Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #423285 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-23 09:36 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-07-19 19:32 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-23 09:36 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-23 10:49 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 23:37 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-23 17:09 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-23 00:36 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:08 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 16:49 -0400
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 10:21 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-22 18:53 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 10:50 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-24 04:29 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 11:42 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-23 07:34 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 16:55 -0400
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 09:43 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-23 09:08 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-06-23 12:14 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 16:57 -0400
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-23 22:40 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Iorgas Gerakis <grura@agsiskswk.ai> - 2017-06-24 12:10 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-24 08:42 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-24 16:28 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-24 23:08 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-24 21:40 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 14:56 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-24 22:14 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-26 11:16 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-25 18:54 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-26 19:30 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-25 10:21 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-25 22:23 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-26 19:50 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 06:03 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-26 10:05 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 08:23 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 15:43 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 09:19 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-27 08:15 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-30 17:43 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-30 11:36 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-05 11:20 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Oveho Trofyzikovu <zfeuur@ceuuwi.ku> - 2017-07-05 17:10 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-06 03:49 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-06 11:11 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-06 20:19 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:05 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-06 20:40 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-07 09:43 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-07 22:49 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-07 09:11 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-08 09:44 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-08 00:09 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 10:06 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-08 18:01 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 12:56 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-08 20:45 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-10 09:50 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 10:58 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-10 19:58 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-10 23:57 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:22 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-11 14:54 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:23 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-12 03:07 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-13 09:42 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-13 03:15 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-14 09:34 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-14 05:24 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 10:20 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-19 15:20 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2017-07-19 19:56 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-30 17:40 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-03 11:37 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 07:26 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 07:42 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 07:51 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-25 23:58 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-26 19:52 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 06:06 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 06:14 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 15:39 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Ernardin Ignace <ee@wrrawiwidir.ic> - 2017-06-25 09:13 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 11:50 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 10:00 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 12:20 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 10:40 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 17:33 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 15:49 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 18:31 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 18:12 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 12:14 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-25 12:05 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 10:10 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-25 12:33 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 10:48 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <Poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 16:40 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Iorgas Gerakis <grura@agsiskswk.ai> - 2017-06-24 17:28 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 09:20 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-24 17:04 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 10:44 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-24 17:54 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 03:14 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-24 20:50 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 15:05 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 16:37 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-26 11:47 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-26 18:02 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 16:30 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-06-26 16:31 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 23:30 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 10:24 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 01:26 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 19:32 +1000
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-24 08:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <GrGdnQTmnJCx8dPEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423324 |
On 6/23/17 6/23/17 3:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> […] a person won't see a light ray unless it intersects her eye. > > IIUC, according to at least two official definitions of “(light) ray”, that > is not true: > [...] THINK about what you are saying. When an original light ray scatters, and you see the scattered light, you do NOT see the original ray, you see the rays of the scattered light -- but only those that intersect your eye. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-24 16:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1584603.3VsfAaAtOV@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #423363 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/23/17 6/23/17 3:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> […] a person won't see a light ray unless it intersects her eye. >> IIUC, according to at least two official definitions of “(light) ray”, >> that is not true: >> [...] > > THINK about what you are saying. > > When an original light ray scatters, and you see the scattered light, you > do NOT see the original ray, you see the rays of the scattered light -- > but only those that intersect your eye. The ray, according to the definitions that I cited, points in the direction of the energy flow. So when you see the ray, it does not intersect your eye. Or, IOW, it is not *this* ray that intersects your eye then. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-24 23:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-vqdnXK3LNraqtLEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423364 |
On 6/24/17 6/24/17 9:28 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 6/23/17 6/23/17 3:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> […] a person won't see a light ray unless it intersects her eye. >>> IIUC, according to at least two official definitions of “(light) ray”, >>> that is not true: >>> [...] >> >> THINK about what you are saying. >> >> When an original light ray scatters, and you see the scattered light, you >> do NOT see the original ray, you see the rays of the scattered light -- >> but only those that intersect your eye. > > The ray, according to the definitions that I cited, points in the direction > of the energy flow. I repeat: THINK about what you are saying. > So when you see the ray, it does not intersect your > eye. The ray that you see does intersect your eye, and there is indeed energy flowing into your eye, or you would not see anything. > Or, IOW, it is not *this* ray that intersects your eye then. You are too hung up on the ray you are thinking of, and don't recognize that by scattering it generates other rays, including the ones that are seen. Casually, when one puts a visible laser beam through a fog, one can "see" the path of the beam, and we say "I see the laser beam". But that is WRONG -- what is actually seen are the rays that are scattered by the fog from the laser beam into your eye. You INFER the path of the laser beam, because the visible rays all point back to the original laser beam and identify the path of the beam, even though you cannot actually see the beam (ray). This is YOUR problem with words, and I won't continue. I cannot teach you how to read via a medium that requires reading. Nor do I care to. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-24 21:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7ce5991-4e9e-4360-ac7b-10e16958882b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423403 |
tjrob137
On 6/24/17 6/24/17 9:28 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 6/23/17 6/23/17 3:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> […] a person won't see a light ray unless it intersects her eye.
>>> IIUC, according to at least two official definitions of “(light) ray”,
>>> that is not true:
>>> [...]
>>
>> THINK about what you are saying.
>>
>> When an original light ray scatters, and you see the scattered light, you
>> do NOT see the original ray, you see the rays of the scattered light --
>> but only those that intersect your eye.
>
> The ray, according to the definitions that I cited, points in the direction
> of the energy flow.
I repeat: THINK about what you are saying.
> So when you see the ray, it does not intersect your
> eye.
The ray that you see does intersect your eye, and there is indeed energy flowing
into your eye, or you would not see anything.
> Or, IOW, it is not *this* ray that intersects your eye then.
You are too hung up on the ray you are thinking of, and don't recognize that by
scattering it generates other rays, including the ones that are seen.
Casually, when one puts a visible laser beam through a fog, one
can "see" the path of the beam, and we say "I see the laser
beam". But that is WRONG -- what is actually seen are the rays
that are scattered by the fog from the laser beam into your eye.
You INFER the path of the laser beam, because the visible rays
all point back to the original laser beam and identify the path
of the beam, even though you cannot actually see the beam (ray).
This is YOUR problem with words, and I won't continue. I cannot teach you how to
read via a medium that requires reading. Nor do I care to.
Tom Roberts
If the (photons in flight) could be seen, they would not be quantatized anymore and would be dissipating energy while simply "In Flight".
The Vacuum Space time has all the properties of a perfect Lossless Frictionless Fluid which is exactly what would be required for Photons to complete a 13 billion year journey as they have been doing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-25 14:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oinfpq$1d4j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423405 |
On 25/06/17 14:40, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > tjrob137 On 6/24/17 6/24/17 9:28 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > > Casually, when one puts a visible laser beam through a fog, one can > "see" the path of the beam, and we say "I see the laser beam". But > that is WRONG -- what is actually seen are the rays that are > scattered by the fog from the laser beam into your eye. You see an 'intermittent beam' from each point in the fog....proving that light is particulate. You INFER the > path of the laser beam, because the visible rays all point back to > the original laser beam and identify the path of the beam, even > though you cannot actually see the beam (ray). > > This is YOUR problem with words, and I won't continue. I cannot teach > you how to read via a medium that requires reading. Nor do I care > to. > > Tom Roberts > > If the (photons in flight) could be seen, they would not be > quantatized anymore and would be dissipating energy while simply "In > Flight". > > The Vacuum Space time has all the properties of a perfect Lossless > Frictionless Fluid which is exactly what would be required for > Photons to complete a 13 billion year journey as they have been > doing. Naturally light loses energy as it travels. How could it not? That's why there is a cosmic red shift roughly proportional to the source distance from Earth. If the BB theory was correct, the observed red shift would not be symmetrical around our planet unless the Earth was the centre of the universe...which is what many good christians want to believe. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-24 22:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc12e7e4-cb7f-4667-b397-55790b61273b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423406 |
Jun 24HGW... On 25/06/17 14:40, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > tjrob137 On 6/24/17 6/24/17 9:28 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > > Casually, when one puts a visible laser beam through a fog, one can > "see" the path of the beam, and we say "I see the laser beam". But > that is WRONG -- what is actually seen are the rays that are > scattered by the fog from the laser beam into your eye. You see an 'intermittent beam' from each point in the fog....proving that light is particulate. You INFER the > path of the laser beam, because the visible rays all point back to > the original laser beam and identify the path of the beam, even > though you cannot actually see the beam (ray). > > This is YOUR problem with words, and I won't continue. I cannot teach > you how to read via a medium that requires reading. Nor do I care > to. > > Tom Roberts > > If the (photons in flight) could be seen, they would not be > quantatized anymore and would be dissipating energy while simply "In > Flight". > > The Vacuum Space time has all the properties of a perfect Lossless > Frictionless Fluid which is exactly what would be required for > Photons to complete a 13 billion year journey as they have been > doing. Naturally light loses energy as it travels. How could it not? That's why there is a cosmic red shift roughly proportional to the source distance from Earth. If the BB theory was correct, the observed red shift would not be symmetrical around our planet unless the Earth was the centre of the universe...which is what many good christians want to believe. No... Spacetime as a perfect frictionless Lossless Fluid solves the homogeneity & isotropy of the Big Bang CMBR Redshift would be simply entropy of the entire system
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 11:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oipn8o$r8s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423410 |
On 25/06/17 15:14, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Jun 24HGW... > > Naturally light loses energy as it travels. How could it not? > > That's why there is a cosmic red shift roughly proportional to the > source distance from Earth. If the BB theory was correct, the > observed red shift would not be symmetrical around our planet unless > the Earth was the centre of the universe...which is what many good > christians want to believe. > > No... Spacetime as a perfect frictionless Lossless Fluid solves the > homogeneity & isotropy of the Big Bang CMBR Redshift would be simply > entropy of the entire system Poor fellow. I feel sorry for you. Spacetime is not a physical entity. It is a graph. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-25 18:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2da7df68-fd2f-4086-820a-c4b16dc540df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423455 |
HGW... On 25/06/17 15:14, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Jun 24HGW... > > Naturally light loses energy as it travels. How could it not? > > That's why there is a cosmic red shift roughly proportional to the > source distance from Earth. If the BB theory was correct, the > observed red shift would not be symmetrical around our planet unless > the Earth was the centre of the universe...which is what many good > christians want to believe. > > No... Spacetime as a perfect frictionless Lossless Fluid solves the > homogeneity & isotropy of the Big Bang CMBR Redshift would be simply > entropy of the entire system Poor fellow. I feel sorry for you. Spacetime is not a physical entity. It is a graph. How about you jump out a window from the 30th floor, and see for yourself if falling through real space time 300 feet is a real thing... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 19:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oiqk46$1vg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423457 |
On 26/06/17 11:54, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > HGW... On 25/06/17 15:14, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: >> >> No... Spacetime as a perfect frictionless Lossless Fluid solves the >> homogeneity & isotropy of the Big Bang CMBR Redshift would be >> simply entropy of the entire system > > Poor fellow. I feel sorry for you. Spacetime is not a physical > entity. It is a graph. > > How about you jump out a window from the 30th floor, and see for > yourself if falling through real space time 300 feet is a real > thing.. Poor fellow...Nothing MOVES in spacetime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-25 10:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <GuudnYwQyYeOSNLEnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423406 |
On 6/24/17 6/24/17 11:56 PM, HGW... wrote: > Naturally light loses energy as it travels. How could it not? What MAGIC would cause energy loss? Light could travel from distant galaxies to earth without losing significant energy if there is no mechanism to cause it to lose energy. Given the MEASURED density in inter-galactic space, and the MEASURED interactions between light and the atoms composing the gas in inter-galactic space, one concludes this is nowhere near large enough to induce the observed redshift. Moreover, the statistical character of those interactions would smear out or destroy the atomic lines in such light, but that structure is preserved (albeit redshifted). The primary interaction is scattering the light, not making it lose energy. That would smear out images of distant galaxies and make them appear dimmer, not change the energies of atomic lines. Observations put upper limits that are completely inconsistent with your claim. Again you merely display your COLOSSAL IGNORANCE of physics. > If the BB theory was correct, the observed red shift would not be symmetrical > around our planet unless the Earth was the centre of the universe. Nope. Again you merely display your COLOSSAL IGNORANCE of very basic physics. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-25 22:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <34055806.10thIPus4b@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #423431 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/24/17 6/24/17 11:56 PM, HGW... wrote: >> Naturally light loses energy as it travels. How could it not? Good grief. A “tired light” believer, too? What’s next, “flat Earth”? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light> (in a nutshell: it was refuted by observation by and from the 1990s) > What MAGIC would cause energy loss? Light could travel from distant > galaxies to earth without losing significant energy if there is no > mechanism to cause it to lose energy. […] Full ACK. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 19:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oiql97$4fg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423447 |
On 26/06/17 06:23, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 6/24/17 6/24/17 11:56 PM, HGW... wrote: >>> Naturally light loses energy as it travels. How could it not? > > Good grief. A “tired light” believer, too? What’s next, “flat Earth”? > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light> > > (in a nutshell: it was refuted by observation by and from the 1990s) > >> What MAGIC would cause energy loss? Light could travel from distant >> galaxies to earth without losing significant energy if there is no >> mechanism to cause it to lose energy. […] > > Full ACK. Light interacts weakly with other EM, particularly in very high vacuum. The fields overlap. It is also affected by all the stray matter but with very little dispersion. The lost energy goes into the CMBR. You know light imparts momentum to anything it strikes. ...and they reckon there are about 3 molecules per m3 in space. That causes a loss of energy and also an increase in entropy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56e94c80-cb70-4839-8388-28b9a5d615e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423470 |
4:48 AMHGW, DSc. On 26/06/17 06:23, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 6/24/17 6/24/17 11:56 PM, HGW... wrote: >>> Naturally light loses energy as it travels. How could it not? > > Good grief. A “tired light” believer, too? What’s next, “flat Earth”? > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light> > > (in a nutshell: it was refuted by observation by and from the 1990s) > >> What MAGIC would cause energy loss? Light could travel from distant >> galaxies to earth without losing significant energy if there is no >> mechanism to cause it to lose energy. […] > > Full ACK. Light interacts weakly with other EM, particularly in very high vacuum. The fields overlap. It is also affected by all the stray matter but with very little dispersion. The lost energy goes into the CMBR. You know light imparts momentum to anything it strikes. ...and they reckon there are about 3 molecules per m3 in space. That causes a loss of energy and also an increase in entropy. Imbecile HGW, you are just rambling shit out of that Dumpster Fire Brain of yours. 0.22360679775 AMU per cubic Meter (((6.6740800122e-11)/2 (newtons / (meters^2))) / (3.71295775e-28 (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = 299792458 m / s https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/-space-time-as-a-frictionless-superfluid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 10:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KNOdnZ0YgNotv8zEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423470 |
On 6/26/17 6/26/17 - 4:50 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > Light interacts weakly with other EM, particularly in very high vacuum. Hmnmmm. Not directly. In our best theory of light (QED), it interacts only with charged particles [#]. But the vacuum has lots of virtual charged particles with which a light ray can interact. But when one CALCULATES this, one finds that all the different virtual particles cancel out, and the light ray propagates without significant energy loss or direction change. [#] I.e. that is the only vertex involving photons. > The lost energy goes into the CMBR. This is just Wilson making things up and pretending they are true. This is COMPLETELY WRONG. Visible light does scatter from gas, and we have MEASURED it. For the density of intergalactic space this is completely negligible. But even if it were not, the scattered light (which of course represents the energy lost by the original light ray) remains visible (these photons are within a few percent of the energy of the initial photons). The CMBR photons are MANY orders of magnitude lower energy than this. Wilson just displays his COMPLETE IGNORANCE of basic physics. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c004d813-7ab5-40a3-a9bb-643325dd1c5f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423493 |
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:05:27 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/26/17 6/26/17 - 4:50 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > Light interacts weakly with other EM, particularly in very high vacuum. > > Hmnmmm. Not directly. In our best theory of light (QED), it interacts only with > charged particles [#]. But the vacuum has lots of virtual charged particles with > which a light ray can interact. "But the vacuum has lots of virtual charged particles" This is Just Tom Roberts Making Things Up ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 15:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oira25$1b9g$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423493 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/26/17 6/26/17 - 4:50 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >> Light interacts weakly with other EM, particularly in very high vacuum. > > Hmnmmm. Not directly. In our best theory of light (QED), it interacts > only with charged particles [#]. But the vacuum has lots of virtual > charged particles with which a light ray can interact. But when one > CALCULATES this, one finds that all the different virtual particles > cancel out, and the light ray propagates without significant energy loss > or direction change. Actually Dr. HGW is again consistent. Light, and generally EM, interacts with everything, even the sound wave. I am working right now on something involving EM and Ultrasound. You probably have a lot to catch up with. I don't know. I can only read what you write. >> The lost energy goes into the CMBR. > > This is just Wilson making things up and pretending they are true. This > is COMPLETELY WRONG. Would be strange if he were wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 09:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13dba606-09ab-472c-a4b2-099b63d62650@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423493 |
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:05:27 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/26/17 6/26/17 - 4:50 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > Light interacts weakly with other EM, particularly in very high vacuum. > > Hmnmmm. Not directly. In our best theory of light (QED), it interacts only with > charged particles [#]. But the vacuum has lots of virtual charged particles with > which a light ray can interact. But when one CALCULATES this, one finds that all > the different virtual particles cancel out, and the light ray propagates without > significant energy loss or direction change. > > [#] I.e. that is the only vertex involving photons. > > > The lost energy goes into the CMBR. > > This is just Wilson making things up and pretending they are true. This is > COMPLETELY WRONG. > > Visible light does scatter from gas, and we have MEASURED > it. For the density of intergalactic space this is completely > negligible. But even if it were not, the scattered light > (which of course represents the energy lost by the original > light ray) remains visible (these photons are within a few > percent of the energy of the initial photons). The CMBR photons > are MANY orders of magnitude lower energy than this. > > Wilson just displays his COMPLETE IGNORANCE of basic physics. > > Tom Roberts (Negative pressure of Centripetal laminar Flow (6.6740800122e-11/2) Pascals) / (Density of sphere = 3.71295775e-28 kg / meter^3) = 299792458 m/s (Bubble Pulsation) / 2Pi = (Bubble Rotation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_%28physics%29#Pulsation (G / 2) / (c^2) = 3.71295774e-28 kg/m^3
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 08:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ois11c$nfm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423493 |
On 27/06/17 01:05, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/26/17 6/26/17 - 4:50 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >> Light interacts weakly with other EM, particularly in very high vacuum. > > Hmnmmm. Not directly. In our best theory of light (QED), it interacts > only with charged particles [#]. But the vacuum has lots of virtual > charged particles with which a light ray can interact. But when one > CALCULATES this, one finds that all the different virtual particles > cancel out, and the light ray propagates without significant energy loss > or direction change. Every such interaction is irreversible and involves an increase in Entropy. That also means a change in energy distribution. Why don't you learn some physics? > [#] I.e. that is the only vertex involving photons. > >> The lost energy goes into the CMBR. > > This is just Wilson making things up and pretending they are true. This > is COMPLETELY WRONG. Much of the CMBR is a direct consequence of traveling light's loss of energy. The rest is black body radiation from (not quite empty) space at about 2.7K. > Visible light does scatter from gas, and we have MEASURED > it. The interaction of light with other EM, HEADING IN A SIMILAR DIRECTION, does not cause scattering. It is part of BaTh's 'UNIFICATION PROCESS'...discovered from studies of variable stars. > For the density of intergalactic space this is completely > negligible. But even if it were not, the scattered light > (which of course represents the energy lost by the original > light ray) remains visible (these photons are within a few > percent of the energy of the initial photons). The CMBR photons > are MANY orders of magnitude lower energy than this. That's virtually what I said. > Wilson just displays his COMPLETE IGNORANCE of basic physics. Why don't you read messages properly and use your brain instead of raving like a pompous idiot? > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-30 17:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2554147.SvYEEZNnvj@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #423493 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/26/17 6/26/17 - 4:50 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >> Light interacts weakly with other EM, particularly in very high vacuum. > > Hmnmmm. Not directly. I beg your pardon – “not *directly*”? What do you think “interact weakly” and “EM” means (in Wilson’s world)? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-30 11:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5ad934c-825d-46ba-8c4b-692805e98809@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423676 |
On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 9:43:03 AM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > On 6/26/17 6/26/17 - 4:50 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > >> Light interacts weakly with other EM, particularly in very high vacuum. > > > > Hmnmmm. Not directly. > > I beg your pardon – “not *directly*”? What do you think “interact weakly” > and “EM” means (in Wilson’s world)? No one can fathom the mind of a reality denier. Perhaps Roberts was thinking of this: http://www.jick.net/~jess/hr/skept/EMC2/node9.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web