Where are the aliens?

a reply to: tanka418

So... when was the last time you saw X-rays? (And I don't mean the pictures, I mean the actual rays.)

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: tanka418

I've been telling you the answer all along. It's not my fault that you seem to suffer from some manner of reading disability or dismiss the science of spectroscopy. You seem confused. We are discussing different bands of electromagnetic radiation, unless you're going to argue that blue is red?

I'm sorry...you are the one confused here. And you have NOT answered the question. In fact all you have done is try to avoid the question by attempting to change the subject.

It becomes obvious that you have no knowledge in this area, no formal education in science, and are trying to fake it. So, what you say is wholly incorrect, and in most instances has been irrelevant .

So why don't you toddle along now and maybe read a good book on electromagnetic radiation...it will help...maybe...someday.

Oh, and I'm sorry, but; Wavelength is not the correct answer.

a reply to: tanka418

Okay, then it must be a very interesting experience to watch music and television programs float all around you amidst cell phone calls rather than requiring the devices the rest of us need to interpret these unseen bands. Must suck when all of the color blends together though.

originally posted by: tanka418
Remember; things like wavelength, power density are NOT what makes EM, EM. The presence of E and H fields are what characterize EM, and this is NOT dependent on frequency or power.

You might want to re-think that.

Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by a broad range of wavelengths and frequencies, each associated with a specific intensity (or amplitude) and quantity of energy.

Electromagnetic waves are characterized by their wavelength or wavenumber, amplitude, and polarization characteristics.

An electromagnetic wave is characterized by its intensity and the frequency ν of the time variation of the electric and magnetic fields.

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: tanka418

You don't know what a spectral band is, do you?

I suspect it is "heavenly" in use around here

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: tanka418

Okay, then it must be a very interesting experience to watch music and television programs float all around you amidst cell phone calls rather than requiring the devices the rest of us need to interpret these unseen bands. Must suck when all of the color blends together though.

Do you think you could stop showing us all how little you know, and actually post something relevant? Stop trying to mock me and actually answer the question at hand...if you can.

Your display of willful ignorance has ruined this thread via your insistence in an obvious fantasy based solely on your lack of understanding of physics and basic science. You insist that superficial properties are the properties that "define" EM, you are wrong. Your refusal to answer my simple question, and your insistence on trying to avoid that answer; only serves to reinforce the idea that you have no real or direct knowledge.

Hell, you can't even tell us who Maxwell is, serious fail.

So...please, stop, learn, then return.

a reply to: tanka418

You might really want to look in the mirror making accusations like that.

And a name is meaningless when it's as common as Maxwell.

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: tanka418

You might really want to look in the mirror making accusations like that.

And a name is meaningless when it's as common as Maxwell.

He's talking about James Maxwell, who came up with the equations describing the properties of electromagnetic radiation.

Unfortunately, he seems to have spent all his time focusing on Maxwell's name, rather than his equations, otherwise he wouldn't make incorrect statements such as this:

Remember; things like wavelength, power density are NOT what makes EM, EM. The presence of E and H fields are what characterize EM, and this is NOT dependent on frequency or power.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: tanka418
Remember; things like wavelength, power density are NOT what makes EM, EM. The presence of E and H fields are what characterize EM, and this is NOT dependent on frequency or power.

You might want to re-think that.

Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by a broad range of wavelengths and frequencies, each associated with a specific intensity (or amplitude) and quantity of energy.

Electromagnetic waves are characterized by their wavelength or wavenumber, amplitude, and polarization characteristics.

An electromagnetic wave is characterized by its intensity and the frequency ν of the time variation of the electric and magnetic fields.

You might want to get better information...why don't you try a college level text book. You know, something that is intended to actually explain something as complex as EM, and not give a superficial overview intended for an 8 yo.

Then you might want to consider that ALL EM follows the same theory, and uses the same mathematics, thus all EM fields are the same.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that by saying the fields are "the same" that I mean there are no differences. Indeed fundamental properties such as wavelength and power densities may vary, however, this does not change the nature of EM...course then again, I would have thought that y'all were far more intelligent than that...maybe not.

ETA: Perhaps you should read a wee bit of Maxwell, as opposed to a "fast search"...you might be surprised, and best of all, you could correct your misunderstanding...you are basing your response based solely on your bias...I said something you didn't like, and can't prove wrong...so you oppose me when you have opportunity...a growing club...at least your are wrong with company.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Pity he couldn't remember the guy's first name either. I first learned this # in the 1st grade, there was a whole week dedicated to prisms, explaining light, how rainbows worked, why the sky was blue. It's surprising this... gentleman can't even comprehend such simple science. And that's just dealing with the visible light spectrum.

If they're teaching it to 1st graders way back in the late eighties, it can't possibly as hard as tanka is making it for himself.

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Pity he couldn't remember the guy's first name either. I first learned this # in the 1st grade, there was a whole week dedicated to prisms, explaining light, how rainbows worked, why the sky was blue. It's surprising this... gentleman can't even comprehend such simple science. And that's just dealing with the visible light spectrum.

If they're teaching it to 1st graders way back in the late eighties, it can't possibly as hard as tanka is making it for himself.

Oh...well that explains it entirely!!!

You learned all about light, color, ect. in first grade...Silly me, I took the course again when I was in college getting a real, somewhat more detailed education.

Course they kind of made me take that one again, I was studying to get a degree in Electrical Engineering, and physics was a requirement; that education, and my two advanced degrees have served me very well over the past, almost 50 years.

originally posted by: tanka418
You might want to get better information...why don't you try a college level text book.

Actually, those quotes I posted all came from university websites, except for the first one, which was, in fact, taken directly from a college level physics textbook. The sources are all direct pdf links, otherwise I would have included them.

a reply to: tanka418

Was it a Community College?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
As a Physics and Mathematics teacher, I feel that I have somewhat of a handle on this.

At least I'm not ignorant enough to argue that all EM radiation is essentially the same.

Wow...a physics teacher that doesn't know there can be only one "kind" of EM...kind of goes with being a math teacher that fails to grasp probability I guess.

Don't burn your head off with that flashlight.

Harte

Hey Harte...ya know you don't have to illustrate my point quite so well...

Instead, since your are such a great and knowledgeable teacher; show us all just how may different kinds of EM there are, and point out the differences.

The reason that different names are given to the various sections of the spectrum is energy content.

The carrier of electromagnetic force is the photon.

The energy levels of the photons in question is what determines where in the spectrum the EM wave (or particle) lies.

originally posted by: tanka418
Ya know, I've asked another contributor who believes as you do about EM for this, "different kind" of EM. You know, the kind that is different than what I'm talking about. But, I don't see any response forthcoming, I'm betting that you can't provide any response either.

Is a proton different from a neutron?

How can that be, since they are made from the same thing?

originally posted by: tanka418
And of course as evidence for my position I offer the collected works of Maxwell, Tesla, faraday, and others...I asking for what you got.

I "got" a couple of years studying the work of Maxwell, and deriving his equations in various Vector Analysis classes I took as a Math major.

The fact you include Tesla in your "references" shows you don't know much about EM theory. Tesla made no contribution to electrical theory, he used what was known to design some previously unknown uses for it.

In other words - engineering.

I suggest you read more at your arxiv and less at fringe sites.

So, why is it you can't comprehend that radio waves are different from gamma rays?

Harte

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: tanka418
You might want to get better information...why don't you try a college level text book.

Actually, those quotes I posted all came from university websites, except for the first one, which was, in fact, taken directly from a college level physics textbook. The sources are all direct pdf links, otherwise I would have included them.

if you say so chief...when I see stuff like that, with no link to an actual document, I can't help but think it is something you tried to manufacture.
And while there are obviously those who would try to characterize EM in that manner, it doesn't make them right, or correct. And, in this case they are in fact quite wrong. Not so much because of "what" they said, or 'how" it was said; but because there are laypeople, just like yourself, who don't actually know any better, and are thus mislead into thinking that something is other than it really is.

In your case you have taken a few quotes entirely out of context and are trying to represent than as "Truth", when in fact, doing such nearly constitutes fraud...the only difference is that you don't know any better.

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: tanka418

Was it a Community College?

Why yes...in a little community called "Stanford." You know the one, it is up by Palo Alto, CA.

originally posted by: Harte
Is a proton different from a neutron?

How can that be, since they are made from the same thing?

Are they? Can you provide relevant data that states they are the same particle...charge not withstanding...

I "got" a couple of years studying the work of Maxwell, and deriving his equations in various Vector Analysis classes I took as a Math major.

If you say so...I've seen absolutely no evidence that you have any understanding of mathematics, or physics...seriously man, you have totally missed the point of probability, and quantum physics. You have failed to understand a couple of fundamental truths of the Universe...but, that's our problem.

I suggest you read more at your arxiv and less at fringe sites.

Oh so it's "my arxiv?" Perhaps you should actually connect with the scientific community, come up to speed with the real world. "Fringe sites"; you mean like Caltech, or MIT, perhaps you mean Harvard, or Princeton...

So, why is it you can't comprehend that radio waves are different from gamma rays?

Oh I don't know Harte, perhaps because there is no difference! Both are EM. Why is it that you are taken in, and fooled by a simple name?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
Is a proton different from a neutron?

How can that be, since they are made from the same thing?

Are they? Can you provide relevant data that states they are the same particle...charge not withstanding...

Typical of you previous post history, you here claim I said something that I never said.

I "got" a couple of years studying the work of Maxwell, and deriving his equations in various Vector Analysis classes I took as a Math major.

originally posted by: tanka418If you say so...I've seen absolutely no evidence that you have any understanding of mathematics, or physics...seriously man, you have totally missed the point of probability, and quantum physics. You have failed to understand a couple of fundamental truths of the Universe...but, that's our problem.

I do say so. And what I see in you is a person that has recently come to an understanding that all EM radiation conforms to the same model.

What has been pointed out continuously to you by me and others is that there are vast differences between the various divisions of the spectrum.

You, as above, have tried to turn that into people here claiming that high frequency EM is not the same phenomenon as low frequency EM.

What posters here have actually stated is that the various frequencies cannot be treated as if they were the same.

There is heat in a bag of ice. There is heat in a campfire.

Which one would you stick your hand into?

After all, heat is heat, isn't it?

originally posted by: tanka418I suggest you read more at your arxiv and less at fringe sites.

originally posted by: tanka418Oh so it's "my arxiv?" Perhaps you should actually connect with the scientific community, come up to speed with the real world. "Fringe sites"; you mean like Caltech, or MIT, perhaps you mean Harvard, or Princeton...

Okay, provide us with Tesla's contributions to the theory of electromagnetism. Preferably from Caltech, MIT, Harvard, or Princeton.

originally posted by: tanka418So, why is it you can't comprehend that radio waves are different from gamma rays?

Oh I don't know Harte, perhaps because there is no difference! Both are EM. Why is it that you are taken in, and fooled by a simple name?

Try the ice bag - campfire experiment.

Isn't heat just "heat?"

Harte

a reply to: tanka418

Well then, thanks for illuminating me on the joke behind why Sheldon is always mocking Howard for his career. This discussion has been very informative.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
Is a proton different from a neutron?

How can that be, since they are made from the same thing?

Are they? Can you provide relevant data that states they are the same particle...charge not withstanding...

Typical of you previous post history, you here claim I said something that I never said.

I "got" a couple of years studying the work of Maxwell, and deriving his equations in various Vector Analysis classes I took as a Math major.

originally posted by: tanka418If you say so...I've seen absolutely no evidence that you have any understanding of mathematics, or physics...seriously man, you have totally missed the point of probability, and quantum physics. You have failed to understand a couple of fundamental truths of the Universe...but, that's our problem.

I do say so. And what I see in you is a person that has recently come to an understanding that all EM radiation conforms to the same model.

What has been pointed out continuously to you by me and others is that there are vast differences between the various divisions of the spectrum.

You, as above, have tried to turn that into people here claiming that high frequency EM is not the same phenomenon as low frequency EM.

What posters here have actually stated is that the various frequencies cannot be treated as if they were the same.

There is heat in a bag of ice. There is heat in a campfire.

Which one would you stick your hand into?

After all, heat is heat, isn't it?

I suggest you read more at your arxiv and less at fringe sites.

originally posted by: tanka418Oh so it's "my arxiv?" Perhaps you should actually connect with the scientific community, come up to speed with the real world. "Fringe sites"; you mean like Caltech, or MIT, perhaps you mean Harvard, or Princeton...

Okay, provide us with Tesla's contributions to the theory of electromagnetism. Preferably from Caltech, MIT, Harvard, or Princeton.

So, why is it you can't comprehend that radio waves are different from gamma rays?

originally posted by: tanka418Oh I don't know Harte, perhaps because there is no difference! Both are EM. Why is it that you are taken in, and fooled by a simple name?

Try the ice bag - campfire experiment.

Isn't heat just "heat?"

Harte