Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #359958 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-08 06:55 +1000 |
| Last post | 2015-08-12 08:37 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 143 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-08 06:55 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:40 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-08 08:27 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:36 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:48 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 08:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 08:13 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 17:20 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 12:25 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 19:58 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:11 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-10 10:06 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:08 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-10 15:28 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-11 06:30 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-11 23:43 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-12 08:26 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-12 10:23 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 01:51 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 16:03 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 11:39 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 19:24 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-14 14:52 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 11:37 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-13 18:41 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 19:28 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-17 17:08 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-18 03:27 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-17 21:42 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-18 08:23 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-18 21:33 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-19 06:11 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:20 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 05:53 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-19 14:09 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 19:14 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 03:42 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-20 12:33 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-21 09:17 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-21 09:17 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 19:39 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-21 19:52 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-21 05:29 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-19 14:22 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 05:55 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-20 09:52 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 19:17 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-20 12:25 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-17 21:20 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-18 08:22 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-18 03:15 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-18 19:39 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-18 14:22 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-18 21:38 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 09:27 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-11 06:22 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 18:52 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 15:34 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 03:01 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-08 19:35 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 15:45 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 07:46 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-09 08:57 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 07:44 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 20:00 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 23:36 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 15:18 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-09 07:09 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 08:19 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-09 18:31 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 09:40 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-09 21:30 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 13:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 18:16 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-10 07:50 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:37 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:39 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:43 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 08:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-11 08:59 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Felipe Delgado <fd@spreadspectrum.org> - 2015-08-11 16:27 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-11 22:49 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-11 17:58 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-12 07:49 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-12 08:01 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-13 19:27 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-14 05:29 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 03:32 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 07:50 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-12 22:53 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:57 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-13 11:16 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 06:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-13 21:21 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-18 06:22 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 07:06 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-18 19:55 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 16:25 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-21 06:09 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 12:18 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 12:22 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:23 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 07:59 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 08:15 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 18:55 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-09 22:10 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 20:27 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:15 +1000
Stephane Baune inserts foot in mouth. Deeper "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-13 12:38 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 19:19 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 19:25 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-08 13:02 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:37 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-09 14:32 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 07:33 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:10 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 07:56 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:19 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 06:39 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-11 06:35 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:28 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-12 08:30 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 08:07 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-13 07:25 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 17:14 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 02:01 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-13 11:57 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 19:36 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 06:08 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-15 06:00 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:04 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-15 06:43 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 15:07 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-09 11:23 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 08:25 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-10 14:37 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-11 08:24 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-12 11:14 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-13 07:29 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-13 13:07 -0700
Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 20:02 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-12 08:37 +1000
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 06:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ck2isal9l56dagbbkovskt3qqa19u6mie4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360211 |
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 06:39:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 4:19:38 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> >> Frequency is not measures. Wavelength is. You are talking nonsense >> again...goodbye > >What does Ralphie-boy think frequency counter measures? :-)) > >> > > Nobody has directly measured a frequency associated with visible light. > >Ralphie-boy's dishonesty runs rampant. He has been shown this link before: > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040830082218.htm > >He might have been merely ignorant the first time, but after multiple >times he demonstrates that he is fundamentally dishonest ... AGAIN! Poor boy! That is a graph of the energy shift on a probe at a particular point. In other words it is a graph of the wave arrival rate... f = c/lambda That is just what I have been telling you, dopey. >Gary __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 16:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3cd959f6-0bf7-4bba-b464-bd8c69ea7670@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360259 |
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 2:35:59 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 06:39:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 4:19:38 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > > > > > Frequency is not measures. Wavelength is. You are talking nonsense > > > again...goodbye > > > > What does Ralphie-boy think frequency counter measures? :-)) > > > > > > > Nobody has directly measured a frequency associated with visible > > > > > light. > > > > Ralphie-boy's dishonesty runs rampant. He has been shown this link before: > > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040830082218.htm > > > > He might have been merely ignorant the first time, but after multiple > > times he demonstrates that he is fundamentally dishonest ... AGAIN! > > Poor boy! I'm not the delusional fool that doesn't believe in frequencies and waves :-)) > That is a graph of the energy shift on a probe at a particular > point. In other words it is a graph of the wave arrival rate... f = c/lambda > That is just what I have been telling you, dopey. > > Henry Wilson DSc. "Wave arrival rate"? But you don't believe in waves, dope head :-)) And you don't believe in f = c/lambda, either, so what kind of rope are you smoking now? Stupidly dshonest buzzhead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 08:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <intksaholeq23oulvis28r8sn8sl8cqm3t@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360279 |
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 2:35:59 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> > He might have been merely ignorant the first time, but after multiple >> > times he demonstrates that he is fundamentally dishonest ... AGAIN! >> >> Poor boy! > >I'm not the delusional fool that doesn't believe in frequencies and >waves :-)) > >> That is a graph of the energy shift on a probe at a particular >> point. In other words it is a graph of the wave arrival rate... f = c/lambda >> That is just what I have been telling you, dopey. >> >> Henry Wilson DSc. > >"Wave arrival rate"? But you don't believe in waves, dope head :-)) > >And you don't believe in f = c/lambda, either, so what kind of rope are >you smoking now? Stupidly dshonest buzzhead. Hey shithead, light is traveling towards the detector and when it reaches it, an oscillating energy flow is measured. Clearly, energy is distributed sinusoidaly along the length of the light beam. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 08:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e51351b7-d7c2-422c-ade6-fb3fa9417e31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360399 |
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:30:58 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > >"Wave arrival rate"? But you don't believe in waves, dope head :-)) > > > > And you don't believe in f = c/lambda, either, so what kind of rope are > > you smoking now? Stupidly dshonest buzzhead. > > Hey shithead, light is traveling towards the detector and when it reaches > it, an oscillating energy flow is measured. Clearly, energy is distributed > sinusoidaly along the length of the light beam. > > Henry Wilson DSc. Which proves that you were lying when you said, "Nobody has directly measured a frequency associated with visible light." Hahahahaha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 07:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ocensap9rt3a171apm6ittpkhp5bqjlm8e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360467 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:07:04 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:30:58 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> >> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >"Wave arrival rate"? But you don't believe in waves, dope head :-)) >> > >> > And you don't believe in f = c/lambda, either, so what kind of rope are >> > you smoking now? Stupidly dshonest buzzhead. >> >> Hey shithead, light is traveling towards the detector and when it reaches >> it, an oscillating energy flow is measured. Clearly, energy is distributed >> sinusoidaly along the length of the light beam. >> >> Henry Wilson DSc. > >Which proves that you were lying when you said, "Nobody has directly measured >a frequency associated with visible light." They haven't. Wave arrival rate is obviously speed dependent. >Hahahahaha! HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 17:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e36bd2f8-1333-485b-a8e5-6548e77e20d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360515 |
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 3:25:44 PM UTC-6, HG Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:07:04 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > Which proves that you were lying when you said, "Nobody has directly > > measured a frequency associated with visible light." > > They haven't. Wave arrival rate is obviously speed dependent. > > >Hahahahaha! > > HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! Hahahaha! "Wave arrival rate" IS frequency, so you're STILL a liar. Your assertion that it's "speed dependent" is correct as it depends on the relative velocity between source and receiver. So what? Wavekength is ALSO "speed dependent" making the speed of light constant. You are losing every fragment of sanity, not that you EVER had a good grip.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 02:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oafpsat2fu41tq4d6m4pak1p01ec1kmh4s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360538 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:14:41 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 3:25:44 PM UTC-6, HG Wilson wrote: >> >> They haven't. Wave arrival rate is obviously speed dependent. >> >> >Hahahahaha! >> >> HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! > >Hahahaha! "Wave arrival rate" IS frequency, so you're STILL a liar. Your >assertion that it's "speed dependent" is correct as it depends on the >relative velocity between source and receiver. So what? Wavekength is >ALSO "speed dependent" making the speed of light constant. HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! An observer cannot affect the observed. To an observer was moving along with a light beam, would it have a frequency? BaTh says it would. The two fields oscillate in the rest frame of the light itself....but that frequency is unrelated to (c+v)/lambda, which is frame dependent. >You are losing every fragment of sanity, not that you EVER had a good grip. You apparently never had any to lose....! __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 11:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c99637cb-b6be-466d-9b19-5bee992fc768@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360620 |
On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:01:07 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:14:41 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > Hahahaha! "Wave arrival rate" IS frequency, so you're STILL a liar. Your > > assertion that it's "speed dependent" is correct as it depends on the > > relative velocity between source and receiver. So what? Wavekength is > > ALSO "speed dependent" making the speed of light constant. > > HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! > HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! > HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! > > An observer cannot affect the observed. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! An object subtends 10 degrees of arc as seen by an observer. He doubles his distance from the object and it now appears HALF its size. Stupid idiot Ralphie-boy claims it's still the same size since an observer cannot affect the observed :-))) A whistle emits a 500 Hz frequency. An observer moving towards the whistle measures the frequency as 520 Hz. Stupid idiot Ralphie-boy claims it's still 500 Hz since an observer cannot affect the observed :-))) Ralphie-boy has a very bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. > To an observer was moving along with a light beam, would it have a > frequency? Can't happen, stupid idiot Ralphie-boy. > BaTh says it would. Which proves that stupid idiot Ralphie-boy's BaThwater is dead wrong. > The two fields oscillate in the rest frame of the light itself....but > that frequency is unrelated to (c+v)/lambda, which is frame dependent. > > > You are losing every fragment of sanity, not that you EVER had a good grip. > > You apparently never had any to lose....! > > Henry Wilson DSc. I'm not the stupid idiot that stupidly claims "an observer cannot affect the observed" :-))) Tell me, stupid idiot Ralphie-boy, what is the kinetic energy of a mass of 100 kg? :-))))))) Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 19:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <l9drsa99kinof18vngi0qsnojgul8ag3hl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360636 |
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:57:34 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:01:07 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:14:41 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hahahaha! "Wave arrival rate" IS frequency, so you're STILL a liar. Your >> > assertion that it's "speed dependent" is correct as it depends on the >> > relative velocity between source and receiver. So what? Wavekength is >> > ALSO "speed dependent" making the speed of light constant. >> >> HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! >> HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! >> HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHA! >> >> An observer cannot affect the observed. > >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! > >An object subtends 10 degrees of arc as seen by an observer. He doubles >his distance from the object and it now appears HALF its size. Stupid >idiot Ralphie-boy claims it's still the same size since an observer >cannot affect the observed :-))) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! That is really extremely funny. No wonder you got sucked in by Einstein. >A whistle emits a 500 Hz frequency. An observer moving towards the >whistle measures the frequency as 520 Hz. Stupid idiot henrie-boy >claims it's still 500 Hz since an observer cannot affect the observed :-))) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's even funnier! >Henrie-boy has a very bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. > >> To an observer was moving along with a light beam, would it have a >> frequency? > >Can't happen, stupid idiot Ralphie-boy. > >> BaTh says it would. > >Which proves that stupid idiot Ralphie-boy's BaThwater is dead wrong. > >> The two fields oscillate in the rest frame of the light itself....but >> that frequency is unrelated to (c+v)/lambda, which is frame dependent. >> >> > You are losing every fragment of sanity, not that you EVER had a good grip. >> >> You apparently never had any to lose....! >> >> Henry Wilson DSc. > >I'm not the stupid idiot that stupidly claims "an observer cannot affect >the observed" :-))) How can it? >Tell me, stupid idiot Henrie-boy, what is the kinetic energy of a mass >of 100 kg? :-))))))) Gawd! Didbn't you fiollow the previous lesson I gave you about KE? Learn some basic physics please. > >Gary __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 06:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c2794c9-5eec-4d27-b413-1bbc624387fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360682 |
On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 3:36:14 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > [A lot of sophomoric stupidity] > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:57:34 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > I'm not the stupid idiot that stupidly claims "an observer cannot affect > > the observed" :-))) > > How can it? Ralphie-boy's deceitful sophistry is legendary. The observer can CERTAINLY affect what is measured about the observed. Does stupid Ralphie-boy believe that measurement is not reality? > > Tell me, stupid idiot Ralphie-boy, what is the kinetic energy of a mass > > of 100 kg? :-))))))) > > Gawd! Didbn't you fiollow the previous lesson I gave you about KE? Why would ANYONE "fiollow" any dysfunctional "lesson" stupid Ralphie-boy would invent out of thin air? He has proven he can't think his way out of a paper bag. > Learn some basic physics please. > > > Henry Wilson DSc. Been there, done that. So does stupid, ignorant Ralphie-boy not under- stand that KE, p, f and lambda are observer-dependent? Does stupid, ignorant Ralphie-boy not believe that lambda = h/p? Does stupid, ignorant Ralphie-boy not understand that if p is observer-dependent then lambda must be also? What a brainless fool stupid, ignorant Ralphie-boy is! Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 06:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <1hhssale7jogvgnjsq3its773q7rdqgma8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360706 |
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:08:06 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 3:36:14 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> > I'm not the stupid idiot that stupidly claims "an observer cannot affect >Henrie-boy's deceitful sophistry is legendary. The observer can >CERTAINLY affect what is measured about the observed. Does stupid >Henrie-boy believe that measurement is not reality? > >> > Tell me, stupid idiot Henrie-boy, what is the kinetic energy of a mass >> > of 100 kg? :-))))))) >> >> Gawd! Didbn't you fiollow the previous lesson I gave you about KE? > >Why would ANYONE "fiollow" any dysfunctional "lesson" stupid Henrie-boy >would invent out of thin air? He has proven he can't think his way out >of a paper bag. > >> Learn some basic physics please. >> >> >> Henry Wilson DSc. > >Been there, done that. So does stupid, ignorant Henrie-boy not under- >stand that KE, p, f and lambda are observer-dependent? Neither poor little Gary nor his idiot colleages know enough about physics to understand that those three quantities are NOT intrinsic to the objects concerned. >Does stupid, >ignorant Henrie-boy not believe that lambda = h/p? Does stupid, >ignorant Henrie-boy not understand that if p is observer-dependent then >lambda must be also? What a brainless fool stupid, ignorant Henrie-boy >is! poor little gary doesn't undrstand that the act of stopping light in order to investigate its properties introduces the factor c+v which is not intrinsic to the light itself. poor little gary thinks velocity is and intrinsic property. >Gary __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 15:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mqlhkc$b08$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #360774 |
On 8/14/2015 3:00 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > Neither poor little Gary nor his idiot colleages know enough about physics to > understand that those three quantities are NOT intrinsic to the objects > concerned. Completely agree that lambda (the wavelength) is not intrinsic to the light being observed. This is why it's one of the properties that the motion of the observer can affect. Congratulations, Henry. You're making progress. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 06:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <jgkssaho0a40cg67fussbrri128ddu4h1r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360775 |
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:04:31 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 8/14/2015 3:00 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> Neither poor little Gary nor his idiot colleages know enough about physics to >> understand that those three quantities are NOT intrinsic to the objects >> concerned. > >Completely agree that lambda (the wavelength) is not intrinsic to the >light being observed. >This is why it's one of the properties that the motion of the observer >can affect. > >Congratulations, Henry. You're making progress. I said the THREE quantities, meaninig KE, p,f. That did not include wavelength. What is wavelength anyway? What is the physics behid the 'wavelength' of any de Broglie 'wave'? __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a6f318c-3ddd-4293-bd15-d82a7a60e7f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360789 |
On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 2:43:38 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:04:31 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 8/14/2015 3:00 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > > > > > Neither poor little Gary nor his idiot colleages know enough about > > > physics to understand that those three quantities are NOT intrinsic > > > to the objects concerned. > > > > Completely agree that lambda (the wavelength) is not intrinsic to the > > light being observed. > > This is why it's one of the properties that the motion of the observer > > can affect. > > > > Congratulations, Henry. You're making progress. > > I said the THREE quantities, meaninig KE, p,f. So why didn't you specify, dishonest bullshitter? You could have meant lambda, h and p, which is what you intended everyone to think with your stupid sophistry. > That did not include wavelength. Then you are the stupidest of all the stupid fools. > What is wavelength anyway? Hahahaha! The guy with the fake "DSc" doesn't have a clue. What a moron! > What is the physics behid the 'wavelength' of any de Broglie 'wave'? > > Henry Wilson DSc. Yep, stupider-than-dirt Ralphie-boy doesn't have a clue! http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html Electrons can behave as waves, Stupid Ralphie-boy. You've never used electron diffraction to study crystal lattices? Apparently not. Your fake DSc must be limited to the science of basket weaving since it's obviously not physics as my degree is. The physics is in the experiments that confirm the de Broglie theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction#History Stupid, ignorant Ralphie-boy has never studied REAL physics. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63371699-8491-4509-b141-7801139bfca7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359958 |
W dniu piątek, 7 sierpnia 2015 22:55:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Henry Wilson DSc. napisał: > There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the > technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they > are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the > terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. The wave parameters are very precisely determined in a correct theory, just in the wave theory. and the classical Lorentz theory predicts this very well... > The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an > assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. If that > were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of the > existence of that medium. > > Accordingly, interferometry experiments such as the Sagnac Effect and this > one: > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light Blaha...hehe, hoo, wow! Michelson was an experimentalists only - no any theoretician. He never understand his own measurements. > In pure light, as distinct from a generated radio wave, something appears to > be 'waving'. What actually is it? The standard Lorentzian ether... is still waving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 08:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <opkfsahflg9kudc5j9975b1qel5dhj24hu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360131 |
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:23:51 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote: >W dniu pi?tek, 7 sierpnia 2015 22:55:20 UTC+2 u?ytkownik Henry Wilson DSc. napisa?: >> There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the >> technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they >> are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the >> terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. > >The wave parameters are very precisely determined in a correct theory, >just in the wave theory. > >and the classical Lorentz theory predicts this very well... > >> The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an >> assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. If that >> were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of the >> existence of that medium. >> >> Accordingly, interferometry experiments such as the Sagnac Effect and this >> one: >> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light > >Blaha...hehe, hoo, wow! > >Michelson was an experimentalists only - no any theoretician. >He never understand his own measurements. > >> In pure light, as distinct from a generated radio wave, something appears to >> be 'waving'. What actually is it? > >The standard Lorentzian ether... is still waving. There is no universal aetehr. There might be local aetherlike regions, though
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 14:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46a102ad-e220-4c03-8500-2141fb8db068@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360156 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 10 sierpnia 2015 00:25:45 UTC+2 użytkownik HG Wilson napisał: > On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:23:51 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > >W dniu pi?tek, 7 sierpnia 2015 22:55:20 UTC+2 u?ytkownik Henry Wilson DSc. napisa?: > >> There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the > >> technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they > >> are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the > >> terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. > > > >The wave parameters are very precisely determined in a correct theory, > >just in the wave theory. > > > >and the classical Lorentz theory predicts this very well... > > > >> The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an > >> assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. If that > >> were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of the > >> existence of that medium. > >> > >> Accordingly, interferometry experiments such as the Sagnac Effect and this > >> one: > >> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light > > > >Blaha...hehe, hoo, wow! > > > >Michelson was an experimentalists only - no any theoretician. > >He never understand his own measurements. > > > >> In pure light, as distinct from a generated radio wave, something appears to > >> be 'waving'. What actually is it? > > > >The standard Lorentzian ether... is still waving. > > There is no universal aetehr. There might be local aetherlike regions, though It is still present, and in any equation of the so-called non-classical science. Just the idiots don't understand his own rquations, and they are unable to set any real - usefull experiments, they still repeat these stupid experiments, but in a perfect vacuum, thus the results still worse... a null result = impotence of the experimenter. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 08:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ns8isa1afku369grsd76hqib8hbivi3su6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360269 |
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:37:39 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote: >W dniu poniedzia?ek, 10 sierpnia 2015 00:25:45 UTC+2 u?ytkownik HG Wilson napisa?: >> >> Accordingly, interferometry experiments such as the Sagnac Effect and this >> >> one: >> >> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light >> > >> >Blaha...hehe, hoo, wow! >> > >> >Michelson was an experimentalists only - no any theoretician. >> >He never understand his own measurements. >> > >> >> In pure light, as distinct from a generated radio wave, something appears to >> >> be 'waving'. What actually is it? >> > >> >The standard Lorentzian ether... is still waving. >> >> There is no universal aetehr. There might be local aetherlike regions, though > >It is still present, >and in any equation of the so-called non-classical science. > >Just the idiots don't understand his own rquations, >and they are unable to set any real - usefull experiments, >they still repeat these stupid experiments, but in a perfect vacuum, thus the results still worse... >a null result = impotence of the experimenter. :) They certainly don't understand their own treory. But nor do you. There is no universal homogeneous aether. Fields are made of 'aether' (for want of a better word). Where fields exist there is an 'aetherlike region' in which light speed is modified to some extent, depending on field strength. In remote space, field strengths are below a critical threshold and light behave 100% ballistically.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14768186-e854-427c-add1-bef6a8b1875a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360272 |
W dniu wtorek, 11 sierpnia 2015 00:24:20 UTC+2 użytkownik HG Wilson napisał: > They certainly don't understand their own treory. > > But nor do you. There is no universal homogeneous aether. Unfortunately to yut it's evident in many measurements. > Fields are made of 'aether' (for want of a better word). > Where fields exist there is an 'aetherlike region' > in which light speed is modified to some extent, depending > on field strength. I heard long ago about this type of improvisations... probably made by C.Mead: http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/People/CarverMead.htm It's a high speculatory... interpretational ideology rather than any strict, formal theory... something like these alternative many interpretations in the QM. These are plainly wrong and superfluous - all without exception. Simply: the whole 'interpretational science' is just a stupid nonsense! > In remote space, field strengths are below a critical threshold and light > behave 100% ballistically. Is this another assumed/postulated idiocy? :) The light is a wave idiot!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 07:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <hgensap8v93repelai70juucsc9scnd5vu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360491 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:14:32 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote: >W dniu wtorek, 11 sierpnia 2015 00:24:20 UTC+2 u?ytkownik HG Wilson napisa?: >> They certainly don't understand their own treory. >> >> But nor do you. There is no universal homogeneous aether. > >Unfortunately to yut it's evident in many measurements. No it isn't. If there is a universal aether, how did it get here and where does it end? >> Fields are made of 'aether' (for want of a better word). >> Where fields exist there is an 'aetherlike region' >> in which light speed is modified to some extent, depending >> on field strength. > >I heard long ago about this type of improvisations... >probably made by C.Mead: >http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/People/CarverMead.htm > >It's a high speculatory... interpretational ideology rather than any strict, formal theory... >something like these alternative many interpretations in the QM. >These are plainly wrong and superfluous - all without exception. > >Simply: the whole 'interpretational science' is just a stupid nonsense! > >> In remote space, field strengths are below a critical threshold and light >> behave 100% ballistically. > >Is this another assumed/postulated idiocy? :) > >The light is a wave idiot! Light certainly has wavelike properties when intercepted. So do the teeth of a moving sawblade.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web