Insults and character assassination

[BobH]

Real Ivy-League responses there!

Notice how, when confronted with his own words, when questioned about his own posted result (which is just a graph and doesn't show he ever made the hologram claimed at all) he devolves into a babbling idiot covering his embarrasment with attempted humor, just more insults, and attempted deflection.

Notice how he can't interpret the results presented on the screen of an Ocean Optics spectroscope. Yet he dismisses my recommended technique for measuring emulsion thickness, a technique that's common practice among those who make liquid crystal displays and that I've used for decades, because he claims it doesn't have enough "rms". Rms of WHAT? He obviously has no idea about it, no experience with it, and is just spewing malicious trolling stupidity.

Again, please ban this clown.

[Din]

Notice how he can't interpret the results presented on the screen of an Ocean Optics spectroscope. Yet he dismisses my recommended technique for measuring emulsion thickness, a technique that's common practice among those who make liquid crystal displays and that I've used for decades, because he claims it doesn't have enough "rms". Rms of WHAT? He obviously has no idea about it, no experience with it, and is just spewing malicious trolling stupidity.

Again, please ban this clown.

Whatever technique you used for liquid crystal displays cannot be transferred to measuring the depth of a holographic emulsion. The manufacturing techniques of a liquid crystal display are different from the manufacturing technique of a holographic material. Despite this, it appears you cannot describe the principle behind the technique. It therefore seems you simply pushed buttons, not understanding why the buttons needed pushing - like your understanding, or lack of understanding, of holography. You seem to have no understanding of the Fourier transform.

Rms of what? You're joking! You've never heard of the rms of a surface? Clearly no understanding of techniques for measuring surface profiles. Despite many requests, you have given no data, just a lot of blustering!

We can continue this for the rest of the year, if you like, and into next year. I think you simply hate, like your racist, 'retired math teacher'. I'm not sure how everyone else is taking these hateful diatribes, but every statement shows hate.

[Din]

By the way, what does all of this have to do with "holoforum administration"? All Hess does is spew hatred of me and ignorance of the principles of physics and mathematics of holography, measurement theory and polarisation.

If he actually understands, an explanation of the principles would, I think, be more beneficial than spewing his personal issues. Let him explain the Poincare sphere, the rms of a surface, the statistical population of a set of Bragg planes and therefore the frequency bandwidth of the output as the Fourier transform of the Bragg plane population. This should not be a site for his personal vendettas.

As his colleague Stephen Hart told me, he has no actual understanding of the physics and mathematics of holography, so he blusters.

[BobH]

"Whatever technique you used for liquid crystal displays cannot be transferred to measuring the depth of a holographic emulsion."

Why? You're 100% wrong about that.

"The manufacturing techniques of a liquid crystal display are different from the manufacturing technique of a holographic material."

Why? Again, 100% wrong as can be easily demonstrated for anyone interested.

"Despite this, it appears you cannot describe the principle behind the technique. It therefore seems you simply pushed buttons, not understanding why the buttons needed pushing - like your understanding, or lack of understanding, of holography."

Just off-topic deflection only intended to inflame.

"You seem to have no understanding of the Fourier transform."

Wrong again. My understanding of that is only what's necessary to actually MAKE holograms, which is very little. I make holograms, you don't and never did. All you do is tell people how you think they should be made. Clients really like that. The engineers I work with who DO work with such things don't beat people over the head with their "superior" knowledge about it, they know how to read a spectrometer curve, and they don't lie about the results.

"I think you simply hate, like your racist, 'retired math teacher'. I'm not sure how everyone else is taking these hateful diatribes, but every statement shows hate."

Again trying to play the racism card. No Padiyar, you're just a run-of-the-mill, average, despicable troll with an undeserved superiority complex.

[BobH]

"By the way, what does all of this have to do with "holoforum administration"? "

Why did you start this thread here, instead of taking it to the admin privately? Because you wanted to argue the issues publicly.

"If he actually understands, an explanation of the principles would, I think, be more beneficial than spewing his personal issues. Let him explain the Poincare sphere, the rms of a surface, the statistical population of a set of Bragg planes and therefore the frequency bandwidth of the output as the Fourier transform of the Bragg plane population."

I don't care what you think I should do, or explain.

"This should not be a site for his personal vendettas."

YOU are the aggressor in these issues, and your attempt to turn it around on me is a typical tactic of those who can't defend their position logicly.

"As his colleague Stephen Hart told me, he has no actual understanding of the physics and mathematics of holography, so he blusters."

Dragging him into this is unfair, unethical, and won't work.

[Din]

"Won't work"? What's 'work' mean. You claim to have technical knowledge, your colleague says you don't. Which is it?

Do you understand polarisation? If you do, then explain why is the efficiency of a hologram based on a polarisation state? If you don't, then accept you have no idea about polarisation.

If you understand the principle behind the method of determining a depth using a spectrometer - a method you claim to have used for 'decades' - then explain it, since you brought it up.

Oh, by the way, Hariharan also shows no relationship between polarisation state of any beam and efficiency - eqn 4.43 below, as does the publisher of his book Cambridge Studies in Modern Optics. Either myself, Kogelnik, Hariharan and Cambridge studies in Modern Optics are "100% wrong" or Rallison's claim that efficiency is based on polarisation is wrong. Still waiting for those "many books"

The attachment hariharan.jpg is no longer available

The attachment hariharan.jpg is no longer available

[admin_jsfisher]

Sorry, for not catching this earlier. Unfortunately, I'd been distracted with other things.

Thing Number 1: We are supposed to be adults, here. Let's all at least pretend to be.

Thing Number 2: As my mother would often say in my formative years: I do not care who started this; I'm ending it.

Thing Number 3: If either or both of the parties involved insist on continuing the battle, I have a simple solution.