ' .   '  '
   propagation :  .      ' . ' . '      .  : propagation
  <----------- :  :  :  : : :+: . :  :  :  : ----------->
               :  '      . . _ . .      '  :
                   .  '   ' . . '   '  .
                '   .   '.       .'   .   '
                  .   '     ' '     .   .
                    .    `  . .  '    .  __
                      `  .   _   .  '   |PE

                             :
                             :
                             : propagation
                             :
                             v

The center (+) is where the stone would have fallen into the pond, and
it propagates outwards from that location in all directions.

A *transverse wave* means that the oscillation of that wave is
perpendicular to the direction in which it propagates.  Water waves, for
example, are such waves.  If we would look at the pond along its
surface, and considered only the part of the wave that is propagating to
the right, at an instant of time (here: t = 0) we would see something
like this:


              u(x, t = 0)   wavelength
              ^             <-------->
              : .''.      .''.      .''.       propagation
  oscillation :.    .    .    +    .    .    . -----------> space (x)
              :      .  .   x₀ .  .      .  .
              v       ''        ''        ''
               <-------->        <-------->
               wavelength        wavelength (λ)

The *wavelength* of this wave is the distance from the beginning of one
oscillation to its end, the distance between peaks, or between troughs.

If we then plot the amplitude of that wave at the same location, say the
location marked with x₀ above, over time t, we see the same pattern:

              u(x₀, t)
              ^
              : .''.      .''.      .''.
              :.    .    .    .    .    .    . -----------> time (t)
              :      .  .      .  .      .  .
              :       ''        ''        ''
                          <------->
                          period (T)

The *period* of this wave is the time that it takes for the same
location (here: x₀) to experience one oscillation.

The *frequency* of this wave is the number of periods experienced at a
(that) location per unit time:

  f = 1/T.

Experiments show: Light is an *electromagnetic wave*, an oscillation of
the strength (and sometimes direction) of the electric and magnetic
field (which must be considered together as the *electromagnetic field*
because they influence each other).  It propagates outwards from a light
source (or an object by which it is reflected) in all (3) directions of
(3-dimensional) space.

Experiments also show: The frequency of (human-)visible light determines
its color.  Bluish light has a greater frequency than reddish light;
from the explanation one can also understand that therefore it also has
a shorter wavelength than reddish light.  (Actually, I think that the
wavelengths of visible light have been measured first, because they are
easier to measure, and do not require a quantum-mechanical
interpretation of color vision.)

There is also light that humans cannot perceive: Light with frequencies
greater than (wavelengths shorter than) that of violet light
(ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays), and frequencies smaller than
(wavelengths longer than) that of red light (infrared and radio, with
short-wavelength radio waves called *microwaves*).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum>

> They have an absolute wavelength

There is no such thing as an "absolute wavelength".  The wavelength of a
wave depends on the frame of reference, therefore is a relative
quantity.  So does/is its frequency.

For example, sound is a wave, which is why propagating sound is called
"sound wave".  When a source of sound approaches or recedes from an
observer, they observe the Doppler effect: as the source approaches, the
pitch of the sound coming from it is higher; if it recedes, the pitch of
the sound coming from it is lower.  It is higher or lower because that
depends on the frequency of the /experienced/ oscillation: a higher
pitch means a greater frequency, and a lower pitch a smaller frequency:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect>

> and will induce a frequency on being intercepted...

Frequency is a quantity, not an effect.  Frequencies are not "induced",
they are calculated.

> [more pseudoscientific babble]

You already fail at the basics.

Educate yourself:

<https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/15-introduction>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#674364

On Fri, 9 Oct 2026 11:27:36 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> HenryWilson wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 03:25:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> HenryWilson wrote:
>>>> 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'.  [...]
>>>
>>> Provided they bother to read it, they will surely have a good laugh.
>>>
>>> The moment you realize that reality does not care about what you,
>>> philosophizing in in your armchair, claim, but just is as it is,
>>> including the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave (as Young's
>>> double-slit experiment, among others, showed/-s) which like all waves
>>> _does_ have a frequency, you will have a chance to become a mentally
>>> sane person again.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>
>> 
>> Maybe you should stick with philosophy. As any good Physicist should
>> know,
>> transverse travelling waves do not have an intrinsic frequency.
> 
> That is such a nonsense, it's not even wrong.
> 
> There is no such thing as a "transverse travelling wave".
> 
> Consider, for example, a water wave that is produced by a stone falling
> into a pond.
> 
> If we would look at the pond from above, and marked the peaks of the
> wave, it could look like this (you need to use a fixed-width font):
> 
>                              ^
>                              :
>                              : propagation :
>                              :
>                              _
>                        .  '     '  .
>                     '    .  ' '  .    `
>                   '   '     . .     `   '
>                 .   '   '         `   '   .
>                    '  '   . ' ' .   '  '
>    propagation :  .      ' . ' . '      .  : propagation
>   <----------- :  :  :  : : :+: . :  :  :  : ----------->
>                :  '      . . _ . .      '  :
>                    .  '   ' . . '   '  .
>                 '   .   '.       .'   .   '
>                   .   '     ' '     .   .
>                     .    `  . .  '    .  __
>                       `  .   _   .  '   |PE
> 
>                              :
>                              :
>                              : propagation :
>                              v
> 
> The center (+) is where the stone would have fallen into the pond, and
> it propagates outwards from that location in all directions.
> 
> A *transverse wave* means that the oscillation of that wave is
> perpendicular to the direction in which it propagates.  Water waves, for
> example, are such waves.  If we would look at the pond along its
> surface, and considered only the part of the wave that is propagating to
> the right, at an instant of time (here: t = 0) we would see something
> like this:
> 
> 
>               u(x, t = 0)   wavelength ^             <-------->
>               : .''.      .''.      .''.       propagation
>   oscillation :.    .    .    +    .    .    . -----------> space (x)
>               :      .  .   x₀ .  .      .  .
>               v       ''        ''        ''
>                <-------->        <--------> wavelength        wavelength
>                (λ)
> 
> The *wavelength* of this wave is the distance from the beginning of one
> oscillation to its end, the distance between peaks, or between troughs.
> 
> If we then plot the amplitude of that wave at the same location, say the
> location marked with x₀ above, over time t, we see the same pattern:
> 
>               u(x₀, t)
>               ^
>               : .''.      .''.      .''.
>               :.    .    .    .    .    .    . -----------> time (t)
>               :      .  .      .  .      .  .
>               :       ''        ''        ''
>                           <-------> period (T)
> 
> The *period* of this wave is the time that it takes for the same
> location (here: x₀) to experience one oscillation.
> 
> The *frequency* of this wave is the number of periods experienced at a
> (that) location per unit time:
> 
>   f = 1/T.
> 
> Experiments show: Light is an *electromagnetic wave*, an oscillation of
> the strength (and sometimes direction) of the electric and magnetic
> field (which must be considered together as the *electromagnetic field*
> because they influence each other).  It propagates outwards from a light
> source (or an object by which it is reflected) in all (3) directions of
> (3-dimensional) space.
> 
> Experiments also show: The frequency of (human-)visible light determines
> its color.  Bluish light has a greater frequency than reddish light;
> from the explanation one can also understand that therefore it also has
> a shorter wavelength than reddish light.  (Actually, I think that the
> wavelengths of visible light have been measured first, because they are
> easier to measure, and do not require a quantum-mechanical
> interpretation of color vision.)
> 
> There is also light that humans cannot perceive: Light with frequencies
> greater than (wavelengths shorter than) that of violet light
> (ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays), and frequencies smaller than
> (wavelengths longer than) that of red light (infrared and radio, with
> short-wavelength radio waves called *microwaves*).
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum>
> 
>> They have an absolute wavelength
> 
> There is no such thing as an "absolute wavelength".  The wavelength of a
> wave depends on the frame of reference, therefore is a relative
> quantity.  So does/is its frequency.
> 
> For example, sound is a wave, which is why propagating sound is called
> "sound wave".  When a source of sound approaches or recedes from an
> observer, they observe the Doppler effect: as the source approaches, the
> pitch of the sound coming from it is higher; if it recedes, the pitch of
> the sound coming from it is lower.  It is higher or lower because that
> depends on the frequency of the /experienced/ oscillation: a higher
> pitch means a greater frequency, and a lower pitch a smaller frequency:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect>
> 
>> and will induce a frequency on being intercepted...
> 
> Frequency is a quantity, not an effect.  Frequencies are not "induced",
> they are calculated.
> 
>> [more pseudoscientific babble]
> 
> You already fail at the basics.
> 
> Educate yourself:
> 
> <https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/15-
introduction>

poor idiot, no wonder you got sucked in by Einstein. You are talking to a 
physicist who used to teach this stuff. If you were one of my students you 
would fail miserably.

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

#674370

HenryWilson amok-full-quoted:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2026 11:27:36 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> HenryWilson wrote:
>>> Maybe you should stick with philosophy. As any good Physicist should
>>> know, transverse travelling waves do not have an intrinsic frequency.
>>
>> That is such a nonsense, it's not even wrong.
>>
>> There is no such thing as a "transverse travelling wave".
>>
>> [basics of wave mechanics]
>>
>> Experiments show: Light is an *electromagnetic wave*, an oscillation of
>> the strength (and sometimes direction) of the electric and magnetic
>> field (which must be considered together as the *electromagnetic field*
>> because they influence each other).  It propagates outwards from a light
>> source (or an object by which it is reflected) in all (3) directions of
>> (3-dimensional) space.
>>
>> Experiments also show: The frequency of (human-)visible light determines
>> its color.  Bluish light has a greater frequency than reddish light;
>> from the explanation one can also understand that therefore it also has
>> a shorter wavelength than reddish light.  (Actually, I think that the
>> wavelengths of visible light have been measured first, because they are
>> easier to measure, and do not require a quantum-mechanical
>> interpretation of color vision.)
>>
>> There is also light that humans cannot perceive: Light with frequencies
>> greater than (wavelengths shorter than) that of violet light
>> (ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays), and frequencies smaller than
>> (wavelengths longer than) that of red light (infrared and radio, with
>> short-wavelength radio waves called *microwaves*).
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum>
>>
>>> They have an absolute wavelength
>>
>> There is no such thing as an "absolute wavelength".  The wavelength of a
>> wave depends on the frame of reference, therefore is a relative
>> quantity.  So does/is its frequency.
>>
>> [example for the Doppler effect]
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect>
>>
>>> and will induce a frequency on being intercepted...
>>
>> Frequency is a quantity, not an effect.  Frequencies are not "induced",
>> they are calculated.
>>
>>> [more pseudoscientific babble]
>>
>> You already fail at the basics.
>>
>> Educate yourself:
>>
>> <https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/15-
> introduction>
> 
> poor idiot, no wonder you got sucked in by Einstein. You are talking to a 
> physicist who used to teach this stuff.

In your wet dreams, maybe.

> If you were one of my students you would fail miserably.
Thank you.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#674379

On 10/13/2026 12:31 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2026 11:27:36 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
>> HenryWilson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 03:25:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> HenryWilson wrote:
>>>>> 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'.  [...]
>>>>
>>>> Provided they bother to read it, they will surely have a good laugh.
>>>>
>>>> The moment you realize that reality does not care about what you,
>>>> philosophizing in in your armchair, claim, but just is as it is,
>>>> including the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave (as Young's
>>>> double-slit experiment, among others, showed/-s) which like all waves
>>>> _does_ have a frequency, you will have a chance to become a mentally
>>>> sane person again.
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>
>>>
>>> Maybe you should stick with philosophy. As any good Physicist should
>>> know,
>>> transverse travelling waves do not have an intrinsic frequency.
>>
>> That is such a nonsense, it's not even wrong.
>>
>> There is no such thing as a "transverse travelling wave".
>>
>> Consider, for example, a water wave that is produced by a stone falling
>> into a pond.
>>
>> If we would look at the pond from above, and marked the peaks of the
>> wave, it could look like this (you need to use a fixed-width font):
>>
>>                               ^
>>                               :
>>                               : propagation :
>>                               :
>>                               _
>>                         .  '     '  .
>>                      '    .  ' '  .    `
>>                    '   '     . .     `   '
>>                  .   '   '         `   '   .
>>                     '  '   . ' ' .   '  '
>>     propagation :  .      ' . ' . '      .  : propagation
>>    <----------- :  :  :  : : :+: . :  :  :  : ----------->
>>                 :  '      . . _ . .      '  :
>>                     .  '   ' . . '   '  .
>>                  '   .   '.       .'   .   '
>>                    .   '     ' '     .   .
>>                      .    `  . .  '    .  __
>>                        `  .   _   .  '   |PE
>>
>>                               :
>>                               :
>>                               : propagation :
>>                               v
>>
>> The center (+) is where the stone would have fallen into the pond, and
>> it propagates outwards from that location in all directions.
>>
>> A *transverse wave* means that the oscillation of that wave is
>> perpendicular to the direction in which it propagates.  Water waves, for
>> example, are such waves.  If we would look at the pond along its
>> surface, and considered only the part of the wave that is propagating to
>> the right, at an instant of time (here: t = 0) we would see something
>> like this:
>>
>>
>>                u(x, t = 0)   wavelength ^             <-------->
>>                : .''.      .''.      .''.       propagation
>>    oscillation :.    .    .    +    .    .    . -----------> space (x)
>>                :      .  .   x₀ .  .      .  .
>>                v       ''        ''        ''
>>                 <-------->        <--------> wavelength        wavelength
>>                 (λ)
>>
>> The *wavelength* of this wave is the distance from the beginning of one
>> oscillation to its end, the distance between peaks, or between troughs.
>>
>> If we then plot the amplitude of that wave at the same location, say the
>> location marked with x₀ above, over time t, we see the same pattern:
>>
>>                u(x₀, t)
>>                ^
>>                : .''.      .''.      .''.
>>                :.    .    .    .    .    .    . -----------> time (t)
>>                :      .  .      .  .      .  .
>>                :       ''        ''        ''
>>                            <-------> period (T)
>>
>> The *period* of this wave is the time that it takes for the same
>> location (here: x₀) to experience one oscillation.
>>
>> The *frequency* of this wave is the number of periods experienced at a
>> (that) location per unit time:
>>
>>    f = 1/T.
>>
>> Experiments show: Light is an *electromagnetic wave*, an oscillation of
>> the strength (and sometimes direction) of the electric and magnetic
>> field (which must be considered together as the *electromagnetic field*
>> because they influence each other).  It propagates outwards from a light
>> source (or an object by which it is reflected) in all (3) directions of
>> (3-dimensional) space.
>>
>> Experiments also show: The frequency of (human-)visible light determines
>> its color.  Bluish light has a greater frequency than reddish light;
>> from the explanation one can also understand that therefore it also has
>> a shorter wavelength than reddish light.  (Actually, I think that the
>> wavelengths of visible light have been measured first, because they are
>> easier to measure, and do not require a quantum-mechanical
>> interpretation of color vision.)
>>
>> There is also light that humans cannot perceive: Light with frequencies
>> greater than (wavelengths shorter than) that of violet light
>> (ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays), and frequencies smaller than
>> (wavelengths longer than) that of red light (infrared and radio, with
>> short-wavelength radio waves called *microwaves*).
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum>
>>
>>> They have an absolute wavelength
>>
>> There is no such thing as an "absolute wavelength".  The wavelength of a
>> wave depends on the frame of reference, therefore is a relative
>> quantity.  So does/is its frequency.
>>
>> For example, sound is a wave, which is why propagating sound is called
>> "sound wave".  When a source of sound approaches or recedes from an
>> observer, they observe the Doppler effect: as the source approaches, the
>> pitch of the sound coming from it is higher; if it recedes, the pitch of
>> the sound coming from it is lower.  It is higher or lower because that
>> depends on the frequency of the /experienced/ oscillation: a higher
>> pitch means a greater frequency, and a lower pitch a smaller frequency:
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect>
>>
>>> and will induce a frequency on being intercepted...
>>
>> Frequency is a quantity, not an effect.  Frequencies are not "induced",
>> they are calculated.
>>
>>> [more pseudoscientific babble]
>>
>> You already fail at the basics.
>>
>> Educate yourself:
>>
>> <https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/15-
> introduction>
>
> poor idiot, no wonder you got sucked in by Einstein. You are talking to a
> physicist who used to teach this stuff. If you were one of my students you
> would fail miserably.
>
>


Waves are discussed quite a bit in my "Moment and Motion" course,
about waves in layered media and Snell and Beer and turbulence theory.


The spiral-waves and wave-spirals make for a greater account
than Huygens principle and it's consideration in teleological
concerns about Fermat and Huygens and waves.

Waves are models of change in open systems,
vis-a-vis oscillations in closed systems.

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

#674304

On 10/09/2026 12:01 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 03:25:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
>> HenryWilson wrote:
>>> 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'.  [...]
>>
>> Provided they bother to read it, they will surely have a good laugh.
>>
>> The moment you realize that reality does not care about what you,
>> philosophizing in in your armchair, claim, but just is as it is,
>> including the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave (as Young's
>> double-slit experiment, among others, showed/-s) which like all waves
>> _does_ have a frequency, you will have a chance to become a mentally
>> sane person again.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>
>
> Maybe you should stick with philosophy. As any good Physicist should know,
> transverse travelling waves do not have an intrinsic frequency. They have
> an absolute wavelength and will induce a frequency on being
> intercepted...namely 'wave arrival rate' 'WAR'...just like running a saw
> blade over a sharp edge...the teeth don't oscillate...but indoctrinees of
> Einstein and most of Physics top academics are too dumb to understand
> that. The 'frequency of light' appears everywhere in modern physics...yet
> it doesn't even exist. I'm not in the least worried about the fact that I
> am the only person in the world smart enough to know that.
> Maxwell's equations describe what light DOES not what it IS...so it is
> natural to believe that whatever travels from A to B light is
> electromagnetic because that's what it generates...but that is not the
> whole story...and it might not be true.
>


Huygens principle is "waves make waves". There also the other Huygens
principle, here though that "waves make waves".

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

#674308

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On 10/09/2026 12:01 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 03:25:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >
> >> HenryWilson wrote:
> >>> 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'.  [...]
> >>
> >> Provided they bother to read it, they will surely have a good laugh.
> >>
> >> The moment you realize that reality does not care about what you,
> >> philosophizing in in your armchair, claim, but just is as it is,
> >> including the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave (as Young's
> >> double-slit experiment, among others, showed/-s) which like all waves
> >> _does_ have a frequency, you will have a chance to become a mentally
> >> sane person again.
> >>
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>
> >
> > Maybe you should stick with philosophy. As any good Physicist should know,
> > transverse travelling waves do not have an intrinsic frequency. They have
> > an absolute wavelength and will induce a frequency on being
> > intercepted...namely 'wave arrival rate' 'WAR'...just like running a saw
> > blade over a sharp edge...the teeth don't oscillate...but indoctrinees of
> > Einstein and most of Physics top academics are too dumb to understand
> > that. The 'frequency of light' appears everywhere in modern physics...yet
> > it doesn't even exist. I'm not in the least worried about the fact that I
> > am the only person in the world smart enough to know that.
> > Maxwell's equations describe what light DOES not what it IS...so it is
> > natural to believe that whatever travels from A to B light is
> > electromagnetic because that's what it generates...but that is not the
> > whole story...and it might not be true.
> >
> 
> Huygens principle is "waves make waves". There also the other Huygens
> principle, here though that "waves make waves".


i thought it was the moon that made the wave...
-- 
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]

#674365

On Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:36:17 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 10/09/2026 12:01 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 03:25:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>
>>> HenryWilson wrote:
>>>> 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'.  [...]
>>>
>>> Provided they bother to read it, they will surely have a good laugh.
>>>
>>> The moment you realize that reality does not care about what you,
>>> philosophizing in in your armchair, claim, but just is as it is,
>>> including the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave (as Young's
>>> double-slit experiment, among others, showed/-s) which like all waves
>>> _does_ have a frequency, you will have a chance to become a mentally
>>> sane person again.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>
>>
>> Maybe you should stick with philosophy. As any good Physicist should
>> know,
>> transverse travelling waves do not have an intrinsic frequency. They
>> have an absolute wavelength and will induce a frequency on being
>> intercepted...namely 'wave arrival rate' 'WAR'...just like running a
>> saw blade over a sharp edge...the teeth don't oscillate...but
>> indoctrinees of Einstein and most of Physics top academics are too dumb
>> to understand that. The 'frequency of light' appears everywhere in
>> modern physics...yet it doesn't even exist. I'm not in the least
>> worried about the fact that I am the only person in the world smart
>> enough to know that.
>> Maxwell's equations describe what light DOES not what it IS...so it is
>> natural to believe that whatever travels from A to B light is
>> electromagnetic because that's what it generates...but that is not the
>> whole story...and it might not be true.
>>
>>
> 
> Huygens principle is "waves make waves". There also the other Huygens
> principle, here though that "waves make waves".

Whatever made you want  to post that stuff?

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

#674380

On 10/13/2026 12:33 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:36:17 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> On 10/09/2026 12:01 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 03:25:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>
>>>> HenryWilson wrote:
>>>>> 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'.  [...]
>>>>
>>>> Provided they bother to read it, they will surely have a good laugh.
>>>>
>>>> The moment you realize that reality does not care about what you,
>>>> philosophizing in in your armchair, claim, but just is as it is,
>>>> including the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave (as Young's
>>>> double-slit experiment, among others, showed/-s) which like all waves
>>>> _does_ have a frequency, you will have a chance to become a mentally
>>>> sane person again.
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>
>>>
>>> Maybe you should stick with philosophy. As any good Physicist should
>>> know,
>>> transverse travelling waves do not have an intrinsic frequency. They
>>> have an absolute wavelength and will induce a frequency on being
>>> intercepted...namely 'wave arrival rate' 'WAR'...just like running a
>>> saw blade over a sharp edge...the teeth don't oscillate...but
>>> indoctrinees of Einstein and most of Physics top academics are too dumb
>>> to understand that. The 'frequency of light' appears everywhere in
>>> modern physics...yet it doesn't even exist. I'm not in the least
>>> worried about the fact that I am the only person in the world smart
>>> enough to know that.
>>> Maxwell's equations describe what light DOES not what it IS...so it is
>>> natural to believe that whatever travels from A to B light is
>>> electromagnetic because that's what it generates...but that is not the
>>> whole story...and it might not be true.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Huygens principle is "waves make waves". There also the other Huygens
>> principle, here though that "waves make waves".
>
> Whatever made you want  to post that stuff?
>

I'm an amateur academic, it's for the love of wisdom and the stacks.

Also there's the one-up-man-ship.

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

#674399

On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 08:16:56 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 10/13/2026 12:33 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:36:17 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/09/2026 12:01 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 03:25:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> HenryWilson wrote:
>>>>>> 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'.  [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Provided they bother to read it, they will surely have a good laugh.
>>>>>
>>>>> The moment you realize that reality does not care about what you,
>>>>> philosophizing in in your armchair, claim, but just is as it is,
>>>>> including the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave (as Young's
>>>>> double-slit experiment, among others, showed/-s) which like all
>>>>> waves _does_ have a frequency, you will have a chance to become a
>>>>> mentally sane person again.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Wave_theory>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you should stick with philosophy. As any good Physicist should
>>>> know,
>>>> transverse travelling waves do not have an intrinsic frequency. They
>>>> have an absolute wavelength and will induce a frequency on being
>>>> intercepted...namely 'wave arrival rate' 'WAR'...just like running a
>>>> saw blade over a sharp edge...the teeth don't oscillate...but
>>>> indoctrinees of Einstein and most of Physics top academics are too
>>>> dumb to understand that. The 'frequency of light' appears everywhere
>>>> in modern physics...yet it doesn't even exist. I'm not in the least
>>>> worried about the fact that I am the only person in the world smart
>>>> enough to know that.
>>>> Maxwell's equations describe what light DOES not what it IS...so it
>>>> is natural to believe that whatever travels from A to B light is
>>>> electromagnetic because that's what it generates...but that is not
>>>> the whole story...and it might not be true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Huygens principle is "waves make waves". There also the other Huygens
>>> principle, here though that "waves make waves".
>>
>> Whatever made you want  to post that stuff?
>>
>>
> I'm an amateur academic, it's for the love of wisdom and the stacks.
> 
> Also there's the one-up-man-ship.

Well I suppose that having the ability to generate meaning from randomly 
sequenced psychologically strategic words would give a person a feeling of 
superiority

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web