Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #373134 > unrolled thread

Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 09:54 -0800
    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 14:48 -0800
    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 23:28 -0800
    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-03 13:05 -0600
      Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 11:58 -0800
      Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-03 21:17 +0100
        Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 16:36 -0800
          Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-04 11:08 +0100
            Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 16:33 -0800
      Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-05 13:39 -0800
        Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 16:28 -0800
          Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-06 15:35 +0000
        Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-06 12:43 -0600
          Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 14:21 -0800
            Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 15:37 -0800
              Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-06 23:55 +0000
            Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-07 09:46 -0600
              Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light xxein1@att.net - 2016-01-07 12:20 -0800
                Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-08 09:15 -0600
                  Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-08 17:23 +0100
                    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-08 21:11 +0000
                  Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-08 17:43 +0100
                    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-08 21:13 +0000
              Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 16:05 -0800
                Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Sebastian Krüger <SebastianKruger@ih3hghjgb.org> - 2016-01-08 00:57 +0000
                Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 20:37 -0800
                Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-08 09:31 -0600
                  Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-10 18:12 +0000
                    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-10 11:20 -0800
                      Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-10 20:40 +0100
                        Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-10 16:16 -0800
                          Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-11 00:39 -0800
                            Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 05:14 -0800
                              Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-11 05:33 -0800
                                Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:22 -0800
                      Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-11 08:55 +0000
                        Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-11 13:36 +0100
                          Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-11 05:07 -0800
                          Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-11 18:44 +0000
                            Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-12 14:36 +0100
                          Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-01-12 16:18 +0300
                            Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-12 15:39 +0100
                              Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-12 18:38 +0000
                                Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-12 22:37 +0100
                                  Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-13 19:08 +0000
                                    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-14 15:41 +0100
                                      Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 06:50 -0800
                                    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 23:16 -0800
                                      Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-15 01:48 -0800
                                        Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 17:52 -0800
                                      Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-15 21:48 +0000
                              Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-12 23:18 -0800
                              Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 23:08 +0300
                                Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:12 +0000
                                  Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-16 15:36 +0100
                                    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-16 09:26 -0600
                                      Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-16 17:00 +0100
                                    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-16 21:03 +0000
                                      Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-18 23:19 +0100
                                        Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-18 22:49 +0000
                                          Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-18 21:09 -0800
                                          Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-19 11:24 +0100
                                            Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-19 03:28 -0800
                                            Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-19 21:45 +0000
                                              Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-20 10:51 +0100
                                Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-16 15:31 +0100
                            Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-12 14:05 -0600
                              Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-12 21:58 +0100
                              Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-13 19:21 +0000
                                Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 13:40 -0600
                                  Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 08:50 +0000
                                    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 04:47 -0800
                                    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 09:22 -0600
                                      Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:32 +0000
                                        Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-14 21:49 +0000
                                        Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 14:40 -0800
                                          Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-16 19:39 +0000
                                            Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 14:20 -0800
                                        Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 16:50 -0600
                                Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-14 02:09 -0800
                                  Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-01-14 21:27 +0000
                              Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 23:15 +0300
                                Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-15 10:17 -0600
                                  Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-15 17:54 +0100
                                  Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-15 18:02 +0100
          Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 14:43 +0000
            Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 08:07 -0800
              Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 16:27 +0000
                Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 08:37 -0800
                  Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 08:48 -0800
                    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 16:59 +0000
                  Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 16:49 +0000
                    Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 12:33 -0800
                      Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 20:55 +0000
                        Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 14:16 -0800
            Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-09 11:45 -0600
              Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 18:20 +0000
    Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 15:02 -0800
      Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-03 23:12 +0000
        Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 16:38 -0800
          Re: Impossible Constancy of the Speed of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-04 19:14 +0000

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#373985

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 02:09:34 -0800, mlwozniak wrote:

> W dniu środa, 13 stycznia 2016 20:21:47 UTC+1 użytkownik Henry Wilson
> napisał:
> 
>> The only way to confirm SR is to directly measure light speed from a
>> moving source and show that it has the value c.
> 
> No. There is no way to confirm SR. For many reasons.
> Most important of them is:
> How are you going to confirm useless tool (clock) is proper?

Einstein was wiser than you.
He make clocks honest only if they measure light speed to be c.
Problem solved...Einstein idiots still believe him, why don't you?

However the speeds of two signals from differently moving sources can be 
COMPARED without the use of any clocks at all. That forms the basis of my 
variable star research that demonstrates without doubt that light moves 
at c+v.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373979

Tom Roberts to Anton Shepelev:

> > Experiment  cannot confirm a theory, the best it
> > can do is fail to refute it,
>
> You must use technical words like  "confirm"  with
> their technical meanings, not their ordinary ones.
>
> In  science,  an experiment confirms a theory when
> it is consistent with its predictions. For a theo-
> ry  to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have
> no refuting experiments, it is also  necessary  to
> have  at  least some confirming measurements. When
> there are thousands or millions of confirming mea-
> surements  and  experiments  spanning the theory's
> domain, and no refuting ones, then the  theory  is
> believable and becomes part of scientists' general
> understanding of the world.   This  understanding,
> of course, is not case in stone, and in the future
> a better theory could come along....

Thanks for the explanation.  I stand corrected.   So
an experiment generally confirms a multitude of the-
ories.

> > [... concerns about screening or shielding an aether wind]
>
> There are MANY experiments performed to  test  for
> an  "aether  wind".  All  have come up empty (i.e.
> consistent with no  such  wind  and/or  consistent
> with  SR).   Many  made  explicit  efforts  to not
> screen or shield an "aether wind".

I should like to know more about them but don't know
how to find them.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374054

On 1/14/16 1/14/16 - 2:15 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Tom Roberts to Anton Shepelev:
>> In  science,  an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with
>> its predictions.[...] This  understanding, of course, is not cast in stone,
>> and in the future a better theory could come along....
>
> Thanks for the explanation.  I stand corrected.   So an experiment generally
>  confirms a multitude of the- ories.

Yes. For instance, there is in infinite class of theories which are
experimentally indistinguishable from SR. Among them are Lorentz Ether Theory
(LET), and the Tangherlini transforms. All but SR share these attributes:
  1. they assume an aether that is completely and utterly undetectable
  2. the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in every inertial
     frame; the one-way velocity can vary with orientation except in the
     unique (and unknowable) aether rest frame; these are for measurements
     using coordinate clocks (see next paragraph for using real clocks)
  3. they are considerably more difficult to work with than SR
  4. they do NOT obey Lorentz invariance
  5. they do NOT know which frame is the "aether frame", and indeed will
     give identical experimental predictions for ANY choice of "aether
     frame"
  6. except for LET (and SR):
     - they synchronize their coordinate clocks in HIGHLY unusual ways
     - slow clock transport does NOT synchronize coordinate clocks
     - it is difficult to get real clocks to behave as coordinate clocks
  7. they differ from SR ONLY in the way their coordinate clocks are
     synchronized
  8. there is no possible way to distinguish among these theories.

For instance, measurements of the one-way speed of light using real clocks
depend on how they are synchronized; for synchronization using slow clock
transport, ALL of these theories predict the result will be isotropically c in
every inertial frame. Ditto for all other measurements using real instruments
(that's what "experimentally indistinguishable" means).

Item #1 has gone out of favor in physics, along with phlogiston, vis viva, and
other unobservable "stuffs". As clock synchronization is purely a human
convention, no physical phenomena can depend on how clocks are synchronized;
hence #7 immediately shows these theories to be experimentally
indistinguishable.

Note that Lorentz invariance has proven to be a very important part of modern
theoretical physics -- it has been ESSENTIAL in finding all new theories since
SR. So #4 makes all of these other theories completely uninteresting.


>> There are MANY experiments performed to  test  for an  "aether  wind". All
>> have come up empty (i.e. consistent with no  such  wind  and/or consistent
>> with  SR).   Many  made  explicit  efforts  to not screen or shield an
>> "aether wind".
>
> I should like to know more about them but don't know how to find them.

Here's a start:
     http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
     http://relativity.livingreviews.org/
     https://scholar.google.com/

BEWARE: most experiments looking for "aether" are quite old, even ancient. Most
if not all suffer from a lack of modern analysis techniques, in particular:
error analysis. Any experiment that averages data is unlikely to be trustworthy
(averaging can introduce artifacts).


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374058

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:mtGdnWUti78KhgTLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com...

On 1/14/16 1/14/16 - 2:15 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Tom Roberts to Anton Shepelev:
>> In  science,  an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with
>> its predictions.[...] This  understanding, of course, is not cast in 
>> stone,
>> and in the future a better theory could come along....
>
> Thanks for the explanation.  I stand corrected.   So an experiment 
> generally
>  confirms a multitude of the- ories.

|Yes. For instance, there is in infinite class of theories which are
|experimentally indistinguishable from SR. Among them are Lorentz Ether 
Theory
|(LET), and the Tangherlini transforms. All but SR share these attributes:

They are not liked by relativistic morons.
Thus, the only truly confirmed theory is The Shit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374059

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:mtGdnWUti78KhgTLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com...



|  7. they differ from SR ONLY in the way their coordinate clocks are
     synchronized

What, unfortunately, makes them matching reality, in opposition
to your Shit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373571

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 1/5/16 1/5/16 - 3:39 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> the speed of light from a moving source is calculated as follows: c'=
>> (measured incoming frequency)(universal wavelength of the source)
> 
> Nobody in their right mind would do that.
> The REAL equation for MEASURING the speed of light from a moving source
> is: c'= (measured incoming frequency)(measured incoming wavelength)
> For actual observations, c' = c within experimental resolutions.

Classic error. You can never measure both incomings same time. The 
Frequency is even a technical impossibility. There are no hardware proper 
counters running that fast. (expected Frequency times >= 2) (femtoHertz 
region)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373576

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 7:43:29 AM UTC-7, Carmine Portacio wrote:
>
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> > On 1/5/16 1/5/16 - 3:39 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > the speed of light from a moving source is calculated as follows: c'=
> > > (measured incoming frequency)(universal wavelength of the source)
> > 
> > Nobody in their right mind would do that.
> > The REAL equation for MEASURING the speed of light from a moving source
> > is: c'= (measured incoming frequency)(measured incoming wavelength)
> > For actual observations, c' = c within experimental resolutions.
> 
> Classic error. You can never measure both incomings same time.

Who says it has to be done "at the same time"?  And who says you can't
split the signal, sending part to a frequency counter and part to a
grating or wavemeter?

> The Frequency is even a technical impossibility.  There are no hardware
> proper counters running that fast. (expected Frequency times >= 2)
> (femtoHertz region)

Who says "light" refers to visible light rather than to the whole
electromagnetic spectrum?  And who says you can't heterodyne light?

"The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person
doing it." --Chinese proverb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373578

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> The Frequency is even a technical impossibility.  There are no hardware
>> proper counters running that fast. (expected Frequency times >= 2)
>> (femtoHertz region)
> 
> Who says "light" refers to visible light rather than to the whole
> electromagnetic spectrum?  And who says you can't heterodyne light?

Absolutely true. However there is a catch here, the behavioural at lower 
frequencies is Wavelike, meanwhile true Light at femtoHerts scale gets 
Particlelike pretty fast. You are forced to prove the two cases are 
identical, which are not. Mister Kenseto is talking about proper Light.

Remember that originally, Light was considered being the same as Radio 
waves, not the Radio waves being the same as Light.

> "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the persn
> doing it." --Chinese proverb

An interrupt push all used temporary data and register into the memory 
stack, immediately followed by the execution of the Interrupt. This is 
factually done in the field. Not proverbs and archaic stories. I beg you 
to reconsider.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373581

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:28:00 AM UTC-7, Carmine Portacio wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > The Frequency is even a technical impossibility.  There are no hardware
> > > proper counters running that fast. (expected Frequency times >= 2)
> > > (femtoHertz region)
> > 
> > Who says "light" refers to visible light rather than to the whole
> > electromagnetic spectrum?  And who says you can't heterodyne light?
> 
> Absolutely true. However there is a catch here, the behavioural at lower 
> frequencies is Wavelike, meanwhile true Light at femtoHerts scale gets 
> Particlelike pretty fast. You are forced to prove the two cases are 
> identical, which are not. Mister Kenseto is talking about proper Light.

Looks "wave-like" to me:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040830082218.htm

> Remember that originally, Light was considered being the same as Radio 
> waves, not the Radio waves being the same as Light.

Irrelevant sophistry.

> > "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the persn
> > doing it." --Chinese proverb
> 
> An interrupt push all used temporary data and register into the memory 
> stack, immediately followed by the execution of the Interrupt. This is 
> factually done in the field. Not proverbs and archaic stories. I beg you 
> to reconsider.

I beg you to get a brain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373582

El sábado, 9 de enero de 2016, 13:37:50 (UTC-3), Gary Harnagel  escribió:
> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:28:00 AM UTC-7, Carmine Portacio wrote:
> >
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Frequency is even a technical impossibility.  There are no hardware
> > > > proper counters running that fast. (expected Frequency times >= 2)
> > > > (femtoHertz region)
> > > 
> > > Who says "light" refers to visible light rather than to the whole
> > > electromagnetic spectrum?  And who says you can't heterodyne light?
> > 
> > Absolutely true. However there is a catch here, the behavioural at lower 
> > frequencies is Wavelike, meanwhile true Light at femtoHerts scale gets 
> > Particlelike pretty fast. You are forced to prove the two cases are 
> > identical, which are not. Mister Kenseto is talking about proper Light.
> 
> Looks "wave-like" to me:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040830082218.htm
> 
> > Remember that originally, Light was considered being the same as Radio 
> > waves, not the Radio waves being the same as Light.
> 
> Irrelevant sophistry.
> 
> > > "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the persn
> > > doing it." --Chinese proverb
> > 
> > An interrupt push all used temporary data and register into the memory 
> > stack, immediately followed by the execution of the Interrupt. This is 
> > factually done in the field. Not proverbs and archaic stories. I beg you 
> > to reconsider.
> 
> I beg you to get a brain.

And a proper name, insted of the hundreds of different names the nymshifting troll uses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373584

paparios wrote:

>> > An interrupt push all used temporary data and register into the
>> > memory stack, immediately followed by the execution of the Interrupt.
>> > This is factually done in the field. Not proverbs and archaic
>> > stories. I beg you to reconsider.
>> 
>> I beg you to get a brain.
> 
> And a proper name, insted of the hundreds of different names the
> nymshifting troll uses.

And paparios is you name, hahaha. Paparios and "Gary" doesn't even know 
what an interrupt does, scientifically. That's why they are immune to 
learning, they never learn anything, much less Relativity and Tnesors. 
Without Tensors you have no right to speak about Relativity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373583

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:28:00 AM UTC-7, Carmine Portacio
> wrote:
>>
>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> >
>> > > The Frequency is even a technical impossibility.  There are no
>> > > hardware proper counters running that fast. (expected Frequency
>> > > times >= 2) (femtoHertz region)
>> > 
>> > Who says "light" refers to visible light rather than to the whole
>> > electromagnetic spectrum?  And who says you can't heterodyne light?
>> 
>> Absolutely true. However there is a catch here, the behavioural at
>> lower frequencies is Wavelike, meanwhile true Light at femtoHerts scale
>> gets Particlelike pretty fast. You are forced to prove the two cases
>> are identical, which are not. Mister Kenseto is talking about proper
>> Light.
> 
> Looks "wave-like" to me:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040830082218.htm
> 
>> Remember that originally, Light was considered being the same as Radio
>> waves, not the Radio waves being the same as Light.
> 
> Irrelevant sophistry.
> 
>> > "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the persn
>> > doing it." --Chinese proverb
>> 
>> An interrupt push all used temporary data and register into the memory
>> stack, immediately followed by the execution of the Interrupt. This is
>> factually done in the field. Not proverbs and archaic stories. I beg
>> you to reconsider.
> 
> I beg you to get a brain.

Unequivocally untrue. An empirical impossibility, since I already proved 
you are a total moron equating Radio Waves to Light Waves, things which 
are illegal in many free liberty 1st world industrialized countries.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373594

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:49:32 AM UTC-7, Carmine Portacio wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:28:00 AM UTC-7, Carmine Portacio
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Who says "light" refers to visible light rather than to the whole
> > > > electromagnetic spectrum?  And who says you can't heterodyne light?
> > > 
> > > Absolutely true. However there is a catch here, the behavioural at
> > > lower frequencies is Wavelike, meanwhile true Light at femtoHerts scale
> > > gets Particlelike pretty fast. You are forced to prove the two cases
> > > are identical, which are not. Mister Kenseto is talking about proper
> > > Light.
> > 
> > Looks "wave-like" to me:
> > 
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040830082218.htm
> > 
> > > Remember that originally, Light was considered being the same as Radio
> > > waves, not the Radio waves being the same as Light.
> > 
> > Irrelevant sophistry.
> > 
> > > > "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the persn
> > > > doing it." --Chinese proverb
> > > 
> > > An interrupt push all used temporary data and register into the memory
> > > stack, immediately followed by the execution of the Interrupt. This is
> > > factually done in the field. Not proverbs and archaic stories. I beg
> > > you to reconsider.
> > 
> > I beg you to get a brain.
> 
> Unequivocally untrue.

Right, I'm not really begging.  You don't have a brain and you never will.

> An empirical impossibility,

Right, because there is no room in your pin-sized head for a brain.

> since I already proved you are a total moron

Hahahaha!  Pinheads can't prove anything except that they are stupid.

> equating Radio Waves to Light Waves,

Gee, there IS something in that pinhead that allows you to fantasize
nonsense.

> things which are illegal in many free liberty 1st world industrialized
> countries.

Allowing people like you to have a computer certainly should be illegal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373595

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> equating Radio Waves to Light Waves,
> 
> Gee, there IS something in that pinhead that allows you to fantasize
> nonsense.

You did it, Gary, you did. Let's just forget it, that you did it, and talk 
about something else. As Mr. Kenseto correctly says, also, once you split 
that light through a beam splitter cube, "is not the same light" any more. 
Thus you perform your measurements on an artefact. Something you need to 
learn from, don't you think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_splitter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373598

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 1:55:37 PM UTC-7, Carmine Portacio wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> >> equating Radio Waves to Light Waves,
> > 
> > Gee, there IS something in that pinhead that allows you to fantasize
> > nonsense.
> 
> You did it, Gary, you did. Let's just forget it, that you did it, and talk 
> about something else. As Mr. Kenseto correctly says, also, once you split 
> that light through a beam splitter cube, "is not the same light" any more.

Pure baloney.  As if anyone put their picoscopic lenses on a saw the
serial numbers on the photons :-)))
 
> Thus you perform your measurements on an artefact. Something you need to 
> learn from, don't you think?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_splitter

Pure ridiculous speculation, no solid content.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373586

On 1/9/16 1/9/16   8:43 AM, Carmine Portacio wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> The REAL equation for MEASURING the speed of light from a moving source
>> is: c'= (measured incoming frequency)(measured incoming wavelength)
>> For actual observations, c' = c within experimental resolutions.
>
> Classic error.

BY YOU -- you assume that counting is the only way to measure frequency. It isn't.

That is, the limits on your knowledge and understanding do not apply to others.


> You can never measure both incomings same time.

Sure you can. Either by splitting or by using two separate instruments pointed 
at the same object. And for astronomical objects, measurements a few minutes 
apart are essentially "the same time".


> The
> Frequency is even a technical impossibility.

Nope, not any more. The most practical way to measure the frequency of a visible 
light ray is to heterodyne with a laser of known frequency. Laser frequencies, 
of course, are determined by heterodyne with each other, down to a frequency 
where counting is feasible.

There are lots of papers on this....


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373587

Tom Roberts wrote:

>> You can never measure both incomings same time.
> 
> Sure you can. Either by splitting or by using two separate instruments
> pointed at the same object. And for astronomical objects, measurements a
> few minutes apart are essentially "the same time".

A second intentionally invoked classic error. I beg you to reconsider. By 
splitting that Light then performing observation of it, leads to a 
completely other Observation Experiment. Splitting induce Entanglement, 
about which you know more than I know. You just invalidate your own 
Experiment.

>> The Frequency is even a technical impossibility.
> 
> Nope, not any more. The most practical way to measure the frequency of a
> visible light ray is to heterodyne with a laser of known frequency.
> Laser frequencies, of course, are determined by heterodyne with each
> other, down to a frequency where counting is feasible. There are lots of
> papers on this....

Nevertheless, heterodyne and homodyne setups are merely used in 
measurement of particle size and shape (thing you should already know), 
and are not displaying any accurate frequency counting, but rather 
displacement in SPACE. (yes, counting the crests of the Light is 
necessary, since Mr. Kenseto is talking about accurate measurement 
differences ("absolute" vs "measured" frequencies)). Good post, thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373239

The Doppler effect unequivocally shows that the speed of light is not constant:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler 
 Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: 

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary receiver) 

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving receiver) 

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

Since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373241

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> The Doppler effect unequivocally shows that the speed of light is not
> constant:
> http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
>  Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such
>  as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the
>  receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an
>  animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

Remember that is not about the discrepancy in taking light as either wave 
or particle, but that the light is BOTH wave and particle SAME TIME. Even 
a single photon is BOTH a particle and a wave same time. This is weird.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373246

El domingo, 3 de enero de 2016, 20:14:16 (UTC-3), Kathleen Winder  escribió:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> > The Doppler effect unequivocally shows that the speed of light is not
> > constant:
> > http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
> >  Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such
> >  as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the
> >  receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an
> >  animation of the receiver moving towards the source:
> 
> Remember that is not about the discrepancy in taking light as either wave 
> or particle, but that the light is BOTH wave and particle SAME TIME. Even 
> a single photon is BOTH a particle and a wave same time. This is weird.

The nym-shifting at his best, writing nonsensical stuff.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web