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 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 19:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ebhlsrFig55U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #401995 |
On 16/12/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: > 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. > It has a wavelength and a velocity, so it must have a frequency. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 08:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o31koq$1tju$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401996 |
On 16/12/16 19:11, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16/12/2016 7:08 PM, HGW wrote: >> 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. >> > > It has a wavelength and a velocity, so it must have a frequency. That is the common misconception. The light itself does not possess the frequency c/l. That frequency is used by the source in the production of each quantum. That frequency is generated in the receiver when the quantum impinges on it. The quantum itself does nothing during transit. It resembles a fixed 'spatial energy pattern' that is moving relative to everything else. > Sylvia. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 09:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <5oednQMtGcOsx8jFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #402060 |
On 12/16/16 12/16/16 3:02 PM, HGW wrote: > The light itself does not possess the frequency c/l. That frequency is used by > the source in the production of each quantum. That frequency is generated in the > receiver when the quantum impinges on it. The quantum itself does nothing during > transit. It resembles a fixed 'spatial energy pattern' that is moving relative > to everything else. This is just Wilson invoking MAGIC again, and relying on wishy-washy and ambiguous words to hide his personal ignorance. For instance, what he refers to as a "quantum" is NOT AT ALL what physicists mean by that word. 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. So the variations are really due to CHOICE OF COORDINATES, not the light beam itself. This dependency on measurement procedure is QUITE DIFFERENT from Wilson's fantasies; in particular this is supported by experiments while his fantasies are refuted by many of those same experiments (of course many of his fantasies are crafted to be untestable, such as his claims above). Note that since the Lorentz transform applies between different local inertial frames, when the light source is at rest in one of them you directly obtain the equations for the relativistic Doppler shift by projecting onto other frames. If the light beam's phase as a function on the manifold was not independent of coordinates, that would not work. In relativity, Doppler shift is just like "time dilation" and "length contraction" in that NONE of them involve physical changes to the object being observed, they are all related to geometrical projections onto the coordinates used for the observation. This is of course required for consistency when multiple observers measure the same physical object using different local inertial frames. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 08:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o34ao8$1rqc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402118 |
On 18/12/16 02:30, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/16/16 12/16/16 3:02 PM, HGW wrote: >> The light itself does not possess the frequency c/l. That frequency is >> used by >> the source in the production of each quantum. That frequency is >> generated in the >> receiver when the quantum impinges on it. The quantum itself does >> nothing during >> transit. It resembles a fixed 'spatial energy pattern' that is moving >> relative >> to everything else. > > This is just Wilson invoking MAGIC again, and relying on wishy-washy and > ambiguous words to hide his personal ignorance. For instance, what he > refers to as a "quantum" is NOT AT ALL what physicists mean by that word. > > 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. > > So the variations are really due to CHOICE OF COORDINATES, not the light > beam itself. This dependency on measurement procedure is QUITE DIFFERENT > from Wilson's fantasies; in particular this is supported by experiments > while his fantasies are refuted by many of those same experiments (of > course many of his fantasies are crafted to be untestable, such as his > claims above). > > Note that since the Lorentz transform applies between different local > inertial frames, when the light source is at rest in one of them you > directly obtain the equations for the relativistic Doppler shift by > projecting onto other frames. > > If the light beam's phase as a function on the manifold was not > independent of coordinates, that would not work. In relativity, > Doppler shift is just like "time dilation" and "length contraction" > in that NONE of them involve physical changes to the object being > observed, they are all related to geometrical projections onto > the coordinates used for the observation. This is of course > required for consistency when multiple observers measure the same > physical object using different local inertial frames. This whole post is, of course, complete nonsense. It is essential for Einstein's theory that traveling light has a frequency because that is how it tries to explain, for instance, the Sagnac effect....and it is quite clear that traveling light does not oscillate as traditionally believed. In fact its spatial features (constituting 'wavelength') do not appear to change much at all for maybe billions of years. No aspect of traveling light is known to oscillate, certainly not with the frequency c/lambda. That frequency is created in any receiver by the arrival of 'fixed' energy pattern. The best illustration of that is to consider the structure of a radio wave, which also has NO frequency during travel. The frequency c/lambda is the one used to create the moving spatial pattern and it is also the one created by the pattern when it is received. I have proposed that a photon starts out as somewhat like a miniature radio pulse of single frequency, in which case it has NO frequency of the form c/lambda and its absolute wavelength is clearly defined. > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 09:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <76b04531-9a53-4090-a5fd-37bb0e190c3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401962 |
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 4:35:19 PM UTC-5, 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. Space is a medium.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 09:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <76cf528e-d45a-4a97-9749-a93bb249da16@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402207 |
Kenseto is correct Space is a medium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 08:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o370m8$1n3q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402211 |
On 19/12/16 04:08, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Kenseto is correct He has been known to be correct on several occassions over the years. > Space is a medium That's an oversimplification. Let me explain. Parts of space do act like a very weak medium, that medium being the 'stuff that fields are made of'. However below the WDT (Wilson density threshold), field strengths are so low and matter is so rare that holes of genuine 'nothing' appear and light approaches the state of being 100% ballistic. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 14:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <377d89ad-0d68-4c77-b1c8-31bf3eeeb45a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402227 |
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 1:56:28 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote: > Parts of space do act like a very weak medium, that medium being the > 'stuff that fields are made of'. However below the WDT (Wilson density > threshold), field strengths are so low and matter is so rare that holes > of genuine 'nothing' appear and light approaches the state of being 100% > ballistic. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.) Once a crackpot always a crackpot...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 21:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o38bff$1fdg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402230 |
On 19/12/16 09:39, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 1:56:28 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote: > >> Parts of space do act like a very weak medium, that medium being the >> 'stuff that fields are made of'. However below the WDT (Wilson density >> threshold), field strengths are so low and matter is so rare that holes >> of genuine 'nothing' appear and light approaches the state of being 100% >> ballistic. > > 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.) I'm surprised you don't have something named after YOU...A country shithouse would be appropriate.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 04:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <43c3d272-f9bb-4f66-9dc9-5378ea9a8e1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402230 |
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 4:39:15 PM UTC-6, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > Once a crackpot always a crackpot... I've seen an exception. His name escapes me at the moment, but I can try to look him up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 04:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8b13b426-6ddd-4e67-9e8c-58881feaa97d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #402275 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 19 grudnia 2016 13:11:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > Once a crackpot always a crackpot... > > I've seen an exception. > > His name escapes me at the moment, but I can try to look him up. Surely it was not you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 17:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o395il$e6h$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #402230 |
pnalsing@gmail.com writes: >On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 1:56:28 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote: >> Parts of space do act like a very weak medium, that medium being the >> 'stuff that fields are made of'. However below the WDT (Wilson density >> threshold), field strengths are so low and matter is so rare that holes >> of genuine 'nothing' appear and light approaches the state of being 100% >> ballistic. >20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the >"The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.) >Once a crackpot always a crackpot... Double points for naming something after a fake name for yourself!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 05:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o37qoe$b22$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #402207 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 4:35:19 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >> Idiot! Space is not a medium. >Space is a medium. K00kfight!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 15:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2u9e7$jkt$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #401888 |
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 -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 07:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <42ca50b4-9bbe-413e-8762-9f1de94024e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401910 |
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 -- Paul https://paulba.no/ No ... https://goo.gl/photos/f4YdyT7mUcJkL9vw9 Frequency comes from a static invariant amplitude forcing a tighter curvature forcing higher NODE count / higher frequency
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 08:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o2v33i$1ums$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401910 |
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 Irrelevant. Traveling light does not have a frequency. 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. A digital signal consists of a series of short bursts of fixed wavelengths (of a carrier frequency). The pulse arrival frequency is obviously Doppler shifted by (c+v)/c at the receiver and not by Einstein's silly equation. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 14:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8264d016-23ca-4891-8c18-28bd9224f738@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #401964 |
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:48:38 PM UTC-6, 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 > > Irrelevant. Traveling light does not have a frequency. Yah ... Instead of Frequency, The Photon has an (Oscillating Positive to Negative MOMENTUM) !!!!! Which can be Easily Back-Calculated Back to Frequency
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 13:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ebh18sFe2q1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #401964 |
On 16/12/2016 8:48 AM, 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 > > Irrelevant. Traveling light does not have a frequency. 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. A > digital signal consists of a series of short bursts of fixed wavelengths > (of a carrier frequency). The pulse arrival frequency is obviously > Doppler shifted by (c+v)/c at the receiver and not by Einstein's silly > equation. > > > So, typical Henry argument that involves assuming that relativity is wrong, and then using that assumption to show that relativity is wrong. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 19:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o307jl$1coj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #401985 |
On 16/12/16 13:19, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16/12/2016 8:48 AM, 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 >> >> Irrelevant. Traveling light does not have a frequency. 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. A >> digital signal consists of a series of short bursts of fixed wavelengths >> (of a carrier frequency). The pulse arrival frequency is obviously >> Doppler shifted by (c+v)/c at the receiver and not by Einstein's silly >> equation. >> >> >> > > So, typical Henry argument that involves assuming that relativity is > wrong, and then using that assumption to show that relativity is wrong. ...and I suppose you also think a radio signal has a 'frequency' during travel.. . You sure have a lot to learn.. > Sylvia. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 22:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ebi1svFlc38U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #401997 |
On 16/12/2016 7:11 PM, HGW wrote: > On 16/12/16 13:19, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 16/12/2016 8:48 AM, 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 >>> >>> Irrelevant. Traveling light does not have a frequency. 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. A >>> digital signal consists of a series of short bursts of fixed wavelengths >>> (of a carrier frequency). The pulse arrival frequency is obviously >>> Doppler shifted by (c+v)/c at the receiver and not by Einstein's silly >>> equation. >>> >>> >>> >> >> So, typical Henry argument that involves assuming that relativity is >> wrong, and then using that assumption to show that relativity is wrong. > > ...and I suppose you also think a radio signal has a 'frequency' during > travel.. . You sure have a lot to learn.. Anyone who measures it will find that it has frequency - or strictly speaking a frequency band, since a single frequency radio wave cannot carry any information. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web