Re: The extraordinary genius of Albert Einstein (DOC) | ScienceDump

[hanson]

"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>>"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:f5OdnUytVrrraCfS...@mchsi.com...
>>> http://www.sciencedump.com/content/extraordinary-genius-albert-einstein-doc
>>>
>>>> The Theory of Special Relativity as part of the educational
>>process conducted by our youth leadership, not for the sake
>>of understanding the theory itself, but using Einstein's particular
>>discovery as a case study to demonstrate and walk people
>>through real human thinking, as being something above sense
>>perceptions or opinions. We end with reflecting on the principle
>>of relativity in terms of social relations and individual identities
>>or thought processes, asking the question
>>>
>>--how was Einstein able to make his breakthrough?
>>>
>>hanson wrote:
>>Einstein had "The extraordinary genius" to plagiarize
>>most of it, including the E=mc^2 which he stole
>>from Pretto & others... & was forced to apologize
>>for it in 1907.
>><http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein>
>><http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2>
>><http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft>
>
Wabnig wrote:
> You can safely scratch out Pretto's name from the list,
> his writings are on the web and it is obvious that he had
> nothing to steal from.
> One cannot steal from a naked beggar.
> Only some Italian patriot believed otherwise and fed
> Google with irritating buzzwords.
>
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... they are only irritating to you, Wabie,
and to other Einstein Dingleberries. Obviously, you
have forgotten the discussion we had over this
about Einstein who only had to go over the Gotthard
from Bern to be in Pretto's neighborhood...
>
Leaving your current relapse into your worship of
Einstein's Sphincter aside it appears that you
are prejudiced against the Italians... and you may
have preferred that I should have mentioned that
Einstein STOLE E=mc^2 ONLY from your Austrian
Landsman Friedrich Hasenoehrl?
>
Does that make you feel better, Wabie?....
ahahahaha... ahahahanson

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 22, 5:07 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> "Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:

> > You can safely scratch out Pretto's name from the list,
> > his writings are on the web and it is obvious that he had
> > nothing to steal from.
> > One cannot steal from a naked beggar.
> > Only some Italian patriot believed otherwise and fed
> > Google with irritating buzzwords.
>

> .... ahahahaha... they are only irritating to you, Wabie,
> and to other Einstein Dingleberries. Obviously, you
> have forgotten the discussion we had over this
> about Einstein who only had to go over the Gotthard
> from Bern to be in Pretto's neighborhood...
>
> Leaving your current relapse into your worship of
> Einstein's Sphincter aside it appears that you
> are prejudiced against the Italians... and you may
> have preferred that I should have mentioned that
> Einstein STOLE E=mc^2 ONLY from your Austrian
> Landsman Friedrich Hasenoehrl?

It is so obvious that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar was nobody other than a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
Perhaps, the following play will shed some enlightenment on this
subject.

* * * *

Newton: I came up with the laws of gravity to describe what gravity
does by observing a falling apple under the influence of gravitation.

Einstein: I have no idea of what I am doing, but I can tell you that
I personally have derived the so-called Lorentz transform through two
assumptions which I have proudly speculated. The first speculation is
the principle of relativity, and the second one is the constancy in
the speed of light.

Galileo: Excuse me. I have already discovered the principle of
relativity.

Newton: Yes, that is so true. The principle of relativity is the
basis of my works. I am standing on the shoulders of giants.

Galileo: Thank you, Mr. Newton. I was lucky to be born right at the
start of the Renaissance.

Voigt: Excuse me as well. I have already suggested the necessary
mechanism to explain the null results of the Michelson-Morley
experiment as the constancy in the observed speed of light regardless
if the principle of relativity holds or not. That is how I derived
the Voigt transformation. In another words, my transformation does
not satisfy the principle of relativity but explains the null results
of the Michelson-Morley experiment through the constancy in the speed
of light.

Larmor: Well, the Voigt transformation is certainly not the only one
that explains these null results. I have discovered another one by
dividing one side of the Voigt transformation by the square root
quantity which is the inverse of the so-called gamma factor. It also
does not satisfy the principle of relativity in general. Just like
the Voigt transformation, one of the two observers must be the
absolute frame of reference. All observations must reference back to
this absolute frame of reference.

Galileo: What good are the Voigt and the Lorentz transformations when
neither satisfies the principle of relativity? Mind you that the
Galilean transformation allows the two observers to be anyone. All
observations are relative, and space is relative.

Michelson: My interferometer works because time must be absolute. If
time were to be relative, there would be no coherent interference
patterns, and there would be no definitive null results to all my
experiments related to the measurements on earth-Aether drift
velocity.

Maxwell: There is no scientific axiom that requires the principle of
relativity to hold. In fact, Maxwell’s equations explain the
propagation of light without the principle of relativity. The
absolute frame of reference must exist to allow for the propagation of
light, and the Aether must exist.

Lorentz: Well, Mr. Maxwell is correct, and I have come across an
infinite such transformations on top of what Mr. Voigt and Mr. Larmor
have discovered. They all satisfy the null results of the Michelson-
Morley experiment but not the principle of relativity. This is
getting more interesting since electromagnetism.

Maxwell: Good point, Mr. Lorentz, Mr. Larmor, and Mr. Voigt. These
null results actually prove the existence of the Aether.

Michell: Hold it, gentlemen. The ballistic theory of light explains
these null results and satisfies the principle of relativity. In
fact, the ballistic theory of light has the strongest support in the
Michelson-Morley experiment.

Einstein: Hooray! My speculation which is based on farce can turn
out to be correct after all, and it is all mine.

Galileo: <whispering to Newton> After stealing my discovery on the
principle of relativity, this idiot does not realize his second
speculation fails the ballistic theory of light.

Newton: Although I am the founding father describing light as
classical particles, I have to disagree with Mr. Michell. The
ballistic theory of light cannot explain light propagation as waves
under electromagnetism.

Lorentz: Mr. Maxwell’s work represents one of mankind’s finest
achievements by writing down the mathematical model explaining
definitively how light propagates as waves and at a certain speed
relative to the stationary background of the Aether. Mr. Michell was
before electromagnetism, and he cannot discount electromagnetism
easily.

Poincare: Then among all these infinite numbers of transformations
that Mr. Lorentz discovered, which one is valid? Wait, gentlemen.
With the way Mr. Larmor wrote down his transformation, the absolute
frame of reference vanishes for this special case.

Galileo: Yes, Mr. Poincare. This is a special case where both
observers are moving in parallel relative to the absolute frame of
reference.

Larmor: Sorry about the way I wrote down my transformation. It
caused a lot of confusion. It is valid only when both observers are
moving in parallel relative to the stationary background of the
Aether. In general where both observers are moving in any arbitrary
directions does not yield a transformation that satisfies the
principle of relativity.

Galileo: In case if the audience does not know what Mr. Michelson and
Mr. Larmor are talking about, even my transformation, the good old
Galilean transformation, is a tale of three parties. You can call
them points, frames, or whatever you want. They can move around in
any way they choose. There is no condition that they have to be
inertial or not whatever inertial means. The parties are two
observers and one observed. The transformation merely relates how the
observations done by each observer on the same observed are related.

Poincare: Nevertheless, we can “bastardize” Mr. Larmor’s
transformation into a new one where the two observers can be anyone
just like the Galilean transformation. In this case, the principle of
relativity is preserved. Let’s now call the bastardized version of
Mr. Larmor’s transformation the Lorentz transformation, OK?

Larmor: That is not right. My transformation cannot be
“bastardized”. What you call the Lorentz transformation has nothing to
do with the real world.

Michelson: I agree with Mr. Larmor. The Lorentz transformation
reflects no experimental bases. It is created in the minds of man.
We are dealing with physics, and physicists should not play God.

Einstein: Shut up, Mr. Michelson. You don’t understand relativity.
My groundless speculations have finally paid off. I will now attempt
to fudge the Lorentz transformation into the Maxwell’s equations.

Maxwell: Where did they get this clown from? <shaking his head>

Einstein: Mr. Maxwell, do you think I am stupid. Well then, I have
personally discovered spacetime.

Minkowski: Wait! I am the one who first wrote down all the equations
of the Lorentz transform into a single, concise one. Spacetime then
only becomes very obvious from then on.

Voigt: The Voigt transformation can also be written into a single,
concise equation.

Larmor: So is the transformation I have discovered and the infinite
others that Mr. Lorentz has discovered.

H. G. Wells: Well, Mr. Einstein, I don’t know if you have read my
book “The Time Machine”. In it, I have already described time and
space forming a single entity in which a time traveler can travel from
one set of time and space to another.

Langevin: Hold it, gentlemen. There is a serious flaw in the Lorentz
transformation. It manifests a time paradox through the mutual time
dilation. Say a pair of twins start out together at rest relative to
each other. One twin travels away and comes back at rest to the other
twin again. The difference in time elapsed by each twin will render a
paradox.

Poincare: So what? That is because simultaneity is relative.

Michelson: Hey, you guys don’t know what you are talking about.
Simultaneity must be absolute, or else again there would be no
coherent interference patterns.

Einstein: <giving Michelson the middle finger> The Lorentz
transformation must be regarded as valid regardless of any
experimentations because I said so.

Tom: I have to agree. I have compiled a list of so-called
experiments that verified the Lorentz transformation. However, none
of them did verify this mutual time dilation thingy. We can certainly
ignore the verification on the mutual time dilation part despite the
symmetric mutual time dilation is the only thing unique to the Lorentz
transformation. Whatever Mr. Einstein said must be valid. <shrug>

Self-styled physicists: In addition to what Tom is saying, the twins’
paradox brought up by Mr. Langevin has been observed in experiments.

Newton: What? <nearly choking himself> You guys don’t know what you
are observing.

Michelson: Their interpretations to their experimental results are
totally screwed up. I cannot believe the experimental physicists
after my time would become such inept.

Langevin: Well, it appeared that I have spoken too soon about a
paradox in the Lorentz transformation. If we apply plenty of
mathemagics with a little bit of voodoo chants, the paradox will go
away.

Galileo: Does voodooism involve chants? <talking to himself> Gee!
I must have been born too early.

Self-styled physicists: Oh, we see it. Each unique chant in voodoo
appears to resolve the twins’ paradox.

Michelson: I thought you guys have claimed to have observed this
twins’ paradox experimentally. <folding his arms in a disbelief with
eyes looking up on the ceiling>

Maxwell: But each so-called resolution falsifies others. The paradox
is very real and unresolvable.

Self-styled physicists: Shut up, Mr. Maxwell. Your achievements have
been downgraded by several knots. Do you want us to believe in Mr.
Michell’s ballistic theory of light? Count your blessings that we
have kept Maxwell’s equations but managed to dispense the Aether by
modifying Maxwell’s equations with the Lorentz transformation.

Maxwell: <shaking his head> I am indeed horrified by what you guys
have done. Clearly the Aether does exist, and you are turning your
back on the Aether. The Cosmic Background Radiation was even
discovered to have a Doppler shift. Perhaps, that is a good place to
look for the absolute frame of reference.

Galileo: I have to side with Mr. Maxwell on this matter. What the
self-styled physicists are doing does not represent how science is
done by embracing the lesser of two evils.

Einstein: Another experimental support for the Lorentz transformation
is the relativistic Doppler shift.

Self-styled physicists: In the transverse Doppler shift, it has been
observed as red.

Michelson: The experimental results can also be interpreted as no
shift.

Einstein: Just take a look at the equation of time transformation in
the Lorentz transformation. It shows a red shift agreeing with
experimental results.

Newton: In your 1905 paper, you clearly showed the relativistic
Doppler shift with the equation in energy transformation. Using the
energy transformation instead of time transformation, you get a blue
shift in the transverse direction of relativistic Doppler shift which
has the exact opposite result of the time transformation.

Einstein: That is the beauty of the Lorentz transformation. You can
fudge almost anything out of it. So, whatever the experimental
results are, you just trim off the appropriate mathematics even if the
mathematics are totally self-contradictory.

Self-styled physicists: It is just amazing. Mr. Einstein is a genius
with no equal in the history of mankind.

Galileo: <shaking his head once again and whispering to Newton>
Expect more nonsense from this idiot and the ones who worship this
idiot.

Einstein: OK, let’s forget about Special Relativity and the twins’
paradox for now and talk about General Relativity. I personally
discovered the principle of equivalence by picturing myself as that
falling apple trapped in the gravitational field.

Newton: Trapped? That is very stupid. Gravity can only be
characterized by observing how an object would have behaved under the
influence of gravitation not through how you experience it.

Galileo: Not only that, I had already discovered the principle of
equivalence.

Newton: This is another example of what I mean by standing on the
shoulders of giants. My law of gravity is also based on Mr. Galileo’s
principle of equivalence.

Einstein: Well, my discovery of the equivalence principle actually
came after I have finally understood the Newtonian law of gravity.
Are you calling me that I have reverse-engineered the principle of
equivalence?

Galileo: Umm!!! <clearing his throat>

Newton: <whispering to Galileo> You are correct. This guy is truly
an idiot!

Born: “Have you ever been mellow?” <singing joyfully> Oh, I was
just singing one of my granddaughter’s hit singles. What were we
discussing? Oh, yes, the twins’ paradox. I have an idea to resolve
this.

Galileo: <whispering to Newton again> Well, is “Have you ever been
mellow?” another voodoo chant?

Newton: <whispering back> No, it was a hit song by Mr. Born’s
granddaughter, but in this case it might as well be a voodoo chant.
Let’s hear about Mr. Born has to say about his resolution to the
twins’ paradox.

Born: Since the traveling twin must accelerate and decelerate again
to unite with the other twin, acceleration must break the symmetry.
Since gravity also manifest time dilation, acceleration must also
manifest a time dilation. Thus, the net result is that the traveling
twin will age slower.

Einstein: Yes, that must be correct. I just know so. <dancing>

Newton: Mr. Born, can you show the mathematics supporting what you
are talking about?

Self-styled physicists: Never mind the mathematics. In the spacetime
diagram, just draw couple lines, and you will see that there is no
such paradox.

Newton: In addition, the traveling twin can coast for an arbitrary
time with no acceleration. According to the Lorentz transformation,
the mutual time dilation will build up since time dilation is
accumulative, and no mathematics can account for this arbitrary
accumulated time dilation in any scenario of the twins’ paradox.

Self-styled physicist: We have to admit that we have not seen any
evidence of time dilation under acceleration other than gravity.

Newton: Of course not. I thought you have dispensed gravity as a
force. Oh, I see. Gravity is not a force under General Relativity
but is capable of acceleration. So, care free to jump out a ten-story
building to test the hypothesis?

Tom: The spacetime of jumping out a ten-story building will
eventually intercept the ground in a tragic end. <shrug>

Newton: Where did that come from?

Self-styled physicist: Going back to the Lorentz transform, the
mathematics indicates if you use the reciprocal of the same
transformation, the symmetry is broken, and thus there is no paradox.

Galileo: What? Do you guys even understand what the Galilean
transform is all about? It involves two observers and one observed.
To describe two observed, two such transformations must be applied.
The reciprocal form of the same transform is still the same transform.

Self-styled physicist: Mr. Galileo, we don’t know what you are
talking about. You have to consider that the time transformation in
the Galilean transform is exactly linear, and the Lorentz transform is
not.

Newton: What Mr. Galileo is saying is very valid. Since the scenario
of the twins’ paradox involves two observed where each twin is
observing the other, two such transforms must be applied, and the
result is no mistake that the paradox manifested by the Lorentz
transform is very real.

Self-styled physicist: With all due respect, Mr. Newton, you and Mr.
Galileo have to be wrong. The laws of physics must allow for two
observed to coexist within the same transformation.

Galileo: I have had enough of this nonsense. These guys are just
fudging the results without understanding the basics of physics.
These clowns are no better off than alchemists. I am out of here.
Ciao! <leaving the play in anger>

Self-styled physicist: After all, the Newtonian gravity has shown to
be inadequate such as explaining the orbital anomaly of Mercury.

Newton: Excuse me?

Einstein: Well, I am also the first one to suggest gravity as a
curvature in spacetime.

Riemann: I have already attempted to suggest that gravity is caused
by curved space, but since the mathematical concept of time and space
forming into a single set of coordinate was not yet discovered, I went
nowhere.

Hilbert: That is correct. Space can curve as much as it likes, but
as long as there is no curvature in the temporal dimension or
gravitational time dilation, there is no gravity.

Einstein: Never mind the curvature of spacetime, then. I personally
have derived the field equations and beat Mr. Hilbert to it by a
whopping minus five days.

Grossmann: Mr. Einstein, you know nothing about mathematics. There
is no way in hell you can come up with the field equations without a
massive amount of help. Yes, helps like what I gave you without a
single ounce of gratitude from you while we, more like I alone, were
developing the “entwurf” to explain the laws of gravity through
rigorous coordinate transformations. It also makes me look like an
idiot by sending all my friends post cards telling them “Hey, look,
guys. I am falling [flapping my arms], and I will discovery what
gravity is better than Newton did.”.

Einstein: Well, the bottom line is that you have failed me, Mr.
Grossmann, and that is all I cared. I don’t appreciate your
incompetence. <shrug>

Christoffel: Hold it, gentlemen, before a fight breaks out. Before
Mr. Einstein claims more credits, I was the one who was credited with
the Christoffel symbols of the second kind which got the ball rolling
for differential geometry. In case if Mr. Einstein has not realized
that yet, differential geometry plays a crucial role in the
development of the general theory of relativity.

Einstein: I did not know that. The mathematics is really too complex
for me.

Ricci: Yes, all thanks to Mr. Christoffel and the geodesic equations,
I was able to invent something called the covariant derivative. By
taking the double covariant derivatives of the spatial distance
between two points in space or spacetime, I was able to invent a 4-
dimensional matrix now called the Riemann curvature tensor. In space,
it is a 3x3x3x3 matrix with 81 elements, and in spacetime, it is a
4x4x4x4 matrix with 256 elements.

Riemann: I just want to clarify this. Although I was the first to
mathematically describe what the curvature of space is, the Riemann
tensor and Riemannian geometry have nothing to do with me.

Grossmann: Mr. Christoffel, besides the way you have grouped the
connection coefficients in which now are called the Christoffel
symbols of the second kind, there is another anti-symmetric
arrangement, and this other arrangement of the connection coefficients
would result in a different Riemann curvature tensor through a
different covariant derivative defined by Mr. Ricci.

Ricci: Oops. There is another possible covariant derivative
different from what I have invented. Hey, nobody is perfect. <shrug>

Levi-Civita: But who cares? As long as the metric is diagonal, they
become the same. For no definitively apparent reasons, I was able to
reduce the 4-dimensional Riemann tensor into a 2-dimensional matrix
which is now called the Ricci tensor.

Nordstrom: I agree with Mr. Levi-Civita. As long as we are only
discussing the diagonal metric, all these tensors should be identical
regardless how they are constructed with which covariant derivative.
So, I suggest that the null Ricci tensor would fully describe
gravitation since the null Ricci tensor mirror the functionality of
the Laplace equation.

Laplace: Yes, the null Ricci tensor does degenerate into the Laplace
equation and the Laplacian operator.

d'Alembert: The d’Alembertian operator is more general than the
Laplacian operator. You can make waves out of my operator.

Maxwell: Yes, Maxwell’s equations in vacuum result in two equations
involved with the d’Alembertian operator. That is exactly how we know
light propagates as waves, and the medium it propagates through has
unique properties in the permeability and the permittivity of free
space. Only through these two properties of the Aether, the exact
propagating speed can then be identified.

Rosen: Well, the Ricci tensor actually degenerates into one with the
d’Alembertian operator. Thus, I can write down the mathematics of
gravitational waves based on this operator. Hey, after all, it is all
in the mathematics.

Hilbert: Mr. Rosen, you are wrong. The Ricci tensor does not offer
d’Alembertian operator. You must have fudged your metric to do so.
The null Ricci scalar (reduced Ricci tensor) is what you want.

Maxwell: Either way, it sounds like the Aether allows the propagation
of gravitational waves as well according to your mathematics.

Einstein: Yes, the Lorentz transformation has done away with the
Aether even in electromagnetism. Thus, it is possible for waves to
propagate without a medium. Just use your imagination.

Maxwell: You guys have no idea of what you are talking about. I have
had enough of this nonsense as well. <leaving the play trying hard to
control his anger>

Poisson: Well, forget about gravitational waves for now. The Poisson
equation is more general to the Laplace equation, and the null Ricci
tensor does not satisfy the Poisson equation. Mr. Nordstrom’s work is
not complete.

Hilbert: Well, I have a better idea. I will throw in the square root
of the negative of the determinant to the metric into the Ricci
scalar. Demanding the action resulted from this Lagrangian to be
stationary, the recourse is the set of field equations.

Einstein: No, the field equations are derived by me only. The fact
that Mr. Hilbert was able to present the same field equations five
days before my own presentation is immaterial.

Minkowski: Shut up, Mr. Einstein. Remember that you were my worst
student. Yeah, instead of studying physics, you were thinking with
your dick and chasing after the only skirt in that class.

Weber: Oh, in my class on electromagnetism, Mr. Einstein was drawing
women’s blouse in his class notes. I was deeply insulted by that.

Einstein: Hey, I suddenly had an idea about women’s blouse in
Professor Weber’s class. I even had a patent on that.

Minkowski: I have a question for Mr. Hilbert. Why is the stationary
condition to this action necessary? How did you pin the significance
of the square root of the determinant to the matric to your
Lagrangian?

Hilbert: Uh! I don't know that myself. I fudged it in desperation
after Mr. Einstein told me that he had already derived the perihelion
advance of Mercury. I thought he really had something.

Einstein: What I had done had nothing to do with the field
equations. I was just using the same method as Mr. Gerber did by
modifying the Newtonian gravitational potential except that I modified
it differently.

Gerber: Yes, I merely modified the Newtonian gravitational potential
with speed dependent terms.

Hilbert: I did not know that. I should have known better from Mr.
Einstein. <shrug>

Newton: I could not believe that was how you clowns did physics in
the early twentieth centuries.

Klein: You have to excuse us, Mr. Newton. We were completely baffled
by the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. It never
occurred to us that Galilean transformation is not valid in general.

Voigt: Gee! Have you not read my publication on the Voigt
transformation?

Lorentz: Mr. Voigt, you were way ahead of your time. Your hypothesis
was too radical for the physicists to accept then. Back then, we were
still questioning Mr. Michelson’s interpretation to the experimental
results.

Michelson: Yes, I certainly can understand that. I was totally
shocked myself.

Newton: Well, with the null results, you can fix the electromagnetism
or the Galilean transformation, and you guys had decided to fix the
Galilean transformation instead.

Klein: That seems to be the easiest approach.

Michell: I’d rather to have you guys fixed electromagnetism instead
and preserving the ballistic theory of light.

Newton: Mr. Michell, we are not against you, but fixing
electromagnetism represents a monumental work.

Michell: I concede that we must do the best in the name of science.

Klein: I concur.

Hilbert: So, do I.

Einstein: Not me. <sticking his tongue all the way out>

Schwarzschild: Going back to solutions of the field equations, since
the field equations are derived whether they are valid or not, having
a metric with a determinant of -1 would result in drastically
simplified field equations and thus the Ricci tensor. In doing so, I
have transformed the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate
into one that would yield -1 to the determinant of its metric. Thus,
trivially, I have discovered the very first vacuum solution to the
field equations that is static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat. In doing so, it should degenerate into Newtonian
law of gravity at weak curvature in spacetime.

Klein: Yes, Mr. Schwarzschild able to come up with a solution in such
a short amount of time was because Mr. Schwarzschild himself, Mr.
Hilbert, Mr. Minkowski, and myself have been working on solving the
null Ricci tensor on and off for a long time.

Hilbert: Here is another such solution which is now named after Mr.
Schwarzschild as the Schwarzschild metric. Since there are an
infinite such solutions to the field equations, what I have done must
be total nonsense. I regret getting involved such deeply in this
fiasco. <wiping his hands in the gesture of washing them>

Einstein: Great! Now, I can claim sole proprietorship to the field
equations.

Self-styled physicists: Now, do you see why we worship Einstein as a
God? He does not understand anything about differential geometry and
was able to pull out the field equations. That takes a miracle --- a
true genius in the making.

Newton: <shaking his head in total disbelief> It appears that the
self-styled physicists are standing on the shoulders of nitwits.

Self-styled physicists: <dismissing Newton’s remarks> Wow, folks.
Do you see the Schwarzschild metric manifests black holes? We could
get a lot of attention and grant money to perpetuate our welfare by
elaborating on these heavenly objects created through mathemagical
nonsense that we do not even understand ourselves.

Schwarzschild: But my original metric does not manifest black holes,
and so are other infinite solutions to the field equations.

Self-styled physicists: Who cares about how the math shows. Since
the metric fully describe the geometry regardless any coordinate
system. All solutions to the field equations must be the same.
<shrug>

Riemann: That is not what I have described of curved space. You guys
are just a whole bunch of clowns. The concept that the metric being
the geometry is fatally flawed. The mathematical description of the
thing called the metric alone cannot possibly be enough to describe
the invariant geometry. You need to specify the choice of coordinate
system as well. Each set of coordinate system would require another
unique metric to describe the same, invariant geometry.

Hilbert: <applause>

Grade school children: Even, we can all understand what Mr. Riemann
is talking about.

College dropouts: Come on. The self-styled physicists have PhDs.
Although we cannot think for ourselves, we believe in the self-styled
physicists. Whatever they say must be correct despite we don't know
what they are talking about.

Grade school children: But that is all wrong, we can still think for
ourselves without any poison from Einsteinian mysticism.

Hilbert: Going back to the discussion of gravitational waves, it is
shown through mathematics that it is the metric that propagates as
waves.

Riemann: Thus, gravitational waves are too bogus. The metric is a
parameter that interprets the invariant geometry according to an
established choice of coordinate system. Claiming the metric
propagating as waves is just absurd.

Hilbert: That is correct. It should be the distance between two
adjacent points (the actual geometry) in spacetime that propagates not
the metric.

Riemann: These clowns are still confused between the metric and the
actual geometry.

Hilbert: It sounds so unless these guys only limit the choice of the
coordinate system to that linearly rectangular coordinate system also
known as the Cartesian coordinate system where the metric is always
unity in the sense of a signature in (+1, -1, -1, -1).

Riemann: Ah! It is not even worth to think about the stupidities of
the ones who equate the metric as the invariant geometry. There is
one more issue about the mathematics of the gravitational waves.
Whether time is absolute or not, space must be relative as I have
discovered that curved space alone does not manifest gravitation. Any
state in the curvature of space must be relative. One’s perception of
flat space could easily be someone else’s perception of curved space,
for one always observes his or her space as flat.

Hilbert: Thus, the concept of gravitational waves is just too
ludicrous especially the part where the observer’s perception of flat
spacetime can be separated out. After all, the self-styled physicists
have chosen to preserve the principle of relativity at all cost, and
they will believe in anything that suits their goal.

Self-Styled physicists: Hey, hold it, Mr. Riemann and Mr. Hilbert.
The binary pulsar PSR B1913+16 behaved exactly what the mathematics of
gravitational waves said.

Michelson: Being an unbiased experimental physicist, I would question
the interpretation to the data for better qualification of the
experimental result. The self-styled physicists, on the other hand,
had already believed in a predetermined result and thrived to
liberally interpret any experimental results to reinforce that belief.

Einstein: While you guys are arguing about something I have no
understanding of, I have discovered the Cosmological constant. By
adding the Cosmological constant to the field equations, I can halt
the gravitational collapse of the universe.

Poisson: Yeah, I thought about the negative mass density in vacuum
too but dismissed it as stupidity to the utmost degree.

Newton: I have to agree with Mr. Poisson here.

Self-styled physicists: But mass is energy. Just call this negative
mass density in vacuum negative energy, or better yet, call it the
Dark Energy. Wow! The mysticism could really proliferate into many
generations to come. Eventually, physicists would figure out the
stupidity within the concept of a negative mass density in vacuum, and
that will be generations ahead of us. So, who cares?

Einstein: Being no good at all in mathematics, even I see the
stupidity in the Cosmological constant since (E = m c^2). My God, it
was the biggest blunder in my life.

Michelson: Mr. Einstein, the Cosmological constant is the only
blunder in your uneventful life of no discoveries. You are a nitwit,
a plagiarist, and a liar. <leaving the play fuming>

Self-styled physicists: In supporting the Cosmological constant, we
have discovered anti-gravity at very large distances in cosmological
scale.

Hilbert: You don’t have to invoke the Cosmological constant to do
that. Among the infinite numbers of solution to the field equations,
you can always find one that behaves like Newtonian law of gravity at
short distances (say in galactic scale) and anti-gravity at large
distances (say cosmological scale).

Newton: Well, Mr. Michelson, a very respectable experimental
physicist, has left us. I have to ask you guys what assumptions are
made to interpret the experimental results in favor of an accelerating
expansion of our universe.

Chandrasekhar: The first assumption is that my derivation of the
Chandrasekhar mass is valid. You see. In a binary star system, if
one star is cannibalizing on its companion, there is such a limit to
the mass of the cannibalizing star. This phenomenon is caused by the
broken balance between the electron exploding pressure and imploding
gravity as there is a maximum limit to the exploding pressure of
electron degeneracy. If gravity is any higher, there is nothing to
stop the imploding collapse of gravity, and the star will explode into
a type Ia supernova. Since all type Ia supernovae will explode at a
fixed mass, the luminosity will be the same throughout the ages and
eons.

Hilbert: But doesn’t the luminosity is also a function of what
elements are present in the star?

Planck: Well, being a scientist, I was totally shocked out of my
underwear when I had witnessed the black body radiation where the
energy of a photon has an observed energy of (E = h f, h = Plank’s
constant, f = observed frequency). In doing so, the real world is
sort of digital not analog. Thus, the issue of luminosity must be
agreed on. That means everybody has to agree on how bright something
is.

Newton: There are many ways of deciding what parameters to use to
determine this luminosity.

Hubble: <cutting in before the self-styled physicists can answer
Newton’s remarks> Another assumption is based on my law --- Hubble’s
law where the red shift increases linearly with the distance.

Newton: In your time, Mr. Hubble, you could only observe objects out
to one hundred parsecs at the most, but the later generations of
physicists were able to see at least two orders of magnitude more than
you could. Could your law behaving linearly at short distances
diverge from this linear relationship at larger distances? The
squared root function comes in mind.

Hubble: Mr. Newton, you are good. If the assumptions that
Chandrasekhar mass being valid, the definition of luminosity, and
Hubble’s law obeying a squared root function are indeed valid, the
observed accelerated expanding universe can be explained without
invoking the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Hilbert: So, these assumptions must be all true before concluding an
accelerated expanding universe. If not, the first law of
thermodynamics would remain preserved.

Self-styled physicists: No, the binary pulsar spelled out the doom
for the conservation of energy.

Newton: That is the only data point. I would question how the
results are interpreted first instead of trashing the first law of
thermodynamics.

Tom: Mr. Newton et al need to study and learn instead of losing their
cool. <shrug>

Self-styled physicists: Well, even if Mr. Einstein is a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar, we would continue to worship him. We love
these groundless speculations. We are still bedazzled by how he can
start with two equations equating zero with zero and pull out the
Lorentz transformation from these. Einsteinian mysticism must
continue, and Voodoo mathematics rules.

College dropout: Goody! Now we can have empty space that expands
itself, branes, multiverse, wormholes, black holes, budding universes,
etc. It suits the minds of college dropouts like ourselves.

Orwell: I told you so. <wink>

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

Self-styled physicists: Never mind Mr. Orwell. In the meantime, the
GPS represent the most triumphant prediction of General Relativity.
In order to allow the GPS to function, the satellite time must be in
total synchronization with the ground. That means the clocks on board
the satellite must tick a tiny bit slower to allow the slower ground
clocks to keep up.

Engineers: Gee! This is a myth perpetrated by the self-styled
physicists to promote the nonsense of General Relativity. It is not
the clock that has to be synchronized. The only requirement for the
GPS is to synchronize is the calendar time among the satellites even
if the clocks on board the satellites are different, and even if the
ground clock or the ground calendar time is different. However, it is
much easier to synchronize the satellite clocks to achieve universal
synchronization of satellite calendar time.

College dropouts: Although we don’t understand all that, we have to
believe in the arm-chair designers of the GPS, namely the self-styled
physicists.

Engineers: Hey, look, punks. Any GPS receiver is receiving almanac
information from the satellites at a slow pacing rate of 50 bits per
second. The almanac information contains the position and the
calendar time (relative to all the satellites) of one satellite. It
takes several seconds to complete one record of information. With an
acquisition of four satellites, the GPS receiver can build a set of
four equations with the known positions and calendar times of the
satellites and the unknown position and the unknown calendar time
(relative to the satellites) of the receiver itself. With these four
independent equations, all you have to do is to solve for these 4
unknowns. The calendar time of the ground does not come into play in
determining a person’s position. However, we do provide an accurate
universal time using the good old technique of “at the time of the
beep, the time will be blah blah blah”, and this should not be
extorted to promote the nonsense of General Relativity.

Grade school children: So, engineers don’t take bullshit for answers.

Engineers: That is correct. We cannot afford to take in bullshit.
If so, we will find ourselves out of jobs.

Einstein: Well, I don’t really understand any engineering
applications, but anyhow now I am worshipped as a god --- not bad for
being a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Creativity is to know how
to hide your sources, and it pays off. <wink>

A grade school kid: Hey, look, mom! <pointing her finger at Einstein
totally naked> The emperor has no clothes on.

Tom: Keep studying and don’t lose your cool. <shrug>

The grade school kid: Mom, what is Tom talking about?

Mom: <shrug>

[Helmut Wabnig]

As a compensation for the loss of Olinto de Pretto I offer you
the name LOUIS BACHELIER 1870 - 1946 who 5 years before
Einstein worked on a mathematical theory of
"Brownian motion" (not by that name, possibly)

Today we put that stuff into the box containing the
"fractals" and it covers economy as well as the river Nil
sidearms and whatever there moves chaotically.

I have not googled yet, but there should be something to find.

w.

[hanson]

"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:

-- "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

>
>>>>"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.sciencedump.com/content/extraordinary-genius-albert-einstein-doc>
The Theory of Special Relativity as part of the educational
process conducted by our youth leadership, not for the sake
of understanding the theory itself, but using Einstein's particular
discovery as a case study to demonstrate and walk people
through real human thinking, as being something above sense
perceptions or opinions. We end with reflecting on the principle
of relativity in terms of social relations and individual identities
or thought processes, asking the question

------- how was Einstein able to make his breakthrough?

Wabie wrote:
As a compensation for the loss of Olinto de Pretto
I offer you the name LOUIS BACHELIER 1870 - 1946
who 5 years before Einstein worked on a mathematical
theory of "Brownian motion" (not by that name, possibly)
>

hanson wrote:
ahahaha.. Wabie, you are wabniggering big time now.
The issue is not who was working on Brownian motion.
The question is "Who was Einstein STEALING the
E=mc^2 equation from?"
>
At least Einstein apologized for his theft in 1907.
Can't you, Wabnigger, rise to that same level too,
and apologize to the Italians whom you so jealously
discriminated against, and then praise your own
Landsman Friedrich Hasenoehrl?. Or do you hate
him too?, and the entire world of goyim?, cuz of your
desperate proselytizing that "Jewish shit don't stink!
>
Check here, see and be astonished how accurately
and precisely the eminent Jewish Scholar Harold
Wallace Rosenthal ||R:|| has characterized you in:
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
>

||R:|| We Jew censor you & before long we will have
||R:|| complete control of your, [Wabnig's], thinking.
>
||R:|| We Jews are masters at confusion and we keep
||R:|| & make you believe that __Jewish shit don't stink__.
||R:|| We sacrificed some Jews so that our "persecution"
||R:|| propaganda & cries of "Anti-Semite/ism" can continue.
>
||R:|| Our Jewish beliefs are entirely different from yours.
||R:|| Our Talmud/Nedarim/Kol Nidre = "all vows" allows
||R:|| us Jews to lie to, to subvert & to cheat the Goyim.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

snip

Good one Koobee....keep it up...

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
news:u22sr7t65433nd97f...@4ax.com...

The grade school kid, Kinky Wobbly: Hey look, Wilson, aether has
to be there, it is OBVIOUS, and the speed of light is relative to aether.
<shrug>

[Tonico]

On May 23, 9:41 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 5:07 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

....................................................................

> It is so obvious that KOOBEE WUBLEE the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

what a shruggishness, this is. I would have to say,
though, that there may be a fault with the gedanken, in that
the experiments still seem to work;
especially with the ability to measure relly, really short units
of time.

> <shrug>

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

You didn't read his whole post. It was quite good.

...and there is no aether.....That's why lighj speed has to be source
dependent. Didn't you know that?

Ask Daisy to pass your pills

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

What the hell are you talking about? Are you taking drugs?

>> <shrug>

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

What do you hope to achieve by posting that rubbish?

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:gus3s79qbe1fccpst...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:28:31 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:u22sr7t65433nd97f...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 23:41:56 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
>>> <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>Engineers: That is correct. We cannot afford to take in bullshit.
>>>>If so, we will find ourselves out of jobs.
>>>>
>>>>Einstein: Well, I don t really understand any engineering
>>>>applications, but anyhow now I am worshipped as a god --- not bad for
>>>>being a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Creativity is to know how
>>>>to hide your sources, and it pays off. <wink>
>>>>
>>>>A grade school kid: Hey, look, mom! <pointing her finger at Einstein
>>>>totally naked> The emperor has no clothes on.
>>>>
>>>>Tom: Keep studying and don t lose your cool. <shrug>
>>>>
>>>>The grade school kid: Mom, what is Tom talking about?
>>>>
>>>>Mom: <shrug>
>>>
>>> Good one Koobee....keep it up...
>>
>>The grade school kid, Kinky Wobbly: Hey look, Wilson, aether has
>>to be there, it is OBVIOUS, and the speed of light is relative to aether.
>><shrug>
>
> You didn't read his whole post. It was quite good.

Yes I did and I agree it is quite good. Kinky's problem is his
religious-like faith in aether.

>
> ...and there is no aether.....That's why lighj speed has to be source
> dependent. Didn't you know that?

I know it but Kinky doesn't. Much of the problem is the term
"electromagnetic" -- there are electric waves and magnetic waves,
each dependent on the other and phase shifted 90 degrees,
but there are no electromagnetic waves.
It's a language thing. He says light is a wave and therefore
needs a medium, an d if it were one wave it would need a
medium, but light is two waves, one electric and one
magnetic. There are men and there are women but the unit of the
two is called a "family" or a "couple" or colloquially an "item",
but it is not called a ladygent.

>
> Ask Daisy to pass your pills
>

Pass my pills please, Daisy Wilson.

[RedAcer]

You don't say !
Don't be a dorc. It's just a word. Call it an 'electric and magnetic'
wave if you like. The rest of the world will say electromagnetic wave.
Have you nothing better to occupy you large brain?

--
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an
understanding ... Samuel Johnson

[Androcles]

"RedAcer" <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jptc41$79c$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

It's two waves, dork, and the point is each supports the other
without need for any squishy ectoplasm to store the energy
temporarily. And yes, I do say! Have you nothing better to do
to occupy your neuron?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:25:57 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:gus3s79qbe1fccpst...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:28:31 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>>

>>>>>Mom: <shrug>
>>>>
>>>> Good one Koobee....keep it up...
>>>
>>>The grade school kid, Kinky Wobbly: Hey look, Wilson, aether has
>>>to be there, it is OBVIOUS, and the speed of light is relative to aether.
>>><shrug>
>>
>> You didn't read his whole post. It was quite good.
>
>Yes I did and I agree it is quite good. Kinky's problem is his
>religious-like faith in aether.

Well at least aether theory would work if there WAS and aether. SR simply
doesn't work at all.

>> ...and there is no aether.....That's why lighj speed has to be source
>> dependent. Didn't you know that?
>
>I know it but Kinky doesn't. Much of the problem is the term
>"electromagnetic" -- there are electric waves and magnetic waves,
>each dependent on the other and phase shifted 90 degrees,
>but there are no electromagnetic waves.

I agree it is 90. Others say it is zero. I reckon these waves might exist
INSIDE a photon but not generally in space. I also reckon that traveling
photons must spread out and coalesce over large distances, which explains
why images of distant galaxies are reasonably detailed and why large radio
telescope arrays pick up the same wavefronts.

>It's a language thing. He says light is a wave and therefore

>needs a medium, and if it were one wave it would need a

>medium, but light is two waves, one electric and one
>magnetic. There are men and there are women but the unit of the
>two is called a "family" or a "couple" or colloquially an "item",
>but it is not called a ladygent.

I have a theory that the fields inside an atom act like a kind of aether
which causes photons to be emitted at c wrt it, according to Maxwell.
Before you rant and rave, do you have a better reason for light to travel at
c wrt its source?

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/27/12 4:23 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> SR simply
> doesn't work at all.

Ralph Rabbidge, who is neither a Henry nor a Wilson and
most certainly not a DSc., fails to realize that there
has *never been an observation* that contradicts a prediction
of special relativity. Never!

The application of special relativity is essential for many
things in our lives.


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

> This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified,[5] including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, contradicting the classical notion that the duration of the time interval between two events is equal for all observers.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <Yinwr.286010$Bx1....@fx11.am4>, on 05/27/2012

at 11:25 AM, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> said:

>Much of the problem is the term "electromagnetic" -- there are
>electric waves and magnetic waves, each dependent on the other
>and phase shifted 90 degrees, but there are no electromagnetic
>waves.

That's nonsense; if they satisfy Maxwell's Equations then they behave
like a single wave.

>He says light is a wave and therefore needs a medium, an d if it
>were one wave it would need a medium,

No, it wouldn't, although a disturbance in a medium might be easier to
visualize.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:29:36 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/27/12 4:23 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> SR simply
>> doesn't work at all.
>

> Henry Wilson, DSc, who is a Henry and a Wilson and
> most certainly a DSc., fails to realize that there

> has *never been an observation* that contradicts a prediction
> of special relativity. Never!

I must correct your obvious typo...
There has *never been a sufficiently accurate observation* that appears to
support a prediction of special relativity and which does not have an
alternative Newtonian explanation.

> The application of special relativity is essential for many
> things in our lives.

HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHA! Another SRian dream!

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:g265s7lmm6qht3pef...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:25:57 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:gus3s79qbe1fccpst...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:28:31 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>>>Mom: <shrug>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good one Koobee....keep it up...
>>>>
>>>>The grade school kid, Kinky Wobbly: Hey look, Wilson, aether has
>>>>to be there, it is OBVIOUS, and the speed of light is relative to
>>>>aether.
>>>><shrug>
>>>
>>> You didn't read his whole post. It was quite good.
>>
>>Yes I did and I agree it is quite good. Kinky's problem is his
>>religious-like faith in aether.
>
> Well at least aether theory would work if there WAS and aether. SR simply
> doesn't work at all.
>
>>> ...and there is no aether.....That's why lighj speed has to be source
>>> dependent. Didn't you know that?
>>
>>I know it but Kinky doesn't. Much of the problem is the term
>>"electromagnetic" -- there are electric waves and magnetic waves,
>>each dependent on the other and phase shifted 90 degrees,
>>but there are no electromagnetic waves.
>
> I agree it is 90. Others say it is zero. I reckon these waves might exist
> INSIDE a photon but not generally in space.

It's very easy to observe a magnetic field, every kid has or
should have seen iron filings with a bar or horseshoe magnet,
two North poles repelling and North and South poles attracting.
It is not quite as easy to observe an electric field because voltages
can bite, but it can be done. A 26,000V electric field exists in
TV tubes.
What you need to explain is what you think it is INSIDE?
The photon IS the field, the only difference is it is oscillating.

> I also reckon that traveling
> photons must spread out and coalesce over large distances, which explains
> why images of distant galaxies are reasonably detailed and why large radio
> telescope arrays pick up the same wavefronts.

Very large telescopes arrays are receiving a portion of the same
photon. Your mental model of a photon as a tiny thing simply
doesn't apply at low frequencies. Nets catch large fish, small
fish go right through them, whales break them. Your eyes only
catch one size of photon, you can't see big IR photons or
or small X ray photons.

>>It's a language thing. He says light is a wave and therefore
>>needs a medium, and if it were one wave it would need a
>>medium, but light is two waves, one electric and one
>>magnetic. There are men and there are women but the unit of the
>>two is called a "family" or a "couple" or colloquially an "item",
>>but it is not called a ladygent.
>
> I have a theory that the fields inside an atom act like a kind of aether
> which causes photons to be emitted at c wrt it, according to Maxwell.
> Before you rant and rave, do you have a better reason for light to travel
> at
> c wrt its source?

Perhaps you should experimentally determine the speed of x-rays
wrt its source, or the speed of IR from your hotplate, before asserting
that it is c.
http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/arri-300-650-fresnel-compact-light-kit-wheels-571969w.html

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 09:34:09 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <Yinwr.286010$Bx1....@fx11.am4>, on 05/27/2012
> at 11:25 AM, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> said:
>
>>Much of the problem is the term "electromagnetic" -- there are
>>electric waves and magnetic waves, each dependent on the other
>>and phase shifted 90 degrees, but there are no electromagnetic
>>waves.
>
>That's nonsense; if they satisfy Maxwell's Equations then they behave
>like a single wave.

...and to what is their speed relative?

>>He says light is a wave and therefore needs a medium, an d if it
>>were one wave it would need a medium,
>
>No, it wouldn't, although a disturbance in a medium might be easier to
>visualize.

Why would it?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 23:16:47 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:g265s7lmm6qht3pef...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:25:57 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>>

>>
>>>> ...and there is no aether.....That's why lighj speed has to be source
>>>> dependent. Didn't you know that?
>>>
>>>I know it but Kinky doesn't. Much of the problem is the term
>>>"electromagnetic" -- there are electric waves and magnetic waves,
>>>each dependent on the other and phase shifted 90 degrees,
>>>but there are no electromagnetic waves.
>>
>> I agree it is 90. Others say it is zero. I reckon these waves might exist
>> INSIDE a photon but not generally in space.
>
>It's very easy to observe a magnetic field, every kid has or
>should have seen iron filings with a bar or horseshoe magnet,
>two North poles repelling and North and South poles attracting.
>It is not quite as easy to observe an electric field because voltages
>can bite, but it can be done. A 26,000V electric field exists in
>TV tubes.
>What you need to explain is what you think it is INSIDE?
>The photon IS the field, the only difference is it is oscillating.

That's what I have been telling you.

>> I also reckon that traveling
>> photons must spread out and coalesce over large distances, which explains
>> why images of distant galaxies are reasonably detailed and why large radio
>> telescope arrays pick up the same wavefronts.
>
>Very large telescopes arrays are receiving a portion of the same
>photon. Your mental model of a photon as a tiny thing simply
>doesn't apply at low frequencies.

It is only tiny when it is emitted. I say it enlarges as it goes and
interacts with other photons going the same way. They all end up pretty well
coherent in both phase and speed.

>Nets catch large fish, small
>fish go right through them, whales break them. Your eyes only
>catch one size of photon, you can't see big IR photons or
>or small X ray photons.
>
>
>
>>>It's a language thing. He says light is a wave and therefore
>>>needs a medium, and if it were one wave it would need a
>>>medium, but light is two waves, one electric and one
>>>magnetic. There are men and there are women but the unit of the
>>>two is called a "family" or a "couple" or colloquially an "item",
>>>but it is not called a ladygent.
>>
>> I have a theory that the fields inside an atom act like a kind of aether
>> which causes photons to be emitted at c wrt it, according to Maxwell.
>> Before you rant and rave, do you have a better reason for light to travel
>> at
>> c wrt its source?
>
>Perhaps you should experimentally determine the speed of x-rays
>wrt its source, or the speed of IR from your hotplate, before asserting
>that it is c.
> http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/arri-300-650-fresnel-compact-light-kit-wheels-571969w.html

It is not easy to measure the speed of x rays or gammas but if their speed
is not c wrt their source it must be close to it.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:7ug5s7pg9h8tn89ll...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 27 May 2012 23:16:47 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:g265s7lmm6qht3pef...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:25:57 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>
>>>>> ...and there is no aether.....That's why lighj speed has to be source
>>>>> dependent. Didn't you know that?
>>>>
>>>>I know it but Kinky doesn't. Much of the problem is the term
>>>>"electromagnetic" -- there are electric waves and magnetic waves,
>>>>each dependent on the other and phase shifted 90 degrees,
>>>>but there are no electromagnetic waves.
>>>
>>> I agree it is 90. Others say it is zero. I reckon these waves might
>>> exist
>>> INSIDE a photon but not generally in space.
>>
>>It's very easy to observe a magnetic field, every kid has or
>>should have seen iron filings with a bar or horseshoe magnet,
>>two North poles repelling and North and South poles attracting.
>>It is not quite as easy to observe an electric field because voltages
>>can bite, but it can be done. A 26,000V electric field exists in
>>TV tubes.
>>What you need to explain is what you think it is INSIDE?
>>The photon IS the field, the only difference is it is oscillating.
>
> That's what I have been telling you.

Then you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.

>
>>> I also reckon that traveling
>>> photons must spread out and coalesce over large distances, which
>>> explains
>>> why images of distant galaxies are reasonably detailed and why large
>>> radio
>>> telescope arrays pick up the same wavefronts.
>>
>>Very large telescopes arrays are receiving a portion of the same
>>photon. Your mental model of a photon as a tiny thing simply
>>doesn't apply at low frequencies.
>
> It is only tiny when it is emitted. I say it enlarges as it goes and
> interacts with other photons going the same way. They all end up pretty
> well
> coherent in both phase and speed.
>

It isn't tiny when it is emitted. A 500 MHz - 1 GHz photon is as big as
a TV aerial, which, strangely, is why TV aerials are the size they are,
whether for transmission or reception.

>>Nets catch large fish, small
>>fish go right through them, whales break them. Your eyes only
>>catch one size of photon, you can't see big IR photons or
>>or small X ray photons.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>It's a language thing. He says light is a wave and therefore
>>>>needs a medium, and if it were one wave it would need a
>>>>medium, but light is two waves, one electric and one
>>>>magnetic. There are men and there are women but the unit of the
>>>>two is called a "family" or a "couple" or colloquially an "item",
>>>>but it is not called a ladygent.
>>>
>>> I have a theory that the fields inside an atom act like a kind of aether
>>> which causes photons to be emitted at c wrt it, according to Maxwell.
>>> Before you rant and rave, do you have a better reason for light to
>>> travel
>>> at
>>> c wrt its source?
>>
>>Perhaps you should experimentally determine the speed of x-rays
>>wrt its source, or the speed of IR from your hotplate, before asserting
>>that it is c.
>>
>> http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/arri-300-650-fresnel-compact-light-kit-wheels-571969w.html
>
> It is not easy to measure the speed of x rays or gammas but if their speed
> is not c wrt their source it must be close to it.
>

Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can easily
find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
"close to it" good enough for government work?
I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
some music.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 01:55:23 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:7ug5s7pg9h8tn89ll...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 23:16:47 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>> I agree it is 90. Others say it is zero. I reckon these waves might
>>>> exist
>>>> INSIDE a photon but not generally in space.
>>>
>>>It's very easy to observe a magnetic field, every kid has or
>>>should have seen iron filings with a bar or horseshoe magnet,
>>>two North poles repelling and North and South poles attracting.
>>>It is not quite as easy to observe an electric field because voltages
>>>can bite, but it can be done. A 26,000V electric field exists in
>>>TV tubes.
>>>What you need to explain is what you think it is INSIDE?
>>>The photon IS the field, the only difference is it is oscillating.
>>
>> That's what I have been telling you.
>
>Then you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.

There are several things we know about 'photons'. 1) They are emitted
individually during energy transitions of charged particles. 2) They possess
wavelike properties.

ONE photon does not make a continuous wave. Light is not like a radio wave.
Radio waves consist of a great many photons, each emitted by an accelerating
charge in the antenna. I think the waveform of a radio wave is created by
varying the photon energy density with time. Photons are very small so
gigahertz frequencies are no problem.

>>>> I also reckon that traveling
>>>> photons must spread out and coalesce over large distances, which
>>>> explains
>>>> why images of distant galaxies are reasonably detailed and why large
>>>> radio
>>>> telescope arrays pick up the same wavefronts.
>>>
>>>Very large telescopes arrays are receiving a portion of the same
>>>photon. Your mental model of a photon as a tiny thing simply
>>>doesn't apply at low frequencies.
>>
>> It is only tiny when it is emitted. I say it enlarges as it goes and
>> interacts with other photons going the same way. They all end up pretty
>> well
>> coherent in both phase and speed.
>>
>It isn't tiny when it is emitted. A 500 MHz - 1 GHz photon is as big as
>a TV aerial, which, strangely, is why TV aerials are the size they are,
>whether for transmission or reception.

It isn't. Photons are emitted by accelerating charges. How many electrons
accelerate per second along a UHF antenna?

>>>> I have a theory that the fields inside an atom act like a kind of aether
>>>> which causes photons to be emitted at c wrt it, according to Maxwell.
>>>> Before you rant and rave, do you have a better reason for light to
>>>> travel
>>>> at
>>>> c wrt its source?
>>>
>>>Perhaps you should experimentally determine the speed of x-rays
>>>wrt its source, or the speed of IR from your hotplate, before asserting
>>>that it is c.
>>>
>>> http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/arri-300-650-fresnel-compact-light-kit-wheels-571969w.html
>>
>
> It is not easy to measure the speed of x rays or gammas but if their speed
>> is not c wrt their source it must be close to it.
>>
>Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
>for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can easily
>find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
>"close to it" good enough for government work?

A TV signal is made of a great many photons that move at c wrt their source.

> I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
>have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
>maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
>living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
>55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
>some music.

Have you ever considered why FM and UHF signals wont go around corners?

Ask Tisseladd. He can bend light.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:24f6s7d02mm74ogmi...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 28 May 2012 01:55:23 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:7ug5s7pg9h8tn89ll...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 23:16:47 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>>>> I agree it is 90. Others say it is zero. I reckon these waves might
>>>>> exist
>>>>> INSIDE a photon but not generally in space.
>>>>
>>>>It's very easy to observe a magnetic field, every kid has or
>>>>should have seen iron filings with a bar or horseshoe magnet,
>>>>two North poles repelling and North and South poles attracting.
>>>>It is not quite as easy to observe an electric field because voltages
>>>>can bite, but it can be done. A 26,000V electric field exists in
>>>>TV tubes.
>>>>What you need to explain is what you think it is INSIDE?
>>>>The photon IS the field, the only difference is it is oscillating.
>>>
>>> That's what I have been telling you.
>>
>>Then you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.
>
> There are several things we know about 'photons'. 1) They are emitted
> individually during energy transitions of charged particles. 2) They
> possess
> wavelike properties.

That's vague. What's a "wavelike property"?
The turning of the Earth possesses a wavelike property:
http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide/EasyTide/index.aspx
A piston, crankshaft and connecting rod possesses a wavelike
property. The phase between two pistons in a 4-stroke
twin cylinder engine isn't zero, it is 360 degrees because they
fire alternately. Anything that rotates or reciprocates possesses a
wavelike property. Your domestic AC electricity supply possesses
a wavelike property.

>
> ONE photon does not make a continuous wave.

Yes it does.
ONE wheel on your car doesn't make continuous contact
with the road. If it did it would possess a wavelike property,
the air valve would move up and down.

> Light is not like a radio wave.

Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.

> Radio waves consist of a great many photons, each emitted by an
> accelerating
> charge in the antenna.

Rubbish. If photons were wheels then a radio wave would be a train,
each carriage spaced apart exactly and all wheels going at the
same speed. Light would be more like cars on a road, unequally
spaced and some passing others.

> I think the waveform of a radio wave is created by
> varying the photon energy density with time. Photons are very small so
> gigahertz frequencies are no problem.
>

Rubbish. Low frequency radio waves are huge.
Roller skate wheels are small, they spin faster than
tractor tyres.

>
>>>>> I also reckon that traveling
>>>>> photons must spread out and coalesce over large distances, which
>>>>> explains
>>>>> why images of distant galaxies are reasonably detailed and why large
>>>>> radio
>>>>> telescope arrays pick up the same wavefronts.
>>>>
>>>>Very large telescopes arrays are receiving a portion of the same
>>>>photon. Your mental model of a photon as a tiny thing simply
>>>>doesn't apply at low frequencies.
>>>
>>> It is only tiny when it is emitted. I say it enlarges as it goes and
>>> interacts with other photons going the same way. They all end up pretty
>>> well
>>> coherent in both phase and speed.
>>>
>>It isn't tiny when it is emitted. A 500 MHz - 1 GHz photon is as big as
>>a TV aerial, which, strangely, is why TV aerials are the size they are,
>>whether for transmission or reception.
>
> It isn't. Photons are emitted by accelerating charges. How many electrons
> accelerate per second along a UHF antenna?

The electrons work in concert to produce ONE magnetic field.

>
>>>>> I have a theory that the fields inside an atom act like a kind of
>>>>> aether
>>>>> which causes photons to be emitted at c wrt it, according to Maxwell.
>>>>> Before you rant and rave, do you have a better reason for light to
>>>>> travel
>>>>> at
>>>>> c wrt its source?
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you should experimentally determine the speed of x-rays
>>>>wrt its source, or the speed of IR from your hotplate, before asserting
>>>>that it is c.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/arri-300-650-fresnel-compact-light-kit-wheels-571969w.html
>>>
>>
>> It is not easy to measure the speed of x rays or gammas but if their
>> speed
>>> is not c wrt their source it must be close to it.
>>>
>>Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
>>for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can easily
>>find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
>>"close to it" good enough for government work?
>
> A TV signal is made of a great many photons that move at c wrt their
> source.
>

Assertion carries no weight.

>> I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
>>have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
>>maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
>>living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
>>55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
>>some music.
>
> Have you ever considered why FM and UHF signals wont go around corners?
>
> Ask Tisseladd. He can bend light.
>

Irrelevant, you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:16:56 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:24f6s7d02mm74ogmi...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 May 2012 01:55:23 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>> That's what I have been telling you.
>>>
>>>Then you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.
>>
>> There are several things we know about 'photons'. 1) They are emitted
>> individually during energy transitions of charged particles. 2) They
>> possess
>> wavelike properties.
>
>
>That's vague. What's a "wavelike property"?
>The turning of the Earth possesses a wavelike property:
> http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide/EasyTide/index.aspx
>A piston, crankshaft and connecting rod possesses a wavelike
>property. The phase between two pistons in a 4-stroke
>twin cylinder engine isn't zero, it is 360 degrees because they
>fire alternately. Anything that rotates or reciprocates possesses a
>wavelike property. Your domestic AC electricity supply possesses
>a wavelike property.

All right, if you want to be pedantic, let's agree that 'aspects of their
observed behavior exhibit regular periodicity'.

>>
>> ONE photon does not make a continuous wave.
>
>Yes it does.
>ONE wheel on your car doesn't make continuous contact
>with the road. If it did it would possess a wavelike property,
>the air valve would move up and down.

It would appear as a wave if plotted against time.

>> Light is not like a radio wave.
>
>Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.

It is a totaly different entity. Monchromatic light is made up of many
identical individual photons, each with the same internal oscillation.
A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency although
each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute wavelength'.

A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated so
that the photon density carries the wave information.

A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
particular frequency..

>
>> Radio waves consist of a great many photons, each emitted by an
>> accelerating
>> charge in the antenna.
>
>Rubbish. If photons were wheels then a radio wave would be a train,
>each carriage spaced apart exactly and all wheels going at the
>same speed. Light would be more like cars on a road, unequally
>spaced and some passing others.

You don't understand that innumerable photons are being emitted continuously
from all the accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna.

>> I think the waveform of a radio wave is created by
>> varying the photon energy density with time. Photons are very small so
>> gigahertz frequencies are no problem.
>>
>Rubbish. Low frequency radio waves are huge.
>Roller skate wheels are small, they spin faster than
>tractor tyres.

Engineers should not get involved with physics.

>>>> coherent in both phase and speed.
>>>>
>>>It isn't tiny when it is emitted. A 500 MHz - 1 GHz photon is as big as
>>>a TV aerial, which, strangely, is why TV aerials are the size they are,
>>>whether for transmission or reception.
>>
>> It isn't. Photons are emitted by accelerating charges. How many electrons
>> accelerate per second along a UHF antenna?
>
>The electrons work in concert to produce ONE magnetic field.

Only because they are all accelerating the same direction at the same
instant.

>>>Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
>>>for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can easily
>>>find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
>>>"close to it" good enough for government work?
>>
>> A TV signal is made of a great many photons that move at c wrt their
>> source.
>>
>Assertion carries no weight.

Do you claim that they don't move at c wrt the antenna?

>>> I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
>>>have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
>>>maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
>>>living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
>>>55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
>>>some music.
>>
>> Have you ever considered why FM and UHF signals wont go around corners?
>>
>> Ask Tisseladd. He can bend light.
>>
>Irrelevant, you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.

A photon has length and cross section. Lots of things can happen inside one.

>
>

[Salmon Egg]

In article <4fc22d51$23$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

> That's nonsense; if they satisfy Maxwell's Equations then they behave
> like a single wave.

Of course it is. You have to take into account that often the most
vehement posters are the "wrongest."

--

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:66u7s79e8tfklh7rg...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:16:56 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:24f6s7d02mm74ogmi...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 28 May 2012 01:55:23 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>>>> That's what I have been telling you.
>>>>
>>>>Then you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.
>>>
>>> There are several things we know about 'photons'. 1) They are emitted
>>> individually during energy transitions of charged particles. 2) They
>>> possess
>>> wavelike properties.
>>
>>
>>That's vague. What's a "wavelike property"?
>>The turning of the Earth possesses a wavelike property:
>> http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide/EasyTide/index.aspx
>>A piston, crankshaft and connecting rod possesses a wavelike
>>property. The phase between two pistons in a 4-stroke
>>twin cylinder engine isn't zero, it is 360 degrees because they
>>fire alternately. Anything that rotates or reciprocates possesses a
>>wavelike property. Your domestic AC electricity supply possesses
>>a wavelike property.
>
> All right, if you want to be pedantic, let's agree that 'aspects of their
> observed behavior exhibit regular periodicity'.
>

We have to be pedantic, and you are right, I fully agree that "wavelike"
merely means regular periodicity. The difficulty arises only when waves
travel -- i.e. the water moves up and down, out of phase with other water
that is horizontally displaced but moving up and down. Then we get into
arguments about wavelength, frequency and speed. A standing wave has
wavelength and frequency, but no speed. If it did it wouldn't be called
"standing".
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/StandingWave.gif

>>>
>>> ONE photon does not make a continuous wave.
>>
>>Yes it does.
>>ONE wheel on your car doesn't make continuous contact
>>with the road. If it did it would possess a wavelike property,
>>the air valve would move up and down.
>
> It would appear as a wave if plotted against time.

Yes. So does the mass on a spring. The air valve plots a
cycloid against x and a sine wave against t. The cycloid
because the horizontal movement of the valve is not
constant. Where the tyre touches the ground it has no
movement in x. If it did you'd be leaving skid marks.
It is important to distinguish a plot against time and a
plot against distance, they are NOT the same.

>
>>> Light is not like a radio wave.
>>
>>Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.
>
> It is a totaly different entity.

No it isn't.

> Monchromatic light is made up of many
> identical individual photons, each with the same internal oscillation.

Radio waves are monochromatic.

> A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency

Yes it does. Tune in to 100 MHz FM. Any deviation from 100 MHz
is called "audio" which is why it is called "Frequency Modulation" (FM).

> although
> each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute wavelength'.
>

There is no such animal as 'absolute wavelength'.

> A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated so
> that the photon density carries the wave information.
>

Rubbish. A radio wave is a train of photons.

> A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
> particular frequency..
>

No it doesn't, but I'm not going the explain FM and AM radio to
an idiot here. There is a whole internet where you can find it. Use
Google.


> Not true.

>>
>>> Radio waves consist of a great many photons, each emitted by an
>>> accelerating
>>> charge in the antenna.
>>
>>Rubbish. If photons were wheels then a radio wave would be a train,
>>each carriage spaced apart exactly and all wheels going at the
>>same speed. Light would be more like cars on a road, unequally
>>spaced and some passing others.
>
> You don't understand that innumerable photons are being emitted
> continuously
> from all the accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna.
>

"You don't understand..." You sound just like a relativist, a fuckwit
like Shuba. He's the kind of cunt that always claims "You don't
understand..."
What YOU don't understand is the magnetic field that all those
accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna contribute to
is ONE photon until they all move back again and do it again
and again.

>>> I think the waveform of a radio wave is created by
>>> varying the photon energy density with time. Photons are very small so
>>> gigahertz frequencies are no problem.
>>>
>>Rubbish. Low frequency radio waves are huge.
>>Roller skate wheels are small, they spin faster than
>>tractor tyres.
>
> Engineers should not get involved with physics.
>

Sheep shaggers should tend to their flocks.

>
>>>>> coherent in both phase and speed.
>>>>>
>>>>It isn't tiny when it is emitted. A 500 MHz - 1 GHz photon is as big as
>>>>a TV aerial, which, strangely, is why TV aerials are the size they are,
>>>>whether for transmission or reception.
>>>
>>> It isn't. Photons are emitted by accelerating charges. How many
>>> electrons
>>> accelerate per second along a UHF antenna?
>>
>>The electrons work in concert to produce ONE magnetic field.
>
> Only because they are all accelerating the same direction at the same
> instant.

RIGHT!
And when the magnetic field collapses remote from the aerial it
leaves ONE electric field, out there in space. The photon is as
big as the aerial!

>
>>>>Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
>>>>for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can easily
>>>>find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
>>>>"close to it" good enough for government work?
>>>
>>> A TV signal is made of a great many photons that move at c wrt their
>>> source.
>>>
>>Assertion carries no weight.
>
> Do you claim that they don't move at c wrt the antenna?

Defining c = 300,000,000 m/s, yes.
TV signals move at < c. Measure them, you have all the electronics
available, a D.Sc. and a theory to prove.

I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away.



>>>> I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
>>>>have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
>>>>maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
>>>>living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
>>>>55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
>>>>some music.
>>>
>>> Have you ever considered why FM and UHF signals wont go around corners?
>>>
>>> Ask Tisseladd. He can bend light.
>>>
>>Irrelevant, you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.
>
> A photon has length and cross section. Lots of things can happen inside
> one.

I'm not interested in "can", "maybe", "might be", "could be". If you
were a scientist you'd investigate and say "is".

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 01:06:11 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:66u7s79e8tfklh7rg...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:16:56 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>That's vague. What's a "wavelike property"?
>>>The turning of the Earth possesses a wavelike property:
>>> http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide/EasyTide/index.aspx
>>>A piston, crankshaft and connecting rod possesses a wavelike
>>>property. The phase between two pistons in a 4-stroke
>>>twin cylinder engine isn't zero, it is 360 degrees because they
>>>fire alternately. Anything that rotates or reciprocates possesses a
>>>wavelike property. Your domestic AC electricity supply possesses
>>>a wavelike property.
>>
>> All right, if you want to be pedantic, let's agree that 'aspects of their
>> observed behavior exhibit regular periodicity'.
>>
>We have to be pedantic, and you are right, I fully agree that "wavelike"
>merely means regular periodicity. The difficulty arises only when waves
>travel -- i.e. the water moves up and down, out of phase with other water
>that is horizontally displaced but moving up and down. Then we get into
>arguments about wavelength, frequency and speed. A standing wave has
>wavelength and frequency, but no speed. If it did it wouldn't be called
>"standing".
> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/StandingWave.gif

A standing wave is the sum of two similar waves MOVING in opposite
directions.
Engineers shouldn't dabble in physics...

>>>>
>>>> ONE photon does not make a continuous wave.
>>>
>>>Yes it does.
>>>ONE wheel on your car doesn't make continuous contact
>>>with the road. If it did it would possess a wavelike property,
>>>the air valve would move up and down.
>>
>> It would appear as a wave if plotted against time.
>
>Yes. So does the mass on a spring. The air valve plots a
>cycloid against x and a sine wave against t. The cycloid
>because the horizontal movement of the valve is not
>constant. Where the tyre touches the ground it has no
>movement in x. If it did you'd be leaving skid marks.
>It is important to distinguish a plot against time and a
>plot against distance, they are NOT the same.

Partly true.
For a traveling in a medium the equation for a traveling wave is A=
Ao.sin(2pi(t/T-x/L). which means that a particular instant, you have what
you see if you photograph a water wave.
If you hold x constant, the water surface goes up and down sinusoidally at
the point x....so if you plot it against time, you get the same wave as you
see on the photograph.

However, you are one who continually opposes the idea that mathematics IS
physics so you shouldn't claim that a spinning wheel has a 'wavelength'..

>>>> Light is not like a radio wave.
>>>
>>>Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.
>>
>> It is a totaly different entity.
>
>No it isn't.
>
>> Monchromatic light is made up of many
>> identical individual photons, each with the same internal oscillation.
>
>Radio waves are monochromatic.

The photons in them don't have to be.

>> A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency
>
>Yes it does. Tune in to 100 MHz FM. Any deviation from 100 MHz
>is called "audio" which is why it is called "Frequency Modulation" (FM).

The photon density varies at 100MHz.

>> although
>> each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute wavelength'.
>>
>There is no such animal as 'absolute wavelength'.

Engineers shouldn't dabble in BaTh.

>> A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated so
>> that the photon density carries the wave information.
>>
>Rubbish. A radio wave is a train of photons.

That's very clever..

>> A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
>> particular frequency..
>>
>No it doesn't, but I'm not going the explain FM and AM radio to
>an idiot here. There is a whole internet where you can find it. Use
>Google.

A radio signal is not made of one photon.

Gawd, the BBC has been broadcasting for over one hundred years.....BLOODY
LONG PHOTON.....

What does Daisy say?

>> Not true.
>
>>>
>>>> Radio waves consist of a great many photons, each emitted by an
>>>> accelerating
>>>> charge in the antenna.
>>>
>>>Rubbish. If photons were wheels then a radio wave would be a train,
>>>each carriage spaced apart exactly and all wheels going at the
>>>same speed. Light would be more like cars on a road, unequally
>>>spaced and some passing others.
>>
>> You don't understand that innumerable photons are being emitted
>> continuously
>> from all the accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna.
>>
>"You don't understand..." You sound just like a relativist, a fuckwit
>like Shuba. He's the kind of cunt that always claims "You don't
>understand..."

He IS a fuckwit. ...but the rest of the ratpack seems to have left us in
peace.

>What YOU don't understand is the magnetic field that all those
>accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna contribute to
>is ONE photon until they all move back again and do it again
>and again.

They are emitted in phase. Their fields combine.

>>>> I think the waveform of a radio wave is created by
>>>> varying the photon energy density with time. Photons are very small so
>>>> gigahertz frequencies are no problem.
>>>>
>>>Rubbish. Low frequency radio waves are huge.
>>>Roller skate wheels are small, they spin faster than
>>>tractor tyres.
>>
>> Engineers should not get involved with physics.
>>
>Sheep shaggers should tend to their flocks.

Tell that to the Kiwis.

>>>>>It isn't tiny when it is emitted. A 500 MHz - 1 GHz photon is as big as
>>>>>a TV aerial, which, strangely, is why TV aerials are the size they are,
>>>>>whether for transmission or reception.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't. Photons are emitted by accelerating charges. How many
>>>> electrons
>>>> accelerate per second along a UHF antenna?
>>>
>>>The electrons work in concert to produce ONE magnetic field.
>>
>> Only because they are all accelerating the same direction at the same
>> instant.
>
>RIGHT!
>And when the magnetic field collapses remote from the aerial it
>leaves ONE electric field, out there in space. The photon is as
>big as the aerial!

It cannot be.

>>>>>Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
>>>>>for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can easily
>>>>>find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
>>>>>"close to it" good enough for government work?
>>>>
>>>> A TV signal is made of a great many photons that move at c wrt their
>>>> source.
>>>>
>>>Assertion carries no weight.
>>
>> Do you claim that they don't move at c wrt the antenna?
>
>Defining c = 300,000,000 m/s, yes.
>TV signals move at < c. Measure them, you have all the electronics
>available, a D.Sc. and a theory to prove.

Why do you say they move at less than c wrt their antenna?

>I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
>have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away.
>
>
>
>>>>> I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
>>>>>have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
>>>>>maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
>>>>>living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
>>>>>55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
>>>>>some music.
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever considered why FM and UHF signals wont go around corners?
>>>>
>>>> Ask Tisseladd. He can bend light.
>>>>
>>>Irrelevant, you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.
>>
>> A photon has length and cross section. Lots of things can happen inside
>> one.
>
>I'm not interested in "can", "maybe", "might be", "could be". If you
>were a scientist you'd investigate and say "is".

Well get hold of a bloody microscope and tell Daisy to have a look inside a
photon....

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:smt8s714onhbpgu04...@4ax.com...

Yeah, a standing water wave is two water waves moving at 300,000,000
metres/sec in opposite directions.
1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2 and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in
mathematics or waves.

>>>>>
>>>>> ONE photon does not make a continuous wave.
>>>>
>>>>Yes it does.
>>>>ONE wheel on your car doesn't make continuous contact
>>>>with the road. If it did it would possess a wavelike property,
>>>>the air valve would move up and down.
>>>
>>> It would appear as a wave if plotted against time.
>>
>>Yes. So does the mass on a spring. The air valve plots a
>>cycloid against x and a sine wave against t. The cycloid
>>because the horizontal movement of the valve is not
>>constant. Where the tyre touches the ground it has no
>>movement in x. If it did you'd be leaving skid marks.
>>It is important to distinguish a plot against time and a
>>plot against distance, they are NOT the same.
>
> Partly true.
> For a traveling in a medium the equation for a traveling wave is A=
> Ao.sin(2pi(t/T-x/L). which means that a particular instant, you have what
> you see if you photograph a water wave.
> If you hold x constant, the water surface goes up and down sinusoidally at
> the point x....so if you plot it against time, you get the same wave as
> you
> see on the photograph.

http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/StandingWave.gif

A standing water wave is two water waves moving at a gazillion
light years/sec in opposite directions. 1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2
and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.

>
> However, you are one who continually opposes the idea that mathematics IS
> physics so you shouldn't claim that a spinning wheel has a 'wavelength'..
>

I didn't. The problem is English, the rope is all day long because "long"
and "length" are used for both x and t

>>>>> Light is not like a radio wave.
>>>>
>>>>Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.
>>>
>>> It is a totaly different entity.
>>
>>No it isn't.
>>
>>> Monchromatic light is made up of many
>>> identical individual photons, each with the same internal oscillation.
>>
>>Radio waves are monochromatic.
>
> The photons in them don't have to be.

Radio waves are monochromatic.
Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.

>
>>> A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency
>>
>>Yes it does. Tune in to 100 MHz FM. Any deviation from 100 MHz
>>is called "audio" which is why it is called "Frequency Modulation" (FM).
>
> The photon density varies at 100MHz.
>

You make it up as you go along.
Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.

>>> although
>>> each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute
>>> wavelength'.
>>>
>>There is no such animal as 'absolute wavelength'.
>
> Engineers shouldn't dabble in BaTh.
>

I wouldn't touch your BaTh with a 10 foot pole with a sanitary inspector
on the end of it.

>>> A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated
>>> so
>>> that the photon density carries the wave information.
>>>
>>Rubbish. A radio wave is a train of photons.
>
> That's very clever..

Thank you.

>
>>> A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
>>> particular frequency..
>>>
>>No it doesn't, but I'm not going the explain FM and AM radio to
>>an idiot here. There is a whole internet where you can find it. Use
>>Google.
>
> A radio signal is not made of one photon.
>
> Gawd, the BBC has been broadcasting for over one hundred years.....BLOODY
> LONG PHOTON.....
>
> What does Daisy say?
>

Daisy said "That's very clever.." then mumbled "signal" which is neither
photon nor wave.

A radio wave is a train of photons.

>>> Not true.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Radio waves consist of a great many photons, each emitted by an
>>>>> accelerating
>>>>> charge in the antenna.
>>>>
>>>>Rubbish. If photons were wheels then a radio wave would be a train,
>>>>each carriage spaced apart exactly and all wheels going at the
>>>>same speed. Light would be more like cars on a road, unequally
>>>>spaced and some passing others.
>>>
>>> You don't understand that innumerable photons are being emitted
>>> continuously
>>> from all the accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna.
>>>
>>"You don't understand..." You sound just like a relativist, a fuckwit
>>like Shuba. He's the kind of cunt that always claims "You don't
>>understand..."
>
> He IS a fuckwit. ...but the rest of the ratpack seems to have left us in
> peace.

The rats are leaving the sinking ship, they've seen the end of
relativity coming. Phuckwit Duck has gone, Dork Van de Belgian
Waffle is running out of steam, Bonehead is loitering in alt.astronomy.

>
>>What YOU don't understand is the magnetic field that all those
>>accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna contribute to
>>is ONE photon until they all move back again and do it again
>>and again.
>
> They are emitted in phase. Their fields combine.

Making ONE big photon.

But it is. And when the big photon with the one magnetic field
hits the receiving aerial it creates one voltage that sends all the
tiny electrons scuttling just like the sheep dog drives the whole
flock of sheep.

Sheep shaggers should tend to their flocks and not dabble in
physics or mathematics.

>
>>>>>>Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
>>>>>>for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can
>>>>>>easily
>>>>>>find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
>>>>>>"close to it" good enough for government work?
>>>>>
>>>>> A TV signal is made of a great many photons that move at c wrt their
>>>>> source.
>>>>>
>>>>Assertion carries no weight.
>>>
>>> Do you claim that they don't move at c wrt the antenna?
>>
>>Defining c = 300,000,000 m/s, yes.
>>TV signals move at < c. Measure them, you have all the electronics
>>available, a D.Sc. and a theory to prove.
>
> Why do you say they move at less than c wrt their antenna?

When all the electrons run up the aerial they have to stop at the end.
This means they slow down more than electrons in the middle,
and that bends the one big photon.

Why do you say they move at c wrt empty space?
Oh wait, I know... Einstein said so and you believe him.

>>I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
>>have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
>>>>>>have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
>>>>>>maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
>>>>>>living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
>>>>>>55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
>>>>>>some music.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever considered why FM and UHF signals wont go around
>>>>> corners?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask Tisseladd. He can bend light.
>>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant, you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the
>>>>word.
>>>
>>> A photon has length and cross section. Lots of things can happen inside
>>> one.
>>
>>I'm not interested in "can", "maybe", "might be", "could be". If you
>>were a scientist you'd investigate and say "is".
>
> Well get hold of a bloody microscope and tell Daisy to have a look inside
> a
> photon....
>

Don't need a microscope for something as big as a TV aerial, Daisy.

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> napisał w
wiadomości news:4fc22d51$23$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net...

> In <Yinwr.286010$Bx1....@fx11.am4>, on 05/27/2012
> at 11:25 AM, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> said:
>
>>Much of the problem is the term "electromagnetic" -- there are
>>electric waves and magnetic waves, each dependent on the other
>>and phase shifted 90 degrees, but there are no electromagnetic
>>waves.
>
> That's nonsense; if they satisfy Maxwell's Equations then they behave
> like a single wave.
>
>>He says light is a wave and therefore needs a medium, an d if it
>>were one wave it would need a medium,
>
> No, it wouldn't, although a disturbance in a medium might be easier to
> visualize.

For L. Lorenz the light is the electron waves:
""In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the
vibrations of light with
electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"

http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJdQfAKHtMC&hl=pl&pg=RA1-PA287#v=onepage&q&f=false

On p. 301 he wrote:
"The present general opinion regards light as consisting of backward and
forward motions of particles of aether."
If this were the case the electrical current would be the progressive motion
of the aether in the direction of the electrical current."

In today's words: "Light is the oscillatory flow of electrons".
S*

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics.electromag Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:

> For L. Lorenz the light is the electron waves:
> ""In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the
> vibrations of light with
> electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"
>
> http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJdQfAKHtMC&hl=pl&pg=RA1-PA287#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
> On p. 301 he wrote:
> "The present general opinion regards light as consisting of backward and
> forward motions of particles of aether."
> If this were the case the electrical current would be the progressive motion
> of the aether in the direction of the electrical current."
>
> In today's words: "Light is the oscillatory flow of electrons".
> S*

The key phrase here is "The present general opinion...", which has changed
a significantly in the 145 years since this was written.

You are a babbling idiot that will never be able to understand that many
of the original theories of electromagnetics of 150 years ago have proved
to be flat out wrong.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 29.05.2012 00:29, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated so
> that the photon density carries the wave information.

Which reminds me:
http://tinyurl.com/cqfycnt

According to Doctor Ralph Rabbidge:
<<
If we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna,
photon density variations is used for waveform definition,
but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there
is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect
of the photons.

>>

> A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
> particular frequency..

But from the wise words of Doctor Ralph Rabbidge, we can only conclude:

If we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna,
photon density variations is used for frequency definition,
but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there
is no photon density variation, but the frequency is an aspect
of the photons.

Right Ralph? :-)


--
Paul

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

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 09:55:33 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:smt8s714onhbpgu04...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 May 2012 01:06:11 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>We have to be pedantic, and you are right, I fully agree that "wavelike"
>>>merely means regular periodicity. The difficulty arises only when waves
>>>travel -- i.e. the water moves up and down, out of phase with other water
>>>that is horizontally displaced but moving up and down. Then we get into
>>>arguments about wavelength, frequency and speed. A standing wave has
>>>wavelength and frequency, but no speed. If it did it wouldn't be called
>>>"standing".
>>> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/StandingWave.gif
>>
>> A standing wave is the sum of two similar waves MOVING in opposite
>> directions.
>> Engineers shouldn't dabble in physics...
>
>Yeah, a standing water wave is two water waves moving at 300,000,000
>metres/sec in opposite directions.
>1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2 and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in
>mathematics or waves.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

>>>Yes. So does the mass on a spring. The air valve plots a
>>>cycloid against x and a sine wave against t. The cycloid
>>>because the horizontal movement of the valve is not
>>>constant. Where the tyre touches the ground it has no
>>>movement in x. If it did you'd be leaving skid marks.
>>>It is important to distinguish a plot against time and a
>>>plot against distance, they are NOT the same.
>>
>> Partly true.
>> For a traveling in a medium the equation for a traveling wave is A=
>> Ao.sin(2pi(t/T-x/L). which means that a particular instant, you have what
>> you see if you photograph a water wave.
>> If you hold x constant, the water surface goes up and down sinusoidally at
>> the point x....so if you plot it against time, you get the same wave as
>> you
>> see on the photograph.
>
> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/StandingWave.gif
>
>A standing water wave is two water waves moving at a gazillion
>light years/sec in opposite directions. 1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2
>and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

>> However, you are one who continually opposes the idea that mathematics IS
>> physics so you shouldn't claim that a spinning wheel has a 'wavelength'..
>>
>I didn't. The problem is English, the rope is all day long because "long"
>and "length" are used for both x and t

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

>>>>>> Light is not like a radio wave.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.
>>>>
>>>> It is a totaly different entity.
>>>
>>>No it isn't.
>>>
>>>> Monchromatic light is made up of many
>>>> identical individual photons, each with the same internal oscillation.
>>>
>>>Radio waves are monochromatic.
>>
>> The photons in them don't have to be.
>
>Radio waves are monochromatic.

Not so. They are monoradiomatic.

>Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

>>>> A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency
>>>
>>>Yes it does. Tune in to 100 MHz FM. Any deviation from 100 MHz
>>>is called "audio" which is why it is called "Frequency Modulation" (FM).
>>
>> The photon density varies at 100MHz.
>>
>You make it up as you go along.
>Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

>>>> although
>>>> each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute
>>>> wavelength'.
>>>>
>>>There is no such animal as 'absolute wavelength'.
>>
>> Engineers shouldn't dabble in BaTh.
>>
>I wouldn't touch your BaTh with a 10 foot pole with a sanitary inspector
>on the end of it.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

>>>> A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated
>>>> so
>>>> that the photon density carries the wave information.
>>>>
>>>Rubbish. A radio wave is a train of photons.
>>
>> That's very clever..
>
>Thank you.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

>
>>>> A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
>>>> particular frequency..
>>>>
>>>No it doesn't, but I'm not going the explain FM and AM radio to
>>>an idiot here. There is a whole internet where you can find it. Use
>>>Google.
>>
>> A radio signal is not made of one photon.
>>
>> Gawd, the BBC has been broadcasting for over one hundred years.....BLOODY
>> LONG PHOTON.....
>>
>> What does Daisy say?
>>
>Daisy said "That's very clever.." then mumbled "signal" which is neither
>photon nor wave.
>
>A radio wave is a train of photons.

>>>"You don't understand..." You sound just like a relativist, a fuckwit
>>>like Shuba. He's the kind of cunt that always claims "You don't
>>>understand..."
>>
>> He IS a fuckwit. ...but the rest of the ratpack seems to have left us in
>> peace.
>
>The rats are leaving the sinking ship, they've seen the end of
>relativity coming. Phuckwit Duck has gone, Dork Van de Belgian
>Waffle is running out of steam, Bonehead is loitering in alt.astronomy.

...and Andersen has just unwittingly supported BaTh.

>>>What YOU don't understand is the magnetic field that all those
>>>accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna contribute to
>>>is ONE photon until they all move back again and do it again
>>>and again.
>>
>> They are emitted in phase. Their fields combine.
>
>Making ONE big photon.

Aha! You are finally coming around to supporting my inification
theory.....good!

>>>>
>>>> Only because they are all accelerating the same direction at the same
>>>> instant.
>>>
>>>RIGHT!
>>>And when the magnetic field collapses remote from the aerial it
>>>leaves ONE electric field, out there in space. The photon is as
>>>big as the aerial!
>>
>> It cannot be.
>
>But it is. And when the big photon with the one magnetic field
>hits the receiving aerial it creates one voltage that sends all the
>tiny electrons scuttling just like the sheep dog drives the whole
>flock of sheep.

That is indeed a possibility.
However, we were actually discussing what happens at the broadcasting
antenna, where individual and very minute photons are emitted more or less
randomly along the whole length. How far do they need to travel before they
coalesce into what is effectively one big photon?

>
>Sheep shaggers should tend to their flocks and not dabble in
>physics or mathematics.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

>>>
>>>Defining c = 300,000,000 m/s, yes.
>>>TV signals move at < c. Measure them, you have all the electronics
>>>available, a D.Sc. and a theory to prove.
>>
>> Why do you say they move at less than c wrt their antenna?
>
>When all the electrons run up the aerial they have to stop at the end.
>This means they slow down more than electrons in the middle,
>and that bends the one big photon.
>
>Why do you say they move at c wrt empty space?
>Oh wait, I know... Einstein said so and you believe him.

Don't lie. You sound like Tusseladd. I have never said that.

>>>
>>>I'm not interested in "can", "maybe", "might be", "could be". If you
>>>were a scientist you'd investigate and say "is".
>>
>> Well get hold of a bloody microscope and tell Daisy to have a look inside
>> a
>> photon....
>>
>Don't need a microscope for something as big as a TV aerial, Daisy.

You need a 'quick' telescope then.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:9lias7pjq8ls4l13d...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 29 May 2012 09:55:33 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:smt8s714onhbpgu04...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 29 May 2012 01:06:11 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>>>We have to be pedantic, and you are right, I fully agree that "wavelike"
>>>>merely means regular periodicity. The difficulty arises only when waves
>>>>travel -- i.e. the water moves up and down, out of phase with other
>>>>water
>>>>that is horizontally displaced but moving up and down. Then we get into
>>>>arguments about wavelength, frequency and speed. A standing wave has
>>>>wavelength and frequency, but no speed. If it did it wouldn't be called
>>>>"standing".
>>>> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/StandingWave.gif
>>>
>>> A standing wave is the sum of two similar waves MOVING in opposite
>>> directions.
>>> Engineers shouldn't dabble in physics...
>>
>>Yeah, a standing water wave is two water waves moving at 300,000,000
>>metres/sec in opposite directions.
>>1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2 and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in
>>mathematics or waves.
>
> You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two

similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."

You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

>
>
>>>>Yes. So does the mass on a spring. The air valve plots a
>>>>cycloid against x and a sine wave against t. The cycloid
>>>>because the horizontal movement of the valve is not
>>>>constant. Where the tyre touches the ground it has no
>>>>movement in x. If it did you'd be leaving skid marks.
>>>>It is important to distinguish a plot against time and a
>>>>plot against distance, they are NOT the same.
>>>
>>> Partly true.
>>> For a traveling in a medium the equation for a traveling wave is A=
>>> Ao.sin(2pi(t/T-x/L). which means that a particular instant, you have
>>> what
>>> you see if you photograph a water wave.
>>> If you hold x constant, the water surface goes up and down sinusoidally
>>> at
>>> the point x....so if you plot it against time, you get the same wave as
>>> you
>>> see on the photograph.
>>
>> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/StandingWave.gif
>>
>>A standing water wave is two water waves moving at a gazillion
>>light years/sec in opposite directions. 1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2
>>and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.
>
> You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....
>

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two

similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."

You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

>>> However, you are one who continually opposes the idea that mathematics
>>> IS
>>> physics so you shouldn't claim that a spinning wheel has a
>>> 'wavelength'..
>>>
>>I didn't. The problem is English, the rope is all day long because "long"
>>and "length" are used for both x and t
>
> You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two

similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."

You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

>
>>>>>>> Light is not like a radio wave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a totaly different entity.
>>>>
>>>>No it isn't.
>>>>
>>>>> Monchromatic light is made up of many
>>>>> identical individual photons, each with the same internal oscillation.
>>>>
>>>>Radio waves are monochromatic.
>>>
>>> The photons in them don't have to be.
>>
>>Radio waves are monochromatic.
>
> Not so. They are monoradiomatic.

You say red, I say cheap ozzie plonk.
Monochromatic means single coloured and colour depends
only on frequency. Radio waves are monochromatic.

>
>>Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.
>
> You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two

similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."

You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

>>>>> A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency
>>>>
>>>>Yes it does. Tune in to 100 MHz FM. Any deviation from 100 MHz
>>>>is called "audio" which is why it is called "Frequency Modulation" (FM).
>>>
>>> The photon density varies at 100MHz.
>>>
>>You make it up as you go along.
>>Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.
>
> You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two

similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."

You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

>>>>> although
>>>>> each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute
>>>>> wavelength'.
>>>>>
>>>>There is no such animal as 'absolute wavelength'.
>>>
>>> Engineers shouldn't dabble in BaTh.
>>>
>>I wouldn't touch your BaTh with a 10 foot pole with a sanitary inspector
>>on the end of it.
>
> You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two

similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."

You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

>>>>> A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated
>>>>> so
>>>>> that the photon density carries the wave information.
>>>>>
>>>>Rubbish. A radio wave is a train of photons.
>>>
>>> That's very clever..
>>
>>Thank you.
>
> You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two

similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."

You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

>>
>>>>> A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
>>>>> particular frequency..
>>>>>
>>>>No it doesn't, but I'm not going the explain FM and AM radio to
>>>>an idiot here. There is a whole internet where you can find it. Use
>>>>Google.
>>>
>>> A radio signal is not made of one photon.
>>>
>>> Gawd, the BBC has been broadcasting for over one hundred
>>> years.....BLOODY
>>> LONG PHOTON.....
>>>
>>> What does Daisy say?
>>>
>>Daisy said "That's very clever.." then mumbled "signal" which is neither
>>photon nor wave.
>>
>>A radio wave is a train of photons.
>
>>>>"You don't understand..." You sound just like a relativist, a fuckwit
>>>>like Shuba. He's the kind of cunt that always claims "You don't
>>>>understand..."
>>>
>>> He IS a fuckwit. ...but the rest of the ratpack seems to have left us
>>> in
>>> peace.
>>
>>The rats are leaving the sinking ship, they've seen the end of
>>relativity coming. Phuckwit Duck has gone, Dork Van de Belgian
>>Waffle is running out of steam, Bonehead is loitering in alt.astronomy.
>
> ...and Andersen has just unwittingly supported BaTh.

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two

similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."

You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

>>>>What YOU don't understand is the magnetic field that all those
>>>>accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna contribute to
>>>>is ONE photon until they all move back again and do it again
>>>>and again.
>>>
>>> They are emitted in phase. Their fields combine.
>>
>>Making ONE big photon.
>
> Aha! You are finally coming around to supporting my inification
> theory.....good!

Your crackpot inifuckation theory was dependent on velocity.
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only because they are all accelerating the same direction at the same
>>>>> instant.
>>>>
>>>>RIGHT!
>>>>And when the magnetic field collapses remote from the aerial it
>>>>leaves ONE electric field, out there in space. The photon is as
>>>>big as the aerial!
>>>
>>> It cannot be.
>>
>>But it is. And when the big photon with the one magnetic field
>>hits the receiving aerial it creates one voltage that sends all the
>>tiny electrons scuttling just like the sheep dog drives the whole
>>flock of sheep.
>
> That is indeed a possibility.
> However, we were actually discussing what happens at the broadcasting
> antenna, where individual and very minute photons are emitted more or less
> randomly along the whole length.

The receiver has the identical process in reverse, that's all. Forget the
electrons, it's the voltage that Faraday described and Maxwell copied,
long before Thompson nvented electrons.
E = -dB/dt, Voltage = rate of change of Magnetic Field.

> How far do they need to travel before they
> coalesce into what is effectively one big photon?

To the skin of the dipole.

>
>>
>>Sheep shaggers should tend to their flocks and not dabble in
>>physics or mathematics.
>
> You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....
>

Your crackpot inifuckation theory was dependent on velocity.
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

>
>>>>
>>>>Defining c = 300,000,000 m/s, yes.
>>>>TV signals move at < c. Measure them, you have all the electronics
>>>>available, a D.Sc. and a theory to prove.
>>>
>>> Why do you say they move at less than c wrt their antenna?
>>
>>When all the electrons run up the aerial they have to stop at the end.
>>This means they slow down more than electrons in the middle,
>>and that bends the one big photon.
>>
>>Why do you say they move at c wrt empty space?
>>Oh wait, I know... Einstein said so and you believe him.
>
> Don't lie. You sound like Tusseladd. I have never said that.
>

Then answer the fucking question.
If you don't like that one, why do you say radio waves
move at c wrt to the aerial? Where is your evidence?
What I did was ask someone who claims a D. Sc. to check.
What I get is can be, might be, could be...

>
>>>>
>>>>I'm not interested in "can", "maybe", "might be", "could be". If you
>>>>were a scientist you'd investigate and say "is".
>>>
>>> Well get hold of a bloody microscope and tell Daisy to have a look
>>> inside
>>> a
>>> photon....
>>>
>>Don't need a microscope for something as big as a TV aerial, Daisy.
>
> You need a 'quick' telescope then.

Use an oscilloscope.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:10:19 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somwhere.no>
wrote:

>On 29.05.2012 00:29, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated so
>> that the photon density carries the wave information.
>
>Which reminds me:
>http://tinyurl.com/cqfycnt
>

>According to Doctor Henry Wilson:

><<
> If we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna,
> photon density variations is used for waveform definition,
> but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there
> is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect
> of the photons.
> >>
>
>> A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
>> particular frequency..
>

>But from the wise words of Doctor Henry Wilson, we can only conclude:

>
> If we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna,
> photon density variations is used for frequency definition,
> but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there
> is no photon density variation, but the frequency is an aspect
> of the photons.

.....you are refereing here to 'wavecrest arrival rate'.

>
>Right Henry? :-)

No, you don't understand at all. Even Andro's chimp seems capable of
discussing this sensibly.

Diffraction gratings are not phase sensitive. So the Hydrogen radiation
comprising innumerable photons with an INTRINSIC wavelength of 21cm is
detectable with interferometry.

When 21cm radiation is emitted from an antenna, however, the big question
remains, 'what role do individual photons play in the projected energy
'wave'?

When you answer that, I will explain what happens at the receiving end.

[Bill Owen]

I think you two are talking past each other. Unfortunately, there are
two different phenomena which are called "standing waves."

-- the speed of the wave matches the speed of the medium, in which case
the entire wave stands still. You see this with large rocks in a river.

-- only the nodes stand still, as in violin strings. In this case, but
not in the first case, the math is indeed equivalent to two waves with
the same amplitude moving in opposite directions. Wikipedia explains
how the trig identity makes this so:

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

-- Bill Owen

[Androcles]

"Bill Owen" <w...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:4FC55A06...@jpl.nasa.gov...

>I think you two are talking past each other. Unfortunately, there are two
>different phenomena which are called "standing waves."
>
> -- the speed of the wave matches the speed of the medium, in which case
> the entire wave stands still. You see this with large rocks in a river.

You would also see it by travelling through air at Mach 1, in which
case there is no frequency.
Same with the surf board, the rider travels at the crest of the wave
and has no vertical velocity; even though he has horizontal velocity
wrt the shore he has no horizontal velocity wrt the crest of the wave.
Again, no frequency.

> -- only the nodes stand still, as in violin strings.

Violin strings are tethered, they do not move through the air as the sound
waves they produce do; but you make my point. The violin string has
both wavelength and frequency, yet no velocity. The string is a standing
wave.

> In this case, but not in the first case, the math is indeed equivalent to
> two waves with the same amplitude moving in opposite directions.

Then I demand to know the velocity of these supposed opposing waves.


> Wikipedia explains
==================
Wackypedia can kiss my arse, it is full of wacky shit. The summation
of waves is easily computed with nothing more than a spreadsheet,
as here:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Images/SumWave20+21.gif
As you can clearly see (if viewing with the appropriate reader), the sum
travels much faster then either of the two waves being summed.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 16:21:42 -0700, Bill Owen <w...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

>I think you two are talking past each other. Unfortunately, there are
>two different phenomena which are called "standing waves."
>
>-- the speed of the wave matches the speed of the medium, in which case
>the entire wave stands still. You see this with large rocks in a river.

THat's merely a frame effect. It is only stationary in one observer frame.
It is not at all related to the scientific definition of a 'standing wave'.

>-- only the nodes stand still, as in violin strings. In this case, but
>not in the first case, the math is indeed equivalent to two waves with
>the same amplitude moving in opposite directions.

Correct.
For a string,
A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)]

which means that at any point x, the string moves up and down sinusoidally
with amplitude also varying sinusoidally along its length.

> Wikipedia explains
>how the trig identity makes this so:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave

You are wasting your time trying to explain anything mathematical to
Androcles. He's only a pommie engineer, you know...

>-- Bill Owen

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:5msas79gj9g930f9u...@4ax.com...

For a violin string, at x= 0 or x=L the amplitude is zero, Wilson.
Perhaps you can explain what A and 2 represent, ya stupid old sheep shagger.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Try wiki's equation: 2[cos(wt).sin(x/L)]...same thing but node at each end.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:ipnbs79c2tgpkebs0...@4ax.com...

At x = 0 we have sin(x/L) = 0 and hence cos(wt) * 0 so that works,
but at x = L we have sin(1) = 0.84147 so the fucking bridge on the
violin is leaping a foot in the air.

[Paul B. Andersen]

This claim:

"If we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna,
photon density variations is used for waveform definition,
but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there
is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect
of the photons."

is indeed what could be expected by Andro's chimp.
In human language it translates to "I have no clue".

> Diffraction gratings are not phase sensitive. So the Hydrogen radiation
> comprising innumerable photons with an INTRINSIC wavelength of 21cm is
> detectable with interferometry.
>
> When 21cm radiation is emitted from an antenna, however, the big question
> remains, 'what role do individual photons play in the projected energy
> 'wave'?
>
> When you answer that, I will explain what happens at the receiving end.

The point with my posting was to remind you that your statement:

"A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual
photons, modulated so that the photon density carries
the wave information."

make no sense.

Which is quite obvious from the self contradictions
you have to make to defend it:
http://tinyurl.com/cqfycnt

The simple fact is that the wave/particle duality
can't be explained by 19th century clockwork mechanics.

--
Paul

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

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

I have given the equation for eg., an open ended organ pipe.
For a violin string, it is: 2A[cos(wt).sin(kx)]...
k determines the number of harmonics.

>Perhaps you can explain what A and 2 represent, ya stupid old sheep shagger.

Don't pommie engineers learn any maths?

A is the amplitude in the middle...when sin(kx) = 1.....

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 30 May 2012 22:48:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somwhere.no>

wrote:

>On 30.05.2012 01:12, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:10:19 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<som...@somwhere.no>

So what is your answer?
Do you, like Androcles, believe that a generated 21cm microwave consists of
ONE big photon?
OR, does it not consist of photons at all?
OR do you agree that many photons are radiated by the accelerating charges
moving up and down the antenna?
DO you have an alternative explanation?

>> Diffraction gratings are not phase sensitive. So the Hydrogen radiation
>> comprising innumerable photons with an INTRINSIC wavelength of 21cm is
>> detectable with interferometry.
>>
>> When 21cm radiation is emitted from an antenna, however, the big question
>> remains, 'what role do individual photons play in the projected energy
>> 'wave'?
>>
>> When you answer that, I will explain what happens at the receiving end.
>
>The point with my posting was to remind you that your statement:
> "A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual
> photons, modulated so that the photon density carries
> the wave information."
>make no sense.

How do you know that? Do you have any proof of your claim?

>Which is quite obvious from the self contradictions
>you have to make to defend it:
>http://tinyurl.com/cqfycnt

At least I have a defence....which is more than you can claim about your
curved light.

>The simple fact is that the wave/particle duality
>can't be explained by 19th century clockwork mechanics.

It cannot be explained by YOU either.

But it is explained by BaTh. Photons are intrinsically oscillating
particles.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:fp5ds7t9f3qpkai7s...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 30 May 2012 12:17:17 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:ipnbs79c2tgpkebs0...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 05:48:23 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>>> Wikipedia explains
>>>>>>how the trig identity makes this so:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave
>>>>>
>>>>> You are wasting your time trying to explain anything mathematical to
>>>>> Androcles. He's only a pommie engineer, you know...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>For a violin string, at x= 0 or x=L the amplitude is zero, Wilson.
>>>>Perhaps you can explain what A and 2 represent, ya stupid old sheep
>>>>shagger.
>>>
>>> Try wiki's equation: 2[cos(wt).sin(x/L)]...same thing but node at each
>>> end.
>>>
>>
>>At x = 0 we have sin(x/L) = 0 and hence cos(wt) * 0 so that works,
>>but at x = L we have sin(1) = 0.84147 so the fucking bridge on the
>>violin is leaping a foot in the air.
>
> I have given the equation for eg., an open ended organ pipe.

Bwhahahaha!

"For a string,
A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
Perhaps you can explain what A and 2 represent, and when strings
became open ended organ pipes, ya stupid old sheep shagger.

> For a violin string, it is: 2A[cos(wt).sin(kx)]...
> k determines the number of harmonics.
>
>>Perhaps you can explain what A and 2 represent, ya stupid old sheep
>>shagger.
>
> Don't pommie engineers learn any maths?

Engineers don't leave A out on the RHS of an equation, we leave that
to stupid old ozzie sheep shaggers.

>
> A is the amplitude in the middle...when sin(kx) = 1.....

Is x in centimetres, inches, yards, fractions of L, or what?
As I recall, the parameter for the sine function is an angle.
Don't ozzie sheep shaggers learn any maths?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

You know there is supposed to be an A in there. Don't worry about it...It
isn't a big issue. You can make A = 1 arbitrary unit if you like.

>> For a violin string, it is: 2A[cos(wt).sin(kx)]...
>> k determines the number of harmonics.
>>
>>>Perhaps you can explain what A and 2 represent, ya stupid old sheep
>>>shagger.
>>
>> Don't pommie engineers learn any maths?
>
>Engineers don't leave A out on the RHS of an equation, we leave that
>to stupid old ozzie sheep shaggers.

not important.

>> A is the amplitude in the middle...when sin(kx) = 1.....
>
>Is x in centimetres, inches, yards, fractions of L, or what?
>As I recall, the parameter for the sine function is an angle.

Can't you work that out?
x is the length of the string.
At any particular fraction of x, namely 'k', along the string, it goes up
and down with an maximum amplitude of 2A.sin(2pi.kx)

Of course in practical situations, the string has mass and is subject to
damping and the vibration has to be maintained. The maths involve very
complicated partial differential equations that I wont bother you with.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:4g8ds7pb9u87d70jm...@4ax.com...

Yeah, all strings are open ended organ pipes, right?
Ever seen little girls skipping over a rope? The shadow of the rope
on the wall behind them is a standing wave with half a wavelength and
a frequency, there is no two waves travelling in opposite directions,
there is no rope past the ends the little girls are holding for the third
to jump over.

>
>>> For a violin string, it is: 2A[cos(wt).sin(kx)]...
>>> k determines the number of harmonics.
>>>
>>>>Perhaps you can explain what A and 2 represent, ya stupid old sheep
>>>>shagger.
>>>
>>> Don't pommie engineers learn any maths?
>>
>>Engineers don't leave A out on the RHS of an equation, we leave that
>>to stupid old ozzie sheep shaggers.
>
> not important.

Don't ozzie sheep shaggers learn any maths?


>

>>> A is the amplitude in the middle...when sin(kx) = 1.....
>>
>>Is x in centimetres, inches, yards, fractions of L, or what?
>>As I recall, the parameter for the sine function is an angle.
>
> Can't you work that out?

Not from your inequalities.

> x is the length of the string.

Really? What is L then?

> At any particular fraction of x, namely 'k', along the string, it goes up
> and down with an maximum amplitude of 2A.sin(2pi.kx)

Oh, you want to multiply by 2pi now?
You must have been listening to Tusseladd.

>
> Of course in practical situations, the string has mass and is subject to
> damping and the vibration has to be maintained. The maths involve very
> complicated partial differential equations that I wont bother you with.

Bwahahahahaha!

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 01:18:58 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:4g8ds7pb9u87d70jm...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:23:12 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>
>>>"For a string,
>>>A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
>>>Perhaps you can explain what A and 2 represent, and when strings
>>>became open ended organ pipes, ya stupid old sheep shagger.
>>
>> You know there is supposed to be an A in there. Don't worry about it...It
>> isn't a big issue. You can make A = 1 arbitrary unit if you like.
>
>Yeah, all strings are open ended organ pipes, right?
>Ever seen little girls skipping over a rope? The shadow of the rope
>on the wall behind them is a standing wave with half a wavelength and
>a frequency, there is no two waves travelling in opposite directions,
>there is no rope past the ends the little girls are holding for the third
>to jump over.

>> Can't you work that out?
>
>Not from your inequalities.
>
>
>> x is the length of the string.
>
>Really? What is L then?

L wasn't in my last equation.
Read the Wiki article.

>> At any particular fraction of x, namely 'k', along the string, it goes up
>> and down with an maximum amplitude of 2A.sin(2pi.kx)
>
>Oh, you want to multiply by 2pi now?
>You must have been listening to Tusseladd.

2pi, 4pi, 8pi....whateverpi...depending on the number of harmonics you want.

>> Of course in practical situations, the string has mass and is subject to
>> damping and the vibration has to be maintained. The maths involve very
>> complicated partial differential equations that I wont bother you with.
>
>Bwahahahahaha!
>"For a string,
>A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.

Make it: A[sin(x/L+wt) + sin(x/L-wt)] = 2A[cos(wt).sin(x/L)].... if you
wish.
It's all the same really.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:m2pds7tl9jngn3kpg...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 31 May 2012 01:18:58 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:4g8ds7pb9u87d70jm...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:23:12 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>"For a string,
>>>>A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
>>>>Perhaps you can explain what A and 2 represent, and when strings
>>>>became open ended organ pipes, ya stupid old sheep shagger.
>>>
>>> You know there is supposed to be an A in there. Don't worry about
>>> it...It
>>> isn't a big issue. You can make A = 1 arbitrary unit if you like.
>>
>>Yeah, all strings are open ended organ pipes, right?
>>Ever seen little girls skipping over a rope? The shadow of the rope
>>on the wall behind them is a standing wave with half a wavelength and
>>a frequency, there is no two waves travelling in opposite directions,
>>there is no rope past the ends the little girls are holding for the third
>>to jump over.
>
>
>>> Can't you work that out?
>>
>>Not from your inequalities.
>>
>>
>>> x is the length of the string.
>>
>>Really? What is L then?
>
> L wasn't in my last equation.

"For a string,
A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.

"x is the length of the string." -- Wilson.


> Read the Wiki article.

Fuck the wiki article, I'm reading the ignorant crap you write and
having a good laugh.

>
>>> At any particular fraction of x, namely 'k', along the string, it goes
>>> up
>>> and down with an maximum amplitude of 2A.sin(2pi.kx)
>>
>>Oh, you want to multiply by 2pi now?
>>You must have been listening to Tusseladd.
>
> 2pi, 4pi, 8pi....whateverpi...depending on the number of harmonics you
> want.
>

>>> Of course in practical situations, the string has mass and is subject to
>>> damping and the vibration has to be maintained. The maths involve very
>>> complicated partial differential equations that I wont bother you with.
>>
>>Bwahahahahaha!
>>"For a string,
>>A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
>
> Make it: A[sin(x/L+wt) + sin(x/L-wt)] = 2A[cos(wt).sin(x/L)].... if you
> wish.
> It's all the same really.

I'll go with this instead:
http://publicliterature.org/tools/differential_equation_solver/index.html

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:15:36 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:m2pds7tl9jngn3kpg...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 01:18:58 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>>

>>
>>
>>>> Can't you work that out?
>>>
>>>Not from your inequalities.
>>>
>>>
>>>> x is the length of the string.
>>>
>>>Really? What is L then?
>>
>> L wasn't in my last equation.
>
>"For a string,
>A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
>"x is the length of the string." -- Wilson.
>
>
>> Read the Wiki article.
>
>Fuck the wiki article, I'm reading the ignorant crap you write and
>having a good laugh.

So is everyone who reads your posts.

>>>Oh, you want to multiply by 2pi now?
>>>You must have been listening to Tusseladd.
>>
>> 2pi, 4pi, 8pi....whateverpi...depending on the number of harmonics you
>> want.
>>
>
>>>> Of course in practical situations, the string has mass and is subject to
>>>> damping and the vibration has to be maintained. The maths involve very
>>>> complicated partial differential equations that I wont bother you with.
>>>
>>>Bwahahahahaha!
>>>"For a string,
>>>A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
>>
>> Make it: A[sin(x/L+wt) + sin(x/L-wt)] = 2A[cos(wt).sin(x/L)].... if you
>> wish.
>> It's all the same really.
>
>
>I'll go with this instead:
> http://publicliterature.org/tools/differential_equation_solver/index.html

All you have to do is add two traveling (sine) waves going in opposite
directions.

I thought that would be easy for any pommie engineer.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:ir4es71uqdt235svf...@4ax.com...

You didn't even look, did you?

> All you have to do is add two traveling (sine) waves going in opposite
> directions.
>
> I thought that would be easy for any pommie engineer.
>

I would if you told me what speed the two mythical sine waves were
travelling at. I thought that would be easy for any ozzie sheep shagger.

[Paul B. Andersen]

But I am able to read the "explanations" made by real physicists.
It's called "quantum field theory", (QFT).
For electromagnetic interactions between particles,
the theory is "quantum electrodynamics" (QED).
This is the theory of photons.
You are obviously far too ignorant of mathematics to read it,
but to get a brief idea of what it is all about, you could
try Feynman's popular book:
"QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter"
http://tinyurl.com/48k82f

But you won't contaminate your mind with knowledge, of course.

> But it is explained by BaTh. Photons are intrinsically oscillating
> particles.

It is mercy in the fact that you are to naive to
understand how pathetic this statement is.

--
Paul

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

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Actually, I did....but the equation here involves a trig identity and not a
differential equation.

>> All you have to do is add two traveling (sine) waves going in opposite
>> directions.
>>
>> I thought that would be easy for any pommie engineer.
>>
>I would if you told me what speed the two mythical sine waves were
>travelling at. I thought that would be easy for any ozzie sheep shagger.

The speed is the same for both and is included in the constants.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:12:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somwhere.no>

wrote:

>On 31.05.2012 00:12, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 22:48:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<som...@somwhere.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The simple fact is that the wave/particle duality
>>> can't be explained by 19th century clockwork mechanics.
>>
>> It cannot be explained by YOU either.
>
>But I am able to read the "explanations" made by real physicists.
>It's called "quantum field theory", (QFT).
>For electromagnetic interactions between particles,
>the theory is "quantum electrodynamics" (QED).
>This is the theory of photons.
>You are obviously far too ignorant of mathematics to read it,
>but to get a brief idea of what it is all about, you could
>try Feynman's popular book:
>"QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter"
>http://tinyurl.com/48k82f

I'm not interested in silly mathematical games. I am talking about the
physics of the process.

>But you won't contaminate your mind with knowledge, of course.

Nothing Feynmann wrote throws any light on the precise role of photons in
radio transmission. He says so himself.

>> But it is explained by BaTh. Photons are intrinsically oscillating
>> particles.
>
>It is mercy in the fact that you are to naive to
>understand how pathetic this statement is.

Paul, I'm amazed at your unscientific attitude to anything outside your own
narrow mindset.

There are plenty of examples of 'oscillating particles' the most obvious one
being the common raindrop. Were you not aware that rindrops oscillate as
they fall?

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:p5qfs7dm4m0fkioeu...@4ax.com...

Yeah, right, that's why is it is called "differential_equation_solver".
Solve the differential equation d2y/dt2 = -y(t) for me, Wilson.
Hint: it's very easy if you know dsin(t)/dt = cos(t) and cos(t)
=sin(t+pi/2).
You can't bluff me, junior lab boy with the D.Sc.
You talk the talk just like Roberts, now walk the walk or go back to
selling VW camper vans with a 6 Volt battery.

>
>>> All you have to do is add two traveling (sine) waves going in opposite
>>> directions.
>>>
>>> I thought that would be easy for any pommie engineer.
>>>
>>I would if you told me what speed the two mythical sine waves were
>>travelling at. I thought that would be easy for any ozzie sheep shagger.
>
> The speed is the same for both and is included in the constants.

What is the speed, Wilson? I thought that would be easy for any
ozzie sheep shagger.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:32:03 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:p5qfs7dm4m0fkioeu...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 08:03:17 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>>> http://publicliterature.org/tools/differential_equation_solver/index.html
>>>>
>>>You didn't even look, did you?
>>
>> Actually, I did....but the equation here involves a trig identity and not
>> a
>> differential equation.
>
>Yeah, right, that's why is it is called "differential_equation_solver".
>Solve the differential equation d2y/dt2 = -y(t) for me, Wilson.

What are the boundary conditions?

>Hint: it's very easy if you know dsin(t)/dt = cos(t) and cos(t)
>=sin(t+pi/2).
>You can't bluff me, junior lab boy with the D.Sc.
>You talk the talk just like Roberts, now walk the walk or go back to
>selling VW camper vans with a 6 Volt battery.
>
>
>
>>
>>>> All you have to do is add two traveling (sine) waves going in opposite
>>>> directions.
>>>>
>>>> I thought that would be easy for any pommie engineer.
>>>>
>>>I would if you told me what speed the two mythical sine waves were
>>>travelling at. I thought that would be easy for any ozzie sheep shagger.
>>
>> The speed is the same for both and is included in the constants.
>
>What is the speed, Wilson?

L/t. It's the same in both directions.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:3stfs7t3io4i1n8q3...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:32:03 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:p5qfs7dm4m0fkioeu...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 08:03:17 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>>>>> http://publicliterature.org/tools/differential_equation_solver/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>You didn't even look, did you?
>>>
>>> Actually, I did....but the equation here involves a trig identity and
>>> not
>>> a
>>> differential equation.
>>
>>Yeah, right, that's why is it is called "differential_equation_solver".
>>Solve the differential equation d2y/dt2 = -y(t) for me, Wilson.
>
> What are the boundary conditions?

Bwahahahahaha!
Solve F = ma for me, Wilson, when the ball doesn't hit the ground!
"What are air resistance conditions?" -- Wilson.

>>Hint: it's very easy if you know dsin(t)/dt = cos(t) and cos(t)
>>=sin(t+pi/2).
>>You can't bluff me, junior lab boy with the D.Sc.
>>You talk the talk just like Roberts, now walk the walk or go back to
>>selling VW camper vans with a 6 Volt battery.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> All you have to do is add two traveling (sine) waves going in opposite
>>>>> directions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought that would be easy for any pommie engineer.
>>>>>
>>>>I would if you told me what speed the two mythical sine waves were
>>>>travelling at. I thought that would be easy for any ozzie sheep
>>>>shagger.
>>>
>>> The speed is the same for both and is included in the constants.
>>
>>What is the speed, Wilson?
>
> L/t. It's the same in both directions.

1/t = f, so Lf?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:17:49 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:3stfs7t3io4i1n8q3...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:32:03 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>>

>>>> Actually, I did....but the equation here involves a trig identity and
>>>> not
>>>> a
>>>> differential equation.
>>>
>>>Yeah, right, that's why is it is called "differential_equation_solver".
>>>Solve the differential equation d2y/dt2 = -y(t) for me, Wilson.
>>
>> What are the boundary conditions?
>
>Bwahahahahaha!
>Solve F = ma for me, Wilson, when the ball doesn't hit the ground!
>"What are air resistance conditions?" -- Wilson.

Come on Andro, that's an easy one.

something like: m.dv/dt = mg-kv

>>>Hint: it's very easy if you know dsin(t)/dt = cos(t) and cos(t)
>>>=sin(t+pi/2).
>>>You can't bluff me, junior lab boy with the D.Sc.
>>>You talk the talk just like Roberts, now walk the walk or go back to
>>>selling VW camper vans with a 6 Volt battery.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> All you have to do is add two traveling (sine) waves going in opposite
>>>>>> directions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought that would be easy for any pommie engineer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I would if you told me what speed the two mythical sine waves were
>>>>>travelling at. I thought that would be easy for any ozzie sheep
>>>>>shagger.
>>>>
>>>> The speed is the same for both and is included in the constants.
>>>
>>>What is the speed, Wilson?
>>
>> L/t. It's the same in both directions.
>
>1/t = f, so Lf?
>You can't bluff me, junior lab boy with the D.Sc.

Here's some more bluffing then:

v = 2L/T, where T is the period and L the length of the string.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:o07gs7lvmk93o14oc...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:17:49 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:3stfs7t3io4i1n8q3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:32:03 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>> Actually, I did....but the equation here involves a trig identity and
>>>>> not
>>>>> a
>>>>> differential equation.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, right, that's why is it is called "differential_equation_solver".
>>>>Solve the differential equation d2y/dt2 = -y(t) for me, Wilson.
>>>
>>> What are the boundary conditions?
>>
>>Bwahahahahaha!
>>Solve F = ma for me, Wilson, when the ball doesn't hit the ground!
>>"What are air resistance conditions?" -- Wilson.
>
> Come on Andro, that's an easy one.
>
> something like: m.dv/dt = mg-kv

Let's put the boundary condition in, then.
Solve F = ma for me, Wilson, when the ball DOES hit the ground!


Come on Wilson, this is an easy one.
Solve the differential equation d2y/dt2 = -y(t) for me.
Something like http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerFormula.html

>
>>>>Hint: it's very easy if you know dsin(t)/dt = cos(t) and cos(t)
>>>>=sin(t+pi/2).
>>>>You can't bluff me, junior lab boy with the D.Sc.
>>>>You talk the talk just like Roberts, now walk the walk or go back to
>>>>selling VW camper vans with a 6 Volt battery.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> All you have to do is add two traveling (sine) waves going in
>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>> directions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought that would be easy for any pommie engineer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would if you told me what speed the two mythical sine waves were
>>>>>>travelling at. I thought that would be easy for any ozzie sheep
>>>>>>shagger.
>>>>>
>>>>> The speed is the same for both and is included in the constants.
>>>>
>>>>What is the speed, Wilson?
>>>
>>> L/t. It's the same in both directions.
>>
>>1/t = f, so Lf?
>>You can't bluff me, junior lab boy with the D.Sc.
>
> Here's some more bluffing then:
>
> v = 2L/T, where T is the period and L the length of the string.
>

That's an interesting one. So v = 2v?
I stand by my conclusion... as barking mad as an aetherialist.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 09:02:44 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:o07gs7lvmk93o14oc...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:17:49 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>Bwahahahahaha!
>>>Solve F = ma for me, Wilson, when the ball doesn't hit the ground!
>>>"What are air resistance conditions?" -- Wilson.
>>
>> Come on Andro, that's an easy one.
>>
>> something like: m.dv/dt = mg-kv
>
>Let's put the boundary condition in, then.
>Solve F = ma for me, Wilson, when the ball DOES hit the ground!
>
>
>Come on Wilson, this is an easy one.
>Solve the differential equation d2y/dt2 = -y(t) for me.

What is that supposed to represent?

>Something like http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerFormula.html

Nothing like it.

>>>>>What is the speed, Wilson?
>>>>
>>>> L/t. It's the same in both directions.
>>>
>>>1/t = f, so Lf?
>>>You can't bluff me, junior lab boy with the D.Sc.
>>
>> Here's some more bluffing then:
>>
>> v = 2L/T, where T is the period and L the length of the string.
>>
>That's an interesting one. So v = 2v?
>I stand by my conclusion... as barking mad as an aetherialist.

L is a half wave.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:vi1hs71dkqdmkudov...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 09:02:44 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:o07gs7lvmk93o14oc...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:17:49 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>>>Bwahahahahaha!
>>>>Solve F = ma for me, Wilson, when the ball doesn't hit the ground!
>>>>"What are air resistance conditions?" -- Wilson.
>>>
>>> Come on Andro, that's an easy one.
>>>
>>> something like: m.dv/dt = mg-kv
>>
>>Let's put the boundary condition in, then.
>>Solve F = ma for me, Wilson, when the ball DOES hit the ground!
>>
>>
>>Come on Wilson, this is an easy one.
>>Solve the differential equation d2y/dt2 = -y(t) for me.
>
> What is that supposed to represent?
>
>>Something like http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerFormula.html
>
> Nothing like it.

I'll tell you since you know nothing about differential equations.
The solution to a differential equation is a function, Wilson.
In this case y(t) = sin(t) or cos(t) or sin(t+theta).
The first derivative of sin(t) is cos(t),
the second derivative is -sin(t),
the third derivative is -cos(t)
and the fourth derivative is sin(t),
which is itself.
Hence y''(t) = -y(t)
( y'(t) is just a different notation for dy/dt ).

>
>
>>>>>>What is the speed, Wilson?
>>>>>
>>>>> L/t. It's the same in both directions.
>>>>
>>>>1/t = f, so Lf?
>>>>You can't bluff me, junior lab boy with the D.Sc.
>>>
>>> Here's some more bluffing then:
>>>
>>> v = 2L/T, where T is the period and L the length of the string.
>>>
>>That's an interesting one. So v = 2v?
>>I stand by my conclusion... as barking mad as an aetherialist.
>
> L is a half wave.

So x/L is 2x because x is the length of half an organ string or
a violin pipe?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:33:57 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:vi1hs71dkqdmkudov...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 09:02:44 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>> Come on Andro, that's an easy one.
>>>>
>>>> something like: m.dv/dt = mg-kv
>>>
>>>Let's put the boundary condition in, then.
>>>Solve F = ma for me, Wilson, when the ball DOES hit the ground!
>>>
>>>
>>>Come on Wilson, this is an easy one.
>>>Solve the differential equation d2y/dt2 = -y(t) for me.
>>
>> What is that supposed to represent?
>>
>>>Something like http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerFormula.html
>>
>> Nothing like it.
>
>I'll tell you since you know nothing about differential equations.
>The solution to a differential equation is a function, Wilson.
>In this case y(t) = sin(t) or cos(t) or sin(t+theta).
>The first derivative of sin(t) is cos(t),
>the second derivative is -sin(t),
>the third derivative is -cos(t)
>and the fourth derivative is sin(t),
>which is itself.
>Hence y''(t) = -y(t)
>( y'(t) is just a different notation for dy/dt ).

That's pretty simple then...but is it the only solution?

>>>> Here's some more bluffing then:
>>>>
>>>> v = 2L/T, where T is the period and L the length of the string.
>>>>
>>>That's an interesting one. So v = 2v?
>>>I stand by my conclusion... as barking mad as an aetherialist.
>>
>> L is a half wave.
>
>So x/L is 2x because x is the length of half an organ string or
>a violin pipe?

The string is only half the fundamental's wavelength. It is the full length
of the first harmoonic.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:bdgis7lgonrupb9vb...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:33:57 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:vi1hs71dkqdmkudov...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 09:02:44 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>>>> Come on Andro, that's an easy one.
>>>>>
>>>>> something like: m.dv/dt = mg-kv
>>>>
>>>>Let's put the boundary condition in, then.
>>>>Solve F = ma for me, Wilson, when the ball DOES hit the ground!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Come on Wilson, this is an easy one.
>>>>Solve the differential equation d2y/dt2 = -y(t) for me.
>>>
>>> What is that supposed to represent?
>>>
>>>>Something like http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerFormula.html
>>>
>>> Nothing like it.
>>
>>I'll tell you since you know nothing about differential equations.
>>The solution to a differential equation is a function, Wilson.
>>In this case y(t) = sin(t) or cos(t) or sin(t+theta).
>>The first derivative of sin(t) is cos(t),
>>the second derivative is -sin(t),
>>the third derivative is -cos(t)
>>and the fourth derivative is sin(t),
>>which is itself.
>>Hence y''(t) = -y(t)
>>( y'(t) is just a different notation for dy/dt ).
>
> That's pretty simple then...but is it the only solution?

No. Just as x^3 = 1 has three solutions for x, namely
[1],
[cos(2pi/3), i.sin(2pi/3)],
[cos(4pi/3), i.sin(4pi/3)]
and x^4 = 1 has four solutions,
1,
i,
-1,
-i
there are many solutions for a differential equation
(all of which are functions, not values), but the
ones that are interesting and relevant to physics are
exp(), sin() and cos(), which are a family as Euler
showed.
When you open a tap at the bottom of a U-tube,
one side of which is water filled, the water flows
from one side to the other until the level in each
side of U-tube is the same. You can control the
flow by how much you open the tap, but no
matter what you do the flow will reduce as the
height of water in the tubes approaches equality.
If the water has inertia it will overshoot and
oscillate, but ignore that. Concentrate on the
function that describes the flow, it is exp(-t)
and approaches zero as t reaches infinity.
The flow stops as t increases.
In electronics, the current stops when the
capacitor is charged, and it is charged when
the voltage across the capacitor reaches the
voltage across the battery. Charging a capacitor
through a resistor is just like opening the tap
a little in the U-tube. A partly open tap resists the flow.

>
>
>>>>> Here's some more bluffing then:
>>>>>
>>>>> v = 2L/T, where T is the period and L the length of the string.
>>>>>
>>>>That's an interesting one. So v = 2v?
>>>>I stand by my conclusion... as barking mad as an aetherialist.
>>>
>>> L is a half wave.
>>
>>So x/L is 2x because x is the length of half an organ string or
>>a violin pipe?
>
> The string is only half the fundamental's wavelength. It is the full
> length
> of the first harmoonic.
>

I've heard Loona is another name for the Moon, and loonatics
have harmoonics when hooling at it like doogs and woolves...
and of course werefools in sheep's clothing (wool). Are you a
wearwool, Wilson?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

e^-it is another solution.

>there are many solutions for a differential equation
>(all of which are functions, not values), but the
>ones that are interesting and relevant to physics are
>exp(), sin() and cos(), which are a family as Euler
>showed.
>When you open a tap at the bottom of a U-tube,
>one side of which is water filled, the water flows
>from one side to the other until the level in each
>side of U-tube is the same. You can control the
>flow by how much you open the tap, but no
>matter what you do the flow will reduce as the
>height of water in the tubes approaches equality.
>If the water has inertia it will overshoot and
>oscillate, but ignore that. Concentrate on the
>function that describes the flow, it is exp(-t)
>and approaches zero as t reaches infinity.
>The flow stops as t increases.
>In electronics, the current stops when the
>capacitor is charged, and it is charged when
>the voltage across the capacitor reaches the
>voltage across the battery. Charging a capacitor
>through a resistor is just like opening the tap
>a little in the U-tube. A partly open tap resists the flow.

Yes we know all that.

>>>>>> Here's some more bluffing then:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v = 2L/T, where T is the period and L the length of the string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>That's an interesting one. So v = 2v?
>>>>>I stand by my conclusion... as barking mad as an aetherialist.
>>>>
>>>> L is a half wave.
>>>
>>>So x/L is 2x because x is the length of half an organ string or
>>>a violin pipe?
>>
>> The string is only half the fundamental's wavelength. It is the full
>> length
>> of the first harmoonic.
>>
>I've heard Loona is another name for the Moon, and loonatics
>have harmoonics when hooling at it like doogs and woolves...
>and of course werefools in sheep's clothing (wool). Are you a
>wearwool, Wilson?

.....(in other words, Androcles doesn't understand what I'm talking about.)

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:2p4ls7pelvucv0or4...@4ax.com...

Androcles: "Something like http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerFormula.html"
Wilson: "Nothing like it."

>
>
>>there are many solutions for a differential equation
>>(all of which are functions, not values), but the
>>ones that are interesting and relevant to physics are
>>exp(), sin() and cos(), which are a family as Euler
>>showed.
>>When you open a tap at the bottom of a U-tube,
>>one side of which is water filled, the water flows
>>from one side to the other until the level in each
>>side of U-tube is the same. You can control the
>>flow by how much you open the tap, but no
>>matter what you do the flow will reduce as the
>>height of water in the tubes approaches equality.
>>If the water has inertia it will overshoot and
>>oscillate, but ignore that. Concentrate on the
>>function that describes the flow, it is exp(-t)
>>and approaches zero as t reaches infinity.
>>The flow stops as t increases.
>>In electronics, the current stops when the
>>capacitor is charged, and it is charged when
>>the voltage across the capacitor reaches the
>>voltage across the battery. Charging a capacitor
>>through a resistor is just like opening the tap
>>a little in the U-tube. A partly open tap resists the flow.
>
> Yes we know all that.

No you didn't, or you would not have said

" That's pretty simple then...but is it the only solution?"

The slope (or first derivative) of x^2 is 2x, the slope of
e^x is e^x, making e the base of the natural logarithm and
ln(x) the inverse function of exp(x).

exp(it) = cos(t) +isin(t) is only "pretty simple" because
a genius like Euler discovered it, it is far from obvious.

It is well beyond Tusseladd who claims the E and B fields are in
phase when Maxwell specifically states Faraday's E = -dB/dt,
which is a differential equation in the form y = -dy/dt, the
solution of which is a member of the family exp(), sin() and cos().
Tusseladd doesn't understand the meaning of "curl", either.
It's REALLY simple, you put a sinusoidally varying magnetic
field into the iron of a transformer, the output voltage depends
on the number of turns (or curls) in the secondary winding.
The inverse is also valid, the magnetic field depends on the
current and the number of turns in the primary. When dealing
with a photon which has no iron and no electrical conductor
the curl is 1 and can be omitted.

>
>>>>>>> Here's some more bluffing then:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v = 2L/T, where T is the period and L the length of the string.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's an interesting one. So v = 2v?
>>>>>>I stand by my conclusion... as barking mad as an aetherialist.
>>>>>
>>>>> L is a half wave.
>>>>
>>>>So x/L is 2x because x is the length of half an organ string or
>>>>a violin pipe?
>>>
>>> The string is only half the fundamental's wavelength. It is the full
>>> length
>>> of the first harmoonic.
>>>
>>I've heard Loona is another name for the Moon, and loonatics
>>have harmoonics when hooling at it like doogs and woolves...
>>and of course werefools in sheep's clothing (wool). Are you a
>>wearwool, Wilson?
>
> .....(in other words, Androcles doesn't understand what I'm talking
> about.)
>

You were babbling about a standing wave being the sum
of two travelling waves, and I'm saying that's bullshit.
You owe me 3 cases of Glenlivet doesn't mean I owe you
100 cases and you owe me 103 cases.

I can make the sum of two waves travelling the same way travel
in reverse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSyitNgy8hE
Waves don't travel, their phase does.

cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo,
cuckyou, cuckyou, cuckyou,
fuckyou, fuckyou, fuckyou...
:-)

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On May 23, 1:20 am, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:07:48 -0700, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> >"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
> >> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >>>"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:f5OdnUytVrrraCfS...@mchsi.com...
> >>>>http://www.sciencedump.com/content/extraordinary-genius-albert-einste...
>
> >>>>> The Theory of Special Relativity as part of the educational
> >>>process conducted by our youth leadership, not for the sake
> >>>of understanding the theory itself, but using Einstein's particular
> >>>discovery as a case study to demonstrate and walk people
> >>>through real human thinking, as being something above sense
> >>>perceptions or opinions. We end with reflecting on the principle
> >>>of relativity in terms of social relations and individual identities
> >>>or thought processes, asking the question
>
> >>>--how was Einstein able to make his breakthrough?
>
> >>>hanson wrote:
> >>>Einstein had "The extraordinary genius" to plagiarize
> >>>most of it,  including the E=mc^2 which he stole
> >>>from Pretto & others... & was forced to apologize
> >>>for it in 1907.
> >>><http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein>
> >>><http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2>
> >>><http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft>
>
> >Wabnig wrote:
> >> You can safely scratch out Pretto's name from the list,
> >> his writings are on the web and it is obvious that he had
> >> nothing to steal from.
> >> One cannot steal from a naked beggar.
> >> Only some Italian patriot believed otherwise and fed
> >> Google with irritating buzzwords.
>
> >hanson wrote:
> >.... ahahahaha... they are only irritating to you, Wabie,
> >and to other Einstein Dingleberries. Obviously, you
> >have forgotten the discussion we had over this
> >about Einstein who only had to go over the Gotthard
> >from Bern to be in Pretto's neighborhood...
>
> >Leaving your current relapse into your worship of
> >Einstein's Sphincter aside it appears that you
> >are prejudiced against the Italians... and you may
> >have preferred that I should have mentioned that
> >Einstein STOLE E=mc^2 ONLY from your Austrian
> >Landsman Friedrich Hasenoehrl?
>
> >Does that make you feel better, Wabie?....
> >ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> As a compensation for the loss of Olinto de Pretto I offer you
> the name LOUIS BACHELIER 1870 - 1946 who 5 years before
> Einstein worked on a mathematical theory of
> "Brownian motion" (not by that name, possibly)
>
> Today we  put that stuff into the box containing the
> "fractals" and it covers economy as well as the river Nil
> sidearms and whatever there moves chaotically.
>
> I have not googled yet, but there should be something to find.
>
> w.
>
>

Science beat Einstein.
Anybody want to argue?
Actually he won...
You can't become better than a genius!

Mitchell Raemsch

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 00:46:50 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:2p4ls7pelvucv0or4...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:23:23 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>> That's pretty simple then...but is it the only solution?
>>>
>>>No. Just as x^3 = 1 has three solutions for x, namely
>>>[1],
>>>[cos(2pi/3), i.sin(2pi/3)],
>>>[cos(4pi/3), i.sin(4pi/3)]
>>>and x^4 = 1 has four solutions,
>>>1,
>>>i,
>>>-1,
>>>-i
>>
>> e^-it is another solution.
>
>Androcles: "Something like http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerFormula.html"
>Wilson: "Nothing like it."

>>>When you open a tap at the bottom of a U-tube,
>>>one side of which is water filled, the water flows
>>>from one side to the other until the level in each
>>>side of U-tube is the same. You can control the
>>>flow by how much you open the tap, but no
>>>matter what you do the flow will reduce as the
>>>height of water in the tubes approaches equality.
>>>If the water has inertia it will overshoot and
>>>oscillate, but ignore that. Concentrate on the
>>>function that describes the flow, it is exp(-t)
>>>and approaches zero as t reaches infinity.
>>>The flow stops as t increases.
>>>In electronics, the current stops when the
>>>capacitor is charged, and it is charged when
>>>the voltage across the capacitor reaches the
>>>voltage across the battery. Charging a capacitor
>>>through a resistor is just like opening the tap
>>>a little in the U-tube. A partly open tap resists the flow.
>>
>> Yes we know all that.
>
>No you didn't, or you would not have said
>" That's pretty simple then...but is it the only solution?"

The above is just simple exponential decay.

>The slope (or first derivative) of x^2 is 2x, the slope of
>e^x is e^x, making e the base of the natural logarithm and
>ln(x) the inverse function of exp(x).
>
>exp(it) = cos(t) +isin(t) is only "pretty simple" because
>a genius like Euler discovered it, it is far from obvious.
>
>It is well beyond Tusseladd who claims the E and B fields are in
>phase when Maxwell specifically states Faraday's E = -dB/dt,
>which is a differential equation in the form y = -dy/dt, the
>solution of which is a member of the family exp(), sin() and cos().
>Tusseladd doesn't understand the meaning of "curl", either.
>It's REALLY simple, you put a sinusoidally varying magnetic
>field into the iron of a transformer, the output voltage depends
>on the number of turns (or curls) in the secondary winding.

'curl' isn't the number of turns even though the answer might be dependent
on that number..

>The inverse is also valid, the magnetic field depends on the
>current and the number of turns in the primary. When dealing
>with a photon which has no iron and no electrical conductor
>the curl is 1 and can be omitted.

What nonsense is this?

>>>I've heard Loona is another name for the Moon, and loonatics
>>>have harmoonics when hooling at it like doogs and woolves...
>>>and of course werefools in sheep's clothing (wool). Are you a
>>>wearwool, Wilson?
>>
>> .....(in other words, Androcles doesn't understand what I'm talking
>> about.)
>>
>You were babbling about a standing wave being the sum
>of two travelling waves, and I'm saying that's bullshit.
>You owe me 3 cases of Glenlivet doesn't mean I owe you
>100 cases and you owe me 103 cases.

It isn't bullshit. I have shown you why mathematically.

Run a program that adds A.sin(kx-vt) and A.sin(kx+vt) and see what you get.

>I can make the sum of two waves travelling the same way travel
>in reverse:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSyitNgy8hE

Those waves are traveling at right angles.

>Waves don't travel, their phase does.

Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?

>cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo,
>cuckyou, cuckyou, cuckyou,
>fuckyou, fuckyou, fuckyou...
>:-)

...typical....

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:vvols755mjfsi36ka...@4ax.com...

You learnt what things are not from Phuckwit Duck. Hey Wilson,
curl isn't a dog's breakfast and curl isn't a bicycle built for two
and curl isn't a chicken feather sandwich on whole wheat with
mayonaisse or chocolate pudding in a vinegrette sauce.
Why don't you make a fucking list of all the things curl isn't, then
by exhaustive elimination we might be able to say what it is?

>
>>The inverse is also valid, the magnetic field depends on the
>>current and the number of turns in the primary. When dealing
>>with a photon which has no iron and no electrical conductor
>>the curl is 1 and can be omitted.
>
> What nonsense is this?

Hmm... way beyond your intelligence, never mind.

>
>
>>>>I've heard Loona is another name for the Moon, and loonatics
>>>>have harmoonics when hooling at it like doogs and woolves...
>>>>and of course werefools in sheep's clothing (wool). Are you a
>>>>wearwool, Wilson?
>>>
>>> .....(in other words, Androcles doesn't understand what I'm talking
>>> about.)
>>>
>>You were babbling about a standing wave being the sum
>>of two travelling waves, and I'm saying that's bullshit.
>>You owe me 3 cases of Glenlivet doesn't mean I owe you
>>100 cases and you owe me 103 cases.
>
> It isn't bullshit. I have shown you why mathematically.

Yeah, yeah, 103 - 100 = 3 and 1003 - 1000 = 3 too.

>
> Run a program that adds A.sin(kx-vt) and A.sin(kx+vt) and see what you
> get.
>

Solve for v and I will.

>>I can make the sum of two waves travelling the same way travel
>>in reverse:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSyitNgy8hE
>
> Those waves are traveling at right angles.
>

Yeah, so? I can still reverse the phase movement.

>>Waves don't travel, their phase does.
>
> Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?

Standing waves don't, and two waves "travelling" in opposite
directions don't either.
A violin string in a vacuum is still waving and still standing, but it
emits no sound energy, and a violin string in air emits sound
at right angles to "the two waves travelling in opposite directions"
that you "proved" mathematically.
Those three waves are at right angles, Wilson.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 07:22:15 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

>news:vvols755mjfsi36ka...@4ax.com...

curl has a specific mathematical definition. Why don't you look it up.

It actually describes vectors that represent magnitudes and axes of
rotation.

>>>The inverse is also valid, the magnetic field depends on the
>>>current and the number of turns in the primary. When dealing
>>>with a photon which has no iron and no electrical conductor
>>>the curl is 1 and can be omitted.
>>
>> What nonsense is this?
>
>Hmm... way beyond your intelligence, never mind.

Laughing at you isn't.

>>>>>I've heard Loona is another name for the Moon, and loonatics
>>>>>have harmoonics when hooling at it like doogs and woolves...
>>>>>and of course werefools in sheep's clothing (wool). Are you a
>>>>>wearwool, Wilson?
>>>>
>>>> .....(in other words, Androcles doesn't understand what I'm talking
>>>> about.)
>>>>
>>>You were babbling about a standing wave being the sum
>>>of two travelling waves, and I'm saying that's bullshit.
>>>You owe me 3 cases of Glenlivet doesn't mean I owe you
>>>100 cases and you owe me 103 cases.
>>
>> It isn't bullshit. I have shown you why mathematically.
>
>Yeah, yeah, 103 - 100 = 3 and 1003 - 1000 = 3 too.
>
>>
>> Run a program that adds A.sin(kx-vt) and A.sin(kx+vt) and see what you
>> get.

>Solve for v and I will.

v is just a constant....any old constant..

The equation is that of a standing wave.

>>>I can make the sum of two waves travelling the same way travel
>>>in reverse:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSyitNgy8hE
>>
>> Those waves are traveling at right angles.
>>
>Yeah, so? I can still reverse the phase movement.

Lissajous figures are produced when two waves are combined at right angles.
Standing waves and beats are produced when the waves are parallel.

>>>Waves don't travel, their phase does.
>>
>> Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?
>
>Standing waves don't, and two waves "travelling" in opposite
>directions don't either.

Correct.

>A violin string in a vacuum is still waving and still standing, but it
>emits no sound energy,

..then all learners should be locked in a vacuum.

>and a violin string in air emits sound
>at right angles to "the two waves travelling in opposite directions"
>that you "proved" mathematically.
>Those three waves are at right angles, Wilson.

Don't be an idiot. The string itself causes the disturbances in the air. The
wave emitted by one side is 180 behind the other.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:9f9ms7d63daq4ph24...@4ax.com...

In other words turns.

>
>>>>The inverse is also valid, the magnetic field depends on the
>>>>current and the number of turns in the primary. When dealing
>>>>with a photon which has no iron and no electrical conductor
>>>>the curl is 1 and can be omitted.
>>>
>>> What nonsense is this?
>>
>>Hmm... way beyond your intelligence, never mind.
>
> Laughing at you isn't.
>
>>>>>>I've heard Loona is another name for the Moon, and loonatics
>>>>>>have harmoonics when hooling at it like doogs and woolves...
>>>>>>and of course werefools in sheep's clothing (wool). Are you a
>>>>>>wearwool, Wilson?
>>>>>
>>>>> .....(in other words, Androcles doesn't understand what I'm talking
>>>>> about.)
>>>>>
>>>>You were babbling about a standing wave being the sum
>>>>of two travelling waves, and I'm saying that's bullshit.
>>>>You owe me 3 cases of Glenlivet doesn't mean I owe you
>>>>100 cases and you owe me 103 cases.
>>>
>>> It isn't bullshit. I have shown you why mathematically.
>>
>>Yeah, yeah, 103 - 100 = 3 and 1003 - 1000 = 3 too.
>>
>>>
>>> Run a program that adds A.sin(kx-vt) and A.sin(kx+vt) and see what you
>>> get.
>
>>Solve for v and I will.
>
> v is just a constant....any old constant..

v is dx/dt and a violin string doesn't move in x.
A.sin(kx - dx/dt .t) is relativity speak and
fucking bullshit, the argument for sine is
an angle. You always were a closet relativist.

> The equation is that of a standing wave.

It's the equation of Daisy Wilson.

>
>>>>I can make the sum of two waves travelling the same way travel
>>>>in reverse:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSyitNgy8hE
>>>
>>> Those waves are traveling at right angles.
>>>
>>Yeah, so? I can still reverse the phase movement.
>
> Lissajous figures are produced when two waves are combined at right
> angles.
> Standing waves and beats are produced when the waves are parallel.

You've got it, now solve for v.
Hint: modulo (L/period).

>>>>Waves don't travel, their phase does.
>>>
>>> Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?
>>
>>Standing waves don't, and two waves "travelling" in opposite
>>directions don't either.
>
> Correct.

So why did you ask a stupid question?

>
>>A violin string in a vacuum is still waving and still standing, but it
>>emits no sound energy,
>
> ..then all learners should be locked in a vacuum.

Good idea, then they'd learn not to babble about travelling waves
or "velocity = wavelength * frequency" because all velocities
are relative.

>
>>and a violin string in air emits sound
>>at right angles to "the two waves travelling in opposite directions"
>>that you "proved" mathematically.
>>Those three waves are at right angles, Wilson.
>
> Don't be an idiot. The string itself causes the disturbances in the air.
> The
> wave emitted by one side is 180 behind the other.

Don't be an idiot. The coax itself causes the disturbances in the
electromagnetic field. The standing wave emitted by one side is

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 01.06.2012 00:27, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:12:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<som...@somwhere.no>
> wrote:
>
>> On 31.05.2012 00:12, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 22:48:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<som...@somwhere.no>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The simple fact is that the wave/particle duality
>>>> can't be explained by 19th century clockwork mechanics.
>>>
>>> It cannot be explained by YOU either.
>>
>> But I am able to read the "explanations" made by real physicists.
>> It's called "quantum field theory", (QFT).
>> For electromagnetic interactions between particles,
>> the theory is "quantum electrodynamics" (QED).
>> This is the theory of photons.
>> You are obviously far too ignorant of mathematics to read it,
>> but to get a brief idea of what it is all about, you could
>> try Feynman's popular book:
>> "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter"
>> http://tinyurl.com/48k82f
>
> I'm not interested in silly mathematical games. I am talking about the
> physics of the process.

Says the fully qualified physicist Doctor Ralph Rabbidge,
who spent 11 years at Australia's best universities,
and who has degrees in mathematics and physics.

One could almost suspect he is lying about his credentials,
but he is only pretending to be ignorant and stupid to trap us.

Am I right about that, Ralph?


--
Paul

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

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:35:22 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:9f9ms7d63daq4ph24...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 07:22:15 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>>
>>>> 'curl' isn't the number of turns even though the answer might be
>>>> dependent
>>>> on that number..
>>>
>>>You learnt what things are not from Phuckwit Duck. Hey Wilson,
>>>curl isn't a dog's breakfast and curl isn't a bicycle built for two
>>>and curl isn't a chicken feather sandwich on whole wheat with
>>>mayonaisse or chocolate pudding in a vinegrette sauce.
>>>Why don't you make a fucking list of all the things curl isn't, then
>>>by exhaustive elimination we might be able to say what it is?
>>
>> curl has a specific mathematical definition. Why don't you look it up.
>>
>> It actually describes vectors that represent magnitudes and axes of
>> rotation.
>
>In other words turns.

It's just a little more complicted than that.

>>>>>You were babbling about a standing wave being the sum
>>>>>of two travelling waves, and I'm saying that's bullshit.
>>>>>You owe me 3 cases of Glenlivet doesn't mean I owe you
>>>>>100 cases and you owe me 103 cases.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't bullshit. I have shown you why mathematically.
>>>
>>>Yeah, yeah, 103 - 100 = 3 and 1003 - 1000 = 3 too.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Run a program that adds A.sin(kx-vt) and A.sin(kx+vt) and see what you
>>>> get.
>>
>>>Solve for v and I will.
>>
>> v is just a constant....any old constant..
>
>v is dx/dt and a violin string doesn't move in x.
>A.sin(kx - dx/dt .t) is relativity speak and
>fucking bullshit, the argument for sine is
>an angle. You always were a closet relativist.

Th sum of two waves moving in opposite directions along x describes the
position of the elements of the string in the y direction, versus time.

Get it?.

>> The equation is that of a standing wave.
>
>It's the equation of Daisy Wilson.

It is a well known physical principle.
If pommie engineers were made to learn some basic physics, they would know
that.

>>>>>I can make the sum of two waves travelling the same way travel
>>>>>in reverse:
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSyitNgy8hE
>>>>
>>>> Those waves are traveling at right angles.
>>>>
>>>Yeah, so? I can still reverse the phase movement.
>>
>> Lissajous figures are produced when two waves are combined at right
>> angles.
>> Standing waves and beats are produced when the waves are parallel.
>
>You've got it, now solve for v.
>Hint: modulo (L/period).

where? when? how? which v?

>>>>>Waves don't travel, their phase does.
>>>>
>>>> Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?
>>>
>>>Standing waves don't, and two waves "travelling" in opposite
>>>directions don't either.
>>
>> Correct.
>
>So why did you ask a stupid question?

I'll ask you the same 'stupid' question.

Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?

>>>A violin string in a vacuum is still waving and still standing, but it
>>>emits no sound energy,
>>
>> ..then all learners should be locked in a vacuum.
>
>
>Good idea, then they'd learn not to babble about travelling waves
>or "velocity = wavelength * frequency" because all velocities
>are relative.

......and pommie engineers are always relatively good for some light
entertainment....

>>>and a violin string in air emits sound
>>>at right angles to "the two waves travelling in opposite directions"
>>>that you "proved" mathematically.
>>>Those three waves are at right angles, Wilson.
>>
>> Don't be an idiot. The string itself causes the disturbances in the air.
>> The
>> wave emitted by one side is 180 behind the other.
>
>Don't be an idiot. The coax itself causes the disturbances in the
>electromagnetic field. The standing wave emitted by one side is
>180 behind the other.

don't try to wriggle out by changing the subject....That's Tusseladd's
tactics.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 20:33:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somwhere.no>

wrote:

>On 01.06.2012 00:27, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:12:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<som...@somwhere.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31.05.2012 00:12, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 22:48:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<som...@somwhere.no>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The simple fact is that the wave/particle duality
>>>>> can't be explained by 19th century clockwork mechanics.
>>>>
>>>> It cannot be explained by YOU either.
>>>
>>> But I am able to read the "explanations" made by real physicists.
>>> It's called "quantum field theory", (QFT).
>>> For electromagnetic interactions between particles,
>>> the theory is "quantum electrodynamics" (QED).
>>> This is the theory of photons.
>>> You are obviously far too ignorant of mathematics to read it,
>>> but to get a brief idea of what it is all about, you could
>>> try Feynman's popular book:
>>> "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter"
>>> http://tinyurl.com/48k82f
>>
>> I'm not interested in silly mathematical games. I am talking about the
>> physics of the process.
>

>Says the fully qualified physicist Doctor Henry Wilson,

>who spent 11 years at Australia's best universities,
>and who has degrees in mathematics and physics.
>
>One could almost suspect he is lying about his credentials,
>but he is only pretending to be ignorant and stupid to trap us.
>

>Am I right about that, Henry?

Don't try to wriggle out with irrelevancies.

If you know anything about QED, you would know that it openly admits to
not being able to answer questions like the one I asked you.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:1fons7lu0d7peuk9m...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:35:22 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:9f9ms7d63daq4ph24...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 07:22:15 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> 'curl' isn't the number of turns even though the answer might be
>>>>> dependent
>>>>> on that number..
>>>>
>>>>You learnt what things are not from Phuckwit Duck. Hey Wilson,
>>>>curl isn't a dog's breakfast and curl isn't a bicycle built for two
>>>>and curl isn't a chicken feather sandwich on whole wheat with
>>>>mayonaisse or chocolate pudding in a vinegrette sauce.
>>>>Why don't you make a fucking list of all the things curl isn't, then
>>>>by exhaustive elimination we might be able to say what it is?
>>>
>>> curl has a specific mathematical definition. Why don't you look it up.
>>>
>>> It actually describes vectors that represent magnitudes and axes of
>>> rotation.
>>
>>In other words turns.
>
> It's just a little more complicted than that.

Then say what it is instead of what it isn't.
Curly wool doesn't grow on a fish, sheep shagger. It's just a little more
complic(A)ted than that.
Curly wool isn't duck feathers, sheep shagger. It's just a little more
complic(A)ted than that.
A rolling stone gathers no curly lichen or moss, sheep shagger. It's just a
little more complic(A)ted than that.

>
>
>>>>>>You were babbling about a standing wave being the sum
>>>>>>of two travelling waves, and I'm saying that's bullshit.
>>>>>>You owe me 3 cases of Glenlivet doesn't mean I owe you
>>>>>>100 cases and you owe me 103 cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't bullshit. I have shown you why mathematically.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, yeah, 103 - 100 = 3 and 1003 - 1000 = 3 too.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Run a program that adds A.sin(kx-vt) and A.sin(kx+vt) and see what you
>>>>> get.
>>>
>>>>Solve for v and I will.
>>>
>>> v is just a constant....any old constant..
>>
>>v is dx/dt and a violin string doesn't move in x.
>>A.sin(kx - dx/dt .t) is relativity speak and
>>fucking bullshit, the argument for sine is
>>an angle. You always were a closet relativist.
>
> Th sum of two waves moving in opposite directions along x describes the
> position of the elements of the string in the y direction, versus time.
>
> Get it?

No, I don't. The term 'y' in A.sin(kx-vt) and A.sin(kx+vt) is missing.
You always were a deranged closet relativist.
Get it?

>>> The equation is that of a standing wave.
>>
>>It's the equation of Daisy Wilson.
>
> It is a well known physical principle.
> If pommie engineers were made to learn some basic physics, they would know
> that.

If ozzie sheep shaggers were taught mathematics they wouldn't mumble

"For a string,
A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.

It's well known bullshit.

>
>>>>>>I can make the sum of two waves travelling the same way travel
>>>>>>in reverse:
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSyitNgy8hE
>>>>>
>>>>> Those waves are traveling at right angles.
>>>>>
>>>>Yeah, so? I can still reverse the phase movement.
>>>
>>> Lissajous figures are produced when two waves are combined at right
>>> angles.
>>> Standing waves and beats are produced when the waves are parallel.
>>
>>You've got it, now solve for v.
>>Hint: modulo (L/period).
>
> where? when? how? which v?

"Which v?" is what I'm asking you, you put it there.
The term 'x/period' or "L/period" in A.sin(kx-vt) and
A.sin(kx+vt) is missing.

>
>>>>>>Waves don't travel, their phase does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?
>>>>
>>>>Standing waves don't, and two waves "travelling" in opposite
>>>>directions don't either.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>
>>So why did you ask a stupid question?
>
> I'll ask you the same 'stupid' question.
>
> Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?
>

I told you, they don't. You said that was correct, so your question
is as fucking stupid as you are.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif
Clearly the water wave has no velocity at the source or it wouldn't
still be there. Perhaps the source is a singularity.

>>>>A violin string in a vacuum is still waving and still standing, but it
>>>>emits no sound energy,
>>>
>>> ..then all learners should be locked in a vacuum.
>>
>>
>>Good idea, then they'd learn not to babble about travelling waves
>>or "velocity = wavelength * frequency" because all velocities
>>are relative.
>
> ......and pommie engineers are always relatively good for some light
> entertainment....

...especially when we have an ozzie stooge to play the role of Eric
in Morcambe and Wise or Stan in Laurel and Hardy.

>
>>>>and a violin string in air emits sound
>>>>at right angles to "the two waves travelling in opposite directions"
>>>>that you "proved" mathematically.
>>>>Those three waves are at right angles, Wilson.
>>>
>>> Don't be an idiot. The string itself causes the disturbances in the air.
>>> The
>>> wave emitted by one side is 180 behind the other.
>>
>>Don't be an idiot. The coax itself causes the disturbances in the
>>electromagnetic field. The standing wave emitted by one side is
>>180 behind the other.
>
> don't try to wriggle out by changing the subject....That's Tusseladd's
> tactics.

The subject is

"For a string,
A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.

It's well known bullshit that you are squirming over.

[donsto...@hotmail.com]

That Einstein was so intelligent. Why, one wonders whether he or Leonardo da Vinci should have the reward for being the smartest human of all time. And Einstein was so gentle and kind and diplomatic. Why, he would have never gone on for years and years mean-mouthing his dialectical opponents as you see here in these usergroups. Yes, a fine outstanding instantiation of the perfect human being.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:53:57 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:1fons7lu0d7peuk9m...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:35:22 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>> curl has a specific mathematical definition. Why don't you look it up.
>>>>
>>>> It actually describes vectors that represent magnitudes and axes of
>>>> rotation.
>>>
>>>In other words turns.
>>
>> It's just a little more complicted than that.
>
>Then say what it is instead of what it isn't.
>Curly wool doesn't grow on a fish, sheep shagger. It's just a little more
>complic(A)ted than that.
>Curly wool isn't duck feathers, sheep shagger. It's just a little more
>complic(A)ted than that.
>A rolling stone gathers no curly lichen or moss, sheep shagger. It's just a
>little more complic(A)ted than that.

Are your cuckoo feathers curly?
Are your curly feathers cuckoo?

>>>A.sin(kx - dx/dt .t) is relativity speak and
>>>fucking bullshit, the argument for sine is
>>>an angle. You always were a closet relativist.
>>
>> Th sum of two waves moving in opposite directions along x describes the
>> position of the elements of the string in the y direction, versus time.
>>
>> Get it?
>
>No, I don't. The term 'y' in A.sin(kx-vt) and A.sin(kx+vt) is missing.
>You always were a deranged closet relativist.
>Get it?

A is amplitude in the y direction.... obviously.

>>>> The equation is that of a standing wave.
>>>
>>>It's the equation of Daisy Wilson.
>>
>> It is a well known physical principle.
>> If pommie engineers were made to learn some basic physics, they would know
>> that.
>
>If ozzie sheep shaggers were taught mathematics they wouldn't mumble
>"For a string,
>A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
>It's well known bullshit.

Don't you know how to add two sine functions....it's quite elementary, you
know.

>>>>
>>>> Lissajous figures are produced when two waves are combined at right
>>>> angles.
>>>> Standing waves and beats are produced when the waves are parallel.
>>>
>>>You've got it, now solve for v.
>>>Hint: modulo (L/period).
>>
>> where? when? how? which v?
>
>"Which v?" is what I'm asking you, you put it there.
>The term 'x/period' or "L/period" in A.sin(kx-vt) and
>A.sin(kx+vt) is missing.

It

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 20:23:51 -0700 (PDT), donsto...@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>That Einstein was so intelligent.

He was a plagiarizing science fiction addict.

>Why, one wonders whether he or Leonardo da Vinci should
>have the reward for being the smartest human of all time.

What about me?

>And Einstein was so gentle and kind and diplomatic.

He was a wife beater.

>Why, he would have never gone on for years and years mean-mouthing his
>dialectical opponents as you see here in these usergroups.

I just wish he could join us here. We would soon bring the bastard down.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:53:57 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:1fons7lu0d7peuk9m...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:35:22 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>
>>>So why did you ask a stupid question?
>>
>> I'll ask you the same 'stupid' question.
>>
>> Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?
>>
>I told you, they don't. You said that was correct, so your question
>is as fucking stupid as you are.
> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif

That isn't standing wave.
You don't even know what one is, you silly old pom.

>Clearly the water wave has no velocity at the source or it wouldn't
>still be there. Perhaps the source is a singularity.

THe water wave in your demo has a velocity relative to the source.

>>>Good idea, then they'd learn not to babble about travelling waves
>>>or "velocity = wavelength * frequency" because all velocities
>>>are relative.
>>
>> ......and pommie engineers are always relatively good for some light
>> entertainment....
>
>...especially when we have an ozzie stooge to play the role of Eric
>in Morcambe and Wise or Stan in Laurel and Hardy.

You're showing your age there.

>>>>>and a violin string in air emits sound
>>>>>at right angles to "the two waves travelling in opposite directions"
>>>>>that you "proved" mathematically.
>>>>>Those three waves are at right angles, Wilson.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be an idiot. The string itself causes the disturbances in the air.
>>>> The
>>>> wave emitted by one side is 180 behind the other.
>>>
>>>Don't be an idiot. The coax itself causes the disturbances in the
>>>electromagnetic field. The standing wave emitted by one side is
>>>180 behind the other.
>>
>> don't try to wriggle out by changing the subject....That's Tusseladd's
>> tactics.
>
>The subject is
>"For a string,
>A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
>It's well known bullshit that you are squirming over.

Andro, please stop making a fool of yourself. I feel quite embarrased for
your sake.
The above equation describes a string that is shaped like a half sine curve
along its length. The amplitude along its whole length varies as sin(xt),
where t is time and x is a constant.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 15:01:40 +0100, RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>On 27/05/12 11:25, Androcles wrote:
>> "Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

>> Yes I did and I agree it is quite good. Kinky's problem is his
>> religious-like faith in aether.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> ...and there is no aether.....That's why lighj speed has to be source
>>> dependent. Didn't you know that?
>>
>> I know it but Kinky doesn't. Much of the problem is the term
>> "electromagnetic" -- there are electric waves and magnetic waves,
>> each dependent on the other and phase shifted 90 degrees,
>> but there are no electromagnetic waves.
>> It's a language thing. He says light is a wave and therefore
>> needs a medium, an d if it were one wave it would need a
>> medium, but light is two waves, one electric and one
>> magnetic. There are men and there are women but the unit of the
>> two is called a "family" or a "couple" or colloquially an "item",
>> but it is not called a ladygent.
>
>You don't say !
>Don't be a dorc. It's just a word. Call it an 'electric and magnetic'
>wave if you like. The rest of the world will say electromagnetic wave.
>Have you nothing better to occupy you large brain?

For christ's sake stop posting this kind of nonsense. You make Andro sound
intelligent.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:in4os7l298jmmfjke...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:53:57 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:1fons7lu0d7peuk9m...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:35:22 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>>>> curl has a specific mathematical definition. Why don't you look it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> It actually describes vectors that represent magnitudes and axes of
>>>>> rotation.
>>>>
>>>>In other words turns.
>>>
>>> It's just a little more complicted than that.
>>
>>Then say what it is instead of what it isn't.
>>Curly wool doesn't grow on a fish, sheep shagger. It's just a little more
>>complic(A)ted than that.
>>Curly wool isn't duck feathers, sheep shagger. It's just a little more
>>complic(A)ted than that.
>>A rolling stone gathers no curly lichen or moss, sheep shagger. It's just
>>a
>>little more complic(A)ted than that.
>
> Are your cuckoo feathers curly?
> Are your curly feathers cuckoo?
>

It's just a little more comfuckted than that.

>
>>>>A.sin(kx - dx/dt .t) is relativity speak and
>>>>fucking bullshit, the argument for sine is
>>>>an angle. You always were a closet relativist.
>>>
>>> Th sum of two waves moving in opposite directions along x describes the
>>> position of the elements of the string in the y direction, versus time.
>>>
>>> Get it?
>>
>>No, I don't. The term 'y' in A.sin(kx-vt) and A.sin(kx+vt) is missing.
>>You always were a deranged closet relativist.
>>Get it?
>
> A is amplitude in the y direction.... obviously.

sin(theta) is the altitude in the i direction.... obviously.

>
>>>>> The equation is that of a standing wave.
>>>>
>>>>It's the equation of Daisy Wilson.
>>>
>>> It is a well known physical principle.
>>> If pommie engineers were made to learn some basic physics, they would
>>> know
>>> that.
>>
>>If ozzie sheep shaggers were taught mathematics they wouldn't mumble
>>"For a string,
>>A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
>>It's well known bullshit.
>
> Don't you know how to add two sine functions....it's quite elementary, you
> know.
>

For a string, there is only one sine function.
What two sine functions?

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:musos7dfllndl1ae9...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:53:57 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:1fons7lu0d7peuk9m...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:35:22 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>So why did you ask a stupid question?
>>>
>>> I'll ask you the same 'stupid' question.
>>>
>>> Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?
>>>
>>I told you, they don't. You said that was correct, so your question
>>is as fucking stupid as you are.
>> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif
>
> That isn't standing wave.

It is at the source. You said it yourself, the east-going ripple
added to the west-going ripple sum to a standing wave. Same
with the north-going and south-going waves. The amplitude
at the source must be infinite.

> You don't even know what one is, you silly old pom.

This is a standing wave:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Standingwave3D.gif

>>Clearly the water wave has no velocity at the source or it wouldn't
>>still be there. Perhaps the source is a singularity.
>
> THe water wave in your demo has a velocity relative to the source.

Not AT the source, it doesn't!

>
>
>>>>Good idea, then they'd learn not to babble about travelling waves
>>>>or "velocity = wavelength * frequency" because all velocities
>>>>are relative.
>>>
>>> ......and pommie engineers are always relatively good for some light
>>> entertainment....
>>
>>...especially when we have an ozzie stooge to play the role of Eric
>>in Morcambe and Wise or Stan in Laurel and Hardy.
>
> You're showing your age there.

I'm younger than you but I'm Wise and I'm Hardy.

>
>>>>>>and a violin string in air emits sound
>>>>>>at right angles to "the two waves travelling in opposite directions"
>>>>>>that you "proved" mathematically.
>>>>>>Those three waves are at right angles, Wilson.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't be an idiot. The string itself causes the disturbances in the
>>>>> air.
>>>>> The
>>>>> wave emitted by one side is 180 behind the other.
>>>>
>>>>Don't be an idiot. The coax itself causes the disturbances in the
>>>>electromagnetic field. The standing wave emitted by one side is
>>>>180 behind the other.
>>>
>>> don't try to wriggle out by changing the subject....That's Tusseladd's
>>> tactics.
>>
>>The subject is
>>"For a string,
>>A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
>>It's well known bullshit that you are squirming over.
>
> Andro, please stop making a fool of yourself. I feel quite embarrased for
> your sake.
> The above equation describes a string that is shaped like a half sine
> curve
> along its length. The amplitude along its whole length varies as sin(xt),
> where t is time and x is a constant.
>

Standing waves don't travel in x. The wood moves along the screw
when the screw turns.
k is a constant, A is a constant amplitude, wt is an angle, x is a
distance and not the argument of the sine function. No wonder
you are confused, you get your variable names mixed up.
The only one making a fool of himself is you.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 04.06.2012 00:46, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

> If you know anything about QED, you would know that it openly admits to
> not being able to answer questions like the one I asked you.

> Nothing Feynmann wrote throws any light on the precise role of photons in
> radio transmission. He says so himself.

Maybe the fully qualified physicist Doctor Ralph Rabbidge
can teach us some of the QED he learned during his 11 years
at the best universities in Australia?

Like explaining why QED doesn't throw any light
on the role of photons in radio transmission?

--
Paul

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

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:56:39 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:in4os7l298jmmfjke...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:53:57 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>>>A.sin(kx - dx/dt .t) is relativity speak and
>>>>>fucking bullshit, the argument for sine is
>>>>>an angle. You always were a closet relativist.
>>>>
>>>> Th sum of two waves moving in opposite directions along x describes the
>>>> position of the elements of the string in the y direction, versus time.
>>>>
>>>> Get it?
>>>
>>>No, I don't. The term 'y' in A.sin(kx-vt) and A.sin(kx+vt) is missing.
>>>You always were a deranged closet relativist.
>>>Get it?
>>
>> A is amplitude in the y direction.... obviously.
>
>sin(theta) is the altitude in the i direction.... obviously.

there ain't no i needed here.

>>>>
>>>> It is a well known physical principle.
>>>> If pommie engineers were made to learn some basic physics, they would
>>>> know
>>>> that.
>>>
>>>If ozzie sheep shaggers were taught mathematics they wouldn't mumble
>>>"For a string,
>>>A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
>>>It's well known bullshit.
>>
>> Don't you know how to add two sine functions....it's quite elementary, you
>> know.
>>
>For a string, there is only one sine function.
>What two sine functions?

One determines its shape, the other the rate at which it goes up and down.

Get it now?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:41:35 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:musos7dfllndl1ae9...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:53:57 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>>
>>>> Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?
>>>>
>>>I told you, they don't. You said that was correct, so your question
>>>is as fucking stupid as you are.
>>> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif
>>
>> That isn't standing wave.
>
>It is at the source. You said it yourself, the east-going ripple
>added to the west-going ripple sum to a standing wave. Same
>with the north-going and south-going waves. The amplitude
>at the source must be infinite.
>
>
>
>> You don't even know what one is, you silly old pom.
>
>This is a standing wave:
> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Standingwave3D.gif

That is a combination of TWO standing waves, both of the 2nd overtone. One
lags the other by 90 deg.

>>>Clearly the water wave has no velocity at the source or it wouldn't
>>>still be there. Perhaps the source is a singularity.
>>
>> THe water wave in your demo has a velocity relative to the source.
>
>Not AT the source, it doesn't!

It does.

>>>>>Good idea, then they'd learn not to babble about travelling waves
>>>>>or "velocity = wavelength * frequency" because all velocities
>>>>>are relative.
>>>>
>>>> ......and pommie engineers are always relatively good for some light
>>>> entertainment....
>>>
>>>...especially when we have an ozzie stooge to play the role of Eric
>>>in Morcambe and Wise or Stan in Laurel and Hardy.
>>
>> You're showing your age there.
>
>I'm younger than you but I'm Wise and I'm Hardy.

:)

>>>The subject is
>>>"For a string,
>>>A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
>>>It's well known bullshit that you are squirming over.
>>
>> Andro, please stop making a fool of yourself. I feel quite embarrased for
>> your sake.
>> The above equation describes a string that is shaped like a half sine
>> curve
>> along its length. The amplitude along its whole length varies as sin(xt),
>> where t is time and x is a constant.
>>
>Standing waves don't travel in x. The wood moves along the screw
>when the screw turns.
>k is a constant, A is a constant amplitude, wt is an angle, x is a
>distance and not the argument of the sine function. No wonder
>you are confused, you get your variable names mixed up.
>The only one making a fool of himself is you.

Andro, as a friend I want to help you but I cannot continue to teach you
everything you should have learnt in your youth.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:07:26 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<some...@somewhere.no> wrote:

>On 04.06.2012 00:46, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>> If you know anything about QED, you would know that it openly admits to
>> not being able to answer questions like the one I asked you.
>
> > Nothing Feynmann wrote throws any light on the precise role of photons in
> > radio transmission. He says so himself.
>

>Maybe the fully qualified physicist Doctor Henry Wilson

>can teach us some of the QED he learned during his 11 years
>at the best universities in Australia?
>
>Like explaining why QED doesn't throw any light
>on the role of photons in radio transmission?

It says less than what I have been saying for many years.

Random photons are emitted by charges accelerating up and down the antenna.
They radiate away in all directions at c wrt the antenna.

The signal waveform is created by photon density variations plus a
likelihood that they all interact over time to form some kind of coherent EM
structure.

Since you can apparently contribute no scientific opinion at all on this
subject, I gather that you, like Androcles, believe that a radio signal
consists of one large photon moving at c in an aether..

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:eeeqs7528crc9dj1k...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:56:39 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:in4os7l298jmmfjke...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:53:57 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>>>>>A.sin(kx - dx/dt .t) is relativity speak and
>>>>>>fucking bullshit, the argument for sine is
>>>>>>an angle. You always were a closet relativist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Th sum of two waves moving in opposite directions along x describes
>>>>> the
>>>>> position of the elements of the string in the y direction, versus
>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Get it?
>>>>
>>>>No, I don't. The term 'y' in A.sin(kx-vt) and A.sin(kx+vt) is missing.
>>>>You always were a deranged closet relativist.
>>>>Get it?
>>>
>>> A is amplitude in the y direction.... obviously.
>>
>>sin(theta) is the altitude in the i direction.... obviously.
>
> there ain't no i needed here.

Oh, but there is.

exp(i.theta) = cos(theta) + i.sin(theta)

It is a well known mathematical principle.
Some twerp claimed

"A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.

If ozzie sheep shaggers were made to learn some basic mathematics,
they would know that was impossible.
2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] is the ALTItude in the i direction when A = 1...
obviously.

>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a well known physical principle.
>>>>> If pommie engineers were made to learn some basic physics, they would
>>>>> know
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>>If ozzie sheep shaggers were taught mathematics they wouldn't mumble
>>>>"For a string,
>>>>A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
>>>>It's well known bullshit.
>>>
>>> Don't you know how to add two sine functions....it's quite elementary,
>>> you
>>> know.
>>>
>>For a string, there is only one sine function.
>>What two sine functions?
>
> One determines its shape, the other the rate at which it goes up and down.
>
> Get it now?

Nope. I can assure you the rate at which it goes up and down is w.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:bkeqs71q25gtumfna...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:41:35 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:musos7dfllndl1ae9...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:53:57 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?
>>>>>
>>>>I told you, they don't. You said that was correct, so your question
>>>>is as fucking stupid as you are.
>>>> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif
>>>
>>> That isn't standing wave.
>>
>>It is at the source. You said it yourself, the east-going ripple
>>added to the west-going ripple sum to a standing wave. Same
>>with the north-going and south-going waves. The amplitude
>>at the source must be infinite.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You don't even know what one is, you silly old pom.
>>
>>This is a standing wave:
>> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Standingwave3D.gif
>
> That is a combination of TWO standing waves,

Yep. Right on the money, Wilson. One represents the electric field and
the other represents the magnetic.

> both of the 2nd overtone.

What 2nd overtone?

> One lags the other by 90 deg.

Yep. Right on the money, Wilson. The phase shift is in time,
not space. They are displaced in space by 90 deg. too, but that
angle is around the x-axis.
Tusseladd dreams they are not phase shifted in time, which is
why he makes so many cockups. He can't think in 3D, let alone
3D + duration.

>>>>Clearly the water wave has no velocity at the source or it wouldn't
>>>>still be there. Perhaps the source is a singularity.
>>>
>>> THe water wave in your demo has a velocity relative to the source.
>>
>>Not AT the source, it doesn't!
>
> It does.

No it doesn't, the exact centre only moves up and down, not sideways.
Look again:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif

Wilson, I learnt to think even in my youth when you were selling 6V
VW camper vans for a living. You, on the other hand, were indoctrinated.
You can't help me, you have no understanding of mathematics.
Help Tusseladd instead, he's younger than both of us. Dork is
hopeless, he's about 120 by now.

The Infamous FumbleMumble:
<http://www.tinyurl.com/FumbleMumble>

"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
6 years. "
Dork Vdm, 12 Nov, 2002.
T = 9.5 years, Dork has aged 19 years, he stayed at home.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 00:51:52 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:bkeqs71q25gtumfna...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:41:35 +0100, "Androcles" <Th...@May.2012> wrote:

>>>> You don't even know what one is, you silly old pom.
>>>
>>>This is a standing wave:
>>> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Standingwave3D.gif
>>
>> That is a combination of TWO standing waves,
>
>Yep. Right on the money, Wilson. One represents the electric field and
>the other represents the magnetic.
>
>> both of the 2nd overtone.
>
>What 2nd overtone?

Do a course in physics.

>> One lags the other by 90 deg.
>
>
>Yep. Right on the money, Wilson. The phase shift is in time,
>not space. They are displaced in space by 90 deg. too, but that
>angle is around the x-axis.
>Tusseladd dreams they are not phase shifted in time, which is
>why he makes so many cockups. He can't think in 3D, let alone
>3D + duration.

Lots of books say they are in phase in time.... but I'm with you on that
one.

>>>>>Clearly the water wave has no velocity at the source or it wouldn't
>>>>>still be there. Perhaps the source is a singularity.
>>>>
>>>> THe water wave in your demo has a velocity relative to the source.
>>>
>>>Not AT the source, it doesn't!
>>
>> It does.
>
>No it doesn't, the exact centre only moves up and down, not sideways.
>Look again:
> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif

It isn't the wave that moves up and down. It is the water surface

>>>Standing waves don't travel in x. The wood moves along the screw
>>>when the screw turns.
>>>k is a constant, A is a constant amplitude, wt is an angle, x is a
>>>distance and not the argument of the sine function. No wonder
>>>you are confused, you get your variable names mixed up.
>>>The only one making a fool of himself is you.
>>
>> Andro, as a friend I want to help you but I cannot continue to teach you
>> everything you should have learnt in your youth.
>
>Wilson, I learnt to think even in my youth when you were selling 6V
>VW camper vans for a living. You, on the other hand, were indoctrinated.
>You can't help me, you have no understanding of mathematics.

sin(x+y) = sin(x)cos(y)+ cos(x)sin(y)
sin(x-y) = sin(x)cos(y)- cos(x)sin(y)

sin(x+y)+ sin(x-y) = 2sin(x)cos(y)

Therefore: sin(A)+sin(B) = 2sin(1/2(A+B)).cos(1/2(A-B))

Get i now?

>Help Tusseladd instead, he's younger than both of us.

Tusseladd finds himself in a difficult position. Everything he writes is
nonsense, as I have pointed out quite convincingly.

>Dork is
>hopeless, he's about 120 by now.

...with a 3yo mind..

>The Infamous FumbleMumble:
><http://www.tinyurl.com/FumbleMumble>
>
>"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
>have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
>6 years. "
>Dork Vdm, 12 Nov, 2002.
>T = 9.5 years, Dork has aged 19 years, he stayed at home.

So T= 5 but the stay at home ages by 6? Very interesting!!!

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 05.06.2012 01:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:07:26 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <some...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>> On 04.06.2012 00:46, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>>> If you know anything about QED, you would know that it openly admits to
>>> not being able to answer questions like the one I asked you.
>>
>>> Nothing Feynmann wrote throws any light on the precise role of photons in
>>> radio transmission. He says so himself.
>>
>> Maybe the fully qualified physicist Doctor Henry Wilson
>> can teach us some of the QED he learned during his 11 years
>> at the best universities in Australia?
>>
>> Like explaining why QED doesn't throw any light
>> on the role of photons in radio transmission?
>
> It says less than what I have been saying for many years.
>
> Random photons are emitted by charges accelerating up and down the antenna.
> They radiate away in all directions at c wrt the antenna.
>
> The signal waveform is created by photon density variations plus a
> likelihood that they all interact over time to form some kind of coherent EM
> structure.

http://tinyurl.com/cqfycnt

> Since you can apparently contribute no scientific opinion at all on this
> subject, I gather that you, like Androcles, believe that a radio signal
> consists of one large photon moving at c in an aether..
>

I couldn't have gotten a clearer answer:
"No, I, Ralph Rabbidge, can't explain why QED doesn't
throw any light on the role of photons in radio transmission,
because I know nothing about QED".

Thanks.

--
Paul

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

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:34:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somwhere.no>
wrote:

>On 05.06.2012 01:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:07:26 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <some...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>

>> The signal waveform is created by photon density variations plus a
>> likelihood that they all interact over time to form some kind of coherent EM
>> structure.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/cqfycnt
>
>> Since you can apparently contribute no scientific opinion at all on this
>> subject, I gather that you, like Androcles, believe that a radio signal
>> consists of one large photon moving at c in an aether..
>>
>
>I couldn't have gotten a clearer answer:

> "No, I, Henry Wilson, can't explain why QED doesn't

> throw any light on the role of photons in radio transmission,
> because I know nothing about QED".

If the creator of curved light rays had read Feynman's book, he would
clearly see that my statements about the limitations of his magic QED are
reinforced.

Do you really think you can win an argument by endlessly repeating the word
'QED'?

You are clearly a loser...and a bad one...

>Thanks.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

is a photon considered to be one cycle,
one period of a wave in the Fourier sense of it?

> a specific number of photons.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:58:02 -0700 (PDT), 1treePetrifiedForestLane
<Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>is a photon considered to be one cycle,
>one period of a wave in the Fourier sense of it?

rubbish

[bjacoby]

Well actually, I was just going to say "no", but then I traced back and
found the original post came from Andro! Hence, "rubbish" is a much
better answer!

[Paul B. Andersen]

Thanks for the confirmation.

Case closed.

--
Paul

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

[Salmon Egg]

In article
<c288cf8e-a0ec-4d2a...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

NO. If that is not enough, it is that property of light that causes
somethin to happen at a localized spot in a field of relatively low
energy concentration--at least until the event occurs.

--

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.