On Wed, 10 May 2023 05:55:46 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 1:24:23 AM UTC-3, Jane wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 May 2023 20:26:49 +0000, Luther Kokoris wrote:
>>
>> > Tom Roberts wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 5/8/23 7:45 PM, Jane wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Take a piece of paper..
>> >>> Draw across it a swiggly line approximating a sine wave. That is
>> >>> called a Sine-Wave-On-Paper or SWOP Move your SWOP across you
>> >>> computer screen repeatedly... Observe that it demonstrates the
>> >>> travelling wave equation.
>> >>> Observe whether or not the SWOP oscillates.
>> >>> Agree that it does not.
>> >>
>> >> How silly. Your SWOP is an snapshot of a traveling wave at one
>> >> instant in time. OF COURSE it does not oscillate -- no snapshot at
>> >> one instant can possibly oscillate, because oscillate implies
>> >> variation over time,
>> >> and the snapshot has just a single time.
>> >
>> > this is wrong as well. It's an instantaneous *_presentation_* of the
>> > *_variation_* over a short duration of time.
>> actually, over an 'instant'....and the wave has not varied
>>
>> >The variation is of a point not of a line.
>>
>> Yes of course....but you miss the point entirely. You are talking about
>> what the wave does rather than what it is. THE WAVE ITSELF DOES NOT
>> CHANGE IN ANY WAY. IT SIMPLY MOVES SIDEWAYS. It has NO 'intrinsic
>> frequency'. It CREATES a frequency at a point if intercepted...a
>> frequency defined as wave arrival rate.
>>
>> I cannot imagine why you people are so incapable of understanding this
>> very simple principle. Maybe it is because you know that nearly all the
>> claimed supporting evidence for SR relies on light having a frequency.
>> --
>> -- lover of truth
>
>
> You are a lover of DEMENTIA or TROLLING LIKE A DROOLING IMBECILE.

Oh dear. I seem to have hit a nerve.
> Stupid being: So, in your deranged mind, the source spit entire
> waveforms at a given rate, like a sequence of one cycle drawings,
> with the entire sinewave drawn?

Well that's exactly what Maxwell's apparently deranged mind said. You had
better dig him up and tell him.
> You don't belong here.

Oh? Are only idiots allowed?

>You belong to the FREAK CIRCUS, ASSHOLE! And you
> are the human walrus.

You would like me to go away...but I'm have too much fun watching
relativists squirm when confronted with true science.

--
-- lover of truth

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 3:56:00 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Tue, 09 May 2023 22:07:55 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 12:25:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 5/8/23 7:45 PM, Jane wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Take a piece of paper..
> >> > Draw across it a swiggly line approximating a sine wave. That is
> >> > called a Sine-Wave-On-Paper or SWOP Move your SWOP across you
> >> > computer screen repeatedly... Observe that it demonstrates the
> >> > travelling wave equation.
> >> > Observe whether or not the SWOP oscillates.
> >> > Agree that it does not.
> >> How silly. Your SWOP is an snapshot of a traveling wave at one instant
> >> in time. OF COURSE it does not oscillate -- no snapshot at one instant
> >> can possibly oscillate, because oscillate implies variation over time,
> >> and the snapshot has just a single time.
> >
> > He thinks that waves are translates of a fixed(*) function.
> >
> > (*) i.e., time-independent.
> Moving the SWOP is the solution of the TWE for a linear range of both x
> and t.

And if the wave is not a SWOP then what?

--
Jan

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:07:06 PM UTC-3, Jane wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2023 05:55:46 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 1:24:23 AM UTC-3, Jane wrote:
> >> On Tue, 09 May 2023 20:26:49 +0000, Luther Kokoris wrote:
> >>
> >> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 5/8/23 7:45 PM, Jane wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Take a piece of paper..
> >> >>> Draw across it a swiggly line approximating a sine wave. That is
> >> >>> called a Sine-Wave-On-Paper or SWOP Move your SWOP across you
> >> >>> computer screen repeatedly... Observe that it demonstrates the
> >> >>> travelling wave equation.
> >> >>> Observe whether or not the SWOP oscillates.
> >> >>> Agree that it does not.
> >> >>
> >> >> How silly. Your SWOP is an snapshot of a traveling wave at one
> >> >> instant in time. OF COURSE it does not oscillate -- no snapshot at
> >> >> one instant can possibly oscillate, because oscillate implies
> >> >> variation over time,
> >> >> and the snapshot has just a single time.
> >> >
> >> > this is wrong as well. It's an instantaneous *_presentation_* of the
> >> > *_variation_* over a short duration of time.
> >> actually, over an 'instant'....and the wave has not varied
> >>
> >> >The variation is of a point not of a line.
> >>
> >> Yes of course....but you miss the point entirely. You are talking about
> >> what the wave does rather than what it is. THE WAVE ITSELF DOES NOT
> >> CHANGE IN ANY WAY. IT SIMPLY MOVES SIDEWAYS. It has NO 'intrinsic
> >> frequency'. It CREATES a frequency at a point if intercepted...a
> >> frequency defined as wave arrival rate.
> >>
> >> I cannot imagine why you people are so incapable of understanding this
> >> very simple principle. Maybe it is because you know that nearly all the
> >> claimed supporting evidence for SR relies on light having a frequency.
> >> --
> >> -- lover of truth
> >
> >
> > You are a lover of DEMENTIA or TROLLING LIKE A DROOLING IMBECILE.
> Oh dear. I seem to have hit a nerve.
> > Stupid being: So, in your deranged mind, the source spit entire
> > waveforms at a given rate, like a sequence of one cycle drawings,
> > with the entire sinewave drawn?
> Well that's exactly what Maxwell's apparently deranged mind said. You had
> better dig him up and tell him.
> > You don't belong here.
> Oh? Are only idiots allowed?
> >You belong to the FREAK CIRCUS, ASSHOLE! And you
> > are the human walrus.
> You would like me to go away...but I'm have too much fun watching
> relativists squirm when confronted with true science.
> --
> -- lover of truth

I don't want you to go away. I want to see how smart are you, if you hit a nerve in Dono. He has buttons, you know? Find one of them.

I'd like to see the imbecile jumping at your throath.

On Wed, 10 May 2023 20:24:07 -0700, JanPB wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 3:56:00 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 May 2023 22:07:55 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 12:25:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> >> On 5/8/23 7:45 PM, Jane wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Take a piece of paper..
>> >> > Draw across it a swiggly line approximating a sine wave. That is
>> >> > called a Sine-Wave-On-Paper or SWOP Move your SWOP across you
>> >> > computer screen repeatedly... Observe that it demonstrates the
>> >> > travelling wave equation.
>> >> > Observe whether or not the SWOP oscillates.
>> >> > Agree that it does not.
>> >> How silly. Your SWOP is an snapshot of a traveling wave at one
>> >> instant in time. OF COURSE it does not oscillate -- no snapshot at
>> >> one instant can possibly oscillate, because oscillate implies
>> >> variation over time,
>> >> and the snapshot has just a single time.
>> >
>> > He thinks that waves are translates of a fixed(*) function.
>> >
>> > (*) i.e., time-independent.
>> Moving the SWOP is the solution of the TWE for a linear range of both x
>> and t.
>
> And if the wave is not a SWOP then what?

Well the TWE would not apply. but most traveling waves
are like SWOP...eg water waves.

If x or t varied nonlinearly, the waves would not resemble nice sinwaves
moving at constant speed.

--
-- lover of truth

On Tue, 9 May 2023 20:41:14 -0000 (UTC), Jason Grammatakakis wrote:

> Jane wrote:
>
>> Take a piece of paper..
>> Draw across it a swiggly line approximating a sine wave.
>> That is called a Sine-Wave-On-Paper or SWOP Move your SWOP across you
>> computer screen repeatedly...
>> Observe that it demonstrates the travelling wave equation.
>> Observe whether or not the SWOP oscillates.
>> Agree that it does not.
>
> so you have a sinus which not oscillate?? What kind of fucking stupid
> are you?

If you see it oscillating you should see an optometrist rather urgently...
then call a psychiatrist.

--
-- lover of truth

Jane wrote:

>> so you have *_a_sinus_which_not_oscillate_*?? What kind of
>> *_fucking_stupid_are_you_*?
>
> I̶f̶ y̶o̶u̶ s̶e̶e̶ i̶t̶ o̶s̶c̶i̶l̶l̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ y̶o̶u̶ s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ s̶e̶e̶ a̶n̶ o̶p̶t̶o̶m̶e̶t̶r̶i̶s̶t̶ r̶a̶t̶h̶e̶r̶
> u̶r̶g̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶... t̶h̶e̶n̶ c̶a̶l̶l̶ a̶ p̶s̶y̶c̶h̶i̶a̶t̶r̶i̶s̶t̶.

fork tongue Zelensky, you just can't get any more Hollywood than this
guy,Russia *_benefits_from_this_lapdog_* being in control of Ukraine,to be
very frank I wouldn't put him *_in_charge_of_a_lemonade_stand_*, this only
goes to show you how much *_the_west_is_detached_from_reality_*, how
*_ridiculous_this_show_* in Kiev has become.

even Zelensky is confused *_which_side_the_Americans_are_on_now_*! Welcome
to reality. You will soon end up like Gaddafi, Saddam etc. He really does
come across quite stupid when he does not have his *_script_writers_*,
write something for him,i cant wait to see this guy swing

also, I hope that the Americans carefully vetted his bodyguards. However,
this is an extremely strange scenario of a fucking khazar gay actor
playing "president" with Nazi shock troops at the frontline. Which
strongly indicates that the khazars are the nazis. Like *_george_soros_*,
son of a bitch, he was a nazi.