RELATIVITY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE WAVE MODEL OF LIGHT

[Pentcho Valev]

That relativity is incompatible with the particle model of light is more than obvious - sometimes clever Einsteinians explicitly admit this:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Silly Einsteinians counteract such challenges by claiming that light is a wave, not a particle, and therefore Divine Albert's Divine Theory is irrefutable, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. The problem is that the Divine Theory is incompatible with the wave model of light as well. The following video shows that, at least for water and sound waves, the wavelength remains unchanged and the apparent speed of the waves, that is, the speed of the waves as seen by the observer, increases (v'=v+u) when the observer starts moving towards the wave source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ps8BYnDG0A

Silly Einsteinians have a new counterargument: The motion of the observer may not be able to change the wavelength of water and sound waves but it does change the wavelength of light waves so that the speed of the waves as seen by the observer remains constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. This counterargument is too silly indeed and would be paid no attention in a sane atmosphere but in the insane atmosphere of Divine Albert's world it has to be dealt with:

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Valev_Shift_in_Frequency_Im.pdf
"Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light"

Pentcho Valev

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 03.11.2012 08:34, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Valev_Shift_in_Frequency_Im.pdf
From where I quote:
<<
The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to
the starting wavelength (at emission): lambda' = lambda,
>>

Have you checked if this claim is in accordance
with observations, Pencho?

If your claim is true, the H-alpha line in all spectra
should always be measured to be at 656.28 nm.

So how come the H-alpha line in the quasar 3C273
is measured to be at 760.2 nm?

http://www.stargazing.net/david/spectroscopy/jpg/SNAG-0029c2.jpg

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no> wrote in message news:k734a8$du9$1...@news.albasani.net...

====================================

 

3C723 is receding at 0.137c, that’s how come.

The opening speed of light from 3C723 is 0.863c.

The frequency doesn’t change because time is a universal

constant, one second per second.

See Dork Van de faggot about opening and closing speeds.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

 

 

[Pentcho Valev]

On Saturday, November 3, 2012 1:56:40 PM UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 03.11.2012 08:34, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> >
>
> > http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Valev_Shift_in_Frequency_Im.pdf
>
> From where I quote:
>
> <<
>
> The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to
>
> the starting wavelength (at emission): lambda' = lambda,
>
> >>
>
>
>
> Have you checked if this claim is in accordance
>
> with observations, Pencho?
>
>
>
> If your claim is true, the H-alpha line in all spectra
>
> should always be measured to be at 656.28 nm.

This is an invalid conditional, Clever Andersen. Try another one.

Pentcho Valev

[YBM]

A recent photograph of Pentcho Valev:
http://forumlyon.noomix.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/head-stuck-in-sand.jpg

[Paul B. Andersen]

You don't understand what we are talking about, do you?

If you heat hydrogen gas, it will emit light with the
'starting wavelength (at emission)' lambda = 656.28 nm.
This light is called the H-alpha spectral line.

This is a fact, Stupid Valev, and not something which
can be waved away with nonsensical comments.

You claim:

"The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to
the starting wavelength (at emission): lambda' = lambda, "

But when we observe the light from the hot
hydrogen gas in the quasar 3C273, the wavelength
of the H-alpha light at reception is measured to
be lambda' = 760.2 nm.

So lambda' =/= lambda

This is a fact, Stupid Valev, and not something which
can be waved away with nonsensical comments.


So now you will have to ignore the indisputable
fact that your claim is flat out wrong, because
cranks like you never care about experimental
evidence.

I am confident that you will confirm my words.
Won't you, Stupid Valev?

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Pentcho Valev]

Clever Andersen,

Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift by measuring the frequency, not the wavelength. Can you PROVE that the method used in measuring the quasar 3C273's redshift was wavelength-sensitive but frequency-insensitive?

Pentcho Valev

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ef0c5f52-109a-4f64...@googlegroups.com...

Clever Andersen,

Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift by measuring the frequency,

 

=========================================================

Silly Valev,

We don’t have the electronics to directly measure the frequency of light,

let alone a small change in it, even in 2012. You are getting as bad as the

relativists with your impossible claims.

[Larry Stones]

On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 00:34:22 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote:

> the second principle seems absurd: A
> stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown
> from a train at rest;

a stone is a fermion, a photon is a boson, diametrically
different things

bosons are rather links that links fermions, making them
to resonate and interact

also they are Alice in wonderland, nobody knows for sure

[Poutnik]

Pentcho Valev from pva...@yahoo.com posted Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:36:09 -0700
(PDT)

>
> Clever Andersen,
>
> Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift by measuring the
> frequency, not the wavelength.

Exactly said, they did not measure either wavelength either frequency.

The former can be done AFAIK only by Xray difraction
on crystals, as la 88.5 pm is comparable to hydrogen atom,
but I doubt about accuracy.

The latter is very high, 14 keV is equivalent 3.38e18 Hz,
that is very diffictult to measure, expecially precisely.


They determined needed relative move of the acoustic device
with gamma emittor to compensate gravitational redshift
by contraacting relastivistic doppler shift.

At given phase of ocilation the effects nullified each other
and the same kind of atoms could absorb that radiation.

> Can you PROVE that the method used in measuring the quasar 3C273's
> redshift was wavelength-sensitive but frequency-insensitive?

Can you show us wave measurement ( wave of the same kind )
that is wavelength-sensitive but frequency-insensitive ?


--
Poutnik

Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster, if combined
with no quoting by some GG users.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 03.11.2012 23:51, Poutnik wrote:
> Pentcho Valev from pva...@yahoo.com posted Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:36:09 -0700
> (PDT)
>>
>> Clever Andersen,
>>
>> Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift by measuring the
>> frequency, not the wavelength.
>
> Exactly said, they did not measure either wavelength either frequency.

What was (indirectly) measured was the energy and momentum
of gamma photons. Since the energy is given by the frequency,
and the momentum is given by the wavelength, you could say that
both were measured.

>
> The former can be done AFAIK only by Xray difraction
> on crystals, as la 88.5 pm is comparable to hydrogen atom,
> but I doubt about accuracy.
>
> The latter is very high, 14 keV is equivalent 3.38e18 Hz,
> that is very diffictult to measure, expecially precisely.
>
>
> They determined needed relative move of the acoustic device
> with gamma emittor to compensate gravitational redshift
> by contraacting relastivistic doppler shift.
>
> At given phase of ocilation the effects nullified each other
> and the same kind of atoms could absorb that radiation.

The Mossbauer effect was used.
This effect is basically that when an atom in a crystal
lattice emits/absorbs a photon, you get close to 'recoil free'
emission/absorption because the whole crystal is recoiled,
and not only a single atom. The effect is that the energy/momentum
of the photon is very precisely defined because (almost) nothing
is lost in the recoil.

In the Pound and Rebka experiment:
The source is a Co57 crystal. This is a radioactive Cobol
isotope, and decays to Fe57 (an iron isotope) with
an electron in exited state. When this electron falls
to ground state, a 14.4 keV gamma photon with a very precise
energy/momentum is emitted.

The absorber is a Fe57 crystal. The gamma photons will
pass through this absorber, to a detector/counter.
The absorber will absorb gamma photons only if the energy
is exactly right (equal to the one emitted). So when the
energy is exactly right, the counter will count a minimum.

The oscillation you are talking about was that (a bit simplified)
the source was moving rapidly (oscillating) up and down,
and absorption (minimum count) was observed when the phase of
the oscillation was so that the Doppler effect was just right
to compensate for the gravitational shift.
In other words, the speed the source must have to maximize
absorption was measured.

>> Can you PROVE that the method used in measuring the quasar 3C273's
>> redshift was wavelength-sensitive but frequency-insensitive?
>
> Can you show us wave measurement ( wave of the same kind )
> that is wavelength-sensitive but frequency-insensitive ?

Sure.
A diffraction grating spectroscope measure wavelength only.
That's the kind of instrument that is used to measure
the spectra of astronomical objects from IR to UV.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 03.11.2012 20:36, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 4:47:16 PM UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> If you heat hydrogen gas, it will emit light with the
>> 'starting wavelength (at emission)' lambda = 656.28 nm.
>> This light is called the H-alpha spectral line.
>>
>> This is a fact, Stupid Valev, and not something which
>> can be waved away with nonsensical comments.
>>

>> http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Valev_Shift_in_Frequency_Im.pdf
>> You [Pentcho Valev]claim:

>> "The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to
>> the starting wavelength (at emission): lambda' = lambda, "
>>
>> But when we observe the light from the hot
>> hydrogen gas in the quasar 3C273, the wavelength
>> of the H-alpha light at reception is measured to
>> be lambda' = 760.2 nm.
>>
>> So lambda' =/= lambda
>>
>> This is a fact, Stupid Valev, and not something which
>> can be waved away with nonsensical comments.
>>
>> So now you will have to ignore the indisputable
>> fact that your claim is flat out wrong, because
>> cranks like you never care about experimental
>> evidence.
>>
>> I am confident that you will confirm my words.
>>
>> Won't you, Stupid Valev?

> Clever Andersen,
>
> Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift by measuring the frequency, not the wavelength.

Irrelevant. See Putnik's posting and my response to it.

> Can you PROVE that the method used in measuring the quasar 3C273's
redshift was wavelength-sensitive
> but frequency-insensitive?

The spectrum of 3C273 was measured with
a diffraction grating spectroscope.
Diffraction grating spectroscopes measure wavelength.
Not frequency.
Not the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating

This is a fact, Stupid Valev, and not something which

can be waved away by stupid comments.

So try again?

Here are the facts:

If you heat hydrogen gas, it will emit light with the
'starting wavelength (at emission)' lambda = 656.28 nm.
This light is called the H-alpha spectral line.

But when we observe the light from the hot
hydrogen gas in the quasar 3C273, the wavelength
of the H-alpha light at reception is measured to
be lambda' = 760.2 nm.

So it seems that your claim:

"The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to
the starting wavelength (at emission): lambda' = lambda, "

is experimentally proven to be false.

Don't you agree, Valev?
Or do you agree?

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Poutnik]

Paul B. Andersen from som...@somewhere.no
posted Sun, 04 Nov 2012 14:06:31 +0100

>
> > Exactly said, they did not measure either wavelength either frequency.
>
> What was (indirectly) measured was the energy and momentum
> of gamma photons. Since the energy is given by the frequency,
> and the momentum is given by the wavelength, you could say that
> both were measured.

I agree. I have said "exactly said".
In rest you more verbosely said the same what I meant.

>
> >> Can you PROVE that the method used in measuring the quasar 3C273's
> >> redshift was wavelength-sensitive but frequency-insensitive?
> >
> > Can you show us wave measurement ( wave of the same kind )
> > that is wavelength-sensitive but frequency-insensitive ?
>
> Sure.
> A diffraction grating spectroscope measure wavelength only.
> That's the kind of instrument that is used to measure
> the spectra of astronomical objects from IR to UV.

I do know that :-) . It was a trick.

As whatever distinguishes readition according to wavelength,
distinguishes it also indirectly according to frequency.

It is similar as in case of Mossbauer effect.

Distinguishing radiation according to momentum and energy
is indirect distinguishing according to wavelength and frequency.

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.uvm.edu/~mfuris/INTRO_PHYSLETS/contents/oscillations_waves/sound/illustration18_4.html
"When the observer is moving, as in Animation 2, the sound waves emitted from the source are undisturbed. The wavelength does not change as observed from the moving observer. He/she just comes across more/less wave fronts per time (...) when moving toward/away from the source, and consequently sees a change in frequency."

Animation 2 acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon - on seeing it, Einsteinians get petrified for a long time. The thought that the same holds true for light waves (that is, relative to the moving observer, the frequency and the speed of the waves change while the wavelength remains constant) is unbearable. Eventually Einsteinians put all their hopes in another animation - it must clearly show that, for light waves, the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength so that the speed of the waves relative to the observer gloriously remains unchanged, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."

What? The same picture? The wavelength clearly does not change and the speed of the light waves relative to the observer is shown to be... No! Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity! Crimestop! Crimestop! Crimestop!

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

[kenseto]

On Saturday, November 3, 2012 8:56:40 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 03.11.2012 08:34, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> >
>
> > http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Valev_Shift_in_Frequency_Im.pdf
>
> From where I quote:
>
> <<
>
> The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to
>
> the starting wavelength (at emission): lambda' = lambda,
>
> >>
>
>
>
> Have you checked if this claim is in accordance
>
> with observations, Pencho?
>
>
>
> If your claim is true, the H-alpha line in all spectra
>
> should always be measured to be at 656.28 nm.
>
>
>
> So how come the H-alpha line in the quasar 3C273
>
> is measured to be at 760.2 nm?

Because the incoming H-alpha becomes a new light source in the
observer's frame and thus the observer's grating defines a new
wavelength for this new light source....this is much like different
light sources in the observer's frame have different measured
wavelegths.

[kenseto]

Wrong.....lambda' is the defined wavelength for a new light source in the
observer's frame. You can't compare lambda' directly with lambda to reach
the bogus conclsuion that the wavelength of the source is changed. The
correct conclusio is that the wavelegth of the source is universal and that
the observed change in measured frequency is due to the different speeds
of the incoming light.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bolzq27

From where I quote:
<<
The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to
the starting wavelength (at emission): lambda' = lambda,
>>

But here are the facts:

If you heat hydrogen gas, it will emit light with the
'starting wavelength (at emission)' lambda = 656.28 nm.
This light is called the H-alpha spectral line.

But when we observe the light from the hot
hydrogen gas in the quasar 3C273, the wavelength
of the H-alpha light at reception is measured to
be lambda' = 760.2 nm.

The spectrum of 3C273 was measured with

a diffraction grating spectrometer.
Diffraction grating spectrometers measure wavelength.

So it seems that your claim:

"The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to
the starting wavelength (at emission): lambda' = lambda, "

is experimentally proven to be false.

The hallmark of a crank is that he ignores experimental evidence.
Which is what you will do.
Won't you Pentcho?

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Henry Wilson]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 12:06:33 AM UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 03.11.2012 23:51, Poutnik wrote:
>
> > Pentcho Valev from pva...@yahoo.com posted Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:36:09 -0700
>
> > (PDT)
>
>

> >> Can you PROVE that the method used in measuring the quasar 3C273's
>
> >> redshift was wavelength-sensitive but frequency-insensitive?
>
> >
>
> > Can you show us wave measurement ( wave of the same kind )
>
> > that is wavelength-sensitive but frequency-insensitive ?
>
>
>
> Sure.
>
> A diffraction grating spectroscope measure wavelength only.
>
> That's the kind of instrument that is used to measure
>
> the spectra of astronomical objects from IR to UV.

Wrong again. According to BaTh, gratings are sensitive to both absolute wavelength and 'wavecrest arrival rate', which is proportional to arrival speed.

Here is the simple principle: http://www.scisite.info/bathgrating.jpg

> Paul
>
>
>
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 4:42:36 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> >
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/bolzq27
>
> From where I quote:
>
> <<
>
> The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to
>
> the starting wavelength (at emission): lambda' = lambda,
>
> >>
>
>
>
> But here are the facts:
>
>
>
> If you heat hydrogen gas, it will emit light with the
>
> 'starting wavelength (at emission)' lambda = 656.28 nm.
>
> This light is called the H-alpha spectral line.
>
>
>
> But when we observe the light from the hot
>
> hydrogen gas in the quasar 3C273, the wavelength
>
> of the H-alpha light at reception is measured to
>
> be lambda' = 760.2 nm.
>
>
>
> The spectrum of 3C273 was measured with
>
> a diffraction grating spectrometer.
>
> Diffraction grating spectrometers measure wavelength.
>
>
>
> So it seems that your claim:
>
> "The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to
>
> the starting wavelength (at emission): lambda' = lambda, "
>
> is experimentally proven to be false.

What is false is that your bogus assertion that the wavelength
of incoming H-Alpha light is changed magically during transit.
If you swim toward a source of water waves you will encounter
more waves of the same length per unit time....what this means
is that the arrival speed of water wave is increased....not your
bogus assertion that the wavelength of the water wave is shortened
magically to maintain your false notion that you are not swimming
toward the water wave source..

>
>
>
> The hallmark of a crank is that he ignores experimental evidence.
>
> Which is what you will do.
>
> Won't you Pentcho?

Pot kettle black.

[Big Dog]

On 11/15/2012 8:42 AM, kenseto wrote:

>
> What is false is that your bogus assertion that the wavelength
> of incoming H-Alpha light is changed magically during transit.
> If you swim toward a source of water waves you will encounter
> more waves of the same length per unit time....what this means
> is that the arrival speed of water wave is increased....not your
> bogus assertion that the wavelength of the water wave is shortened
> magically to maintain your false notion that you are not swimming
> toward the water wave source..
>

What is interesting is that, even in the water case, you can actually
*measure* the frequency and the wavelength, and you can determine that
the wavelength has not changed and the frequency has changed.

What is even more interesting is that, in the light case, you can
actually *measure* the frequency and the wavelength, and you can
determine that the wavelength has changed and the frequency has changed.

Any model that you would build for either the water case or the light
case would have to account for both those observations. It would be
rather stupid to say, "But I can't understand how the wavelength would
change, so it doesn't," and then insist that light and water waves
should behave identically when they do not.

[Big Dog]

On 11/12/2012 10:19 AM, kenseto wrote:

>
> Because the incoming H-alpha becomes a new light source in the
> observer's frame and thus the observer's grating defines a new
> wavelength for this new light source....this is much like different
> light sources in the observer's frame have different measured
> wavelegths.
>

Seto's method of thinking:
- Scratch head and decide that there is no way the wavelength could
change, and therefore it doesn't.
- Confront the fact that measurements of wavelength show it changes.
- Deny that the measurement is measuring the wavelength of the traveling
light, and insist that it must be some other light whose wavelength is
being measured.
- Demand that the wavelength of the traveling light be called
"universal" because using that word means the wavelength can't change or
it wouldn't be universal.
- Find SOME REASON ANY REASON DAMMIT to deny that the wavelength has
actually changed, because that would mean there is something happening
that Seto can't figure out, which is FUCKING UNACCEPTABLE!

[Henry Wilson]

On Friday, November 16, 2012 2:31:22 AM UTC+11, Big Dog wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 8:42 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > What is false is that your bogus assertion that the wavelength
>
> > of incoming H-Alpha light is changed magically during transit.
>
> > If you swim toward a source of water waves you will encounter
>
> > more waves of the same length per unit time....what this means
>
> > is that the arrival speed of water wave is increased....not your
>
> > bogus assertion that the wavelength of the water wave is shortened
>
> > magically to maintain your false notion that you are not swimming
>
> > toward the water wave source..
>
> >
>
>
>
> What is interesting is that, even in the water case, you can actually
>
> *measure* the frequency and the wavelength, and you can determine that
>
> the wavelength has not changed and the frequency has changed.



> What is even more interesting is that,

you continue this masochistic behaviour day after day.

> in the light case, you can
>
> actually *measure* the frequency and the wavelength, and you can
>
> determine that the wavelength has changed and the frequency has changed.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHA
HAHAHAHAAAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

This self-confessed scientific ignoramus really is the dumbest idiot to ever post here.
NOBODY HAS EVER MEASURED A 'FREQUENCY' OF LIGHT.

> Any model that you would build for either the water case or the light
>
> case would have to account for both those observations. It would be
>
> rather stupid to say, "But I can't understand how the wavelength would
>
> change, so it doesn't," and then insist that light and water waves
>
> should behave identically when they do not.

The observer cannot change the observed, dummy.

[Big Dog]

On 11/15/2012 12:26 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 2:31:22 AM UTC+11, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 11/15/2012 8:42 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>
>> What is interesting is that, even in the water case, you can actually
>> *measure* the frequency and the wavelength, and you can determine that
>> the wavelength has not changed and the frequency has changed.
>
> What is even more interesting is that,
> you continue this masochistic behaviour day after day.

Likewise. I wonder what you get out of it.

>
>> in the light case, you can
>> actually *measure* the frequency and the wavelength, and you can
>> determine that the wavelength has changed and the frequency has changed.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHA
> HAHAHAHAAAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> This self-confessed scientific ignoramus really is the dumbest idiot to ever post here.
> NOBODY HAS EVER MEASURED A 'FREQUENCY' OF LIGHT.

Ha ha. Of course they have. If you want to shout your declarations of
ignorance, then I suppose you have the right to.

>
>> Any model that you would build for either the water case or the light
>> case would have to account for both those observations. It would be
>> rather stupid to say, "But I can't understand how the wavelength would
>> change, so it doesn't," and then insist that light and water waves
>> should behave identically when they do not.
>
> The observer cannot change the observed, dummy.

Tell that to Galileo, who mentioned that whether an object has the state
of being stationary or the state of being moving is purely a result of
choice of observer. Lest you say that such a state is not an intrinsic
property of an object, neither is wavelength or frequency. Wavelength
and frequency are just as observer-dependent as being stationary or
moving is. That's a fact determined by observation, not by some royal
fiat from a loner in Australia.

[Henry Wilson]

On Friday, November 16, 2012 5:38:47 AM UTC+11, Big Dog wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 12:26 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 16, 2012 2:31:22 AM UTC+11, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> On 11/15/2012 8:42 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What is interesting is that, even in the water case, you can actually
>
> >> *measure* the frequency and the wavelength, and you can determine that
>
> >> the wavelength has not changed and the frequency has changed.
>
> >
>
> > What is even more interesting is that,
>
> > you continue this masochistic behaviour day after day.
>
>
>
> Likewise. I wonder what you get out of it.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >> in the light case, you can
>
> >> actually *measure* the frequency and the wavelength, and you can
>
> >> determine that the wavelength has changed and the frequency has changed.
>
> >
>
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHA
>
> > HAHAHAHAAAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> >
>
> > This self-confessed scientific ignoramus really is the dumbest idiot to ever post here.
>
> > NOBODY HAS EVER MEASURED A 'FREQUENCY' OF LIGHT.
>
>
>
> Ha ha. Of course they have. If you want to shout your declarations of
>
> ignorance, then I suppose you have the right to.

Instead of yelling, tell us exactly WHEN the frequency of light was measured.

Classically, the 'frequency' of light has been inferred as f = c/lambda...which in plain simple terms is 'wavecrest arrival rate'. It is clearly velocity dependent.

> >> Any model that you would build for either the water case or the light
>
> >> case would have to account for both those observations. It would be
>
> >> rather stupid to say, "But I can't understand how the wavelength would
>
> >> change, so it doesn't," and then insist that light and water waves
>
> >> should behave identically when they do not.
>
> >
>
> > The observer cannot change the observed, dummy.
>
>
>
> Tell that to Galileo, who mentioned that whether an object has the state
>
> of being stationary or the state of being moving is purely a result of
>
> choice of observer. Lest you say that such a state is not an intrinsic
>
> property of an object, neither is wavelength or frequency. Wavelength
>
> and frequency are just as observer-dependent as being stationary or
>
> moving is. That's a fact determined by observation, not by some royal
>
> fiat from a loner in Australia.

HAHAHAHHAAHHA!
You poor ignorant bastard!
Photon 'wavelength' ís intrinsic.

Why do you continue to make such a fool of yourself by posting to a science NG.
You don't have any scientific ability whatsoever.

[Big Dog]

On 11/15/2012 1:32 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:

>
> HAHAHAHHAAHHA!
> You poor ignorant bastard!
> Photon 'wavelength' ís intrinsic.

No, it's not. No matter what a loner from Australia rants on about it.

[Big Dog]

On 11/15/2012 1:32 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 5:38:47 AM UTC+11, Big Dog wrote:

>> Ha ha. Of course they have. If you want to shout your declarations of
>> ignorance, then I suppose you have the right to.
>
> Instead of yelling, tell us exactly WHEN the frequency of light was measured.

1999

>
> Classically, the 'frequency' of light has been inferred as f = c/lambda...which in plain
> simple terms is 'wavecrest arrival rate'. It is clearly velocity dependent.
>

Then you clearly have some catching up on reading to do.

[Henry Wilson]

On Friday, November 16, 2012 6:58:52 AM UTC+11, Big Dog wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 1:32 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > HAHAHAHHAAHHA!
>
> > You poor ignorant bastard!
>

> > Photon 'wavelength' �s intrinsic.

>
>
>
> No, it's not. No matter what a loner from Australia rants on about it.

HAHAHAHHHAHHHAHA! Only a real loner like you could spend 23 hours a day writing crap on the internet. Its time you cocked your leg on another tree shithead.

[Henry Wilson]

Oh sorry I forgot. You have never studied any physics. So I shouldn't post equations of any kind, no matter how simple.

[Big Dog]

On 11/15/2012 3:07 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 6:58:52 AM UTC+11, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 11/15/2012 1:32 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> HAHAHAHHAAHHA!
>>
>>> You poor ignorant bastard!
>>

>>> Photon 'wavelength' �s intrinsic.

>>
>>
>>
>> No, it's not. No matter what a loner from Australia rants on about it.
>
> HAHAHAHHHAHHHAHA! Only a real loner like you could spend 23 hours a day writing crap on the
> internet. Its time you cocked your leg on another tree shithead.

So it turns out you guess badly too.
You, on the other hand, have publicly paraded your loneliness.

[Big Dog]

You can post equations all day long if you like. It's the claim that
frequency of light has never been measured and that it is always and
only inferred from an equation that's bullshit.

[kenseto]

Dog-shit's method of thinking:
1. an 80 ft. pole can fit into a 40 ft barn with both doors close similutaneously. The same pole cannot fit into the same barn with
both doors close simultaneously.
2. All objects obey the ve;locity addition of light exacpt light.
The speed of light must be defined to save SR.
2. Th

[Big Dog]

On 11/15/2012 3:07 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:

>

> HAHAHAHHHAHHHAHA! Only a real loner like you could spend 23 hours a day writing crap
> on the internet. Its time you cocked your leg on another tree shithead.
>

You have this bad habit of projecting.

You assume that just because you have nothing else to do but post to
newsgroups, then everyone else who posts to newsgroups has nothing else
to do.

You assume that just because you live alone and post to newsgroups, then
everyone else who posts to newsgroups also lives alone.

You assume that just because you've never read anything and post to
newsgroups, then everyone else who posts to newsgroups has never read
anything.

You assume that just because you're a trolling imposter who posts to
newsgroups, then everyone else who posts to newsgroups is a trolling
imposter.

[Big Dog]

This also explains why you get along so well with Androcles, because he
posts to newsgroups, lives alone, has nothing better to do, has never
read anything, and is -- like you -- a trolling imposter. He must be
very attractive to you!

[Big Dog]

On 11/15/2012 3:30 PM, kenseto wrote:

>
> Dog-shit's method of thinking:
> 1. an 80 ft. pole can fit into a 40 ft barn with both doors close similutaneously. The same pole cannot fit into the same barn with
> both doors close simultaneously.
> 2. All objects obey the ve;locity addition of light exacpt light.
> The speed of light must be defined to save SR.
> 2. Th
>

Seto, are you alright? It looks like you had a seizure in the middle of
your post!

[Henry Wilson]

The equation f=c/lambda can have only one meaning.

If a chain has link spacing of L and is moving past a point at v, then the frequency of the link passage past that point is v/L. ...The same applies to light. That's elementary....but far too hard for an non-scientist like you.

[Big Dog]

Well, I see you DO want to talk about this equation all day long.
Nevertheless, your claim that the frequency of light has never been
measured is bullshit, and your claim that the frequency has always and
only been inferred from this equation is also bullshit.

[kenseto]

My computer went haywired...it posted before I was ready.
I was responding to you stupid charge that I was making up stuff
and it turns out that you are a case of pot kettle black.

[Big Dog]

That's not what I said or what I charged, Seto. You can't read.

[Henry Wilson]

To one whose life is completely submerged in bullshit, simple truths would be unrecognizable.

[Big Dog]

On 11/16/2012 11:57 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:

>> Well, I see you DO want to talk about this equation all day long.
>> Nevertheless, your claim that the frequency of light has never been
>> measured is bullshit, and your claim that the frequency has always and
>> only been inferred from this equation is also bullshit.
>
> To one whose life is completely submerged in bullshit, simple truths would be unrecognizable.
>

Agreed, and it's a pity you lead life that way.
Simple truths include historical facts like the direct (not inferred)
measurement of frequency of light.

[Henry Wilson]

You live in a fantasy world. I can only feel sorry for you.

[Big Dog]

On 11/16/2012 3:12 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:

>> Agreed, and it's a pity you lead life that way.
>> Simple truths include historical facts like the direct (not inferred)
>> measurement of frequency of light.
>
> You live in a fantasy world. I can only feel sorry for you.
>

The truly amazing thing is that those fantasies of historical facts like
the one I mentioned are shared by billions of people. Only a loner from
Australia can recognize that the rest of civilization is deluded by
these facts, and that Rabbidge Reality is the only One and True Reality.

Just don't get caught sleeping on the park benches, and don't piss in
the street.

[Henry Wilson]

Nobody has measured a frequency of any light you pathetic moron.

[Poutnik]

Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com
posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 01:24:45 -0800 (PST)

> Nobody has measured a frequency of any light you pathetic moron.

Not exactly light, but IR is just next, with used WL
in ratio 1 : 5 compared to visible light area border.

Speed of Light from Direct Frequency amd Wavelength Measurements
of the Methane-stabilized laser (1972)

astrophysics.wfis.uni.lodz.pl/100yrs/pdf/13/083.pdf

There is also noticed the main limitation is
old krypton based meter definition.

--
Poutnik

Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.

[Poutnik]

Poutnik from pou...@privacy.invalid
posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:00:25 +0100

>
> Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com
> posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 01:24:45 -0800 (PST)
>
>
> > Nobody has measured a frequency of any light you pathetic moron.
>
> Not exactly light, but IR is just next, with used WL
> in ratio 1 : 5 compared to visible light area border.
>
> Speed of Light from Direct Frequency amd Wavelength Measurements
> of the Methane-stabilized laser (1972)
>
> astrophysics.wfis.uni.lodz.pl/100yrs/pdf/13/083.pdf
>
> There is also noticed the main limitation is
> old krypton based meter definition.

Also here, but full article unfortunately is not for free.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030401899004915

Measuring the frequency of light with mode-locked lasers
J. ReichertCorresponding author contact information, E-mail the
corresponding author, R. Holzwarth, Th. Udem, T.W. H�nsch

Max-Planck-Institut f�r Quantenoptik, Hans-Kopfermann-Str.1, 85748
Garching, Germany

Abstract

We have stabilized the modes of a comb of optical frequencies emitted by
a mode-locked femtosecond-laser and used it as a ruler to measure
differences of up to 45.2 THz between laser frequencies in a new type of
frequency chain. Directly converting optical to radio frequencies, we
have used it for an absolute frequency measurement of the 1S?2S
transition in the hydrogen atom. Here, an intuitive model of the comb's
properties is given and essential techniques for its stabilization and
efficient detection of beat signals are presented.
Keywords

Frequency comb;
Femtosecond laser;
Frequency chain;
Optical frequency measurement

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:24:51 +0100, Poutnik wrote:

> Directly converting optical to radio frequencies, we have used it for an
> absolute frequency measurement of the 1S?2S transition in the hydrogen
> atom

Measurement of a converted frequency is not a measurement of the light
frequency, but a measurement of a measurable frequency


--

[Poutnik]

Jimmy Kesler from jim...@yahoo.com
posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:29:11 +0000 (UTC)

If light frequency is not measureable,
it is neither convertable, as you do not know what to convert.

[Poutnik]

Jimmy Kesler from jim...@yahoo.com
posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:29:11 +0000 (UTC)


>

Measuring is determining the value.
The value can be determined, therefore is measured.

The way from determined to registred value is irrelevant,
if there is strict relation.

There is many such measuremnts in instrumental science.

Neither radiofrequency is measured by your own words,
as it is converted to lower frequency by phase loop circuits
and then either to analogue voltage,
either to lower frequencies and later to digital info
for digital display.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:08:51 +0100, Poutnik wrote:

> If light frequency is not measureable,
> it is neither convertable, as you do not know what to convert.
>

if measurable why the need to convert?

--

[Poutnik]

Jimmy Kesler from jim...@yahoo.com
posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 16:01:37 +0000 (UTC)

Conversion is part of most measurements.

Do you think the scales are measuring weight ?
No.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 17:17:37 +0100, Poutnik wrote:

> Conversion is part of most measurements.
>
> Do you think the scales are measuring weight ?
> No.
>
>
> --
> Poutnik

Hey, your "scales" are readable indicators of the measured quantity,
please do not confuse !!!; don't need to be a scale, a number or any other
indicator would suffices.

We are talking about the light being converted to something else here. It
is as trying to measure the speed of a flying eagle by using a turtle,
take care !!!



--

[Big Dog]

On 11/17/2012 3:24 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:

>
> Nobody has measured a frequency of any light you pathetic moron.
>

I'm sorry, Ralph, but that's just factually wrong. Another statement by
you that is:
crapola
bullshit
humbug
tomfoolery
hokum
poppycock
blather
crap
drivel
hot air
piffle
malarkey
flapdoodle
eyewash
tommyrot
bosh
bilgewater

But then again, anything you're not familiar with doesn't exist for you.

[Poutnik]

Jimmy Kesler from jim...@yahoo.com
posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:03:46 +0000 (UTC)



Calm down.

> Hey, your "scales" are readable indicators of the measured quantity,
> please do not confuse !!!; don't need to be a scale, a number or any other
> indicator would suffices.

By scales I mean device to determine mass of objects
by determining related gravitrational force
and converting the value to a mass.

>
> We are talking about the light being converted to something else here. It
> is as trying to measure the speed of a flying eagle by using a turtle,
> take care !!!

Such conversions are made all the time in science.
Have you ever noticed ?

But, in any case, if speed of eagle is proportional to speed of turtle,
than why not to measure speed of turtle instead ?

[Poutnik]

Jimmy Kesler from jim...@yahoo.com

posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:03:46 +0000 (UTC)


>

Measurement is determining the value of quantity of interest.

The way how it is done is irrelevant,
if precision and accuracy fits the requirements.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:21:47 +0100, Poutnik wrote:


>> Hey, your "scales" are readable indicators of the measured quantity,
>> please do not confuse !!!; don't need to be a scale, a number or any
>> other indicator would suffices.
>>
>> We are talking about the light being converted to something else here.
>> It is as trying to measure the speed of a flying eagle by using a
>> turtle, take care !!!
>
> Measurement is determining the value of quantity of interest.

Exactly !!!; and you are interested to measure the eagle not the turtle

>
> The way how it is done is irrelevant,
> if precision and accuracy fits the requirements.

Wrong !!! The way is done is crucial relevant not only relevant !!!

I can see I go too fast here. Measuring a lower frequency out of a pre-
scaler, say divided by 8, means just that, you measure the lower frequency
_ASSUMING_ an outcome of a higher frequency. You do NOT measure the higher
frequency !!!

Always you must know what you are measuring, be careful!!!



--

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:11:52 +0100, Poutnik wrote:

> By scales I mean device to determine mass of objects by determining
> related gravitrational force and converting the value to a mass.

Then sorry, I was focusing toward the wide generic approach of the act of
measuring; which is still valid even more

>>
>> We are talking about the light being converted to something else here.
>> It is as trying to measure the speed of a flying eagle by using a
>> turtle, take care !!!
>
> Such conversions are made all the time in science.
> Have you ever noticed ?

Does not matter, what is important is to keep your feet on stable ground!

> But, in any case, if speed of eagle is proportional to speed of turtle,
> than why not to measure speed of turtle instead ?

Makes perfect sense, knowing what you doing, you measure the speed of the
turtle and correlate to the speed of the eagle; then is still a
correlation, not the measurement of the speed of the eagle

--

[Poutnik]

Jimmy Kesler from jim...@yahoo.com
posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:13:25 +0000 (UTC)

>
> Exactly !!!; and you are interested to measure the eagle not the turtle

Exactly. and you measure the eagle by measuring the turtle.

> > The way how it is done is irrelevant,
> > if precision and accuracy fits the requirements.
>
> Wrong !!! The way is done is crucial relevant not only relevant !!!

Remind yourself definition of measurement.

>
> I can see I go too fast here. Measuring a lower frequency out of a pre-
> scaler, say divided by 8, means just that, you measure the lower frequency
> _ASSUMING_ an outcome of a higher frequency. You do NOT measure the higher
> frequency !!!
>
> Always you must know what you are measuring, be careful!!!

Remind yourself definition of measurement.

[Poutnik]

Jimmy Kesler from jim...@yahoo.com
posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:20:34 +0000 (UTC)

>
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:11:52 +0100, Poutnik wrote:
>
> > By scales I mean device to determine mass of objects by determining
> > related gravitrational force and converting the value to a mass.
>
> Then sorry, I was focusing toward the wide generic approach of the act of
> measuring; which is still valid even more

So did I, scales was just example, illustrationg
tranformations and conversions are everywhere.

>
> >>
> >> We are talking about the light being converted to something else here.
> >> It is as trying to measure the speed of a flying eagle by using a
> >> turtle, take care !!!
> >
> > Such conversions are made all the time in science.
> > Have you ever noticed ?
>
> Does not matter, what is important is to keep your feet on stable ground!

Only if take part in measurement.

>
> > But, in any case, if speed of eagle is proportional to speed of turtle,
> > than why not to measure speed of turtle instead ?
>
> Makes perfect sense, knowing what you doing, you measure the speed of the
> turtle and correlate to the speed of the eagle; then is still a
> correlation, not the measurement of the speed of the eagle

What is measurement of speed of eagle ?

[Poutnik]

Jimmy Kesler from jim...@yahoo.com
posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:20:34 +0000 (UTC)

>
> > But, in any case, if speed of eagle is proportional to speed of turtle,
> > than why not to measure speed of turtle instead ?
>
> Makes perfect sense, knowing what you doing, you measure the speed of the
> turtle and correlate to the speed of the eagle; then is still a
> correlation, not the measurement of the speed of the eagle

Correlation is statistical approach, it is not valid in our case.

Neither neutrino speed measuremnt in OPERA experiment
was direct measurement of neutrino speed.

It was conversion of measured time difference and known distance.

Neither wavelength of light is maesured as length directly.

If you are able to determine the value, you can measure it.
If you are not, you cannot. It is easy.

Almost all measurements imply explicit or implicit conversions.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:41:26 +0100, Poutnik wrote:

> Neither wavelength of light is maesured as length directly.

Well, here you are wrong again, the wavelength is measured directly, just
because they can; this is not the case with the frequency

You wonder why? Just because light is an quantum level outcome, always
always always, and indeed, there are probabilities and correlation indexes
involved; this makes its frequency measurement close to impossible, lol



--

[Poutnik]

Jimmy Kesler from jim...@yahoo.com
posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:49:24 +0000 (UTC)

>
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:41:26 +0100, Poutnik wrote:
>
> > Neither wavelength of light is maesured as length directly.
>
> Well, here you are wrong again, the wavelength is measured directly, just
> because they can; this is not the case with the frequency

Not true.

>
> You wonder why? Just because light is an quantum level outcome, always
> always always, and indeed, there are probabilities and correlation indexes
> involved; this makes its frequency measurement close to impossible, lol

Ha ha.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:31:37 +0100, Poutnik wrote:


>> Exactly !!!; and you are interested to measure the eagle not the turtle
>
> Exactly. and you measure the eagle by measuring the turtle.
>

No, you are only measure the turtle !! lol, don't you know what you do!?

...

The rest of yours is crap, I delete

--

[Poutnik]

Jimmy Kesler from jim...@yahoo.com
posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:53:18 +0000 (UTC)

So do I yours...

[Poutnik]

Jimmy Kesler from jim...@yahoo.com
posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:53:18 +0000 (UTC)

>
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:31:37 +0100, Poutnik wrote:
>
>
> >> Exactly !!!; and you are interested to measure the eagle not the turtle
> >
> > Exactly. and you measure the eagle by measuring the turtle.
> >
>
> No, you are only measure the turtle !! lol, don't you know what you do!?

It is you who just does not have clue how measurements are done.

>
> ...
>
> The rest of yours is crap, I delete



--

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:58:30 +0100, Poutnik wrote:

> It is you who just does not have clue how measurements are done.

This makes you stupid, be it!



--

[Henry Wilson]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:24:51 PM UTC+11, Poutnik wrote:
> Poutnik from pou...@privacy.invalid
>
> posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:00:25 +0100
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com
>
> > posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 01:24:45 -0800 (PST)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Nobody has measured a frequency of any light you pathetic moron.
>
> >
>
> > Not exactly light, but IR is just next, with used WL
>
> > in ratio 1 : 5 compared to visible light area border.
>
> >
>
> > Speed of Light from Direct Frequency amd Wavelength Measurements
>
> > of the Methane-stabilized laser (1972)
>
> >
>
> > astrophysics.wfis.uni.lodz.pl/100yrs/pdf/13/083.pdf
>
> >
>
> > There is also noticed the main limitation is
>
> > old krypton based meter definition.
>
>
>
> Also here, but full article unfortunately is not for free.
>
>
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030401899004915
>
>
>
> Measuring the frequency of light with mode-locked lasers
>
> J. ReichertCorresponding author contact information, E-mail the
>

> corresponding author, R. Holzwarth, Th. Udem, T.W. Hänsch
>
>
>
> Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik, Hans-Kopfermann-Str.1, 85748

>
> Garching, Germany
>
>
>
> Abstract
>
>
>
> We have stabilized the modes of a comb of optical frequencies emitted by
>
> a mode-locked femtosecond-laser and used it as a ruler to measure
>
> differences of up to 45.2 THz between laser frequencies in a new type of
>
> frequency chain. Directly converting optical to radio frequencies, we
>
> have used it for an absolute frequency measurement of the 1S?2S
>
> transition in the hydrogen atom. Here, an intuitive model of the comb's
>
> properties is given and essential techniques for its stabilization and
>
> efficient detection of beat signals are presented.
>
> Keywords
>
>
>
> Frequency comb;
>
> Femtosecond laser;
>
> Frequency chain;
>
> Optical frequency measurement

The frequency comb technique is ingenious and accurate but it doesn't measure the frequency of any photons.
What it does is generate an IR wave in a tuned cavity and beats the laser's pulse frequency with a microwave signal of accurately known frequency. It effectively measures the speed of the standing wave across the cavity.The wavelength is measured with an interferometer.
This kind of measurement can easily be done with lower frequency radio waves but the use of IR gives a considerably more accurate result.

So try again Poutnik...

[Henry Wilson]

The technique is OK but it measures the frequency of the laser pulses in a tuned cavity.

It does not measure the frequency of any photons.

It is just an improvement on the old method of calculating the speed of generated radio signals of known frequency and wavelengh.

>
> --

[Poutnik]

Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:35:14
-0800 (PST)

>
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:24:51 PM UTC+11, Poutnik wrote:
> > Poutnik from pou...@privacy.invalid
> >
> > posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:00:25 +0100
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

> The frequency comb technique is ingenious and accurate but it doesn't
> measure the frequency of any photons. What it does is generate an IR
> wave in a tuned cavity and beats the laser's pulse frequency with a
> microwave signal of accurately known frequency. It effectively measures
> the speed of the standing wave across the cavity.The wavelength is
> measured with an interferometer. This kind of measurement can easily be
> done with lower frequency radio waves but the use of IR gives a
> considerably more accurate result.
>
> So try again Poutnik...
>

Try to read previous post.

[Henry Wilson]

Pigdog, you're pissing on the wrong tree.
...but you wouldn't know enough physics to understand why so I wont bother to explain.

[Poutnik]

Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com
posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:43:37 -0800 (PST)

> It does not measure the frequency of any photons.

Why do you think so ?

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:43:37 -0800, Henry Wilson wrote:

> The technique is OK but it measures the frequency of the laser pulses in
> a tuned cavity.

The frequency of pulses is not the frequency of light, if what you say is
true, then they are wrong even more! They won't do sucha mistake I guess



--

[Poutnik]

Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:35:14
-0800 (PST)

> The frequency comb technique is ingenious and accurate but it doesn't
> measure the frequency of any photons.
>

What else is frequency of monochromatic wave but collective common
frequency of involved photons. If not, you do not have monochromatic
wave.

[Poutnik]

Poutnik from pou...@privacy.invalid
posted Sun, 18 Nov 2012 07:29:58 +0100

>
> Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:35:14
> -0800 (PST)
>
>
> > The frequency comb technique is ingenious and accurate but it doesn't
> > measure the frequency of any photons.
> >
> What else is frequency of monochromatic wave but collective common
> frequency of involved photons. If not, you do not have monochromatic
> wave.

Original it was reply to this your statement:

"Nobody has measured a frequency of any light you pathetic moron."

Frequency of light is frequency of its wave.
Same as
Frequency of FM is frequency of FM wave.

[Henry Wilson]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 5:37:07 PM UTC+11, Poutnik wrote:
> Poutnik from pou...@privacy.invalid
>
> posted Sun, 18 Nov 2012 07:29:58 +0100
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:35:14
>
> > -0800 (PST)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > The frequency comb technique is ingenious and accurate but it doesn't
>
> > > measure the frequency of any photons.
>
> > >
>
> > What else is frequency of monochromatic wave but collective common
>
> > frequency of involved photons. If not, you do not have monochromatic
>
> > wave.
>
>
>
> Original it was reply to this your statement:
>
> "Nobody has measured a frequency of any light you pathetic moron."
>
>
>
> Frequency of light is frequency of its wave.
>
> Same as
>
> Frequency of FM is frequency of FM wave.

A radar pulse of known frequency can be reflected off an object at a known distance to determine the EM speed in air. Alternatively, knowing EM speed, a radar signal can be used to determine the distance of an object.
A radar pulse is NOT one single photon.

In somewhat similar fashion, the IR laser beam used in frequency comb experiments resonates in a cavity where it is modulated with a microwave of much lower and known frequency.
In effect, the experiment counts the number of waves (of known wavelength) that cross the cavity in a certain time. It doesn't actually measure a frequency of any photons.

[Poutnik]

Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:24:37
-0800 (PST)

>
> A radar pulse is NOT one single photon.

I have not said it is.

>
> In somewhat similar fashion, the IR laser beam used in frequency comb
> experiments resonates in a cavity where it is modulated with a
> microwave of much lower and known frequency. In effect, the experiment
> counts the number of waves (of known wavelength) that cross the cavity
> in a certain time. It doesn't actually measure a frequency of any
> photons.
>

No, as it measures frequency of all photons.
It measures frequency of IR radiation.

Same as you can measure frequency of radar radiation
without measuring frequency od particular radio photons.

Measuring frequency of single photon hits
principle quantum obstacles, and you do know that.

Farthermore, you could not measure its frequency
and its wavelength.

--

[Poutnik]

Henry Wilson from hnrw...@gmail.com posted Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:24:37
-0800 (PST)

> In somewhat similar fashion, the IR laser beam used in frequency comb
> experiments resonates in a cavity where it is modulated with a
> microwave of much lower and known frequency. In effect, the experiment
> counts the number of waves (of known wavelength) that cross the cavity
> in a certain time. It doesn't actually measure a frequency of any
> photons.
>

Is it able to determine value of IR radiation frequency or not ?
That was a question.


--

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Henry Wilson" wrote in message
news:997fe38d-679e-4c17...@googlegroups.com...

A radar pulse of known frequency can be reflected off an object at a known
distance to determine the EM speed in air. Alternatively, knowing EM speed,
a radar signal can be used to determine the distance of an object.
A radar pulse is NOT one single photon.

=====================================
Hertz made a tiny spark appear in his receiving antenna which coincided with
a large spark in his transmitter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOtAFgDSVGg

You are a genius at saying what things are not, Wilson.
Pity you can never say what they are.

Still, you can't help being a totally ignorant clueless idiot with a big
mouth.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:31:22 AM UTC-5, Big Dog wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 8:42 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > What is false is that your bogus assertion that the wavelength
>
> > of incoming H-Alpha light is changed magically during transit.
>
> > If you swim toward a source of water waves you will encounter
>
> > more waves of the same length per unit time....what this means
>
> > is that the arrival speed of water wave is increased....not your
>
> > bogus assertion that the wavelength of the water wave is shortened
>
> > magically to maintain your false notion that you are not swimming
>
> > toward the water wave source..
>
> >
>
>
>
> What is interesting is that, even in the water case, you can actually
>
> *measure* the frequency and the wavelength, and you can determine that
>
> the wavelength has not changed and the frequency has changed.

LOL.....so you agree the wavelength of water wave is not changed....right.
>
>
>
> What is even more interesting is that, in the light case, you can
>
> actually *measure* the frequency and the wavelength, and you can
>
> determine that the wavelength has changed and the frequency has changed.

The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer's frame.
The new wavelength is for that new light source. What this mean is that
the observed ferequency shift is due to the arrival of light wwave
is changed.


> Any model that you would build for either the water case or the light
>
> case would have to account for both those observations. It would be
>
> rather stupid to say, "But I can't understand how the wavelength would
>
> change, so it doesn't," and then insist that light and water waves
>
> should behave identically when they do not.

Your failure to understand nature is of concern of mine.

[Henry Wilson]

SO WHERE ARE THE PHOTONS, YOU POMMIE SMARTARSE?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Henry Wilson" wrote in message

news:981e9896-7be3-4b23...@googlegroups.com...

======================================================
Didn't you see the YouTube video?
Here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOtAFgDSVGg
There is only one way that bulb will light up -- there is an electric
current in it.
The only "thing" to make that current is... oh wait... the totally ignorant
clueless
idiot said "no" when I asked it about a magnetic loop, so it must be your
well-
defined h-aether jumping up and down, you fucking shit-headed clueless
cantankerous ozzie bastard.
"Radar pulse" my arse, you have absolutely no idea what you are babbling
about,
you bird-brained chicken farmer.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

[Henry Wilson]

You still haven't mentioned any photons...

> "Radar pulse" my arse, you have absolutely no idea what you are babbling
>
> about,
>
> you bird-brained chicken farmer.

Don't you even know the principle behind radar positioning?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Henry Wilson" wrote in message

news:af673dd4-4d27-4e4e...@googlegroups.com...

====================================================
Saying "photon" to a chicken farmer is like saying "single malt" to an ozzie
wino who says what things are not -- it is NOT fermented grape juice and
you wouldn't appreciate it anyway.

> "Radar pulse" my arse, you have absolutely no idea what you are babbling
>
> about,
>
> you bird-brained chicken farmer.

Don't you even know the principle behind radar positioning?

=====================================================
Phased arrays are diffraction gratings running in reverse gear.
Take the magnetron out of a cheap microwave oven and measure
the speed of microwaves, Wilson. Oops, I just said "MAGNETron"
to a chicken farmer who measures intelligence by the bird brain.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Henry Wilson" wrote in message

news:af673dd4-4d27-4e4e...@googlegroups.com...

You still haven't mentioned any photons...

===================================================================
Water photons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZauOY5Jfrdk

[Henry Wilson]

On Monday, November 19, 2012 4:18:19 PM UTC+11, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" wrote in message
>
> news:af673dd4-4d27-4e4e...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> You still haven't mentioned any photons...
>
>
>
> ===================================================================
>
> Water photons:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZauOY5Jfrdk

Don't you have anything better to do?

[Henry Wilson]

Mad bull is rampaging again...Lock your doors and keep your children inside!

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Henry Wilson" wrote in message

news:a71d7b48-f266-440d...@googlegroups.com...

================================================================
Abuse is chicken farmer Wilson's standard reply to things he knows nothing
about and refuses to listen when they are explained to him.
Don't you even know the principle of diffraction, and isn't it past your
bedtime?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Henry Wilson" wrote in message

news:8d6b9463-1da1-4a9c...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, November 19, 2012 4:18:19 PM UTC+11, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl
of Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson" wrote in message
>
> news:af673dd4-4d27-4e4e...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> You still haven't mentioned any photons...
>
>
>
> ===================================================================
>
> Water photons:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZauOY5Jfrdk

Don't you have anything better to do?

====================================================================
You wanted to know what a photon looks like, that's the best you'll find,
chicken farmer.
This symbol
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/2/1/c21b388a48eea039c6761e4bac9e5bb4.png
is for the closed loop integral
"Similar to the integral, but used to denote a single integration over a
closed curve or loop. It is sometimes used in physics texts involving
equations regarding Gauss's Law, and while these formulas involve a closed
surface integral, the representations describe only the first integration of
the volume over the enclosing surface."
You wouldn't have heard of Gauss's Law, bird brain.
Everybody knows single biological cells are tiny like photons, so birds eggs
can't be single cells... but they are and photons can be huge too.
Learn some physics, you wanker. The shape of a photon is a magnetic torus
created from an electrical spark.

[Henry Wilson]

A very large number of photons is emitted by an electric spark.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Henry Wilson" wrote in message

news:9536b2b0-fcfb-4ac7...@googlegroups.com...

=========================================================
More than a large number in these two events:
http://www.youthedesigner.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/2-Lightning-Storm-and-Brush-Fire.jpg

A chemical reaction such as 2H2 + O2 => 2 (H2O) emits 2 photons, the
electron shells of each molecule gets rearranged to produce a new molecule,
in this case hydrogen and oxygen, normally gases at STP turn to steam which
condenses to liquid at STP. You see it as a flame.

But that only tells you what a flame is, it doesn't say what a photon is.
The rods and cones of your eye react like a radio antenna does to a magnetic
loop... oops, I just said a bad word to a chicken farmer, the dumb cretin
will call me a raging mad bull and an idiot now, the stupid moron is going
to change my .sig for trying to explain what a photon is to a raw egg who
still thinks a photon is a headless crocodile made of lucky white heather.

The water photon is spinning. That's its frequency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZauOY5Jfrdk

In our next exciting episode a train of photons make a wave, but the chicken
farmer needs three days of name-calling to get over the excitement of
learning something it didn't know before.

[Henry Wilson]

It's becoming increasingly obvious that you and Pigdog have similar genes.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:31:22 AM UTC-5, Big Dog wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 8:42 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > What is false is that your bogus assertion that the wavelength
>
> > of incoming H-Alpha light is changed magically during transit.
>
> > If you swim toward a source of water waves you will encounter
>
> > more waves of the same length per unit time....what this means
>
> > is that the arrival speed of water wave is increased....not your
>
> > bogus assertion that the wavelength of the water wave is shortened
>
> > magically to maintain your false notion that you are not swimming
>
> > toward the water wave source..
>
> >
>
>
>
> What is interesting is that, even in the water case, you can actually
>
> *measure* the frequency and the wavelength, and you can determine that
>
> the wavelength has not changed and the frequency has changed.

That's my point....the wavelength of water waves is not changed.
So that means that the speed of arrival of water waves is increased.

> What is even more interesting is that, in the light case, you can
>
> actually *measure* the frequency and the wavelength, and you can
>
> determine that the wavelength has changed and the frequency has changed.

No the wavelength is not changed.....the incoming light becomes a
new light source in the observer's frame and the grating defines a
new eavelength for this new light source. The speed of incoming light is calculated as follows:
c'=c(lambda_i/Lambda_s)
Lambda_i = wavelength of incoming light.
Lambda_s = wavelength of source.

> Any model that you would build for either the water case or the light
>
> case would have to account for both those observations.

Model mechanics explains both observations.