Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #723722 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-17 15:00 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-01-19 21:52 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 43 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-17 15:00 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-18 10:53 +1100
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-17 16:07 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-18 12:29 +1100
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-17 18:43 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2019-01-17 20:03 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-17 20:40 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2019-01-17 21:17 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-18 11:02 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2019-01-20 02:58 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-20 12:41 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-20 14:09 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-20 23:38 +0000
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-20 18:54 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-20 20:03 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-20 21:05 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-20 21:08 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-20 21:24 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-20 21:31 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-20 21:59 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-21 03:35 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-21 13:10 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-23 15:54 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-20 12:51 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-19 00:49 +0000
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-18 15:28 -0600
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-01-23 15:30 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-24 03:35 -0500
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-18 16:06 +1100
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-18 10:02 -0600
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-18 14:12 -0600
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Leo Sgouros <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2019-01-18 12:18 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-18 15:26 -0600
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-18 17:25 -0500
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-18 17:24 -0600
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-18 15:09 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2019-01-17 18:11 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-17 19:10 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-17 20:16 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-18 10:07 -0600
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-19 00:05 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-19 16:15 -0800
Re: How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-19 21:52 -0800
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-17 15:00 -0800 |
| Subject | How does a prism divide up colours of white to their perspective sides? |
| Message-ID | <43ad4297-65b1-4487-9b40-aea55b5f8beb@googlegroups.com> |
If they have to move whole to one side coming out...? White light enters the whole back of the prism and somehow gets shifted sideways displaying the spectrum. How does colour gets separated sideways to a right place coming out? How would slowdown accomplish that light moving sideways inside? No. Science doesn't know how a prism works. Only that it does. But science always wants a lie. Mathematical God creates gravitation. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-18 10:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gacis5FamogU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #723722 |
On 18/01/2019 10:00 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > If they have to move whole to one side coming out...? > White light enters the whole back of the prism and somehow gets shifted sideways > displaying the spectrum. How does colour gets separated sideways to a > right place coming out? How would slowdown accomplish that light > moving sideways inside? The speed of light in glass varies[*] according to the frequency, so the angle that light gets turned through on entering the glass also varies according to frequency. The splitting into colours is a direct consequence of this. > > No. Science doesn't know how a prism works. > Only that it does. But science always wants a lie. Seems to me that science more than adequately addresses the question. Sylvia. [*] This is actually a nuisance when it comes to optical fibres, because it causes pulse spreading, and steps need to be taken to address it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-17 16:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f9ac5bba-5cc0-4834-b290-9508f991107d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #723729 |
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:53:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18/01/2019 10:00 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > If they have to move whole to one side coming out...? > > White light enters the whole back of the prism and somehow gets shifted sideways > > displaying the spectrum. How does colour gets separated sideways to a > > right place coming out? How would slowdown accomplish that light > > moving sideways inside? > > The speed of light in glass varies[*] according to the frequency, so the > angle that light gets turned through on entering the glass also varies > according to frequency. The splitting into colours is a direct > consequence of this. No. How does it all go to the right place Sylvia? > > > > > No. Science doesn't know how a prism works. > > Only that it does. But science always wants a lie. > > Seems to me that science more than adequately addresses the question. That is your scientific bigotry. Science has never been accurate and has never admitted to that. It is not worth its salt Sylvia. Mathematical God creates gravitation. Mitchell Raemsch > > Sylvia. > > [*] This is actually a nuisance when it comes to optical fibres, because > it causes pulse spreading, and steps need to be taken to address it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-18 12:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gacoeuFbpusU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #723731 |
On 18/01/2019 11:07 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:53:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 18/01/2019 10:00 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: >>> If they have to move whole to one side coming out...? >>> White light enters the whole back of the prism and somehow gets shifted sideways >>> displaying the spectrum. How does colour gets separated sideways to a >>> right place coming out? How would slowdown accomplish that light >>> moving sideways inside? >> >> The speed of light in glass varies[*] according to the frequency, so the >> angle that light gets turned through on entering the glass also varies >> according to frequency. The splitting into colours is a direct >> consequence of this. > > > No. No what? No the speed of light in glass doesn't vary with frequency? No you don't understand? No you want to believe it's a mystery that science can't address, and will not accept any explanation that contradicts that view? > > How does it all go to the right place Sylvia? > That follows directly from geometry if you accept the varying speed of light with frequency in glass. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-17 18:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0219f3ac-47af-400d-9f75-4f150ac3f9de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #723738 |
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 5:29:06 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18/01/2019 11:07 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:53:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 18/01/2019 10:00 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > >>> If they have to move whole to one side coming out...? > >>> White light enters the whole back of the prism and somehow gets shifted sideways > >>> displaying the spectrum. How does colour gets separated sideways to a > >>> right place coming out? How would slowdown accomplish that light > >>> moving sideways inside? > >> > >> The speed of light in glass varies[*] according to the frequency, so the > >> angle that light gets turned through on entering the glass also varies > >> according to frequency. The splitting into colours is a direct > >> consequence of this. > > > > > > No. > > No what? No the speed of light in glass doesn't vary with frequency? No > you don't understand? No you want to believe it's a mystery that science > can't address, and will not accept any explanation that contradicts that > view? > > > > > How does it all go to the right place Sylvia? > > > > That follows directly from geometry if you accept the varying speed of > light with frequency in glass. > > Sylvia. No. There is already proof in theory that light's constancy of speed doesn't slow down. Glass redirects it but it doesn't slow down light. If glass moves faster than slow light in the same direction it will back out to the very back of the medium. But that is the proof that light is always a constant speed instead. It would have to speed back up and slow back down both together... and that is clearly nonsense. You can't have it both ways science... The Nobel committee accepts this disproof revealing that light's constancy C speed has no exception theoretically now... Einstein is validated more. If you didn't believe him about order you are not doing science. You just want to think you are... take a correction that order is what science is about... not probability (statistical averages) or chaos... Mathematical God creates gravitational central order. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-17 20:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ecb90a55-be6a-4cec-a968-259be8a49095@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #723743 |
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:43:41 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 5:29:06 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 18/01/2019 11:07 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:53:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 18/01/2019 10:00 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> If they have to move whole to one side coming out...? > > >>> White light enters the whole back of the prism and somehow gets > > >>> shifted sideways > > >>> displaying the spectrum. How does colour gets separated sideways to a > > >>> right place coming out? How would slowdown accomplish that light > > >>> moving sideways inside? > > >> > > >> The speed of light in glass varies[*] according to the frequency, so the > > >> angle that light gets turned through on entering the glass also varies > > >> according to frequency. The splitting into colours is a direct > > >> consequence of this. > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > No what? No the speed of light in glass doesn't vary with frequency? No > > you don't understand? No you want to believe it's a mystery that science > > can't address, and will not accept any explanation that contradicts that > > view? > > > > > > > > How does it all go to the right place Sylvia? > > > > > > > That follows directly from geometry if you accept the varying speed of > > light with frequency in glass. > > > > Sylvia. > > No. There is already proof in theory that light's constancy of speed > doesn't slow down. Glass redirects it but it doesn't slow down light. That is exactly false. No extant theory of the propagation of light (including Einstein's) argues that light's velocity in vacuum is the same as in dielectric media. The differences are directly measured, you idiot. A flat plate of any transparent material with a refractive index different from that of the vacuum (that includes all transparent dielectrics) will slow down light that passes through it. That's how refractive index is DEFINED, you idiot. > If glass moves faster than slow light in the same direction > it will back out to the very back of the medium. But > that is the proof that light is always a constant speed instead. > It would have to speed back up and slow back down > both together... and that is clearly nonsense. > You can't have it both ways science... Yes, light slows down upon entering a transparent dielectric, then speeds back up upon exiting it. The speed of light is constant IN A GIVEN MEDIUM. Your babble is contradicted by measurement. The universe DOES NOT CARE what you consider "nonsense". > The Nobel committee accepts this disproof revealing that > light's constancy C speed has no exception theoretically now... > Einstein is validated more. If you didn't believe him > about order you are not doing science. You just want > to think you are... take a correction that order is > what science is about... not probability (statistical averages) > or chaos... Still more babble, but now it has no bearing on the refraction of light. > Mathematical God creates gravitational central order. In what sort of temple do you worship your mathematical god? Dr. HotSalt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-17 20:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <49de4fd9-7a5e-455e-ba05-c167ddc1893e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #723764 |
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 8:03:24 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:43:41 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 5:29:06 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 18/01/2019 11:07 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:53:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> On 18/01/2019 10:00 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>> If they have to move whole to one side coming out...? > > > >>> White light enters the whole back of the prism and somehow gets > > > >>> shifted sideways > > > >>> displaying the spectrum. How does colour gets separated sideways to a > > > >>> right place coming out? How would slowdown accomplish that light > > > >>> moving sideways inside? > > > >> > > > >> The speed of light in glass varies[*] according to the frequency, so the > > > >> angle that light gets turned through on entering the glass also varies > > > >> according to frequency. The splitting into colours is a direct > > > >> consequence of this. > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > No what? No the speed of light in glass doesn't vary with frequency? No > > > you don't understand? No you want to believe it's a mystery that science > > > can't address, and will not accept any explanation that contradicts that > > > view? > > > > > > > > > > > How does it all go to the right place Sylvia? > > > > > > > > > > That follows directly from geometry if you accept the varying speed of > > > light with frequency in glass. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > No. There is already proof in theory that light's constancy of speed doesn't slow down. Glass redirects it but it doesn't slow down light. If the medium moves faster than light in the same direction the light has to back out. When it reaches the back of the medium it has to both stop being slow and remain being slow. It can't stick to the back of the faster moving medium. Can you disprove that? > That is exactly false. No extant theory of the propagation of light (including Einstein's) argues that light's velocity in vacuum is the same as in dielectric media. > > The differences are directly measured, you idiot. Demonstrate that measurement of moving light outside the atom... how can we How watch propagating light? No. It would have to be known when it was emitted. How do we measure emission? We can't measure emission and the direction of it. We can't watch light propagate. No machine can see that. No eye can... It would have to be absorbed. How would science know that? How do we know we are dealing with the same given wave? That is stored... How do we know absorption happened? or emission? We can't watch it move either... If you give it a statistical average of speed its not the constancy of C. How can machines tell you light has absorbed in a particular atom or has been emitted by a particular atom? How could they show light propagating outside of the atom? The eye doesn't know particular light waves. Light has to be stored in the atoms of the eye. How can we see light inside those atoms? No. Science is the moron that claims it knows what it doesn't. > A flat plate of any transparent material with a refractive index different from that of the vacuum (that includes all transparent dielectrics) will slow down light that passes through it. By what measurement do you know? No. Science has that wrong... > > That's how refractive index is DEFINED, you idiot. > > > If glass moves faster than slow light in the same direction > > it will back out to the very back of the medium. But > > that is the proof that light is always a constant speed instead. > > It would have to speed back up and slow back down > > both together... and that is clearly nonsense. > > You can't have it both ways science... > > Yes, light slows down upon entering a transparent dielectric, then speeds back up upon exiting it. > > The speed of light is constant IN A GIVEN MEDIUM. > > Your babble is contradicted by measurement. The universe DOES NOT CARE what you consider "nonsense". > > > The Nobel committee accepts this disproof revealing that > > light's constancy C speed has no exception theoretically now... > > Einstein is validated more. If you didn't believe him > > about order you are not doing science. You just want > > to think you are... take a correction that order is > > what science is about... not probability (statistical averages) > > or chaos... > > Still more babble, but now it has no bearing on the refraction of light. Light constant speed doesn't slow in a medium but it does change direction... Mathematical God creates gravitation. > > > Mathematical God creates gravitational central order. > > In what sort of temple do you worship your mathematical god? > > > Dr. HotSalt God creates gravity in every temple... even if it were to fall... God sustains the temple. He can sustain tearing it down. No. God creates gravity. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-17 21:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e7b727d1-9b7f-453a-abdd-99c7881a3553@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #723769 |
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 8:40:12 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 8:03:24 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:43:41 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 5:29:06 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 18/01/2019 11:07 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:53:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > >> On 18/01/2019 10:00 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >>> If they have to move whole to one side coming out...? > > > > >>> White light enters the whole back of the prism and somehow gets > > > > >>> shifted sideways > > > > >>> displaying the spectrum. How does colour gets separated sideways to a > > > > >>> right place coming out? How would slowdown accomplish that light > > > > >>> moving sideways inside? > > > > >> > > > > >> The speed of light in glass varies[*] according to the frequency, so the > > > > >> angle that light gets turned through on entering the glass also varies > > > > >> according to frequency. The splitting into colours is a direct > > > > >> consequence of this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > No what? No the speed of light in glass doesn't vary with frequency? No > > > > you don't understand? No you want to believe it's a mystery that science > > > > can't address, and will not accept any explanation that contradicts that > > > > view? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does it all go to the right place Sylvia? > > > > > > > > > > > > > That follows directly from geometry if you accept the varying speed of > > > > light with frequency in glass. > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > No. There is already proof in theory that light's constancy of speed > doesn't slow down. Glass redirects it but it doesn't slow down light. > > If the medium moves faster than light in the same direction I'll give you credit, you keep finding surprising new ways to be wrong. Fix a light source to a table. Fix a detector to the same table where it can "see" the light source. Gate both the source and detector to a common time-keeping device. Pulse the light source and see how long it takes the detector to register. That gives you the speed of light. Now fix a plate of transparent dielectric between the light source and the detector. Trigger and wait as above. The light takes longer than if the plate weren't there. If you have ever taken a physics course you would have done this, so it wouldn't have to be explained to you. > the light has to back out. What? No. > When it reaches the back of the medium > it has to both stop being slow and remain being slow. No. > It can't stick to the back of the faster moving medium. The medium need have no motion with respect to the source or detector. > Can you disprove that? Sure. Do the experiment. > > That is exactly false. No extant theory of the propagation of light > > (including Einstein's) argues that light's velocity in vacuum is the > > same as in dielectric media. > > > > The differences are directly measured, you idiot. > > Demonstrate that measurement of moving light outside the atom... how can we > How watch propagating light? No. It would have to be known when it was > emitted. > How do we measure emission? > We can't measure emission and the direction of it. > We can't watch light propagate. No machine can see that. > No eye can... You are consistently wrong. > It would have to be absorbed. How would science know that? Because the detector indicates a detection. > How do we know we are dealing with the same given wave? > That is stored... How do we know absorption happened? > or emission? We can't watch it move either... You are consistently wrong, even when wandering off into phlosophical never-never land. > If you give it a statistical average of speed > its not the constancy of C. I did not do that. Nobody does. > How can machines tell you light has absorbed in a particular atom > or has been emitted by a particular atom? That's harder, but it has been done with isolated atom experiments. Get out of the seventeenth century already. > How could they show > light propagating outside of the atom? Who is "they"? Try doing the experiments. > The eye doesn't know particular light waves. Light has to be stored > in the atoms of the eye. How can we see light inside those atoms? > No. Science is the moron that claims it knows what it doesn't. You are babbling again. > > A flat plate of any transparent material with a refractive index > > different from that of the vacuum (that includes all transparent > > dielectrics) will slow down light that passes through it. > > By what measurement do you know? As above. Light source, detector, timer, dielectric plate. > No. Science has that wrong... You have no idea at all. > > That's how refractive index is DEFINED, you idiot. > > > > > If glass moves faster than slow light in the same direction > > > it will back out to the very back of the medium. But > > > that is the proof that light is always a constant speed instead. > > > It would have to speed back up and slow back down > > > both together... and that is clearly nonsense. > > > You can't have it both ways science... > > > > Yes, light slows down upon entering a transparent dielectric, then > > speeds back up upon exiting it. > > > > The speed of light is constant IN A GIVEN MEDIUM. > > > > Your babble is contradicted by measurement. The universe DOES NOT CARE > > what you consider "nonsense". > > > > > The Nobel committee accepts this disproof revealing that > > > light's constancy C speed has no exception theoretically now... > > > Einstein is validated more. If you didn't believe him > > > about order you are not doing science. You just want > > > to think you are... take a correction that order is > > > what science is about... not probability (statistical averages) > > > or chaos... > > > > Still more babble, but now it has no bearing on the refraction of light. > > > Light constant speed doesn't slow in a medium but > it does change direction... > > Mathematical God creates gravitation. > > > > > Mathematical God creates gravitational central order. > > > > In what sort of temple do you worship your mathematical god? > > > > > > Dr. HotSalt > > God creates gravity in every temple... even if it were to fall... > God sustains the temple. He can sustain tearing it down. > No. God creates gravity. Wow. Enjoy your delusions. They haven't changed in all the years you've been here. You've learned nothing. Dr. HotSalt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-18 11:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20c659b4-c409-44cc-a93f-f7a6a63edd8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #723776 |
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 9:17:57 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 8:40:12 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 8:03:24 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:43:41 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 5:29:06 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > On 18/01/2019 11:07 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:53:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > >> On 18/01/2019 10:00 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > >>> If they have to move whole to one side coming out...? > > > > > >>> White light enters the whole back of the prism and somehow gets > > > > > >>> shifted sideways > > > > > >>> displaying the spectrum. How does colour gets separated sideways to a > > > > > >>> right place coming out? How would slowdown accomplish that light > > > > > >>> moving sideways inside? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The speed of light in glass varies[*] according to the frequency, so the > > > > > >> angle that light gets turned through on entering the glass also varies > > > > > >> according to frequency. The splitting into colours is a direct > > > > > >> consequence of this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > No what? No the speed of light in glass doesn't vary with frequency? No > > > > > you don't understand? No you want to believe it's a mystery that science > > > > > can't address, and will not accept any explanation that contradicts that > > > > > view? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does it all go to the right place Sylvia? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That follows directly from geometry if you accept the varying speed of > > > > > light with frequency in glass. > > > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > > > No. There is already proof in theory that light's constancy of speed > > doesn't slow down. Glass redirects it but it doesn't slow down light. > > > > If the medium moves faster than light in the same direction > > I'll give you credit, you keep finding surprising new ways to be wrong. > > Fix a light source to a table. Fix a detector to the same table where it can "see" the light source. Gate both the source and detector to a common time-keeping device. Pulse the light source and see how long it takes the detector to register. That gives you the speed of light. > > Now fix a plate of transparent dielectric between the light source and the detector. Trigger and wait as above. > > The light takes longer than if the plate weren't there. > > If you have ever taken a physics course you would have done this, so it wouldn't have to be explained to you. > > > the light has to back out. > > What? No. > > > When it reaches the back of the medium > > it has to both stop being slow and remain being slow. > > No. > > > It can't stick to the back of the faster moving medium. > > The medium need have no motion with respect to the source or detector. > > > Can you disprove that? > > Sure. Do the experiment. > > > > That is exactly false. No extant theory of the propagation of light > > > (including Einstein's) argues that light's velocity in vacuum is the > > > same as in dielectric media. > > > > > > The differences are directly measured, you idiot. > > > > Demonstrate that measurement of moving light outside the atom... how can we > > How watch propagating light? No. It would have to be known when it was > > emitted. > > How do we measure emission? > > We can't measure emission and the direction of it. > > We can't watch light propagate. No machine can see that. > > No eye can... > > You are consistently wrong. > > > It would have to be absorbed. How would science know that? > > Because the detector indicates a detection. > > > How do we know we are dealing with the same given wave? > > That is stored... How do we know absorption happened? > > or emission? We can't watch it move either... > > You are consistently wrong, even when wandering off into phlosophical never-never land. > > > If you give it a statistical average of speed > > its not the constancy of C. > > I did not do that. Nobody does. > > > How can machines tell you light has absorbed in a particular atom > > or has been emitted by a particular atom? > > That's harder, but it has been done with isolated atom experiments. > > Get out of the seventeenth century already. > > > How could they show > > light propagating outside of the atom? > > Who is "they"? > > Try doing the experiments. > > > The eye doesn't know particular light waves. Light has to be stored > > in the atoms of the eye. How can we see light inside those atoms? > > No. Science is the moron that claims it knows what it doesn't. > > You are babbling again. > > > > A flat plate of any transparent material with a refractive index > > > different from that of the vacuum (that includes all transparent > > > dielectrics) will slow down light that passes through it. > > > > By what measurement do you know? > > As above. Light source, detector, timer, dielectric plate. > > > No. Science has that wrong... > > You have no idea at all. > > > > That's how refractive index is DEFINED, you idiot. > > > > > > > If glass moves faster than slow light in the same direction > > > > it will back out to the very back of the medium. But > > > > that is the proof that light is always a constant speed instead. > > > > It would have to speed back up and slow back down > > > > both together... and that is clearly nonsense. > > > > You can't have it both ways science... > > > > > > Yes, light slows down upon entering a transparent dielectric, then > > > speeds back up upon exiting it. > > > > > > The speed of light is constant IN A GIVEN MEDIUM. > > > > > > Your babble is contradicted by measurement. The universe DOES NOT CARE > > > what you consider "nonsense". > > > > > > > The Nobel committee accepts this disproof revealing that > > > > light's constancy C speed has no exception theoretically now... > > > > Einstein is validated more. If you didn't believe him > > > > about order you are not doing science. You just want > > > > to think you are... take a correction that order is > > > > what science is about... not probability (statistical averages) > > > > or chaos... > > > > > > Still more babble, but now it has no bearing on the refraction of light. > > > > > > Light constant speed doesn't slow in a medium but > > it does change direction... > > > > Mathematical God creates gravitation. > > > > > > > Mathematical God creates gravitational central order. > > > > > > In what sort of temple do you worship your mathematical god? > > > > > > > > > Dr. HotSalt > > > > God creates gravity in every temple... even if it were to fall... > > God sustains the temple. He can sustain tearing it down. > > No. God creates gravity. > > Wow. Enjoy your delusions. They haven't changed in all the years you've been here. > > You've learned nothing. > > > Dr. HotSalt You can't do those measurements... How can you see light be emitted? How can you detect light propagation? How can you see the absorption source? No. You have science you can't back up. Your experiment isn't capable of doing what you say. You need to learn something not me nerd. Education is for you not me. Look at your sheepskins on the wall... your status quo of authority won't win me. I won't lose to education. Only you will nerd... or should I call you the hard boiled egg of a doctor? Mathematical God creates gravitation. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-20 02:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <23d6f984-3b83-400f-a254-98048cb17040@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #723809 |
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 11:02:22 AM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 9:17:57 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 8:40:12 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 8:03:24 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:43:41 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 5:29:06 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > On 18/01/2019 11:07 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:53:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > >> On 18/01/2019 10:00 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > >>> If they have to move whole to one side coming out...? > > > > > > >>> White light enters the whole back of the prism and somehow gets > > > > > > >>> shifted sideways > > > > > > >>> displaying the spectrum. How does colour gets separated sideways to a > > > > > > >>> right place coming out? How would slowdown accomplish that light > > > > > > >>> moving sideways inside? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The speed of light in glass varies[*] according to the frequency, so the > > > > > > >> angle that light gets turned through on entering the glass also varies > > > > > > >> according to frequency. The splitting into colours is a direct > > > > > > >> consequence of this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > No what? No the speed of light in glass doesn't vary with frequency? No > > > > > > you don't understand? No you want to believe it's a mystery that science > > > > > > can't address, and will not accept any explanation that contradicts that > > > > > > view? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does it all go to the right place Sylvia? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That follows directly from geometry if you accept the varying speed of > > > > > > light with frequency in glass. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > > > > > No. There is already proof in theory that light's constancy of speed > > > doesn't slow down. Glass redirects it but it doesn't slow down light. > > > > > > If the medium moves faster than light in the same direction > > > > I'll give you credit, you keep finding surprising new ways to be wrong. > > > > Fix a light source to a table. Fix a detector to the same table where it can "see" the light source. Gate both the source and detector to a common time-keeping device. Pulse the light source and see how long it takes the detector to register. That gives you the speed of light. > > > > Now fix a plate of transparent dielectric between the light source and the detector. Trigger and wait as above. > > > > The light takes longer than if the plate weren't there. > > > > If you have ever taken a physics course you would have done this, so it wouldn't have to be explained to you. > > > > > the light has to back out. > > > > What? No. > > > > > When it reaches the back of the medium > > > it has to both stop being slow and remain being slow. > > > > No. > > > > > It can't stick to the back of the faster moving medium. > > > > The medium need have no motion with respect to the source or detector. > > > > > Can you disprove that? > > > > Sure. Do the experiment. > > > > > > That is exactly false. No extant theory of the propagation of light > > > > (including Einstein's) argues that light's velocity in vacuum is the > > > > same as in dielectric media. > > > > > > > > The differences are directly measured, you idiot. > > > > > > Demonstrate that measurement of moving light outside the atom... how can we > > > How watch propagating light? No. It would have to be known when it was > > > emitted. > > > How do we measure emission? > > > We can't measure emission and the direction of it. > > > We can't watch light propagate. No machine can see that. > > > No eye can... > > > > You are consistently wrong. > > > > > It would have to be absorbed. How would science know that? > > > > Because the detector indicates a detection. > > > > > How do we know we are dealing with the same given wave? > > > That is stored... How do we know absorption happened? > > > or emission? We can't watch it move either... > > > > You are consistently wrong, even when wandering off into phlosophical never-never land. > > > > > If you give it a statistical average of speed > > > its not the constancy of C. > > > > I did not do that. Nobody does. > > > > > How can machines tell you light has absorbed in a particular atom > > > or has been emitted by a particular atom? > > > > That's harder, but it has been done with isolated atom experiments. > > > > Get out of the seventeenth century already. > > > > > How could they show > > > light propagating outside of the atom? > > > > Who is "they"? > > > > Try doing the experiments. > > > > > The eye doesn't know particular light waves. Light has to be stored > > > in the atoms of the eye. How can we see light inside those atoms? > > > No. Science is the moron that claims it knows what it doesn't. > > > > You are babbling again. > > > > > > A flat plate of any transparent material with a refractive index > > > > different from that of the vacuum (that includes all transparent > > > > dielectrics) will slow down light that passes through it. > > > > > > By what measurement do you know? > > > > As above. Light source, detector, timer, dielectric plate. > > > > > No. Science has that wrong... > > > > You have no idea at all. > > > > > > That's how refractive index is DEFINED, you idiot. > > > > > > > > > If glass moves faster than slow light in the same direction > > > > > it will back out to the very back of the medium. But > > > > > that is the proof that light is always a constant speed instead. > > > > > It would have to speed back up and slow back down > > > > > both together... and that is clearly nonsense. > > > > > You can't have it both ways science... > > > > > > > > Yes, light slows down upon entering a transparent dielectric, then > > > > speeds back up upon exiting it. > > > > > > > > The speed of light is constant IN A GIVEN MEDIUM. > > > > > > > > Your babble is contradicted by measurement. The universe DOES NOT CARE > > > > what you consider "nonsense". > > > > > > > > > The Nobel committee accepts this disproof revealing that > > > > > light's constancy C speed has no exception theoretically now... > > > > > Einstein is validated more. If you didn't believe him > > > > > about order you are not doing science. You just want > > > > > to think you are... take a correction that order is > > > > > what science is about... not probability (statistical averages) > > > > > or chaos... > > > > > > > > Still more babble, but now it has no bearing on the refraction of light. > > > > > > > > > Light constant speed doesn't slow in a medium but > > > it does change direction... > > > > > > Mathematical God creates gravitation. > > > > > > > > > Mathematical God creates gravitational central order. > > > > > > > > In what sort of temple do you worship your mathematical god? > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr. HotSalt > > > > > > God creates gravity in every temple... even if it were to fall... > > > God sustains the temple. He can sustain tearing it down. > > > No. God creates gravity. > > > > Wow. Enjoy your delusions. They haven't changed in all the years you've been here. > > > > You've learned nothing. > > > > > > Dr. HotSalt > > You can't do those measurements... Of course I can. So can you, but you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears and shout LALALALALA MY MATHEMATICAL GOD CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA! > How can you see light be emitted? By detecting it. > How can you detect light propagation? I don't need to. I need to know it originated at one point and is detected at another. > How can you see the absorption source? "Absorption source" is a contradiction in terms. You can't speak science. You disqualify yourself from criticizing it by your own proud ignorance. > No. You have science you can't back up. False. I have science you refuse to look at. > Your experiment isn't capable of doing > what you say. You literally do not know what you're talking about. > You need to learn something > not me nerd. NERD? Is that the best you've got, boy? Yes, I'm a nerd. I am competent to take material things and make them do what I want, and to use them to investigate how the universe works. What I'm not qualified to do is talk out my ass like you've been doing, like you've always done, like you always will. > Education is for you not me. Look at your > sheepskins on the wall I have no sheepskins, idiot. >... your status quo > of authority won't win me. The only authority I recognize is Nature- the Nature you refuse to even look at, you... you PHILOSOPHER! > I won't lose to > education. The only education I have is that given to me by Nature. You're still as ignorant as ever because you refuse to look at it with innocent open eyes- instead you suckle at your twisted philosophy and won't even look at Nature. > Only you will nerd... or should > I call you the hard boiled egg of a doctor? It doesn't matter what names you call me. I know what I know because I actually looked at Nature. You should try it. Dr. HotSalt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-20 12:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b94edf72-5b78-40cf-9df2-90675b400c1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724095 |
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 2:58:15 AM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 11:02:22 AM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 9:17:57 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 8:40:12 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 8:03:24 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:43:41 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 5:29:06 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > > On 18/01/2019 11:07 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:53:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 18/01/2019 10:00 am, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > >>> If they have to move whole to one side coming out...? > > > > > > > >>> White light enters the whole back of the prism and somehow gets > > > > > > > >>> shifted sideways > > > > > > > >>> displaying the spectrum. How does colour gets separated sideways to a > > > > > > > >>> right place coming out? How would slowdown accomplish that light > > > > > > > >>> moving sideways inside? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> The speed of light in glass varies[*] according to the frequency, so the > > > > > > > >> angle that light gets turned through on entering the glass also varies > > > > > > > >> according to frequency. The splitting into colours is a direct > > > > > > > >> consequence of this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No what? No the speed of light in glass doesn't vary with frequency? No > > > > > > > you don't understand? No you want to believe it's a mystery that science > > > > > > > can't address, and will not accept any explanation that contradicts that > > > > > > > view? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does it all go to the right place Sylvia? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That follows directly from geometry if you accept the varying speed of > > > > > > > light with frequency in glass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > > No. There is already proof in theory that light's constancy of speed > > > > doesn't slow down. Glass redirects it but it doesn't slow down light. > > > > > > > > If the medium moves faster than light in the same direction > > > > > > I'll give you credit, you keep finding surprising new ways to be wrong. > > > > > > Fix a light source to a table. Fix a detector to the same table where it can "see" the light source. Gate both the source and detector to a common time-keeping device. Pulse the light source and see how long it takes the detector to register. That gives you the speed of light. > > > > > > Now fix a plate of transparent dielectric between the light source and the detector. Trigger and wait as above. > > > > > > The light takes longer than if the plate weren't there. > > > > > > If you have ever taken a physics course you would have done this, so it wouldn't have to be explained to you. > > > > > > > the light has to back out. > > > > > > What? No. > > > > > > > When it reaches the back of the medium > > > > it has to both stop being slow and remain being slow. > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > It can't stick to the back of the faster moving medium. > > > > > > The medium need have no motion with respect to the source or detector. > > > > > > > Can you disprove that? > > > > > > Sure. Do the experiment. > > > > > > > > That is exactly false. No extant theory of the propagation of light > > > > > (including Einstein's) argues that light's velocity in vacuum is the > > > > > same as in dielectric media. > > > > > > > > > > The differences are directly measured, you idiot. > > > > > > > > Demonstrate that measurement of moving light outside the atom... how can we > > > > How watch propagating light? No. It would have to be known when it was > > > > emitted. > > > > How do we measure emission? > > > > We can't measure emission and the direction of it. > > > > We can't watch light propagate. No machine can see that. > > > > No eye can... > > > > > > You are consistently wrong. > > > > > > > It would have to be absorbed. How would science know that? > > > > > > Because the detector indicates a detection. > > > > > > > How do we know we are dealing with the same given wave? > > > > That is stored... How do we know absorption happened? > > > > or emission? We can't watch it move either... > > > > > > You are consistently wrong, even when wandering off into phlosophical never-never land. > > > > > > > If you give it a statistical average of speed > > > > its not the constancy of C. > > > > > > I did not do that. Nobody does. > > > > > > > How can machines tell you light has absorbed in a particular atom > > > > or has been emitted by a particular atom? > > > > > > That's harder, but it has been done with isolated atom experiments. > > > > > > Get out of the seventeenth century already. > > > > > > > How could they show > > > > light propagating outside of the atom? > > > > > > Who is "they"? > > > > > > Try doing the experiments. > > > > > > > The eye doesn't know particular light waves. Light has to be stored > > > > in the atoms of the eye. How can we see light inside those atoms? > > > > No. Science is the moron that claims it knows what it doesn't. > > > > > > You are babbling again. > > > > > > > > A flat plate of any transparent material with a refractive index > > > > > different from that of the vacuum (that includes all transparent > > > > > dielectrics) will slow down light that passes through it. > > > > > > > > By what measurement do you know? > > > > > > As above. Light source, detector, timer, dielectric plate. > > > > > > > No. Science has that wrong... > > > > > > You have no idea at all. > > > > > > > > That's how refractive index is DEFINED, you idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > If glass moves faster than slow light in the same direction > > > > > > it will back out to the very back of the medium. But > > > > > > that is the proof that light is always a constant speed instead. > > > > > > It would have to speed back up and slow back down > > > > > > both together... and that is clearly nonsense. > > > > > > You can't have it both ways science... > > > > > > > > > > Yes, light slows down upon entering a transparent dielectric, then > > > > > speeds back up upon exiting it. > > > > > > > > > > The speed of light is constant IN A GIVEN MEDIUM. > > > > > > > > > > Your babble is contradicted by measurement. The universe DOES NOT CARE > > > > > what you consider "nonsense". > > > > > > > > > > > The Nobel committee accepts this disproof revealing that > > > > > > light's constancy C speed has no exception theoretically now... > > > > > > Einstein is validated more. If you didn't believe him > > > > > > about order you are not doing science. You just want > > > > > > to think you are... take a correction that order is > > > > > > what science is about... not probability (statistical averages) > > > > > > or chaos... > > > > > > > > > > Still more babble, but now it has no bearing on the refraction of light. > > > > > > > > > > > > Light constant speed doesn't slow in a medium but > > > > it does change direction... > > > > > > > > Mathematical God creates gravitation. > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematical God creates gravitational central order. > > > > > > > > > > In what sort of temple do you worship your mathematical god? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr. HotSalt > > > > > > > > God creates gravity in every temple... even if it were to fall... > > > > God sustains the temple. He can sustain tearing it down. > > > > No. God creates gravity. > > > > > > Wow. Enjoy your delusions. They haven't changed in all the years you've been here. > > > > > > You've learned nothing. > > > > > > > > > Dr. HotSalt > > > > You can't do those measurements... > > Of course I can. > > So can you, but you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears and shout LALALALALA MY MATHEMATICAL GOD CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA! > > > How can you see light be emitted? > > By detecting it. > > > How can you detect light propagation? > > I don't need to. I need to know it originated at one point and is detected at another. > > > How can you see the absorption source? > > "Absorption source" is a contradiction in terms. You can't speak science. You disqualify yourself from criticizing it by your own proud ignorance. > > > No. You have science you can't back up. > > False. I have science you refuse to look at. > > > Your experiment isn't capable of doing > > what you say. > > You literally do not know what you're talking about. > > > You need to learn something > > not me nerd. > > NERD? Is that the best you've got, boy? > > Yes, I'm a nerd. I am competent to take material things and make them do what I want, and to use them to investigate how the universe works. > > What I'm not qualified to do is talk out my ass like you've been doing, like you've always done, like you always will. > > > Education is for you not me. Look at your > > sheepskins on the wall > > I have no sheepskins, idiot. > > >... your status quo > > of authority won't win me. > > The only authority I recognize is Nature- the Nature you refuse to even look at, you... you PHILOSOPHER! > > > I won't lose to > > education. > > The only education I have is that given to me by Nature. You're still as ignorant as ever because you refuse to look at it with innocent open eyes- instead you suckle at your twisted philosophy and won't even look at Nature. > > > Only you will nerd... or should > > I call you the hard boiled egg of a doctor? > > It doesn't matter what names you call me. I know what I know because I actually looked at Nature. > > You should try it. > > > Dr. HotSalt Your just an hard boiled Egg wanting status quo authority over me. You can't win that. I have a Nobels for this year for real science that you want to judge. Go ahead lie about me and see what happens. God creates gravity. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-20 14:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a827c2cb-77b8-4a1d-afb7-31c2267deed7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724123 |
You are an imbecile. God creates imbeciles. So they have a purpose. Must have. Your purpose is to be used by myself to make my points of supreme genius, following your imbecilities. Praise be!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-20 23:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q230q7$1eb4$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #724134 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > You are an imbecile. God creates imbeciles. So they have a purpose. Must > have. Your purpose is to be used by myself to make my points of supreme > genius, following your imbecilities. I suggest you hand this short statement to a licensed psychotherapist and see what he or she says about it. > Praise be! > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-20 18:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f61f6285-d56c-442d-b026-de28bda3db58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724144 |
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 3:38:53 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > > You are an imbecile. God creates imbeciles. So they have a purpose. Must > > have. Your purpose is to be used by myself to make my points of supreme > > genius, following your imbecilities. > > I suggest you hand this short statement to a licensed psychotherapist and > see what he or she says about it. > > > Praise be! > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Man wants to say he knows it all. Too many people are lying to themselves and others about this truth. I hardly know anything... God creates gravity. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-20 20:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c33b9750-1e17-44e3-b933-2ef00d9bd9b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724144 |
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 10:38:53 AM UTC+11, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > > You are an imbecile. God creates imbeciles. So they have a purpose. Must > > have. Your purpose is to be used by myself to make my points of supreme > > genius, following your imbecilities. > > I suggest you hand this short statement to a licensed psychotherapist and > see what he or she says about it. I suggest you do just that and let us know. My medical acquaintances will simply smile and wish me the best of luck with all my efforts. At the worst I will be told that I am not a threat to society. Our professor in psychology, in IIT KgP, back in 1975, took an interest in me. He restated a line that I had heard long ago, from our class teacher Shri Mishra: There is drama about your writing. Not sure he was right, though; he was confusing poetry with drama, I believe. Drama sells, poetry doesn't. So, I make no money from writing. On the other hand, my writing is immeasurably superior to that of the money-makers, because it contains the truest poetry, that is, unmistable truth. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > > Praise be! > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-20 21:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f95981af-ccbc-45a1-9b70-fae75fcb2dc5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724164 |
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 8:03:53 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote > Drama sells, poetry doesn't. So, I make no money from writing. On the other hand, my writing is immeasurably superior to that of the money-makers, because it contains the truest poetry, that is, unmistable truth. ... says the World's Smartest Man, smarter even than Einstein... whose writing is "immeasurably superior"... but who can't spell "unmistakable"...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-20 21:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8aa7ec25-84f9-4e39-82ce-9d6dac56daac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724175 |
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 4:06:01 PM UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 8:03:53 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote > > > Drama sells, poetry doesn't. So, I make no money from writing. On the other hand, my writing is immeasurably superior to that of the money-makers, because it contains the truest poetry, that is, unmistable truth. > > ... says the World's Smartest Man, smarter even than Einstein... whose writing is "immeasurably superior"... but who can't spell "unmistakable"... One can safely trust the anal pnal to point out a typographical error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-20 21:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <66780591-1e58-457c-a105-a44d8ce588c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724177 |
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:08:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 4:06:01 PM UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 8:03:53 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote > > > > > Drama sells, poetry doesn't. So, I make no money from writing. On the other hand, my writing is immeasurably superior to that of the money-makers, because it contains the truest poetry, that is, unmistable truth. > > > > ... says the World's Smartest Man, smarter even than Einstein... whose writing is "immeasurably superior"... but who can't spell "unmistakable"... > > One can safely trust the anal pnal to point out a typographical error. I would think that the World's Smartest Man, even smarter than Einstein, would never make an error. Are you now admitting that you, in fact, make errors? This would be a first for you, in my own recollection...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-20 21:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f17895a6-25ef-4052-a340-8624ed7c021a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724179 |
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 4:24:48 PM UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:08:57 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 4:06:01 PM UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 8:03:53 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote > > > > > > > Drama sells, poetry doesn't. So, I make no money from writing. On the other hand, my writing is immeasurably superior to that of the money-makers, because it contains the truest poetry, that is, unmistable truth. > > > > > > ... says the World's Smartest Man, smarter even than Einstein... whose writing is "immeasurably superior"... but who can't spell "unmistakable"... > > > > One can safely trust the anal pnal to point out a typographical error. > > I would think that the World's Smartest Man, even smarter than Einstein, would never make an error. You are a dull anal dogmatic fellow with a cold heart, immune to anything new, great, good and exciting when that does not suit your dogma and prejudices. So you would never fail to think wrongly about Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole god among lotsa devils. Are you now admitting that you, in fact, make errors? This would be a first for you, in my own recollection...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-20 21:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <318ca2db-9a77-4516-9ee4-745bc000ccd2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724181 |
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:31:04 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > You are a dull anal dogmatic fellow with a cold heart, immune to anything new, great, good and exciting when that does not suit your dogma and prejudices. So you would never fail to think wrongly about > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole god among lotsa devils. ... and completely bat-shit crazy, too...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web