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 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 13:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o30n1t$h2g$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #401964 |
On 15.12.2016 22:48, HGW wrote: > On 16/12/16 01:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 15.12.2016 11:06, 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? >>> >> >> https://paulba.no/temp/Fourier.pdf >> Page 12 ' Ralph, you are revealing an amazing ignorance about signal transmission. :-D > Irrelevant. Traveling light does not have a frequency. Let's have a look at "what a digital light pulse actually look like". (I will not ask you what makes a light pulse "digital".) When light is used in communication, it will be in optical fibers, and today mono mode optical fibers are almost exclusively used. An optical fiber is a waveguide, and exactly the same maths is applied to analyse the properties of the optical waveguide as was used to analyse microwave waveguides (Maxwell's equations), and exactly the same parameters are used. Cut-off frequency, frequency dependent phase velocity (> c/n), frequency dependent group velocity (< c/n). The latter means that there is dispersion, which will limit the signal bandwidth (but since the 'carrier frequency' is so extremely high the signal bandwidth can still be very high). This make it obvious that light is em-radiation with frequency and wavelength exactly like radio waves. So what about the photons? I am sure you could use QED to calculate the properties of an optical fiber. But it would probably be extremely complicated, and it would give the same results as Maxwell. It always does for phenomena which are not dominated by quantum phenomena. > The frequency you > are talking about is used in the transmitter to create the traveling > series of pulses and is subsequently regenerated in the receiver. The frequency I am talking about is the frequency spectrum of a pulse. https://paulba.no/temp/Fourier.pdf Page 12 Shows the spectrum of a few pulses. A rectangular pulse will be bad because the frequency spectrum is very broad. A triangular pulse (page 13) is better, but a (limited) Gauss-pulse is best (page 15, bottom) When light is modulated (simple DSB modulation) with a pulse, the frequency spectrum of the pulse is shifted up to the frequency of the light. https://paulba.no/temp/Modulation.pdf See page 6 (triangular pulse) > A digital signal consists of a series of short bursts of fixed wavelengths > (of a carrier frequency). As explained above "a short burst" haven't got a fixed wavelength, but a distribution of wavelengths c/F(w). Bandwidth > 0. And if we are talking about radio signals, on/off keying of the carrier hasn't been used since Morse signals were used. There are many different modulation methods, most used nowadays are variants of phase modulation. (phase-shift keying, PSK) A PSK modulated signal is a continuous signal, no bursts. ----------------- But back to your original posting. | 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. Can you please explain what kind of reasoning is behind this remarkable statement? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 09:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o31oi8$419$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402010 |
On 16/12/16 23:35, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 15.12.2016 22:48, HGW wrote: >> On 16/12/16 01:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> On 15.12.2016 11:06, 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? >>>> >>> >>> https://paulba.no/temp/Fourier.pdf Page 12 > ' Ralph, you are revealing an amazing ignorance about signal > transmission. :-D > >> Irrelevant. Traveling light does not have a frequency. > > Let's have a look at "what a digital light pulse actually look > like". (I will not ask you what makes a light pulse "digital".) When > light is used in communication, it will be in optical fibers, and > today mono mode optical fibers are almost exclusively used. An > optical fiber is a waveguide, and exactly the same maths is applied > to analyse the properties of the optical waveguide as was used to > analyse microwave waveguides (Maxwell's equations), and exactly the > same parameters are used. Cut-off frequency, frequency dependent > phase velocity (> c/n), frequency dependent group velocity (< c/n). > The latter means that there is dispersion, which will limit the > signal bandwidth (but since the 'carrier frequency' is so extremely > high the signal bandwidth can still be very high). When a medium is involved, so are Maxwell's equations. I am talking about digital signals sent through empty space. > This make it obvious that light is em-radiation with frequency and > wavelength exactly like radio waves. Radio waves do not have a frequency. The reason you do not understand that is the simple fact that I appear to be the only person in the whole history of physics that has realized it. That makes me smarter than the rest...and you should feel privileged to be one of the first to be enlightened. The frequency c/lambda exists only in the broadcasting antenna and refers to the rate at which the electric field varies. Consequently, a signal of specific SPATIAL PATTERN emerges from the antenna traveling at relative speed c. That pattern does not change during travel and is not oscillating in any known way (although it might do so as part of its intrinsic structure...but not related to c/l)). When intercepted by a receiver, the pattern (which arrives at c or c+v depending on the relative speed of the receiver) regenerates the original frequency as an electric potential in a tuned circuit. The general traveling wave equation A = AoSin(2pi(t/tor-x/l)) demonstrates how the frequency 1/tor will be generated in a receiver at fixed location x. Since tor is actually l/c in the source frame, the equation becomes A = AoSin(2pi((ct-x)/l)) in the frame of a receiver at rest with the source. That is the equation of a fixed sine pattern moving at c. Note, wavelength, l, is an absolute and frame independent distance. Also note that since this makes a mockery of your funny little Sagnac article, you will no doubt be typically reluctant to accept the plain facts. > So what about the photons? I am sure you could use QED to calculate > the properties of an optical fiber. But it would probably be > extremely complicated, and it would give the same results as > Maxwell. It always does for phenomena which are not dominated by > quantum phenomena. > >> The frequency you are talking about is used in the transmitter to >> create the traveling series of pulses and is subsequently >> regenerated in the receiver. > > The frequency I am talking about is the frequency spectrum of a > pulse. https://paulba.no/temp/Fourier.pdf Page 12 Shows the spectrum > of a few pulses. A rectangular pulse will be bad because the > frequency spectrum is very broad. A triangular pulse (page 13) is > better, but a (limited) Gauss-pulse is best (page 15, bottom) Square waves are commonly used in electrical transmission. They are effectively used in radio transmission too by combining frequencies in the complicated waves you mention. > When light is modulated (simple DSB modulation) with a pulse, the > frequency spectrum of the pulse is shifted up to the frequency of the > light. https://paulba.no/temp/Modulation.pdf See page 6 (triangular > pulse) > >> A digital signal consists of a series of short bursts of fixed >> wavelengths (of a carrier frequency). > > As explained above "a short burst" haven't got a fixed wavelength, > but a distribution of wavelengths c/F(w). Bandwidth > 0. > > And if we are talking about radio signals, on/off keying of the > carrier hasn't been used since Morse signals were used. Not true. The end result has to be a square-ish type of signal. There are > many different modulation methods, most used nowadays are variants of > phase modulation. (phase-shift keying, PSK) > > A PSK modulated signal is a continuous signal, no bursts. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signal > But back to your original posting. > > | 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. > > Can you please explain what kind of reasoning is behind this > remarkable statement? There is no particular frequency and the Doppler shifts between pulses are clearly of the simple form (c+v)/c. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 20:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3ebba501-88a1-4368-8f42-be694ba5bcd6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402072 |
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 3:07:08 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > Radio waves do not have a frequency. Oh, this is really rich! Ralphie-boy is SO stupid! If radio waves don't have a frequency, how can a radio pick out one station from another? This guy has rocks in his head instead of brains. > The reason you do not understand that is the simple fact that I appear > to be the only person in the whole history of physics that has realized > it. That makes me smarter than the rest. What a delusional fool! His stupid claim makes him the stupidest guy on earth. > [Remainder of stupidity deleted to prevent contagion]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 19:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o32t3g$1gb0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402098 |
On 17/12/16 15:56, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 3:07:08 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: >> >> Radio waves do not have a frequency. > > Oh, this is really rich! Ralphie-boy is SO stupid! > > If radio waves don't have a frequency, how can a radio pick out one > station from another? This guy has rocks in his head instead of brains. I realize this is far too hard for an idiot. If you had any brain, you would understand that there is no oscillation in a traveling radio signal. It is very simple really. The links of a bicycle chain don't oscillate either but they pass a point at a rate...the frequency being v/l,.... get it now? poor idiot?.. a radio wave operates similarly... >> The reason you do not understand that is the simple fact that I appear >> to be the only person in the whole history of physics that has realized >> it. That makes me smarter than the rest. > > What a delusional fool! His stupid claim makes him the stupidest guy > on earth. > >> [Remainder of stupidity deleted to prevent contagion] Poor little gary.....would love to be a real physicist like me, full of bright ideas.... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 11:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o334jg$1qus$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402104 |
Ralph Rabbidge (aka Henry Wilson) wrote: > Poor little gary.....would love to be a real physicist like me, full of > bright ideas.... *facepalm*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 04:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <beab089e-b2a2-4bb6-8307-ad5a545c507b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402104 |
On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 1:30:43 AM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > On 17/12/16 15:56, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 3:07:08 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > > > > > Radio waves do not have a frequency. > > > > Oh, this is really rich! Ralphie-boy is SO stupid! > > > > If radio waves don't have a frequency, how can a radio pick out one > > station from another? This guy has rocks in his head instead of brains. > > I realize this is far too hard for an idiot. That idiot would be the one who claims "Radio waves do not have a frequency." I can pick up one station at 710 KHz and another at 810 KHz. What do these two radio signals have that I can distinguish one from another? Your stupid claims says ... why, nothing at all! All radio signals should be detected simultaneously according to your blatherings. > If you had any brain, you would understand that there is no oscillation > in a traveling radio signal. Assertion without evidence. > It is very simple really. The only simple thing here is your delusional mind. > The links of a bicycle chain don't oscillate either but they pass a > point at a rate...the frequency being v/l,.... get it now? poor idiot?.. > a radio wave operates similarly... So you are now claiming that different frequencies travel at different speeds? Even for no velocity difference between transmitter and receiver? Your weak mind has finally lost any hold it had on reality. > > > The reason you do not understand that is the simple fact that I appear > > > to be the only person in the whole history of physics that has realized > > > it. That makes me smarter than the rest. > > > > What a delusional fool! His stupid claim makes him the stupidest guy > > on earth. > > > > [Remainder of stupidity deleted to prevent contagion] > > Poor little gary.....would love to be a real physicist like me, full of > bright ideas.... Actually, you are full of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 16:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o33okd$ffe$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #402104 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >>> The reason you do not understand that is the simple fact that I appear >>> to be the only person in the whole history of physics that has realized >>> it. That makes me smarter than the rest. >> >> What a delusional fool! His stupid claim makes him the stupidest guy >> on earth. >> >>> [Remainder of stupidity deleted to prevent contagion] >Poor little gary.....would love to be a real physicist like me, full of >bright ideas.... Self-awarding of titles like that must be good for several k00k points as well. The proper title for a basement dweller is "basement dweller", not "physicist". Ralph should get a huge bonus for photoshopping a fake diploma to award himself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o33o9s$ffe$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #402098 |
Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes: >> The reason you do not understand that is the simple fact that I appear >> to be the only person in the whole history of physics that has realized >> it. That makes me smarter than the rest. >What a delusional fool! His stupid claim makes him the stupidest guy >on earth. I have to check the old k00k rating index. Using a phrase like "I am the only person in the world to discover X, so I must be the smartest person in the world" must be worth a whole lot of k00k points.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 08:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o34bcn$1ssi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402122 |
On 18/12/16 03:14, Michael Moroney wrote: > Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes: > >>> The reason you do not understand that is the simple fact that I appear >>> to be the only person in the whole history of physics that has realized >>> it. That makes me smarter than the rest. > >> What a delusional fool! His stupid claim makes him the stupidest guy >> on earth. > > I have to check the old k00k rating index. Using a phrase like "I am the > only person in the world to discover X, so I must be the smartest person > in the world" must be worth a whole lot of k00k points. It is quite obvious that I am the only physicist who has realized that a traveling radio wave DOES NOT possess a frequency. I therefore have good reason to be proud of the fact that I have corrected one of physics' greatest misunderstandings. My only hope is that some attention will be given to the nature of fields and mechanism that provides light and radio signals with a spatial structure that is retained during long term travel. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 21:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o34btu$1tip$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402146 |
HGW wrote: >> I have to check the old k00k rating index. Using a phrase like "I am >> the only person in the world to discover X, so I must be the smartest >> person in the world" must be worth a whole lot of k00k points. > > It is quite obvious that I am the only physicist who has realized that a > traveling radio wave DOES NOT possess a frequency. I therefore have good > reason to be proud of the fact that I have corrected one of physics' > greatest misunderstandings. My only hope is that some attention will be > given to the nature of fields and mechanism that provides light and > radio signals with a spatial structure that is retained during long term > travel. Excellent. Then call it color, if you are unsatisfied with frequency. Otherwise you'll have hard time explaining how colors are changing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 16:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <DqWdnTds2LHNI8jFnZ2dnUU7_8z8fwAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #402146 |
On 12/17/16 12/17/16 3:40 PM, HGW wrote: > It is quite obvious that I am the only physicist who has realized that a > traveling radio wave DOES NOT possess a frequency. This is just Wilson demonstrating his COLOSSAL personal ignorance. As I have said so often, in modern physics light has no INTRINSIC wavelength or frequency. This has been known since the theories known as classical electrodynamics and QED were formulated in the 1940s, and probably earlier.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 23:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o34h1v$5qs$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402150 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/17/16 12/17/16 3:40 PM, HGW wrote: >> It is quite obvious that I am the only physicist who has realized that >> a traveling radio wave DOES NOT possess a frequency. > > This is just Wilson demonstrating his COLOSSAL personal ignorance. As I > have said so often, in modern physics light has no INTRINSIC wavelength > or frequency. This has been known since the theories known as classical > electrodynamics and QED were formulated in the 1940s, and probably > earlier.... Tom Roberts Completely nonsense. You can't vary, or keep constant, a frequency which is not intrinsic. You must be relating to something which is not a frequency.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 20:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <l5idneRaxNvBbsjFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #402152 |
On 12/17/16 12/17/16 5:17 PM, Lauretta Nagle wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> in modern physics light has no INTRINSIC wavelength >> or frequency. > > Completely nonsense. You can't vary, or keep constant, a frequency which > is not intrinsic. You must be relating to something which is not a > frequency. Not nonsense, just basic physics. And basic English: If different observers obtain different values from some property related to an object, then that property cannot be intrinsic to the object, because its value depends on more than the object itself, namely some property of the observers. Differently moving observers do indeed measure different values for the frequency of a light ray. As I said before: Note that in modern physics a monochromatic and unidirectional coherent light beam does not have an INTRINSIC wavelength or an INTRINSIC frequency. But this is neither magic nor imprecise. What is intrinsic to such a beam is its phase as a function on the manifold. To turn that into a wavelength requires a geometrical projection onto some spatial coordinate, and the value you obtain depends on which coordinate (local inertial frame) you use. To obtain a frequency you must geometrically project onto some time coordinate, and the value you get depends on which coordinate (local inertial frame) you use. Any detector that measures the frequency of a light beam will naturally do that projection onto the time coordinate of the instantaneously co-moving inertial frame. In a very real sense, that's what "frequency measurement" means. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 15:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o352db$qhk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402157 |
On 18/12/16 13:24, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/17/16 12/17/16 5:17 PM, Lauretta Nagle wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> in modern physics light has no INTRINSIC wavelength >>> or frequency. >> >> Completely nonsense. You can't vary, or keep constant, a frequency which >> is not intrinsic. You must be relating to something which is not a >> frequency. > > Not nonsense, just basic physics. And basic English: If different > observers obtain different values from some property related to an > object, then that property cannot be intrinsic to the object, because > its value depends on more than the object itself, namely some property > of the observers. Differently moving observers do indeed measure > different values for the frequency of a light ray. What they measure is NOT THE FREQUENCY OF ANY LIGHT RAY. The arrival of the light ray CREATES the frequency in the receiver. The frequency is not a feature of the light itself. Do you understand what dn/dt = dn/dx.dx/dt means? You don't need any bloody 'manifolds', 'geometric projections' or any other nonsensical dingelberry expressions to understand what is a very basic physical principle. As I said, this is best understood by considering a radio signal. An electric oscillation in an antenna creates a MOVING spatial wavelike pattern that radiates outwards. It does NOT oscillate while in transit. When received, it recreates the oscillation IN THE RECEIVER. Maxwell's theory equations are not directly involved in that oscillation. c/lambda is the arrival rate of the features. > As I said before: > Note that in modern physics a monochromatic and unidirectional coherent > light beam does not have an INTRINSIC wavelength or an INTRINSIC > frequency. But this is neither magic nor imprecise. What is intrinsic to > such a beam is its phase as a function on the manifold. To turn that > into a wavelength requires a geometrical projection onto some spatial > coordinate, and the value you obtain depends on which coordinate (local > inertial frame) you use. To obtain a frequency you must geometrically > project onto some time coordinate, and the value you get depends on > which coordinate (local inertial frame) you use. > > Any detector that measures the frequency of a light beam will naturally > do that projection onto the time coordinate of the instantaneously > co-moving inertial frame. In a very real sense, that's what "frequency > measurement" means. Tom, you are a proving to be quite a nutcase. You can't even speak plain English any more. When a light beam is detected by a receiver, the receiver responds to the series of incoming SPATIAL 'features' as they arrive. A frequency is generated in the receiver, corresponding to the rate of arrival of those features. If they are equally spaced, then the arrival frequency will be constant, namely (c+v)/lambda, and the light will be monochromatic. Light doesn't have a frequency, but like the radio wave, it possesses a structure, of currently unknown nature, that causes it to behave as though it has an absolute wavelength. Much of what we know about light has come from studies of diffraction and interference and they all assume and respond to an intrinsic wavelength rather than a frequency. A photon is like a short radio signal. One view is that a photon begins as a minute lump of 'aether' ejected from a field as a result of a disturbance there. The photon itself is oscillating, according to Maxwell's equations, such that a standing wave is set up along its (finite) length. The nodes of that wave define its absolute wavelength. Another possibility is that a photon is a spinning pair of +- charges (whatever they are) and the distance between each rotation in the source frame defines wavelength. What amazes me is how the fanatical ideas of one man were able to bring physics to a virtual standstill for 110 years without anyone doing something about it. > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 16:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ebmk8lFogi3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #402163 |
On 18/12/2016 3:13 PM, HGW wrote: > On 18/12/16 13:24, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 12/17/16 12/17/16 5:17 PM, Lauretta Nagle wrote: >>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> in modern physics light has no INTRINSIC wavelength >>>> or frequency. >>> >>> Completely nonsense. You can't vary, or keep constant, a frequency which >>> is not intrinsic. You must be relating to something which is not a >>> frequency. >> >> Not nonsense, just basic physics. And basic English: If different >> observers obtain different values from some property related to an >> object, then that property cannot be intrinsic to the object, because >> its value depends on more than the object itself, namely some property >> of the observers. Differently moving observers do indeed measure >> different values for the frequency of a light ray. > > What they measure is NOT THE FREQUENCY OF ANY LIGHT RAY. The arrival of > the light ray CREATES the frequency in the receiver. The frequency is > not a feature of the light itself. Do you understand what dn/dt = > dn/dx.dx/dt means? You don't need any bloody 'manifolds', 'geometric > projections' or any other nonsensical dingelberry expressions to > understand what is a very basic physical principle. If two observers who are moving relative to each other, both measure the frequency of the light ray, then they will get results that are correlated, so the light ray must have some property that allows the correlation to exist. If the frequency were solely a function of the observers, then the results for the two observers would not be correlated. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 20:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o35k28$1e8g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402166 |
On 18/12/16 16:13, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18/12/2016 3:13 PM, HGW wrote: >> On 18/12/16 13:24, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 12/17/16 12/17/16 5:17 PM, Lauretta Nagle wrote: >>>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> in modern physics light has no INTRINSIC wavelength >>>>> or frequency. >>>> >>>> Completely nonsense. You can't vary, or keep constant, a frequency >>>> which >>>> is not intrinsic. You must be relating to something which is not a >>>> frequency. >>> >>> Not nonsense, just basic physics. And basic English: If different >>> observers obtain different values from some property related to an >>> object, then that property cannot be intrinsic to the object, because >>> its value depends on more than the object itself, namely some property >>> of the observers. Differently moving observers do indeed measure >>> different values for the frequency of a light ray. >> >> What they measure is NOT THE FREQUENCY OF ANY LIGHT RAY. The arrival of >> the light ray CREATES the frequency in the receiver. The frequency is >> not a feature of the light itself. Do you understand what dn/dt = >> dn/dx.dx/dt means? You don't need any bloody 'manifolds', 'geometric >> projections' or any other nonsensical dingelberry expressions to >> understand what is a very basic physical principle. > > If two observers who are moving relative to each other, both measure the > frequency of the light ray, then they will get results that are > correlated, so the light ray must have some property that allows the > correlation to exist. If the frequency were solely a function of the > observers, then the results for the two observers would not be correlated. You just can't get it, can you. The 'frequency' is the arrival rate of a series of spaced features. It occurs in the receiver, not in the radio signal itself. That has a fixed spatial, wavelike structure. Look, if the teeth or a saw are moved over a bit of metal, the metal vibrates. The faster it is moved, the higher the frequency of that vibration. The saw teeth do not oscillate. They simply MOVE...and so does a radio signal. > Sylvia. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 15:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ebp4v2Fcea9U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #402177 |
On 18/12/2016 8:14 PM, HGW wrote: > > Look, if the teeth or a saw are moved over a bit of metal, the metal > vibrates. The faster it is moved, the higher the frequency of that > vibration. The saw teeth do not oscillate. They simply MOVE...and so > does a radio signal. > > >> Sylvia. > > OK, so taking light as a wave moving through space, with frequency being just the rate at which the waves pass a particular observer, relate that back to your original claim, that if Einstein's second postulate were correct, no digital technology would work. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 20:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o38b1n$1elr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402243 |
On 19/12/16 15:11, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18/12/2016 8:14 PM, HGW wrote: > >> >> Look, if the teeth or a saw are moved over a bit of metal, the metal >> vibrates. The faster it is moved, the higher the frequency of that >> vibration. The saw teeth do not oscillate. They simply MOVE...and so >> does a radio signal. >> >> >>> Sylvia. >> >> > OK, so taking light as a wave moving through space, with frequency being > just the rate at which the waves pass a particular observer, relate that > back to your original claim, that if Einstein's second postulate were > correct, no digital technology would work. Digital light signals do not have a frequency. Einstein's whole theory depends on light having such a thing. It is the basis of his explanation of interference. For example, Paul Andersen's analysis of Sagnac assumes light travels like a simple oscillator. Light has an absolute wavelength, not a frequency. > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 22:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ebpvg9Fih68U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #402266 |
On 19/12/2016 8:59 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 19/12/16 15:11, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 18/12/2016 8:14 PM, HGW wrote: >> >>> >>> Look, if the teeth or a saw are moved over a bit of metal, the metal >>> vibrates. The faster it is moved, the higher the frequency of that >>> vibration. The saw teeth do not oscillate. They simply MOVE...and so >>> does a radio signal. >>> >>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> >> OK, so taking light as a wave moving through space, with frequency being >> just the rate at which the waves pass a particular observer, relate that >> back to your original claim, that if Einstein's second postulate were >> correct, no digital technology would work. > > Digital light signals do not have a frequency. Einstein's whole theory > depends on light having such a thing. How so? SR is derived without reference to the frequency. > It is the basis of his explanation of interference. Even you seem to be willing to concede that an observer will measure a frequency as the wave goes past. In any case, interference is explained in terms of waves. For example, Paul Andersen's analysis of Sagnac assumes > light travels like a simple oscillator. > Light has an absolute wavelength, not a frequency. That light has an absolute wavelength is something you're merely asserting. You've offered no evidence for that assertion, and experimental physics contradicts you. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 03:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3c1cec64-678f-45eb-8106-fb6868c713d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402266 |
On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 2:59:22 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Digital light signals do not have a frequency. Well, Ralphie-boy is right, for a change. Digital light signals (i.e., pulses) do not have "a" frequency: they have MANY frequencies. Anyone who knows anything about Fourier analysis knows this. > Einstein's whole theory depends on light having such a thing. Just what theory is Ralphie-boy deluding himself about here? Certainly not the derivation of the LT. > It is the basis of his explanation of interference. What is Ralphie-boy babbling about here? Is he trying to say that light propagation and interference was developed by Einstein. This was a subject in physics before Saint Albert was born. Maybe Ralphie-boy is referring to interference theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_theory "Interference theory is theory regarding human memory. Interference occurs in learning when there is an interaction between the new material and transfer effects of past learned behavior, memories or thoughts that have a negative influence in comprehending the new material" This would obviously explain a lot about Ralphie-boy. > For example, Paul Andersen's analysis of Sagnac assumes > light travels like a simple oscillator. Ralphie-boy must have a bowl of stupid for breakfast every morning. > Light has an absolute wavelength, not a frequency. Typical of Ralphie-boy: assertion with nothing whatever to back up his bizarre claims. He would have others be as delusional as he is. Light WOULD have an absolute wavelength IF light were ballistic, but that is refuted by all valid experimental evidence. Sorry, Ralphie-boy, you don't get to make up the rules of the game. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web