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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #396776 > unrolled thread

Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis.

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

Contents

  Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 06:48 +1100
    Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-25 19:54 +0000
      Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 20:01 +1100
        Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-26 14:28 +0000
          Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-26 14:30 +0000
    Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-25 13:45 -0700
      Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 20:36 +1100
        Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-26 04:51 -0700
          Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-27 05:53 +1100
            Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-26 18:43 -0700
    Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-26 06:03 +0000
      Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 20:38 +1100
        Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-26 16:05 +0000
          Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-27 05:55 +1100
    Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-10-28 16:05 +0200
      Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-29 10:43 +1100
        Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-01 13:19 +0100
          Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-02 09:15 +1100
            Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-04 13:52 +0100
              Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-05 09:05 +1100
                Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-07 22:30 +0100
                  Re: Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-08 08:42 +1100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#396776 — Here Is an Important Exerpt From My BaTh Thesis.

The quantity commonly referred to as the frequency of light is defined 
by the term c/lambda, which in reality is nothing but a mathematical 
description of the rate at which a series of evenly separated spatial 
features arrive at a point. Thus, when light impinges on an apparatus at 
speed c, that frequency is generated BY THE APPARATUS. It is NOT an 
intrinsic property of the light, a common misconception that underlies 
all of light science and reveals just how primitive and mistaken physics 
can be, even today.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#396778

W dniu poniedziałek, Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:48:08 +1100 użytkownik HGWilson,
DSc. napisał:

>  Thus, when light impinges on an apparatus at
> speed c, that frequency is generated BY THE APPARATUS. 

Yes, would be. But there no such apparatus to measure a frequency that 
high. Also, in countable mode. Since doing such, a minimum a Comparator 
would be necessary. 

> It is NOT an
> intrinsic property of the light, a common misconception that underlies
> all of light science and reveals just how primitive and mistaken physics
> can be, even today.

You just display you ignorance. Once an EM emission is modelled as an 
Wave, you have no escape nor alternatives.

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

#396815

On 26/10/16 06:54, Edgar König wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:48:08 +1100 użytkownik
> HGWilson, DSc. napisał:
>
>> Thus, when light impinges on an apparatus at speed c, that
>> frequency is generated BY THE APPARATUS.
>
> Yes, would be. But there no such apparatus to measure a frequency
> that high.

I didn't infer that there was. I merely pointed out what the term
c/lambda means.

> Also, in countable mode. Since doing such, a minimum a Comparator
> would be necessary.

Is you whole mouth full of crap?

>> It is NOT an intrinsic property of the light, a common
>> misconception that underlies all of light science and reveals just
>>  how primitive and mistaken physics can be, even today.
>
> You just display you ignorance. Once an EM emission is modelled as an
> Wave, you have no escape nor alternatives.

EM is wrongly modelled as a wave. It is a spatial energy pattern. The 
wave is created in the apparatus that detects the light as it arrives at 
c+v.

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

#396836

HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>> You just display you ignorance. Once an EM emission is modelled as an
>> Wave, you have no escape nor alternatives.
> 
> EM is wrongly modelled as a wave. It is a spatial energy pattern. The
> wave is created in the apparatus that detects the light as it arrives at
> c+v.

And where would you but that "spatial energy pattern", brother. How come 
would you math model such one. Feel free. 

It rather looks like you are trying to prove Relativity wrong by 2+2=5. 
This is wrong. It is four, not five. Please prove Relativity Wrong by 2
+2=4, like I do.

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

#396840

Walter Bautista wrote:

> HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> 
>>> You just display you ignorance. Once an EM emission is modelled as an
>>> Wave, you have no escape nor alternatives.
>> 
>> EM is wrongly modelled as a wave. It is a spatial energy pattern. The
>> wave is created in the apparatus that detects the light as it arrives
>> at c+v.
> 
> And where would you but that "spatial energy pattern", brother. How come
> would you math model such one. Feel free.

I meant "where would you put" not "but", sorry

> 
> It rather looks like you are trying to prove Relativity wrong by 2+2=5.
> This is wrong. It is four, not five. Please prove Relativity Wrong by 2
> +2=4, like I do.

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

#396789

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 1:48:09 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> The quantity commonly referred to as the frequency of light is defined
> by the term c/lambda,

Wrong.  f = E/h.

> which in reality is nothing but a mathematical description of the rate
> at which a series of evenly separated spatial features arrive at a
> point. Thus, when light impinges on an apparatus at speed c, that
> frequency is generated BY THE APPARATUS.

Baloney.  It is a measure of the energy of impingement.

> It is NOT an intrinsic property of the light,

Everyone knows that.  It is a trivial claim.

> a common misconception

Who in the world misconceives that?  It may by an UNCOMMON misconception
believed by those in DirtyBaThWater.

> that underlies all of light science and reveals just how primitive and
> mistaken physics can be, even today.

Yes, it reveals how stupid anyone is who believes in DirtyBaThWater.

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

#396818

On 26/10/16 07:45, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 1:48:09 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>
>> The quantity commonly referred to as the frequency of light is defined
>> by the term c/lambda,
>
> Wrong.  f = E/h.

E = h(c+v)/lambda. That's the energy released when light is absorbed.
It is an expression that in plain words means ARRIVAL RATE OF some kind 
of moving 'OBJECTS' SEPARATED BY THE ABSOLUTE DISTANCE LAMBDA.
....but you wouldn't have the brains to understand that.

See these dots: ................... o
Move them sideways at v past o. The frequency their arrival at o is v/l 
where l is the spacing. The dots are not oscillating.

Nobody has ever detected a frequency in light itself. Certain types of 
apparatus simply measure the arrival rate of particular features that 
are intrinsic to it.... gawd knows what they are....

>> which in reality is nothing but a mathematical description of the rate
>> at which a series of evenly separated spatial features arrive at a
>> point. Thus, when light impinges on an apparatus at speed c, that
>> frequency is generated BY THE APPARATUS.
>
> Baloney.  It is a measure of the energy of impingement.

That is correct. The energy distribution is a static spatial 
arrangement. It hits the apparatus at speed and the apparatus records a 
time periodicity.

Do you understand this basic piece of calculus? dn/dt = dn/dx.dx.dt
That is what f = c/lambda means

>> It is NOT an intrinsic property of the light,
>
> Everyone knows that.  It is a trivial claim.
>
>> a common misconception
>
> Who in the world misconceives that?  It may by an UNCOMMON misconception
> believed by those in DirtyBaThWater.

You just agreed with me when you said it was energy arrival rate. You're 
completely up yourself ! One of the world's true idiots....

>> that underlies all of light science and reveals just how primitive and
>> mistaken physics can be, even today.
>
> Yes, it reveals how stupid anyone is who believes in DirtyBaThWater.

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

#396826

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 3:36:16 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> On 26/10/16 07:45, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 1:48:09 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> >>
> >> The quantity commonly referred to as the frequency of light is defined
> >> by the term c/lambda,
> >
> > Wrong.  f = E/h.
> 
> E = h(c+v)/lambda.

Nope.  E = f*f0*sqrt[(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)]

If you're going to pretend to be a scientist, at least be accurate.

> That's the energy released when light is absorbed.
> It is an expression that in plain words means ARRIVAL RATE OF some kind 
> of moving 'OBJECTS' SEPARATED BY THE ABSOLUTE DISTANCE LAMBDA.

There is no such thing as "absolute distance."

> ....but you wouldn't have the brains to understand that.

You are sounding more and more like Seto every day.

> See these dots: ................... o
> Move them sideways at v past o. The frequency their arrival at o is v/l 
> where l is the spacing. The dots are not oscillating.

Dots are not photons.  You certainly are confused.

> Nobody has ever detected a frequency in light itself.

And you keep repeating this complete BS after I have given you links to
proof that you are a complete phony baloney-head.  Why do you keep pounding
your head against a rock?

Certain types of apparatus simply measure the arrival rate of particular
> features that are intrinsic to it.... gawd knows what they are....

That's the problem with DirtyBaThWater - to many loose ends.  One must have
complete suspension of disbelief.

> > > which in reality is nothing but a mathematical description of the rate
> > > at which a series of evenly separated spatial features arrive at a
> > > point. Thus, when light impinges on an apparatus at speed c, that
> > > frequency is generated BY THE APPARATUS.
> >
> > Baloney.  It is a measure of the energy of impingement.
> 
> That is correct. The energy distribution is a static spatial 
> arrangement. It hits the apparatus at speed and the apparatus records a 
> time periodicity.

And recordings are reality.

> Do you understand this basic piece of calculus? dn/dt = dn/dx.dx.dt
> That is what f = c/lambda means

Can't you even write an equation correctly?  It's

dn/dt = (dn/dx)*(dx/dt)

It's simply the chain rule.  Try this one:

dE = F*dx = (dp/dt)*dx = (dx/dt)*dp = v*dp

From Maxwell's equations, E = p*c

dE = c*dp + p*dc

dp = dE/c - p*dc/c

So if dc =/= 0, then dE =/= dE

BUSTED!

> > > It is NOT an intrinsic property of the light,
> >
> > Everyone knows that.  It is a trivial claim.
> >
> > > a common misconception
> >
> > Who in the world misconceives that?  It may by an UNCOMMON misconception
> > believed by those in DirtyBaThWater.
> 
> You just agreed with me when you said it was energy arrival rate. You're 
> completely up yourself ! One of the world's true idiots....

Are you trying stupidly claim that energy IS intrinsic?

> > > that underlies all of light science and reveals just how primitive and
> > > mistaken physics can be, even today.
> >
> > Yes, it reveals how stupid anyone is who believes in DirtyBaThWater.

'Nuff said.

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

#396869

On 26/10/16 22:51, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 3:36:16 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> Nope.  E = f*f0*sqrt[(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)]
>
> If you're going to pretend to be a scientist, at least be accurate.
>
>> That's the energy released when light is absorbed.
>> It is an expression that in plain words means ARRIVAL RATE OF some kind
>> of moving 'OBJECTS' SEPARATED BY THE ABSOLUTE DISTANCE LAMBDA.
>
> There is no such thing as "absolute distance."

The distance between water wave crests is absolute. Just put a boat 
between them and move it along.

>> ....but you wouldn't have the brains to understand that.
>
> You are sounding more and more like Seto every day.

You are sounding more like a complete idiot very day.

>> See these dots: ................... o
>> Move them sideways at v past o. The frequency their arrival at o is v/l
>> where l is the spacing. The dots are not oscillating.
>
> Dots are not photons.  You certainly are confused.

I am telling you what the equation means.
It isn't my fault if you are too stupid to understand.

>> Nobody has ever detected a frequency in light itself.
>
> And you keep repeating this complete BS after I have given you links to
> proof that you are a complete phony baloney-head.  Why do you keep pounding
> your head against a rock?
>
> Certain types of apparatus simply measure the arrival rate of particular
>> features that are intrinsic to it.... gawd knows what they are....
>
> That's the problem with DirtyBaThWater - to many loose ends.  One must have
> complete suspension of disbelief.

If you can explain how a static energy pattern can exist in space then 
you deserve an immediate Nobel.

>>>> which in reality is nothing but a mathematical description of the rate
>>>> at which a series of evenly separated spatial features arrive at a
>>>> point. Thus, when light impinges on an apparatus at speed c, that
>>>> frequency is generated BY THE APPARATUS.
>>>
>>> Baloney.  It is a measure of the energy of impingement.
>>
>> That is correct. The energy distribution is a static spatial
>> arrangement. It hits the apparatus at speed and the apparatus records a
>> time periodicity.
>
> And recordings are reality.
>
>> Do you understand this basic piece of calculus? dn/dt = dn/dx.dx.dt
>> That is what f = c/lambda means
>
> Can't you even write an equation correctly?  It's
>
> dn/dt = (dn/dx)*(dx/dt)
>
> It's simply the chain rule.  Try this one:
>
> dE = F*dx = (dp/dt)*dx = (dx/dt)*dp = v*dp
>
> From Maxwell's equations, E = p*c
>
> dE = c*dp + p*dc
>
> dp = dE/c - p*dc/c
>
> So if dc =/= 0, then dE =/= dE
>
> BUSTED!

....irrelevant nonsense...stick to the subject please..


>>> Who in the world misconceives that?  It may by an UNCOMMON misconception
>>> believed by those in DirtyBaThWater.
>>
>> You just agreed with me when you said it was energy arrival rate. You're
>> completely up yourself ! One of the world's true idiots....
>
> Are you trying stupidly claim that energy IS intrinsic?

Throughout space, at any instant, EM energy is linearly distributed 
along any line. The pattern is continually changing. An observer passing 
through any of it will record time fluctuations in the energy received.

That is what c/lambda refers to.

How energy is distributed is another matter..and it might easily involve 
a frequency of some kind...but it is NOT c/lambda.

Get it?

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

#396892

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 12:53:22 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> On 26/10/16 22:51, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 3:36:16 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote
> > but was too ashamed to let it be seen again, so here it is anyway:
> > >
> > > E = h(c+v)/lambda
> >
> > Nope.  E = f*f0*sqrt[(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)]
> >
> > If you're going to pretend to be a scientist, at least be accurate.
> >
> > > That's the energy released when light is absorbed.
> > > It is an expression that in plain words means ARRIVAL RATE OF some kind
> > > of moving 'OBJECTS' SEPARATED BY THE ABSOLUTE DISTANCE LAMBDA.
> >
> > There is no such thing as "absolute distance."
> 
> The distance between water wave crests is absolute.

No, it's not.  This is just more of your stupid and dishonest assertions.

> Just put a boat between them and move it along.

Straw man argument:  LC is insignificant at boat speeds.

> > > ....but you wouldn't have the brains to understand that.
> >
> > You are sounding more and more like Seto every day.
> 
> You are sounding more like a complete idiot very day.

Only in YOUR stupid, dishonest, biased opinion, which no one believes.

> > > See these dots: ................... o
> > > Move them sideways at v past o. The frequency their arrival at o is v/l
> > > where l is the spacing. The dots are not oscillating.
> >
> > Dots are not photons.  You certainly are confused.
> 
> I am telling you what the equation means.
> It isn't my fault if you are too stupid to understand.

It isn't my fault that you are a dishonest BS flinger.

> > > Nobody has ever detected a frequency in light itself.
> >
> > And you keep repeating this complete BS after I have given you links to
> > proof that you are a complete phony baloney-head.  Why do you keep pounding
> > your head against a rock?
> >
> > > Certain types of apparatus simply measure the arrival rate of particular
> > > features that are intrinsic to it.... gawd knows what they are....
> >
> > That's the problem with DirtyBaThWater - to many loose ends.  One must have
> > complete suspension of disbelief.
> 
> If you can explain how a static energy pattern can exist in space then 
> you deserve an immediate Nobel.

Although it's nice to know how and why phenomena happen, it's not necessary
for facing the fact that they actually occur and are predictable.  Stop
trying to put up a philosophical smokescreen.

> > > That is correct. The energy distribution is a static spatial
> > > arrangement. It hits the apparatus at speed and the apparatus records a
> > > time periodicity.
> >
> > And recordings are reality.
> >
> > > Do you understand this basic piece of calculus? dn/dt = dn/dx.dx.dt
> > > That is what f = c/lambda means
> >
> > Can't you even write an equation correctly?  It's
> >
> > dn/dt = (dn/dx)*(dx/dt)
> >
> > It's simply the chain rule.  Try this one:
> >
> > dE = F*dx = (dp/dt)*dx = (dx/dt)*dp = v*dp
> >
> > From Maxwell's equations, E = p*c
> >
> > dE = c*dp + p*dc
> >
> > dp = dE/c - p*dc/c
> >
> > So if dc =/= 0, then dE =/= dE
> >
> > BUSTED!
> 
> ....irrelevant nonsense...stick to the subject please..

You're the fool that tried to change the subject to the chain rule, and
failed miserably.  I was just showing you how to apply the chain rule
correctly.  And when that is done, DirtyBaThWater gets dumped in the
sewer where it belongs.
 
> > > You just agreed with me when you said it was energy arrival rate. You're
> > > completely up yourself ! One of the world's true idiots....
> >
> > Are you trying stupidly claim that energy IS intrinsic?
> 
> Throughout space, at any instant, EM energy is linearly distributed 
> along any line. The pattern is continually changing. An observer passing 
> through any of it will record time fluctuations in the energy received.
> 
> That is what c/lambda refers to.
> 
> How energy is distributed is another matter..and it might easily involve 
> a frequency of some kind...but it is NOT c/lambda.
> 
> Get it?

I got it alright:  Your delusions are VERY severe.  Better see a shrink.

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

#396806

Ralph, first you photoshop a fake diploma, and now you claim you have
a thesis? Not much of a thesis, I guess, since that exerpt is just
gibberish.

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

#396819

On 26/10/16 17:03, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Ralph, first you photoshop a fake diploma, and now you claim you have
> a thesis? Not much of a thesis, I guess, since that exerpt is just
> gibberish.

...had visits from those leprechauns again, have you...

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

#396852

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 26/10/16 17:03, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Ralph, first you photoshop a fake diploma, and now you claim you have
>> a thesis? Not much of a thesis, I guess, since that exerpt is just
>> gibberish.

>...had visits from those leprechauns again, have you...

Ralph, you are hallucinating visits from leprechauns? Again?
Ralph, you need mental help.  Or is Sefton sharing his
stash from "Little Pharma" with you?

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

#396870

On 27/10/16 03:05, Michael Moroney wrote:

"I understand why you plonked me. I am a total waste of molecular bonds."

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

#397014

On 2016-10-25 21:48:08 +0200, "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> said:

> The quantity commonly referred to as the frequency of light is defined 
> by the term c/lambda, which in reality is nothing but a mathematical 
> description of the rate at which a series of evenly separated spatial 
> features arrive at a point. Thus, when light impinges on an apparatus 
> at speed c, that frequency is generated BY THE APPARATUS. It is NOT an 
> intrinsic property of the light, a common misconception that underlies 
> all of light science and reveals just how primitive and mistaken 
> physics can be, even today.

Wrong from the beginning.
The frequency of light is determined directly by counting cycles.
The wavelength then follows from lambda = nu/c

In standard labs like NIST frequencies of visible light can be counted 
directly.
The results are then used to calibrate lenght standards.

Albert2

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

#397083

On 29/10/16 01:05, Albert2 wrote:
> On 2016-10-25 21:48:08 +0200, "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> said:
>
>> The quantity commonly referred to as the frequency of light is defined
>> by the term c/lambda, which in reality is nothing but a mathematical
>> description of the rate at which a series of evenly separated spatial
>> features arrive at a point. Thus, when light impinges on an apparatus
>> at speed c, that frequency is generated BY THE APPARATUS. It is NOT an
>> intrinsic property of the light, a common misconception that underlies
>> all of light science and reveals just how primitive and mistaken
>> physics can be, even today.
>
> Wrong from the beginning.
> The frequency of light is determined directly by counting cycles.
> The wavelength then follows from lambda = nu/c

HAHAHHAHHAHA! Who invited this idiot?

> In standard labs like NIST frequencies of visible light can be counted
> directly.

Hahahhhaha! they beat wavelengths and use frequency divider...

> The results are then used to calibrate lenght standards.

> Albert2
....the crap merchant....


-- 

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

#397379

On 2016-10-29 01:43:36 +0200, HGW <hw@....> said:

> On 29/10/16 01:05, Albert2 wrote:
>> On 2016-10-25 21:48:08 +0200, "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> said:
>> 
>>> The quantity commonly referred to as the frequency of light is defined
>>> by the term c/lambda, which in reality is nothing but a mathematical
>>> description of the rate at which a series of evenly separated spatial
>>> features arrive at a point. Thus, when light impinges on an apparatus
>>> at speed c, that frequency is generated BY THE APPARATUS. It is NOT an
>>> intrinsic property of the light, a common misconception that underlies
>>> all of light science and reveals just how primitive and mistaken
>>> physics can be, even today.
>> 
>> Wrong from the beginning.
>> The frequency of light is determined directly by counting cycles.
>> The wavelength then follows from lambda = nu/c
> 
> HAHAHHAHHAHA! Who invited this idiot?

Don't worry, I won't argue with the idiots here.
I'll tell what it is, in reality, and that's it.

>> In standard labs like NIST frequencies of visible light can be counted
>> directly.
> 
> Hahahhhaha! they beat wavelengths and use frequency divider...

No wavelengths, just frequencies.
All the tricks of the trade of the electronics engineer, taken to the limit.
Frequency synthesis, phase locking, heterodyning, difference counting 
and so on.
In all just a far more elaborate version of this kind of thing
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_counter>
taken to optical frequencies. No wavelengths involved.
The usual problem of stability of timebase do not arise,
since all frequencies arelocked directly to a primary atomic clock.

Conversely the wavelength are not, and cannot be measured.
They follow from the frequency and the defined value of c.

Albert2

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

#397432

On 01/11/16 23:19, Albert2 wrote:
> On 2016-10-29 01:43:36 +0200, HGW <hw@....> said:

>>> Wrong from the beginning.
>>> The frequency of light is determined directly by counting cycles.
>>> The wavelength then follows from lambda = nu/c
>>
>> HAHAHHAHHAHA! Who invited this idiot?
>
> Don't worry, I won't argue with the idiots here.
> I'll tell what it is, in reality, and that's it.
>
>>> In standard labs like NIST frequencies of visible light can be counted
>>> directly.
>>
>> Hahahhhaha! they beat wavelengths and use frequency divider...
>
> No wavelengths, just frequencies.
> All the tricks of the trade of the electronics engineer, taken to the
> limit.
> Frequency synthesis, phase locking, heterodyning, difference counting
> and so on.
> In all just a far more elaborate version of this kind of thing
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_counter>
> taken to optical frequencies. No wavelengths involved.
> The usual problem of stability of timebase do not arise,
> since all frequencies arelocked directly to a primary atomic clock.

There is no DIRECT measurement of a frequency associated with light. The 
measured frequency is that of a known signal that is mixed with long 
wavelength EM. No counter can count a rate of c/lambda.

If your device produces the value c/lambda, it is indirectly measuring 
'node arrival rate' because, plainly and simply, that is what c/lambda 
means. What is responsible for the fixed spatial pattern of 'nodes' is 
something you should be looking into rather than sprouting pure 
Einsteinian propaganda.

>
> Conversely the wavelength are not, and cannot be measured.
> They follow from the frequency and the defined value of c.

Wavelengths are measured directly and routinely in interferometers.

> Albert2
>


-- 

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

#397685

On 2016-11-01 23:15:28 +0100, HGW <hw@....> said:

> On 01/11/16 23:19, Albert2 wrote:
>> On 2016-10-29 01:43:36 +0200, HGW <hw@....> said:
> 
>>>> Wrong from the beginning.
>>>> The frequency of light is determined directly by counting cycles.
>>>> The wavelength then follows from lambda = nu/c
>>> 
>>> HAHAHHAHHAHA! Who invited this idiot?
>> 
>> Don't worry, I won't argue with the idiots here.
>> I'll tell what it is, in reality, and that's it.
>> 
>>>> In standard labs like NIST frequencies of visible light can be counted
>>>> directly.
>>> 
>>> Hahahhhaha! they beat wavelengths and use frequency divider...
>> 
>> No wavelengths, just frequencies.
>> All the tricks of the trade of the electronics engineer, taken to the
>> limit.
>> Frequency synthesis, phase locking, heterodyning, difference counting
>> and so on.
>> In all just a far more elaborate version of this kind of thing
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_counter>
>> taken to optical frequencies. No wavelengths involved.
>> The usual problem of stability of timebase do not arise,
>> since all frequencies arelocked directly to a primary atomic clock.
> 
> There is no DIRECT measurement of a frequency associated with light. 
> The measured frequency is that of a known signal that is mixed with 
> long wavelength EM. No counter can count a rate of c/lambda.

You can add.
You count 12 apples, you count 13 apples, you have counted 25 apples.
You count 12 GHz, you count 13 GHZ, you have counted 25 GHz.
If you are a competent experimentalist at a standards lab, that is..

> If your device produces the value c/lambda, it is indirectly measuring 
> 'node arrival rate' because, plainly and simply, that is what c/lambda 
> means. What is responsible for the fixed spatial pattern of 'nodes' is 
> something you should be looking into rather than sprouting pure 
> Einsteinian propaganda.

Forget about lambdas, they just don't enter into this game.
If your whatever thesis depends on it, its wrong.

> 
>> 
>> Conversely the wavelength are not, and cannot be measured.
>> They follow from the frequency and the defined value of c.
> 
> Wavelengths are measured directly and routinely in interferometers.

Wrong. Interferometers can only compare lengths.
Excercize for you: find out how the wavelength of a standard laser 
becomes known.

Albert2

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

#397735

On 04/11/16 23:52, Albert2 wrote:
> On 2016-11-01 23:15:28 +0100, HGW <hw@....> said:

> You can add.
> You count 12 apples, you count 13 apples, you have counted 25 apples.
> You count 12 GHz, you count 13 GHZ, you have counted 25 GHz.
> If you are a competent experimentalist at a standards lab, that is..

....So you proved you passed kindergarten arithmetic....very good!

>> If your device produces the value c/lambda, it is indirectly measuring
>> 'node arrival rate' because, plainly and simply, that is what c/lambda
>> means. What is responsible for the fixed spatial pattern of 'nodes' is
>> something you should be looking into rather than sprouting pure
>> Einsteinian propaganda.
>
> Forget about lambdas, they just don't enter into this game.
> If your whatever thesis depends on it, its wrong.

You sound like the ultimate idiot.

>>> Conversely the wavelength are not, and cannot be measured.
>>> They follow from the frequency and the defined value of c.
>>
>> Wavelengths are measured directly and routinely in interferometers.
>
> Wrong. Interferometers can only compare lengths.

Yes, you ARE the ultimate idiot!

Fringes are counted as a micrometer screw thread is turned on one of the 
mirrors. That is one way to measure wavelength directly.

> Excercize for you: find out how the wavelength of a standard laser
> becomes known.

Same way..... but if it is a pulsed laser and the pulse rate is known 
then the distance between pulses is c/f.

> Albert2
>
>


-- 

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web