Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #595068 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-29 12:08 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-09-18 15:33 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 76 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Viewing the spokes Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-29 12:08 -0500
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-29 18:00 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-29 21:00 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-30 01:14 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-29 22:45 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-30 04:14 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-29 21:59 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-30 05:16 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-29 23:00 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 18:29 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-29 18:29 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-29 18:46 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-30 19:40 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-30 22:07 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-30 23:48 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-31 09:54 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-02 10:00 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 13:23 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-03 11:30 -0700
Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-03 13:18 -0700
Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-03 14:57 -0700
Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-03 16:01 -0700
Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-04 12:46 -0700
Re: Red, Blue and Green Ergios <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-07 12:32 -0500
Re: Red, Blue and Green noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 12:12 -0700
Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-07 23:22 -0700
Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-03 16:03 -0700
Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-03 16:06 -0700
Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 00:18 -0700
Re: Red, Blue and Green noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 12:52 -0700
Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-07 10:01 -0700
Re: Red, Blue and Green Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 10:12 -0700
Re: Red, Blue and Green The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 09:47 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 14:32 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 11:39 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-04 20:36 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 09:08 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 12:32 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 17:51 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-10 00:10 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 20:43 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-10 00:57 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 21:07 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-10 01:33 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 20:59 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-13 02:41 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 19:43 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 21:29 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-13 02:43 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 13:28 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 17:14 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 21:52 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-14 05:11 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 17:49 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 00:50 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 21:52 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 04:11 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 16:58 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:40 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 20:56 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-17 01:47 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-17 17:24 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-18 00:07 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 14:26 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 15:04 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 12:54 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 19:47 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:24 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-15 05:12 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 15:45 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 21:36 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 02:58 +0000
Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 12:15 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-09-15 09:15 -0400
Re: Viewing the spokes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 15:48 -0700
Re: Viewing the spokes noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 15:33 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 14:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Red, Blue and Green |
| Message-ID | <57CB4762.5CE7@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #595712 |
You can imagine all the problems one encounters when trying to paint walls, pictures, etc using the primary colors red, green, blue and getting White all the time! So...a second Primary Color had to be ...invented, Red, Blue and Yellow. The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > benj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/29/2016 9:46 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > i have a question for you... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why are there two primary colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is so everything in your life can look like shit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I presume you are too young to have ever seen what the old two color > > > > > > > technicolor movies used to look like. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Two Primary Colors are: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Blue, Red, Green > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Blue, Red, Yellow > > > > > > > > > > > > why are there Two primary colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > I might have to define the word Primary because it's a pattern with yous people not > > > > > knowing or understanding the english language....especially in the united states scientific community. > > > > > > > > > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: > > > > > (his primary goals in life.) > > > > > > > > > > Not, his primaries goals in like, "primary"...meaning One. > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > first in order in any series, sequence, etc. > > > > > > > > > > 5. > > > > > constituting or belonging to the first stage in any process. > > > > > > > > > > Now, if you look at the definition of the words: > > > > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary-color > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > Art. a color, as red, yellow, or blue, that in mixture yields other colors. > > > > > Compare complementary color (def 1), secondary color, tertiary color. > > > > > 2. > > > > > Optics. any of a set of monochromatic colors, as red, green, and blue, that are added to match or specify the chromaticity of a stimulus or sample. > > > > > > > > > > There above are Two primary colors > > > > > > > > > > 1.red, yellow, and blue > > > > > > > > > > 2.red, green, and blue > > > > > > > > > > Both by definition are: > > > > > > > > > > 1) primary-colors > > > > > > > > > > 2) They are both "first" > > > > > > > > > > 3)They are both "the first stage", first in order in any series... > > > > > > > > > > There are both First primary colors. > > > > > > > > > > My question is...why are there two "primary" colors on earth? > > > > > > > > Now, if you have a problem with the word "Why", I can change it to > > > > "How". > > > > > > > > How are there two "primary" colors on earth? > > > > > > Of course...I'm the only one on earth that can answer this physics question correctly.. > > > > > > It's a mistake! > > > > > > When the primarys colors red, blue and green first came into being, ...and around > > > 4.5 billion years later the earth was formed..making the primary colors > > > red, blue and green for pigments didn't work! So, it had to be changed/added > > > (a new set of primary colors) from Green to Yellow. > > > > > > And that fixed the mistake. > > > > > > Whether the mistake was created by Nature error, or a computer error..regardless...it was corrected. > > > > Now, can you imagine what it would be like if there was only one set of primary colors, red, blue and green in the entire universe? > > If you try and paint a picture, using Red, Blue and Green (which mixed will be White) and you add Red to make pink...you'll get White instead! > > If you buy a jar of White paint, (Red, Blue and Green mixed) and you add Blue...you get White. You can imagine all the problems one encounters when trying to paint walls, pictures, etc using the primary colors red, green, blue and getting White all the time! So...a second Primary Color had to be ...invented, Red, Blue and Yellow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 16:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Red, Blue and Green |
| Message-ID | <57CB5644.3B92@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #595718 |
Marvin Sebourn wrote: > > On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:56:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > You can imagine all the problems one encounters > > when trying to paint walls, pictures, etc using > > the primary colors red, green, blue and getting White all the time! > > > > So...a second Primary Color had to be ...invented, > > > > Red, Blue and Yellow. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/29/2016 9:46 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > i have a question for you... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why are there two primary colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is so everything in your life can look like shit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I presume you are too young to have ever seen what the old two color > > > > > > > > > technicolor movies used to look like. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Two Primary Colors are: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Blue, Red, Green > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Blue, Red, Yellow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why are there Two primary colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I might have to define the word Primary because it's a pattern with yous people not > > > > > > > knowing or understanding the english language....especially in the united states scientific community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: > > > > > > > (his primary goals in life.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not, his primaries goals in like, "primary"...meaning One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > first in order in any series, sequence, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. > > > > > > > constituting or belonging to the first stage in any process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if you look at the definition of the words: > > > > > > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary-color > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > Art. a color, as red, yellow, or blue, that in mixture yields other colors. > > > > > > > Compare complementary color (def 1), secondary color, tertiary color. > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > Optics. any of a set of monochromatic colors, as red, green, and blue, that are added to match or specify the chromaticity of a stimulus or sample. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There above are Two primary colors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.red, yellow, and blue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.red, green, and blue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both by definition are: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) primary-colors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) They are both "first" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3)They are both "the first stage", first in order in any series... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are both First primary colors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My question is...why are there two "primary" colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if you have a problem with the word "Why", I can change it to > > > > > > "How". > > > > > > > > > > > > How are there two "primary" colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > Of course...I'm the only one on earth that can answer this physics question correctly.. > > > > > > > > > > It's a mistake! > > > > > > > > > > When the primarys colors red, blue and green first came into being, ...and around > > > > > 4.5 billion years later the earth was formed..making the primary colors > > > > > red, blue and green for pigments didn't work! So, it had to be changed/added > > > > > (a new set of primary colors) from Green to Yellow. > > > > > > > > > > And that fixed the mistake. > > > > > > > > > > Whether the mistake was created by Nature error, or a computer error..regardless...it was corrected. > > > > > > > > Now, can you imagine what it would be like if there was only one set of primary colors, red, blue and green in the entire universe? > > > > > > If you try and paint a picture, using Red, Blue and Green (which mixed will be White) and you add Red to make pink...you'll get White instead! > > > > > > If you buy a jar of White paint, (Red, Blue and Green mixed) and you add Blue...you get White. > > > > > > > > You can imagine all the problems one encounters > > when trying to paint walls, pictures, etc using > > the primary colors red, green, blue and getting White all the time! > > > > So...a second Primary Color had to be ...invented, > > > > Red, Blue and Yellow. > > Two color Technicolor is interesting, with three-color Technicolor being about eighty years old. > > But your idea of mixing the pigment paints red, green, and blue (such as in watercolors, oils, etc) and obtaining white is nonsense. Yes, it is nonsense..but I didn't say that.. I wrote above: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary-color Red, Blue and Green are the primary colors of light. Which when mixed together equals White. I also wrote above: > > So...a second Primary Color had to be ...invented, > > > > Red, Blue and Yellow. My point was...imagine if there was only one primary colors, Red, Blue and Green? But as you see, there are two sets of primary colors http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary-color
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 12:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Red, Blue and Green |
| Message-ID | <57CC7A09.E84@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #595732 |
So, to continue... When the mistake was discovered.. a new set of primary colors had to be implemented...for earthlings. The Starmaker wrote: > > Marvin Sebourn wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:56:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > You can imagine all the problems one encounters > > > when trying to paint walls, pictures, etc using > > > the primary colors red, green, blue and getting White all the time! > > > > > > So...a second Primary Color had to be ...invented, > > > > > > Red, Blue and Yellow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/29/2016 9:46 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > i have a question for you... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why are there two primary colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is so everything in your life can look like shit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I presume you are too young to have ever seen what the old two color > > > > > > > > > > technicolor movies used to look like. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Two Primary Colors are: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Blue, Red, Green > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Blue, Red, Yellow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why are there Two primary colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I might have to define the word Primary because it's a pattern with yous people not > > > > > > > > knowing or understanding the english language....especially in the united states scientific community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: > > > > > > > > (his primary goals in life.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not, his primaries goals in like, "primary"...meaning One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > first in order in any series, sequence, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. > > > > > > > > constituting or belonging to the first stage in any process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if you look at the definition of the words: > > > > > > > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary-color > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > Art. a color, as red, yellow, or blue, that in mixture yields other colors. > > > > > > > > Compare complementary color (def 1), secondary color, tertiary color. > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > Optics. any of a set of monochromatic colors, as red, green, and blue, that are added to match or specify the chromaticity of a stimulus or sample. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There above are Two primary colors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.red, yellow, and blue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.red, green, and blue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both by definition are: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) primary-colors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) They are both "first" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3)They are both "the first stage", first in order in any series... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are both First primary colors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My question is...why are there two "primary" colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if you have a problem with the word "Why", I can change it to > > > > > > > "How". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are there two "primary" colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course...I'm the only one on earth that can answer this physics question correctly.. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's a mistake! > > > > > > > > > > > > When the primarys colors red, blue and green first came into being, ...and around > > > > > > 4.5 billion years later the earth was formed..making the primary colors > > > > > > red, blue and green for pigments didn't work! So, it had to be changed/added > > > > > > (a new set of primary colors) from Green to Yellow. > > > > > > > > > > > > And that fixed the mistake. > > > > > > > > > > > > Whether the mistake was created by Nature error, or a computer error..regardless...it was corrected. > > > > > > > > > > Now, can you imagine what it would be like if there was only one set of primary colors, red, blue and green in the entire universe? > > > > > > > > If you try and paint a picture, using Red, Blue and Green (which mixed will be White) and you add Red to make pink...you'll get White instead! > > > > > > > > If you buy a jar of White paint, (Red, Blue and Green mixed) and you add Blue...you get White. > > > > > > > > > > > > You can imagine all the problems one encounters > > > when trying to paint walls, pictures, etc using > > > the primary colors red, green, blue and getting White all the time! > > > > > > So...a second Primary Color had to be ...invented, > > > > > > Red, Blue and Yellow. > > > > Two color Technicolor is interesting, with three-color Technicolor being about eighty years old. > > > > But your idea of mixing the pigment paints red, green, and blue (such as in watercolors, oils, etc) and obtaining white is nonsense. > > Yes, it is nonsense..but I didn't say that.. > > I wrote above: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary-color > > Red, Blue and Green are the primary colors of light. Which when mixed together equals White. > > I also wrote above: > > > > So...a second Primary Color had to be ...invented, > > > > > > Red, Blue and Yellow. > > My point was...imagine if there was only one primary colors, Red, Blue and Green? > > But as you see, there are two sets of primary colors > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary-color So, to continue... When the mistake was discovered.. a new set of primary colors had to be implemented...for earthlings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ergios <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-07 12:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Red, Blue and Green |
| Message-ID | <nqpivi$1vvs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #595829 |
On 9/4/2016 2:46 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > So, to continue... > > When the mistake was discovered.. > a new set of primary colors had to > be implemented...for earthlings. > only 1 primary color is needed, white. lack of white is the other end of the scale. so you have grayscale. Black and White Black and White TV good for all things with eyes on Earth, and space. why see stuff in color ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-08 12:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Red, Blue and Green |
| Message-ID | <4453656a-69be-43b3-9886-bd7c7199e094@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596191 |
there is an old system of transmission of television. using only B&W cahode ray t00b, which my mom saw in hte '950s > lack of white is the other end of the scale. > > so you have grayscale. Black and White > > Black and White TV > > good for all things with eyes on Earth, and space. > > why see stuff in color ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-07 23:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Red, Blue and Green |
| Message-ID | <57D103BD.7050@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #595829 |
Okay, I might have to start all over again... First, here is the definition of the word...'primary': http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary 1. first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: (his primary goals in life.) 2. first in order in any series, sequence, etc. 5. constituting or belonging to the first stage in any process. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary Now, do you understand the definition of the word..."primary"?? Next, here is the definition of the words primary colors: any of a group of colors from which all other colors can be obtained by mixing. https://www.google.com/#q=define+primary+colors Now here is a 'simple' definition of primary colors with examples: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/primary-colors.html Which when mixed in varying proportions produce all other colors. For pigments, the primary colors are red, yellow, and blue. For lights, they are red, green, and blue. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/primary-colors.html https://www.google.com/#q=define+primary+colors http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primary%20color http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/primary-colors.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 16:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Red, Blue and Green |
| Message-ID | <57CB56C8.416B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #595712 |
Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 1:17:41 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/29/2016 9:46 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > i have a question for you... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why are there two primary colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is so everything in your life can look like shit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I presume you are too young to have ever seen what the old two color > > > > > > > > technicolor movies used to look like. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Two Primary Colors are: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Blue, Red, Green > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Blue, Red, Yellow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why are there Two primary colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > I might have to define the word Primary because it's a pattern with yous people not > > > > > > knowing or understanding the english language....especially in the united states scientific community. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: > > > > > > (his primary goals in life.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Not, his primaries goals in like, "primary"...meaning One. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > first in order in any series, sequence, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. > > > > > > constituting or belonging to the first stage in any process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if you look at the definition of the words: > > > > > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary-color > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > Art. a color, as red, yellow, or blue, that in mixture yields other colors. > > > > > > Compare complementary color (def 1), secondary color, tertiary color. > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > Optics. any of a set of monochromatic colors, as red, green, and blue, that are added to match or specify the chromaticity of a stimulus or sample. > > > > > > > > > > > > There above are Two primary colors > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.red, yellow, and blue > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.red, green, and blue > > > > > > > > > > > > Both by definition are: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) primary-colors > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) They are both "first" > > > > > > > > > > > > 3)They are both "the first stage", first in order in any series... > > > > > > > > > > > > There are both First primary colors. > > > > > > > > > > > > My question is...why are there two "primary" colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > Now, if you have a problem with the word "Why", I can change it to > > > > > "How". > > > > > > > > > > How are there two "primary" colors on earth? > > > > > > > > Of course...I'm the only one on earth that can answer this physics question correctly.. > > > > > > > > It's a mistake! > > > > > > > > When the primarys colors red, blue and green first came into being, ...and around > > > > 4.5 billion years later the earth was formed..making the primary colors > > > > red, blue and green for pigments didn't work! So, it had to be changed/added > > > > (a new set of primary colors) from Green to Yellow. > > > > > > > > And that fixed the mistake. > > > > > > > > Whether the mistake was created by Nature error, or a computer error..regardless...it was corrected. > > > > > > Now, can you imagine what it would be like if there was only one set of primary colors, red, blue and green in the entire universe? > > > > > > If you try and paint a picture, using Red, Blue and Green (which mixed will be White) and you add Red to make pink...you'll get White instead! > > > > If you buy a jar of White paint, (Red, Blue and Green mixed) and you add Blue...you get White. > > You obviously have never tried mixing those colors to see if you get white. > > It does not happen. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/AdditiveColor.svg/2000px-AdditiveColor.svg.png http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary-color
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 16:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Red, Blue and Green |
| Message-ID | <57CB577F.44BD@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #595734 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 1:17:41 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/29/2016 9:46 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > i have a question for you... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why are there two primary colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is so everything in your life can look like shit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I presume you are too young to have ever seen what the old two color > > > > > > > > > technicolor movies used to look like. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Two Primary Colors are: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Blue, Red, Green > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Blue, Red, Yellow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why are there Two primary colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I might have to define the word Primary because it's a pattern with yous people not > > > > > > > knowing or understanding the english language....especially in the united states scientific community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: > > > > > > > (his primary goals in life.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not, his primaries goals in like, "primary"...meaning One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > first in order in any series, sequence, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. > > > > > > > constituting or belonging to the first stage in any process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if you look at the definition of the words: > > > > > > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary-color > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > Art. a color, as red, yellow, or blue, that in mixture yields other colors. > > > > > > > Compare complementary color (def 1), secondary color, tertiary color. > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > Optics. any of a set of monochromatic colors, as red, green, and blue, that are added to match or specify the chromaticity of a stimulus or sample. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There above are Two primary colors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.red, yellow, and blue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.red, green, and blue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both by definition are: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) primary-colors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) They are both "first" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3)They are both "the first stage", first in order in any series... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are both First primary colors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My question is...why are there two "primary" colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if you have a problem with the word "Why", I can change it to > > > > > > "How". > > > > > > > > > > > > How are there two "primary" colors on earth? > > > > > > > > > > Of course...I'm the only one on earth that can answer this physics question correctly.. > > > > > > > > > > It's a mistake! > > > > > > > > > > When the primarys colors red, blue and green first came into being, ...and around > > > > > 4.5 billion years later the earth was formed..making the primary colors > > > > > red, blue and green for pigments didn't work! So, it had to be changed/added > > > > > (a new set of primary colors) from Green to Yellow. > > > > > > > > > > And that fixed the mistake. > > > > > > > > > > Whether the mistake was created by Nature error, or a computer error..regardless...it was corrected. > > > > > > > > Now, can you imagine what it would be like if there was only one set of primary colors, red, blue and green in the entire universe? > > > > > > > > > If you try and paint a picture, using Red, Blue and Green (which mixed will be White) and you add Red to make pink...you'll get White instead! > > > > > > If you buy a jar of White paint, (Red, Blue and Green mixed) and you add Blue...you get White. > > > > You obviously have never tried mixing those colors to see if you get white. > > > > It does not happen. > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/AdditiveColor.svg/2000px-AdditiveColor.svg.png > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary-color I might have to define the word Primary because it's a pattern with yous people not knowing or understanding the english language....especially in the united states scientific community. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary 1. first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: (his primary goals in life.) Not, his primaries goals in like, "primary"...meaning One. 2. first in order in any series, sequence, etc. 5. constituting or belonging to the first stage in any process. Now, if you look at the definition of the words: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary-color 1. Art. a color, as red, yellow, or blue, that in mixture yields other colors. Compare complementary color (def 1), secondary color, tertiary color. 2. Optics. any of a set of monochromatic colors, as red, green, and blue, that are added to match or specify the chromaticity of a stimulus or sample. There above are Two primary colors 1.red, yellow, and blue 2.red, green, and blue Both by definition are: 1) primary-colors 2) They are both "first" 3)They are both "the first stage", first in order in any series... There are both First primary colors. My question is...why are there two "primary" colors on earth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 00:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Red, Blue and Green |
| Message-ID | <57E0E2B9.3648@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #595735 |
pcardinale@volcanomail.com wrote: > > [snip] > > > 1. > > Art. a color, as red, yellow, or blue, that in mixture yields other colors. > > Compare complementary color (def 1), secondary color, tertiary color. > > 2. > > Optics. any of a set of monochromatic colors, as red, green, and blue, that are added to match or specify the chromaticity of a stimulus or sample. > > > > > > There above are Two primary colors > > > > 1.red, yellow, and blue > > > > 2.red, green, and blue > > > > > > Both by definition are: > > > > 1) primary-colors > > > > 2) They are both "first" > > > > 3)They are both "the first stage", first in order in any series... > > > > > > There are both First primary colors. > > > > > > My question is...why are there two "primary" colors on earth? > > There are not "two 'primary' colors"; there are two sets of primary colors, with each set having three primary colors. The reason for two sets is that each set pertains to a different process*. The reason for three primary colors in each set has nothing to do with "earth", but rather with the nature of the visual perception system in humans. The reason for your confusion about the word "primary" is because you don't understand how a dictionary works. Like many words in the english language, > > * Note that the mixing of paints is not purely a subtractive process. It's a complicated combination of both additive and subtractive color mixing (but subtractive does dominate). Another stupid person shows his face...saying "subtractive does dominate". Okay, I might have to start all over again... First, here is the definition of the word...'primary': http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary 1. first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: (his primary goals in life.) 2. first in order in any series, sequence, etc. 5. constituting or belonging to the first stage in any process. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary Now, do you understand the definition of the word..."primary"?? Next, here is the definition of the words primary colors: any of a group of colors from which all other colors can be obtained by mixing. https://www.google.com/#q=define+primary+colors Now here is a 'simple' definition of primary colors with examples: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/primary-colors.html Which when mixed in varying proportions produce all other colors. For pigments, the primary colors are red, yellow, and blue. For lights, they are red, green, and blue. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/primary-colors.html https://www.google.com/#q=define+primary+colors http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primary%20color http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/primary-colors.html The primary colors for pigment/art are red, blue and yellow. They are 'primary colors', not secondary or subtractive. any of a group of colors from which *all* other colors can be obtained by mixing. https://www.google.com/#q=define+primary+colors The universe is filled with...stupid scientists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 12:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Red, Blue and Green |
| Message-ID | <13c428f7-a905-4dec-a9de-133bebf0b23d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597665 |
every one knows that those are just the somewhat subtractive painting colors. it was not til Ed lanD uncovered the "apparent trichromacy of vision," that we knew anything about the retina, although there was never really more than one pigment, rhodopsin for far-red nightvision; the rods and cones are both just log-spiral antennae > The primary colors for pigment/art are red, blue and yellow. They are 'primary colors', not secondary or subtractive. > > > any of a group of colors from which *all* other colors can be obtained by mixing. > https://www.google.com/#q=define+primary+colors > > > > The universe is filled with...stupid scientists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-07 10:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Red, Blue and Green |
| Message-ID | <57D047D7.1246@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #595712 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > Am 06.09.2016 07:49, schrieb The Starmaker: > > > > >>>>>>> There above are Two primary colors > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 1.red, yellow, and blue > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 2.red, green, and blue > > >>>>>>> > > >> ... > > >>>>>>> My question is...why are there two "primary" colors on earth? > > >> > > >> Answer: > > >> 1.) subtractive mixture of colours above a white surface > > >> 2.) additive mixture of light of different colour on a black background > > >> > > >> You can easily see the difference on your computer screen, if you use a > > >> strong magnifying lens. > > >> > > >> Then you would see tiny dots in red, blue and green, which together > > >> create the impression of white. > > >> > > >> If you subtract the colours, you use the opposite colours called yellow, > > >> magenta and cyan, (which is roughly yellow red and blue). > > > > > > > > > So, if you mix (yellow and blue) what color do you get, a subtractive color, a secondary color, or a primary color? > > > > You use the term 'colour' in different meanings. This is not helpful, if > > you want someone would understand what you write. > > The operative word is "primary", not color. PRIMARY! > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary > > Not secondary, not subtractive...Primary! > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary-color > > > 1. > Art. a color, as red, yellow, or blue, that in mixture yields other > colors. > > 2. > Optics. any of a set of monochromatic colors, as red, green, and blue, > ... > > Don't you see that there are TWO sets of primary colors? Or are you > color blind??? I understand you people don't seem to understand how the universe works, how it is setup to work... i'm here to help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-07 10:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Red, Blue and Green |
| Message-ID | <XnsA67C67E6E956Ctaustingmail@69.16.179.43> |
| In reply to | #596185 |
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:57D047D7.1246@ix.netcom.com:
> I understand
No. You don't.
--
Terry Austin
Tom "The Crap Man" Kratman is my bitch.
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 09:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Red, Blue and Green |
| Message-ID | <57E16813.B70@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #595712 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu niedziela, 11 września 2016 05:46:23 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > > > So 'primary colour' stems from the construction of the human eye and is > > not really a physical question. > > It sometimes takes so much blahblahblahblahblah > to reach the conclusion you have nothing to say. you mean a con artist?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 14:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <959c428e-4e0b-414c-908c-32ae35d2201e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595313 |
r.g.b is additive trichromacy per Alfven ... just kidding, per Mister kodaK > 1) Blue, Red, Green > > 2) Blue, Red, Yellow > > > > why are there Two primary colors on earth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5565b5ec-20d6-4b98-8f02-1b2382852b49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595068 |
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 10:08:25 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: > Viewing the spokes > > A wheel with spokes rolls on the ground. A stationary camera takes a > picture of the wheel. Due to the nonzero exposure time of the camera, > the spokes will generally appear blurred. At what location(s) in the > picture does (do) the spoke(s) not appear > blurred? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > answer, > > > The contact point on the ground does not look blurred, because it is > instantaneously > at rest. But although this is the only point on the wheel that is at > rest, there will > be other locations in the picture where the spokes do not appear blurred. > The relevant property of a point in the picture where a spoke does not > appear > blurred is that the point lies on the spoke throughout the duration of > the camera’s > exposure. (The point in the picture need not, however, actually > correspond to the > same atom on the spoke.) > At a given time, consider a spoke in the lower half of the wheel. A > short time > later, the spoke will have moved (via both translation and rotation), > but it will > intersect its original position. The spoke will not appear blurred at > this intersection > point. We must therefore find the locus of these intersections. We can > do this in > two ways. > First method: Let R be the radius of the wheel. Consider a spoke that > makes an > angle of µ with the vertical at a given time. If the wheel then rolls > through a small > angle dµ, the center moves a distance Rdµ. The spoke’s motion is a > combination > of a translation through this distance Rdµ, plus a rotation through the > angle dµ > (around the top end). > Let r be the radial position of the intersection of the initial and > final positions of > the spoke. In the following figure, we can write down two expressions > for the short > segment drawn perpendicular to the initial position of the spoke. > > Rdq > dq > q > q > r > The two expression are (Rdµ) cos µ, and r dµ (to first order in dµ). > Equating these > gives r = Rcos µ. This describes a circle whose diameter is the lower > vertical radius > of the wheel, as shown below. > 1 > q > r=Rcosq > wheel > Second method: Since the wheel’s contact point with the ground is > instantaneously > at rest, the wheel may be considered to be instantaneously rotating around > this point. This means that every atom in the wheel (both in the spokes > and the > rim) instantaneously traces out the arc of a circle centered at the > contact point. For > the point P in the figure below, this circle is the dotted one drawn > (with Q being > the contact point). A spoke will not appear blurred at the point where > this circular > motion is along the direction of the spoke. That is, a spoke will not > appear blurred > at the point where the dotted circle is tangent to the spoke, as shown. > R > q > P wheel > O > QWe are therefore concerned with the locus of all points P such that the > segments > PQ and PO are perpendicular. As seen in the previous diagram above, this > locus > is the circle whose diameter is the lower vertical radius of the wheel. > 2 My method can stop the blur. I do talks on this.At MIT and here in S. Mexifornia.(California) TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 20:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nqip84$quf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #595809 |
"reber g=emc^2" wrote: I do talks on this. At MIT and here me being <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine> and also > <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> the sanctimonious Full-Swine Glazier who often posts: "god and religion is hocus pocus" and now that Glazier is doing his final twitching he trembles and prays: "Open Mind of God. Best to go with God, and be nice" > hanson wrote: But Glazier you Swine, it is YOU that is NOT nice, and things have not gotten any better because YOU came back after you wrote: > Full Swine & Cretin Glazier wrote: > "Why am I not loved by all?" > "I might leave if things do not get better"..because... > <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Glazier whose G=EMC^2 is short for "Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism", (Zika & or by his genetic ashkeNazi marker) defines Bert, reber Trebert, or Treb as the loud mouth, the misogynic Peeping Tom (lifts & looks under the shirts of girls) the Jewish Jailbird, the Liar, Hatemonger, schizoid mental cripple, Pervert Face- Shitter, criminal Graveyard vandal, Bigot, Racist, War-monger & Communist :B::ert Glazier who introduces himself with/as.... > :B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex & :B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works,.." :B:: "My Grandfathers had tails". -- Trebert :B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert. :B:: "I'm a non-bible(torra) Jew. I'm the only Jew that :B:: got 2 form letters from two Popes". Bert :B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__. > :B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's face :B:: to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide". :B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh". :B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__. > :B:: "I'm M&M's Clueless Fuck-faced turd".Bert. :B:: I'm "Siegman Fraud", "Bert, the Bowel Movement". :B:: "I gave G=EMC^2 (wrong & stolen) to the world" :B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert :B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert :B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__. > :B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and :B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. ".... :B:: cuz "I was mixing sulfur, carbon & iron together :B:: to make gun powder" ... & "while I was in custody :B:: of Osceola Sheriff Bob Hansel, for thieving, his :B:: deputies beat the shit out of me. So I bought a :B:: 357 magnum for death threats by Sheriff Bob. :B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__. > about which .... Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > "Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup." "Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__." "Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!." > "Glazier, your science is far worse than the man's on the street." "Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage." "Glazier, your brain is entangled with a used garbage can." > "reber, take your 'you know it all thinking' to your grave" . "reber, your horseshit gets old. Say hi to Allah for me.: "reber, you don't believe in science." > Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> "Harlow Campbell" succinctly added & wrote: > "Bert, your opinion doesn't count" "a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert" "Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker".... "Bert you are senile, dazed & confused" "Bert, you are Fucked in the head. > "Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)" "TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker". "Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking moron who ever came down the Mass Pike." "Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?" > "Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human fucking being". "Bert you are an idiot." "Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet." "Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck". > "Bert, you should be arrested" "Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your van seems to be a center for drug activity in the Wal-Mart parking lot"... .... .... about which.... > Aviation Consultant Jim Pennino jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Glazier, you are a spamming piece of shit... Your Cocaine usage explains a lot of your posts. You know nothing about government nor physics. You are drunk again. Give up and kill yourself. > Astrophysicist "Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote: > GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT! Saul Levy > Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote: > I know, you reber are an idiot. Glazier, you are babbling desperately. Is it sympathy or pity you're grasping for? Stop it, either way. > benj" Benjamin Franklin Jacoby <nobody@gmail.com> who recently nymshifted to "B Gates" <nobodyxx@gmail>, wrote: > One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was lobotomized. But Herb found poster "Double-A" who likes to be like Glazier, but "Alkie-Alkie" is another kook who is as dumb as Bert is... and promote that shitting into a bucket in a car is an achievement that is a laudable accomplishment... and both being Communists they demand entitlement to goods and services that were created by hardworking people while they themselves drink, party and frolic!... ... still waiting "to be loved by all"... > hanson wrote: So Glazier, given your Jewish Superiority complex and your IQ of 122 and you knowing how how everything works, ... how come ended up shitting into a bucket in a 25 year old Minnie Mouse van that you use as your residence on Wal-Mart's Parking Lot? ..... .... What went wrong, Glazier? > "What are they gonna say when Swine Glazier dies? Are they gonna say he was a kind man? He was a wise man? He had plans? He has wisdom? .... BULLSHIT, MAN!"... <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4> [D] BULLSHIT,... because Swine Glazier DOES have plans which Glazier, the Full-Swine, announced and posted at the ripe age of eighty (80) when Glazier became a criminal Graveyard Vandal who wrote: > (1) On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier wrote in: https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert. > Glazier's geriatric decay worsened, along with Glazier's chronic alcoholism and Glazier, the Olde Kacker, became a Coprophile IOW Glazier became a filthy Face Shitter at his age of 86, which Glazier proudly announced & posted... > (2) On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, Jew-Swine Glazier said to "benj" <nobody@gmail.com>: Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser. For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser. <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... after which... > Glazier, the Criminal Graveyard Vandal & Face Shitter got even worse over the next year and at Glazier's age of 87, Glazier widened his piggish Face-shitting habit, as seen when Glazier threatened... > (3) On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, as Swine Glazier wrote: Harlow HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net & Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>: "I'll be sitting on your face to take a shit & say: "Open wide". <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> after... > (4) The Criminal Swine Glazier rejected to recant, disavow & apologize, and refused to stop his practices & because Glazier at his age of 87+, Swine Glazier labeled himself as "Siegman Fraud" which is synonym with "Bowel-movement, acceting that __ "Glazier is a piece of shit"__. who, to boot, also announced that Glazier is a Transvestite who dons female dresses and a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice legs"... and that Glazier, also being a Peeping Tom, enjoys lifting & loooking up under the skirts of girls... > hanson wrote: Now Glazier, since you are a curse and an embarrassment, day-in and day-out, to every Jew everywhere, has it dawned on you sorry, geriatric Transie-Swine, that as soon as you have been "put away and under" Google will remove ALL YOUR posts from the USENET and the only thing that will remain and show your legacy, is because: > Glazier the Swine fortunately posted: .... "hanson made me famous".... > hanson wrote So, Glazier you Swine, you should be grateful to me & not wish me ill like you did above, in your sick hate mongering, since it is only because of hanson, that Web searches show for: > --- Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ---- 27'833 hits & rising --- reber g=emc^2 Face-shitter & Vandal ---- 27'953 hits & rising > which is why the mental cripple <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier> badly needs to be administered to with <http://tinyurl.com/G-EMC2-Recall-Therapy> ... > Now Glazier, you filthy Swine, "you will never be loved by all" but incredibly, Glazier, you do have groupies who love you, and haved become, voluntarily, your personal slaves of you, Faceshitter Glazier, who demonstrate their worship & their devotion to their master Glazier, by lying under & literally shit-eating Glazier's turds: <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> such as: > =1= Sefton "john" <johnsefton288@gmail.com> the delusional vegetarian loud-mouth from Canuckistan's town of Regina is under the influence of his Lysergic- and Solanine contaminated diet and so Sefton lays himself with gusto under Face-shitter Glazier's Sphincter and enjoys eating <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> and Sefton is impressed also with the Hate-mongering of > =2= <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> is Iran's Glazier. The Freak Muslime Mehram Maleki HATES Western culture & the USA, hates Xtians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, even Sunnis. Yet Maldrecki lays himself freely UNDER the Sphincter of Face shitter Jew Glazier who bragged <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> to have _"PFM"_= "Poop For Maleki", which the gay, Iranian Muslime, Maldrecki, consumed until he turned black & posted his <http://tinyurl.com/Maleki-Mehram-Selfie> > Then the 88 Year old Glazier announced that "Glazier is a Transvestite who dons female dresses & a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice legs"... which so impressed Maldrecki that Maleki showed his devotion and solidarity by going LGBT & had a Sex change operation, whose result she posted in <http://tinyurl.com/Maleki-the-TG-Girl>. > =3= "AA" <double-a3@hush.com> is __Glazier's "Ass Angel"__, aka "Abner Afterduft", the "Alcoholic Addict" who struts with his "AmoebA" brain, posted and yearns to be like Glazier, & "AA" doubles as "Anon Yidd. Mouse", <nobody@home.invalid> who does NOT mind that Full-swine Glazier is a Face shitter & a criminal Grave yard vandal, & Glazier who never recanted nor apologized for the overt criminal threats Glazier made.... .... >> > ...aux contraire, "AA", who is __Glazier's "Ass Angel"__, comes to the aid of Full Swine Glazier's criminality, & worse, the Jewish Pig "AA" cum "Anon Yidd Mouse", curses folks that point at Glazier's behavior, which makes Yidd Mouse to be an "AA" example of the lurid "Closeness" which the eminent Jewish Scholar Harold Wallace Rosenthal ||R:|| describes in his epic <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT> wherein it says: ||R:|| We Jews have a solidarity & a closeness to ||R:|| fellow Jews like none other in the world. ||R:|| We Jews are always 'as one' when it counts. > ||R:|| It's no secret that we Jews do not respect ||R:|| you gentiles. All of you are our enemies. ||R:|| Our Jewish beliefs are entirely different from yours. ||R:|| Our Talmud/Nedarim/Kol Nidre = "all vows" allows ||R:|| us Jews to lie, subvert and cheat you, the Goyim > =4= Strangely, the Austrian Hitleryouth Halbmutt Wabnigger, <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> sides with Glazier too, but said: ____ "Jews are a residue of failed evolution" _______ > =5= Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>, the "Rectal Vacuumist (Seattle) is a criminal Child-support dead-beat who greedily sucks turds out of Glazier's sphincter, especially when they are Methamphetamine preloaded as seen when Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>::JR:: wrote: ::JR:: I no longer want sex anymore. I masturbate. I've found that ::JR:: all these erections & masturbations can irratate my prostate. ::JR:: My problem mostly happens a few hours before I want to ::JR:: wake up, so I can't take Sudafed. ::JR:: Ejaculation is a mind-altering drug, no better than heroin ::JR:: or meth. So I've recently vowed to not masturbate... ::JR:: I use my left hand to smoke, masturbate and to type ... ::JR:: Does that make me smart ? -- I'd rather masturbate. ::JR:: She likes to squirt meth up her rear ( it makes her cum). ::JR:: but pussy is the last thing I want. ::::::: (cuz Relf is apparently interested now, with his "mouth wide ::::::: open", to let Swine Glazier shit into Relf's "kisser") ::JR:: My dreams, however, have been semi-erotic as of late..." > =6= ... and even earlier, ironically, signed up was kike "Bodaisky", <root@localhost.localdomain> who lied and claimed to be "Bo Dai" from China, but was in fact "Fagie Bodaisky", who lives off the tips he gets from being a rest-room attendant in a NY Bath house for gay Jews. > =7= "Andrew Vecsey" posting as <trudi.schwander@gmail.com> is another AshkeNAZI pervert, a twat mimicker, who enjoys spending her time under Glazier's Sphincter like the ones above. Like those pigs s/he does NOT mind that Jew Glazier is bragging to be a Face shitter and a criminal Grave yard vandal, but s/he objects and groans when that is pointed out & comes runnning to defend and side with Full-Swine Glazier, just like seen in =3= & <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT> > =8= The Wal-Mart Greeter "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> Mark L. Fergerson is another stupid & despicably filthy pig that enjoys spending his time under Glazier's Sphincter like the 7 ones above. Like those 7 other pigs, the Wal-Mart Greeter Ferkel does NOT mind that Jew Glazier is bragging to be a Face shitter and a criminal Grave yard vandal, but says that Glazier's criminal behavior, like Glazier's looking up/under the skirts of girls, is "not abusive" & insists that "Us old-timers gotta stick together." > =9= Israeli Zionist Yehiel Porat <poraty350@gmail.com> is another 80 year old AshkeNAZI pervert, who enjoys spending his time under Glazier's Sphincter like those pigs above who do NOT mind that Jew Glazier is bragging to be a Face shitter and a criminal Grave yard vandal, but object and groans when that is pointed out & come to defend and side with Full-Swine Glazier, just like seen in =3= & <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT> > > This bizarre perversion is well documented as seen here in: <http://tinyurl.com/magnum-opus-the-rectal-jew> <https://theendofzion.com/the-fecal-fixation-of-the-chosen-ones/> <https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=jewish+coprophilia>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 09:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4415adab-bce4-441b-a953-9ba8d36f5549@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595068 |
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 10:08:25 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: > Viewing the spokes > > A wheel with spokes rolls on the ground. A stationary camera takes a > picture of the wheel. Due to the nonzero exposure time of the camera, > the spokes will generally appear blurred. At what location(s) in the > picture does (do) the spoke(s) not appear > blurred? > > answer, > > > The contact point on the ground does not look blurred, because it is > instantaneously at rest. There is no "instantaneous". The wheel *moves* while the shutter is open, hence the contact patch will move, hence the lowermost spokes will be blurred. Now, if you want to talk about which spokes will be *least* blurred... Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <036f509d-8191-4f2f-9a1a-6cbf9e53d34a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596380 |
since the spoke is o'er the contact > Now, if you want to talk about which spokes will be *least* blurred... > > > Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 17:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d32ee0$0$43803$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596380 |
On 9/9/2016 12:08 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 10:08:25 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: >> Viewing the spokes >> >> A wheel with spokes rolls on the ground. A stationary camera takes a >> picture of the wheel. Due to the nonzero exposure time of the camera, >> the spokes will generally appear blurred. At what location(s) in the >> picture does (do) the spoke(s) not appear >> blurred? > >> >> answer, >> >> >> The contact point on the ground does not look blurred, because it is >> instantaneously at rest. > > There is no "instantaneous". The wheel *moves* while the shutter is open, hence the contact patch will move, hence the lowermost spokes will be blurred. > > Now, if you want to talk about which spokes will be *least* blurred... > > > Mark L. Fergerson > Actually, Mark, only the point of the wheel touching the ground which would be the rim is at rest. And even then that "point' will be rotating. But as we all know from the establishment science everyone here believes in, the rotation of a point particle will not produce any blurring in the camera image. OF course that "point particle" is NOT located on a spoke so for that reason your answer stands as correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-10 00:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rkvbad-vs1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #596404 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 9/9/2016 12:08 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >> On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 10:08:25 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: >>> Viewing the spokes >>> >>> A wheel with spokes rolls on the ground. A stationary camera takes a >>> picture of the wheel. Due to the nonzero exposure time of the camera, >>> the spokes will generally appear blurred. At what location(s) in the >>> picture does (do) the spoke(s) not appear >>> blurred? >> >>> >>> answer, >>> >>> >>> The contact point on the ground does not look blurred, because it is >>> instantaneously at rest. >> >> There is no "instantaneous". The wheel *moves* while the shutter is open, hence the contact patch will move, hence the lowermost spokes will be blurred. >> >> Now, if you want to talk about which spokes will be *least* blurred... >> >> >> Mark L. Fergerson >> > Actually, Mark, only the point of the wheel touching the ground which > would be the rim is at rest. And even then that "point' will be > rotating. But as we all know from the establishment science everyone > here believes in, the rotation of a point particle will not produce any > blurring in the camera image. OF course that "point particle" is NOT > located on a spoke so for that reason your answer stands as correct. A point is a mathematical construct and has nothing to do with cameras in the real world. During the time the shutter is open, EVERYTHING on the wheel is moving some amount both in rotation and linearly. How blurred anything is depends on the rotational and linear speed of the wheel relative to the view of the camera, the exposure time and the resolution of the camera. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web