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

Groups > sci.physics > #533035 > unrolled thread

Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:38 +0000
    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 17:59 +0100
      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 17:28 +0000
      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-14 19:27 +0000
        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 20:14 +0000
      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 17:55 -0800
    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 11:54 -0800
      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 20:32 +0000
        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 13:03 -0800
      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 03:40 -0500
      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 17:43 -0800
    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 06:10 -0800
      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-03 14:43 +0000
      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 10:02 -0500
        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 18:39 -0800

#533035 — Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ?

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> Dne 14/11/2015 v 17:08 Y napsal(a):
>> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:04:30 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>> No objections about what was observed. It is the classic.
>>>
>>> But observed does not mean objective.
>>> Human opinion to say it is of this colour is required, therefore it
>>> subjective. It is not intrinsic property.
>> 
>> Science regards human observation.
> 
> objective parameters, intrinsic to observed objects,
> and subjective parameters, involving subject opinion.
> --------------
> Colour is blue only only with human opinion it is blue.

Bullshit, you misunderstood entirely what the monochromatic blue light 
stands for. There is namely NO way having subjective evaluation. This is 
an OBJECTIVE evaluation ONLY.

> Being blue is not attribute of light nor object.

LOL, of course is it. Without which you can't (CANNOT) see the object or 
the entity.

> 
> It is attribute of the subject evaluation,
> while the other subject may ( and often do ) evaluate it differently.

NOO. You are such a moron, pout.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#533041

Dne 14/11/2015 v 17:38 Ty Knotts napsal(a):
> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

>> objective parameters, intrinsic to observed objects,
>> and subjective parameters, involving subject opinion.
>> --------------
>> Colour is blue only only with human opinion it is blue.
> 
> Bullshit, you misunderstood entirely what the monochromatic blue light 
> stands for. There is namely NO way having subjective evaluation. This is 
> an OBJECTIVE evaluation ONLY.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Calling light from a particular wavelength range blue
is purely human convention, based on majority opinion.

IF as you say being blue is light attribute,
it cannot be changed by human decision.

If we decide blue is above 435 nm instead of current 430 nm,
what happen with "objective" light attribute
of previously violet light with wl 420 nm ?

Will it be still "objectively" violet,
or "objectively" blue already ?

> 
>> Being blue is not attribute of light nor object.
> 
> LOL, of course is it. Without which you can't (CANNOT) see the object or 
> the entity.

You confuse objective with existing
and subjective with apparent.

You need not objective colour to see the light.


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533043

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

>>> objective parameters, intrinsic to observed objects, and subjective
>>> parameters, involving subject opinion. --------------
>>> Colour is blue only only with human opinion it is blue.
>> 
>> Bullshit, you misunderstood entirely what the monochromatic blue light
>> stands for. There is namely NO way having subjective evaluation. This
>> is an OBJECTIVE evaluation ONLY.
> 
> You do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Calling light from a particular wavelength range blue is purely human
> convention, based on majority opinion.

But is not a personal subjective assessment, you doped scandal. All will 
agree on the wavelength of that color, disregard any language. Hence you 
are totally wrong in Divergetn Matter by saying that the "colors are 
subjective". They are not. You are so fuckning stupid. Is egzactly the 
opposite.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533068

Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> writes:

>Dne 14/11/2015 v 17:38 Ty Knotts napsal(a):

>>> Colour is blue only only with human opinion it is blue.
>> 
>> Bullshit, you misunderstood entirely what the monochromatic blue light 
>> stands for. There is namely NO way having subjective evaluation. This is 
>> an OBJECTIVE evaluation ONLY.

>You do not know what you are talking about.

>Calling light from a particular wavelength range blue
>is purely human convention, based on majority opinion.

>IF as you say being blue is light attribute,
>it cannot be changed by human decision.

>If we decide blue is above 435 nm instead of current 430 nm,
>what happen with "objective" light attribute
>of previously violet light with wl 420 nm ?

>Will it be still "objectively" violet,
>or "objectively" blue already ?

I remember reading somewhere how color perception is partly cultural, you
learn the "boundaries" when a small child.  Specifically, I remember 
reading how a Korean person would identify a green traffic light as blue,
because the boundary between green and blue are at a longer wavelength.
Westerners see it as green tinged toward blue (supposedly to help color
blind people identify it better).

Unfortunately, I don't have a reference for whatever I read, or any Korean 
people around.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533093

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Michael Moroney
napisał:

> I remember reading somewhere how color perception is partly cultural,

You seems severely retarded.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534957

the ramge of visible light is the canonical octave,
although at the blue and red ends,
it can be quoite composite (see "apparent trichromacy
of vision by that KodaK guy

> If we decide blue is above 435 nm instead of current 430 nm,
> what happen with "objective" light attribute
> of previously violet light with wl 420 nm ?
> 
> Will it be still "objectively" violet,
> or "objectively" blue already ?
> 
> > 
> >> Being blue is not attribute of light nor object.
> > 
> > LOL, of course is it. Without which you can't (CANNOT) see the object or 
> > the entity.
> 
> You confuse objective with existing
> and subjective with apparent.
> 
> You need not objective colour to see the light.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> 
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533088

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 8:38:28 AM UTC-8, Ty Knotts wrote:
> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> 
> > Dne 14/11/2015 v 17:08 Y napsal(a):
> >> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:04:30 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:
> > 
> >>> No objections about what was observed. It is the classic.
> >>>
> >>> But observed does not mean objective.
> >>> Human opinion to say it is of this colour is required, therefore it
> >>> subjective. It is not intrinsic property.
> >> 
> >> Science regards human observation.
> > 
> > objective parameters, intrinsic to observed objects,
> > and subjective parameters, involving subject opinion.
> > --------------
> > Colour is blue only only with human opinion it is blue.
> 
> Bullshit, you misunderstood entirely what the monochromatic blue light 
> stands for. There is namely NO way having subjective evaluation. This is 
> an OBJECTIVE evaluation ONLY.
> 
> > Being blue is not attribute of light nor object.
> 
> LOL, of course is it. Without which you can't (CANNOT) see the object or 
> the entity.
> 
> > 
> > It is attribute of the subject evaluation,
> > while the other subject may ( and often do ) evaluate it differently.
> 
> NOO. You are such a moron, pout.

NO Color means waves.Gravity works with no wqave function.Its particle force all the way to the core.(down) TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533099

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik reber g=emc^2
napisał:

> NO Color means waves.Gravity works with no wqave function.Its particle
> force all the way to the core.(down) TreBert

Me and Pout were talking about objects and colors. A gravity wave may be 
any. (if existent). However I never understood whether the empticity of 
space, or spacetime, would impose a NATURAL frequency to a gravity wave. 
(and what this specific frequency would be).

Thank you for your valuable input.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533106

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:32:33 PM UTC-8, Ty Knotts wrote:
> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik reber g=emc^2
> napisał:
> 
> > NO Color means waves.Gravity works with no wqave function.Its particle
> > force all the way to the core.(down) TreBert
> 
> Me and Pout were talking about objects and colors.

  Ahem. "Colorimetry".

> A gravity wave may be any. (if existent).

  Of course.

> However I never understood whether the empticity of 
> space, or spacetime, would impose a NATURAL frequency to a gravity wave. 
> (and what this specific frequency would be).

  Why should it? Free space doesn't do that to light.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533236

On 11/14/2015 02:54 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 8:38:28 AM UTC-8, Ty Knotts wrote:
>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
>>
>>> Dne 14/11/2015 v 17:08 Y napsal(a):
>>>> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:04:30 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No objections about what was observed. It is the classic.
>>>>>
>>>>> But observed does not mean objective.
>>>>> Human opinion to say it is of this colour is required, therefore it
>>>>> subjective. It is not intrinsic property.
>>>>
>>>> Science regards human observation.
>>>
>>> objective parameters, intrinsic to observed objects,
>>> and subjective parameters, involving subject opinion.
>>> --------------
>>> Colour is blue only only with human opinion it is blue.
>>
>> Bullshit, you misunderstood entirely what the monochromatic blue light
>> stands for. There is namely NO way having subjective evaluation. This is
>> an OBJECTIVE evaluation ONLY.
>>
>>> Being blue is not attribute of light nor object.
>>
>> LOL, of course is it. Without which you can't (CANNOT) see the object or
>> the entity.
>>
>>>
>>> It is attribute of the subject evaluation,
>>> while the other subject may ( and often do ) evaluate it differently.
>>
>> NOO. You are such a moron, pout.
>
> NO Color means waves.Gravity works with no wqave function.Its particle force all the way to the core.(down) TreBert
>
Totally ignorant and wrong. Have pity on the old man.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#537053

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:54:50 AM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 8:38:28 AM UTC-8, Ty Knotts wrote:
> > W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> > 
> > > Dne 14/11/2015 v 17:08 Y napsal(a):
> > >> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:04:30 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:
> > > 
> > >>> No objections about what was observed. It is the classic.
> > >>>
> > >>> But observed does not mean objective.
> > >>> Human opinion to say it is of this colour is required, therefore it
> > >>> subjective. It is not intrinsic property.
> > >> 
> > >> Science regards human observation.
> > > 
> > > objective parameters, intrinsic to observed objects,
> > > and subjective parameters, involving subject opinion.
> > > --------------
> > > Colour is blue only only with human opinion it is blue.
> > 
> > Bullshit, you misunderstood entirely what the monochromatic blue light 
> > stands for. There is namely NO way having subjective evaluation. This is 
> > an OBJECTIVE evaluation ONLY.
> > 
> > > Being blue is not attribute of light nor object.
> > 
> > LOL, of course is it. Without which you can't (CANNOT) see the object or 
> > the entity.
> > 
> > > 
> > > It is attribute of the subject evaluation,
> > > while the other subject may ( and often do ) evaluate it differently.
> > 
> > NOO. You are such a moron, pout.
> 
> NO Color means waves.Gravity works with no wqave function.Its particle force all the way to the core.(down) TreBert

Color is an EM function,but gravity can make photons become red or blue easily as coming or going from a gravity force.Think of  light coming from a fast spinning galaxy. Get the picture  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#537116

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 4:38:28 PM UTC, Ty Knotts wrote:
> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> 
> > It is attribute of the subject evaluation,
> > while the other subject may ( and often do ) evaluate it differently.
> 
> NOO. You are such a moron, pout.


Again, when one begins with a false assumption the results will ALWAYS be wrong.

In this case it's the misnomer gravitational 'energy'. Gravity is not energy per se. It is merely space's response to the presence of a mass.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#537123

суббота., Thu, 03 Dec 2015 06:10:26 -0800 пользователь HVAC написал:

> In this case it's the misnomer gravitational 'energy'. Gravity is not
> energy per se. It is merely space's response to the presence of a mass.

Absolutely. But this only because not the Mass, but because Matter is 
observed where Gravity phenomena takes place. The intrinsic characteristic 
of the Matter Diverging explain why Gravity always feels LOCALLY directed.

It appears clearly that Gravity can only be explained by my theory of 
Divergent Matter locally.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#537129

On 12/03/2015 09:10 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 4:38:28 PM UTC, Ty Knotts wrote:
>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Poutnik
>> napisał:
>>
>>> It is attribute of the subject evaluation, while the other
>>> subject may ( and often do ) evaluate it differently.
>>
>> NOO. You are such a moron, pout.
>
>
> Again, when one begins with a false assumption the results will
> ALWAYS be wrong.
>
> In this case it's the misnomer gravitational 'energy'. Gravity is not
> energy per se. It is merely space's response to the presence of a
> mass.

You believe gravity is just "space's response"?  Is that sort of like 
your belief in astrology? "Human response to position of the planets"?
You are such a trained and educated scientist! Bwahahahaha!



Come out of the closet, H&V, you'll feel better for doing so.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#537284

see Alfven cosomology for the ideal that
gravity is just a second-order property
of plasma physics

\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
>   /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
>   \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
>    \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
>     \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
>      \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
>       ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web