Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Saturday, December 14, 2019

Frequency = Wavelength?

-
Years ago I had a post on GHG's. Throughout the discussion oleg and I were trading pee-reviewed papers to support our claims. Sometimes the papers talked about GHG's emission spectra in frequencies and others talked about the SAME emissions in terms of wavelength. You see, you can talk about said spectra in either terms, frequency or wavelength and you are talking about the SAME thing. Meaning each emission frequency has an equivalent corresponding wavelength. From Wikipedia:
The 630 meter (or 600 meter) amateur radio band is a frequency band allocated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to amateur radio operators, and it ranges from 472 to 479 kHz, or equivalently 625.9 to 635.1 meters wavelength.
Frequency or equivalently wavelength.

Educated people can grasp that simple fact. EvoTARDs cannot. Even though it has been thoroughly explained to them they still side with their willful ignorance. And as with science they think their willful ignorance is meaningful discourse.

posted by Joe G @ 12:05 PM  

22 Comments:

  • At 2:52 AM, Blogger JV said…

    I guess it depends on how you think of 'equivalent'. I would use the term corresponding. Here's my take:

    Wavelength and frequency are not equivalent but IF the wave speed is fixed then each wavelength has a corresponding frequency.

    From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength

    Assuming a sinusoidal wave moving at a fixed wave speed, wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency of the wave: waves with higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths, and lower frequencies have longer wavelengths.

    Wavelength depends on the medium (for example, vacuum, air, or water) that a wave travels through. Examples of waves are sound waves, light, water waves and periodic electrical signals in a conductor. A sound wave is a variation in air pressure, while in light and other electromagnetic radiation the strength of the electric and the magnetic field vary. Water waves are variations in the height of a body of water. In a crystal lattice vibration, atomic positions vary.


    Anyway, numerically a given wavelength is inversely proportional to its corresponding frequency. Wavelength x Frequency = Speed.

     

  • At 9:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Unbelievable. You didn't even read the OP. Try again, this time at least TRY to respond to what the OP says.

    If one person is talking about GHG emission spectrum in terms of frequencies and another is talking about GHG emission spectrum in terms of wavelength, are they talking about the EXACT SAME thing? Yes or no.

     

  • At 3:27 PM, Blogger JV said…

    I agree that, given a particular wave speed, that a particular wave frequency has to be linked to a particular wavelength. In that way they are equivalent.

    But numerically they are not the same; they measure two different characteristics of the same wave.

    Wavelength times Frequency equals wave speed.

    If the wave speed is fixed then a shorter wavelength corresponds to a longer frequency.

    It's just by definition.

    There are lots of different radio frequencies as you know when you tune your radio. All those radio waves travel at the same speed. So a higher radio frequency means that signal has to have a longer radio wavelength so that the product of the wavelength and frequency gives the same speed.

    I think you are picking a fight when there's nothing to fight about. Because you're not a physicist or engineer you use terms slightly differently and when people call you on it you get very defensive.

    It's not worth the time. Really.

    Frequency and wavelength are different aspects of a wave. Given a particular wave speed then yes, if you give me a wavelength that dictates a frequency and vice versa. But they are not the same thing.

     

  • At 3:39 PM, Blogger JV said…

    There are important reasons for distinguishing between wavelength and frequency. Wavelength determines how electromagnetic waves react to obstructions like buildings and determines the resolution of things like electron microscopes. Frequency determines 'pitch' or colour (in the visual range) and the penetrating ability for higher frequency rays like x-rays or gamma rays.

    Again, sticking with electromagnetic waves: they all travel at the same speed which is the speed of light, frequently abbreviated to c or approximately 300,000 kilometres per second. The colour violet has a shorter wavelength and a higher frequency than the colour red. And that means it has a higher photon energy.

    See the chart in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum

     

  • At 4:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You're not even responding to what I post. You must be proud to be a willfully ignorant troll.

    If one person is talking about GHG emission spectrum in terms of frequencies and another is talking about GHG emission spectrum in terms of wavelength, are they talking about the EXACT SAME thing? Yes or no.

    I understand why you avoid it. But that reflects on you.

     

  • At 4:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The following is what was said:

    Frequency = wavelength. A longer wavelength = a lower frequency.

    The first part was in the context of references discussing the wavelength and references discussing the frequency. Thus, the context was:

    When one person is talking about GHG emission spectrum in terms of frequencies and another is talking about GHG emission spectrum in terms of wavelength, they are talking about the EXACT SAME thing

    The second part was to show an understanding of the relationship.

    The overall context is a BLOG and NOT some technical paper going in for review. An informal discussion.

    With that in mind, how anal retentive does a THIRD party (not part of the discussion at the time), quote-miner (only includes the first part and never mentions the context) have to be to bring that up years after the fact as if it means something beyond it is an asshole?

     

  • At 8:04 PM, Blogger JV said…

    Frequency = wavelength. A longer wavelength = a lower frequency.

    A longer wavelength does give you a lower frequency but it is incorrect to say 'Frequency = wavelength' as they are not the same thing.

    Given a fixed speed then specifying a wavelength determines the frequency and vice-versa.

    When one person is talking about GHG emission spectrum in terms of frequencies and another is talking about GHG emission spectrum in terms of wavelength, they are talking about the EXACT SAME thing

    If by 'the exact same thing' you mean the same wave or range of waves then I would agree.

    Scientists and especially mathematicians and physicists are used to being very specific in their use of terms. That's why they don't like the expression 'frequency = wavelength'.

     

  • At 9:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Unbelievable. You must be the most willfully ignorant asshole, ever.

     

  • At 3:01 AM, Blogger JV said…

    I'm sorry but wavelength and frequency are not the same thing, have different units associated with them and would generally NOT have the same numerical value. Wavelength is a length and frequency is cycles per time unit.

    Take a wave in the visual spectrum, say something violet with a wavelength of 400 nm. Using the speed of light as 300,000 km/s that gives you a frequency of 750 THz

    Take another wave in the visual spectrum, say something red with a wavelength of 700 nm, a longer wavelength. This corresponds to a frequency of about 429 THs.

    So, the red wave with a longer wavelength has a lower frequency. Just as you said. Longer waves have fewer cycles per second.

    Yes, any given wave can be specified by its wavelength or frequency.

    I notice that most charts say something like:

    Wavelength: 380-450 nm corresponds with Frequency: 680-790 THz (for electromagnetic waves)

    Which can be a bit confusing.

    But it's important to note that a wavelength of 380 nm has a frequency of 790 THz (lowest value in one category maps to the highest value in the next category) and a wavelength of 450 nm has a frequency of 680 THz. If you don't believe me do the math yourself.

    And again, a longer wavelength has a lower frequency.

     

  • At 7:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You are sorry and you are also unable to read for comprehension.

     

  • At 11:10 AM, Blogger JV said…

    I don't understand. I agreed with you that a longer wavelength has a lower frequency. I agreed with you that you can refer to an emission spectrum as a range of frequencies or a range of wavelengths (because the speed of the waves is a constant).

    I just disagree with you that frequency = wavelength. For a given wave you can refer to it by its frequency or wavelength; for example the red light wave I used as an example could be referred to by 700 nm or 429 THz and those two different values (and units) refer to the same wave. But they're not equal, not numerically or it what they are measuring. One is talking about a physical length and the other is talking about how many lengths pass a reference point for a give time period. Give a set speed either one is enough to specify a wave.

    What specifically have I said that you disagree with? I am using the standard definitions and units for electromagnetic waves.

     

  • At 11:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You obviously cannot read for comprehension. You aren't even responding to what I post

     

  • At 11:40 AM, Blogger JV said…

    What part of what I've said do you disagree with?

    I'm just trying to make sure the basic physics is clear. I'm not interested in your feud with someone else on another blog which I don't read. I'm sorry that person chooses not to respond here but I'm not going to try and defend or criticise or analyse a conversation I had no part in.

    If you agree with what I've said about wave terms (and I did agree with you on two important points) then that's good. If you disagree with something then I'm happy to try and explain it a bit better.

     

  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You're not even responding to what I post. Grow up.

     

  • At 3:42 PM, Blogger JV said…

    You're not even responding to what I post. Grow up.

    Let's see . .

    Years ago I had a post on GHG's. Throughout the discussion oleg and I were trading pee-reviewed papers to support our claims. Sometimes the papers talked about GHG's emission spectra in frequencies and others talked about the SAME emissions in terms of wavelength. You see, you can talk about said spectra in either terms, frequency or wavelength and you are talking about the SAME thing. Meaning each emission frequency has an equivalent corresponding wavelength.

    I agreed with this.

    Frequency or equivalently wavelength.

    This is the part I wasn't sure about so I tried to clarify it to be sure. It was later you said that frequency = wavelength and that I do disagree with.

    Educated people can grasp that simple fact. EvoTARDs cannot. Even though it has been thoroughly explained to them they still side with their willful ignorance. And as with science they think their willful ignorance is meaningful discourse.

    Again, it seemed to me that it was important to make sure the basic terms and concepts were clear.

    So, again, have I said something that you thought was factually incorrect. If so I will try and clarify it further.

     

  • At 4:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You agree with it and then you disagree with it. The person who was part of the discussion understood what I meant. It was a THIRD party who bitched about it..

    It isn't what you post. It is the fact that you just don't stick to the topic at hand.

     

  • At 1:19 AM, Blogger JV said…

    You agree with it and then you disagree with it.

    I've explained why and my view is consistent with the definitions and usage.

    The person who was part of the discussion understood what I meant. It was a THIRD party who bitched about it..

    Nothing to do with me then.

    It isn't what you post. It is the fact that you just don't stick to the topic at hand.

    Sometimes conversations take turns. If your basic topic was that some conversation on some other blog went wide then why bring that up here?

    As I said I was only interested in making sure the basic science was/is clear.

     

  • At 9:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You don't know anything about science

     

  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger JV said…

    You don't know anything about science

    Why is it that even when someone mostly agrees with you, when they make an effort to discuss a point without rancour or abuse you still have to be so antagonistic?

    Did you ever think that maybe your attitude and approach make your opinions less palatable? That you might be giving your 'side' a much more negative aura and therefore driving people away? That your complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with you only generates the same response to you?

     

  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! So now it's my fault that you don't know anything about science? And if people can't deal with the science and evidence then tough for them. If they are going to be atheistic materialists because of me then they were already very weak-minded.

    And fuck you. I do NOT disrespect people for merely disagreeing with me. I disrespect assholes who don't deserve any respect.

     

  • At 6:33 AM, Blogger JV said…

    Sorry if this is a duplication; I tried to respond last night using my phone and I'm not sure it went through. Feel free to use either IF you want to. It's your site after all!!

    LoL! So now it's my fault that you don't know anything about science?

    Mostly I agreed with you!!

    And if people can't deal with the science and evidence then tough for them. If they are going to be atheistic materialists because of me then they were already very weak-minded.

    I don't think you are driving people to one or the other side; I just thought you might want to generate a bit more respect for your views.

    And fuck you. I do NOT disrespect people for merely disagreeing with me. I disrespect assholes who don't deserve any respect.

    You disrespect people who disagree with you all the time! You've done it in this thread. It's your site, you can do what you like. But you're not helping your cause by being belligerent and rude. AND, it seems pretty clear, that some folks like taunting and teasing you because they know you're going to react in a certain way. They're making fun of you because of your style.

     

  • At 8:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow, you are a pathetic ass. YOU have proven that you don't deserve any respect. YOU can't even follow along.

    And YOU cannot show that I disrespect people for merely disagreeing with me.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home