On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 9:39:18 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 20:21:26 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >> -- lover of truth
> >> >
> >> > Plane Jane?
> >> > If light moves and waves... it is in time.
> >> > There is no still clock...
> >> Light certainly moves but I can find no evidence that waves. It induces
> >> waves when intercepted, that's all.
> >
> > Light is an oscillating wave in my HO.
> There is no reason for it to wave...

What is the reason for particles to vibrate?

but nobody knows what a field is.

Fields extend in space...

> Some people think a radio wave is made of lots of individual
> photons.

Einstein went away from his Nobel light particle
for a spherical "wavelet" instead in 1937.
Sin EM energy oscillates...

> > It is not a standing sin wave.
> I think a photon is initially like a miniature length of chain.

How can a point particle absorb a point particle?
They are both infinitely small.

> > Mitchell Raemsch
> >> --
> >> -- lover of truth
> --
> -- lover of truth

On March 17, Mikko wrote:
>> Can somebody please explain what the 'frequency of light' means.
>
> Light has a frequency if and only if sound has.

huh?
> Does sound have a frequency?

Yes, because we can measure the time intervals
between crests.

One doesn't measure frequency, one measures intervals.
Our best instruments measure down to 10 picosec.
Hence we infer light frequency by measuring wavelength,
and making assumptions about light speed.

Also, we cannot measure femtometers, thus we infer
wavelength, via diffraction patterns, and assumptions
about wave behavior. Similarly, the reference to
heterodyning, frequency measurement is an inference
regarding material nonlinear optical properties.

Therefore, Mr. Hertz has a point, and this argument
involves people talking past each other.

In modern physics, everything is inference, the only
thing you know for sure is that your eyes burn when
you look at the sun.

--
Rich

On March 16, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Above 200 Ghz, there is no instrument capable of directly measuring
>> the frequency of light.
>
> An instrument capable of measuring the frequency of a visible light
> beam is a photodetector and counter capable of counting up to
> (say) 10 GHz, plus a second light beam of known frequency within 10 GHz
> of the beam to be measured.

How do you know the "known frequency"?
Have you measured the oscillations at the femtosecond level?

One measures frequency with frequency, hmmm....

--
Rich

On March 17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> DIRECTLY MEASURING FREQUENCY, IMBECILE! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE TODAY ABOVE
>>> 200 GHZ.
>
>> And what does our inability to measure high frequencies directly have to
> do with anything? Do those high frequencies exist or not?
>
> You have touched on a silly point of philosophy of science.
> It is called 'Operationalism', pushed very much by Percy Bridgman
> in the 1920ies.
> It is an extreme form of empirism, and even worse than positivism.
> The key idea is that physcal concepts must be -defined-
> as resulting from the operations that give them physical meaning.
> Length is defined by laying rulers end to end, etc.

um, operationalism is core to Einstein's presentation. Nothing
definite can be said about a quantity, until we define how it's
measured; time is what a clock measures, events are simultaneous
when two clocks agree, etc.

If you're going to play in a relativity group, you really ought to
read the 1905 paper.
> Silly physically, but experimental psychologists liked it very much,
> because it gave a semblance of being scientific to their experiments.

In other words, they followed the lead of the physicists. Good for them.

I don't know about psychology, but Alan Turing devised
his test for intelligence as purely operational. Some object
to that - the AI community has apparently abandoned it, for
unknown reasons - but really, what's the alternative?
"I know it when I see it"
And he invented his computational model, in a strict
operational manner.

Thus Turing's approach paralleled Einstein's - geniuses
tend that way, operationally -

--
Rich

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On March 16, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> Above 200 Ghz, there is no instrument capable of directly measuring
> >> the frequency of light.
> >
> > An instrument capable of measuring the frequency of a visible light
> > beam is a photodetector and counter capable of counting up to
> > (say) 10 GHz, plus a second light beam of known frequency within 10 GHz
> > of the beam to be measured.
>
> How do you know the "known frequency"?
> Have you measured the oscillations at the femtosecond level?
>
> One measures frequency with frequency, hmmm....

You cannot be that ignorant of the ways things are done in physics?
When measuring something it is quite useful to have some
known standard reference points that have been established
in a standards laboratory. Frequency is no exception,

Jan

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On March 17, Mikko wrote:
> >> Can somebody please explain what the 'frequency of light' means.
> >
> > Light has a frequency if and only if sound has.
>
> huh?
>
> > Does sound have a frequency?
>
> Yes, because we can measure the time intervals
> between crests.
>
> One doesn't measure frequency, one measures intervals.

Of course.
-All- measurements are measurements of time intervals,
at least in principle.
A 'measurement' isn't a 'measurement'
unless it can be traced to a fundamental unit.
And the only fundamental unit left in the SI
is the SI second.

> Our best instruments measure down to 10 picosec.
> Hence we infer light frequency by measuring wavelength,
> and making assumptions about light speed.

There is nothing to 'assume'.
The speed of light has a -defined- value, in the SI.

> Also, we cannot measure femtometers, thus we infer
> wavelength, via diffraction patterns, and assumptions
> about wave behavior. Similarly, the reference to
> heterodyning, frequency measurement is an inference
> regarding material nonlinear optical properties.
>
> Therefore, Mr. Hertz has a point, and this argument
> involves people talking past each other.

More like some people talking into the air...
(or in some cases into a vacuum...)

> In modern physics, everything is inference, the only
> thing you know for sure is that your eyes burn when
> you look at the sun.

Indeed. Almost all measurements in physics are indirect,
and that has always been the case. (standards labs excepted)

Jan

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 9:39:18?PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 20:21:26 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >> >> -- lover of truth
> > >> >
> > >> > Plane Jane?
> > >> > If light moves and waves... it is in time.
> > >> > There is no still clock...
> > >> Light certainly moves but I can find no evidence that waves. It induces
> > >> waves when intercepted, that's all.
> > >
> > > Light is an oscillating wave in my HO.
> > There is no reason for it to wave...
>
> What is the reason for particles to vibrate?
>
> but nobody knows what a field is.

There is no need to 'know', whatever 'to know' may mean.
Electric and magnetic fields are things that behave
in accordance with Maxwell's equations.
No more, no less,

Jan

--
"Maxwell's theory is nothing but Maxwell's equations" (Herz)

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:43:35 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> On March 17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> DIRECTLY MEASURING FREQUENCY, IMBECILE! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE TODAY ABOVE
> >>> 200 GHZ.
> >
> >> And what does our inability to measure high frequencies directly have to
> > do with anything? Do those high frequencies exist or not?
> >
> > You have touched on a silly point of philosophy of science.
> > It is called 'Operationalism', pushed very much by Percy Bridgman
> > in the 1920ies.
> > It is an extreme form of empirism, and even worse than positivism.
> > The key idea is that physcal concepts must be -defined-
> > as resulting from the operations that give them physical meaning.
> > Length is defined by laying rulers end to end, etc.
> um, operationalism is core to Einstein's presentation. Nothing
> definite can be said about a quantity, until we define how it's
> measured; time is what a clock measures, events are simultaneous
> when two clocks agree, etc.
>
> If you're going to play in a relativity group, you really ought to
> read the 1905 paper.
> > Silly physically, but experimental psychologists liked it very much,
> > because it gave a semblance of being scientific to their experiments.
> In other words, they followed the lead of the physicists. Good for them.
>
> I don't know about psychology, but Alan Turing devised
> his test for intelligence as purely operational. Some object
> to that - the AI community has apparently abandoned it, for
> unknown reasons - but really, what's the alternative?
> "I know it when I see it"
> And he invented his computational model, in a strict
> operational manner.
>
> Thus Turing's approach paralleled Einstein's - geniuses
> tend that way, operationally -
>
> --
> Rich

It would be interesting to know what the experts here think about the frequency of 100+ TeV gamma rays, if they
still can be called "light", or is something else.

It would be about 2.50E+28 Hertz (25 ronnaHertz).

https://icecube.wisc.edu/news/research/2022/12/exploring-the-lhaaso-ultra-high-energy-gamma-ray-sources-for-neutrinos/

On Friday, 17 March 2023 at 21:21:27 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On March 17, Mikko wrote:
> > >> Can somebody please explain what the 'frequency of light' means.
> > >
> > > Light has a frequency if and only if sound has.
> >
> > huh?
> >
> > > Does sound have a frequency?
> >
> > Yes, because we can measure the time intervals
> > between crests.
> >
> > One doesn't measure frequency, one measures intervals.
> Of course.
> -All- measurements are measurements of time intervals,
> at least in principle.
> A 'measurement' isn't a 'measurement'
> unless it can be traced to a fundamental unit.
> And the only fundamental unit left in the SI
> is the SI second.

It's only fundamental for some fundamentalists,
every serious timekeeping system is ignoring it.
Common sense was warning your bunch of
idiots.

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On March 17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> DIRECTLY MEASURING FREQUENCY, IMBECILE! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE TODAY ABOVE
> >>> 200 GHZ.
> >
> >> And what does our inability to measure high frequencies directly have to
> > do with anything? Do those high frequencies exist or not?
> >
> > You have touched on a silly point of philosophy of science.
> > It is called 'Operationalism', pushed very much by Percy Bridgman
> > in the 1920ies.
> > It is an extreme form of empirism, and even worse than positivism.
> > The key idea is that physcal concepts must be -defined-
> > as resulting from the operations that give them physical meaning.
> > Length is defined by laying rulers end to end, etc.
>
> um, operationalism is core to Einstein's presentation. Nothing
> definite can be said about a quantity, until we define how it's
> measured; time is what a clock measures, events are simultaneous
> when two clocks agree, etc.
>
> If you're going to play in a relativity group, you really ought to
> read the 1905 paper.

That's just heuristics and didactics.
Does the word 'postulate' have familiar a ring to it?

> > Silly physically, but experimental psychologists liked it very much,
> > because it gave a semblance of being scientific to their experiments.
>
> In other words, they followed the lead of the physicists. Good for them.
>
> I don't know about psychology, but Alan Turing devised
> his test for intelligence as purely operational.

And completely silly.

Jan

> Some object
> to that - the AI community has apparently abandoned it, for
> unknown reasons - but really, what's the alternative?
> "I know it when I see it"
> And he invented his computational model, in a strict
> operational manner.
>
> Thus Turing's approach paralleled Einstein's - geniuses
> tend that way, operationally -
>
> --
> Rich

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:43:35?PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> > On March 17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >>> DIRECTLY MEASURING FREQUENCY, IMBECILE! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE TODAY ABOVE
> > >>> 200 GHZ.
> > >
> > >> And what does our inability to measure high frequencies directly have to
> > > do with anything? Do those high frequencies exist or not?
> > >
> > > You have touched on a silly point of philosophy of science.
> > > It is called 'Operationalism', pushed very much by Percy Bridgman
> > > in the 1920ies.
> > > It is an extreme form of empirism, and even worse than positivism.
> > > The key idea is that physcal concepts must be -defined-
> > > as resulting from the operations that give them physical meaning.
> > > Length is defined by laying rulers end to end, etc.
> > um, operationalism is core to Einstein's presentation. Nothing
> > definite can be said about a quantity, until we define how it's
> > measured; time is what a clock measures, events are simultaneous
> > when two clocks agree, etc.
> >
> > If you're going to play in a relativity group, you really ought to
> > read the 1905 paper.
> > > Silly physically, but experimental psychologists liked it very much,
> > > because it gave a semblance of being scientific to their experiments.
> > In other words, they followed the lead of the physicists. Good for them.
> >
> > I don't know about psychology, but Alan Turing devised
> > his test for intelligence as purely operational. Some object
> > to that - the AI community has apparently abandoned it, for
> > unknown reasons - but really, what's the alternative?
> > "I know it when I see it"
> > And he invented his computational model, in a strict
> > operational manner.
> >
> > Thus Turing's approach paralleled Einstein's - geniuses
> > tend that way, operationally -
> >
> > --
> > Rich
>
> It would be interesting to know what the experts here think about the frequenc
y of 100+ TeV gamma rays, if they
> still can be called "light", or is something else.
>
> It would be about 2.50E+28 Hertz (25 ronnaHertz).

No problem. Planck's constant has a defined value nowadays,
so every energy measurement is a frequency measurement,
(and vica versa)

Jan

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:07:05 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > It would be interesting to know what the experts here think about the frequenc
> y of 100+ TeV gamma rays, if they still can be called "light", or is something else.

> > It would be about 2.50E+28 Hertz (25 ronnaHertz).
> No problem. Planck's constant has a defined value nowadays,
> so every energy measurement is a frequency measurement,
> (and vica versa)

I see that you are very talkative today, yet no connections with a cognitive mind is perceived. Are you an AI bot?

Had you done a little research, you'd have found that these energies are extremely rare, and appear in very low density
among a rain of GeV gamma rays. This, among other experiments, was found in the Large High Altitude Air Shower
Observatory (LHAASO).

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202210/1277277.shtml

USA is competing in this "race" to find the most energetic gamma burst by measurements in the Himalayan Gamma ­
Ray Observatory at Hanle:

https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ICRC....5..243K

What is unknown is how relatively low amount of TeV gamma rays appears within a shower of GeV ones.

Maybe Planck's E = hf breaks down at a given eV threshold, and they are being bamboozled by unknown particles,
which are not "photons" but something else.

Of course, you'll refute this immediately, because you are a huge asshole posing as a wise guy.

On 3/17/23 8:59 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> The wavelengths of sound and light always remain the same

This is just plain wrong.

Light:
A monochromatic light beam with wavelength L in vacuum has wavelength
L/n in an optical medium with index of refraction n. An observer moving
toward the source of such a light beam measures a value smaller than L,
and an observer moving away from the source measures a value larger than
L (in vacuum). The Doppler shift depends only on the relative velocity
between source and receiver, and the angle between that velocity and the
light path.

Sound:
Sound behaves somewhat differently; we rarely deal with sound in
multiple acoustic media. The Doppler shift for sound due to receiver
motion does not vary the wavelength, just the frequency [#]. The Doppler
shift for sound due to source motion does vary both the wavelength and
frequency. The Doppler shift depends on the velocities of BOTH source
and receiver relative to the medium (air), and both angles relative to
the sound path. Hint: the speed of sound (in air) is constant relative
to the air; speed=frequency*wavelength.

[#] We only use speeds vastly smaller than c.

> The number of waves arriving per second varies with the speed of the
> waves, as in the Doppler shift of ambulance sirens.

Yes and no, depending on what you mean. You repeatedly make imprecise
statements that are neither true nor false, but rather are so ambiguous
their validity cannot be determined.

> If you stand still on the sidewalk and an ambulance comes by with
> its siren, as it approaches you, more waves reach you per second
> because the waves share the speed of sound and the speed of the
> ambulance combined, making a higher pitch of the sound.

You REALLY do not understand this. This is WRONG.

For a person standing on the sidewalk, with no wind present, the speed
of the sound waves from the ambulance is constant, and is the same
regardless of whether the ambulance is approaching or receding. But the
frequency and wavelength of the sound vary for those two cases, even
though the speed of the sound is the same (relative to the person =
relative to the air).

> Tom works in a laser lab, but he is indoctrinated in relativity
> which is essentially an ideology ["The Ideology of Relativity: The
> Case of the Clock Paradox" Peter Hayes 2009].

You haven't a clue about me. Here you are wrong, as is Hayes; neither he
nor you understand relativity. Hint: understanding is not
"indoctrination"; relativity is not "an ideology".

Tom Roberts

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:00:09 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:36:05 -0500, whodat wrote:
>>
>> > On 3/16/2023 1:53 AM, Jane wrote:

You seem even less intelligent or qualified than the others. Please do
not reply to my posts in future.

-- lover of truth

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:06:32 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:00:09 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:36:05 -0500, whodat wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 3/16/2023 1:53 AM, Jane wrote:
>
>
> You seem even less intelligent or qualified than the others. Please do
> not reply to my posts in future.

He will reply to your posts whenever he feels like.

--
Jan

On 3/16/23 5:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 2:48:52 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 3/16/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> The frequency of light is detectable by the Doppler shift
>> Not really. One needs a monochromatic light beam and a detector capable
>> of measuring its frequency. The Doppler shift merely displays how it
>> varies with detector velocity relative to the source.
>
> False. The Doppler shift of light is caused by relative motion.

You need to improve your reading skills. That's what I said (using more
accurate words).

>>> and provides irrefutable evidence of the variable velocity of light,
>> NONSENSE! It shows that the frequency of such a beam is variable, and
>> how it varies with detector velocity relative to the source.
>
> The frequency measures its relative velocity, which is its variable speed.

Nonsense! To measure relative speed, one must measure relative speed,
not just frequency.

Actual measurements show that the speed of light in vacuum, relative to
any (locally) inertial frame, is c, independent of the speed of the
source (relative to that frame). Your vague assertions, hopes, and
dreams cannot change this.

Tom Roberts

On Friday, 17 March 2023 at 23:21:59 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/16/23 5:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 2:48:52 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 3/16/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> The frequency of light is detectable by the Doppler shift
> >> Not really. One needs a monochromatic light beam and a detector capable
> >> of measuring its frequency. The Doppler shift merely displays how it
> >> varies with detector velocity relative to the source.
> >
> > False. The Doppler shift of light is caused by relative motion.
>
> You need to improve your reading skills. That's what I said (using more
> accurate words).
>
> >>> and provides irrefutable evidence of the variable velocity of light,
> >> NONSENSE! It shows that the frequency of such a beam is variable, and
> >> how it varies with detector velocity relative to the source.
> >
> > The frequency measures its relative velocity, which is its variable speed.
>
> Nonsense! To measure relative speed, one must measure relative speed,
> not just frequency.
>
> Actual measurements show that the speed of light in vacuum, relative to
> any (locally) inertial frame, is c

Sure, any of 0 inertial frame existing. But in the meantime
un the real world - forbidden by your bunch of idiots
improper GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper seconds. Your vague
assertions, hopes, and dreams cannot change this.

Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:00:09 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:36:05 -0500, whodat wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 3/16/2023 1:53 AM, Jane wrote:
>
>
> You seem even less intelligent or qualified than the others. Please do
> not reply to my posts in future.

OK, so you opt for being one of the nutters,
and you don't want to learn.

Noted,

Jan

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:34:59 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:00:09 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > > Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:36:05 -0500, whodat wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On 3/16/2023 1:53 AM, Jane wrote:
> >
> >
> > You seem even less intelligent or qualified than the others. Please do
> > not reply to my posts in future.
> OK, so you opt for being one of the nutters,
> and you don't want to learn.
>
> Noted,
>
> Jan

Who's teacher are you jan?
Why would you be necessary?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:37:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:34:59 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:00:09 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:36:05 -0500, whodat wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > On 3/16/2023 1:53 AM, Jane wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > You seem even less intelligent or qualified than the others. Please do
> > > not reply to my posts in future.
> > OK, so you opt for being one of the nutters,
> > and you don't want to learn.
> >
> > Noted,
> >
> > Jan
> Who's teacher are you jan?
> Why would you be necessary?

Have you ever heard of the Internet?

--
Jan

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:18:26 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:37:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 3:34:59 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:00:09 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:36:05 -0500, whodat wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > On 3/16/2023 1:53 AM, Jane wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You seem even less intelligent or qualified than the others. Please do
> > > > not reply to my posts in future.
> > > OK, so you opt for being one of the nutters,
> > > and you don't want to learn.
> > >
> > > Noted,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > Who's teacher are you jan?
> > Why would you be necessary?
> Have you ever heard of the Internet?

That does not make you necessary jan...

> --
> Jan

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:00:11 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

>> > Light is an oscillating wave in my HO.
>>
>> There is no reason for it to wave...but nobody knows what a field is.
>> Some people think a radio wave is made of lots of individual photons.
>>
>> > It is not a standing sin wave.
>>
>> I think a photon is initially like a miniature length of chain.
>
> 'thinking' like that will get you nowhere.
> -Do- get some physics education,

I'm sure I have a lot more physics education than you have. After all,
you never contribute anything scientific. You just insult those who
do...a sure sign of an inferiority complex -- thoroughly justified in
your case.

The frequency of light, as defined, refers to a phenomenon that exists
only as light is emitted or annihilated. It is the rate at which
wavelengths (whatever they are) are emitted or received. It has nothing
to do with light in transit, its only true state. Even young Tom seemed
to heading towards agreement before insanity got hold of him.

No known clock can even measure that frequency directly. Several
components are required. One is a device that can detect 'waves' as they
are being emitted (as per Maxwell). Another has to count them. A third
device is a stable oscillator that will start and stop the counter during
a selected number of its absolute periods.

So, I'll rephrase my question. Assume light is right now passing by
Andromeda. How does one describe and define what even NASA's experts
still regularly refer to as 'its frequency'? I will personally donate a
$5 quartz wristwatch to anyone who shows how whatever they think they are
talking about can be measured with a simple clock.

>
> Jan

--
-- lover of truth

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 12:05:48 -0700, RichD wrote:

> On March 17, Mikko wrote:
>>> Can somebody please explain what the 'frequency of light' means.
>>
>> Light has a frequency if and only if sound has.
>
> huh?
>
>> Does sound have a frequency?
>
> Yes, because we can measure the time intervals between crests.
>
> One doesn't measure frequency, one measures intervals. Our best
> instruments measure down to 10 picosec.
> Hence we infer light frequency by measuring wavelength,
> and making assumptions about light speed.

Ah! at last someone has contributed something that is relevant to my
question, albeit rather vague.
Now. please define what it is that we are actually trying to measure.

--
-- lover of truth

On 3/17/2023 10:21 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Suppose that you are living in 1968 and have the best frequency meter available: 50 Mhz MAX, and 8 digits display.
> With the HP 5245M you can resolve 1 Hz, which means precision of 10E-08 in your reading.
>
> You want to measure a signal with frequency of 1,009,758,249 Hz.

So was this frequency of 1,009,758,249 Hz measured or not?
Does this frequency of 1,009,758,249 Hz even exist since it wasn't
measured what you call directly?

> Fast forward to 1973, with the HP5340 Auto Frequency Counter (8 digits, up to 18 Ghz)

Did the frequency of 1,009,758,249 Hz spring into existence between 1968
and 1973 somehow? Why or why not?

> In 1985, HP introduced the HP 5371A, capable of measuring up to 2 Ghz DIRECTLY, with Option C Module.

How about then?

On Saturday, 18 March 2023 at 08:12:19 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/17/2023 10:21 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Suppose that you are living in 1968 and have the best frequency meter available: 50 Mhz MAX, and 8 digits display.
> > With the HP 5245M you can resolve 1 Hz, which means precision of 10E-08 in your reading.
> >
> > You want to measure a signal with frequency of 1,009,758,249 Hz.
>
> So was this frequency of 1,009,758,249 Hz measured or not?

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.