On May 5, 5:33*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On May 3, 5:36 pm, "Dave" wrote:

You really enjoy playing the simple person. You don't find the weak
force as believable but do find Coriolis effect believable so I gave
you what you desire, something to believe in.

i don't find the coriolis effect to be believable in causing tilted antennas
either, but its more fun to talk about that than the weak force. *i find the
image of watching your antenna spiral down a toilet drain amusing.

The basic level of time in physics is based
on the speed for a capaciter to release all its energy which is then
replaced by a magnetic field.

so now you can define time in terms of time, sounds like another circular
argument to me. *it takes time to discharge and that defines time... why
doesn't the time it takes to rotate the earth define time? *that is more
sensible and has been known to man for much longer than discharging
capacitors.

Because the magnetic field produced launches the particle which
travels at the speed of light by impact. This is the basic metric of
time. A particle emits light when it's momentum changes. Particles
carry just one color which is a measure of its frequency. There are
only three colors available but together they form the basics of all
colours. Colors emitted can be seen in the Northern lights as the
momentum changes of particles entering the Earth's medium where they
come to rest as unbound electrons on diamagnetic surfaces.
Hawkins is in hospital at the moment so you can't chat with him

Art Unwin wrote:
Particles
carry just one color which is a measure of its frequency.

This is true for orbital electrons but not true for
free electrons as exist in conductors like copper
and aluminum. Free electrons can emit photons of any
frequency. We change the transmitting frequency of
the photons by adjusting our VFOs to virtually
limitless frequencies.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 5:33 pm, "Dave" wrote:
Because the magnetic field produced launches the particle which
travels at the speed of light by impact. This is the basic metric of
time. A particle emits light when it's momentum changes. Particles
carry just one color which is a measure of its frequency. There are
only three colors available but together they form the basics of all
colours. Colors emitted can be seen in the Northern lights as the
momentum changes of particles entering the Earth's medium where they
come to rest as unbound electrons on diamagnetic surfaces.
Hawkins is in hospital at the moment so you can't chat with him

only 3 colors eh? if the particles can only carry one of 3 frequencies how
do they generate 160m frequencies? 80m frequencies?? the whole range of
hf, vhf, uhf, mf, lf, etc, etc, etc... the whole spectrum of electromagnetic
waves can't come from just 3 basic frequencies.

On May 6, 5:54*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On May 5, 5:33 pm, "Dave" wrote:

Because the magnetic field produced launches the particle which
travels at the speed of light by impact. This is the basic metric of
time. A particle emits light when it's momentum changes. Particles
carry just one color which is a measure of its frequency. There are
only three colors available but together they form the basics of all
colours. Colors emitted can be seen in the Northern lights as the
momentum changes of particles entering the *Earth's medium *where they
come to rest as unbound electrons on diamagnetic surfaces.
Hawkins is in hospital at the moment so you can't chat with him

only 3 colors eh? if the particles can only carry one of 3 frequencies how
do they generate 160m frequencies? *80m frequencies?? *the whole range of
hf, vhf, uhf, mf, lf, etc, etc, etc... the whole spectrum of electromagnetic
waves can't come from just 3 basic frequencies.

I don't know about waves but my understanding is that all colors come
from the mixing
of the three basic colors, or is it four? When you mix frequencies I
would imagine you could arrive at all possible frequencies. I think
you should drop the idea of waves with respect to frequency. If you
observe a rainbow how many basic colors are there in the mix! In a
projector isn't there just three filters required for a movie in
color? One thing you have to get into your mind is the idea of basic
temperature and mass without energy. the case prior to the big bang.
The temperature aspect is very important input
of the inpact of energy at the initial stage where decelleration of a
particle in a changing medium generates a change in temperature which
is also synonimous with particle temperature. You are for ever
compartmentizing every thing as if there are no connections to be had
as per G.U.T. or more to the point static versus dynamic fields.
You are way to quick to say that you can't and should listen to OBAMA
who states yes we can.

Art Unwin wrote:
I don't know about waves but my understanding is that all colors come
from the mixing of the three basic colors, or is it four?

That's the RGB standard designed for fooling human
eyes into seeing more than just red, green, and blue.
Photons in nature come in *all* EM frequencies.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Art Unwin wrote:
I don't know about waves but my understanding is that all colors come
from the mixing of the three basic colors, or is it four?

Your understanding is in error... at least, if you're referring to
colors in terms of actual photon behavior (energy and wavelength)
rather than to the human *perception* of color.

That's the RGB standard designed for fooling human
eyes into seeing more than just red, green, and blue.

Yup. And, the red/green/blue system is an artifact of the human
visual system... most of us happen to have three different types
of photo-sensitive molecules in the cone cells in our eyes, and these
three types of molecules have their peak receptivities at the
frequencies that we refer to as "red", "green", and "blue."

There seems to be some amount of genetic variation, among humans, in
the exact frequencies at which the peak sensitivies lie. And, some
people have are missing one or more of these types of photoreceptor,
and are referred to as "colorblind".

There are apparently some humans who have four different types of
photopigment, and thus may have an improved ability to perceive
distinctions between colors. Certain species of animal are known to
have four photopigments (one for e.g. UV sensitivity) and I wouldn't
be surprised if some species have five or more variants.

Photons in nature come in *all* EM frequencies.

Yup again. It's an interesting process:

- Light comes in a continuous range of frequencies.

- Our eyes "sample" this continous range, with three types of sensor
having different-but-overlapping sensitivities. Each sensor
generates a variable amplitude (or pulse train) based on the
intensity that it's detecting, within its sensitivity range.

- Our nervous system maps the three amplitudes back into a perception
of a continuous range of colors.

The process is far from perfect... information is lost during the
sampling process, and thus the perception of a continuous spectrum is
necessarily flawed and imperfect.

This is why a mixture of two different pure colors (e.g. red and
green) can look like a single pure color to our eyes (e.g. yellow or
amber)... it happens to excite the red and green photosensors in the
same proportion that a single, pure-yellow light would. Mixed
together, the colors look like one... split them apart with a prism
and you can easily distinguish them and see the trick.

[Almost] All Is Illusion.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

"Dave Platt" wrote
...
Art Unwin wrote:
I don't know about waves but my understanding is that all colors come
from the mixing of the three basic colors, or is it four?

Your understanding is in error... at least, if you're referring to
colors in terms of actual photon behavior (energy and wavelength)
rather than to the human *perception* of color.

That's the RGB standard designed for fooling human
eyes into seeing more than just red, green, and blue.

Yup. And, the red/green/blue system is an artifact of the human
visual system... most of us happen to have three different types
of photo-sensitive molecules in the cone cells in our eyes, and these
three types of molecules have their peak receptivities at the
frequencies that we refer to as "red", "green", and "blue."

There seems to be some amount of genetic variation, among humans, in
the exact frequencies at which the peak sensitivies lie. And, some
people have are missing one or more of these types of photoreceptor,
and are referred to as "colorblind".

There are apparently some humans who have four different types of
photopigment, and thus may have an improved ability to perceive
distinctions between colors. Certain species of animal are known to
have four photopigments (one for e.g. UV sensitivity) and I wouldn't
be surprised if some species have five or more variants.

Photons in nature come in *all* EM frequencies.

Yup again. It's an interesting process:

- Light comes in a continuous range of frequencies.

- Our eyes "sample" this continous range, with three types of sensor
having different-but-overlapping sensitivities. Each sensor
generates a variable amplitude (or pulse train) based on the
intensity that it's detecting, within its sensitivity range.

- Our nervous system maps the three amplitudes back into a perception
of a continuous range of colors.

The process is far from perfect... information is lost during the
sampling process, and thus the perception of a continuous spectrum is
necessarily flawed and imperfect.

This is why a mixture of two different pure colors (e.g. red and
green) can look like a single pure color to our eyes (e.g. yellow or
amber)... it happens to excite the red and green photosensors in the
same proportion that a single, pure-yellow light would. Mixed
together, the colors look like one... split them apart with a prism
and you can easily distinguish them and see the trick.

Sometimes the screen on TV or cinema is perfectly white. This in cinema
reflect. This reflected light splitted with the prism has only three
frequences?

[Almost] All Is Illusion.
S*

In article ,
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

Sometimes the screen on TV or cinema is perfectly white. This in cinema
reflect. This reflected light splitted with the prism has only three
frequences?

They're likely to be three bands of frequencies rather than three
narrow single-frequency lines, because the technologies used to create
the frequencies aren't narrow-band. But, yes, what you are seeing as
"perfectly white" under these circumstances is often *not* a smooth,
continuous spectrum.

In the case of a TV screen, you're seeing either:

- The mixed emissions of a set of red, green, and blue phosphors,
individually excited by electron beams [for CRT displays], or

- The emission from the phosphors of a cold-cathode fluorescent
backlighting lamp (a complex spectrum with multiple peaks) filtered
through red, green, and blue pixel-sized filters (for most LCD
tubes).

In traditional film cinema, you're seeing the emissions of an
incandescent or halogen bulb (fairly continuous spectrum) filtered
through three colors of dye in the film print.

The fact that these complex mixtures of overlapping color spectra can
look "pure white" to our eyes, is due in large part to our complex
nervous systems. Our eye/brain systems adapt to the mix of colors
present under differnet lighting conditions, and interpret different
combinations as "pure white" depending on what's available at the time.

This is why, for example, indoor fluorescent lighting can actually
look half-decent to our eyes once we get used to it (we "see" a fairly
complete range of colors there) but what looks "white" to use under
fluorescents will actually have a distinctly greenish cast to a film
or digital camera.

It's also why a rather curious phenomenon can be demonstrated. The
*exact* same mix of color emissions may look very different to us,
under different ambient lighting conditions... what might look
greenish outdoors will look pure white or even slightly pinkish under
indoor fluorescent lighting, because our brains *interpret* that input
differently due to the different surroundings.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On May 6, 7:05*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
I don't know about waves but my understanding is that all colors come
from the mixing of the three basic colors, or is it four?

That's the RGB standard designed for fooling human
eyes into seeing more than just red, green, and blue.
Photons in nature come in *all* EM frequencies.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil
Seems like this thing called photon is the magic article that created
the big bang.
You attribute everything to the photon but I don't think physics as
got a proper handle on it! Heck, only a few years ago they said a
particle could exist without mass.If a particle emitted from the Sun's
boundary( lepton?) deaccellerated in a particular medium
and broke apart into many electrons, then would not heat or light be
emitted as kinetic energy contained in the particles of different
sizes representing the spectrum
of a particular color with respect to potential energy contained in
the various sized particles? Does your photon come in different sizes,
color and potential energy?
My understanding is that there are about seven leptons that break away
from the Sun's boundary, three of which contains color attributes
along with other flavours which is indicative of temperature and
change in momentum.
I think it is to early to argue about such a subject.

Art Unwin wrote:
Does your photon come in different sizes,
color and potential energy?

It comes in different wavelengths. It certainly
comes in any and all colors and frequencies outside
the range of "color". All of its energy is the
result of its speed of light velocity. It has
zero rest mass. It has the equivalent of mass
when traveling at the speed of light. m=e/c^2
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com