Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #480588
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. |
| Date | 2018-12-28 02:36 +0000 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <q0427a$e41$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <onPSD.30167$jz5.11388@fx41.am4> <pvgnso$b9d$2@gioia.aioe.org> <fb88bab4-9965-4db9-990d-c0a43baf70d7@googlegroups.com> <pvh6gr$dqv$2@gioia.aioe.org> <b3e2156a-0581-4ca1-af1a-330713142bc2@googlegroups.com> |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 5:53:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 1:43:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 20/12/2018 15:46, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>> On 19/12/2018 14:56, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>>>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is >>>>>>>>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good >>>>>>>>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a >>>>>>>>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly >>>>>>>>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be >>>>>>>>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to >>>>>>>>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been >>>>>>>>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in >>>>>>>>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly >>>>>>>>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due >>>>>>>> too the inverse square law. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The good news is that you are right,Ken, >>>>>>> indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> One would not see the front end of the laser due to the inverse square >>>>>> law. It is dispersed in a circumference in space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken >>>>>>> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW. >>>>>>> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 >>>>>>> at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at >>>>>>> a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters, >>>>>> >>>>>> At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law but >>>>>> the effect is so small that it is not measurable >>>>> >>>>> If it was obeying the inverse wquare law Ken, >>>>> the power density at 10 m would be 100 times >>>>> less than the power density at 1 meter. That >>>>> is what the inverse square law implies Ken, >>>>> and for certain at these distances no laser >>>>> obeys the inverse square law Ken, even Gary >>>>> knows that eh! >>>> >>>> Ken has absolutely no idea what the inverse square law means in term of >>>> numbers. It’s a phrase he’s heard somewhere but what he thinks it might >>>> mean has no bearing on what it does mean. Ask him. He will dodge. >>> >>> ROTFLOL.....Pot kettle black.... >>> >> >> Nice dodge. >> >> Intensity of light from a light bulb is 2.3 W/m^2 at a distance of 5 ft >> from the bulb. What’s the intensity at a distance of 25 ft? What’s the >> intensity at a distance of 2 ft? >> >> Everyone, watch him dodge. > > Moron, I don’t have to dodge. And yet you just did. You can’t answer the question. > Answer this: does light obey the inverse square law at any distance? > Keith asserted that laser light does not obey ISL at close distances. Do > you agree with him. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 21:59 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-18 19:11 -0600
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 06:46 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-19 20:50 -0600
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-19 14:24 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 16:09 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 15:53 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 08:19 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 16:55 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 09:58 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 15:13 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 03:04 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 06:57 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-19 06:56 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 17:20 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-19 14:26 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 07:54 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 03:20 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 11:53 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 04:53 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 13:45 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 09:18 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 07:46 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 16:25 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 18:43 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 13:32 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 22:53 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 13:59 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 02:36 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-30 08:46 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 13:43 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 14:04 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 14:20 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 16:57 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 22:44 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 00:34 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 18:10 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 16:00 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:27 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 11:40 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 00:09 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 18:09 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 15:18 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 18:31 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-22 21:30 -0600
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 19:48 +0000
csiph-web