Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #401646 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-14 05:37 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-12-21 07:54 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 125 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-14 05:37 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Zaida Orvis <iOsddiosaa@iOsddi.saa.iOs> - 2016-12-13 20:31 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 22:35 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Odilia Blatt <Bditttaliol@Bditttali.l.org> - 2016-12-13 21:39 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-16 18:54 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 17:04 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-14 12:14 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-13 20:37 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-14 22:24 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-15 06:47 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-15 12:24 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 14:23 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2016-12-15 01:23 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-12-14 19:08 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-15 21:06 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-15 03:28 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-15 22:41 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 08:35 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-16 13:21 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 19:08 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-16 19:11 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 08:02 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 09:30 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 08:29 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-18 09:02 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 09:08 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-19 08:56 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-12-18 14:39 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-19 21:06 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 04:11 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-19 04:57 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 17:32 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 05:21 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-15 15:30 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-15 07:08 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 08:48 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-15 14:21 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-16 13:19 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 19:11 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-16 22:35 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-16 13:35 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 09:07 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-16 20:56 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 19:30 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-12-17 11:38 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-17 04:46 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-17 16:20 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-17 16:14 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 08:40 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-17 21:49 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 16:38 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-17 23:17 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 20:24 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 15:13 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-18 16:13 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 20:14 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-19 15:11 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-19 20:59 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-19 22:44 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 03:57 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-20 09:01 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 14:29 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-18 02:05 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-20 22:49 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-21 19:36 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-21 13:45 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-22 08:11 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-22 10:08 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:31 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-23 06:06 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-22 12:20 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 08:10 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-23 08:14 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-28 21:48 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-29 11:01 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 08:32 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-28 21:21 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 08:45 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-29 18:35 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 14:33 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-29 21:04 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 19:23 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 07:01 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-31 07:41 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 15:11 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-31 15:15 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-01 13:37 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-01 05:42 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-02 05:52 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-01 12:06 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-02 07:33 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-01 13:38 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-01 15:37 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-02 05:57 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-18 02:10 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 15:21 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 05:20 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-19 21:03 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 17:43 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-19 09:07 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-19 21:20 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Mitzi Gilliard <iotoor@iGMaMiai.org> - 2016-12-20 04:07 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-19 18:57 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-16 18:19 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 15:03 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 15:12 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 15:19 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 15:55 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 19:10 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 19:25 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-16 03:57 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-16 04:37 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-18 02:32 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-16 03:55 -0800
Mentally ill Jay Mosley escapes the local insane asylum and starts blogging again "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 10:04 -0800
Mentally ill Jay Mosley escapes the local insane asylum and starts blogging again jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-18 02:33 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 10:48 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 10:49 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 14:39 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-20 11:18 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 18:38 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Mitzi Gilliard <iotoor@iGMaMiai.org> - 2016-12-20 04:04 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 16:28 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 10:09 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-21 07:54 +1100
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 05:37 +1100 |
| Subject | Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. |
| Message-ID | <o2pf56$vtf$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
If Einstein's second postulate was correct, no digital technology would work. No digital TV, satellite communication or the Internet would be possible. In fact the whole subject of light physics has to be rewritten now that digital light signals are in use everywhere.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zaida Orvis <iOsddiosaa@iOsddi.saa.iOs> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 20:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2plqc$1dkj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401646 |
HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > If Einstein's second postulate was correct, no digital technology would > work. No digital TV, satellite communication or the Internet would be > possible. > In fact the whole subject of light physics has to be rewritten now that > digital light signals are in use everywhere. You must be having it upside-down. It works because of that. Which one was the second? Does not matter, in computing DSP etc, the TIMING is crucial. Not that much the algorithms, which might be any. Only the newbeginners thinks that intelligence and programming in Science and Physics is essential. NO. but Timing. Which is consistent, also as a feature outcome, with my Divergent Matter theory. The fewest of them are able to see it, and understand, what I just said clearly. Theorists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 22:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2ppj9$a26$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #401646 |
On 13.12.2016 19:37, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > If Einstein's second postulate was correct, no digital technology would > work. No digital TV, satellite communication or the Internet would be > possible. > In fact the whole subject of light physics has to be rewritten now that > digital light signals are in use everywhere. THAT far gone? Sad. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odilia Blatt <Bditttaliol@Bditttali.l.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 21:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2ppr4$1jhb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401674 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 13.12.2016 19:37, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> If Einstein's second postulate was correct, no digital technology would >> work. No digital TV, satellite communication or the Internet would be >> possible. >> In fact the whole subject of light physics has to be rewritten now that >> digital light signals are in use everywhere. > > THAT far gone? Sad. You are not answering the question, cretin. Must be having something with your country and your culture.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 18:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2343946.q0ZmV6gNhb@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #401676 |
Odilia Blatt wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 13.12.2016 19:37, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> If Einstein's second postulate was correct, no digital technology would >>> work. No digital TV, satellite communication or the Internet would be >>> possible. >>> In fact the whole subject of light physics has to be rewritten now that >>> digital light signals are in use everywhere. >> THAT far gone? Sad. > > You are not answering the question, cretin. There is no question, and you are the ’nym-shifting troll. *PLONK* > Must be having something with your country and your culture. A xenophobe, too. Figures. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 17:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <550f3085-64fe-45b7-8649-24433de1ef1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401646 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:37:30 AM UTC-8, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > If Einstein's second postulate was correct, no digital technology would > work. No digital TV, satellite communication or the Internet would be > possible. > In fact the whole subject of light physics has to be rewritten now that > digital light signals are in use everywhere. You are deteriorating. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 12:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ebbkneF4qn6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #401646 |
On 14/12/2016 5:37 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > If Einstein's second postulate was correct, no digital technology would > work. No digital TV, satellite communication or the Internet would be > possible. > In fact the whole subject of light physics has to be rewritten now that > digital light signals are in use everywhere. You might at least try to explain why you think that's the case. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-13 20:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7a18e604-e4ae-4841-b8ec-3ca03a885255@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401704 |
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 6:14:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 14/12/2016 5:37 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > If Einstein's second postulate was correct, no digital technology would > > work. No digital TV, satellite communication or the Internet would be > > possible. > > In fact the whole subject of light physics has to be rewritten now that > > digital light signals are in use everywhere. > > You might at least try to explain why you think that's the case. > > Sylvia. Assertion without evidence is his modus operandi. He's too incompetent to come up with a rational explanation. All we get is, "The photon carries it's own aether." Hilarious! Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 22:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ebcofvFcl8uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #401722 |
On 14/12/2016 3:37 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 6:14:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 14/12/2016 5:37 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> If Einstein's second postulate was correct, no digital technology would >>> work. No digital TV, satellite communication or the Internet would be >>> possible. >>> In fact the whole subject of light physics has to be rewritten now that >>> digital light signals are in use everywhere. >> >> You might at least try to explain why you think that's the case. >> >> Sylvia. > > Assertion without evidence is his modus operandi. He's too incompetent > to come up with a rational explanation. All we get is, "The photon > carries it's own aether." Hilarious! > > Gary > Still, he must have some reason for his belief, and he should be able to express it, even if to the rest of us it sounds completely delusional. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 06:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o2s7jl$1dk2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401766 |
On 14/12/16 22:24, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> If Einstein's second postulate was correct, no digital technology would >>>> work. No digital TV, satellite communication or the Internet would be >>>> possible. >>>> In fact the whole subject of light physics has to be rewritten now that >>>> digital light signals are in use everywhere. >>> >>> You might at least try to explain why you think that's the case. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Assertion without evidence is his modus operandi. He's too incompetent >> to come up with a rational explanation. All we get is, "The photon >> carries it's own aether." Hilarious! >> >> Gary >> > > Still, he must have some reason for his belief, and he should be able to > express it, even if to the rest of us it sounds completely delusional. I'm not surprised that none of you can see the connection. Just consider the structure of a digital signal of eg., mobile broadband. What does it look like in transit? > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 12:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ebe9n9FobltU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #401827 |
On 15/12/2016 6:47 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 14/12/16 22:24, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>> If Einstein's second postulate was correct, no digital technology >>>>> would >>>>> work. No digital TV, satellite communication or the Internet would be >>>>> possible. >>>>> In fact the whole subject of light physics has to be rewritten now >>>>> that >>>>> digital light signals are in use everywhere. >>>> >>>> You might at least try to explain why you think that's the case. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Assertion without evidence is his modus operandi. He's too incompetent >>> to come up with a rational explanation. All we get is, "The photon >>> carries it's own aether." Hilarious! >>> >>> Gary >>> >> >> Still, he must have some reason for his belief, and he should be able to >> express it, even if to the rest of us it sounds completely delusional. > > I'm not surprised that none of you can see the connection. Just consider > the structure of a digital signal of eg., mobile broadband. > What does it look like in transit? > >> Sylvia. > Forget the pedagogical approach. Explain what you mean. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 14:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a8b1ea80-991f-4067-98c6-07986ebac397@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401766 |
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 4:24:49 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 14/12/2016 3:37 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 6:14:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > > > On 14/12/2016 5:37 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > >> If Einstein's second postulate was correct, no digital technology would > > > > work. No digital TV, satellite communication or the Internet would be > > > > possible. > > > > In fact the whole subject of light physics has to be rewritten now that > > > > digital light signals are in use everywhere. > > > > > > You might at least try to explain why you think that's the case. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > Assertion without evidence is his modus operandi. He's too incompetent > > to come up with a rational explanation. All we get is, "The photon > > carries it's own aether." Hilarious! > > > > Gary > > > > Still, he must have some reason for his belief, Yes, it's called "mental illness." > and he should be able to express it, He can't because of mental illness. > even if to the rest of us it sounds completely delusional. > > Sylvia. It not only sounds delusional, it IS delusional. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 01:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2sra7$8mm$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #401766 |
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> writes: >On 14/12/2016 3:37 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 6:14:25 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> On 14/12/2016 5:37 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> >>>> If Einstein's second postulate was correct, no digital technology would >>>> work. No digital TV, satellite communication or the Internet would be >>>> possible. >>>> In fact the whole subject of light physics has to be rewritten now that >>>> digital light signals are in use everywhere. >>> >>> You might at least try to explain why you think that's the case. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Assertion without evidence is his modus operandi. He's too incompetent >> to come up with a rational explanation. All we get is, "The photon >> carries it's own aether." Hilarious! >> >> Gary >> >Still, he must have some reason for his belief, and he should be able to >express it, even if to the rest of us it sounds completely delusional. Ralph seems to have really deteriorated lately. He may see no need to express it since he may be far enough gone that in his mind his belief is extremely obvious, and must be obvious to all, even if sane people have no idea what he is talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 19:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3ef8c7d9-fadb-4a92-9fa7-de1569cd9e39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401853 |
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > Ralph seems to have really deteriorated lately. > > He may see no need to express it since he may be far enough gone that in > his mind his belief is extremely obvious, and must be obvious to all, even > if sane people have no idea what he is talking about. The decline started when Andro passed, this was a huge loss for Ralph...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 21:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o2tpv1$1jcq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401863 |
On 15/12/16 14:08, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney > wrote: > >> Ralph seems to have really deteriorated lately. >> >> He may see no need to express it since he may be far enough gone >> that in his mind his belief is extremely obvious, and must be >> obvious to all, even if sane people have no idea what he is talking >> about. > > The decline started when Andro passed, this was a huge loss for > Ralph... Sorry, Andro was so jealous of my achievements that he was a bit of a handicap. Have any of you dingleberries considered what a digital light pulse actually looks like? What are the photons doing? Where is the frequency?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 03:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d216d9bf-3ec9-4815-ab13-d1edbf18eeec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401888 |
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:06:28 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Have any of you dingleberries considered what a digital light pulse > actually looks like? What are the photons doing? Where is the frequency? Are you completely ignorant of Fourier analysis?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 22:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ebfdqgF1ppkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #401892 |
On 15/12/2016 10:28 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:06:28 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> >> Have any of you dingleberries considered what a digital light pulse >> actually looks like? What are the photons doing? Where is the frequency? > > Are you completely ignorant of Fourier analysis? > And lest he suggest that that is a mathematical artefact, not something real, let him explain away group velocity dispersion in fibre-optic cables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity_dispersion Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 08:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o2v2ai$1t7q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401895 |
On 15/12/16 22:41, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 15/12/2016 10:28 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:06:28 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> Have any of you dingleberries considered what a digital light pulse >>> actually looks like? What are the photons doing? Where is the frequency? >> >> Are you completely ignorant of Fourier analysis? >> > > And lest he suggest that that is a mathematical artefact, not something > real, let him explain away group velocity dispersion in fibre-optic cables. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity_dispersion Idiot! Space is not a medium. > Sylvia. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 13:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ebh1ccFe2q1U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #401962 |
On 16/12/2016 8:35 AM, HGW wrote: > On 15/12/16 22:41, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 15/12/2016 10:28 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:06:28 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Have any of you dingleberries considered what a digital light pulse >>>> actually looks like? What are the photons doing? Where is the >>>> frequency? >>> >>> Are you completely ignorant of Fourier analysis? >>> >> >> And lest he suggest that that is a mathematical artefact, not something >> real, let him explain away group velocity dispersion in fibre-optic >> cables. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity_dispersion > > Idiot! Space is not a medium. > > >> Sylvia. > > So the frequencies exist in a medium, regardless of how close the refractive index is to 1, but not in a vacuum that has a refractive index of exactly 1? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 19:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o307dp$1cbn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401986 |
On 16/12/16 13:21, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity_dispersion >> >> Idiot! Space is not a medium. >> >> >>> Sylvia. >> >> > > So the frequencies exist in a medium, regardless of how close the > refractive index is to 1, but not in a vacuum that has a refractive > index of exactly 1? Light DOES NOT have a frequency. > Sylvia. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web