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

Groups > sci.physics > #680458 > unrolled thread

Re: AIN IT GREAT

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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#681140

On 4/15/2018 12:26 PM, kensi wrote:
> the transmitter would look like a bright light-bulb filament

It would look all sparkly and flickerish.

-- 
Grizzly H.

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

#681159

On 4/15/2018 1:17 PM, mixed nuts wrote:
> On 4/15/2018 12:26 PM, kensi wrote:
>> the transmitter would look like a bright light-bulb filament
> 
> It would look all sparkly and flickerish.
> 
The transmitter would look all dark (if properly designed). There might 
be some illumination in the room. Come you dumb-ass libs. Fantasy is NOT 
science. You can't even manage decent science fiction. Give it up.

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

#681198

In article <gkQAC.45831$rX2.27589@fx15.iad>, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:

> On 4/15/2018 1:17 PM, mixed nuts wrote:
> > On 4/15/2018 12:26 PM, kensi wrote:
> >> the transmitter would look like a bright light-bulb filament
> > 
> > It would look all sparkly and flickerish.
> > 
> The transmitter would look all dark (if properly designed). There might 
> be some illumination in the room. Come you dumb-ass libs. Fantasy is NOT 
> science. You can't even manage decent science fiction. Give it up.

Let there be sparkly.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.    @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'                                    /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone      This post         / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don!       insults Islam.  Mohammed

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

#681194

On 4/15/2018 11:26 AM, kensi wrote:
> On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
>> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
>> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
>> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
>> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
>> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
>> thermodynamics?
> 
> The signal will be attenuated by *any* receiving antenna, but it's the
> amplitude that will go down, not the frequency. If you could see radio
> like you see light, the transmitter would look like a bright light-bulb
> filament, but colored strongly rather than white, and receiving antennas
> would look dark, 

no.  you're transmitter is "white" over broad radio frequency, antennas
are tuned to small bands of frequency, so they will still look white to
ones radio eyes over the broad radio frequency.


> but maybe a bit reflective as well. A forest of enough
> of them in front of you might block out the view, 

Wrong.  google "phase cancellation in back lobe of antenna(s)"

> while fewer will just
> dim it, 

Wrong, entirely.

> like the shade and dappled light on a forest floor.

wrong.

google "multipath"

> 
> Other materials and objects would look from translucent grey to black or
> even pale depending on how much they tended to absorb, reflect, or
> transmit that wavelength.

wrong,
wavelength is too long for any of that unless your at 10 Ghz,
google "multipath"

> 
> You would also be able to tell AM transmitters from FM ones at a glance.
> AM ones would be flickering, 

Wrong, AM would be constant as they send out the LO constant, and
sidebands are down 50%, they do not flicker.

while FM ones would look steady but
> shifting minutely in color. 

wrong,
scale, what is deviation of FM, and average modulation frequency ? your
radio eyes cant see that.  A spectrum analyzer can, but not full scale
of the radio band.



And every station in your area would be a
> filament of a different color.

wrong, your eyes could not seperate out 10^9 colors

> 
> (This is a bit of a simplification, as it ignores diffraction,
> interference patterns, and polarization. The first two, while almost
> unimportant with visible light, are significant with radio waves,
> because the wavelengths are comparable to the sizes of everyday objects
> such as trash cans, windows, human beings, and whatever sort of thingy
> you are. Polarization means some radio waves might be blocked by a fence
> with closely spaced vertical metal bars but only somewhat dimmed by one
> with horizontal bars, or vice versa, or similar consequences. When
> dealing with visible light, these three phenomena are much more
> infrequently encountered, but the bright colors on butterfly wings come
> from diffraction, the glittery speckly effect at the fringe of a laser
> beam dot is an interference pattern, and some sunglasses dim direct
> sunlight a lot more than they dim the reflected light from objects by
> exploiting the former's polarization.)
> 

simplification excuse not accepted.

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

#681209

On 4/16/2018 12:24 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/15/2018 11:26 AM, kensi wrote:
>> On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>>> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
>>> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
>>> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
>>> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
>>> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
>>> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
>>> thermodynamics?
>>
>> The signal will be attenuated by *any* receiving antenna, but it's the
>> amplitude that will go down, not the frequency. If you could see radio
>> like you see light, the transmitter would look like a bright light-bulb
>> filament, but colored strongly rather than white, and receiving antennas
>> would look dark,
> 
> no.  you're transmitter is "white" over broad radio frequency, antennas
> are tuned to small bands of frequency, so they will still look white to
> ones radio eyes over the broad radio frequency.
> 
> 
>> but maybe a bit reflective as well. A forest of enough
>> of them in front of you might block out the view,
> 
> Wrong.  google "phase cancellation in back lobe of antenna(s)"
> 
>> while fewer will just
>> dim it,
> 
> Wrong, entirely.
> 
>> like the shade and dappled light on a forest floor.
> 
> wrong.
> 
> google "multipath"
> 
>>
>> Other materials and objects would look from translucent grey to black or
>> even pale depending on how much they tended to absorb, reflect, or
>> transmit that wavelength.
> 
> wrong,
> wavelength is too long for any of that unless your at 10 Ghz,
> google "multipath"
> 
>>
>> You would also be able to tell AM transmitters from FM ones at a glance.
>> AM ones would be flickering,
> 
> Wrong, AM would be constant as they send out the LO constant, and
> sidebands are down 50%, they do not flicker.
> 
> while FM ones would look steady but
>> shifting minutely in color.
> 
> wrong,
> scale, what is deviation of FM, and average modulation frequency ? your
> radio eyes cant see that.  A spectrum analyzer can, but not full scale
> of the radio band.
> 
> 
> 
> And every station in your area would be a
>> filament of a different color.
> 
> wrong, your eyes could not seperate out 10^9 colors
> 
>>
>> (This is a bit of a simplification, as it ignores diffraction,
>> interference patterns, and polarization. The first two, while almost
>> unimportant with visible light, are significant with radio waves,
>> because the wavelengths are comparable to the sizes of everyday objects
>> such as trash cans, windows, human beings, and whatever sort of thingy
>> you are. Polarization means some radio waves might be blocked by a fence
>> with closely spaced vertical metal bars but only somewhat dimmed by one
>> with horizontal bars, or vice versa, or similar consequences. When
>> dealing with visible light, these three phenomena are much more
>> infrequently encountered, but the bright colors on butterfly wings come
>> from diffraction, the glittery speckly effect at the fringe of a laser
>> beam dot is an interference pattern, and some sunglasses dim direct
>> sunlight a lot more than they dim the reflected light from objects by
>> exploiting the former's polarization.)
>>
> 
> simplification excuse not accepted.
> 
Sergio totally destroys "Dr. kensi's" PBS liberal science fantasy with 
actual engineering and science.

This is primary evidence as to why one should NEVER learn your science 
from libs at PBS (or from ANY libs for that matter).

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

#681232

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

You and your sidekick appear to be rather stupid.

-- 
Dinsdale

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

#681238

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

(kensi pupa's simplification demonstrates no knowledge of radio wave or
radio wave probagation(s), and incorrectly applies optical effects, it
is a whole different critter- if you have any specific questions please
bring them up, no problem. kensi pupa is still learning, it is ok)

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

#681240

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

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

-- 
Dinsdale

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

#681245

On 4/16/2018 8:51 AM, Dinsdale wrote:
> On 4/16/2018 9:28 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/16/2018 7:19 AM, Dinsdale wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2018 2:21 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2018 12:24 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 4/15/2018 11:26 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>>>>>>> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
>>>>>>> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
>>>>>>> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
>>>>>>> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
>>>>>>> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
>>>>>>> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
>>>>>>> thermodynamics?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The signal will be attenuated by *any* receiving antenna, but it's
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> amplitude that will go down, not the frequency. If you could see
>>>>>> radio
>>>>>> like you see light, the transmitter would look like a bright
>>>>>> light-bulb
>>>>>> filament, but colored strongly rather than white, and receiving
>>>>>> antennas would look dark,
>>>>>
>>>>> no.  you're transmitter is "white" over broad radio frequency,
>>>>> antennas
>>>>> are tuned to small bands of frequency, so they will still look
>>>>> white to
>>>>> ones radio eyes over the broad radio frequency.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but maybe a bit reflective as well. A forest of enough
>>>>>> of them in front of you might block out the view,
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.  google "phase cancellation in back lobe of antenna(s)"
>>>>>
>>>>>> while fewer will just
>>>>>> dim it,
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, entirely.
>>>>>
>>>>>> like the shade and dappled light on a forest floor.
>>>>>
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> google "multipath"
>>>>>
>>>>>> Other materials and objects would look from translucent grey to
>>>>>> black or
>>>>>> even pale depending on how much they tended to absorb, reflect, or
>>>>>> transmit that wavelength.
>>>>>
>>>>> wrong,
>>>>> wavelength is too long for any of that unless your at 10 Ghz,
>>>>> google "multipath"
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You would also be able to tell AM transmitters from FM ones at a
>>>>>> glance.
>>>>>> AM ones would be flickering,
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, AM would be constant as they send out the LO constant, and
>>>>> sidebands are down 50%, they do not flicker.
>>>>>
>>>>> while FM ones would look steady but
>>>>>> shifting minutely in color.
>>>>>
>>>>> wrong,
>>>>> scale, what is deviation of FM, and average modulation frequency ?
>>>>> your
>>>>> radio eyes cant see that.  A spectrum analyzer can, but not full scale
>>>>> of the radio band.
>>>>>
>>>>> And every station in your area would be a
>>>>>> filament of a different color.
>>>>>
>>>>> wrong, your eyes could not seperate out 10^9 colors
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (This is a bit of a simplification, as it ignores diffraction,
>>>>>> interference patterns, and polarization. The first two, while almost
>>>>>> unimportant with visible light, are significant with radio waves,
>>>>>> because the wavelengths are comparable to the sizes of everyday
>>>>>> objects
>>>>>> such as trash cans, windows, human beings, and whatever sort of
>>>>>> thingy
>>>>>> you are. Polarization means some radio waves might be blocked by a
>>>>>> fence
>>>>>> with closely spaced vertical metal bars but only somewhat dimmed
>>>>>> by one
>>>>>> with horizontal bars, or vice versa, or similar consequences. When
>>>>>> dealing with visible light, these three phenomena are much more
>>>>>> infrequently encountered, but the bright colors on butterfly wings
>>>>>> come
>>>>>> from diffraction, the glittery speckly effect at the fringe of a
>>>>>> laser
>>>>>> beam dot is an interference pattern, and some sunglasses dim direct
>>>>>> sunlight a lot more than they dim the reflected light from objects by
>>>>>> exploiting the former's polarization.)
>>>>>>
>>>>> simplification excuse not accepted.
>>>>>
>>>> Sergio totally destroys "Dr. kensi's" PBS liberal science fantasy with
>>>> actual engineering and science.
>>>>
>>>> This is primary evidence as to why one should NEVER learn your science
>>>> from libs at PBS (or from ANY libs for that matter).
>>>
>>> You and your sidekick appear to be rather stupid.
>>>
>> (kensi pupa's simplification demonstrates no knowledge of radio wave or
>> radio wave probagation(s), and incorrectly applies optical effects, it
>> is a whole different critter- if you have any specific questions please
>> bring them up, no problem. kensi pupa is still learning, it is ok)
> 
> Probagation(s)?  Don't you mean prorogation(s), Mr. Pooper guy, whom
> aren't lerning much of anything due to stupid?
> 

ah, I see,  you are crossposting from alt.godless.narcissists so all
things look stupid to you, even your mama.

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

#681243

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:26:58 -0400, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
>> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
>> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
>> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
>> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
>> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
>> thermodynamics?
>
>The signal will be attenuated by *any* receiving antenna, but it's the 
>amplitude that will go down, not the frequency. If you could see radio 
>like you see light, the transmitter would look like a bright light-bulb 
>filament, but colored strongly rather than white, and receiving antennas 
>would look dark, but maybe a bit reflective as well. A forest of enough 
>of them in front of you might block out the view, while fewer will just 
>dim it, like the shade and dappled light on a forest floor.
>
>Other materials and objects would look from translucent grey to black or 
>even pale depending on how much they tended to absorb, reflect, or 
>transmit that wavelength.
>
>You would also be able to tell AM transmitters from FM ones at a glance. 
>AM ones would be flickering, while FM ones would look steady but 
>shifting minutely in color. And every station in your area would be a 
>filament of a different color.
>
>(This is a bit of a simplification, as it ignores diffraction, 
>interference patterns, and polarization. The first two, while almost 
>unimportant with visible light, are significant with radio waves, 
>because the wavelengths are comparable to the sizes of everyday objects 
>such as trash cans, windows, human beings, and whatever sort of thingy 
>you are. Polarization means some radio waves might be blocked by a fence 
>with closely spaced vertical metal bars but only somewhat dimmed by one 
>with horizontal bars, or vice versa, or similar consequences. When 
>dealing with visible light, these three phenomena are much more 
>infrequently encountered, but the bright colors on butterfly wings come 
>from diffraction, the glittery speckly effect at the fringe of a laser 
>beam dot is an interference pattern, and some sunglasses dim direct 
>sunlight a lot more than they dim the reflected light from objects by 
>exploiting the former's polarization.)

Wow, I guess kensi proved me wrong when I said
it would be crickets outta her. LOL.

Thanks for the information, girl. Hugs!

-- 

Yours Truly,
Gregory Hall

"Tsk, tsk. No one appreciates his brilliance, poor fellow. 
(There might be a message in that for him.)"--Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

http://apprhondaleahkirkfries.blogspot.com/2014/05/rhonda-leah-kirk-fries-interview.html

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

#681246

On 4/16/2018 9:12 AM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:26:58 -0400, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>>> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
>>> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
>>> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
>>> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
>>> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
>>> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
>>> thermodynamics?
>>
>> The signal will be attenuated by *any* receiving antenna, but it's the 
>> amplitude that will go down, not the frequency. If you could see radio 
>> like you see light, the transmitter would look like a bright light-bulb 
>> filament, but colored strongly rather than white, and receiving antennas 
>> would look dark, but maybe a bit reflective as well. A forest of enough 
>> of them in front of you might block out the view, while fewer will just 
>> dim it, like the shade and dappled light on a forest floor.
>>
>> Other materials and objects would look from translucent grey to black or 
>> even pale depending on how much they tended to absorb, reflect, or 
>> transmit that wavelength.
>>
>> You would also be able to tell AM transmitters from FM ones at a glance. 
>> AM ones would be flickering, while FM ones would look steady but 
>> shifting minutely in color. And every station in your area would be a 
>> filament of a different color.
>>
>> (This is a bit of a simplification, as it ignores diffraction, 
>> interference patterns, and polarization. The first two, while almost 
>> unimportant with visible light, are significant with radio waves, 
>> because the wavelengths are comparable to the sizes of everyday objects 
>> such as trash cans, windows, human beings, and whatever sort of thingy 
>> you are. Polarization means some radio waves might be blocked by a fence 
>> with closely spaced vertical metal bars but only somewhat dimmed by one 
>> with horizontal bars, or vice versa, or similar consequences. When 
>> dealing with visible light, these three phenomena are much more 
>> infrequently encountered, but the bright colors on butterfly wings come 
>>from diffraction, the glittery speckly effect at the fringe of a laser 
>> beam dot is an interference pattern, and some sunglasses dim direct 
>> sunlight a lot more than they dim the reflected light from objects by 
>> exploiting the former's polarization.)
> 
> Wow, I guess kensi proved me wrong when I said
> it would be crickets outta her. LOL.
> 
> Thanks for the information, girl. Hugs!
> 

yes, good news, kensi pupa gets a  B for actually posting science stuff
in sci.physics.

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

#681263

On 4/16/2018 10:51 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/16/2018 9:12 AM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:26:58 -0400, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/14/2018 6:24 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>>>> This being the case, it would indicate that the radio waves
>>>> suffer some sort of energy loss and would end up being radio
>>>> wave red-shifted and thus the next crystal receiver would
>>>> *see* them at a less energetic or lower frequency. But, this
>>>> seems not to be the case. So, just what the fuck's going on
>>>> and doesn't this make a mockery out of the second law of
>>>> thermodynamics?
>>>
>>> The signal will be attenuated by *any* receiving antenna, but it's the
>>> amplitude that will go down, not the frequency. If you could see radio
>>> like you see light, the transmitter would look like a bright light-bulb
>>> filament, but colored strongly rather than white, and receiving antennas
>>> would look dark, but maybe a bit reflective as well. A forest of enough
>>> of them in front of you might block out the view, while fewer will just
>>> dim it, like the shade and dappled light on a forest floor.
>>>
>>> Other materials and objects would look from translucent grey to black or
>>> even pale depending on how much they tended to absorb, reflect, or
>>> transmit that wavelength.
>>>
>>> You would also be able to tell AM transmitters from FM ones at a glance.
>>> AM ones would be flickering, while FM ones would look steady but
>>> shifting minutely in color. And every station in your area would be a
>>> filament of a different color.
>>>
>>> (This is a bit of a simplification, as it ignores diffraction,
>>> interference patterns, and polarization. The first two, while almost
>>> unimportant with visible light, are significant with radio waves,
>>> because the wavelengths are comparable to the sizes of everyday objects
>>> such as trash cans, windows, human beings, and whatever sort of thingy
>>> you are. Polarization means some radio waves might be blocked by a fence
>>> with closely spaced vertical metal bars but only somewhat dimmed by one
>>> with horizontal bars, or vice versa, or similar consequences. When
>>> dealing with visible light, these three phenomena are much more
>>> infrequently encountered, but the bright colors on butterfly wings come
>> >from diffraction, the glittery speckly effect at the fringe of a laser 
>>> beam dot is an interference pattern, and some sunglasses dim direct
>>> sunlight a lot more than they dim the reflected light from objects by
>>> exploiting the former's polarization.)
>>
>> Wow, I guess kensi proved me wrong when I said
>> it would be crickets outta her. LOL.
>>
>> Thanks for the information, girl. Hugs!
>>
> 
> yes, good news, kensi pupa gets a  B for actually posting science stuff
> in sci.physics.
> 
Nope. C- for posting science TOPICS but doing so with Lib PBS fantasy 
instead of actual science! It would be like me posting a fantasy about 
if one could actually put on a environmental suit and explore through 
the stink inside "kensi's" brain and calling it "biology".

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web