Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #583850 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-04-23 13:35 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-04-26 10:30 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-23 13:35 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 14:31 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 14:40 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 07:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 11:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 13:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-24 22:29 +0200
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 13:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 08:26 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:25 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 13:59 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 07:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 16:04 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 09:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 09:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 10:05 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:37 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:02 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 14:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 09:15 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:32 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 23:20 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:21 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 13:26 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-26 12:45 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 11:47 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:27 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:01 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-25 20:36 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:45 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-26 13:00 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 19:16 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 23:38 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 16:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 10:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 12:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 14:36 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-27 15:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-28 01:36 +0200
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 21:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:44 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:40 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-28 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 11:23 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 20:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 15:01 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 22:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 16:09 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 17:01 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 00:41 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 18:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 22:10 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 12:52 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-29 10:06 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-29 21:21 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 12:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 14:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 20:01 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 13:33 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 13:55 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:32 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 22:00 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 18:12 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 17:36 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:50 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 14:18 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 18:33 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> - 2022-04-25 23:01 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:30 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 17:51 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 22:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-27 18:58 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 09:30 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-28 15:58 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 14:36 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 06:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:25 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:00 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:35 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 10:00 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 19:07 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:17 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 07:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-25 15:10 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-24 16:19 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 10:43 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:25 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 11:58 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:35 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 12:14 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:08 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 14:43 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-25 10:56 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 10:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-26 12:46 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 09:13 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:05 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 20:33 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:59 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 16:30 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 19:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 15:29 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 14:25 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 18:13 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:19 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-28 11:26 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-28 19:36 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:33 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-28 11:50 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-28 11:49 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> - 2022-04-30 21:30 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 16:09 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-30 13:10 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> - 2022-04-30 18:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 14:24 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-01 12:15 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 14:52 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-27 10:08 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 03:01 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:54 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:17 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 13:42 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 11:24 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 20:47 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 08:54 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 14:19 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:25 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 09:45 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> - 2022-04-25 21:16 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-25 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 15:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-26 10:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-23 18:07 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-23 23:42 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 08:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:32 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 18:36 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-24 15:55 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 10:25 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 06:03 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-25 15:19 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 09:58 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 10:30 -0700
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-29 00:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4fc7o$dg3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584447 |
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. >>>>>>>>>> No, thatâÃÂÃÂs not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook >>>>>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe >>>>>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much >>>>>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding >>>>>>>>>> something correctly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of >>>>>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. >>>>>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? IâÃÂÃÂd like a listing of the first 30 please. >>>>>>>> Note that Brian GreeneâÃÂÃÂs The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. >>>>>>>> HawkingâÃÂÃÂs A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have >>>>>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books": >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, so letâÃÂÃÂs have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have >>>>>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these >>>>>> are actually in your possession. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub >>>>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in >>>>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see >>>>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll >>>>> explain later why that is important). >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not >>>> introductory college textbooks. ThereâÂÂs a reason why that is so. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> >>> >>> I only posted what Ed Lake wrote: >> >> That I donât doubt. Iâm sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks >> he listed. > > I'm a little confused about what you wrote: "...sure he has lots of > ebooks. Just not the textbooks he listed." > > > > Can you name a (one) title of an ebook he listed What ebooks did he list? > that you seem to believe he doesn't have it in ebook format? Just name one title..uno. > > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 18:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626B41CF.7F6D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #584457 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. > >>>>>>>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook > >>>>>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe > >>>>>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much > >>>>>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding > >>>>>>>>>> something correctly. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of > >>>>>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. > >>>>>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. > >>>>>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. > >>>>>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have > >>>>>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books": > >>>>>> > >>>>>> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have > >>>>>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these > >>>>>> are actually in your possession. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub > >>>>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in > >>>>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see > >>>>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll > >>>>> explain later why that is important). > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not > >>>> introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I only posted what Ed Lake wrote: > >> > >> That I don’t doubt. I’m sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks > >> he listed. > > > > I'm a little confused about what you wrote: "...sure he has lots of > > ebooks. Just not the textbooks he listed." > > > > > > > > Can you name a (one) title of an ebook he listed > > What ebooks did he list? It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll explain later why that is important). I also have 238 articles in pdf format, which does not include 191 articles in .pdf format that I downloaded from arXiv.org over the years (total: 429). Only 22 of the 429 articles in .pdf format are non-searchable. Another one of the things you can do when you have a spreadsheet list is select out a portion of the list for conversion into html format, which is the format for this web page. I can then display the first 50 books on the list. Like so: Title Author(s) 100 Years of Relativity: Space-Time Structure: Einstein and Beyond Abhay Ashtekar (Editor) A Beginner's Guide to Reality Jim Baggott A First Course in General Relativity Bernard F. Schultz A Pocket Popper Karl Popper A Sophisticate's Primer of Relativity P. W. Bridgman Absurdities in Modern Physics Paul Marmet All Life is Problem Solving Karl Popper An introduction to Mechanics Daniel Kleppner and Robert Kolenkow Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of Science Carl G. Hempel Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists are Gambling Away Their Credibility Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones Begegnungen mit Einstein, von Laue und Planck Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider Beyond Kuhn: Scientific Explanation, Theory Structure, Incommensurability and Physical Necessity Edwin H.-C. Hung Boyle on Fire: The Mechanical Revolution in Scientific Explanation William R. Eaton Causal Physics Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri Causality and Scientific Explanation William A. Wallace College Physics (Eighth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille College Physics (Ninth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille College Physics (Seventh Edition?) Raymond A. Serway, Jerry S. Faughn & Chris Vuille Computational and Geometrical Aspects of on-the-fly Ambiguity Resolution Hasanuddin Zainal Abidin Cosmogenesis: The Growth of Order in the Universe David Layzer Cosmological Special Relativity: The Large-Scale Structure of Space, Time and Velocity Moshe Carmeli Einstein in 90 Minutes John & Mary Gribbin Einstein versus Classical Mechanics Paul Marmet Einstein's Lost Key: How we overlooked the best idea of the 20th century Alexander Unzicker Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics Edited by John Stachel Einstein's Space-Time: An Introduction to Special and General Relativity Rafael Ferraro Endophysics, Time, Quantum and the Subjective Edited by Rosolino Buccheri et al. Essential Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2nd ed) Wolfgang Rindler Everywhere and Everywhen: Adventures in Physics and Philosophy Nick Huggett Experiments in Modern Physics Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World Philip Kitcher Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth Jim Baggott Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe Roger Penrose For the Love of Physics Walter Lewin Foundations of Astronomy (Eleventh Edition) Michael A. Seeds, Dana E. Backman Foundations of Space-Time Theories Edited by John Earman, et al. Foundations of Space-Time Theories: Relativistic Physics and Philosophy of Science Four Decades of Scientific Explanation Wesley C. Salmon From Special Relativity to Feynman Diagrams Riccardo D’Auria and Mario Trigiante Fundamentals of College Physics Peter J. Nolan Fundamentals of Modern Physics Peter J. Nolan Fundamentals of Modern Physics Robert Martin Eisberg Fundamentals of Physics (Eighth Edition) Jearl Walker Fundamentals of Physics (Ninth Edition) Jearl Walker Fundamentals of Physics (Tenth Edition) Jearl Walker Galileo in 90 Minutes John & Mary Gribbin General Relativity Benjamin Crowell General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics Norbert Straumann Global Positioning Systems Directorate Systems Engineering & Integration -- 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 | 2022-04-28 22:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626B7343.3052@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #584460 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> > > >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. > > >>>>>>>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook > > >>>>>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe > > >>>>>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much > > >>>>>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding > > >>>>>>>>>> something correctly. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of > > >>>>>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. > > >>>>>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. > > >>>>>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. > > >>>>>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have > > >>>>>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books": > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have > > >>>>>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these > > >>>>>> are actually in your possession. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub > > >>>>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in > > >>>>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see > > >>>>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll > > >>>>> explain later why that is important). > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not > > >>>> introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so. > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I only posted what Ed Lake wrote: > > >> > > >> That I don’t doubt. I’m sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks > > >> he listed. > > > > > > I'm a little confused about what you wrote: "...sure he has lots of > > > ebooks. Just not the textbooks he listed." > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you name a (one) title of an ebook he listed > > > > What ebooks did he list? > > It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub > format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in > .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see > that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll > explain later why that is important). > > I also have 238 articles in pdf format, which does not include 191 > articles in .pdf format that I downloaded from arXiv.org over the years > (total: 429). Only 22 of the 429 articles in .pdf format are > non-searchable. > > Another one of the things you can do when you have a spreadsheet list is > select out a portion of the list for conversion into html format, which > is the format for this web page. I can then display the first 50 books > on the list. Like so: > > Title > Author(s) > 100 Years of Relativity: Space-Time Structure: Einstein and Beyond > Abhay Ashtekar (Editor) > A Beginner's Guide to Reality Jim Baggott > A First Course in General Relativity Bernard F. Schultz > A Pocket Popper Karl Popper > A Sophisticate's Primer of Relativity P. W. Bridgman > Absurdities in Modern Physics Paul Marmet > All Life is Problem Solving Karl Popper > An introduction to Mechanics Daniel Kleppner and Robert Kolenkow > Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of > Science Carl G. Hempel > Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists are Gambling Away Their > Credibility Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones > Begegnungen mit Einstein, von Laue und Planck Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider > Beyond Kuhn: Scientific Explanation, Theory Structure, > Incommensurability and Physical Necessity Edwin H.-C. Hung > Boyle on Fire: The Mechanical Revolution in Scientific Explanation > William R. Eaton > Causal Physics Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri > Causality and Scientific Explanation William A. Wallace > College Physics (Eighth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille > College Physics (Ninth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille > College Physics (Seventh Edition?) Raymond A. Serway, Jerry S. Faughn & > Chris Vuille > Computational and Geometrical Aspects of on-the-fly Ambiguity > Resolution Hasanuddin Zainal Abidin > Cosmogenesis: The Growth of Order in the Universe > David Layzer > Cosmological Special Relativity: The Large-Scale Structure of Space, > Time and Velocity Moshe Carmeli > Einstein in 90 Minutes John & Mary Gribbin > Einstein versus Classical Mechanics Paul Marmet > Einstein's Lost Key: How we overlooked the best idea of the 20th > century Alexander Unzicker > Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of > Physics Edited by John Stachel > Einstein's Space-Time: An Introduction to Special and General > Relativity Rafael Ferraro > Endophysics, Time, Quantum and the Subjective Edited by Rosolino > Buccheri et al. > Essential Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2nd ed) > Wolfgang Rindler > Everywhere and Everywhen: Adventures in Physics and Philosophy Nick > Huggett > Experiments in Modern Physics > Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World Philip > Kitcher > Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search for > Scientific Truth Jim Baggott > Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe Roger > Penrose > For the Love of Physics Walter Lewin > Foundations of Astronomy (Eleventh Edition) Michael A. Seeds, Dana E. > Backman > Foundations of Space-Time Theories Edited by John Earman, et al. > Foundations of Space-Time Theories: Relativistic Physics and Philosophy > of Science > Four Decades of Scientific Explanation Wesley C. Salmon > From Special Relativity to Feynman Diagrams Riccardo D’Auria and Mario > Trigiante > Fundamentals of College Physics Peter J. Nolan > Fundamentals of Modern Physics Peter J. Nolan > Fundamentals of Modern Physics Robert Martin Eisberg > Fundamentals of Physics (Eighth Edition) Jearl Walker > Fundamentals of Physics (Ninth Edition) Jearl Walker > Fundamentals of Physics (Tenth Edition) Jearl Walker > Galileo in 90 Minutes John & Mary Gribbin > General Relativity Benjamin Crowell > General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics Norbert Straumann > Global Positioning Systems Directorate Systems Engineering & > Integration You also wrote: "You also cite multiple editions of the same textbook, which is a lot to pay for essentially the same content (what changes from edition to edition is mostly the end-of-chapter problems and worked examples, which you do not care about)." But the multiple editions of the same textbooks are in PDF format. and you wanna see them in a wooden bookshelf, still??? WAKE UP! you better start building ebook wooden sheves... you wanna picture of a pdf file on a wooden book shelf???? download Bookshelf 2.0 for Mac. (nice wooden shelves) All of Ed Lake books are ebooks! I bet he knows how to crack an ebook. Hell, I look at that list "Fundamentals of..." textbooks, not only do I see pdf version in different editions, but also Solution Manuals for "Fundamentals of..."! also, Instructor's Solution Manuals for "Fundamentals of..." textbooks. Everybody knows, INSTRUCTORS cannot survive in the world without the Instructor's Solution Manuals for "Fundamentals of..." textbooks. How can an Instructor POSSIBLY Instruct without a solution manual???? It is simply not POSSIBLE. There are just too many stupid teachers nowadays. There is a shortage of labor. Open the borders from Mexico, we need more teachers. Are there any computer programsers that know how to program nowadays? I went to a website they have a paywall over a hundred dollars.. I discovered if you enter any email address everytime you visit, the website does not verify the email address. So, your one only free trial is forever free by simply typing any email address you make up. I guess they have a shortage of good web developers. And they are a website that advertisers on TV! You cannot buy brains if nobody has any brains. If a new ebook will be released by next year.. you can probably download it now.. for free. Information *wishes* to be free. > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge > the unchallengeable. -- 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-29 12:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4gn2c$103s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584460 |
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. >>>>>>>>>>>> No, thatÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs not the right conclusion. If >>>>>>>>>>>> you find that every textbook >>>>>>>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe >>>>>>>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much >>>>>>>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>> something correctly. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of >>>>>>>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. >>>>>>>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? IÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂd like a listing >>>>>>>>>> of the first 30 please. >>>>>>>>>> Note that Brian GreeneÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs The Fabric of >>>>>>>>>> the Cosmos is not a textbook. >>>>>>>>>> HawkingÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have >>>>>>>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books": >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK, so letÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs have a small moment of >>>>>>>> truth-telling here, Ed. You have >>>>>>>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these >>>>>>>> are actually in your possession. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub >>>>>>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in >>>>>>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see >>>>>>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll >>>>>>> explain later why that is important). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not >>>>>> introductory college textbooks. ThereâÃÂÃÂs a reason why that is so. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I only posted what Ed Lake wrote: >>>> >>>> That I donâÂÂt doubt. IâÂÂm sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks >>>> he listed. >>> >>> I'm a little confused about what you wrote: "...sure he has lots of >>> ebooks. Just not the textbooks he listed." >>> >>> >>> >>> Can you name a (one) title of an ebook he listed >> >> What ebooks did he list? > > > It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub > format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in > .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see > that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll > explain later why that is important). > > I also have 238 articles in pdf format, which does not include 191 > articles in .pdf format that I downloaded from arXiv.org over the years > (total: 429). Only 22 of the 429 articles in .pdf format are > non-searchable. > > Another one of the things you can do when you have a spreadsheet list is > select out a portion of the list for conversion into html format, which > is the format for this web page. I can then display the first 50 books > on the list. Like so: Yup. A number of these books are trade books (e.g. Baggott) that are not textbooks but popularizations. A number of them are self-published giveaways (e.g. Kitcher). And a number of them are pirated illegally (e.g. Serway). > > Title > Author(s) > 100 Years of Relativity: Space-Time Structure: Einstein and Beyond > Abhay Ashtekar (Editor) > A Beginner's Guide to Reality Jim Baggott > A First Course in General Relativity Bernard F. Schultz > A Pocket Popper Karl Popper > A Sophisticate's Primer of Relativity P. W. Bridgman > Absurdities in Modern Physics Paul Marmet > All Life is Problem Solving Karl Popper > An introduction to Mechanics Daniel Kleppner and Robert Kolenkow > Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of > Science Carl G. Hempel > Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists are Gambling Away Their > Credibility Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones > Begegnungen mit Einstein, von Laue und Planck Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider > Beyond Kuhn: Scientific Explanation, Theory Structure, > Incommensurability and Physical Necessity Edwin H.-C. Hung > Boyle on Fire: The Mechanical Revolution in Scientific Explanation > William R. Eaton > Causal Physics Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri > Causality and Scientific Explanation William A. Wallace > College Physics (Eighth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille > College Physics (Ninth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille > College Physics (Seventh Edition?) Raymond A. Serway, Jerry S. Faughn & > Chris Vuille > Computational and Geometrical Aspects of on-the-fly Ambiguity > Resolution Hasanuddin Zainal Abidin > Cosmogenesis: The Growth of Order in the Universe > David Layzer > Cosmological Special Relativity: The Large-Scale Structure of Space, > Time and Velocity Moshe Carmeli > Einstein in 90 Minutes John & Mary Gribbin > Einstein versus Classical Mechanics Paul Marmet > Einstein's Lost Key: How we overlooked the best idea of the 20th > century Alexander Unzicker > Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of > Physics Edited by John Stachel > Einstein's Space-Time: An Introduction to Special and General > Relativity Rafael Ferraro > Endophysics, Time, Quantum and the Subjective Edited by Rosolino > Buccheri et al. > Essential Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2nd ed) > Wolfgang Rindler > Everywhere and Everywhen: Adventures in Physics and Philosophy Nick > Huggett > Experiments in Modern Physics > Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World Philip > Kitcher > Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search for > Scientific Truth Jim Baggott > Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe Roger > Penrose > For the Love of Physics Walter Lewin > Foundations of Astronomy (Eleventh Edition) Michael A. Seeds, Dana E. > Backman > Foundations of Space-Time Theories Edited by John Earman, et al. > Foundations of Space-Time Theories: Relativistic Physics and Philosophy > of Science > Four Decades of Scientific Explanation Wesley C. Salmon > From Special Relativity to Feynman Diagrams Riccardo DAuria and Mario > Trigiante > Fundamentals of College Physics Peter J. Nolan > Fundamentals of Modern Physics Peter J. Nolan > Fundamentals of Modern Physics Robert Martin Eisberg > Fundamentals of Physics (Eighth Edition) Jearl Walker > Fundamentals of Physics (Ninth Edition) Jearl Walker > Fundamentals of Physics (Tenth Edition) Jearl Walker > Galileo in 90 Minutes John & Mary Gribbin > General Relativity Benjamin Crowell > General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics Norbert Straumann > Global Positioning Systems Directorate Systems Engineering & > Integration > > > > > > > > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-29 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd6525fa-d7f2-4ca4-8d84-c8082a50fef5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584493 |
El viernes, 29 de abril de 2022 a las 8:52:32 UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com escribió: > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Yup. A number of these books are trade books (e.g. Baggott) that are not > textbooks but popularizations. A number of them are self-published > giveaways (e.g. Kitcher). And a number of them are pirated illegally (e.g. > Serway). There are a few legal sites to look for books and articles. One of them is archive.org, which has books for download or borrowing. Using the search word "relativity" there are 26,548 books and articles listed (for instance see https://ia903103.us.archive.org/13/items/arxiv-1601.04996/1601.04996.pdf for Lectures on General Theory of Relativity from Emil T. Akhmedov). Of course, there are some russian sites that have everything, like the book Gravitation in http://xdel.ru/downloads/lgbooks/Misner%20C.W.%2C%20Thorne%20K.S.%2C%20Wheeler%20J.A.%20Gravitation%20%28Freeman%2C%201973%29%28K%29%28T%29%281304s%29_PGr_.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-29 21:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626CB92E.1B53@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #584509 |
Paparios wrote: > > El viernes, 29 de abril de 2022 a las 8:52:32 UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com escribió: > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > Yup. A number of these books are trade books (e.g. Baggott) that are not > > textbooks but popularizations. A number of them are self-published > > giveaways (e.g. Kitcher). And a number of them are pirated illegally (e.g. > > Serway). > > There are a few legal sites to look for books and articles. One of them is archive.org, which has books for download or borrowing. Using the search word "relativity" there are 26,548 books and articles listed (for instance see > > Of course, there are some russian sites that have everything, like the book Gravitation in http://xdel.ru/downloads/lgbooks/Misner%20C.W.%2C%20Thorne%20K.S.%2C Here is one of many sites https://www.pdfdrive.com/search?q=instructor%27s+solution+manual&pagecount=&pubyear=&searchin=&em= -- 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 | 2022-04-30 12:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626D8A28.798B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #584546 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Paparios wrote: > > > > El viernes, 29 de abril de 2022 a las 8:52:32 UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com escribió: > > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > Yup. A number of these books are trade books (e.g. Baggott) that are not > > > textbooks but popularizations. A number of them are self-published > > > giveaways (e.g. Kitcher). And a number of them are pirated illegally (e.g. > > > Serway). > > > > There are a few legal sites to look for books and articles. One of them is archive.org, which has books for download or borrowing. Using the search word "relativity" there are 26,548 books and articles listed (for instance see > > > > Of course, there are some russian sites that have everything, like the book Gravitation in http://xdel.ru/downloads/lgbooks/Misner%20C.W.%2C%20Thorne%20K.S.% > > Here is one of many sites > > https://www.pdfdrive.com/search?q=instructor%27s+solution+manual&pagecount=&pubyear=&searchin=&em= Now, if you notice search results for : instructor's solution manual https://www.pdfdrive.com/search?q=instructor%27s+solution+manual&pagecount=&pubyear=&searchin=&em= is like it is needed like there is no tomorrow! and if you just searc: solution manual https://www.pdfdrive.com/search?q=+solution+manual&pagecount=&pubyear=&searchin=&em= results jump up dramatically! 4,066 results to 69,523 results found . Of Course the field Physics is always number one. like it is needed like there is no tomorrow! the funny part is the very last book in the results... Does Student Access to Solution Manual Pose a Challenge? What a stupid title! Everyone is looking for Solutions to problems in the world... -- 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 | 2022-04-30 14:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626DAC86.39EC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #584576 |
The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Paparios wrote:
> > >
> > > El viernes, 29 de abril de 2022 a las 8:52:32 UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com escribió:
> > > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yup. A number of these books are trade books (e.g. Baggott) that are not
> > > > textbooks but popularizations. A number of them are self-published
> > > > giveaways (e.g. Kitcher). And a number of them are pirated illegally (e.g.
> > > > Serway).
> > >
> > > There are a few legal sites to look for books and articles. One of them is archive.org, which has books for download or borrowing. Using the search word "relativity" there are 26,548 books and articles listed (for instance see
> > >
> > > Of course, there are some russian sites that have everything, like the book Gravitation in http://xdel.ru/downloads/lgbooks/Misner%20C.W.%2C%20Thorne%20K.S
> >
> > Here is one of many sites
> >
> > https://www.pdfdrive.com/search?q=instructor%27s+solution+manual&pagecount=&pubyear=&searchin=&em=
>
> Now, if you notice search results for : instructor's solution manual
> https://www.pdfdrive.com/search?q=instructor%27s+solution+manual&pagecount=&pubyear=&searchin=&em=
>
> is like it is needed like there is no tomorrow!
>
> and if you just searc: solution manual
>
> https://www.pdfdrive.com/search?q=+solution+manual&pagecount=&pubyear=&searchin=&em=
>
> results jump up dramatically! 4,066 results to 69,523 results found .
>
> Of Course the field Physics is always number one.
>
> like it is needed like there is no tomorrow!
>
> the funny part is the very last book in the results...
>
> Does Student Access to Solution Manual Pose a Challenge?
>
> What a stupid title! Everyone is looking for Solutions to problems in
> the world...
>
How do you get into the best colleges? Use the Solution, ...the backdoor. (you can even have a person take the test for you) solution, solutions, solutions.
If there is no food in the refridgerator, get take out!
solution, solutions, solutions.
Albert Einstein just wants to know what is on God's mind...the rest are just details.
In otherwords, he doesn't want to read the physic book, he wants the answers...the instructor's solution manual.
otherwise he'll just die and never know.
The reason why The Physics Manual solution is number one in results is because...it's TOO FUCKING HARD!!!!
[WHISPER] {i heard that God is STILL working on it...}
--
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 | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 20:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t4clgq$t27$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584282 |
On 4/27/2022 1:22 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > The answer is: The authors of textbooks have THEIR OWN views about how > Relativity works. Sometimes they agree with one another, sometimes they > don't. When they disagree with Einstein, they write what they believe and > claim it is what Einstein meant or wrote. > The answer is: Ed Lake has HIS OWN views about how Relativity works. Sometimes he agrees with others, sometimes he doesn't. When he disagrees with Einstein, he writes what he believes and claims it is what Einstein meant or wrote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 13:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t4buoo$1g7j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584259 |
On 4/27/2022 11:39 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:38:09 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 4/26/2022 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >>>> On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of >>>>> oscillating electric and magnetic fields. >>>> No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually >>>> is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics, >>>> you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously >>>> incorrect statements. >>> >>> Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually >>> every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric >>> and magnetic fields. >> >> NO physics teaches that photons are oscillating E/M fields. >> The closest you'll see is a light WAVE shown as electric and magnetic >> field WAVES at right angles to each other. > > You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. > >> >>>> Hint: electric and magnetic fields are an APPROXIMATION to >>>> the physical situation in which there are trillions and >>>> trillions of photons having the appropriate configuration >>>> to make the approximation valid [#]. E & M fields cannot be >>>> used to model a situation in which there is just a single >>>> photon, or even when there are just a few million of them. >>> >>> It's done every day with radio telescopes and radar guns. >> >> Nope. Radio/microwave photons are so low in energy they aren't >> individually detectable. It is the mass behavior of trillions of photons >> which make radio/microwaves behave so much like the classic wave model >> of light. > > Radio telescopes are dish shaped so they can FOCUS MORE PHOTONS onto > a specific point just as regular telescopes focus photons on your eye. That is a wave effect, BTW. Light telescopes even more so with glass lenses. > The more photons you can focus on a screen, the clearer the object that > emitted the photons will appear on that screen. The bigger the dish, the more > photons you can collect. Or the more wave energy you can focus, easily demonstrated by water waves and a parabolic barrier. > > WAVES are NOT involved. All that is involved is collecting more PHOTONS > so that you can convert them into an IMAGE. The "wave-like properties" of > a photon will define the type of photon. > There are many wave effects which cannot be explained by photons. This isn't an either/or matter. Light is a different category with both particle properties and wave properties.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 13:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t46naa$13tt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583997 |
On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote: >>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the >>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space. >> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly >> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements >> are flatly falsified by aberration. >>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what >>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see. >> >> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically >> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace >> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to >> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and >> engage with the grown-up objective world of science. > > I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And > with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms, > and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line > from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart. Not relevant here, but that's not how light moves through a transparent substance such as glass. > > We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to > move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves > but the point of emission does not, doesn't that mean that the point of emission is > a stationary point in space? No. > >>>> Has your refrigerator moved since yesterday, or is it at the same point in space? >>> My refrigerator is NOT emitting photons into space from millions of miles away!!! >>> How can you bring up such an idiotic argument???? >> I'm asking you to tell me the point in space where your refrigerator was 24 hours ago. >> I ask this question because I don't think you can answer it, and your inability to answer >> it reveals why your ideas on this subject are untenable. >> >> So, I ask you again to tell me: What is the point in space where your refrigerator was >> 24 hours ago? Are you going to base your answer on "what you see"? Or (my prediction) >> are you just going to run away and refuse to answer? > > Your question has nothing to do with my question. The answer to your question is: > 24 hours ago, my refrigerator was 67,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the earth orbits > the sun. And it was 486,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the sun orbits the center of > the Milky Way galaxy. And the Milky Way galaxy is also moving through space, so my > refrigerator was 1,342,161 x 24 miles behind us as a result of that movement. > >> >>> ...light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were >>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope. >> Sure, but it's a different straight line depending on which frame of reference >> you are using, so which frame of reference do you think determines the true >> "point in space"? It has to be the frame at absolute rest... but what frame is >> that? Where was your refrigerator 24 hours ago? You can't answer, right? > > I have only one frame of reference: ME at my location. If an atom emitted another > photon in another direction, that is a DIFFERENT photon. Yes. > AN ATOM CAN ONLY EMIT ONE PHOTON AT A TIME. Not necessarily. A neutral pion decays into two photons at one event, its decay. Both photons are emitted at the same place at the same time, in opposite directions wrt the frame in which the pion is stationary. I know of no reason why atoms couldn't do something similar although I do not know of any. > Presumably, that other photon was ALSO emitted from > a stationary point in space, but it was a DIFFERENT point in space, Not necessarily. If your claim depends on that, it falls apart if we substitute "neutral pion" for "atom". Maybe, see above. > maybe some tiny > fraction of an inch from mine, or maybe millions of miles from mine. > >>> I'm ONLY talking about photons that were emitted by atoms at a STATIONARY >>> POINT IN SPACE and traveled from that point IN A STRAIGHT LINE to my telescope >>> and my eye. >> Regardless of what frame of reference you choose, the light was emitted at >> an event at one location and moved in a straight like to the reception in your >> eye, but the spatial position of the emission event depends on the frame of >> reference, so you cannot infer the absolute origin point merely from your reception. > > Yes, I can. Because, as stated above, another frame of reference would see a > DIFFERENT PHOTON. > >> At best you can infer the origin point in terms of the inertial frame in which you >> are at rest right now, or in which the sun is at rest, or in which the Milky Way is >> at rest, or in which the CMBR is isotropic, etc. > > NONSENSE! The question isn't about inertial frames or anything at rest. Yes it does. The coordinates depend on the frame. Most obvious counterexample is the frame of the supernova remnant in Andromeda. The origin is the remnant itself. Now here you'll respond with your solipsist whine "I DON'T CARE!" But it is still true, and is true for the sun rest frame, Milky Way rest frame etc., whether you care about that or not. > It is > about the POINT IN SPACE where a photon originated that traveled to my eye. > The atom that emitted the photon was moving, but the POINT IN SPACE is > a POINT IN SPACE. And points in space cannot be described as moving, stationary, or having any state of motion. Even if they did, you'd still need to specify stationary with respect to some frame. > And since the photon traveled IN A STRAIGHT LINE from > that point in space to my eye, a journey that took millions of years, Ignoring GR deflections due to mass. May be relevant since Andromeda itself is massive. > that point in > space MUST BE A STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE. How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 14:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93dbfdaa-9648-4134-a298-174dcf2f49bcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584037 |
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > >> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote: > >>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the > >>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space. > >> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly > >> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements > >> are flatly falsified by aberration. > >>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what > >>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see. > >> > >> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically > >> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace > >> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to > >> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and > >> engage with the grown-up objective world of science. > > > > I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And > > with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms, > > and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line > > from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart. > Not relevant here, but that's not how light moves through a transparent > substance such as glass. No one said it was. "In empty space" means "in empty space." > > > > We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to > > move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves > > but the point of emission does not, doesn't that mean that the point of emission is > > a stationary point in space? > No. Why not? > > > >>>> Has your refrigerator moved since yesterday, or is it at the same point in space? > >>> My refrigerator is NOT emitting photons into space from millions of miles away!!! > >>> How can you bring up such an idiotic argument???? > >> I'm asking you to tell me the point in space where your refrigerator was 24 hours ago. > >> I ask this question because I don't think you can answer it, and your inability to answer > >> it reveals why your ideas on this subject are untenable. > >> > >> So, I ask you again to tell me: What is the point in space where your refrigerator was > >> 24 hours ago? Are you going to base your answer on "what you see"? Or (my prediction) > >> are you just going to run away and refuse to answer? > > > > Your question has nothing to do with my question. The answer to your question is: > > 24 hours ago, my refrigerator was 67,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the earth orbits > > the sun. And it was 486,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the sun orbits the center of > > the Milky Way galaxy. And the Milky Way galaxy is also moving through space, so my > > refrigerator was 1,342,161 x 24 miles behind us as a result of that movement. > > > >> > >>> ...light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were > >>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope. > >> Sure, but it's a different straight line depending on which frame of reference > >> you are using, so which frame of reference do you think determines the true > >> "point in space"? It has to be the frame at absolute rest... but what frame is > >> that? Where was your refrigerator 24 hours ago? You can't answer, right? > > > > I have only one frame of reference: ME at my location. If an atom emitted another > > photon in another direction, that is a DIFFERENT photon. > Yes. > > AN ATOM CAN ONLY EMIT ONE PHOTON AT A TIME. > Not necessarily. A neutral pion decays into two photons at one event, > its decay. Both photons are emitted at the same place at the same time, > in opposite directions wrt the frame in which the pion is stationary. I > know of no reason why atoms couldn't do something similar although I do > not know of any. You are talking about decaying pions. Most light we see comes from ATOMS that absorbed more energy than they can hold, and they get rid of that excess energy by emitting photons. That is what the discussion is about. Finding some very rare exception just means you want to be argumentative. (snip more stuff about pions) > >> At best you can infer the origin point in terms of the inertial frame in which you > >> are at rest right now, or in which the sun is at rest, or in which the Milky Way is > >> at rest, or in which the CMBR is isotropic, etc. > > > > NONSENSE! The question isn't about inertial frames or anything at rest. > Yes it does. The coordinates depend on the frame. Most obvious > counterexample is the frame of the supernova remnant in Andromeda. The > origin is the remnant itself. All you are saying is that you only understand mathematics. You cannot comprehend someone who just looks into space and sees a star while knowing that that star is no longer where it appears to be. > > Now here you'll respond with your solipsist whine "I DON'T CARE!" But it > is still true, and is true for the sun rest frame, Milky Way rest frame > etc., whether you care about that or not. > > It is > > about the POINT IN SPACE where a photon originated that traveled to my eye. > > The atom that emitted the photon was moving, but the POINT IN SPACE is > > a POINT IN SPACE. > And points in space cannot be described as moving, stationary, or having > any state of motion. Even if they did, you'd still need to specify > stationary with respect to some frame. > > And since the photon traveled IN A STRAIGHT LINE from > > that point in space to my eye, a journey that took millions of years, > Ignoring GR deflections due to mass. May be relevant since Andromeda > itself is massive. > > that point in > > space MUST BE A STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE. > How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space > (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?" Stationary to NOTHING! EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS! Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t475ln$1afa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584062 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote: >>>>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the >>>>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space. >>>> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly >>>> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements >>>> are flatly falsified by aberration. >>>>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what >>>>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see. >>>> >>>> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically >>>> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace >>>> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to >>>> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and >>>> engage with the grown-up objective world of science. >>> >>> I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And >>> with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms, >>> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line >>> from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart. >> Not relevant here, but that's not how light moves through a transparent >> substance such as glass. > > No one said it was. "In empty space" means "in empty space." > >>> >>> We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to >>> move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves >>> but the point of emission does not, doesn't that mean that the point of emission is >>> a stationary point in space? >> No. > > Why not? > >>> >>>>>> Has your refrigerator moved since yesterday, or is it at the same point in space? >>>>> My refrigerator is NOT emitting photons into space from millions of miles away!!! >>>>> How can you bring up such an idiotic argument???? >>>> I'm asking you to tell me the point in space where your refrigerator was 24 hours ago. >>>> I ask this question because I don't think you can answer it, and your >>>> inability to answer >>>> it reveals why your ideas on this subject are untenable. >>>> >>>> So, I ask you again to tell me: What is the point in space where your refrigerator was >>>> 24 hours ago? Are you going to base your answer on "what you see"? Or (my prediction) >>>> are you just going to run away and refuse to answer? >>> >>> Your question has nothing to do with my question. The answer to your question is: >>> 24 hours ago, my refrigerator was 67,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the earth orbits >>> the sun. And it was 486,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the sun orbits the center of >>> the Milky Way galaxy. And the Milky Way galaxy is also moving through space, so my >>> refrigerator was 1,342,161 x 24 miles behind us as a result of that movement. >>> >>>> >>>>> ...light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were >>>>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope. >>>> Sure, but it's a different straight line depending on which frame of reference >>>> you are using, so which frame of reference do you think determines the true >>>> "point in space"? It has to be the frame at absolute rest... but what frame is >>>> that? Where was your refrigerator 24 hours ago? You can't answer, right? >>> >>> I have only one frame of reference: ME at my location. If an atom emitted another >>> photon in another direction, that is a DIFFERENT photon. >> Yes. >>> AN ATOM CAN ONLY EMIT ONE PHOTON AT A TIME. >> Not necessarily. A neutral pion decays into two photons at one event, >> its decay. Both photons are emitted at the same place at the same time, >> in opposite directions wrt the frame in which the pion is stationary. I >> know of no reason why atoms couldn't do something similar although I do >> not know of any. > > You are talking about decaying pions. Most light we see comes from ATOMS > that absorbed more energy than they can hold, and they get rid of that excess > energy by emitting photons. That is what the discussion is about. Finding > some very rare exception just means you want to be argumentative. On the contrary, the pion decay is a GREAT example of how you can constrain other variables to study a problem. Unlike the emission of atoms, you can know to high precision WHEN the emission happened and WHERE it happened. You also know FOR SURE that the photons came directly from the pion because the pair reconstruct to the rest mass of the pion, and you can’t be sure whether light coming from a group of atoms was directly emitted or scattered or suffered Compton shifts first or what. Yes, it’s a rarer process, but it is a scientifically very valuable process. And with it you can say things about light you CANNOT unambiguously determine from atomic emission without a great deal of effort. This is called science, and experimental design. It’s a critical skill. > > (snip more stuff about pions) > >>>> At best you can infer the origin point in terms of the inertial frame in which you >>>> are at rest right now, or in which the sun is at rest, or in which the Milky Way is >>>> at rest, or in which the CMBR is isotropic, etc. >>> >>> NONSENSE! The question isn't about inertial frames or anything at rest. >> Yes it does. The coordinates depend on the frame. Most obvious >> counterexample is the frame of the supernova remnant in Andromeda. The >> origin is the remnant itself. > > All you are saying is that you only understand mathematics. You cannot > comprehend someone who just looks into space and sees a star while > knowing that that star is no longer where it appears to be. > >> >> Now here you'll respond with your solipsist whine "I DON'T CARE!" But it >> is still true, and is true for the sun rest frame, Milky Way rest frame >> etc., whether you care about that or not. >>> It is >>> about the POINT IN SPACE where a photon originated that traveled to my eye. >>> The atom that emitted the photon was moving, but the POINT IN SPACE is >>> a POINT IN SPACE. >> And points in space cannot be described as moving, stationary, or having >> any state of motion. Even if they did, you'd still need to specify >> stationary with respect to some frame. >>> And since the photon traveled IN A STRAIGHT LINE from >>> that point in space to my eye, a journey that took millions of years, >> Ignoring GR deflections due to mass. May be relevant since Andromeda >> itself is massive. >>> that point in >>> space MUST BE A STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE. >> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space >> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?" > > Stationary to NOTHING! EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING > RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS! > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 18:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t476cd$1i1d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584062 |
On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote: >>>>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the >>>>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space. >>>> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly >>>> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements >>>> are flatly falsified by aberration. >>>>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what >>>>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see. >>>> >>>> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically >>>> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace >>>> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to >>>> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and >>>> engage with the grown-up objective world of science. >>> >>> I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And >>> with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms, >>> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line >>> from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart. >> Not relevant here, but that's not how light moves through a transparent >> substance such as glass. > > No one said it was. "In empty space" means "in empty space." You stated that light traveled in a straight line at c from atom to atom and I pointed out that's not how light in clear substances work. I also stated "not relevant here". > >>> >>> We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to >>> move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves >>> but the point of emission does not, doesn't that mean that the point of emission is >>> a stationary point in space? >> No. > > Why not? 1) No such thing as a "stationary point in space". Einstein from his SR paper: "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, *nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.*" "Stationary", of course, would mean a velocity vector of 0 magnitude. 2) "Stationary" relative to what? You didn't say. > >>> >>>>>> Has your refrigerator moved since yesterday, or is it at the same point in space? >>>>> My refrigerator is NOT emitting photons into space from millions of miles away!!! >>>>> How can you bring up such an idiotic argument???? >>>> I'm asking you to tell me the point in space where your refrigerator was 24 hours ago. >>>> I ask this question because I don't think you can answer it, and your inability to answer >>>> it reveals why your ideas on this subject are untenable. >>>> >>>> So, I ask you again to tell me: What is the point in space where your refrigerator was >>>> 24 hours ago? Are you going to base your answer on "what you see"? Or (my prediction) >>>> are you just going to run away and refuse to answer? >>> >>> Your question has nothing to do with my question. The answer to your question is: >>> 24 hours ago, my refrigerator was 67,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the earth orbits >>> the sun. And it was 486,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the sun orbits the center of >>> the Milky Way galaxy. And the Milky Way galaxy is also moving through space, so my >>> refrigerator was 1,342,161 x 24 miles behind us as a result of that movement. >>> >>>> >>>>> ...light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were >>>>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope. >>>> Sure, but it's a different straight line depending on which frame of reference >>>> you are using, so which frame of reference do you think determines the true >>>> "point in space"? It has to be the frame at absolute rest... but what frame is >>>> that? Where was your refrigerator 24 hours ago? You can't answer, right? >>> >>> I have only one frame of reference: ME at my location. If an atom emitted another >>> photon in another direction, that is a DIFFERENT photon. >> Yes. >>> AN ATOM CAN ONLY EMIT ONE PHOTON AT A TIME. >> Not necessarily. A neutral pion decays into two photons at one event, >> its decay. Both photons are emitted at the same place at the same time, >> in opposite directions wrt the frame in which the pion is stationary. I >> know of no reason why atoms couldn't do something similar although I do >> not know of any. > > You are talking about decaying pions. Most light we see comes from ATOMS > that absorbed more energy than they can hold, and they get rid of that excess > energy by emitting photons. That is what the discussion is about. Finding > some very rare exception just means you want to be argumentative. > > (snip more stuff about pions) > >>>> At best you can infer the origin point in terms of the inertial frame in which you >>>> are at rest right now, or in which the sun is at rest, or in which the Milky Way is >>>> at rest, or in which the CMBR is isotropic, etc. >>> >>> NONSENSE! The question isn't about inertial frames or anything at rest. >> Yes it does. The coordinates depend on the frame. Most obvious >> counterexample is the frame of the supernova remnant in Andromeda. The >> origin is the remnant itself. > > All you are saying is that you only understand mathematics. You cannot > comprehend someone who just looks into space and sees a star while > knowing that that star is no longer where it appears to be. > >> >> Now here you'll respond with your solipsist whine "I DON'T CARE!" But it >> is still true, and is true for the sun rest frame, Milky Way rest frame >> etc., whether you care about that or not. >>> It is >>> about the POINT IN SPACE where a photon originated that traveled to my eye. >>> The atom that emitted the photon was moving, but the POINT IN SPACE is >>> a POINT IN SPACE. >> And points in space cannot be described as moving, stationary, or having >> any state of motion. Even if they did, you'd still need to specify >> stationary with respect to some frame. >>> And since the photon traveled IN A STRAIGHT LINE from >>> that point in space to my eye, a journey that took millions of years, >> Ignoring GR deflections due to mass. May be relevant since Andromeda >> itself is massive. >>> that point in >>> space MUST BE A STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE. >> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space >> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?" > > Stationary to NOTHING! EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING > RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS! > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 08:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26281cb2-0f65-406f-9f14-f712bb6b41fdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584069 |
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:12:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > >>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote: > >>>>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the > >>>>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space. > >>>> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly > >>>> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements > >>>> are flatly falsified by aberration. > >>>>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what > >>>>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see. > >>>> > >>>> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically > >>>> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace > >>>> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to > >>>> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and > >>>> engage with the grown-up objective world of science. > >>> > >>> I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And > >>> with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms, > >>> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line > >>> from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart. > >> Not relevant here, but that's not how light moves through a transparent > >> substance such as glass. > > > > No one said it was. "In empty space" means "in empty space." > You stated that light traveled in a straight line at c from atom to atom > and I pointed out that's not how light in clear substances work. I also > stated "not relevant here". If it's not relevant, why mention it? > > > >>> > >>> We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to > >>> move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves > >>> but the point of emission does not, doesn't that mean that the point of emission is > >>> a stationary point in space? > >> No. > > > > Why not? > 1) No such thing as a "stationary point in space". Einstein from his SR > paper: "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, *nor > assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > electromagnetic processes take place.*" > > "Stationary", of course, would mean a velocity vector of 0 magnitude. > > 2) "Stationary" relative to what? You didn't say. Stationary relative to all other stationary points in space. It's a point in space with NO "special properties." And there is no specific point in empty space where it happens. It happens wherever and whenever an atom emits a photon. Ed (snip)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 17:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t49okv$1k64$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584123 |
On 4/26/2022 11:14 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:12:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote: >>>>>>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the >>>>>>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space. >>>>>> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly >>>>>> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements >>>>>> are flatly falsified by aberration. >>>>>>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what >>>>>>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see. >>>>>> >>>>>> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically >>>>>> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace >>>>>> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to >>>>>> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and >>>>>> engage with the grown-up objective world of science. >>>>> >>>>> I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And >>>>> with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms, >>>>> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line >>>>> from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart. >>>> Not relevant here, but that's not how light moves through a transparent >>>> substance such as glass. >>> >>> No one said it was. "In empty space" means "in empty space." >> You stated that light traveled in a straight line at c from atom to atom >> and I pointed out that's not how light in clear substances work. I also >> stated "not relevant here". > > If it's not relevant, why mention it? YOU mentioned it! >>> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a >>> straight line from one atom to another atom > >>> >>>>> >>>>> We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to >>>>> move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves >>>>> but the point of emission does not, doesn't that mean that the point of emission is >>>>> a stationary point in space? >>>> No. >>> >>> Why not? >> 1) No such thing as a "stationary point in space". Einstein from his SR >> paper: "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be >> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require >> an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, *nor >> assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which >> electromagnetic processes take place.*" >> >> "Stationary", of course, would mean a velocity vector of 0 magnitude. >> >> 2) "Stationary" relative to what? You didn't say. > > Stationary relative to all other stationary points in space. What are "all other stationary points in space" ? You are defining something in terms of itself as well as coming up with a "preferred" frame, in violation of the first postulate. > It's a point in space with NO "special properties." Yes it does. It is "stationary" with respect to "NOTHING" or to all other "stationary points in space", depending on which of your statement to believe. These points have the special property of being "stationary", and in another post you state it's where "time runs fastest". > And there is no specific point in empty space where it happens. > It happens wherever and whenever an atom emits a photon. Yet you claim it's "stationary".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 07:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3449ab23-591b-47fa-8388-1269dc7364d6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584179 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:36:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/26/2022 11:14 AM, Ed Lake wrote: (snip) > >> "Stationary", of course, would mean a velocity vector of 0 magnitude. > >> > >> 2) "Stationary" relative to what? You didn't say. > > > > Stationary relative to all other stationary points in space. > > What are "all other stationary points in space" ? Every photon that is emitted is emitted from a stationary point in space. And every stationary point in space is, of course, stationary relative to every other stationary point in space. > > You are defining something in terms of itself as well as coming up with > a "preferred" frame, in violation of the first postulate. It has nothing to do with the first postulate. And the first postulate says nothing about any preferred frame. The two postulates together are about TIME DILATION. The second postulate BY ITSELF does not involve time dilation. It is what we are discussing. > > > It's a point in space with NO "special properties." > > Yes it does. It is "stationary" with respect to "NOTHING" or to all > other "stationary points in space", depending on which of your statement > to believe. These points have the special property of being > "stationary", and in another post you state it's where "time runs fastest". But it has no special properties. It is just empty space. The "special property" isn't IN empty space. It is how light works. When an atom emits a photon, that photon is emitted from a stationary point in space. The atom moves on, but the photon travels away in a straight line from that stationary point in space where it was emitted. If the atom emits another photon, that photon is also emitted from a stationary point in space - A DIFFERENT stationary point in space unless the atom is somehow also stationary. ALL the stars we see in the universe we see because the stars emitted photons from stationary points in space. How do we know the point of emission is stationary? Because the star moved on, but the path of the photon traces back to that stationary point in space. If it is not stationary, how can the path trace back to it in a straight line? > > > And there is no specific point in empty space where it happens. > > It happens wherever and whenever an atom emits a photon. > > Yet you claim it's "stationary". Logically, it MUST be stationary. If it isn't, then we wouldn't be able to trace a photon back in a straight line to its point of origin. And, logically, it MUST be where time ticks fastest, because time ticks slower for everything that is moving relative to that stationary point. And the faster it moves, the slower time passes for that object. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 14:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t4c1d9$pon$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584253 |
On 4/27/2022 10:50 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:36:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 4/26/2022 11:14 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > (snip) >>>> "Stationary", of course, would mean a velocity vector of 0 magnitude. >>>> >>>> 2) "Stationary" relative to what? You didn't say. >>> >>> Stationary relative to all other stationary points in space. >> >> What are "all other stationary points in space" ? > > Every photon that is emitted is emitted from a stationary point in space. > And every stationary point in space is, of course, stationary relative to > every other stationary point in space. And once again, you define "stationary point in space" in terms of itself. > >> >> You are defining something in terms of itself as well as coming up with >> a "preferred" frame, in violation of the first postulate. > > It has nothing to do with the first postulate. It certainly does. You have created an entire "special" category, "stationary" space, with a unique property, which can be detected by experiment. > And the first postulate says > nothing about any preferred frame. It's all about there are NO preferred frames, the laws of physics are the same everywhere and everywhen. > The two postulates together are > about TIME DILATION. No, but he is able to derive time dilation from the postulates. And he does. > The second postulate BY ITSELF does not involve > time dilation. It is what we are discussing. This entire topic is about "Stationary Points in Space", and you created it. > >> >>> It's a point in space with NO "special properties." >> >> Yes it does. It is "stationary" with respect to "NOTHING" or to all >> other "stationary points in space", depending on which of your statement >> to believe. These points have the special property of being >> "stationary", and in another post you state it's where "time runs fastest". > > But it has no special properties. It is just empty space. The "special property" > isn't IN empty space. It certainly does, you have coordinates, and you say it belongs to this "stationary" category, and thus is special. > It is how light works. When an atom emits a photon, > that photon is emitted from a stationary point in space. There you go again. The photon is emitted from the atom, anyway. > The atom moves > on, but the photon travels away in a straight line from that stationary point > in space where it was emitted. If the atom emits another photon, that > photon is also emitted from a stationary point in space - A DIFFERENT > stationary point in space unless the atom is somehow also stationary. Stationary relative to what? > ALL the stars we see in the universe we see because the stars emitted > photons from stationary points in space. Photons are emitted by atoms/plasma of the stars, not empty points. > > How do we know the point of emission is stationary? Because the star > moved on, but the path of the photon traces back to that stationary point in > space. You pretty much defined "stationary" relative to itself. Again. Besides, you allowed for only two possibilities, "moving" and "stationary". > If it is not stationary, how can the path trace back to it in a straight > line? (ignoring geodesic vs. straight) That would be a new trip to some point where the supernova no longer is. If you go back in time, you arrive at the supernova when it blows up. > >> >>> And there is no specific point in empty space where it happens. >>> It happens wherever and whenever an atom emits a photon. >> >> Yet you claim it's "stationary". > > Logically, it MUST be stationary. If it isn't, then we wouldn't be able to > trace a photon back in a straight line to its point of origin. Now I am not sure your "point of origin" even makes sense. If you trace the photon back, you arrive at the supernova. > > And, logically, it MUST be where time ticks fastest, because time ticks > slower for everything that is moving relative to that stationary point. Bzzzzt. Fails first postulate. You have conjured up a special frame, one in which time moves fastest. Are you claiming the first postulate is wrong and therefore all of SR in the 1905 paper is irrelevant? If so, just say so. > And > the faster it moves, the slower time passes for that object. > Which disagrees with Einstein's SR conclusions, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 18:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t477jk$1v0a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584062 |
On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> AN ATOM CAN ONLY EMIT ONE PHOTON AT A TIME. >> Not necessarily. A neutral pion decays into two photons at one event, >> its decay. Both photons are emitted at the same place at the same time, >> in opposite directions wrt the frame in which the pion is stationary. I >> know of no reason why atoms couldn't do something similar although I do >> not know of any. > > You are talking about decaying pions. Most light we see comes from ATOMS > that absorbed more energy than they can hold, and they get rid of that excess > energy by emitting photons. I pointed out a case where two photons ARE emitted at the same place and the same time, so it definitely CAN happen. And you made an unsupported assertion that atoms can emit only one photon at a time. Why do you claim that? > That is what the discussion is about. Finding > some very rare exception just means you want to be argumentative. > > (snip more stuff about pions) > >>> And since the photon traveled IN A STRAIGHT LINE from >>> that point in space to my eye, a journey that took millions of years, >> Ignoring GR deflections due to mass. May be relevant since Andromeda >> itself is massive. >>> that point in >>> space MUST BE A STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE. You came up with some conclusion without providing any evidence or even an unsupported assertion as to WHY it "MUST" be stationary. >> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space >> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?" > > Stationary to NOTHING! That makes zero sense. None whatsoever. Everything is relative. > EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING > RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS! Then those "stationary" points are moving relative to everything else in the universe, in an equal and opposite direction. I think you need a better description of those points other than "stationary". > > Ed It appears to me that your biggest problem is that you simply don't grasp the concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics. You don't understand that part of physics at all. Instead you are too stubborn to even attempt to learn about it, and would rather blame your boogeymen for them, those evil "mathematicians" 🧟♂️. And add to your manifesto, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 23:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan$2d6bc$662f2bef$671dbcf8$cc7e5472@xurrppjn.cn> |
| In reply to | #584071 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > I pointed out a case where two photons ARE emitted at the same place and > the same time, so it definitely CAN happen. And you made an unsupported > assertion that atoms can emit only one photon at a time. Why do you > claim that? physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web