Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #611337 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-05-21 17:57 -0500 |
| Last post | 2023-05-23 18:34 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 77 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-21 17:57 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 21:23 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 02:51 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-23 11:35 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 10:36 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-24 03:08 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 15:52 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-27 00:27 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 18:29 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-26 21:15 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-28 00:21 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-27 20:34 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-28 00:18 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 18:05 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-28 12:09 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 11:10 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "Jeremy Parker." <JP@not.com> - 2023-05-29 00:48 +0000
Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 21:10 -0500
Re: Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-30 05:15 +0000
Re: Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-30 13:14 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 10:25 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-29 05:35 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 00:37 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-30 05:35 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 23:20 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-31 09:24 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-31 13:53 -0400
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Mario Rompuy <yrmu@mpoapryo.pp> - 2023-06-01 11:18 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Demetrius Krantz <admk@asukseuu.ss> - 2023-06-01 20:26 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-02 00:24 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Russell Akker <rekl@sssaarlk.ks> - 2023-06-03 07:48 +0000
Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-29 12:09 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-30 05:45 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-30 08:07 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-30 08:30 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-31 09:31 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-31 06:44 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 07:04 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-31 12:48 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-31 20:55 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 14:04 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-31 14:02 -0400
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Baudilio Marqueringh <qgiu@oimrggbo.eh> - 2023-05-31 20:21 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-31 15:27 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-01 23:47 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-01 19:51 -0400
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-01 19:54 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-02 01:27 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-01 21:12 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-02 04:44 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-02 00:53 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) AG <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-02 23:20 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-02 23:36 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-02 18:47 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-02 18:45 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-03 01:00 -0400
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 22:44 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-03 06:54 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-03 23:18 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-03 19:59 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-05 20:06 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-05 21:30 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Reed Maessen <aeaa@nesasrsn.rd> - 2023-06-05 19:36 +0000
Godwin Alert whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-05 15:31 -0500
Re: Godwin Alert Feliciano Klerkse <lcso@raaeklen.kk> - 2023-06-05 20:36 +0000
Re: Godwin Alert Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-13 16:10 -0400
Re: Godwin Alert Waldo Aart <wtld@aralowaa.dt> - 2023-06-13 23:34 +0000
Re: Godwin Alert Herman Rijnder <reir@ereremem.nn> - 2023-06-13 23:57 +0000
Re: Godwin Alert "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 17:39 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 23:03 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-01 19:37 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-31 20:59 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 14:42 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Moody Schneijders <mmmc@dshheeds.sh> - 2023-06-03 11:02 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-30 13:21 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Ed Romijnders <dddr@jrsnrmej.md> - 2023-05-23 18:34 +0000
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-21 17:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions |
| Message-ID | <sJ-dnStva9AjPPf5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com> |
On 5/19/23 7:45 PM, Jane wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:32:01 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 5/18/23 9:17 PM, Jane wrote: >>> [...] All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are full >>> of holes. >> Which you have never disclosed. You are just blowing smoke with no >> substance. > > For a start you can rule out all the ones that use interferometry > and regard light as a travelling oscillator. Why would one do that? -- they are valid experiments making certain measurements of the world we inhabit. You clearly do not understand what science is, and physics in particular: we are developing MODELS of various aspects of the world we inhabit, and then testing those models via experiment. We can apply classical electrodynamics to these experiments, calculate its predictions, and compare to the actual results -- they agree within experimental resolutions, so these experiments all support classical electrodynamics. The fact that they also support other theories/models is completely irrelevant. > They all claim he travel times must be different for a fringe > displacement to occur. Stop making stuff up and apply the model to the experiment. IOW: do physics, rather than whatever it is you are attempting to do. > [... further nonsense] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-21 21:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc4f15fd-7606-4d49-a642-3f3f351b2b18n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611337 |
On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 00:58:44 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 5/19/23 7:45 PM, Jane wrote: > > On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:32:01 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 5/18/23 9:17 PM, Jane wrote: > >>> [...] All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are full > >>> of holes. > >> Which you have never disclosed. You are just blowing smoke with no > >> substance. > > > > For a start you can rule out all the ones that use interferometry > > and regard light as a travelling oscillator. > Why would one do that? -- they are valid experiments making certain > measurements of the world we inhabit. > > You clearly do not understand what science is, and physics in > particular: we are developing MODELS of various aspects of the world we > inhabit, Right, you are developing MODELS of various aspects of the world of your moronic delusions. And you scream that we're FORCED. To THE BEST WAY.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 02:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1761a60f01895764$1877$468409$cbd341d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611337 |
On Sun, 21 May 2023 17:57:02 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 5/19/23 7:45 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:32:01 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 5/18/23 9:17 PM, Jane wrote: >>>> [...] All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are full of >>>> holes. >>> Which you have never disclosed. You are just blowing smoke with no >>> substance. >> >> For a start you can rule out all the ones that use interferometry and >> regard light as a travelling oscillator. > > Why would one do that? -- they are valid experiments making certain > measurements of the world we inhabit. The model they use is fundamentally flawed in theory. The model is one in which light behaves like a moving oscillator and always moves at c. It does neither. > You clearly do not understand.. Tom, you seem incapable of understanding that some other people DO understand that what many others have been coerced into understanding has been ill conceived and misunderstood for centuries. >what science is, and physics in > particular: we are developing MODELS of various aspects of the world we > inhabit, and then testing those models via experiment. We can apply > classical electrodynamics to these experiments, calculate its > predictions, and compare to the actual results -- they agree within > experimental resolutions, so these experiments all support classical > electrodynamics. The fact that they also support other theories/models > is completely irrelevant. > >> They all claim the travel times must be different for a fringe >> displacement to occur. > > Stop making stuff up and apply the model to the experiment. IOW: do > physics, rather than whatever it is you are attempting to do. Tom, have you actually looked at Michelson's 1913 experiment ...also repeated by Majorama' and many others... It is an absolute farce. It claims to refute ballistic theory on the grounds that this would lead to equal travel times in the two paths, and prohibit a phase difference on detection. Sagnac is analysed on similar grounds. This is completely wrong for the simple reason that the speed of the beams differs from c and different numbers of wave will be present in the beams during constant rotation. Since the beam speeds are different an wavelengths are identical, the wave arrival rates are not the same. So contrary to Michelson's belief, the beam had different arrival 'frequencies', namely (c+v)/λ an (c-v)/λ. In other words Michelson based his analysis on the prior assumption of constant light speed in order to prove that this was indeed true.....ie., he used circular logic. Also and even more obvious, if the travel times are NOT equal, as predicted by Newton's laws, the fringe pattern will never be stationary. That it itself refutes SR. >> [... further nonsense] Tom, snipping truth wont make it go away. > Tom Roberts -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 11:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <07ydndO6Hu7WdvH5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #611399 |
On 5/22/23 9:51 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2023 17:57:02 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/23 7:45 PM, Jane wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:32:01 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/23 9:17 PM, Jane wrote:
>>>>> [...] All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are
>>>>> full of holes.
>>>> Which you have never disclosed. You are just blowing smoke
>>>> with no substance.
>>>
>>> For a start you can rule out all the ones that use
>>> interferometry and regard light as a travelling oscillator.
>>
>> Why would one do that? -- they are valid experiments making certain
>> measurements of the world we inhabit.
>
> The model they use is fundamentally flawed in theory. The model is
> one in which light behaves like a moving oscillator and always moves
> at c. It does neither.
You confuse an experiment with a model. The experimental measurements
are valid, no matter how much you wish that weren't so. In virtually all
cases the model is classical electrodynamics (CE), in which EM radiation
travels with speed c relative to any (locally) inertial frame. The
experiments are consistent with the predictions of CE.
[Many experiments are consistent with other theories/models.
That simply does not matter, as it does not affect their
consistency with CE.]
You keep making claims without justification, and have NEVER described
any model. You spew a bunch of words that are inconsistent with CE, and
have never addressed the inconsistency. You prattle on and on about
"waves", without understanding how EM radiation is modeled in CE.
> some other people DO understand that what many others have been
> coerced into understanding has been ill conceived and misunderstood
> for centuries.
There is no "coercion", just understanding. Which you clearly lack. You
seem to be so dedicated to your notion that all of modern physics is
"wrong" that in the process have ignored the actual physics. How sad.
Just about everything you write around here is inconsistent with CE, but
you have never described any model to replace CE. You just prattle on
and on about "waves", and how their wavelength is fundamentally
different from their frequency, completely ignoring the fact that in the
traveling-wave equation you use the two appear identically.
Note that the annual Doppler shift disproves your notion that the
wavelength of a given light beam is the same in all frames.
> [... further ranting and raving]
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-23 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2636456-fe28-4cd4-90fe-962612530e58n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611444 |
On Tuesday, 23 May 2023 at 18:35:31 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 5/22/23 9:51 PM, Jane wrote: > > On Sun, 21 May 2023 17:57:02 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > >> On 5/19/23 7:45 PM, Jane wrote: > >>> On Thu, 18 May 2023 22:32:01 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>> On 5/18/23 9:17 PM, Jane wrote: > >>>>> [...] All the experiments claimed to be supportive of SR are > >>>>> full of holes. > >>>> Which you have never disclosed. You are just blowing smoke > >>>> with no substance. > >>> > >>> For a start you can rule out all the ones that use > >>> interferometry and regard light as a travelling oscillator. > >> > >> Why would one do that? -- they are valid experiments making certain > >> measurements of the world we inhabit. > > > > The model they use is fundamentally flawed in theory. The model is > > one in which light behaves like a moving oscillator and always moves > > at c. It does neither. > > You confuse an experiment with a model. The experimental measurements > are valid, no matter how much you wish that weren't so. And, of course, real clocks keep measuring t'=t, as anyone can check in GPS. No matter how much you wish that weren't so. And The Shit of your idiot guru was inconsistent, as proven many times here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-24 03:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1761f58e050f4060$1904$468409$cbd341d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611444 |
On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:35:23 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 5/22/23 9:51 PM, Jane wrote: >>> Why would one do that? -- they are valid experiments making certain >>> measurements of the world we inhabit. >> >> The model they use is fundamentally flawed in theory. The model is one >> in which light behaves like a moving oscillator and always moves at c. >> It does neither. > > You confuse an experiment with a model. The experimental measurements > are valid, no matter how much you wish that weren't so. In virtually all > cases the model is classical electrodynamics (CE), in which EM radiation > travels with speed c relative to any (locally) inertial frame. The > experiments are consistent with the predictions of CE. > > [Many experiments are consistent with other theories/models. > That simply does not matter, as it does not affect their > consistency with CE.] > > You keep making claims without justification, and have NEVER described > any model. You spew a bunch of words that are inconsistent with CE, and > have never addressed the inconsistency. You prattle on and on about > "waves", without understanding how EM radiation is modeled in CE. Well let me make my points more clear. Michelson's 1913 MODEL was that of classical electrodynamics and produced perfectly legitimate results...which just happened to be the ones he wanted. I have pointed out that those result was not uniquely attributable to his model and were also consistent with the ballistic light model. I have also pointed out that his model must be fundamentally flawed in that it denies reality. In particular it states that there can be no fringe displacement if the beam travel times are the same yet, as I have pointed out, if they are not identical, the fringe pattern will continually move, even at constant angular velocity...WHICH IS NOT WHAT IS OBSERVED, HENCE, HIS MODEL MUST BE WRONG. >> some other people DO understand that what many others have been coerced >> into understanding has been ill conceived and misunderstood for >> centuries. > > There is no "coercion", just understanding. Which you clearly lack. You > seem to be so dedicated to your notion that all of modern physics is > "wrong" that in the process have ignored the actual physics. How sad. I have already provided plenty of proof that it is wrong. > Just about everything you write around here is inconsistent with CE, but > you have never described any model to replace CE. You just prattle on > and on about "waves", and how their wavelength is fundamentally > different from their frequency, completely ignoring the fact that in the > traveling-wave equation you use the two appear identically. Have you gone raving mad? The TWE describes a wave that moves but certainly does not oscillate. You cannot see that because you lack basic physics knowledge and appear to have poor logical ability. > Note that the annual Doppler shift disproves your notion that the > wavelength of a given light beam is the same in all frames. How could the physical properties of any object change every time a differently observer looked at it? The idea is nonsensical. The length of an ocean wave does not depend on the speed of any boat going past. Surely the relativist mind can understand that.... >> [... further ranting and raving] > > Tom Roberts -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-26 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72a31ae8-65f1-458b-8c4e-3dff0fdc735fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611483 |
On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 8:10:43 PM UTC-7, "Jane" wrote: > Michelson's 1913 results were also consistent with the ballistic light model. Not true. First, there is no viable ballistic model of light, and second, Michelson's results are flatly inconsistent with both of the most common proposals for a ballistic theory, i.e., elastic bouncing or absorption and characteristic re-emission. The other hare-brained proposals for a ballistic theory are even less viable than these two. > [Rational adults] state that there can be no fringe displacement if > the beam travel times are the same... Correct, that's self-evident. > ...yet ... if they are not identical, the fringe pattern will > continually move... Given that the phase velocity of the light (along both paths) is c, independent of the speed of the revolving mirrors, the fringe shift will be proportional to the difference in travel times (i.e., optical path lengths) of the two beams. There's no secular change in the apparatus, so your belief that the fringe pattern would "continually move" is just silly. > How could the physical properties of any object change every time a > differently observer looked at it? The idea is nonsensical. Indeed it is... and that's your own nonsensical misconception. Rational adults today understand the difference between merely describing an object in terms of a different system of coordinates versus changing the state of motion of the object by applying a force to it, and they understanding how the latter informs the choice of coordinate systems in the former.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-27 00:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1762d8850f754100$47$3770307$13d399db@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611662 |
On Fri, 26 May 2023 15:52:09 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 8:10:43 PM UTC-7, "Jane" wrote: >> Michelson's 1913 results were also consistent with the ballistic light >> model. > snip pure crap >> Idiot relativists state that there can be no fringe displacement if the >> beam travel times are the same... > > Correct, that's self-evident. Don't change my statements please. >> ...yet ... if they are not identical, the fringe pattern will >> continually move... > > Given that the phase velocity of the light (along both paths) is c, > independent of the speed of the revolving mirrors, the fringe shift will > be proportional to the difference in travel times (i.e., optical path > lengths) of the two beams. There's no secular change in the apparatus, > so your belief that the fringe pattern would "continually move" is just > silly. You are confusing two issues. There are different numbers of wavelengths in the two paths during constant rotation. They are moving at c+v and c-v. So the arrival frequencies are not c/λ. The different speeds exactly compensate for the different wave numbers and so the travel times are identical. That is the simple Newtonian explanation...which produces the right answer. As for the second matter, if the travel times are not the same and waves are being emitted simultaneously and then always moving at c, it is obvious that the phasing when they reunite is forever changing...and that the fringes will continually MOVE. They do NOT. This clearly refutes Michelson AND Einstein. So stick that up your stupid kyber >> How could the physical properties of any object change every time a >> differently observer looked at it? The idea is nonsensical. > > Indeed it is... -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-26 18:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <924b7de4-c713-44e5-86ce-4739393ecb82n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611667 |
On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 5:27:59 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > There are different numbers of wavelengths in the two paths during > constant rotation. No, when the phases have the same travel times (equal optical path lengths - which they have periodically), they arrive completely in phase, regardless of the speeds of the mirrors. This is self-evident, given that the phase velocity for both paths is c in terms of the relevant reference system. > They are moving at c+v and c-v. No, that’s one of the hypotheses that is explicitly falsified by the observed results. > If the travel times are not the same and waves are being emitted > simultaneously and then always moving at c, the phasing when they > reunite is forever changing... No, that’s absurd. If wavecrests are being emitted once per second, and they pass through a beam splitter and follow two paths of different lengths, the wavecrests will arrive at the common receiver at once per second on both paths, because neither path length is changing, but they will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is self-evident to any sentient being. > Michelson's 1913 results were also consistent with the ballistic light model. Not true. First, there's no viable ballistic model of light (think interference), and second, Michelson's results are flatly inconsistent with both of the most common proposals for a ballistic theory, i.e., elastic bouncing or absorption and characteristic re-emission. The other hare-brained proposals for a ballistic theory are even less viable than these two. > [Rational adults] state that there can be no fringe displacement if > the beam travel times are the same... Correct, that is self-evident. > ...yet ... if they are not identical, the fringe pattern will > continually move... Given that the phase velocity of the light (along both paths) is c, independent of the speed of the revolving mirrors, the fringe shift will be proportional to the difference in travel times (i.e., the optical path lengths) of the two beams. There's no secular change in the apparatus, so your belief that the fringe pattern would "continually move" is just silly. > How could the physical properties of any object change every time a > differently observer looked at it? The idea is nonsensical. Indeed your nonsensical misconception is idiotic - but it has nothing to do with relativity. Rational adults today understand the difference between merely describing an object in terms of a different system of coordinates versus changing the state of motion of the object by applying a force to it, and they understanding how the latter informs the choice of coordinate systems in the former. > -- lover of truth That does not appear to be true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-26 21:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdd7e5FsispU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611669 |
On 5/26/2023 8:29 PM, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 5:27:59 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: <...> >> -- lover of truth > > That does not appear to be true. Her imagined truth, that varies from actual truth that the rest of us enjoy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 00:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <176326bafad98c94$104$3770307$13d399db@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611671 |
On Fri, 26 May 2023 21:15:26 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/26/2023 8:29 PM, Trevor Lange wrote: >> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 5:27:59 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > <...> > >>> -- lover of truth >> >> That does not appear to be true. > > Her imagined truth, that varies from actual truth that the rest of us > enjoy. Oh this is funny. You people are so desperate all you can do is back each other up with insults and quotations from your E-religion bible. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-27 20:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdfpebF9lknU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611705 |
On 5/27/2023 7:21 PM, Jane wrote: > On Fri, 26 May 2023 21:15:26 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/26/2023 8:29 PM, Trevor Lange wrote: >>> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 5:27:59 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> >> <...> >> >>>> -- lover of truth >>> >>> That does not appear to be true. >> >> Her imagined truth, that varies from actual truth that the rest of us >> enjoy. > > Oh this is funny. You people are so desperate all you can do is back each > other up with insults and quotations from your E-religion bible. So desperate? Nope. The longer this "discussion" continues the clearer is gets that you've lost it. Cheer up a little. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXHsWBKKNbI> Dear Jane, the truth has bit you on your ass, and you never noticed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 00:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <176326969adb1c0c$103$3770307$13d399db@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611669 |
On Fri, 26 May 2023 18:29:35 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 5:27:59 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> There are different numbers of wavelengths in the two paths during >> constant rotation. > > No, when the phases have the same travel times (equal optical path > lengths - which they have periodically), they arrive completely in > phase, regardless of the speeds of the mirrors. This is self-evident, > given that the phase velocity for both paths is c in terms of the > relevant reference system. > >> They are moving at c+v and c-v. > > No, that’s one of the hypotheses that is explicitly falsified by the > observed results. > >> If the travel times are not the same and waves are being emitted >> simultaneously and then always moving at c, the phasing when they >> reunite is forever changing... > > No, that’s absurd. If wavecrests are being emitted once per second, and > they pass through a beam splitter and follow two paths of different > lengths, the wavecrests will arrive at the common receiver at once per > second on both paths, because neither path length is changing, but they > will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is self-evident to any > sentient being. Hahahaha! That does not even make sense...I assume you are now claiming that the wavelengths are different in the two paths. That is the only way they can arrive at 1 per s >> Michelson's 1913 results were also consistent with the ballistic light >> model. > > Not true. First, there's no viable ballistic model of light (think > interference), Individual photons have wavelengths, stupid...and second, Michelson's results are flatly inconsistent > with both of the most common proposals for a ballistic theory, i.e., > elastic bouncing or absorption and characteristic re-emission. The other > hare-brained proposals for a ballistic theory are even less viable than > these two. You wish. All claimed refutation of ballistic theory are flawed.. Laughable in fact. Mich1913 is perfectly well explained by Newton and so is Sagnac. Just assume constant wavelength and compare path lengths and wave numbers to derive fringe displacement. The predicted fringe displacements match the experimental results perfectly. > >> [Rational adults] state that there can be no fringe displacement if the >> beam travel times are the same... > > Correct, that is self-evident. Clever. You have just supported your own previous statement ....you wont impress anyone that way. >> ...yet ... if they are not identical, the fringe pattern will >> continually move... > > Given that the phase velocity of the light (along both paths) is c, > independent of the speed of the revolving mirrors, the fringe shift will > be proportional to the difference in travel times (i.e., the optical > path lengths) of the two beams. There's no secular change in the > apparatus, so your belief that the fringe pattern would "continually > move" is just silly. Pathetic. You are using the postulate of SR to provide evidence in its favour. That's circular.... and 'lengths' are never 'times'... Ballistic theory says light moves as c+/-v in the two paths. One path is longer than the other and wavelength is absolute. Path length difference/ wavelength produces the simple correct answer. >> How could the physical properties of any object change every time a >> differently observer looked at it? The idea is nonsensical. > > Indeed your nonsensical misconception is idiotic - but it has nothing to > do with relativity. Rational adults today understand the difference > between merely describing an object in terms of a different system of > coordinates versus changing the state of motion of the object by > applying a force to it, and they understanding how the latter informs > the choice of coordinate systems in the former. Hahahha...so changing observer frame applies a force!!!!!!!!! You really are a sad case! >> -- lover of truth > -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-27 18:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fcce006b-077a-4598-8e05-fdfe26e16bb1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611704 |
On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 5:18:36 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > > If wavecrests are being emitted once per second, and > > they pass through a beam splitter and follow two paths of different > > lengths, the wavecrests will arrive at the common receiver at once per > > second on both paths, because neither path length is changing, but they > > will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is self-evident to any > > sentient being. > > I assume you are now claiming that the wavelengths are different in > the two paths. That is the only way they can arrive at 1 per second Not at all. There are two paths, of different but constant lengths. The wavecrest are emitted once per second, and they pass through a beam splitter and follow two paths of different (but constant) lengths at equal speeds, and obviously the wavecrests arrive at the common receiver at once per second on both paths, because neither path length is changing, but they will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is self-evident to any sentient being. Do you honestly not understand this? > > There is no viable [classical] ballistic theory... > > Individual photons have wavelengths... No, a photon in quantum electrodynamics is nothing like the naive classical ballistic model of the kind you have in mind, it is an inherently non-classical quantum entity (actually a term in the expansion of a disturbance in the quantum wave function), and the interference effects on the spatial distribution of the probability for a photon to land at a particular spot, exhibiting interferencce effects, are due to the superposition of the complex probability amplitudes for the possible paths. An individual photon interaction has an energy proportional to the frequency of the source, but the photon itself is more like an individual phase, it does not have a frequency or a wavelength in the sense that your brain is imagining. > > Michelson's results are flatly inconsistent with both of the most common > > proposals for a ballistic theory, i.e., elastic bouncing or absorption and > > characteristic re-emission. The other hare-brained proposals for a ballistic > > theory are even less viable than these two. > > All claimed refutation of ballistic theory are flawed. But we've discovered the fundamental misconception that is causing you to think this. You honestly have no grasp of the fact that the wavecrests in the example up above arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with a constant phase shift. > Mich1913 is perfectly well explained by Newton and so is Sagnac. Just > assume constant wavelength and compare path lengths and wave numbers to > derive fringe displacement. The predicted fringe displacements match the > experimental results perfectly. Your reasoning is utterly fallacious, as we've explained above. To make progress, begin by trying to understand the self-evident fact that the wavecrests in the example up above arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with a constant phase shift. > Ballistic theory says light moves as c+/-v in the two paths. One path is > longer than the other and wavelength is absolute. Path length difference/ > wavelength produces the simple correct answer. Nope, you are laboring under a completely elementary and fundamental misunderstanding. If the split wavecrests propagated at c+-v along the two paths, the result would be a fringe shift, but no such shift appeared. I say again, to make progress, begin by trying to understand the self-evident fact that the wavecrests in the example up above (two paths of different constant lengths) arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with a constant phase shift. > > Indeed your nonsensical misconception is idiotic - but it has nothing to > > do with relativity. Rational adults today understand the difference > > between merely describing an object in terms of a different system of > > coordinates versus changing the state of motion of the object by > > applying a force to it, and they understanding how the latter informs > > the choice of coordinate systems in the former. > > So changing observer frame applies a force!!!!!!!!! It doesn't matter how many exclamation points you use, your statement is still an obvious non sequitur. Indeed I specifically explained to you that describing an object in terms of two different systems of coordinates is different from applying a force to the object to change its state of motion and describing it in terms of a single system of coordinates. These are called passive and active transformations, respectively, and we select coordinate transformations that match the active transformations. Do you understand this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17634d5d1a3dd9a5$185$1701657$c9d343d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611707 |
On Sat, 27 May 2023 18:05:17 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 5:18:36 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> > If wavecrests are being emitted once per second, and they pass >> > through a beam splitter and follow two paths of different lengths, >> > the wavecrests will arrive at the common receiver at once per second >> > on both paths, because neither path length is changing, but they will >> > arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is self-evident to any >> > sentient being. >> >> I assume you are now claiming that the wavelengths are different in the >> two paths. That is the only way they can arrive at 1 per second > > Not at all. There are two paths, of different but constant lengths. > The wavecrest are emitted once per second, and they pass through a beam > splitter and follow two paths of different (but constant) lengths at > equal speeds, and obviously the wavecrests arrive at the common receiver > at once per second on both paths, because neither path length is > changing, but they will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is > self-evident to any sentient being. Do you honestly not understand > this? It is only 'self evident' to a blind Einstein worshipper. Let me explain...but you will need superior intelligence to understand the following. When the mirrors are at rest, both paths contain the same number of waves, all moving at c. The travel times are the same. During an acceleration, the travel times are not the same and waves literally move from one path to the other. When the acceleration ceases, one path ends up with more waves than the other but the travel times are again identical. That happens because the path that contains the greater number of waves moves at c+v whereas the other one moves at c-v. If you work it out, you will find that the two factors exactly compensate and the travel times are always the same for any constant angular velocity. The fringe pattern is again stationary but displaced. The wave arrival rate is not and does not have to be 1 per second.It is (c+v)/c and (c-v)/c respectively...so much for your idea of 'self evidence'. Michelson made the mistake of using the wave departure frequency in his analysis rather than the two different 'arrival' frequencies. He claimed to have refuted the ballistic theory when he did not even know what it meant. The above also applies to a Sagnac interferometer. >> > There is no viable classical] ballistic theory... >> >> Individual photons have wavelengths... > > No, a photon in quantum electrodynamics is nothing like the naive > classical ballistic model of the kind you have in mind, it is an > inherently non-classical quantum entity (actually a term in the > expansion of a disturbance in the quantum wave function), and the > interference effects on the spatial distribution of the probability for > a photon to land at a particular spot, exhibiting interferencce effects, > are due to the superposition of the complex probability amplitudes for > the possible paths. An individual photon interaction has an energy > proportional to the frequency of the source, but the photon itself is > more like an individual phase, it does not have a frequency or a > wavelength in the sense that your brain is imagining. What are you talking about. I have been stressing the point thatkight does not have a frequency. That is the crux of my argument...but it has an absolute wav elength. >> > Michelson's results are flatly inconsistent with both of the most >> > common proposals for a ballistic theory, i.e., elastic bouncing or >> > absorption and characteristic re-emission. The other hare-brained >> > proposals for a ballistic theory are even less viable than these two. Wrong. The Newtonian model actually matches the experimental results more closely than SR does. It just does the normal thing and calculates the path length difference and divide s that by he wavelength. Note, no Doppler shift occurs in this model either at the source or at any reflection. >> >> All claimed refutation of ballistic theory are flawed. > > But we've discovered the fundamental misconception that is causing you > to think this. You honestly have no grasp of the fact that the > wavecrests in the example up above arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with > a constant phase shift. Only in your sham 'constant light speed' theory. You are assuming different wavelengths in the two paths. You are raving mad! >> Mich1913 is perfectly well explained by Newton and so is Sagnac. Just >> assume constant wavelength and compare path lengths and wave numbers to >> derive fringe displacement. The predicted fringe displacements match >> the experimental results perfectly. > > Your reasoning is utterly fallacious, as we've explained above. INTERFERENCE PATTERNS ARE ULTIMATELY THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT WAVE NUMBERS IN THE TWO PATHS. DID YOU NOT KNOW THAT? >To make > progress, begin by trying to understand the self-evident fact that the > wavecrests in the example up above arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with > a constant phase shift. Gawd! How dumb can a person be? It is self evidently WRONG as explained above. If you want to refute ballistic theory, I suggest you start by learning what it is. >> Ballistic theory says light moves as c+/-v in the two paths. One path >> is longer than the other and wavelength is absolute. Path length >> difference/wavelength produces the simple correct answer. > > Nope, you are laboring under a completely elementary and fundamental > misunderstanding. If the split wavecrests propagated at c+-v along the > two paths, the result would be a fringe shift, but no such shift > appeared. I say again, to make progress, begin by trying to understand > the self-evident fact that the wavecrests in the example up above (two > paths of different constant lengths) arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, > with a constant phase shift. Pathetic nonsensical drivel. You are obviously irreversibly indoctrinated. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 11:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdhcnrFh9aqU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611737 |
Apologies in advance for top posting. The following presents Jane's "made up reality" that is fiction. Light cannot be "accelerated" once a beam is formed. The only changes to its velocity are available by passing through a different medium. For example light travels more slowly through water than air. Jane is spewing nonsense and will very personally attack anyone who disagrees with her. The story she tells below is not supported by experiment; it is only supported by her creative juices hell bent making others believe on the fictions she spouts. On 5/28/2023 7:09 AM, Jane wrote: > On Sat, 27 May 2023 18:05:17 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote: > >> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 5:18:36 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>> If wavecrests are being emitted once per second, and they pass >>>> through a beam splitter and follow two paths of different lengths, >>>> the wavecrests will arrive at the common receiver at once per second >>>> on both paths, because neither path length is changing, but they will >>>> arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is self-evident to any >>>> sentient being. >>> >>> I assume you are now claiming that the wavelengths are different in the >>> two paths. That is the only way they can arrive at 1 per second >> >> Not at all. There are two paths, of different but constant lengths. >> The wavecrest are emitted once per second, and they pass through a beam >> splitter and follow two paths of different (but constant) lengths at >> equal speeds, and obviously the wavecrests arrive at the common receiver >> at once per second on both paths, because neither path length is >> changing, but they will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This is >> self-evident to any sentient being. Do you honestly not understand >> this? > > It is only 'self evident' to a blind Einstein worshipper. > > Let me explain...but you will need superior intelligence to understand > the following. > When the mirrors are at rest, both paths contain the same number of > waves, all moving at c. The travel times are the same. During an > acceleration, the travel times are not the same and waves literally move > from one path to the other. When the acceleration ceases, one path ends > up with more waves than the other but the travel times are again > identical. That happens because the path that contains the greater > number of waves moves at c+v whereas the other one moves at c-v. If you > work it out, you will find that the two factors exactly compensate and > the travel times are always the same for any constant angular velocity. > The fringe pattern is again stationary but displaced. > The wave arrival rate is not and does not have to be 1 per second.It is > (c+v)/c and (c-v)/c respectively...so much for your idea of 'self > evidence'. Michelson made the mistake of using the wave departure > frequency in his analysis rather than the two different 'arrival' > frequencies. He claimed to have refuted the ballistic theory when he did > not even know what it meant. > The above also applies to a Sagnac interferometer. > >>>> There is no viable classical] ballistic theory... >>> >>> Individual photons have wavelengths... >> >> No, a photon in quantum electrodynamics is nothing like the naive >> classical ballistic model of the kind you have in mind, it is an >> inherently non-classical quantum entity (actually a term in the >> expansion of a disturbance in the quantum wave function), and the >> interference effects on the spatial distribution of the probability for >> a photon to land at a particular spot, exhibiting interferencce effects, >> are due to the superposition of the complex probability amplitudes for >> the possible paths. An individual photon interaction has an energy >> proportional to the frequency of the source, but the photon itself is >> more like an individual phase, it does not have a frequency or a >> wavelength in the sense that your brain is imagining. > > What are you talking about. I have been stressing the point thatkight > does not have a frequency. That is the crux of my argument...but it has > an absolute wav elength. > >>>> Michelson's results are flatly inconsistent with both of the most >>>> common proposals for a ballistic theory, i.e., elastic bouncing or >>>> absorption and characteristic re-emission. The other hare-brained >>>> proposals for a ballistic theory are even less viable than these two. > > Wrong. The Newtonian model actually matches the experimental results more > closely than SR does. It just does the normal thing and calculates the > path length difference and divide s that by he wavelength. Note, no > Doppler shift occurs in this model either at the source or at any > reflection. > >>> >>> All claimed refutation of ballistic theory are flawed. >> >> But we've discovered the fundamental misconception that is causing you >> to think this. You honestly have no grasp of the fact that the >> wavecrests in the example up above arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with >> a constant phase shift. > > Only in your sham 'constant light speed' theory. You are assuming > different wavelengths in the two paths. You are raving mad! > >>> Mich1913 is perfectly well explained by Newton and so is Sagnac. Just >>> assume constant wavelength and compare path lengths and wave numbers to >>> derive fringe displacement. The predicted fringe displacements match >>> the experimental results perfectly. >> >> Your reasoning is utterly fallacious, as we've explained above. > > INTERFERENCE PATTERNS ARE ULTIMATELY THE RESULT OF DIFFERENT WAVE NUMBERS > IN THE TWO PATHS. DID YOU NOT KNOW THAT? > >> To make >> progress, begin by trying to understand the self-evident fact that the >> wavecrests in the example up above arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, with >> a constant phase shift. > > Gawd! How dumb can a person be? It is self evidently WRONG as explained > above. If you want to refute ballistic theory, I suggest you start by > learning what it is. > >>> Ballistic theory says light moves as c+/-v in the two paths. One path >>> is longer than the other and wavelength is absolute. Path length >>> difference/wavelength produces the simple correct answer. >> >> Nope, you are laboring under a completely elementary and fundamental >> misunderstanding. If the split wavecrests propagated at c+-v along the >> two paths, the result would be a fringe shift, but no such shift >> appeared. I say again, to make progress, begin by trying to understand >> the self-evident fact that the wavecrests in the example up above (two >> paths of different constant lengths) arrive at 1 Hz along both paths, >> with a constant phase shift. > > Pathetic nonsensical drivel. You are obviously irreversibly > indoctrinated. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jeremy Parker." <JP@not.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-29 00:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <176376c8b91f702f$95$891446$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611749 |
On Sun, 28 May 2023 11:10:35 -0500, whodat wrote: > Apologies in advance for top posting. > > The following presents Jane's "made up reality" that is fiction. > > Light cannot be "accelerated" once a beam is formed. The only changes to > its velocity are available by passing through a different medium. For > example light travels more slowly through water than air. Jane is > spewing nonsense and will very personally attack anyone who disagrees > with her. The story she tells below is not supported by experiment; it > is only supported by her creative juices hell bent making others believe > on the fictions she spouts. I anticipated such a pathetic and abusive reply. Re-read my note about 'superior intelligence', below. >>> Not at all. There are two paths, of different but constant lengths. >>> The wavecrest are emitted once per second, and they pass through a >>> beam splitter and follow two paths of different (but constant) lengths >>> at equal speeds, and obviously the wavecrests arrive at the common >>> receiver at once per second on both paths, because neither path length >>> is changing, but they will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This >>> is self-evident to any sentient being. Do you honestly not understand >>> this? >> >> It is only 'self evident' to a blind Einstein worshipper. >> >> Let me explain...but you will need superior intelligence to understand >> the following. >> When the mirrors are at rest, both paths contain the same number of >> waves, all moving at c. The travel times are the same. During an >> acceleration, the travel times are not the same and waves literally >> move from one path to the other. When the acceleration ceases, one path >> ends up with more waves than the other but the travel times are again >> identical. That happens because the path that contains the greater >> number of waves moves at c+v whereas the other one moves at c-v. If you >> work it out, you will find that the two factors exactly compensate and >> the travel times are always the same for any constant angular velocity. >> The fringe pattern is again stationary but displaced. >> The wave arrival rate is not and does not have to be 1 per second.It is >> (c+v)/c and (c-v)/c respectively...so much for your idea of 'self >> evidence'. Michelson made the mistake of using the wave departure >> frequency in his analysis rather than the two different 'arrival' >> frequencies. He claimed to have refuted the ballistic theory when he >> did not even know what it meant. >> The above also applies to a Sagnac interferometer. >> >>>>> There is no viable classical] ballistic theory...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-28 21:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <kdifsfFmcckU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611779 |
On 5/28/2023 7:48 PM, Jeremy Parker. wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2023 11:10:35 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> Apologies in advance for top posting. >> >> The following presents Jane's "made up reality" that is fiction. >> >> Light cannot be "accelerated" once a beam is formed. The only changes to >> its velocity are available by passing through a different medium. For >> example light travels more slowly through water than air. Jane is >> spewing nonsense and will very personally attack anyone who disagrees >> with her. The story she tells below is not supported by experiment; it >> is only supported by her creative juices hell bent making others believe >> on the fictions she spouts. > > I anticipated such a pathetic and abusive reply. Re-read my note about > 'superior intelligence', below. So like your Uncle Jane you don't understand we have never been able to accelerate light in an already formed beam. Changing direction of motion is also an "acceleration" but bear in mind that once a light beam impacts anything the light beam ceases to exist. In the case of a mirror a new light beam is formed. Get a grip already. Jane's and your "thesis" has no validity because as Uncle Al used to say, your ideas are DOA (dead on arrival.) Google serves up dictionaries in many languages including AmerEnglish. I urge you to kiss your Uncle Jane farewell and go learn from any culture that is not based in stick ball. You misuse, apparently from not understanding, so many words. If you're going to select a mentor, please select one who will serve your progress instead of deterring any possible advance. Unless, of course, you would prefer to become one of the best cranks known to mankind. >>>> Not at all. There are two paths, of different but constant lengths. >>>> The wavecrest are emitted once per second, and they pass through a >>>> beam splitter and follow two paths of different (but constant) lengths >>>> at equal speeds, and obviously the wavecrests arrive at the common >>>> receiver at once per second on both paths, because neither path length >>>> is changing, but they will arrive out of phase by a fixed amount. This >>>> is self-evident to any sentient being. Do you honestly not understand >>>> this? >>> >>> It is only 'self evident' to a blind Einstein worshipper. >>> >>> Let me explain...but you will need superior intelligence to understand >>> the following. >>> When the mirrors are at rest, both paths contain the same number of >>> waves, all moving at c. The travel times are the same. During an >>> acceleration, the travel times are not the same and waves literally >>> move from one path to the other. When the acceleration ceases, one path >>> ends up with more waves than the other but the travel times are again >>> identical. That happens because the path that contains the greater >>> number of waves moves at c+v whereas the other one moves at c-v. If you >>> work it out, you will find that the two factors exactly compensate and >>> the travel times are always the same for any constant angular velocity. >>> The fringe pattern is again stationary but displaced. >>> The wave arrival rate is not and does not have to be 1 per second.It is >>> (c+v)/c and (c-v)/c respectively...so much for your idea of 'self >>> evidence'. Michelson made the mistake of using the wave departure >>> frequency in his analysis rather than the two different 'arrival' >>> frequencies. He claimed to have refuted the ballistic theory when he >>> did not even know what it meant. >>> The above also applies to a Sagnac interferometer. >>> >>>>>> There is no viable classical] ballistic theory... >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-30 05:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <1763d3f773e8f38f$97$891446$c5d34fd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611783 |
On Sun, 28 May 2023 21:10:22 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 5/28/2023 7:48 PM, Jeremy Parker. wrote: >> On Sun, 28 May 2023 11:10:35 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> >> I anticipated such a pathetic and abusive reply. Re-read my note about >> 'superior intelligence', below. > > > > So like your Uncle Jane you don't understand we have never been able to > accelerate light in an already formed beam. Changing direction of motion > is also an "acceleration" but bear in mind that once a light beam > impacts anything the light beam ceases to exist. In the case of a mirror > a new light beam is formed. That is not correct. The E-field literally bounces almost elastically off electron orbits in the reflecting material. In ballistic theory, there is little or no phase shift. > -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-30 13:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <kdmsp1FctpfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611862 |
On 5/30/2023 12:15 AM, Jane wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2023 21:10:22 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 5/28/2023 7:48 PM, Jeremy Parker. wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 May 2023 11:10:35 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >>> >>> I anticipated such a pathetic and abusive reply. Re-read my note about >>> 'superior intelligence', below. >> >> >> >> So like your Uncle Jane you don't understand we have never been able to >> accelerate light in an already formed beam. Changing direction of motion >> is also an "acceleration" but bear in mind that once a light beam >> impacts anything the light beam ceases to exist. In the case of a mirror >> a new light beam is formed. > > That is not correct. The E-field literally bounces almost elastically off > electron orbits in the reflecting material. In ballistic theory, there is > little or no phase shift. ibid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web