Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #611255 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-05-20 21:46 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-05-23 01:08 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-20 21:46 +0000
Re: Clarification of Bartholomew Ramaker <aaeo@koawrwel.ra> - 2023-05-20 22:26 +0000
Re: Clarification of whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-20 18:28 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-05-21 00:28 +0200
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 15:45 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-21 03:14 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-20 22:54 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 21:05 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 21:40 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-22 02:11 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 20:22 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 00:54 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-23 19:50 -0400
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-24 00:38 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-24 01:54 -0400
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Celedonio Seelen <ecoe@nccscnlc.oe> - 2023-05-24 22:07 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-24 20:12 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-25 23:06 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Duston Haanraats <atsu@assahdta.ad> - 2023-05-25 23:15 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-25 19:41 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-25 19:22 -0400
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-25 19:40 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-26 02:51 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-26 00:07 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 14:03 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-27 00:11 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-26 19:24 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-27 23:17 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-27 20:26 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 19:27 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-28 10:56 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 10:56 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 11:24 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-29 00:25 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 20:51 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 21:14 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-28 10:48 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 10:51 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-29 00:32 +0000
Uncle Jane Fails Again (was Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 20:45 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 18:48 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 09:00 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-29 00:39 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 20:47 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 21:18 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 21:53 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-20 18:27 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-21 03:22 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-20 23:14 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 00:45 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-22 20:14 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 05:39 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-23 10:09 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-24 00:40 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-23 21:16 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 17:09 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-05-21 02:16 +0200
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-21 02:58 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-21 03:24 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 21:20 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 00:56 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-22 20:29 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 05:47 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 21:32 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 21:52 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-05-21 12:51 +0300
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-21 15:44 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-05-22 10:17 +0300
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 01:21 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-21 15:37 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 01:47 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-24 12:47 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-25 00:54 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-25 13:52 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 12:02 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-25 23:17 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-05 15:12 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-07 02:21 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-07 12:31 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-07 12:04 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-08 05:32 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-10 12:45 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-12 07:37 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-12 23:46 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-12 18:59 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-12 19:16 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-12 21:40 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-12 21:11 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <jane@home.com> - 2023-06-13 11:32 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-13 07:43 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 13:47 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-14 00:34 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 18:17 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Androcles Ghost <AG@home.com> - 2023-06-14 09:39 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 08:07 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-14 10:29 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-15 09:45 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 12:08 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-16 03:56 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 08:55 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-15 08:07 -0500
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 12:09 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-16 04:22 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 08:58 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-17 00:32 +0000
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 18:06 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 08:17 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 07:50 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 13:05 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 14:06 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 15:10 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 22:34 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 19:51 -0700
Re: Clarification of the Frequency of Light Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 01:08 +0000
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 00:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17619fc5f6a54d8c$1870$468409$cbd341d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611290 |
On Sat, 20 May 2023 21:20:29 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:24:50 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> On Sat, 20 May 2023 17:09:53 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: >> > >> > Have you run across your Uncle John's post here where he says "I am a >> > crank with a capital 'C' " yet? > >> Dr. John Parker was far more qualified to give opinions than you will >> ever be. > > "DR" John Parker? AYFKM? Now you have gone way too far! He admitted that > he was a crank with a Capital "C"! Besides, he would be the first to > tell *you* that opinions are worthless in science... evidence rules, and > so far, You've got none! John Parker was no scientist! He had a doctorate in radio engineering. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-22 20:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kd2j8jF95rhU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611388 |
On 5/22/2023 7:56 PM, Jane wrote: > On Sat, 20 May 2023 21:20:29 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > >> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:24:50 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>> On Sat, 20 May 2023 17:09:53 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > >>>> >>>> Have you run across your Uncle John's post here where he says "I am a >>>> crank with a capital 'C' " yet? >> >>> Dr. John Parker was far more qualified to give opinions than you will >>> ever be. >> >> "DR" John Parker? AYFKM? Now you have gone way too far! He admitted that >> he was a crank with a Capital "C"! Besides, he would be the first to >> tell *you* that opinions are worthless in science... evidence rules, and >> so far, You've got none! John Parker was no scientist! > > He had a doctorate in radio engineering. Doctorates are issued for the sole purpose of creating university chair endowments. A few years ago I was assigned to a "doctor of physical therapy" for problems with my back. I have, in the past, gotten better results from an individual with a 2 year community college education. No longer is a "doctorate" an assurance of the most advanced education in a particular field. Don't forget for a second that your nemesis Einstein also had a doctorate, a doctorate that you disrespect, you say for cause but you have no evidence. Why do you think "publish or perish" is a "e rigueur necessity? Please provide a link to your Uncle John's peer reviewed publications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 05:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1761af9eb4e3b9ea$32$833924$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611392 |
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:29:52 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/22/2023 7:56 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Sat, 20 May 2023 21:20:29 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > > Doctorates are issued for the sole purpose of creating university chair > endowments. A few years ago I was assigned to a "doctor of physical > therapy" for problems with my back. I have, in the past, gotten better > results from an individual with a 2 year community college education. No > longer is a "doctorate" an assurance of the most advanced education in a > particular field. No it isn't like the old days. > Don't forget for a second that your nemesis Einstein > also had a doctorate, a doctorate that you disrespect, you say for cause > but you have no evidence. He didn't get it for relativity. His others were honorary...given by people like the hoaxer Albert Michelson > Why do you think "publish or perish" is a "e rigueur necessity? > > Please provide a link to your Uncle John's peer reviewed publications. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-22 21:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05416ac0-cb79-4ad4-8555-a3c87cd697den@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611388 |
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 5:57:52 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > On Sat, 20 May 2023 21:20:29 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:24:50 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >> On Sat, 20 May 2023 17:09:53 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > > >> > > >> > Have you run across your Uncle John's post here where he says "I am a > >> > crank with a capital 'C' " yet? > > > >> Dr. John Parker was far more qualified to give opinions than you will > >> ever be. > > > > "DR" John Parker? AYFKM? Now you have gone way too far! He admitted that > > he was a crank with a Capital "C"! Besides, he would be the first to > > tell *you* that opinions are worthless in science... evidence rules, and > > so far, You've got none! John Parker was no scientist! > He had a doctorate in radio engineering. Highly unlikely... but it matters not. Where I worked we never gave the engineers a coffee break because it took too long to re-train them... engineers are mostly by the book, to find the solution to a problem you get out the book and find the appropriate formula... not much thinking required...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-22 21:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf78985b-e630-44ef-90fc-c145daf7ee2bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611407 |
On Tuesday, 23 May 2023 at 06:32:51 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 5:57:52 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > On Sat, 20 May 2023 21:20:29 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:24:50 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > >> On Sat, 20 May 2023 17:09:53 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > >> > > > >> > Have you run across your Uncle John's post here where he says "I am a > > >> > crank with a capital 'C' " yet? > > > > > >> Dr. John Parker was far more qualified to give opinions than you will > > >> ever be. > > > > > > "DR" John Parker? AYFKM? Now you have gone way too far! He admitted that > > > he was a crank with a Capital "C"! Besides, he would be the first to > > > tell *you* that opinions are worthless in science... evidence rules, and > > > so far, You've got none! John Parker was no scientist! > > > He had a doctorate in radio engineering. > Highly unlikely... but it matters not. Where I worked we never gave the engineers a coffee break because it took too long to re-train them... engineers are mostly by the book, to find the solution to a problem you get out the book and find the appropriate formula... not much thinking required... And you're to mumble inconsistently, make wise faces and cast insults and slanders on others. That's what your Shit has trained you for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-21 12:51 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <u4cpjc$1hbic$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #611255 |
On 2023-05-20 21:46:47 +0000, Jane said: > The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission rate at > the source', c/λ. More often it is defined as the wave arrival rate. And there is no c or λ in the definition. > Light's arrival rate at any object which is at rest with > the source has the same value. Correct, so it is not really important which one is used as the definition. > To be consistent, the frequency of light arriving at an object which is > moving at speed v relative to the source must therefore be (c+v)/λ. That does not follow. The frequency must be different but the eifference may be (and actually is) different. > It is ignorance of this fact that caused Albert Michelson to make an > absolute fool of himself when he performed his moving mirror experiment in > 1913 in the hope of rescuing Einstein from threatening obscurity. If you mean the experiment https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light then you note that Michelson discusses reflections from moving mirrors. There are two mirrors moving in opposite directions, so one would expect that the effects cancel. No frequency is measured in the experiment. Instead, the experiment measures the difference in the number of wavelengths in the two directions. > It is > also the mistake made by those who claim Sagnac refutes Newton's Ballistic > theory...and by many other people regularly. If you think that the original or usual analysis of the experiments is incorrect then show us how they should be analyzed. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-21 15:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <zP2dnch2iJYwH_f5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #611300 |
On 5/21/23 4:51 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2023-05-20 21:46:47 +0000, Jane said: >> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave >> emission rate at the source', c/λ. > > More often it is defined as the wave arrival rate. And there is no c > or λ in the definition. Neither is true. Frequency and wavelength are defined IN A MODEL. Their meanings cannot be divorced from the model. See my reply to the original post in this thread for how they are defined in classical electrodynamics and QED (the only valid models we currently have that apply to light). (QED is incorporated as part of the standard model.) Jane doesn't have a model, she just has empty words. Don't be like her. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-22 10:17 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <u4f4tr$23s7c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #611328 |
On 2023-05-21 20:44:29 +0000, Tom Roberts said: > On 5/21/23 4:51 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2023-05-20 21:46:47 +0000, Jane said: >>> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave >>> emission rate at the source', c/λ. >> >> More often it is defined as the wave arrival rate. And there is no c or >> λ in the definition. > > Neither is true. > > Frequency and wavelength are defined IN A MODEL. Their meanings cannot > be divorced from the model. See my reply to the original post in this > thread for how they are defined in classical electrodynamics and QED > (the only valid models we currently have that apply to light). > > (QED is incorporated as part of the standard model.) > > Jane doesn't have a model, she just has empty words. Don't be like her. A monochromatic light has the same frequency in classical electrodynamics as in QED, so it is independent of the model. Wavelength and frequency can be defined with measurement procedures like counting and timing events or measurement of interference patterns. The results of those measurement don't depend on model. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 01:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1761a119b2d8cebe$1872$468409$cbd341d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611328 |
On Sun, 21 May 2023 15:44:29 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 5/21/23 4:51 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2023-05-20 21:46:47 +0000, Jane said: >>> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission >>> rate at the source', c/λ. >> >> More often it is defined as the wave arrival rate. And there is no c or >> λ in the definition. > > Neither is true. > > Frequency and wavelength are defined IN A MODEL. Their meanings cannot > be divorced from the model. See my reply to the original post in this > thread for how they are defined in classical electrodynamics and QED > (the only valid models we currently have that apply to light). Tom, the model is actually specified by the definition of frequency, c/λ. It has one and only one meaning...WAVE EMISSION RATE from a source. On reaching a moving receiver, the definition according to the same model is clearly (c+v)/λ. Both frequencies are just once-off numbers. They are not continuous oscillations. > (QED is incorporated as part of the standard model.) > > Jane doesn't have a model, she just has empty words. Don't be like her. The model is obvious....as described above....a wavelike object departing from a source (or passing a fixed point.)..in accordance with the TWE. > Tom Roberts -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-21 15:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <zP2dncl2iJaTHPf5nZ2dnZfqlJz8fwAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #611255 |
On 5/20/23 4:46 PM, Jane wrote:
> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as [... incorrect]
Nope.
In classical electrodynamics, a monochromatic plane-wave light beam can
be modeled as a traveling wave (by convention, take the real part):
E = E0 exp(-i(k.r - ωt) + φ)
B = B0 exp(-i(k.r - ωt) + φ)
(relative to an inertial frame, r is the 3-vector position, t is the
time coordinate, E and B are the electric and magnetic fields, k is the
wave 3-vector, ω is angular frequency, φ is the initial phase; E0 and B0
are constant)
Its wavelength is:
λ = 2pi/|k|
It frequency is:
f = ω/2pi
Your attempt to single out wavelength as quite different from frequency
fails -- they appear in the model in the same way (the minor differences
are due to the units we use, not anything fundamental).
In QED, our best theory of electrodynamics, one cannot in general assign
either frequency or wavelength to a light beam. One can only do so when
classical electrodynamics is a good model, and the beam satisfies the
requirements for a monochromatic plane-wave light beam.
> [... further nonsense based on the above error]
You fail to understand the purpose of science in general, and physics in
particular: we are developing MODELS of various aspects of the world we
inhabit. Concepts like "frequency" and "wavelength" cannot be understood
outside of a specific model. You have no model, just a bunch of words.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 01:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1761a2855bf51478$1873$468409$cbd341d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611327 |
On Sun, 21 May 2023 15:37:34 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 5/20/23 4:46 PM, Jane wrote: >> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as [... incorrect] > Nope. > > In classical electrodynamics, a monochromatic plane-wave light beam can > be modeled as a traveling wave (by convention, take the real part): > > E = E0 exp(-i(k.r - ωt) + φ) > B = B0 exp(-i(k.r - ωt) + φ) > (relative to an inertial frame, r is the 3-vector position, t is the > time coordinate, E and B are the electric and magnetic fields, k is the > wave 3-vector, ω is angular frequency, φ is the initial phase; E0 and B0 > are constant) > > Its wavelength is: > λ = 2pi/|k| > It frequency is: > f = ω/2pi > > Your attempt to single out wavelength as quite different from frequency > fails -- they appear in the model in the same way (the minor differences > are due to the units we use, not anything fundamental). Tom, in the case of radio, we know that an Efield signal moves at c from its source....(even if we are not quite sure why)....We know the frequency f of the applied E field. We therefore know the wavelength λ of the signal is determined by the first cycle and is c/f. The B field is induced and naturally follows. What is more, like all lengths, λ has the same value in all frames (similar to ocean waves)... Therefore assuming nothing else causes that wavelength to change during transit, the arrival frequency will obviously be (c+v)/λ. We can probably assume that the same applies to light. > In QED, our best theory of electrodynamics, one cannot in general assign > either frequency or wavelength to a light beam. One can only do so when > classical electrodynamics is a good model, and the beam satisfies the > requirements for a monochromatic plane-wave light beam. Well we have every reason to believe that the wavelength of any particular monchromatic light is 100% consistent, at least at its source. If SR was true, there would be an immediate Doppler shift in wavelength if the source was moving, in a particular frame. >> [... further nonsense based on the above error] > > You fail to understand the purpose of science in general, and physics in > particular: we are developing MODELS of various aspects of the world we > inhabit. Concepts like "frequency" and "wavelength" cannot be understood > outside of a specific model. You have no model, just a bunch of words. Tom instead of carrying on with your pedantic nonsense, why don't you just admit that I am right? > Tom Roberts -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-24 12:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8vOdnaHT8bE30PP5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #611393 |
On 5/22/23 8:47 PM, Jane wrote: > On Sun, 21 May 2023 15:37:34 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 5/20/23 4:46 PM, Jane wrote: >>> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as [... incorrect] >> Nope. >> In classical electrodynamics, a monochromatic plane-wave light beam can >> be modeled as a traveling wave (by convention, take the real part): >> E = E0 exp(-i(k.r - ωt) + φ) >> B = B0 exp(-i(k.r - ωt) + φ) >> (relative to an inertial frame, r is the 3-vector position, t is the >> time coordinate, E and B are the electric and magnetic fields, k is the >> wave 3-vector, ω is angular frequency, φ is the initial phase; E0 and B0 >> are constant) >> Its wavelength is: >> λ = 2pi/|k| >> It frequency is: >> f = ω/2pi >> Your attempt to single out wavelength as quite different from frequency >> fails -- they appear in the model in the same way (the minor differences >> are due to the units we use, not anything fundamental). > > Tom, in the case of radio, we know that an Efield signal moves at c from > its source....(even if we are not quite sure why). In classical electrodynamics (CE) we DO know why EM waves move with speed c relative to the inertial rest frame of the source (in vacuum) -- because that's what the CE wave equation requires. Of course this is valid in any inertial frame, not just the rest frame of the source. YOU are "not quite sure why" because YOU have no model, just a bunch of vague words. > We know the > frequency f of the applied E field. We therefore know the wavelength λ of > the signal is determined by the first cycle and is c/f. The B field is > induced and naturally follows. This is a bit garbled, but not wrong in CE. But your claims are inconsistent with CE, so what model are YOU using (instead of CE)? > What is more, like all lengths, λ has the same value in all frames > (similar to ocean waves)... That is a claim you must support. The annual Doppler effect shows that λ of a monochromatic light ray from every distant astronomical object does vary with the earth's orbit as it varies its rest frame. So your claim here is refuted experimentally. As for ocean waves, at the speeds reachable by observers near the ocean, their wavelength does not vary by a measurable amount. But that is not SR. You are ASSUMING that your very limited experience on earth holds for all possible speeds -- that is NOT science. > Therefore assuming nothing else causes that wavelength to change during > transit, [...] WHY would one assume that??? That is something that YOU must establish, in order to support your claim in your previous sentence. > If SR was true, there would be an immediate Doppler shift in wavelength > if the source was moving, in a particular frame. Yes. And that is what is observed. It's just that YOU have no experience with such things, and you ASSUME that your limited experience holds everywhere -- that is NOT science. The only reason you can sustain your fantasy is that to lowest order in v/c, the relativistic Doppler shift for frequency is the same as the (pre-SR) formula you use. You just ignore the FACT that wavelength is affected as well. Note there are experiments that use particles moving at an appreciable fraction of c relative to the lab, and these show that one must use the SR formula for frequency. Kaivola et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 no. 4 (1985), pg 255. McGowan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 no. 3 (1993), pg 251. Olin et al., Phys. Rev. D8 no. 6 (1973), pg 1633. Mandelberg and Witten, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 52, pg 529 (1962). > the model is actually specified by the definition of frequency, c/λ. > It has one and only one meaning...WAVE EMISSION RATE from a source. On > reaching a moving receiver, the definition according to the same model > is clearly (c+v)/λ. Both frequencies are just once-off numbers. They are > not continuous oscillations. You CLEARLY do not understand what is meant by "model" in modern physics. Classical electrodynamics (CE) is a model, your vague words and hand-waving are not. Since you make claims inconsistent with CE, you must replace all of CE with something else; just prattling on and on about "waves" is woefully insufficient. Apparently you haven't a clue about what that entails. As I keep saying, you REALLY need to learn basic physics and the experimental record. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-25 00:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17623cd57df46965$1$1232167$c3d349d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611505 |
On Wed, 24 May 2023 12:47:22 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 5/22/23 8:47 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Sun, 21 May 2023 15:37:34 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 5/20/23 4:46 PM, Jane wrote: >>>> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as [... incorrect] >>> Nope. >>> In classical electrodynamics, a monochromatic plane-wave light beam >>> can be modeled as a traveling wave (by convention, take the real >>> part): >>> E = E0 exp(-i(k.r - ωt) + φ) >>> B = B0 exp(-i(k.r - ωt) + φ) >>> (relative to an inertial frame, r is the 3-vector position, t is the >>> time coordinate, E and B are the electric and magnetic fields, k is >>> the wave 3-vector, ω is angular frequency, φ is the initial phase; E0 >>> and B0 are constant) >>> Its wavelength is: >>> λ = 2pi/|k| >>> It frequency is: >>> f = ω/2pi >>> Your attempt to single out wavelength as quite different from >>> frequency fails -- they appear in the model in the same way (the minor >>> differences are due to the units we use, not anything fundamental). >> >> Tom, in the case of radio, we know that an Efield signal moves at c >> from its source....(even if we are not quite sure why). > > In classical electrodynamics (CE) we DO know why EM waves move with > speed c relative to the inertial rest frame of the source (in vacuum) -- > because that's what the CE wave equation requires. Of course this is > valid in any inertial frame, not just the rest frame of the source. > > YOU are "not quite sure why" because YOU have no model, just a bunch of > vague words. My model it that of a radio signal and Maxwell's formulae. I am not convinced it applies to visible light because there is no obvious equivalent of the AC applied to an antenna. If you know of one then you should tell the world about it. >> We know the frequency f of the applied E field. We therefore know the >> wavelength λ of the signal is determined by the first cycle and is c/f. >> The B field is induced and naturally follows. > > This is a bit garbled, but not wrong in CE. But your claims are > inconsistent with CE, so what model are YOU using (instead of CE)? The correct model..one that does not require the existence of an ether. >> What is more, like all lengths, λ has the same value in all frames >> (similar to ocean waves)... > > That is a claim you must support. The annual Doppler effect shows that λ > of a monochromatic light ray from every distant astronomical object does > vary with the earth's orbit as it varies its rest frame. So your claim > here is refuted experimentally. No Tommy. What is measured is essentially wave arrival rate, which varies as (c+v)/λ > As for ocean waves, at the speeds reachable by observers near the ocean, > their wavelength does not vary by a measurable amount. But that is not > SR. You are ASSUMING that your very limited experience on earth holds > for all possible speeds -- that is NOT science. No Tommy, a long rod could be connected to the crests of a ocean wave. It would not change length just because differently moving observers went past. It defines an absolute length. One that is the same in all frames.. >> Therefore assuming nothing else causes that wavelength to change during >> transit, [...] > > WHY would one assume that??? That is something that YOU must establish, > in order to support your claim in your previous sentence. > >> If SR was true, there would be an immediate Doppler shift in wavelength >> if the source was moving, in a particular frame. > And that is what is observed. It is not what is observed. Wavelength is not affected by source movement relative to anything. Its only reference is the source itself. Like all lengths, it DEFINES an absolute spatial interval, which is the same in all frames.. > It's just that YOU have no experience > with such things, and you ASSUME that your limited experience holds > everywhere -- that is NOT science. > > The only reason you can sustain your fantasy is that to lowest order in > v/c, the relativistic Doppler shift for frequency is the same as the > (pre-SR) formula you use. You just ignore the FACT that wavelength is > affected as well. Tommy, Einstein's version of relativity relies entirely on the existence of an ether. Since that is not the case, there is no point in monotonously quoting its predictions when SR is obviously nothing but SciFi. > Note there are experiments that use particles moving at an appreciable > fraction of c relative to the lab, and these show that one must use the > SR formula for frequency. > Kaivola et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 no. 4 (1985), pg 255. McGowan et > al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 no. 3 (1993), pg 251. Olin et al., Phys. Rev. > D8 no. 6 (1973), pg 1633. Mandelberg and Witten, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 52, > pg 529 (1962). If frequency is defined as 'wave arrival rate' you will probably get the right answer. >> the model is actually specified by the definition of frequency, c/λ. >> It has one and only one meaning...WAVE EMISSION RATE from a source. On >> reaching a moving receiver, the definition according to the same model >> is clearly (c+v)/λ. Both frequencies are just once-off numbers. They >> are not continuous oscillations. > > You CLEARLY do not understand what is meant by "model" in modern > physics. Classical electrodynamics (CE) is a model, your vague words and > hand-waving are not. Since you make claims inconsistent with CE, you > must replace all of CE with something else; just prattling on and on > about "waves" is woefully insufficient. Apparently you haven't a clue > about what that entails. Tommy why don't you stop looking for silly things to say and just accept that I am right? > As I keep saying, you REALLY need to learn basic physics and the > experimental record. Tell everyone I am right Tommy and I'm sure you will soon feel a lot better...you will have freed yourself from a model that is fundamentally flawed. > Tom Roberts -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-25 13:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <18icnTA868D0M_L5nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #611538 |
On 5/24/23 7:54 PM, Jane wrote: > My model it that of a radio signal and Maxwell's formulae. [Presumably you mean the four equations now known as Maxwell's equations.] Your claims are inconsistent with Maxwell's equations. The Poincare' group is the invariance group of Maxwell's equations. When added to the postulate that the local laws of physics are the same when referenced to any (locally) inertial frame, this directly implies that the vacuum speed of EM radiation is c relative to any (locally) inertial frame. This is, of course, purely theoretical, but it has extensive experimental support (which you ignore). All this has been known for over a century. Your prattling otherwise around here merely shows how poorly you understand basic physics, and how out-of-date your notions are. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-25 12:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57c19c25-f3a3-4aed-840a-2066aa624074n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611584 |
On Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 20:52:38 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 5/24/23 7:54 PM, Jane wrote: > > My model it that of a radio signal and Maxwell's formulae. > [Presumably you mean the four equations now > known as Maxwell's equations.] > > Your claims are inconsistent with Maxwell's equations. The Poincare' > group is the invariance group of Maxwell's equations. When added to the > postulate that the local laws of physics are the same when referenced to > any (locally) inertial frame, this directly implies that the vacuum > speed of EM radiation is c relative to any (locally) inertial frame. > This is, of course, purely theoretical, but it has extensive > experimental support (which you ignore). And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds (which you ignore).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-25 23:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1762861347a37f37$4$1029791$c1d34bd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611584 |
On Thu, 25 May 2023 13:52:24 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 5/24/23 7:54 PM, Jane wrote: >> My model it that of a radio signal and Maxwell's formulae. > > [Presumably you mean the four equations now > known as Maxwell's equations.] > > Your claims are inconsistent with Maxwell's equations. The Poincare' > group is the invariance group of Maxwell's equations. Tom, there is no point in quoting what your theory says in your attempt to defend it. I am quite aware of its consistency. > When added to the > postulate that the local laws of physics are the same when referenced to > any (locally) inertial frame, this directly implies that the vacuum > speed of EM radiation is c relative to any (locally) inertial frame. > This is, of course, purely theoretical, but it has extensive > experimental support (which you ignore). It has none that is believable...for instance Michelson 1913.. > All this has been known for over a century. Your prattling otherwise > around here merely shows how poorly you understand basic physics, and > how out-of-date your notions are. Tom I am obviously two hundred years ahead of all those in the Physics establishment who still use the expression 'frequency of light' and still think the beam of a light clock becomes diagonal in a moving frame. > Tom Roberts -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-05 15:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fYidnZNGS-oL3OP5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #611609 |
On 5/25/23 6:17 PM, Jane wrote: > On Thu, 25 May 2023 13:52:24 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 5/24/23 7:54 PM, Jane wrote: >>> My model it that of a radio signal and Maxwell's formulae. >> [Presumably you mean the four equations now known as Maxwell's >> equations.] Your claims are inconsistent with Maxwell's equations. >> The Poincare' group is the invariance group of Maxwell's >> equations. > > Tom, there is no point in quoting what your theory says in your > attempt to defend it. I am quite aware of its consistency. Then why do you repeatedly make claims that are inconsistent with it? (This is not "my" theory, it is part of the generally accepted theory known as classical electrodynamics, created by many physicists from Maxwell to ~ 1950.) >> When added to the postulate that the local laws of physics are the >> same when referenced to any (locally) inertial frame, this directly >> implies that the vacuum speed of EM radiation is c relative to any >> (locally) inertial frame. This is, of course, purely theoretical, >> but it has extensive experimental support (which you ignore). > > It has none that is believable... Only in your personal fantasy land. > for instance Michelson 1913.. See my recent thread with subject "Michelson's 1913 rotating mirror experiment". That experiment did not really demonstrate anything but optical extinction in air. >> All this has been known for over a century. Your prattling >> otherwise around here merely shows how poorly you understand basic >> physics, and how out-of-date your notions are. > > Tom I am obviously two hundred years ahead of all those in the > Physics establishment [...] Only in your personal fantasy land. > For instance, contrary to what was officially accepted, Michelson's > 1913, produced the answer predicted by the ballistic model. It also > showed that the fringe pattern remained stationary during constant > rotation...a fact that destroys Michelson's whole approach and > refutes SR. Yes, it showed that the fringe pattern remained stationary during constant rotation. Other than that, your claims here are just plain wrong. See my recent thread with subject "Michelson's 1913 rotating mirror experiment". You should look at the more recent experiments referenced there, which are similar experiments in vacuum; they are consistent with CE/SR, and solidly refute all common ballistic theories of light. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-07 02:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17663f1fc8b7628f$47$3842063$3d389da@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #612210 |
On Mon, 05 Jun 2023 15:12:06 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 5/25/23 6:17 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Thu, 25 May 2023 13:52:24 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 5/24/23 7:54 PM, Jane wrote: >>>> My model it that of a radio signal and Maxwell's formulae. >>> [Presumably you mean the four equations now known as Maxwell's >>> equations.] Your claims are inconsistent with Maxwell's equations. The >>> Poincare' group is the invariance group of Maxwell's equations. >> >> Tom, there is no point in quoting what your theory says in your attempt >> to defend it. I am quite aware of its consistency. > > Then why do you repeatedly make claims that are inconsistent with it? > > (This is not "my" theory, it is part of the generally accepted theory > known as classical electrodynamics, created by many physicists from > Maxwell to ~ 1950.) > >>> When added to the postulate that the local laws of physics are the >>> same when referenced to any (locally) inertial frame, ..the laws might be the same but the values are not. >>> this directly >>> implies that the vacuum speed of EM radiation is c relative to any >>> (locally) inertial frame. This is, of course, purely theoretical, but >>> it has extensive experimental support (which you ignore). >> >> It has none that is believable... > > Only in your personal fantasy land. > >> for instance Michelson 1913.. > > See my recent thread with subject "Michelson's 1913 rotating mirror > experiment". That experiment did not really demonstrate anything but > optical extinction in air. Don't be silly. It proves the ballistic theory and refutes SR. So does Sagnac. >>> All this has been known for over a century. Your prattling otherwise >>> around here merely shows how poorly you understand basic physics, and >>> how out-of-date your notions are. >> >> Tom I am obviously two hundred years ahead of all those in the Physics >> establishment [...] > > Only in your personal fantasy land. Well Michelson must have known his experiment was flawed. Everyone else knew that his type of interference was basically a result of different wave numbers in the paths. >> For instance, contrary to what was officially accepted, Michelson's >> 1913, produced the answer predicted by the ballistic model. It also >> showed that the fringe pattern remained stationary during constant >> rotation...a fact that destroys Michelson's whole approach and refutes >> SR. > > Yes, it showed that the fringe pattern remained stationary during > constant rotation. Other than that, your claims here are just plain > wrong. See my recent thread with subject "Michelson's 1913 rotating > mirror experiment". Tom, even when r = 2500, the fringe displacement is still 3.76 as predicted by ballistic theory. > You should look at the more recent experiments referenced there, which > are similar experiments in vacuum; they are consistent with CE/SR, and > solidly refute all common ballistic theories of light. The experiment is not affected by atmospheric conditions. It is obvious that small values of r play no significant part in the fringe displacement. The path difference is just 4d. Fringe displacement = 4d/λ > Tom Roberts -- A Phurry Pherret could Learn Physics Phaster than a Phaithful Phollower of the E-religion
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-07 12:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofmcnUw47_12Ix35nZ2dnZfqlJ_-fwAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #612296 |
On 6/6/23 9:21 PM, Androcles' Ghost wrote: > On Mon, 05 Jun 2023 15:12:06 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 5/25/23 6:17 PM, Jane wrote: >>> for instance Michelson 1913.. >> See my recent thread with subject "Michelson's 1913 rotating >> mirror experiment". That experiment did not really demonstrate >> anything but optical extinction in air. > > Don't be silly. It proves the ballistic theory and refutes SR. Apparently you did not read either Michelson's 1913 paper or my post. Michelson discussed two "emission theories of light", which are essentially "ballistic theories". Both of his are refuted by his measurement [@], while my calculation using SR is consistent with his measurement. But, as I said, these are not really valid as extinction in air eliminates any differences [#]. [@] Michelson did not claim this, but it is simple to compute the statistical errorbar of his measurement, and his systematic errors are surely smaller than that. His two emission theories' predictions are 5σ and 10σ away from the measurement -- solidly refuted (as long as one ignores extinction, which was not understood in 1913). [#] Prokaryotic Capase Homolog points out that ballistic theories do not imply the Ewald and Oseen theorem, as it is based on Maxwell's equations, which are inconsistent with ballistic light. But experimentally, extinction happens, with values consistent with their theorem. You keep mentioning "ballistic theory". Please describe what you mean by that, how it differs from classical electrodynamics, and how it relates to Michelson's 1913 experiment. >>> For instance, contrary to what was officially accepted, >>> Michelson's 1913, produced the answer predicted by the ballistic >>> model. It also showed that the fringe pattern remained stationary >>> during constant rotation...a fact that destroys Michelson's whole >>> approach and refutes SR. >> >> Yes, it showed that the fringe pattern remained stationary during >> constant rotation. Other than that, your claims here are just >> plain wrong. See my recent thread with subject "Michelson's 1913 >> rotating mirror experiment". > > Tom, even when r = 2500, the fringe displacement is still 3.76 as > predicted by ballistic theory. Michelson used 'r' to distinguish among two emission theories and his "undulatory" theory (essentially classical electrodynamics), with values r=1, r=2, and r=0. r=2500 makes no sense (it gives enormously negative fringe displacement), and his equations yield a fringe displacement of -4696 fringes for such an outlandish value -- that, of course, is complete nonsense. You really should read his paper, rather than just making stuff up and pretending it is true. >> You should look at the more recent experiments referenced there, >> which are similar experiments in vacuum; they are consistent with >> CE/SR, and solidly refute all common ballistic theories of light. > > The experiment is not affected by atmospheric conditions. NONSENSE! Optical extinction in air makes it incapable of distinguishing among classical electrodynamics and any emission or ballistic theory of light. (It is the mere presence of the air that matters; its particular temperature, pressure, and composition do not significantly affect the result.) > It is obvious that small values of r play no significant part in the > fringe displacement. Rather it is obvious that you do not know what you are talking about, and CLEARLY have not read Michelson's 1913 paper. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-07 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1984eb2-c83a-46cf-9799-547ce5fd09aen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #612355 |
If light is a standing wave instead how can a point particle in the atom absorb it? What is the solution to a standing light wave getting to absorb into an electron? Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web