Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #581190 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-03-28 08:59 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-03-28 17:27 +0000 |
| Articles | 8 on this page of 108 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-28 08:59 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 16:11 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-03-28 18:13 +0200
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-28 09:24 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-30 20:41 +0200
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-04-01 14:06 +0200
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-01 14:48 +0200
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-28 09:27 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 09:29 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-28 09:55 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 17:00 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-28 13:24 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 21:23 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-29 07:08 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 17:52 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-29 14:08 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 22:23 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 08:26 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 16:58 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 11:45 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-29 19:22 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 08:43 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 16:58 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-30 13:06 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 17:16 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 13:45 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 21:28 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Hewitt Bliss <wet@vcbcn.er> - 2022-03-28 17:01 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-28 11:56 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-28 13:27 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 21:23 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-28 14:39 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-29 07:24 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 12:57 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-29 14:17 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 15:02 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 08:12 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-30 09:38 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 10:16 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-30 10:38 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-30 16:27 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-30 23:39 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-31 15:34 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 14:03 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-30 14:55 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-31 08:56 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-31 09:39 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-31 09:48 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 16:46 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-31 09:55 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 17:05 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 14:10 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 13:52 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 19:03 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-31 09:41 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-31 15:56 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 13:13 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-01 18:52 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 21:52 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-02 15:01 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 12:48 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Jabe Jukado <jukj@u3ecs.jp> - 2022-04-06 18:56 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 14:04 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-31 14:23 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 21:54 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 22:02 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 15:09 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 13:37 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-31 14:20 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 14:55 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-02 14:05 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 16:52 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-30 10:56 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 18:30 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-30 14:43 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-30 12:01 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-30 16:49 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-30 13:51 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 14:18 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-30 20:05 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-31 09:34 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 16:56 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 11:21 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 18:52 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 12:43 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 20:19 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 22:00 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-01 01:21 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 23:26 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 13:00 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 07:13 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 15:20 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 09:20 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 16:32 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 10:12 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-01 15:23 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 13:11 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 20:27 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-01 14:33 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-01 16:26 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-01 17:01 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-02 11:29 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-02 12:08 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 21:51 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-31 23:05 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 12:27 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-29 14:15 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Hewitt Bliss <wet@vcbcn.er> - 2022-03-28 17:27 +0000
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 17:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62479261.77FA@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #581654 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks is ...Terrifying. > > > > > > Everytime you take a physics test, the questions are the same as last year but the answers are different. > Go face to face with people you know and ask them.."How many planets are there in our solar system?" They probably will grab their phone to look it up... I would say 99.9 percent of the people on the earth don't know the answer...(including scientist and astro martianist.) -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-02 11:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <624895FC.5F95@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #581655 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks is ...Terrifying. > > > > > > > > > > Everytime you take a physics test, the questions are the same as last year but the answers are different. > > > > Go face to face with people you know and ask them.."How many planets are > there in our solar system?" > > They probably will grab their phone to look it up... > > I would say 99.9 percent of the people on the earth don't know the > answer...(including scientist and astro martianist.) Now, if you gave everybody in school (1st grade - colleges) a test question "How many planets are there in our solar system?" Will anyone get the answer right???? That shows you the state of Science today, a mess. Science has failed. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-02 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62489F48.758F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #581727 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks is ...Terrifying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everytime you take a physics test, the questions are the same as last year but the answers are different. > > > > > > > Go face to face with people you know and ask them.."How many planets are > > there in our solar system?" > > > > They probably will grab their phone to look it up... > > > > I would say 99.9 percent of the people on the earth don't know the > > answer...(including scientist and astro martianist.) > > Now, if you gave everybody in school (1st grade - colleges) a test > question > > "How many planets are > there in our solar system?" > > Will anyone get the answer right???? > > That shows you the state of Science today, a mess. Science has failed. Now, if you ask people is Mars a planet? you get a quick answer, "Yes"! Is Venus a planet? Is Mercury a planet? etc, etc... Now, as them is Pluto a planet?...they become stuttering idiots. And what is the cause of the stuttering idiots? Science. Now, ask ALL.. i repeat, ALL the members of the International Astronomical Union | IAU is Pluto a planet? ...they all become stuttering idiots. What size is Pluto? In 1930 the answer was, It is bigger than the Earth. Everytime you take a physics test, the questions are the same as last year but the answers are different. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 21:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b9fc316-5508-4582-b3d7-0f6683e989e8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581639 |
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 22:27:44 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > > On 4/1/2022 1:12 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > >> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 18:32:50 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the words mean. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s > >>>>>>>>>>> language devised by them for purpose. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations > >>>>>>>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way > >>>>>>>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry. > >>>>>>>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for > >>>>>>>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is > >>>>>>>>> irrelevant to that > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling > >>>>>>>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. > >>>>>>> No, that’s not an example of jargon. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Because an idiot woodworker says so? If > >>>>>> "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious", > >>>>>> poor halfbrain? > >>>>>> > >>>>> Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking > >>>>> special meanings specific to that community. > >>>> > >>>> How do you know? > >>>> > >>>>> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning > >>>> > >>>> Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense. > >>>> The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great > >>>> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe > >>>> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are > >>>> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor > >>>> halfbrain. > >>>> > >>> Woz, you are an idiot. Can’t even look up “jargon” in the dictionary. > >> > >> Speaking about dictionaries, Bod - > >> https://www.synonyms-thesaurus.com/antonyms-common-sense > >> > >> And the truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great > >> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe > >> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are > >> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor > >> halfbrain. > >> > > Stop Godwinning yourself, Woz. > > > > You really do need to look up "jargon". > > > > BTW "proper" isn't the word being used as jargon. "Proper time", the > > phrase, is the jargon. > Yes, this is correct. Keep in mind that for Woz, No, it's not. Keep it in mind that for Bod any nonsense, any lie is good when it's for The Shit or against its opponents. He lives in a loop of rage. I don’t know if that’s because of early career issues, or just interactions on this group. Either way, it’s pathological. He's too dumb to know, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-31 23:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t25q66$1om9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581516 |
On 3/31/2022 12:34 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 7:05:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 3/30/2022 5:18 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:51:19 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> On 3/30/2022 11:12 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:17:09 PM UTC-4, wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the >>>>>>>> speed is c? >>>>>>> The emitter is the only "observer." >>>>>> OK. However, to those who can read English, those who can understand what is written (or the intention thereof), >>>>>> the above not only means that the 'observer' is the emitter, but that the observer can be any (inertial) observer. >>>>> >>>>> No, that is what is called "making a false assumption." It is twisting the >>>>> statement to make it fit some argument that you want to make. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But yes, some may interpret the above that the only observer is the emitter. >>>>>> Those people (you?) should investigate more the meaning of that sentence to see if they understood it correctly. >>>>>>>>> Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or >>>>>>>>> decelerating. >>>>>>>> Again, who is the observer that is noting that the speed is c in those cases? >>>>>>> The emitter is the only "observer." >>>>>> In the now above, it is much more clear that the author meant that any (inertial) observer is/are the ones >>>>>> declaring that it is 'c'; that the emitter is NOT 'the' observer. Anyone who understands English, would have understood/interpreted it like that. Do you agree with my comments in this reply? >>>>> >>>>> No, of course not. >>>> Throughout the paper Einstein does NOT assume that only the emitter is >>>> the observer. Your claim makes no sense. >>> >>> You make no sense. You seem to believe that if Einstein is talking about >>> one thing on page 1, he must be talking about the same thing all pages. >> If the only thing he talks about in the second postulate is the speed of >> light relative to the emitter, but throughout the paper he talks about >> the speed of light relative to various observers, why even mention that >> unused postulate? > >> But he doesn't even use (your version of) the postulate! Remember, you >> said that the postulate ONLY states the speed of light is c relative to >> the emitter. Not to any other observer, the emitter ONLY. > >> But he doesn't even use (your version of) the postulate! > >> So you admit that (your version of) the second Postulate isn't used! > > You clearly do not understand what a postulate is. Let me see if I can > summarize for you Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity: > > He says, Experiments with magnets and conductors indicate that if we > ASSUME that two things are true, then we get a THEORY that does not [bla bla bla] > Then Einstein begins describing his theory in TEN different sections. > each describing a part of the THEORY. I'll just mention a few of them. [bla bla bla] > I could explain the other sections, too, but the point is: a postulate is > an ASSUMPTION used to develop a THEORY. The THEORY is about how > light and time work. There are NO POSTULATES described in the theory, > the theory describes how things work IF the postulates are true. And you ignore my point. In all those 10 sections, Einstein never used the fact that the speed of light is c relative to the emitter. Instead he used the REAL second postulate (not your opinion of what it should be) that the speed of light is c relative to ALL (inertial) observers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-30 12:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7621cf4-c7cf-4f17-9e5f-10117d0b3d0bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581381 |
On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:12:37 AM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > the above not only means that the 'observer' is the emitter, but that the observer can be any (inertial) observer. > No, that is what is called "making a false assumption." No. It is what is actually meant by that sentence. One does not need to specify every little detail, every little definition. One expects the reader to have a certain ability to deduce and to understand that intended meaning of what is read. But here our discussion is irrelevant since the author is no longer there for us to ask him what he actually meant. But reading what he has written for the wrong, it becomes clear what he meant: that all (inertial) observers will measure the speed of light to be C. > Do you agree with my comments in this reply? > No, of course not. > > He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c. > > That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it. > No, that is how MATHEMATICIANS twist things to make Einstein's words > fit their beliefs. No. It's how every intelligent reader would understand it, mathematician or not. It's a question of understanding the language, not of math nor physics. If an intelligent reader is unsure of its meaning, that reader will learn the language used and study the subject. > If I am moving through space and emit a photon, that photon will travel at c > as c is defined at MY location. No, 'speeds' are not relative to a location. The concept of **speed** is relative to a given reference frame. One needs to understand the meaning of 'speed'. Here, you do not seem to understand its meaning. > I.e., the photon will travel at 299,792,458 meters > PER SECOND as a second is measured at MY location. No. That is not at all the concept of 'speed'. > That is all that > Einstein's Second Postulate says. Define postulate invokes the concept of speed point and this concept of speed implicitly contains a (un)specified reference frame. Just the sentence "The speed of light is C." means that any (inertial) Observer will measure the speed of light to be C. > What some OTHER observer might see > or measure when he sees the photon I emitted has NOTHING to do with > the Second Postulate. If you are unsure what the intended meaning of the second postulate was, just continue reading Einstein treatise. Therein, he does specify what he meant by it: thought all inertial Observer will measure the speed of light to be C. > The point Einstein is making is that c will be different depending upon how > fast I am moving. No. The point that Einstein was saying, and that he repeated many times, is that any inertial Observer will always measure the speed of light to be the same value as every other inertial Observer. > It will ALWAYS be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, You just claimed that " c will be different...", now just above you said it will always be 299,792,458. How can it always be 299,792,458 number and be different ?? > but the LENGTH OF A SECOND at my location will vary depending upon > the speed at which I am traveling. I hope you see that that is irrelevant to the discussion. Whatever you meant by it, does not change the definition or concept of 'speed'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-29 14:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6612e527-0cf3-49af-8094-3c316fd68844n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581287 |
El martes, 29 de marzo de 2022 a las 11:24:56 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:39:21 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 17:27:36 UTC-3, escribió: > > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 1:56:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > All physics experiments are carefully explained by the physicists which performed those experiments. You are a nobody which do not have any qualifications to affirm that textbooks "demonstrate a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity". > > > So, all you can do is attack me personally? You cannot actually discuss the topic? > > > > > The topic you have started here is "Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks". You are asserting (without any proof) that physics textbooks contain "errors". In fact you are writing a "book" where chapter 11 is entitled "The textbook problem". > > > > One of your old problems is that you do not read the references that you use in your writings. As an example, you insist that Einstein > > principle of the constancy of the speed of light is only what he wrote in page 1 of his 1905 paper: > > > > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". > > > > But he defined that principle precisely in page 4 as: > > "2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body". > > Everyone knowing a little of English can verify that both paragraphs say the same. The state of motion of the emitting body can be, for sure, either being stationary or being moving. > You clearly do not understand ENGLISH, Paparios. Those two paragraphs do NOT say the same. > > The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c in empty space. > The second one is just about what happens when that light is viewed in a > "stationary system of co-ordinates." > > Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or > decelerating. That is the KEY FACT. How the EMITTED PHOTONS are VIEWED in a > "stationary system of coordinates" is important, too, but it's a different issue. > > Ed "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body". Both paragraphs clearly say that the light moves at speed c, independently of the state of motion (stationary or moving) of the emitting body.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hewitt Bliss <wet@vcbcn.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-28 17:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1sr6s$1sn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581190 |
Ed Lake wrote: > This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's > that link: nonsense, the corrupt nato collective western europe, and the deepen corrupt gringos of america, bombing europe with larger bombs than Hirosima and Nagasake, for decades now. *_Swine_flu_*, *_chicken_flu_* etc, destroying the economy of the small countries of europe, willingly participatory in collective western europe nato, criminal organization. UK Column News - 28th March 2022 https://rumble.com/embed/vw7esa/ They know their countries are destroyed and say nothing. Deepen corrupt organizations. *_Traitors_*, that for the sake of liberal capitalist astronomic wages and privileges, are killing people around them, with no mercy and regrets whatsoever. They are even blaming Russia, coming along, proving the *war_crimes* in their faces. that's why they don't love Russia, but supports the nazi "ukrainian" criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web