How Astronomers Missed the Massive Asteroid That Just Whizze

[Martin Brown]

On 02/08/2019 14:35, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:17:29 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

All your noise aside, the cosmic background radiation is not
matter and yet it has a temperature.

It has a temperature that is characteristic of the surface of last
scattering that it originated from redshifted by Z=1100 (in this case
the moment when primordial hydrogen plasma recombined to allow the
universe to be transparent to electromagnetic radiation at about 4000K).

It is no different in principle to looking at the sun's photosphere
where the surface of last scattering is at 5700K but nothing like as
heavily redshifted. It is very very slightly red shifted since the
photons do have to climb out of the sun's gravitational field.

It's photons, which do have mass (if not a lot) and none of the
individual photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a
wavelength and thus an energy content, but that's not a
"temperature".

-- Bill Sloman, Sydney

Photons don't have mass, stupid.

They do when they are moving. They do not have *rest mass*.

The usual formulation is to treat them as having energy and momentum.
That can be demonstrated by the photoelectric effect for energy and a
real Crooke's radiometer or a solar sail for momentum.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 09:47:00 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/08/2019 14:35, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:17:29 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

All your noise aside, the cosmic background radiation is not
matter and yet it has a temperature.

It has a temperature that is characteristic of the surface of last
scattering that it originated from redshifted by Z=1100 (in this case
the moment when primordial hydrogen plasma recombined to allow the
universe to be transparent to electromagnetic radiation at about 4000K).

It is no different in principle to looking at the sun's photosphere
where the surface of last scattering is at 5700K but nothing like as
heavily redshifted. It is very very slightly red shifted since the
photons do have to climb out of the sun's gravitational field.

It's photons, which do have mass (if not a lot) and none of the
individual photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a
wavelength and thus an energy content, but that's not a
"temperature".

-- Bill Sloman, Sydney

Photons don't have mass, stupid.

They do when they are moving. They do not have *rest mass*.

The are figitey and don't like to stand still.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 16:38:23 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:32:15 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:3r3eketcmc7ig16c5on614q868sp39c5mu@4ax.com:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:03:49 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:dce07555-f083-46c4- b44b-c032bbc677d5@googlegroups.com:

You're the one that was worried about radiation from a bomb
used way out in space. You posted this:



No, jackass... YOU were the one worried about it as I stated
we
could break it up and you came back bitching about how that
would rain radioactive pieces down on us.

That's yet another lie. I challenge you to give us the post where
I said that. Show it to us. You can't, because I never said it,
I never brought up the issue of radiation from a bomb way out in
space being a problem. YOU proposed using a fusion bomb, claiming
that would avoid radiation and contamination. Which of course
is wrong, always wrong. Then you went on to claim that our
current "crop" of nuclear weapons rely on radiation effects, not
explosive destructive power. And then just like above you lied,
turned it upside down and claimed that I said that our current
weapons are neutron bombs.

Wrong, always wrong.

Have you ever designed electronics? Show us.

He is an obese, lard assed,

See, this is how all the trouble starts. You just make up total BS,
pulled from nowhere and claim it to be true. You've never met me,
have no pictures of me, have no idea what I weigh. That's the difference.
I would never post things that I didn't know to be true and you do it
all the time. You make up things about me, you make up BS about fusion,
you make up BS about airplanes, you make up BS about the B1 bomber....
I wouldn't call you a lard ass or ugly because I don't know if you are
but I will call you stupid, because that you demonstrate here for all to see.

There is a not-surprising correlation: the people who actually can and
do design electronics are helpful and polite and funny here. The
people who can't substitute crude flame wars for technical skill.

Try getting some help with anger management.

Try learning some electronics.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 8:19:20 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 1:00:34 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 11:52:31 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:01:33 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 8:28:30 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:50:17 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:08:28 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:41573418-6c17-4f75-82a3-a588cf5594e2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- 971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at
explosive destructive force, not for radiation effect.

Dumbfuck. A pure fusion device would be tactical. Try to keep
up, dipshit.

A Buck Rogers time machine would be tactical too, if it really
existed...... It doesn't.

That is your argument? Note that the statement I made is a
hypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you
have been going off about stupid shit for days now.

Neither does your pure fusion bomb that
creates no radiation or contamination.

Look at the remark, you stupid fuck. It is not incorrect. A pure
fusion device would be clean. Plain and simple and correct.

Again, here is what you posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "

You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You said
"fusion device".

Trader4 is stupid enough to think that this is an argument.

Unlike Bill, who's so stupid he thinks DL is smart. Two peas in a pod.

Trader4 doesn't get fine distinctions. I think DLUNU is smarter than Trader4. So is a lump of rock.

ROFL

Trader4 is also easily amused.

Rest of your useless troll BS flushed.

A pity you couldn't make any sense it, which isn't exactly a surprise.

Here is what DL posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "

It's clear what he meant. If one is proposing to use some non-existent
device, which would have to be developed, then it's up to them to say
so, fool.

I know why trader4 thinks that. It's the sort of idiot preconception that fools like trader4 invent when they are trying to concoct a rational-looking argument, without having enough sense to do it right.

And further, and again, with today's understanding of physics,
there is no way to create a FUSION BOMB, without using a fission reaction
first and without creating radiation and fallout.

I do keep on pointing that aneutronic fusion is possible,and trader4 keeps on failing to get the point

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

Scaling it up to fusion bomb proportions would take work, but today's understanding of physics says that it is entirely possible.

It's not possible because with whole a whole building full of equipment and
the instantaneous power of the whole country, all we can do is create
fusion in a small pellet that doesn't generate as much energy
as is put into it. There is no way to scale that up into a bomb, fool.

If you wanted a bomb, you wouldn't start with system that is intended to keep on pumping out power for years.

That would be silly. Imagining that this is the only way of getting to a bomb is even sillier.

--
Bill Sloman, sydney

You finally got something right! So, why did you and DL bring it up and
keep harping about it? You're right, it is silly.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 10:08:23 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 16:38:23 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:32:15 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:3r3eketcmc7ig16c5on614q868sp39c5mu@4ax.com:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:03:49 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:dce07555-f083-46c4- b44b-c032bbc677d5@googlegroups.com:

You're the one that was worried about radiation from a bomb
used way out in space. You posted this:



No, jackass... YOU were the one worried about it as I stated
we
could break it up and you came back bitching about how that
would rain radioactive pieces down on us.

That's yet another lie. I challenge you to give us the post where
I said that. Show it to us. You can't, because I never said it,
I never brought up the issue of radiation from a bomb way out in
space being a problem. YOU proposed using a fusion bomb, claiming
that would avoid radiation and contamination. Which of course
is wrong, always wrong. Then you went on to claim that our
current "crop" of nuclear weapons rely on radiation effects, not
explosive destructive power. And then just like above you lied,
turned it upside down and claimed that I said that our current
weapons are neutron bombs.

Wrong, always wrong.

Have you ever designed electronics? Show us.

He is an obese, lard assed,

See, this is how all the trouble starts. You just make up total BS,
pulled from nowhere and claim it to be true. You've never met me,
have no pictures of me, have no idea what I weigh. That's the difference.
I would never post things that I didn't know to be true and you do it
all the time. You make up things about me, you make up BS about fusion,
you make up BS about airplanes, you make up BS about the B1 bomber....
I wouldn't call you a lard ass or ugly because I don't know if you are
but I will call you stupid, because that you demonstrate here for all to see.


There is a not-surprising correlation: the people who actually can and
do design electronics are helpful and polite and funny here. The
people who can't substitute crude flame wars for technical skill.


Try getting some help with anger management.





Try learning some electronics.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

You should talk. You;ve engaged in as much totally off topic
discussion as anyone else. Flaming hypocrite. Butch up.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 08:14:00 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 10:08:23 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 16:38:23 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:32:15 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:3r3eketcmc7ig16c5on614q868sp39c5mu@4ax.com:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:03:49 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:dce07555-f083-46c4- b44b-c032bbc677d5@googlegroups.com:

You're the one that was worried about radiation from a bomb
used way out in space. You posted this:



No, jackass... YOU were the one worried about it as I stated
we
could break it up and you came back bitching about how that
would rain radioactive pieces down on us.

That's yet another lie. I challenge you to give us the post where
I said that. Show it to us. You can't, because I never said it,
I never brought up the issue of radiation from a bomb way out in
space being a problem. YOU proposed using a fusion bomb, claiming
that would avoid radiation and contamination. Which of course
is wrong, always wrong. Then you went on to claim that our
current "crop" of nuclear weapons rely on radiation effects, not
explosive destructive power. And then just like above you lied,
turned it upside down and claimed that I said that our current
weapons are neutron bombs.

Wrong, always wrong.

Have you ever designed electronics? Show us.

He is an obese, lard assed,

See, this is how all the trouble starts. You just make up total BS,
pulled from nowhere and claim it to be true. You've never met me,
have no pictures of me, have no idea what I weigh. That's the difference.
I would never post things that I didn't know to be true and you do it
all the time. You make up things about me, you make up BS about fusion,
you make up BS about airplanes, you make up BS about the B1 bomber....
I wouldn't call you a lard ass or ugly because I don't know if you are
but I will call you stupid, because that you demonstrate here for all to see.


There is a not-surprising correlation: the people who actually can and
do design electronics are helpful and polite and funny here. The
people who can't substitute crude flame wars for technical skill.


Try getting some help with anger management.





Try learning some electronics.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

You should talk. You;ve engaged in as much totally off topic
discussion as anyone else. Flaming hypocrite. Butch up.

"Whoey Louie" says it all. All there is.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:67d10cba-8433-4f87-
8871-e41a35c33df8@googlegroups.com:

> Butch up.

Admit it, punk. You do weigh more than 280 Lbs.

and not much of that is muscle.

 

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:c4egkel64ng4m0depashcaeckmif7v25vj@4ax.com:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 09:47:00 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/08/2019 14:35, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:17:29 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

All your noise aside, the cosmic background radiation is not
matter and yet it has a temperature.

It has a temperature that is characteristic of the surface of last
scattering that it originated from redshifted by Z=1100 (in this
case the moment when primordial hydrogen plasma recombined to
allow the universe to be transparent to electromagnetic radiation
at about 4000K).

It is no different in principle to looking at the sun's
photosphere where the surface of last scattering is at 5700K but
nothing like as heavily redshifted. It is very very slightly red
shifted since the photons do have to climb out of the sun's
gravitational field.

It's photons, which do have mass (if not a lot) and none of the
individual photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a
wavelength and thus an energy content, but that's not a
"temperature".

-- Bill Sloman, Sydney

Photons don't have mass, stupid.

They do when they are moving. They do not have *rest mass*.

The are figitey and don't like to stand still.

We can pass them through certain mediums and actually slow them
down now.

A very important property to make use of.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 12:08:23 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 16:38:23 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:32:15 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:3r3eketcmc7ig16c5on614q868sp39c5mu@4ax.com:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:03:49 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:dce07555-f083-46c4- b44b-c032bbc677d5@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

There is a not-surprising correlation: the people who actually can and
do design electronics are helpful and polite and funny here. The
people who can't substitute crude flame wars for technical skill.

Granting that John Larkin is doing the "correlation" the association is probably weaker than he likes to think, in part because he thinks that what he does is electronic design,and that the way he does it exhibits technical skill, as opposed to persistence.

Try getting some help with anger management.

Try learning some electronics.

Always good advice, but learning stuff frequently involves realising that what you think you know isn't quite right, which can be damaging to your self-esteem.

Some people find it hard to cope with that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 22:47:56 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:c4egkel64ng4m0depashcaeckmif7v25vj@4ax.com:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 09:47:00 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/08/2019 14:35, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:17:29 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

All your noise aside, the cosmic background radiation is not
matter and yet it has a temperature.

It has a temperature that is characteristic of the surface of last
scattering that it originated from redshifted by Z=1100 (in this
case the moment when primordial hydrogen plasma recombined to
allow the universe to be transparent to electromagnetic radiation
at about 4000K).

It is no different in principle to looking at the sun's
photosphere where the surface of last scattering is at 5700K but
nothing like as heavily redshifted. It is very very slightly red
shifted since the photons do have to climb out of the sun's
gravitational field.

It's photons, which do have mass (if not a lot) and none of the
individual photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a
wavelength and thus an energy content, but that's not a
"temperature".

-- Bill Sloman, Sydney

Photons don't have mass, stupid.

They do when they are moving. They do not have *rest mass*.

The are figitey and don't like to stand still.



We can pass them through certain mediums and actually slow them
down now.

You mean like plastic and glass, AlwaysWrong?

> A very important property to make use of.

I have a couple of these marvelous inventions resting on my nose. They
certainly are useful, AlwaysWrong.

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 10:08:23 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 16:38:23 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:32:15 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:3r3eketcmc7ig16c5on614q868sp39c5mu@4ax.com:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:03:49 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:dce07555-f083-46c4- b44b-c032bbc677d5@googlegroups.com:

You're the one that was worried about radiation from a bomb
used way out in space. You posted this:



No, jackass... YOU were the one worried about it as I stated
we
could break it up and you came back bitching about how that
would rain radioactive pieces down on us.

That's yet another lie. I challenge you to give us the post where
I said that. Show it to us. You can't, because I never said it,
I never brought up the issue of radiation from a bomb way out in
space being a problem. YOU proposed using a fusion bomb, claiming
that would avoid radiation and contamination. Which of course
is wrong, always wrong. Then you went on to claim that our
current "crop" of nuclear weapons rely on radiation effects, not
explosive destructive power. And then just like above you lied,
turned it upside down and claimed that I said that our current
weapons are neutron bombs.

Wrong, always wrong.

Have you ever designed electronics? Show us.

He is an obese, lard assed,

See, this is how all the trouble starts. You just make up total BS,
pulled from nowhere and claim it to be true. You've never met me,
have no pictures of me, have no idea what I weigh. That's the difference.
I would never post things that I didn't know to be true and you do it
all the time. You make up things about me, you make up BS about fusion,
you make up BS about airplanes, you make up BS about the B1 bomber....
I wouldn't call you a lard ass or ugly because I don't know if you are
but I will call you stupid, because that you demonstrate here for all to see.


There is a not-surprising correlation: the people who actually can and
do design electronics are helpful and polite and funny here. The
people who can't substitute crude flame wars for technical skill.

You seem to be one who does a fair share of flaming. Where do you fit into this dichotomy?

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 2:31:43 PM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 10:08:23 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 16:38:23 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:32:15 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:3r3eketcmc7ig16c5on614q868sp39c5mu@4ax.com:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:03:49 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:dce07555-f083-46c4- b44b-c032bbc677d5@googlegroups.com:

You're the one that was worried about radiation from a bomb
used way out in space. You posted this:



No, jackass... YOU were the one worried about it as I stated
we
could break it up and you came back bitching about how that
would rain radioactive pieces down on us.

That's yet another lie. I challenge you to give us the post where
I said that. Show it to us. You can't, because I never said it,
I never brought up the issue of radiation from a bomb way out in
space being a problem. YOU proposed using a fusion bomb, claiming
that would avoid radiation and contamination. Which of course
is wrong, always wrong. Then you went on to claim that our
current "crop" of nuclear weapons rely on radiation effects, not
explosive destructive power. And then just like above you lied,
turned it upside down and claimed that I said that our current
weapons are neutron bombs.

Wrong, always wrong.

Have you ever designed electronics? Show us.

He is an obese, lard assed,

See, this is how all the trouble starts. You just make up total BS,
pulled from nowhere and claim it to be true. You've never met me,
have no pictures of me, have no idea what I weigh. That's the difference.
I would never post things that I didn't know to be true and you do it
all the time. You make up things about me, you make up BS about fusion,
you make up BS about airplanes, you make up BS about the B1 bomber....
I wouldn't call you a lard ass or ugly because I don't know if you are
but I will call you stupid, because that you demonstrate here for all to see.


There is a not-surprising correlation: the people who actually can and
do design electronics are helpful and polite and funny here. The
people who can't substitute crude flame wars for technical skill.

You seem to be one who does a fair share of flaming. Where do you fit into this dichotomy?

He's short on technical skill, not funny and not polite.

The answer is fairly obvious.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 06/08/2019 03:24, krw@notreal.com wrote:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 22:47:56 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:c4egkel64ng4m0depashcaeckmif7v25vj@4ax.com:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 09:47:00 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/08/2019 14:35, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:17:29 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

All your noise aside, the cosmic background radiation is not
matter and yet it has a temperature.

It has a temperature that is characteristic of the surface of last
scattering that it originated from redshifted by Z=1100 (in this
case the moment when primordial hydrogen plasma recombined to
allow the universe to be transparent to electromagnetic radiation
at about 4000K).

It is no different in principle to looking at the sun's
photosphere where the surface of last scattering is at 5700K but
nothing like as heavily redshifted. It is very very slightly red
shifted since the photons do have to climb out of the sun's
gravitational field.

It's photons, which do have mass (if not a lot) and none of the
individual photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a
wavelength and thus an energy content, but that's not a
"temperature".

-- Bill Sloman, Sydney

Photons don't have mass, stupid.

They do when they are moving. They do not have *rest mass*.

The are figitey and don't like to stand still.



We can pass them through certain mediums and actually slow them
down now.

You mean like plastic and glass, AlwaysWrong?

No. Much more sophisticated than that altering the group velocity by
passing pure monochromatic radiation down a highly dispersive medium B-E
condensate configured in such a state that it hampers propagation
slowing the speed of a pulse of light down to under 40 mph!

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/1999/02/physicists-slow-speed-of-light/

It is a non-trivial slow down factor of 2 million.

A very important property to make use of.

I have a couple of these marvelous inventions resting on my nose. They
certainly are useful, AlwaysWrong.

In this instance he is right and you are wrong.

It was first done at the turn of the century and the physics tricks it
uses to work may yet be relevant to optical quantum computing.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

krw@notreal.com wrote in
news:12phke5h8suqf9cf2fjamngnma2k194dou@4ax.com:

I have a couple of these marvelous inventions resting on my nose.
They certainly are useful, AlwaysWrong.

Not refraction, Williams.

Try looking up slow light.

The thing that moves slow in you is any grasp of any picture,
refraction gear assisting or not, much less the big picture.

 

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:08:32 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/08/2019 03:24, krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 22:47:56 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:c4egkel64ng4m0depashcaeckmif7v25vj@4ax.com:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 09:47:00 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/08/2019 14:35, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:17:29 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

All your noise aside, the cosmic background radiation is not
matter and yet it has a temperature.

It has a temperature that is characteristic of the surface of last
scattering that it originated from redshifted by Z=1100 (in this
case the moment when primordial hydrogen plasma recombined to
allow the universe to be transparent to electromagnetic radiation
at about 4000K).

It is no different in principle to looking at the sun's
photosphere where the surface of last scattering is at 5700K but
nothing like as heavily redshifted. It is very very slightly red
shifted since the photons do have to climb out of the sun's
gravitational field.

It's photons, which do have mass (if not a lot) and none of the
individual photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a
wavelength and thus an energy content, but that's not a
"temperature".

-- Bill Sloman, Sydney

Photons don't have mass, stupid.

They do when they are moving. They do not have *rest mass*.

The are figitey and don't like to stand still.



We can pass them through certain mediums and actually slow them
down now.

You mean like plastic and glass, AlwaysWrong?

No. Much more sophisticated than that altering the group velocity by
passing pure monochromatic radiation down a highly dispersive medium B-E
condensate configured in such a state that it hampers propagation
slowing the speed of a pulse of light down to under 40 mph!

I find lenses to be *far* more useful.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/1999/02/physicists-slow-speed-of-light/

It is a non-trivial slow down factor of 2 million.

A very important property to make use of.

I have a couple of these marvelous inventions resting on my nose. They
certainly are useful, AlwaysWrong.

In this instance he is right and you are wrong.

Nope. You're wrong. Obviously!

It was first done at the turn of the century and the physics tricks it
uses to work may yet be relevant to optical quantum computing.

Who cares? Lenses fit the bill quite well.

 

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:03:00 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote in
news:12phke5h8suqf9cf2fjamngnma2k194dou@4ax.com:

I have a couple of these marvelous inventions resting on my nose.
They certainly are useful, AlwaysWrong.


Not refraction, Williams.

Yes, refraction, AlwaysWrong.

Try looking up slow light.

Why? Refraction is a better use.

The thing that moves slow in you is any grasp of any picture,
refraction gear assisting or not, much less the big picture.

AlwaysWrong is ALWAYS wrong. Amazing.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 07/08/2019 03:29, krw@notreal.com wrote:

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:08:32 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/08/2019 03:24, krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 22:47:56 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:c4egkel64ng4m0depashcaeckmif7v25vj@4ax.com:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 09:47:00 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/08/2019 14:35, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:17:29 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

All your noise aside, the cosmic background radiation is not
matter and yet it has a temperature.

It has a temperature that is characteristic of the surface of last
scattering that it originated from redshifted by Z=1100 (in this
case the moment when primordial hydrogen plasma recombined to
allow the universe to be transparent to electromagnetic radiation
at about 4000K).

It is no different in principle to looking at the sun's
photosphere where the surface of last scattering is at 5700K but
nothing like as heavily redshifted. It is very very slightly red
shifted since the photons do have to climb out of the sun's
gravitational field.

It's photons, which do have mass (if not a lot) and none of the
individual photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a
wavelength and thus an energy content, but that's not a
"temperature".

-- Bill Sloman, Sydney

Photons don't have mass, stupid.

They do when they are moving. They do not have *rest mass*.

The are figitey and don't like to stand still.



We can pass them through certain mediums and actually slow them
down now.

You mean like plastic and glass, AlwaysWrong?

No. Much more sophisticated than that altering the group velocity by
passing pure monochromatic radiation down a highly dispersive medium B-E
condensate configured in such a state that it hampers propagation
slowing the speed of a pulse of light down to under 40 mph!

I find lenses to be *far* more useful.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/1999/02/physicists-slow-speed-of-light/

It is a non-trivial slow down factor of 2 million.

A very important property to make use of.

I have a couple of these marvelous inventions resting on my nose. They
certainly are useful, AlwaysWrong.

In this instance he is right and you are wrong.

Nope. You're wrong. Obviously!

It was first done at the turn of the century and the physics tricks it
uses to work may yet be relevant to optical quantum computing.

Who cares? Lenses fit the bill quite well.

Stupid, ignorant and determined to stay that way.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 08:18:36 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 07/08/2019 03:29, krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:08:32 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/08/2019 03:24, krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 22:47:56 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:c4egkel64ng4m0depashcaeckmif7v25vj@4ax.com:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 09:47:00 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/08/2019 14:35, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:17:29 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

All your noise aside, the cosmic background radiation is not
matter and yet it has a temperature.

It has a temperature that is characteristic of the surface of last
scattering that it originated from redshifted by Z=1100 (in this
case the moment when primordial hydrogen plasma recombined to
allow the universe to be transparent to electromagnetic radiation
at about 4000K).

It is no different in principle to looking at the sun's
photosphere where the surface of last scattering is at 5700K but
nothing like as heavily redshifted. It is very very slightly red
shifted since the photons do have to climb out of the sun's
gravitational field.

It's photons, which do have mass (if not a lot) and none of the
individual photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a
wavelength and thus an energy content, but that's not a
"temperature".

-- Bill Sloman, Sydney

Photons don't have mass, stupid.

They do when they are moving. They do not have *rest mass*.

The are figitey and don't like to stand still.



We can pass them through certain mediums and actually slow them
down now.

You mean like plastic and glass, AlwaysWrong?

No. Much more sophisticated than that altering the group velocity by
passing pure monochromatic radiation down a highly dispersive medium B-E
condensate configured in such a state that it hampers propagation
slowing the speed of a pulse of light down to under 40 mph!

I find lenses to be *far* more useful.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/1999/02/physicists-slow-speed-of-light/

It is a non-trivial slow down factor of 2 million.

A very important property to make use of.

I have a couple of these marvelous inventions resting on my nose. They
certainly are useful, AlwaysWrong.

In this instance he is right and you are wrong.

Nope. You're wrong. Obviously!

It was first done at the turn of the century and the physics tricks it
uses to work may yet be relevant to optical quantum computing.

Who cares? Lenses fit the bill quite well.

Stupid, ignorant and determined to stay that way.

Yo clearly can't read, nor think. That's really not surprising,
though. At least you're consistent.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:14:18 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 08:18:36 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 07/08/2019 03:29, krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:08:32 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/08/2019 03:24, krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 22:47:56 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:c4egkel64ng4m0depashcaeckmif7v25vj@4ax.com:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 09:47:00 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 02/08/2019 14:35, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 3:17:29 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

<snip>

Who cares? Lenses fit the bill quite well.

Stupid, ignorant and determined to stay that way.

You clearly can't read, nor think. That's really not surprising,
though. At least you're consistent.

Krw isn't actually stupid, or particularly ignorant, and his determination to stick to the opinions he has - some of which are remarkably stupid - seems represent a specific cognitive deficit.

He lacks the capacity to recognise that any of his opinions might be wrong, and thus any possibility of correcting them. He's so confident that his opinions are correct that he thinks that everybody else shares the same opinion, so anybody who disagrees with him on a matter of fact is deliverately lying. It's bizarre.

He's been like this for years. One has to wonder how his family copes.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney