Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ?

[Y]

Don't really need to ask more here...

What do you think ?

-y

[Gary Harnagel]

Sure. Colors represent different energies.

Gary

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 13:45 Y napsal(a):

> Don't really need to ask more here...
>

Only if we humans are able to see it as colours.
Are we ?

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[Y]

Let's not get caught in the semantics of visibility.

-y

[Y]

I think it's possible. Have our scientific instruments ever observed the colors of gravitational energy ?


-y

[kefischer]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 04:45:15 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Don't really need to ask more here...
>
>What do you think ?
>
>-y

That you are one of the four flakes.

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 14:21 Y napsal(a):

Semantic of scientific language.

Colour in spectrum context
is subjective, visual, photometric term,

not objective radiometric term,
like frequency, wavelength or energy.

[Y]

I'm guessing you're the dude on the right..

https://www.photoshopgurus.com/forum/attachments/general-photoshop-board/19559d1341439169t-photoshop-request-website-header-sw-png

-y

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 14:22 Y napsal(a):

> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:05:59 PM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 5:45:16 AM UTC-7, Y wrote:
>>> Don't really need to ask more here...
>>>
>>> What do you think ?
>>>
>>> -y
>>
>> Sure. Colors represent different energies.

But they do not make sense without EM context.

Unless false colours are used,
as common in astronomy or meteorology
for mapping various parameter values on colour scale.

I highly doubt it makes sense
to use photometric term colour out of context of light
and light-adjacent UV, IR regions.

>>
>> Gary
>
> I think it's possible. Have our scientific instruments ever observed the colors of gravitational energy ?
>

You need to specify what do you mean
by "colour of gravitational energy".

As no instrument can observe colour
even of electromagnetic energy in form of light.

The light colour is human interpretation
what either human observe directly
of what the instrument registers.

The instrument has no idea 700 nm light is red,
unless the operator or the vendor instruct the device
to report such wavelength as red.

[Y]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:41:05 PM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 14/11/2015 v 14:21 Y napsal(a):
> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:11:32 PM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:
> >> Dne 14/11/2015 v 13:45 Y napsal(a):
> >>> Don't really need to ask more here...
> >>>
> >>
> >> Only if we humans are able to see it as colours.
> >> Are we ?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> >>
> >> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
> >
> > Let's not get caught in the semantics of visibility.
> >
>
> Semantic of scientific language.
>
> Colour in spectrum context
> is subjective, visual, photometric term,
>
> not objective radiometric term,
> like frequency, wavelength or energy.

Possibly, but baloney in my books. Color is an objective outcome of wavelength. Your personal color blindness means very little in comparison.

If color weren't an objective outcome of wavelength, the earliest plants to have evolved would have been red.

Since our sky and ocean mostly reflects greens and blues, and because our oceans mostly absorb reds, the things that evolved in these oceans adapted to absorbing reds.

Guess what they were very bad at absorbing ? Blues and greens. Because the ocean and sky reflected most of this. The cyanobacteria we see, (blue-green algae) is THAT color, because our oceans absorb reds. Cyanobacteria has evolved to absorb red light. It reflects blues and greens, simply because it emerged in an environment that didn't depend on these color light.



-y

[Y]

There are a spectrum of colors in white light, and can even be broken into their component colors using prisms. Why are you trying to reduce something as scientifically important as color, down to something as basic as time and distance ?

It's not a good idea. You're deleting the devil in the details, and the devil is pretty important in science.

-y

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:56:08 AM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
>
> Dne 14/11/2015 v 14:22 Y napsal(a):
> >
> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:05:59 PM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure. Colors represent different energies.
>
> But they do not make sense without EM context.

It's an ANALOGY, Mr. P.

> Unless false colours are used,
> as common in astronomy or meteorology
> for mapping various parameter values on colour scale.
>
> I highly doubt it makes sense
> to use photometric term colour out of context of light
> and light-adjacent UV, IR regions.
>

> > I think it's possible. Have our scientific instruments ever observed the
> > colors of gravitational energy ?
>
> You need to specify what do you mean
> by "colour of gravitational energy".
>
> As no instrument can observe colour
> even of electromagnetic energy in form of light.
>
> The light colour is human interpretation
> what either human observe directly
> of what the instrument registers.
>
> The instrument has no idea 700 nm light is red,
> unless the operator or the vendor instruct the device
> to report such wavelength as red.
>
> --
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
>
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Asking if gravitational energy has colors is premature since g-waves have
not been detected.

Gary

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 14:56 Y napsal(a):

Just because we call it so.
Behaviour of light does not depend on it.

Light had no colour
until a particular light perception was called a colour.

Explain how color is an objective outcome of wavelength.

[Y]

I asked if it was possible... We don't even know for sure.

I have some reasons to guide my thinking that gravitational energy is colorless. That is why I ask. In which case, my idea was that gravitational energy may not have a wavelength.

-y

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 14:56 Y napsal(a):

>

> If color weren't an objective outcome of wavelength, the earliest plants to have evolved would have been red.
>

There is no same wavelength = same colour mapping

there is mapping the same colour
= the same red / green / blue eye sensor cell stimulation.

And not even the same cell stimulation,.
but rather the same evaluation in the brain.

There is near infinity different spectrum shapes
perceived by the humans as the same colour,
as there is near infinity options
cause the same stimulation of eye cells.


As result, different people can evaluate the same light
as different colours, and the same person
can evaluate the different light as the same colour.

[Y]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:17:23 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:

> Explain how color is an objective outcome of wavelength.

A certain shorter wavelength is reddish.

A certain longer wavelength is bluish.

You objectively change this wavelength, and the physical things around will even evolve different surface conditions, like cyanobacteria - reflecting greens and blues, and absorbing reds.

-y

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 15:01 Y napsal(a):

>
>
> There are a spectrum of colors in white light, and can even be broken into their component colors using prisms. Why are you trying to reduce something as scientifically important as color, down to something as basic as time and distance ?
>
> It's not a good idea. You're deleting the devil in the details, and the devil is pretty important in science.
>

It is bad idea to ignore
there are already established
2 related but different domains

photometry and radiometry.

Photometry has sense only in context of human perception of light.

Usage of colours out of context of human perception
is nice, poetic and pleasant to read and express,
but is not really important nor essential to use.

UNLESS just as a name for particular wavelength region.

Gravity is not light, therefore colours of gravity do not make sense.
Only energy / frequency or wavelength spectrum,
and only if there is gravitation radiation.

[Y]

Oh look, keep your continental philosophical BS wrapped up. Colors are objective. Newton even broke white light up into components colors, to show that prisms didn't put color into light.

-y

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 15:04 Gary Harnagel napsal(a):

> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:56:08 AM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:

>>> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:05:59 PM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sure. Colors represent different energies.
>>
>> But they do not make sense without EM context.
>
> It's an ANALOGY, Mr. P.

Sure, analogy, but applies only to mono-energy signals.

Mix of blue and yellow light can give the same perceived green colour
as green light even with different energies.

>
> Asking if gravitational energy has colors is premature since g-waves have
> not been detected.

No objection.

But even if it had been,
how would he defined the colours ? (smile)

They would have been always false colours,
as many colourful photos from deep space,
or combined channel products of meteo satellites.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 7:19:03 AM UTC-7, Y wrote:
>
> I have some reasons to guide my thinking that gravitational energy is
> colorless.

Consider two neutron stars in a close orbit. To a distant observer, the
gravitational field would vary with a frequency of twice the rate of
revolution. THAT would be a gravitational wave, and it would have a
definite frequency.

> That is why I ask. In which case, my idea was that gravitational energy
> may not have a wavelength.
>
> -y

I don't see how such a conclusion is possible.

Gary

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 15:32 Y napsal(a):

Right, you objectively change this wavelength, not the colour.

Being colourful is not attribute of light ( objective)
Being colourful is attribute of light-human combination ( subjective)
Either human as individual,
either previously evaluation of multiple humans.

BTW, naturally occurring light is not monochromatic.
Many different spectra can be mapped
to the same colour, causing the same eye stimulation.
As there is infinity number of math functions
that can pass through 3 particularly given points.

Even monochromatic light stimulates all 3 RGB sensor cells,
as well as complex light. And there is no monochromatic purple light
with objective wavelength,
as it is light with lack of green light.

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 15:34 Y napsal(a):

>
> Oh look, keep your continental philosophical BS wrapped up. Colors are objective. Newton even broke white light up into components colors, to show that prisms didn't put color into light.

No objections about what was observed. It is the classic.

But observed does not mean objective.
Human opinion to say it is of this colour is required,
therefore it subjective. It is not intrinsic property.

Also, different humans, different evaluation,
as it depends on eyes and on brains.

[Y]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:04:30 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 14/11/2015 v 15:34 Y napsal(a):
>
> >
> > Oh look, keep your continental philosophical BS wrapped up. Colors are objective. Newton even broke white light up into components colors, to show that prisms didn't put color into light.
>
> No objections about what was observed. It is the classic.
>
> But observed does not mean objective.
> Human opinion to say it is of this colour is required,
> therefore it subjective. It is not intrinsic property.

Science regards human observation.

> Also, different humans, different evaluation,
> as it depends on eyes and on brains.

Tell that to plants that reflect green and blue light, because they adapted in an environment where only red light was available.

-y

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 17:08 Y napsal(a):

> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:04:30 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:

>> No objections about what was observed. It is the classic.
>>
>> But observed does not mean objective.
>> Human opinion to say it is of this colour is required,
>> therefore it subjective. It is not intrinsic property.
>
> Science regards human observation.

Science also distinguishes

objective parameters, intrinsic to observed objects,
and subjective parameters, involving subject opinion.
--------------
Colour is blue only only with human opinion it is blue.

Being blue is not attribute of light nor object.

It is attribute of the subject evaluation,
while the other subject may ( and often do ) evaluate it differently.
--------------
Same as a food is tasteful only with human opinion it is tasteful.

Being tasteful is not attribute of the food.

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

>
>> Also, different humans, different evaluation,
>> as it depends on eyes and on brains.
>
> Tell that to plants that reflect green and blue light, because they adapted in an environment where only red light was available.
>

Plants do not care about our human colour schema, do they ?

They absorb some short wave light and long wave light,
with photon energies matching differences
of chlorophyll molecular orbital energies.

They do not care at all
if we call the light blue or red.

[Ty Knotts]

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

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

> objective parameters, intrinsic to observed objects,
> and subjective parameters, involving subject opinion.
> --------------
> Colour is blue only only with human opinion it is blue.

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

> Being blue is not attribute of light nor object.

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

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

NOO. You are such a moron, pout.

[Y]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:04:30 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 14/11/2015 v 15:34 Y napsal(a):
>
> >
> > Oh look, keep your continental philosophical BS wrapped up. Colors are objective. Newton even broke white light up into components colors, to show that prisms didn't put color into light.
>

> No objections about what was observed. It is the classic.
>
> But observed does not mean objective.
> Human opinion to say it is of this colour is required,
> therefore it subjective. It is not intrinsic property.

I disagree. The surface conditions of green plants are such that the surfaces of plants reflect the green component (of a certain range of wavelengths). I put it to you, that with the appropriate system, colors could be objectively classified by looking at surfaces in detail and "how" they reflect certain wavelengths of white light.

> Also, different humans, different evaluation,
> as it depends on eyes and on brains.

It doesn't have to.

-y

[Ty Knotts]

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

> I disagree. The surface conditions of green plants are such that the
> surfaces of plants reflect the green component (of a certain range of
> wavelengths). I put it to you, that with the appropriate system, colors
> could be objectively classified by looking at surfaces in detail and
> "how" they reflect certain wavelengths of white light.

Naturally, that's the whole idea in having colors. Poutink is so
inexperienced in Physics and Divergent Matter, not realizing that when you
say a specific color, you implicitly substitute to a specific wavelength,
aka a specific NUMBER. Which numbers cannot be something to be taken up
and debate.

[Poutnik]

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

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

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

You do not know what you are talking about.

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

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

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

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

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

You confuse objective with existing
and subjective with apparent.

You need not objective colour to see the light.

[Y]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:31:40 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:

> Plants do not care about our human colour schema, do they ?

Exactly ! Yet all plants seem to agree on what green is. All plants are communicating green information. Anyway, enough talking philosophy. Lets ignore that debate for now because I have something more interesting for you.


There are a finite table of elements, and presumably, all of these have cosmologically evolved (independent of their impurities - let's just ignore impurities), specific objective colors. One for each of the elements. Meaning to say, the elements reflect those EM energies that they are not adapted to absorbing. In fact, where we can manage the purity of a material to an atomic level, we should also therefore be able to produce a perfect uniformity in reflected color.


I'm getting to a point here. My hypothesis is that given knowledge of atomic lattices and combinations of atomic lattices, there should be ways to objectively categorize color, i.e. what combinations of elements and the way they are arranged will reflect what colors.

btw - I looked everywhere for reasons why plants are green, and everything I find relates to Chlorophyll. Nothing says

"It's because the ocean and sky reflect blue, that the oceans absorb primarily red"

This was an original thought of mine, and I cannot find a paper describing this anywhere. Has anyone read something like this before ?

-y

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 17:39 Y napsal(a):

>
> I disagree. The surface conditions of green plants are such that the surfaces of plants reflect the green component (of a certain range of wavelengths). I put it to you, that with the appropriate system, colors could be objectively classified by looking at surfaces in detail and "how" they reflect certain wavelengths of white light.
>

The fact colours are subjective human dependent attributes
do not exclude the fact the plants reflect the green light .

As green light is human conventions
based on majority subjective opinions.

Being green has nothing to do directly with wavelength.
All what is needed is stimulation of RGB sensitive cells
in ratiosperceived as green,
with being monochromatic or not.

There is nothing green in the light itself.
It is green in our brain only.
And not always.

>> Also, different humans, different evaluation,
>> as it depends on eyes and on brains.
>
>
> It doesn't have to.

Only if you manage unified non ageing eyes and brains to all humans.

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 17:48 Ty Knotts napsal(a):

DM disqualifies you by its own.

[Y]

Oh there was another thing I forgot to mention, and it relates to my initial question.

"Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ?"

The reason I think gravitation is colorless, is because all matter can absorb it. There also do not seem to be differences in the way differently colored elements absorb this energy.

Now supposing that a gravitational force carrier, were something like a virtual photon, I imagine that groups of these would not behave as waves.


It's possible that gravitational waves are not possible, but I still think that gravitational force carriers move at c. This would both describe success of GR, and why we haven't found g-waves.


But moreover, it may be necessary that gravitation has no wavelength, and no frequency - therefore interacting uniformly with everything.

-y

[Y]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 3:08:17 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:

> > It doesn't have to.
>
> Only if you manage unified non ageing eyes and brains to all humans.

I disagree.

Since the quantification wouldn't come from light with infinite resolution on the wave in time and space. The quantification of color would come from the discrete finite arrangements of atomic lattices and their combinations.

What this entails is that there are only a finite number of colors which can be reflected from a system using EM radiation (visible or non-visible). It has bugger all to do with human brains Poutski.

-y

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 17:59 Y napsal(a):

> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:31:40 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Plants do not care about our human colour schema, do they ?
>
>
> Exactly ! Yet all plants seem to agree on what green is.

Great. Finally somebody who can talk with plants. (little sarcastic).

They need to know anything first.
Then they need to know what a colour means.

All plants are communicating green information. Anyway, enough talking
philosophy.

Good to know.

You talked phislosophy,
I talked scientific approach of photometry and radiometry.

Lets ignore that debate for now because I have something more
interesting for you.
>
>
> There are a finite table of elements, and presumably, all of these have cosmologically evolved (independent of their impurities - let's just ignore impurities), specific objective colors.

I stop reading, as colour is blue or not
depending on what humans decide to be blue or not.

If they decide blue is above 430 nm, 433 nm is blue.
If they decide blue is above 435 nm, 433 nm is not blue.

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 18:16 Y napsal(a):

>
>
> Oh there was another thing I forgot to mention, and it relates to my initial question.
>
> "Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ?"
>
> The reason I think gravitation is colorless, is because all matter can absorb it. There also do not seem to be differences in the way differently colored elements absorb this energy.
>
> Now supposing that a gravitational force carrier, were something like a virtual photon, I imagine that groups of these would not behave as waves.
>

What sense is in bringing colours
to hypothetical spectrum of gravitational waves ?

As it has no relation to EM waves nor human light perception,
enough is to talk about
possible variability of energy / frequency / wavelength spectra.

Do we talk about spectrum of colours of gamma rays from pulsars ?
No, we do not, even if it is closer to light.

[Ty Knotts]

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

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

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

[Ty Knotts]

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

> Great. Finally somebody who can talk with plants. (little sarcastic).
>
> They need to know anything first. Then they need to know what a colour
> means. All plants are communicating green information. Anyway, enough

> talking philosophy. Good to know. You talked phislosophy,I talked

> scientific approach of photometry and radiometry.

All you say is pure idiocy. I suspect you might be an almost not even a
former half-engineer. Any other half-engineers wannabe scientists around
here?

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 18:21 Y napsal(a):

> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 3:08:17 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:
>
>>> It doesn't have to.
>>
>> Only if you manage unified non ageing eyes and brains to all humans.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Since the quantification wouldn't come from light with infinite resolution on the wave in time and space. The quantification of color would come from the discrete finite arrangements of atomic lattices and their combinations.

Variability is good enough
for every person to have different eyes and different brain.

> What this entails is that there are only a finite number of colors which can be reflected from a system using EM radiation (visible or non-visible). It has bugger all to do with human brains Poutski.
>

Finite number of colours
that human brain and eyes can distinguish
is *many* orders lower
than physical limits of variability
the EM spectrum in 400-760 nm can have.

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 18:21 Y napsal(a):

> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 3:08:17 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote:
>
>>> It doesn't have to.
>>
>> Only if you manage unified non ageing eyes and brains to all humans.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Since the quantification wouldn't come from light with infinite resolution on the wave in time and space. The quantification of color would come from the discrete finite arrangements of atomic lattices and their combinations.

Variability is good enough
for every person to have different eyes and different brain.

> What this entails is that there are only a finite number of colors which can be reflected from a system using EM radiation (visible or non-visible). It has bugger all to do with human brains Poutski.
>

Finite number of colours
that human brain and eyes can distinguish
is *many* orders lower
than physical limits of variability
the EM spectrum in 400-760 nm can have.

[Ty Knotts]

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

> Finite number of colours that human brain and eyes can distinguish is
> *many* orders lower than physical limits of variability the EM spectrum
> in 400-760 nm can have.

You just said that thing is "subjective", pout. Is it or not, pout.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 10:17:02 AM UTC-7, Y wrote:
>
> "Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ?"
>
> The reason I think gravitation is colorless, is because all matter can
> absorb it. There also do not seem to be differences in the way
> differently colored elements absorb this energy.

Again, you are conflating gravity with its variation. Electric charge isn't
the same as e/m radiation.

> Now supposing that a gravitational force carrier, were something like a
> virtual photon, I imagine that groups of these would not behave as waves.
>
> It's possible that gravitational waves are not possible, but I still think
> that gravitational force carriers move at c. This would both describe
> success of GR, and why we haven't found g-waves.

Non sequitur. If GR is truly successful, then g-waves exist.

> But moreover, it may be necessary that gravitation has no wavelength,
> and no frequency - therefore interacting uniformly with everything.
>
> -y

Again you conflate etc.

Gary

[Ty Knotts]

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

> Dne 14/11/2015 v 17:48 Ty Knotts napsal(a):
>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Y napisał:
>>
>>> I disagree. The surface conditions of green plants are such that the
>>> surfaces of plants reflect the green component (of a certain range of
>>> wavelengths). I put it to you, that with the appropriate system,
>>> colors could be objectively classified by looking at surfaces in
>>> detail and "how" they reflect certain wavelengths of white light.
>>
>> Naturally, that's the whole idea in having colors. Poutink is so
>> inexperienced in Physics and Divergent Matter, not realizing that when
>> you say a specific color, you implicitly substitute to a specific
>> wavelength, aka a specific NUMBER. Which numbers cannot be something to
>> be taken up and debate.
>>
> DM disqualifies you by its own.

Not even in thousands of years from now. My Divergent Matter will still be
valid. It precedes infact Relativity by its own "postulate", that
"Gravity" and an "accelerated elevator" are INDISTINGUISHABLE. Which is
exactly what my Divergent Matter says.

You are peripheral, or rather not even.

[kefischer]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 05:22:14 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>

wrote:

>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:05:59 PM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 5:45:16 AM UTC-7, Y wrote:
>> > Don't really need to ask more here...
>> >
>> > What do you think ?
>> >
>> > -y

>>
>> Sure. Colors represent different energies.
>>

>> Gary
>
>I think it's possible. Have our scientific instruments ever observed the colors of gravitational energy ?
>
>-y

Are you nuts? :-) What is it you
don't understand about Divergent Matter?

[Michael Moroney]

Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com> writes:

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

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

>You do not know what you are talking about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kefischer]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 17:31:38 +0100, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Come on, relative motion can shift
UV or higher to visible light.

[kefischer]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:16:58 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>

You are really talking goofy, there is nothing
to be absorbed, if there was, gravity could be shielded.

What is it you don't understand, the effects
of gravity are identical to inertia in every way,
that means the process of gravitation is just
acceleration and relative motion, period,
no particles or fields needed.

Get a textbook on gravity and inertia,
will ya.

[kefischer]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 18:37:11 +0000 (UTC), Ty Knotts
<TyKn...@hotmail.org> wrote:

>W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik Poutnik napisal:

>
>> Dne 14/11/2015 v 17:48 Ty Knotts napsal(a):

>>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik Y napisal:

>>>
>>>> I disagree. The surface conditions of green plants are such that the
>>>> surfaces of plants reflect the green component (of a certain range of
>>>> wavelengths). I put it to you, that with the appropriate system,
>>>> colors could be objectively classified by looking at surfaces in
>>>> detail and "how" they reflect certain wavelengths of white light.
>>>
>>> Naturally, that's the whole idea in having colors. Poutink is so
>>> inexperienced in Physics and Divergent Matter, not realizing that when
>>> you say a specific color, you implicitly substitute to a specific
>>> wavelength, aka a specific NUMBER. Which numbers cannot be something to
>>> be taken up and debate.
>>>
>> DM disqualifies you by its own.
>
>Not even in thousands of years from now. My Divergent Matter will still be
>valid. It precedes infact Relativity by its own "postulate", that
>"Gravity" and an "accelerated elevator" are INDISTINGUISHABLE. Which is
>exactly what my Divergent Matter says.
>
>You are peripheral, or rather not even.

Somebody should ty knots in you neck,
you stupid, insincere, lying, nym-changing troll.

[Gary Harnagel]

Non sequitur.

> What is it you don't understand, the effects
> of gravity are identical to inertia in every way,
> that means the process of gravitation is just
> acceleration and relative motion, period,
> no particles or fields needed.
>
> Get a textbook on gravity and inertia, will ya.

If he did, he would certainly find the evidence that refutes DuMb.

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 20:42 kefischer napsal(a):

>>>
>>> Tell that to plants that reflect green and blue light, because they adapted in an environment where only red light was available.
>>>
>>
>> Plants do not care about our human colour schema, do they ?
>>
>> They absorb some short wave light and long wave light,
>> with photon energies matching differences
>> of chlorophyll molecular orbital energies.
>>
>> They do not care at all
>> if we call the light blue or red.
>
> Come on, relative motion can shift
> UV or higher to visible light.
>

In such a case the plants would not survive long,
with the Sun moving wrt Earth at relativistic speed.

[Ty Knotts]

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

>>> DM disqualifies you by its own.
>>
>>Not even in thousands of years from now. My Divergent Matter will still
>>be valid. It precedes infact Relativity by its own "postulate", that
>>"Gravity" and an "accelerated elevator" are INDISTINGUISHABLE. Which is
>>exactly what my Divergent Matter says.
>>
>>You are peripheral, or rather not even.
>
> Somebody should ty knots in you neck,
> you stupid, insincere, lying, nym-changing troll.

What do you mean by "insincere"?? Anything but that, young man. Why this
much oppressively oriented? You are not going to say that my theory, The
Theory, is false, are you?

In which case I need quarrelsome arguments, not this two cents attempt of
an imput, worth nothing. You are not even peripheral.

[Ty Knotts]

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

>>> DM disqualifies you by its own.
>>
>>Not even in thousands of years from now. My Divergent Matter will still
>>be valid. It precedes infact Relativity by its own "postulate", that
>>"Gravity" and an "accelerated elevator" are INDISTINGUISHABLE. Which is
>>exactly what my Divergent Matter says.
>>
>>You are peripheral, or rather not even.
>
> Somebody should ty knots in you neck,
> you stupid, insincere, lying, nym-changing troll.

[Ty Knotts]

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

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

You seems severely retarded.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

"Ty_Knotts", Seeing as you're constantly nymshifting,
how should I indentify your posts ?

Should I just block anything and everything from "Aioe.ORG" ?

[Ty Knotts]

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Jeff-Relf.Me
napisał:

> "Ty_Knotts", Seeing as you're constantly nymshifting,
> how should I indentify your posts ?
>
> Should I just block anything and everything from "Aioe.ORG" ?

I dont understand you. Interested in something specific in Math and
Physics, or you just waste your time, something you use to waste anyway.
You may block the entire Internet, if is this what you really wish.

[Ty Knotts]

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

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

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

Thank you for your valuable input.

[kefischer]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:02:19 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:47:50 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:16:58 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > But moreover, it may be necessary that gravitation has no wavelength,
>> > and no frequency - therefore interacting uniformly with everything.
>> >
>> > -y
>>
>> You are really talking goofy, there is nothing
>> to be absorbed, if there was, gravity could be shielded.
>
>Non sequitur.

Nonsense, your irrelevant remarks made,
not as to the issue at hand, are obviously made
just as hostility to anything I say.

>> What is it you don't understand, the effects
>> of gravity are identical to inertia in every way,
>> that means the process of gravitation is just
>> acceleration and relative motion, period,
>> no particles or fields needed.
>>
>> Get a textbook on gravity and inertia, will ya.
>
>If he did, he would certainly find the evidence that refutes DuMb.

See, diversion from the issue at hand,
all good texts on gravitation include sections
on inertia.

If the effects of gravity are identical
to inertia in every way, that is a very useful
clue to the mystery of gravitation.

[kefischer]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:07:49 +0100, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dne 14/11/2015 v 20:42 kefischer napsal(a):
>
>>>>
>>>> Tell that to plants that reflect green and blue light, because they adapted in an environment where only red light was available.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Plants do not care about our human colour schema, do they ?
>>>
>>> They absorb some short wave light and long wave light,
>>> with photon energies matching differences
>>> of chlorophyll molecular orbital energies.
>>>
>>> They do not care at all
>>> if we call the light blue or red.
>>
>> Come on, relative motion can shift
>> UV or higher to visible light.
>>
>
>In such a case the plants would not survive long,
>with the Sun moving wrt Earth at relativistic speed.

Depends, maybe the basic bandwidth
is wide enough, and the velocity is not
high enough to cause a problem.

[Ty Knotts]

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

>>> You are really talking goofy, there is nothing
>>> to be absorbed, if there was, gravity could be shielded.
>>
>>Non sequitur.
>
> Nonsense, your irrelevant remarks made,
> not as to the issue at hand, are obviously made just as hostility to
> anything I say.

Ever wonder why? Now honestly, why do you think it is like that?

[Ty Knotts]

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

> See, diversion from the issue at hand,
> all good texts on gravitation include sections on inertia.

Name a few. Or at least one out of the many good.

> If the effects of gravity are identical
> to inertia in every way, that is a very useful clue to the mystery of
> gravitation.

I dont even understand, probably not.

[kefischer]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 20:11:01 +0000 (UTC), Ty Knotts
<TyKn...@hotmail.org> wrote:

>W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik kefischer napisal:

>
>>>> DM disqualifies you by its own.
>>>
>>>Not even in thousands of years from now. My Divergent Matter will still
>>>be valid. It precedes infact Relativity by its own "postulate", that
>>>"Gravity" and an "accelerated elevator" are INDISTINGUISHABLE. Which is
>>>exactly what my Divergent Matter says.
>>>
>>>You are peripheral, or rather not even.
>>
>> Somebody should ty knots in you neck,
>> you stupid, insincere, lying, nym-changing troll.
>
>What do you mean by "insincere"?? Anything but that, young man. Why this
>much oppressively oriented? You are not going to say that my theory, The
>Theory, is false, are you?

Your theory is not "The Theory", you don't
even have a theory, all you have is muddled
brain waves, trying to hide your identity behind
stupid synonym names.

>In which case I need quarrelsome arguments, not this two cents attempt of
>an imput, worth nothing. You are not even peripheral.

Meet me in Strasbourg, and you will
see what quarrelsome can be.

And changing your nym won't help.

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 22:09 kefischer napsal(a):

>>>
>>
>> In such a case the plants would not survive long,
>> with the Sun moving wrt Earth at relativistic speed.
>
> Depends, maybe the basic bandwidth
> is wide enough, and the velocity is not
> high enough to cause a problem.
>

Never mind, relativistic shifts are irrelevant.

There is no difference between 430 nm light
and light 380 nm redshifted to 430 nm.

Their quantum has the same energy.

[kefischer]

He will just switch to google groups,
he obviously also has access to a number
of different platforms, he must be a janitor
for a big company or college, like Plutonium.

[Ty Knotts]

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

>>In which case I need quarrelsome arguments, not this two cents attempt
>>of an imput, worth nothing. You are not even peripheral.
>
> Meet me in Strasbourg, and you will
> see what quarrelsome can be.

You are such of an argumentative, only. I cant maintain a sober Scientific
discussion with you. Your level appears choleric, pugnacious and
dissentious, but still ways too low.

[kefischer]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:11:02 +0000 (UTC), Ty Knotts
<TyKn...@hotmail.org> wrote:

>W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik kefischer napisal:

>
>>>> You are really talking goofy, there is nothing
>>>> to be absorbed, if there was, gravity could be shielded.
>>>
>>>Non sequitur.
>>
>> Nonsense, your irrelevant remarks made,
>> not as to the issue at hand, are obviously made just as hostility to
>> anything I say.
>
>Ever wonder why? Now honestly, why do you think it is like that?

Because he is half as stupid as you.

[kefischer]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:12:32 +0000 (UTC), Ty Knotts
<TyKn...@hotmail.org> wrote:

>W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik kefischer napisal:

>
>> See, diversion from the issue at hand,
>> all good texts on gravitation include sections on inertia.
>
>Name a few. Or at least one out of the many good.
>
>> If the effects of gravity are identical
>> to inertia in every way, that is a very useful clue to the mystery of
>> gravitation.
>
>I dont even understand, probably not.

Because you don't know the first thing
about Divergent Matter.

[kefischer]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:17:56 +0100, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dne 14/11/2015 v 22:09 kefischer napsal(a):
>>>>
>>>
>>> In such a case the plants would not survive long,
>>> with the Sun moving wrt Earth at relativistic speed.
>>
>> Depends, maybe the basic bandwidth
>> is wide enough, and the velocity is not
>> high enough to cause a problem.
>>
>
>Never mind, relativistic shifts are irrelevant.
>
>There is no difference between 430 nm light
>and light 380 nm redshifted to 430 nm.
>
>Their quantum has the same energy.

But sunlight may have a very wide
spread of wavelengths, your chemistry
training won't help, and neither will your
out of date meteorology knowledge.

[Ty Knotts]

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

>>> If the effects of gravity are identical
>>> to inertia in every way, that is a very useful clue to the mystery of
>>> gravitation.
>>
>>I dont even understand, probably not.
>
> Because you don't know the first thing
> about Divergent Matter.

Ready to hear. Let's see whether what you gonna say is original, or you
fished from somebody else.

[Ty Knotts]

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

>>>>> You are really talking goofy, there is nothing
>>>>> to be absorbed, if there was, gravity could be shielded.
>>>>
>>>>Non sequitur.
>>>
>>> Nonsense, your irrelevant remarks made,
>>> not as to the issue at hand, are obviously made just as hostility to
>>> anything I say.
>>
>>Ever wonder why? Now honestly, why do you think it is like that?
>
> Because he is half as stupid as you.

I probably will agree. Let me think.

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/11/2015 v 22:30 kefischer napsal(a):

Of course, Sun does have a very wide spread of wavelength.

Your usual cheap custom of offending others
distracts you from learning basics of physics and math.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:02:19 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
> <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:47:50 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> > >
> > > You are really talking goofy, there is nothing
> > > to be absorbed, if there was, gravity could be shielded.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Nonsense, your irrelevant remarks made,
> not as to the issue at hand, are obviously made
> just as hostility to anything I say.

Those who rail against reason have very shaky beliefs. Nothing
irrelevant about what I said. The only thing irrelevant things are
your refuted belief in DuMb and your misunderstanding of GR.

> > > What is it you don't understand, the effects
> > > of gravity are identical to inertia in every way,
> > > that means the process of gravitation is just
> > > acceleration and relative motion, period,
> > > no particles or fields needed.
> > >
> > > Get a textbook on gravity and inertia, will ya.
> >
> > If he did, he would certainly find the evidence that refutes DuMb.
>
> See, diversion from the issue at hand,
> all good texts on gravitation include sections
> on inertia.

How is that "diversion"? YOU don't understand physics and it is pathetically
obvious that YOU are the one trying to divert a REAL conversation about
gravity to your silly, refuted DuMb baloney.

> If the effects of gravity are identical to inertia in every way,

They aren't.

> that is a very useful clue to the mystery of gravitation.

You haven't a clue. Go read what REAL physicists think about gravity.

"The moment you encounter string theory and realize that almost all of
The major developments in physics over the last hundred years emerge -
and emerge with such elegance - from such a simple starting point,
you realize that this incredibly compelling theory is in a class of its own."
-- Michael Green

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Green_%28physicist%29

"he succeeded Stephen Hawking on 1 November 2009 as the Lucasian Professor
of Mathematics"

"the mathematical structure of string theory was so beautiful and had so
many miraculous properties that it had to be pointing toward something
deep." - John Schwarz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Schwarz

"Schwarz was an assistant professor at Princeton University from 1966 to
1972. He then moved to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech),
where he is currently the Harold Brown Professor of Theoretical Physics"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0501135v8.pdf

Your presumptuous pushing of DuMb is quite deplorable and your belief
that it can compete with any REAL theory of gravity is pathetic.

[kefischer]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:55:15 +0100, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>Dne 14/11/2015 v 22:30 kefischer napsal(a):
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:17:56 +0100, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dne 14/11/2015 v 22:09 kefischer napsal(a):
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In such a case the plants would not survive long,
>>>>> with the Sun moving wrt Earth at relativistic speed.
>>>>
>>>> Depends, maybe the basic bandwidth
>>>> is wide enough, and the velocity is not
>>>> high enough to cause a problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Never mind, relativistic shifts are irrelevant.
>>>
>>> There is no difference between 430 nm light
>>> and light 380 nm redshifted to 430 nm.
>>>
>>> Their quantum has the same energy.
>>
>> But sunlight may have a very wide
>> spread of wavelengths, your chemistry
>> training won't help, and neither will your
>> out of date meteorology knowledge.
>>
>
>Of course, Sun does have a very wide spread of wavelength.
>
>Your usual cheap custom of offending others
>distracts you from learning basics of physics and math.

Learning anything here? haha.

[Poutnik]

Dne 15/11/2015 v 00:05 kefischer napsal(a):

You are the last to laugh at it.

[kefischer]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 14:02:39 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel

<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:02:19 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
>> <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:47:50 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> > >
>> > > You are really talking goofy, there is nothing
>> > > to be absorbed, if there was, gravity could be shielded.
>> >
>> > Non sequitur.
>>
>> Nonsense, your irrelevant remarks made,
>> not as to the issue at hand, are obviously made
>> just as hostility to anything I say.
>
>Those who rail against reason have very shaky beliefs. Nothing
>irrelevant about what I said.

Baloney, it is obvious you have only
one objective, to disrupt, divert, distort,
and detract, you are worse than the trolls.

>The only thing irrelevant things are
>your refuted belief in DuMb and your misunderstanding of GR.

You fail to appreciate the value of
having a model that _could_ work.

>> > > What is it you don't understand, the effects
>> > > of gravity are identical to inertia in every way,
>> > > that means the process of gravitation is just
>> > > acceleration and relative motion, period,
>> > > no particles or fields needed.
>> > >
>> > > Get a textbook on gravity and inertia, will ya.
>> >
>> > If he did, he would certainly find the evidence that refutes DuMb.
>>
>> See, diversion from the issue at hand,
>> all good texts on gravitation include sections
>> on inertia.
>
>How is that "diversion"?

Because Divergent Matter does not really
enter into the discussion for Y.

>YOU don't understand physics and it is pathetically
>obvious that YOU are the one trying to divert a REAL conversation about
>gravity to your silly, refuted DuMb baloney.

If you ever really knew any physics,
you must have forgotten it.

>> If the effects of gravity are identical to inertia in every way,
>
>They aren't.

I have textbooks that say it is, even the
original equivalence principle says it is.

>> that is a very useful clue to the mystery of gravitation.
>
>You haven't a clue. Go read what REAL physicists think about gravity.

What, f = what? What f?

>"The moment you encounter string theory and realize that almost all of
>The major developments in physics over the last hundred years emerge -
>and emerge with such elegance - from such a simple starting point,
>you realize that this incredibly compelling theory is in a class of its own."
>-- Michael Green
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Green_%28physicist%29
>
>"he succeeded Stephen Hawking on 1 November 2009 as the Lucasian Professor
>of Mathematics"

String theory? Know any more jokes,
what are strings, strung out gravitons?

How stupid can they get?

>"the mathematical structure of string theory was so beautiful and had so
>many miraculous properties that it had to be pointing toward something
>deep." - John Schwarz
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Schwarz
>
>"Schwarz was an assistant professor at Princeton University from 1966 to
>1972. He then moved to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech),
>where he is currently the Harold Brown Professor of Theoretical Physics"
>
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/
>
>http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0501135v8.pdf

I'm not in the mood for jokes, is that
all you've got today?

>Your presumptuous pushing of DuMb is quite deplorable and your belief
>that it can compete with any REAL theory of gravity is pathetic.

It doesn't need to compete, because
it is the only REAL physical theory of gravity,
all the rest are just trying to model a field
of some kind.

[Poutnik]

Dne 15/11/2015 v 00:05 kefischer napsal(a):

As you have not learnt basic scientific algebra
during those long years you were reportedly studying gravity,
the idea you learn it finally here is really funny.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Ha ha!

What's Czech for Siech / Peplau?

Knowledge makes man.

(Here that's gender neutral:
knowledge makes the human.)

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 4:17:42 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 14:02:39 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
> <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> > >
> > > Nonsense, your irrelevant remarks made,
> > > not as to the issue at hand, are obviously made
> > > just as hostility to anything I say.
> >
> > Those who rail against reason have very shaky beliefs. Nothing
> > irrelevant about what I said.
>
> Baloney, it is obvious you have only
> one objective, to disrupt, divert, distort,
> and detract, you are worse than the trolls.

It's obvious that you have a persecution complex and prefer to lie rather
than learn physics.

> > The only thing irrelevant things are
> > your refuted belief in DuMb and your misunderstanding of GR.
>
> You fail to appreciate the value of
> having a model that _could_ work.

Can't and doesn't.

> > > See, diversion from the issue at hand,
> > > all good texts on gravitation include sections
> > > on inertia.
> >
> > How is that "diversion"?
>
> Because Divergent Matter does not really
> enter into the discussion for Y.

It was covert, not overt. And it was completely obvious from your
comment about "inertia" that you were leading up to DuMb. You can't
deny that you believe DuMb explains everything about gravity, so
anything you say about inertia and gravity is really about DuMb.

> > YOU don't understand physics and it is pathetically
> > obvious that YOU are the one trying to divert a REAL conversation about
> > gravity to your silly, refuted DuMb baloney.
>
> If you ever really knew any physics,
> you must have forgotten it.

See? YOU are the one denigrating and demeaning others. And here is the
proof that you really were discussing DuMb all along:

> > > If the effects of gravity are identical to inertia in every way,
> >
> > They aren't.
>
> I have textbooks that say it is, even the
> original equivalence principle says it is.

Don't yammer, post quotes and references. They don't say what you think
they say.

> > > that is a very useful clue to the mystery of gravitation.
> >
> > You haven't a clue. Go read what REAL physicists think about gravity.
>
> What, f = what? What f?

Non sequitur. I said nothing about f.

> > "The moment you encounter string theory and realize that almost all of
> > The major developments in physics over the last hundred years emerge -
> > and emerge with such elegance - from such a simple starting point,
> > you realize that this incredibly compelling theory is in a class of its
> > own." -- Michael Green
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Green_%28physicist%29
> >
> > "he succeeded Stephen Hawking on 1 November 2009 as the Lucasian Professor
> > of Mathematics"
>
> String theory? Know any more jokes,
> what are strings, strung out gravitons?
>
> How stupid can they get?

So you think the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics is stupid? This says
a LOT about you.

> > "the mathematical structure of string theory was so beautiful and had so
> > many miraculous properties that it had to be pointing toward something
> > deep." - John Schwarz
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Schwarz
> >
> > "Schwarz was an assistant professor at Princeton University from 1966 to
> > 1972. He then moved to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech),
> > where he is currently the Harold Brown Professor of Theoretical Physics"
> >
> > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0501135v8.pdf
>
> I'm not in the mood for jokes, is that
> all you've got today?

So you think a professor of physics at Cal Tech is a joke? That says
even more about YOU.

> > Your presumptuous pushing of DuMb is quite deplorable and your belief
> > that it can compete with any REAL theory of gravity is pathetic.
>
> It doesn't need to compete, because
> it is the only REAL physical theory of gravity,
> all the rest are just trying to model a field
> of some kind.

Now THAT'S a joke :-))

[Poutnik]

Dne 15/11/2015 v 00:30 Ross A. Finlayson napsal(a):

Say it in English.

>
> Knowledge makes man.
>
> (Here that's gender neutral:
> knowledge makes the human.)
>

As it applies mainly to men,
it should not be gender neutral.

[kefischer]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 00:30:54 +0100, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dne 15/11/2015 v 00:05 kefischer napsal(a):
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:55:15 +0100, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, Sun does have a very wide spread of wavelength.
>>>
>>> Your usual cheap custom of offending others
>>> distracts you from learning basics of physics and math.
>>
>> Learning anything here? haha.
>>
>
>As you have not learnt basic scientific algebra
>during those long years you were reportedly studying gravity,
>the idea you learn it finally here is really funny.

I didn't finally "learn it here", the discussions
here helped me to finalize a couple of issues
that I wasn't able to figure out before.

And math is not the issue at all, gravity
is all physics.

[Alan Folmsbee]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 2:45:16 AM UTC-10, Y wrote:
> Don't really need to ask more here...
>
> What do you think ?
>
> -y

Yes. Blue is heavy.

[Poutnik]

Dne 15/11/2015 v 01:11 kefischer napsal(a):

And physics is all the applied math.

[Poutnik]

Dne 15/11/2015 v 01:25 Poutnik napsal(a):

> Dne 15/11/2015 v 01:11 kefischer napsal(a):
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 00:30:54 +0100, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dne 15/11/2015 v 00:05 kefischer napsal(a):
>>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:55:15 +0100, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, Sun does have a very wide spread of wavelength.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your usual cheap custom of offending others
>>>>> distracts you from learning basics of physics and math.
>>>>
>>>> Learning anything here? haha.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As you have not learnt basic scientific algebra
>>> during those long years you were reportedly studying gravity,
>>> the idea you learn it finally here is really funny.
>>
>> I didn't finally "learn it here", the discussions
>> here helped me to finalize a couple of issues
>> that I wasn't able to figure out before.
>>
>> And math is not the issue at all, gravity
>> is all physics.
>>
>
> And physics is all the applied math.
>

.. for at least 400 years.
To avoid math, try to get before the year 1600.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

 
@kefischer replied (to me):
> >"Ty_Knotts",  Seeing as you're constantly nymshifting, 
> >how should I indentify your posts ?
> >
> >Should I just block anything and everything from "Aioe.ORG" ?
> 
> He will just switch to google groups,
> he obviously also has access to a number
> of different platforms, he must be a janitor
> for a big company or college, like Plutonium.

"Ty_Knotts" doesn't want to be indentified, obviously.

He's ashamed.

[Y]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 5:47:50 AM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:

> >But moreover, it may be necessary that gravitation has no wavelength, and no frequency - therefore interacting uniformly with everything.
> >
> >-y

>
> You are really talking goofy, there is nothing
> to be absorbed, if there was, gravity could be shielded.

Um, yeah, well that's kind of the point you daft codger.

-y

[Y]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 7:06:01 AM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:

> If the effects of gravity are identical

> to inertia in every way, that is a very useful

> clue to the mystery of gravitation.

No shit...

This guy has only just developed the knowledge to understand my inertial field theory, which I proposed and he criticized.

People who criticize should be knowledgeable. You don't qualify Ken.

What is it with Ken's ? One crank Ken buggers off, and another crank Ken spontaneously emerges in his wake. Your wake is soon I imagine Mr Fischer. Let's hope it's a good one.


-y

[Y]

What a useless thread. Completely fucked up by Fischer's rubbish.

-y

[Ross A. Finlayson]

"So you think a professor of
physics at Cal Tech is a joke?"

Excuse me, that's Austrian and Pole, Czechs.

Cal Tech is cool and physics is cool and
not looking under the mathematical physics
for more mathematics then for the effects
we see in the physics, is pitiable.

Sans piti, on trouve que la science naturelle
se demande plus les mathematiques parce que
tous que se suivent est toujours deja fulfille
dans la classique sans le direccione entre.

Excuse me, where that's poor.

One finds physics needs more mathematics because
all that follows is already fulfilled in the
classical, without direction between.

[Poutnik]

Dne 15/11/2015 v 19:34 Ross A. Finlayson napsal(a):

> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 3:47:13 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:

>>>
>>> What's Czech for Siech / Peplau?
>>
>> Say it in English.
>>>
>>> Knowledge makes man.
>>>
>>> (Here that's gender neutral:
>>> knowledge makes the human.)
>>>
>>
>> As it applies mainly to men,
>> it should not be gender neutral.
>>

>

> "So you think a professor of
> physics at Cal Tech is a joke?"

How did you come to this ?

>
> Excuse me, that's Austrian and Pole, Czechs.
>
> Cal Tech is cool and physics is cool and
> not looking under the mathematical physics
> for more mathematics then for the effects
> we see in the physics, is pitiable.

what is your point ?

[kefischer]

What is going on, is the stupid
nym-changing troll posting under
two nyms at the same time?

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Well, Fischer, I think that would
vary, in terms of inexpensive chat-bots
readily crowding otherwise usual plain
comms forae.

Besides some notion of forging of
signatures, really this is an all-text
newsgroup simply for that content is
king, there are problems with robot trolls
on other usenet newsgroups as well.

Fischer, I wrote this for you the other
day:

"That's addressed to somebody else
because I'm a biological logged in
at this terminal.

Fischer, this is a wet-ware package!

I tap in the words with my keys!"

Big8 usenet is pretty much just
a fishbowl, here ideas as are
introduced to survive really are
often of the plebeian tragedy of
the commons / prisoner's dilemma
type bits, vis-à-vis, peer-review,
moderation, and curation.

Basically if I can convince usenet,
and that's not easy, then people
who just eat their pablum already
will find the same ideas as follow
from journals or otherwise as reputable.

This is a sphere of ideas, and a
noisy one at that.

We're theoretical scientists, let's
get back to that and enjoy it. I have
here for you a logical theory, that,
in the theory of theories, is unique,
in that it has only and all the properties
of a consistent, complete (then concrete)
theory of anything (eg everything, logically).

[kefischer]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 12:00:46 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson"

Well, I don't like cereal, I prefer Buicks,
so you wasted your time with the concession
stand in the forest.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Quite, pablum's for babies. Also, that's "Buick".

This is just a workup for the apocryphal,
I have to show an education before I can
be taken at face value.

I plan to use philosophy, logic, mathematics,
science, and physics for this. What follows
is a neat write-up about AMS-TeX and friends.



"Could gravitational energy
have a spectrum of colors ?"

Why, that is supposing there is a continuum
of these things instead of some digital sub-
strate, while this is quite familiar to
historically educated natural philosophers,
you might find the usual pegboard poker to
be somewhat at a loss in the fundamentals.

Here, that "spectrum" (as of colors, as of
what are usually enough tri-stimulus color
spaces then that those are dynamic and at
least quadri-stimulus opponent colorspaces),
would be continuous as, for example, the
continuous spectrum of frequencies of light.

Here "gravity's" effect as of the instantaneous
evaluation of all gravitic (or gravific?) forces
is at least as fine as any measurement.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/14/2015 6:45 AM, Y wrote:
> Don't really need to ask more here...
>
> What do you think ?
>
> -y
>

Color is the way that our brains interpret certain different frequencies
in a narrow band. Radio waves have no color and neither do X-rays,
though there is fundamentally nothing different about the difference in
frequencies in those bands than the difference in frequencies in the
visible band.

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/14/2015 2:21 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> "Ty_Knotts", Seeing as you're constantly nymshifting,
> how should I indentify your posts ?
>
> Should I just block anything and everything from "Aioe.ORG" ?
>

The nym-shifter spends at least twelve clicks to create a new nym. It
takes me one click to filter it out. I say let him waste his time.

[Odd Bodkin]

Except light blue.

[Ty Knotts]

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

> On 11/14/2015 2:21 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> "Ty_Knotts", Seeing as you're constantly nymshifting,
>> how should I indentify your posts ?
>>
>> Should I just block anything and everything from "Aioe.ORG" ?
>>
> The nym-shifter spends at least twelve clicks to create a new nym. It
> takes me one click to filter it out. I say let him waste his time.

No idea what you two are talking about, but listen, your stupidity is sort
of impossible to filter out, No matter how much try to click.

[Sylvia Else]

On 14/11/2015 11:45 PM, Y wrote:
> Don't really need to ask more here...
>
> What do you think ?
>
> -y
>

No. The spectrum of colours for visible light is an artefact of the way
the human eye works.

Sylvia.

[kefischer]

I fell down and bumped my nose,
and saw a lot of stars, all different colors,
that was caused by gravity, wasn't it? :-)

[Y]

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 2:13:45 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/14/2015 6:45 AM, Y wrote:
> > Don't really need to ask more here...
> >
> > What do you think ?
> >
> > -y
> >
>
> Color is the way that our brains interpret certain different frequencies
> in a narrow band. Radio waves have no color and neither do X-rays,
> though there is fundamentally nothing different about the difference in
> frequencies in those bands than the difference in frequencies in the
> visible band.

It's not necessary for color to be visible. Infrared and ultraviolet are examples. Color is just something that directly corresponds with wavelength , and yes, it's *as* objective as the wavelength itself. Color (as a concept in science) is independent to human visibility so your argument about human brains or eyes etc doesn't follow.

[Even then, one must take into account the chemical reasons as to why light would appear different to different people. Observing color isn't some "spiritually" remote controlled ability for humans. There are directly corresponding physical materials and processes impacting on the experience of color.]

Using the word color is just another way of referring to wavelength; except that you're using the word "color" to discuss a different aspect of the objectivity. Here's are some examples of the objectivity of color.

Green plants, blue oceans, - And while it's not pertinent to discuss a PARTICULAR wavelength when discussing the light reflected by oceans and plants, it's more appropriate to use color when referring to a RANGE of reflected wavelengths. Blue represents a RANGE of wavelengths reflected by oceans. Now instead of writing down what those ranges are, we use a tool of language as shorthand. It's a really easy one too Bodkin. BLUE. You might have learned about BLUE in kindergarten ?

You'll notice the only alternative to describing wavelength are numbers. The numbers we use to describe the "distances" between the peaks or the spatial period of the wave. So no matter what humans do, we are ultimately restricted to describing the world with a language of some kind. Objecting to the objectivity of color is meaningless. It's like inventing science that can't be measured. When we speak of blue light, we aren't talking about your color blindness.


Then of course, enhancing the objectivity of color is the physical chemistry and surface structure of matter which underpins what energies are absorbed and which are reflected.

For example; How do blues and greens get reflected from oceans ? You can already see, if I used NUMBERS here to discuss these bands or ranges in wavelength, they are equally semantic as using using colors.

I think this should be next years FXQi topic.

I think it's possible and probably a good idea, that the primary colors are in fact NOT RGB, CMYK or RYB (which are only simplistic models) but are the "periodic table" of elements itself. For intrinsically, there can be no color if not reflected from a surface made of these elements or combinations therefore.

-y

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 7:07:11 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:55:37 +1100, Sylvia Else

> I fell down and bumped my nose,
> and saw a lot of stars, all different colors,
> that was caused by gravity, wasn't it? :-)

No such thing as gravity... the Earth just sucks...

[Y]

Or alternatively some device that is dissipating energy at a known wavelength (as pixels on televisions do).

With an accurate model for color based on the period table though, we might be able to develop better ways to know the chemical composition of things around us (not just stars etc). We already do this with stars, but wouldn't it be interesting to work out the exact chemistry of human skin simply using a model for color ?

-y