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

Groups > sci.physics > #681240

Re: AIN IT GREAT

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/16/2018 9:28 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/16/2018 7:19 AM, Dinsdale wrote:
>> On 4/16/2018 2:21 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2018 12:24 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2018 11:26 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>> On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>>>>>> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
>>>>>> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
>>>>>> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
>>>>>> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
>>>>>> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
>>>>>> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
>>>>>> thermodynamics?
>>>>>
>>>>> The signal will be attenuated by *any* receiving antenna, but it's the
>>>>> amplitude that will go down, not the frequency. If you could see radio
>>>>> like you see light, the transmitter would look like a bright light-bulb
>>>>> filament, but colored strongly rather than white, and receiving
>>>>> antennas would look dark,
>>>>
>>>> no.  you're transmitter is "white" over broad radio frequency, antennas
>>>> are tuned to small bands of frequency, so they will still look white to
>>>> ones radio eyes over the broad radio frequency.
>>>>
>>>>> but maybe a bit reflective as well. A forest of enough
>>>>> of them in front of you might block out the view,
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.  google "phase cancellation in back lobe of antenna(s)"
>>>>
>>>>> while fewer will just
>>>>> dim it,
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, entirely.
>>>>
>>>>> like the shade and dappled light on a forest floor.
>>>>
>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>> google "multipath"
>>>>
>>>>> Other materials and objects would look from translucent grey to
>>>>> black or
>>>>> even pale depending on how much they tended to absorb, reflect, or
>>>>> transmit that wavelength.
>>>>
>>>> wrong,
>>>> wavelength is too long for any of that unless your at 10 Ghz,
>>>> google "multipath"
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You would also be able to tell AM transmitters from FM ones at a
>>>>> glance.
>>>>> AM ones would be flickering,
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, AM would be constant as they send out the LO constant, and
>>>> sidebands are down 50%, they do not flicker.
>>>>
>>>> while FM ones would look steady but
>>>>> shifting minutely in color.
>>>>
>>>> wrong,
>>>> scale, what is deviation of FM, and average modulation frequency ? your
>>>> radio eyes cant see that.  A spectrum analyzer can, but not full scale
>>>> of the radio band.
>>>>
>>>> And every station in your area would be a
>>>>> filament of a different color.
>>>>
>>>> wrong, your eyes could not seperate out 10^9 colors
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (This is a bit of a simplification, as it ignores diffraction,
>>>>> interference patterns, and polarization. The first two, while almost
>>>>> unimportant with visible light, are significant with radio waves,
>>>>> because the wavelengths are comparable to the sizes of everyday objects
>>>>> such as trash cans, windows, human beings, and whatever sort of thingy
>>>>> you are. Polarization means some radio waves might be blocked by a
>>>>> fence
>>>>> with closely spaced vertical metal bars but only somewhat dimmed by one
>>>>> with horizontal bars, or vice versa, or similar consequences. When
>>>>> dealing with visible light, these three phenomena are much more
>>>>> infrequently encountered, but the bright colors on butterfly wings come
>>>>> from diffraction, the glittery speckly effect at the fringe of a laser
>>>>> beam dot is an interference pattern, and some sunglasses dim direct
>>>>> sunlight a lot more than they dim the reflected light from objects by
>>>>> exploiting the former's polarization.)
>>>>>
>>>> simplification excuse not accepted.
>>>>
>>> Sergio totally destroys "Dr. kensi's" PBS liberal science fantasy with
>>> actual engineering and science.
>>>
>>> This is primary evidence as to why one should NEVER learn your science
>>> from libs at PBS (or from ANY libs for that matter).
>>
>> You and your sidekick appear to be rather stupid.
>>
> (kensi pupa's simplification demonstrates no knowledge of radio wave or
> radio wave probagation(s), and incorrectly applies optical effects, it
> is a whole different critter- if you have any specific questions please
> bring them up, no problem. kensi pupa is still learning, it is ok)

Probagation(s)?  Don't you mean prorogation(s), Mr. Pooper guy, whom 
aren't lerning much of anything due to stupid?

-- 
Dinsdale

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: AIN IT GREAT "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-09 12:44 -0400
  Do you like it when she honks " Hee... Haw.. " ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-09 10:41 -0700
    Re: Do you like it when she honks " Hee... Haw.. " ? ! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 17:26 -0400
  Re: AIN IT GREAT Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 11:44 -0700
    Re: AIN IT GREAT % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 11:47 -0700
  Re: AIN IT GREAT "Colonel Edmund J. Burke" <burkesbabes@bigass-babes.com> - 2018-04-09 19:38 -0700
    Re: AIN IT GREAT % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 19:40 -0700
  Re: AIN IT GREAT Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-12 05:14 +0000
    Re: AIN IT GREAT "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-14 18:24 -0400
      Re: AIN IT GREAT benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 20:28 -0400
        Re: AIN IT GREAT Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-14 18:39 -0600
          Re: AIN IT GREAT % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 17:57 -0700
            Re: AIN IT GREAT Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-14 19:59 -0600
      Re: AIN IT GREAT kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-15 12:26 -0400
        Re: AIN IT GREAT Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-15 10:31 -0600
          Re: AIN IT GREAT kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-15 13:10 -0400
            Re: AIN IT GREAT Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-15 11:15 -0600
            Re: AIN IT GREAT benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-15 18:22 -0400
            Re: AIN IT GREAT Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-15 23:07 -0500
          Re: AIN IT GREAT benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-15 18:17 -0400
        Re: AIN IT GREAT mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-04-15 13:17 -0400
          Re: AIN IT GREAT benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-15 18:26 -0400
            Re: AIN IT GREAT Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-15 22:58 -0700
        Re: AIN IT GREAT Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-15 23:24 -0500
          Re: AIN IT GREAT benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 02:21 -0400
            Re: AIN IT GREAT Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-04-16 08:19 -0400
              Re: AIN IT GREAT Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 08:28 -0500
                Re: AIN IT GREAT Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-04-16 09:51 -0400
                Re: AIN IT GREAT Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 09:50 -0500
        Re: AIN IT GREAT "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-16 10:12 -0400
          Re: AIN IT GREAT Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 09:51 -0500
            Re: AIN IT GREAT benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 12:57 -0400

csiph-web