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 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 21:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Clarification of the Frequency of Light |
| Message-ID | <1760f83e634d25a8$264$972675$c1d34bd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission rate at the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is at rest with the source has the same value. 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. 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. It is also the mistake made by those who claim Sagnac refutes Newton's Ballistic theory...and by many other people regularly. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartholomew Ramaker <aaeo@koawrwel.ra> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 22:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Clarification of |
| Message-ID | <u4bhet$37cqb$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #611255 |
Jane wrote: > The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission rate > at the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is at rest > with the source has the same value. To be consistent, the frequency of > light Jane, good news. Einstine was wrong. But for another reason. *_Dr._Putin_congratulates_troops_on_battlefield_success_* https://%72t.com/r%75%73%73ia/576644-putin-congratulates-troops- artyomovsk/ Russian President, *_Dr._Vladimir_Putin_*, has congratulated members of the Wagner private military company and regular soldiers with liberating *_the_Donbass_city_of_Artyomovsk_*, also known as "Bakhmut", from the *_stinking_nazi_NATO_army,_* the Kremlin said in the early hours of Sunday. DETAILS TO FOLLOW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 18:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Clarification of |
| Message-ID | <kct3dgFdippU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611259 |
On 5/20/2023 5:26 PM, Bartholomew Ramaker wrote: > Jane wrote: > >> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission rate >> at the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is at rest >> with the source has the same value. To be consistent, the frequency of >> light > > Jane, good news. Einstine was wrong. But for another reason. > > *_Dr._Putin_congratulates_troops_on_battlefield_success_* > https://%72t.com/r%75%73%73ia/576644-putin-congratulates-troops- > artyomovsk/ > > Russian President, *_Dr._Vladimir_Putin_*, has congratulated members of > the Wagner private military company and regular soldiers with liberating > *_the_Donbass_city_of_Artyomovsk_*, also known as "Bakhmut", from the > *_stinking_nazi_NATO_army,_* the Kremlin said in the early hours of > Sunday. DETAILS TO FOLLOW There's always a fool willing to climb aboard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-21 00:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u4bhj2$16u6e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #611255 |
Le 20/05/2023 à 23:46, Jane a écrit : > The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission rate at > the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is at rest with > the source has the same value. 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. > 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. It is > also the mistake made by those who claim Sagnac refutes Newton's Ballistic > theory...and by many other people regularly. Did you fed up OpenAI GPT with all the nonsense that cranks have been posting here for years in order to generate this? Impressive...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 15:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3d3eff4b-6e77-487a-a66e-a861fc22b73bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611255 |
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 2:48:02 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission rate at > the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is at rest with > the source has the same value. 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. Given that the phase velocity is c, the quantity (c/λ)[1 + v/c] is the frequency at which successive phase crests arrive at the object in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the source is at rest. However, the frequency in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the *object* is at rest is (c/λ) sqrt[(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)], which of course is the same to the first order, but differs at higher orders. > It is ignorance of this fact that caused Albert Michelson... Michelson... and every other competent physicist, was always well aware of the classical Doppler expression, and later became aware of the relativistic expression, which of course has been confirmed experimentally many times. > the mistake made by those who claim Sagnac refutes Newton's Ballistic theory... Newton didn't have a complete ballistic theory of light, and he was well aware of challenges that any such theory would face. When people talk about a Newtonian ballistic theorty of light they just mean treating light as a bunch of tiny particles obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, buit this leave many ambiguities, because ordinary particles can be brought to rest (for example) and they don't exhibit wavelike interference effects, and so on. No one has ever articulated a rationally coherent emission theory (e.g., Ritz's conception was totally bonkers). > -- lover of truth I fear she is stepping out on you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-21 03:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17610a26ec8eb9b3$24$888494$11d39bdb@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611262 |
On Sat, 20 May 2023 15:45:42 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 2:48:02 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its 'wave emission >> rate at the source', c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is >> at rest with the source has the same value. 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. > > Given that the phase velocity is c, the quantity (c/λ)[1 + v/c] is the > frequency at which successive phase crests arrive at the object in > terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the source is at > rest. However, the frequency in terms of the standard inertial > coordinates in which the *object* is at rest is (c/λ) sqrt[(1 + v/c)/(1 > - v/c)], which of course is the same to the first order, but differs at > higher orders. What bloody nonsense.. >> It is ignorance of this fact that caused Albert Michelson... > Michelson... and every other competent physicist, was always well aware > of the classical Doppler expression, and later became aware of the > relativistic expression, which of course has been confirmed > experimentally many times. Like all relativists, you try to avoid the issue because you know it destroys Einstein completely. Michelson stuffed up completely. Like all interferometry experiments, his should have been analysed according to the different wave numbers in the two paths, in which case it becomes obvious that the value of r barely affects the fringe displacement....by v/c in fact. In this way it refutes Einstein. I was merely pointing out that the definition of light's supposed 'frequency' is nothing but its wave departure rate and must therefore be its wave arrival rate at an observer. The frequency c/λ is certainly not carried by the light in transit. How could its 'wave departure rate' be carried at all? It is just something that happens at the source. >> the mistake made by those who claim Sagnac refutes Newton's Ballistic >> theory... > > Newton didn't have a complete ballistic theory of light.... He did not need to. Light obeys his brand of Physics. That's all that is implied. Call it 'emission theory' or 'ballistic theory' if you like. They are both simple Newtonian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 22:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kctj0pFft8lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611279 |
On 5/20/2023 10:14 PM, Jane wrote: <...> > I was merely pointing out that the definition of light's supposed > 'frequency' is nothing but its wave departure rate and must therefore be > its wave arrival rate at an observer. The frequency c/λ is certainly not > carried by the light in transit. How could its 'wave departure rate' be > carried at all? It is just something that happens at the source. <...> So wherever you stop a light wave it displays a frequency, the same frequency as it had at its point of origin. If I didn't stop it that light wave would proceed until it eventually hit something else. In that case, what is gained by denying that light always has an intrinsic frequency? Why do I care one way or the other? Since you have no way of testing this, where is your evidence? Similarly I don't have evidence that it has an intrinsic frequency. But wait, this raises another issue. Doesn't oscillation require energy to get started? That's a place where the "what makes the sine wave" becomes important although you recently tried to deny the importance of that possibility/fact. Yet here it is to bite you on your ass. So light cannot have oscillation at the point of origin, lose it somehow enroute, and regain it at whatever destination it achieves because you cannot account for loss and regaining of energy at some destination unless you can find a way to transmit that energy as some separate bundle linked to the sine wave. If I proposed that (and I do not) everyone would label me a crank. So tell us why, in this instance, you shouldn't be labeled a crank albeit for a closely related though slightly different reason. A compelling explanation please.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 21:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff4d8ad1-d4f4-4577-8060-4353ffa8b78en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611279 |
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:16:13 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > Like all relativists, you try to avoid the issue because you know it > destroys Einstein completely. Hahahaha! -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-20 21:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af60358e-299f-48e6-a635-a6adcec58cbdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611279 |
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:16:13 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > Given that the phase velocity is c, the quantity (c/λ)[1 + v/c] is the > > frequency at which successive phase crests arrive at the object in > > terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the source is at > > rest. However, the frequency in terms of the standard inertial > > coordinates in which the *object* is at rest is (c/λ) sqrt[(1 + v/c)/(1 > > - v/c)], which of course is the same to the first order, but differs at > > higher orders. > > What bloody nonsense. That isn't a substantive reply, so the correction to you statement stands. You're welcome. > >> It is ignorance of this fact that caused Albert Michelson... > > > > Michelson... and every other competent physicist, was always well aware > > of the classical Doppler expression, and later became aware of the > > relativistic expression, which of course has been confirmed > > experimentally many times. > > Like all relativists, you try to avoid the issue because you know it > destroys Einstein completely. The issue I addressed was your claim (quoted above) that Michelson was ignorant of the Doppler effect. He obviously was well aware of it, as was every other competent physicist (not to mention most non-physicists). Again, what you typed in reply is not substantive. > Like all interferometry experiments, [Michelson's] should have been analysed > according to the different wave numbers in the two paths... Analyzing by wave number or optical path length or transit times, etc., all yield precisely the same result... a result that is confirmed by experiment and that falsifies your beliefs. > ... the value of r barely affects the fringe displacement....by v/c in fact. You forgot to state the precise experiment you are referring to, and what you are using the symbol "r" to represent. Also, first-order effects in v/c are huge, and the great accomplishment of Michelson's work was to use interferometry to measure effects of the *second* order in v/c. > I was merely pointing out that the definition of light's supposed > 'frequency' is nothing but its wave departure rate... Obviously, in terms of any specified standard system of inertial coordinates. > and must therefore be its wave arrival rate at an observer. Again, that is essentially the definition of the frequency of reception, but you must specify the system of coordinates in terms of which you are expressing this. See the above higher-order correction of your error. > The frequency c/λ is certainly not carried by the light in transit. Well, if you're saying that (classically) a specific phase of the radiation doesn't have a frequency, that is obviously true, since the frequency is the rate at which different phases depart or arrive. In quantum theory, an individual photon has an amount of energy proportional to the frequency of the source, although the probability distribution of where that photon will register exhibits interference effects that depend on the frequency of the source. > >> the mistake made by those who claim Sagnac refutes Newton's Ballistic > >> theory... > > > > Newton didn't have a complete ballistic theory of light.... > > He did not need to. Let's examine that exchange. You refer to Newton's Ballistic theory, and I point out that he had no such theory, and you reply that he didn't need to. So, setting aside the cognitive difficulties you seem to be having, you are agreeing that your initial statement was bogus. > Light obeys [Newton's] brand of Physics. An expression like "Newton's brand of physics" is hopelessly ambiguous, but if you are trying to say that there is a viable classical theory of light, i.e., one that doesn't account for all the quantum effects and/or is not locally Lorentz invariant, that is obviously false, as shown by even a cursory familiarity with the phenomena. Again, no one has ever even proposed a conceptually coherent "emission theory" of light that would be consistent with even the most commonplace phenomena.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-22 02:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17615547fe419b50$110$1645410$c9d343d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611291 |
On Sat, 20 May 2023 21:40:39 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:16:13 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> > Given that the phase velocity is c, the quantity (c/λ)[1 + v/c] is >> > the frequency at which successive phase crests arrive at the object >> > in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the source is >> > at rest. However, the frequency in terms of the standard inertial >> > coordinates in which the *object* is at rest is (c/λ) sqrt[(1 + >> > v/c)/(1 - v/c)], which of course is the same to the first order, but >> > differs at higher orders. >> >> What bloody nonsense. > > That isn't a substantive reply, so the correction to you statement > stands. You're welcome. > >> >> It is ignorance of this fact that caused Albert Michelson... >> > >> > Michelson... and every other competent physicist, was always well >> > aware of the classical Doppler expression, and later became aware of >> > the relativistic expression, which of course has been confirmed >> > experimentally many times. >> >> Like all relativists, you try to avoid the issue because you know it >> destroys Einstein completely. > > The issue I addressed was your claim (quoted above) that Michelson was > ignorant of the Doppler effect. He obviously was well aware of it, as > was every other competent physicist (not to mention most > non-physicists). Again, what you typed in reply is not substantive. That is a different Doppler effect which occurs in SR whenever a moving source or mirror is involved. Tere is an immediate shift in wavelength. I have analysed that and interestingly when taken into account, it actually cancels out and does not alter the conclusion that Michelson wrongly reached. The same applies in the case of Sagnac. >> Like all interferometry experiments, [Michelson's] should have been >> analysed according to the different wave numbers in the two paths... > > Analyzing by wave number or optical path length or transit times, etc., > all yield precisely the same result... a result that is confirmed by > experiment and that falsifies your beliefs. Oh no they certainly do not in situations involving movement. That has been the common mistake for two hundred years. The travel times can be the same but paths can have different lengths and numbers of waves because they move at different speeds. Wavelength is absolute and cannot change during transit. How could it? >> ... the value of r barely affects the fringe displacement....by v/c in >> fact. > > You forgot to state the precise experiment you are referring to, and > what you are using the symbol "r" to represent. Also, first-order > effects in v/c are huge, and the great accomplishment of Michelson's > work was to use interferometry to measure effects of the *second* order > in v/c. I am talking about the experiment I specified. Michelson's 1913 moving mirror debacle. >> I was merely pointing out that the definition of light's supposed >> 'frequency' is nothing but its wave departure rate... > > Obviously, in terms of any specified standard system of inertial > coordinates. That is a stupid answer. You are confusing units with definition... Light's supposed frequency is defined as c/λ, which has a clear meaning....'wave emission rate'. The equivalent at an observer moving at v is just as clearly 'wave arrival rate', (c+v)/λ >> and must therefore be its wave arrival rate at an observer. > > Again, that is essentially the definition of the frequency of reception, > but you must specify the system of coordinates in terms of which you are > expressing this. See the above higher-order correction of your error. That's SR rubbish. SR is built on the kinds of errors you have just made.. >> The frequency c/λ is certainly not carried by the light in transit. > > Well, if you're saying that (classically) a specific phase of the > radiation doesn't have a frequency, that is obviously true, since the > frequency is the rate at which different phases depart or arrive. In > quantum theory, an individual photon has an amount of energy > proportional to the frequency of the source, although the probability > distribution of where that photon will register exhibits interference > effects that depend on the frequency of the source. You cannot wriggle out by changing the subject. Energy conservation wont help you. > >> >> the mistake made by those who claim Sagnac refutes Newton's >> >> Ballistic theory... >> > >> > Newton didn't have a complete ballistic theory of light.... >> >> He did not need to. > > Let's examine that exchange. You refer to Newton's Ballistic theory, > and I point out that he had no such theory, and you reply that he didn't > need to. So, setting aside the cognitive difficulties you seem to be > having, you are agreeing that your initial statement was bogus. > >> Light obeys [Newton's] brand of Physics. > > An expression like "Newton's brand of physics" is hopelessly ambiguous, > but if you are trying to say that there is a viable classical theory of > light, i.e., one that doesn't account for all the quantum effects and/or > is not locally Lorentz invariant, that is obviously false, as shown by > even a cursory familiarity with the phenomena. Again, no one has ever > even proposed a conceptually coherent "emission theory" of light that > would be consistent with even the most commonplace phenomena. Lorentz invariance requires an ether. There isn't one ...end of story... -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-21 20:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97954d73-16b6-426d-a16b-1c257d7c081fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611343 |
On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 7:13:00 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > Lorentz invariance requires a [classical] ether. Not at all... the necessary and sufficient condition for (local) Lorentz invariuance is that every localized quantity of energy E has inertia corresponding to E/c^2. This is the crucial fact that was missing from Newtonian physics. > > Given that the phase velocity is c, the quantity (c/λ)[1 + v/c] is > > the frequency at which successive phase crests arrive at the object > > in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the source is > > at rest. However, the frequency in terms of the standard inertial > > coordinates in which the *object* is at rest is (c/λ) sqrt[(1 + > > v/c)/(1 - v/c)], which of course is the same to the first order, but > > differs at higher orders. > > That is a different Doppler effect which occurs in SR whenever a moving > source or mirror is involved. No, that's just the ordinary Doppler effect, due to changes in the path length of any sequence of propagating entities. There's nothing mysterious about it. Again, there is no logically coherent "emission theory", and even the incoherent proposals are empirically falsified, such as by Michelson's 1913 and by everyday Sagnac, and all the other well-known falsifications of the various putative emission theories. > ... it actually cancels out and does not alter the conclusion that Michelson > wrongly reached. The same applies in the case of Sagnac. No, your reasoning is fallacious. > > Analyzing by wave number or optical path length or transit times, etc., > > all yield precisely the same result... a result that is confirmed by > > experiment and that falsifies your beliefs. > > The travel times can be the same but paths can have different lengths > and numbers of waves because they move at different speeds. No, in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates light propagates in vacuum at the speed c. > Wavelength is absolute and cannot change during transit. How could it? It isn't a matter of a wavelength "changing in transit". Standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which entails a skew of simultaneity between relatively moving such systems. The wavelength of a given pulse is different in terms of sifferent systems. Frequencies and wavelengths and all other attributes of physical phenomena are Lorentz invariant or covariant. > I am talking about the experiment I specified. Michelson's 1913 moving > mirror [experiment]. Yes, that's one (admittedly early and primitive) example of an empirical falsification of your beliefs. Of course, in modern times there is an abundance of highly precise empirical falsifications of your beliefs. > > ...you must specify the system of coordinates in terms of which you are > > expressing this. See the above higher-order correction of your error. > > That's SR rubbish. That (again) is not a substantive reply, so (again) the correction of your mistake stands. > lover of truth Odd...she didn't mention you last night.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 00:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17619faa5457007f$1869$468409$cbd341d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611348 |
On Sun, 21 May 2023 20:22:09 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 7:13:00 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> Lorentz invariance requires a [classical] ether. > > Not at all... the necessary and sufficient condition for (local) Lorentz > invariuance is that every localized quantity of energy E has inertia > corresponding to E/c^2. This is the crucial fact that was missing from > Newtonian physics. garbage...since when did energy have inertia. You know nothing >> > Given that the phase velocity is c, the quantity (c/λ)[1 + v/c] is >> > the frequency at which successive phase crests arrive at the object >> > in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the source is >> > at rest. However, the frequency in terms of the standard inertial >> > coordinates in which the *object* is at rest is (c/λ) sqrt[(1 + >> > v/c)/(1 - v/c)], which of course is the same to the first order, but >> > differs at higher orders. >> >> That is a different Doppler effect which occurs in SR whenever a moving >> source or mirror is involved. > > No, that's just the ordinary Doppler effect, due to changes in the path > length of any sequence of propagating entities. There's nothing > mysterious about it. Again, there is no logically coherent "emission > theory", and even the incoherent proposals are empirically falsified, > such as by Michelson's 1913 and by everyday Sagnac, and all the other > well-known falsifications of the various putative emission theories. more religious crap >> ... it actually cancels out and does not alter the conclusion that >> Michelson wrongly reached. The same applies in the case of Sagnac. > > No, your reasoning is fallacious. This is far too hard for you. Go away. >> > Analyzing by wave number or optical path length or transit times, >> > etc., >> > all yield precisely the same result... a result that is confirmed by >> > experiment and that falsifies your beliefs. >> >> The travel times can be the same but paths can have different lengths >> and numbers of waves because they move at different speeds. > > No, in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates light > propagates in vacuum at the speed c. Crap.....Never proved...it is just a preaching of the Einsteinian church... >> Wavelength is absolute and cannot change during transit. How could it? > > It isn't a matter of a wavelength "changing in transit". Standard > inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, > which entails a skew of simultaneity between relatively moving such > systems. The wavelength of a given pulse is different in terms of > sifferent systems. Frequencies and wavelengths and all other attributes > of physical phenomena are Lorentz invariant or covariant. If you want to believe a weird religion go ahead ...but don't try to inflict it on the rest of us. >> I am talking about the experiment I specified. Michelson's 1913 moving >> mirror [experiment]. > > Yes, that's one (admittedly early and primitive) example of an empirical > falsification of your beliefs. Of course, in modern times there is an > abundance of highly precise empirical falsifications of your beliefs. That experiment well and truly refute SR. I told you why. >> > ...you must specify the system of coordinates in terms of which you >> > are expressing this. See the above higher-order correction of your >> > error. >> >> That's SR rubbish. > > That (again) is not a substantive reply, so (again) the correction of > your mistake stands. > >> lover of truth > > Odd...she didn't mention you last night. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 19:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u4jjfs$2neeb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #611387 |
On 5/22/2023 8:54 PM, Jane wrote: > garbage...since when did energy have inertia. Apparently since the beginning of the universe. > You know nothing > more religious crap > Crap.....Never proved...it is just a preaching of the Einsteinian > church... > If you want to believe a weird religion go ahead ...but don't try to > inflict it on the rest of us. > That experiment well and truly refute SR. I told you why. All those responses from "physicist" "Jane". But not one of them is a scientific argument. Not one. Some "physicist".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-24 00:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1761ed5f697dc407$1898$468409$cbd341d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611467 |
On Tue, 23 May 2023 19:50:18 -0400, Volney wrote: > On 5/22/2023 8:54 PM, Jane wrote: >> Crap.....Never proved...it is just a preaching of the Einsteinian >> church... > >> If you want to believe a weird religion go ahead ...but don't try to >> inflict it on the rest of us. > >> That experiment well and truly refute SR. I told you why. > > All those responses from "physicist" "Jane". But not one of them is a > scientific argument. Not one. Some "physicist". tell me...what is it like to be totally braindead like you and your colleagues? -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-24 01:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u4k8q8$2sta1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #611470 |
On 5/23/2023 8:38 PM, Jane wrote: > On Tue, 23 May 2023 19:50:18 -0400, Volney wrote: > >> On 5/22/2023 8:54 PM, Jane wrote: >>> garbage...since when did energy have inertia. >>> You know nothing >>> more religious crap >>> Crap.....Never proved...it is just a preaching of the Einsteinian >>> church... >> >>> If you want to believe a weird religion go ahead ...but don't try to >>> inflict it on the rest of us. >> >>> That experiment well and truly refute SR. I told you why. >> >> All those responses from "physicist" "Jane". But not one of them is a >> scientific argument. Not one. Some "physicist". > > tell me...what is it like to be totally braindead like you and your > colleagues? > All those responses from "physicist" "Jane". But not one of them is a scientific argument. Not one. Some "physicist".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Celedonio Seelen <ecoe@nccscnlc.oe> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-24 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u4m1rj$slce$2@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #611487 |
Volney wrote: > All those responses from "physicist" "Jane". But not one of them is a > scientific argument. Not one. Some "physicist". america illegally occupies ukraine since before 2014. *_Nuland-Pyatt_Phone_Call_February_4,_2014_"fuck_the_EU"_* https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/ZvQd6gmKpuYd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-24 20:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kd7qv9F3769U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611487 |
On 5/24/2023 12:54 AM, Volney wrote: > On 5/23/2023 8:38 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Tue, 23 May 2023 19:50:18 -0400, Volney wrote: >> >>> On 5/22/2023 8:54 PM, Jane wrote: > >>>> garbage...since when did energy have inertia. > >>>> You know nothing > >>>> more religious crap > >>>> Crap.....Never proved...it is just a preaching of the Einsteinian >>>> church... >>> >>>> If you want to believe a weird religion go ahead ...but don't try to >>>> inflict it on the rest of us. >>> >>>> That experiment well and truly refute SR. I told you why. >>> >>> All those responses from "physicist" "Jane". But not one of them is a >>> scientific argument. Not one. Some "physicist". >> >> tell me...what is it like to be totally braindead like you and your >> colleagues? >> > All those responses from "physicist" "Jane". But not one of them is a > scientific argument. Not one. Some "physicist". Going OT here: You're right, of course. But even beyond that it became clear that today's Uncle Jane is incapable of appreciating the underlying problem. The version of this person that I knew was a Brooklyn Polytech mathematics graduate and she was sharp and a considerate human being unlike today's version. If we live long enough similar failure comes to most of us. As magnificent as the human brain is it has a shelf life, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter. There is only the matter of the degree of failure occurring first and when failure happens the type of failure hardly matters. One could not miss that Uncle Jane appears to be enjoying her dementia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-25 23:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1762857f2eec6faa$3$1029791$c1d34bd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611539 |
On Wed, 24 May 2023 20:12:05 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/24/2023 12:54 AM, Volney wrote: >> On 5/23/2023 8:38 PM, Jane wrote: >>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 19:50:18 -0400, Volney wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/22/2023 8:54 PM, Jane wrote: >> >>>>> garbage...since when did energy have inertia. >> >>>>> You know nothing >> >>>>> more religious crap >> >>>>> Crap.....Never proved...it is just a preaching of the Einsteinian >>>>> church... >>>> >>>>> If you want to believe a weird religion go ahead ...but don't try to >>>>> inflict it on the rest of us. >>>> >>>>> That experiment well and truly refute SR. I told you why. >>>> >>>> All those responses from "physicist" "Jane". But not one of them is a >>>> scientific argument. Not one. Some "physicist". >>> >>> tell me...what is it like to be totally braindead like you and your >>> colleagues? >>> >> All those responses from "physicist" "Jane". But not one of them is a >> scientific argument. Not one. Some "physicist". > > Going OT here: > > You're right, of course. But even beyond that it became clear that > today's Uncle Jane is incapable of appreciating the underlying problem. > The version of this person that I knew was a Brooklyn Polytech > mathematics graduate and she was sharp and a considerate human being > unlike today's version. > > If we live long enough similar failure comes to most of us. As > magnificent as the human brain is it has a shelf life, sometimes longer, > sometimes shorter. There is only the matter of the degree of failure > occurring first and when failure happens the type of failure hardly > matters. One could not miss that Uncle Jane appears to be enjoying her > dementia. 'Uncle Jane' is alert enough to know that when all else has failed, the red faced relativist will resort to belittling those who have brought down his idol. He has nothing left. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Duston Haanraats <atsu@assahdta.ad> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-25 23:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u4oq79$1ald4$3@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #611607 |
Jane wrote: > 'Uncle Jane' is alert enough to know that when all else has failed, the > red faced relativist will resort to belittling those who have brought > down his idol. He has nothing left. Einstine was twice a man you are. He had his fault, not undrestanding my *_"On_the_Divergent_Mater_of_the_Moving_Koerper_Model"_*. But he was not afraid saying he don't undrestand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-25 19:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdadinFferpU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611608 |
On 5/25/2023 6:15 PM, Duston Haanraats wrote: > Jane wrote: > >> 'Uncle Jane' is alert enough to know that when all else has failed, the >> red faced relativist will resort to belittling those who have brought >> down his idol. He has nothing left. > > Einstine was twice a man you are. He had his fault, not undrestanding my > *_"On_the_Divergent_Mater_of_the_Moving_Koerper_Model"_*. But he was not > afraid saying he don't undrestand. Well said!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web