Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #455482 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-10 15:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-18 10:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 15:02 -0700
The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-10 15:27 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 09:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 15:28 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 07:51 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 08:33 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 14:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-13 21:29 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 10:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 10:41 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 12:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 13:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 13:51 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 08:12 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 22:14 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> - 2018-04-11 15:31 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-12 04:46 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-12 15:13 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-11 05:47 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 08:21 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 08:36 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 10:21 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 10:32 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 11:02 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 13:07 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 13:19 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 11:27 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 11:37 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-11 05:58 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 08:23 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:19 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:32 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-12 04:52 -0700
The DUMBEST Belief in Physics Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 11:31 +0100
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 21:52 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 20:29 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-14 06:58 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 07:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-14 09:25 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-14 07:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 07:58 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 08:32 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-15 10:32 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 09:27 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-16 17:57 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-15 18:54 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 10:28 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:12 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 13:31 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:19 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-13 14:56 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 16:01 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 22:16 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-13 20:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-14 07:29 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 15:29 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-15 10:30 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 09:23 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 20:38 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-16 18:10 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-16 21:17 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 07:11 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 14:54 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-17 08:26 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 08:55 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 14:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-17 20:06 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 08:42 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 10:30 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-19 21:17 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 14:29 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-19 21:41 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 19:22 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-20 07:44 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:38 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 14:59 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 19:22 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 23:53 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:55 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 14:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-21 05:57 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 23:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 10:46 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:41 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 09:50 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 16:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-22 07:45 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-22 08:58 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 11:47 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:41 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-23 16:33 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:32 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:42 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-18 09:56 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-18 08:40 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 08:57 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-15 18:34 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-15 09:08 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 09:37 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 20:39 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 13:49 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 22:01 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 15:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 15:31 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 16:38 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 16:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 17:01 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 08:15 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-19 08:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 08:59 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-19 09:22 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-19 09:31 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-04-19 10:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-19 18:31 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-19 09:58 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-04-19 19:57 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-19 21:35 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-19 13:47 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 07:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 10:17 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-04-19 10:38 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 19:59 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-21 01:12 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics KronosPrime@outlook.com - 2018-04-22 12:06 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-19 09:08 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-18 21:15 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 10:07 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-13 11:33 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-14 18:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 09:07 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-15 20:27 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-16 05:40 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-15 20:55 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 07:07 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 12:25 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-16 23:28 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 07:18 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-17 08:57 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-17 20:03 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 08:56 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 09:11 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 09:12 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 10:40 -0700
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-21 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba4c05f4-3c1e-4d7e-a8cd-f64b1bd96ab5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456435 |
On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 19.04.2018 18.58, skrev Ed Lake: > > If the person on the train and the person on the embankment discuss the situation, they do not have to "guess" about anything. They will find that there is a burn mark on the embankment where lightning bolt B struck, and they will know that the person on the train passed by that spot, while the person on the embankment NEVER passes by that spot. Therefore, the person on the train is moving, and the person on the embankment is NOT. > > Quite. > The person on the embankment is obviously stationary relative > to the embankment, and the person on the train is obviously > moving relative to the embankment. > > Why do you state what is blazingly obvious? > > > > > Once they agree on that conclusion, that puts an end to any debate about who is "right." The person on the embankment is right. What the person on the train saw was an "illusion" (maybe there's a better word) that the lightning strikes were not simultaneous. > > Now you are ridiculous. > What the person on the train saw, was no illusion > > Let's start again. > Please read the following carefully, and please don't > make irrelevant remarks but _ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!_ > > > Begin thought experiment-------------------------------- > > Two lightening bolts strike each end of a moving train, > leaving marks in the ground where they struck. > We know nothing about the simultaneity of the lightening bolts, > *_all we know is what two observers observe_* > (measure with suitable instruments). > > The following observations can be considered as facts, > and are not to be questioned: > > - An observer Y who is stationary on the embankment midway between > the marks in the ground sees the two flashes simultaneously. > > - An observer M who is in the middle of the train sees the flash > from the front of the train before he sees the flash > from the end of the train. Here you already concluded that simultaneity is relative. It is not for the following reasons: 1. Y is at the mid point between the strike marks and he sees the flashes arrive at him simultaneous. 2. M is at the mid point of the strike marks (the ends of the train). He must also sees the flashes happened simultaneously. Why? Because the speed of light in the train is isotopic and the strikes happened simultaneously when Y and M are coincided with each other. That means that if Y sees the strikes to be simultaneous M must also sees the strikes to be simultaneous. 3. The math of the LT supports the above confusion. Y sees the strikes to be simultaneous at time t and M sees the strikes to be simultaneous at time t’ and the relationship between t and t’ is as follows: t’=gamma*t > > End thought experiment-------------------------------- > > This is what has been observed, Y and M have informed > each other about their observations, there is no > disagreement about what is observed, and neither of > the observations were illusions. > > The possible disagreement is not about what was > observed, but how the observations can be explained. > And to explain them, we must have a theory about > how light behaves in the real world. > (or some assumption, guesses, or postulates). > > Below are the explanations according to two different > theories: > > Explanation #1: > Assumptions (postulates): > The speed of light in the ground frame is isotropic c, > and Galilean relativity applies, so the speed of light > in the train frame is c+v for light moving towards > the back of the train, and c-v for light moving towards > the front of the train. > Conclusion: > Y will conclude that the lightening bolts struck simultaneously. > M knows that the flash from the front approaches him faster > than the flash from back, so since he saw the flash from > the front before the flash from the back he sees no reason > to disagree with Y. > The lightening bolts struck simultaneously in both frames. > (Simultaneity is absolute.) > > Question #1: > Do you agree that this is a possible conclusion when > the stated assumptions are made? > > ------------------ > > Explanation #2: > Assumptions (postulates): > The speed of light is invariant which means > that the speed of light is c in the ground frame, > AND the speed of light is c in the train frame. > Conclusion: > Observer Y must conclude that the lightening > bolts struck simultaneously, while observer M > can only conclude that the front lightening bolt > struck before the aft lightening bolt. > That can only mean that "simultaneity" is frame > dependent. (Relativity of simultaneity.) > > Question #2: > Do you agree that this is the only possible conclusion > when the stated assumptions are made? > > ---------------- > > And then the most important question #3: > Do you agree that the only way you can determine > which of the assumptions (or postulates) above > are in accordance with the real world is to > make real experiments? > > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-21 10:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c490bdc0-23e6-4d1a-91f9-9f067e68f465@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456558 |
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 10:44:31 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 19.04.2018 18.58, skrev Ed Lake: > > > If the person on the train and the person on the embankment discuss the situation, they do not have to "guess" about anything. They will find that there is a burn mark on the embankment where lightning bolt B struck, and they will know that the person on the train passed by that spot, while the person on the embankment NEVER passes by that spot. Therefore, the person on the train is moving, and the person on the embankment is NOT. > > > > Quite. > > The person on the embankment is obviously stationary relative > > to the embankment, and the person on the train is obviously > > moving relative to the embankment. > > > > Why do you state what is blazingly obvious? > > > > > > > > Once they agree on that conclusion, that puts an end to any debate about who is "right." The person on the embankment is right. What the person on the train saw was an "illusion" (maybe there's a better word) that the lightning strikes were not simultaneous. > > > > Now you are ridiculous. > > What the person on the train saw, was no illusion > > > > Let's start again. > > Please read the following carefully, and please don't > > make irrelevant remarks but _ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!_ > > > > > > Begin thought experiment-------------------------------- > > > > Two lightening bolts strike each end of a moving train, > > leaving marks in the ground where they struck. > > We know nothing about the simultaneity of the lightening bolts, > > *_all we know is what two observers observe_* > > (measure with suitable instruments). > > > > The following observations can be considered as facts, > > and are not to be questioned: > > > > - An observer Y who is stationary on the embankment midway between > > the marks in the ground sees the two flashes simultaneously. > > > > - An observer M who is in the middle of the train sees the flash > > from the front of the train before he sees the flash > > from the end of the train. > > Here you already concluded that simultaneity is relative. It is not for the following reasons: > 1. Y is at the mid point between the strike marks and he sees the flashes arrive at him simultaneous. > 2. M is at the mid point of the strike marks (the ends of the train). He must also sees the flashes happened simultaneously. Why? Because the speed of light in the train is isotopic and the strikes happened simultaneously when Y and M are coincided with each other. That means that if Y sees the strikes to be simultaneous M must also sees the strikes to be simultaneous. > 3. The math of the LT supports the above conclusions. Y sees the strikes to be simultaneous at time t and M sees the strikes to be simultaneous at time t’ and the relationship between t and t’ is as follows: t’=gamma*t > > > > > > End thought experiment-------------------------------- > > > > This is what has been observed, Y and M have informed > > each other about their observations, there is no > > disagreement about what is observed, and neither of > > the observations were illusions. > > > > The possible disagreement is not about what was > > observed, but how the observations can be explained. > > And to explain them, we must have a theory about > > how light behaves in the real world. > > (or some assumption, guesses, or postulates). > > > > Below are the explanations according to two different > > theories: > > > > Explanation #1: > > Assumptions (postulates): > > The speed of light in the ground frame is isotropic c, > > and Galilean relativity applies, so the speed of light > > in the train frame is c+v for light moving towards > > the back of the train, and c-v for light moving towards > > the front of the train. > > Conclusion: > > Y will conclude that the lightening bolts struck simultaneously. > > M knows that the flash from the front approaches him faster > > than the flash from back, so since he saw the flash from > > the front before the flash from the back he sees no reason > > to disagree with Y. > > The lightening bolts struck simultaneously in both frames. > > (Simultaneity is absolute.) > > > > Question #1: > > Do you agree that this is a possible conclusion when > > the stated assumptions are made? > > > > ------------------ > > > > Explanation #2: > > Assumptions (postulates): > > The speed of light is invariant which means > > that the speed of light is c in the ground frame, > > AND the speed of light is c in the train frame. > > Conclusion: > > Observer Y must conclude that the lightening > > bolts struck simultaneously, while observer M > > can only conclude that the front lightening bolt > > struck before the aft lightening bolt. > > That can only mean that "simultaneity" is frame > > dependent. (Relativity of simultaneity.) > > > > Question #2: > > Do you agree that this is the only possible conclusion > > when the stated assumptions are made? > > > > ---------------- > > > > And then the most important question #3: > > Do you agree that the only way you can determine > > which of the assumptions (or postulates) above > > are in accordance with the real world is to > > make real experiments? > > > > > > -- > > Paul > > > > https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0212d45-7de6-45f2-9c3f-ec55cc6f8ed2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456393 |
On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 8:44:43 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 10:15:30 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:44:47 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > > Steve BH wrote > > > > > > On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 1:39:04 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > There is your mistake. You do NOT need two photons to have interference. > > > > That’s precisely the point. See what happens when you insert your own > > > > preconceptions? > > > > > > > > > Yep. It's even better. It's not as though photons interfere WITH EACH OTHER till you get down to one photon, which is (only then) forced to pervertedly interfere with itself. > > > > > > In 1930 or so, Dirac realized that even if you have lots of photons, they don't interfere with each other. They always separately interfere with themselves! The single photon experiment is not the exception, but the rule. > > > > > > Photons are a energetic disturbance “In the Aether” > > > > > > Photons are entangled with “Space Time” .... always > > > > Hey Ed L. > > Here is a clear crank post. I snipped the mandatory > > youtube link. > > > > Ed P. > > Yes, I maintain a "Do not reply" list of people who post here and who I will not reply to because they mostly just post insults and personal attacks. > > Here's the list: > > Odd Bodkin > David (Kronos Prime) Fuller > Dirk Van de Mootel > Python > Gary Harnagel > Dono > Shuba > Poutnik > Thomas 'Pointed ears' Lahn > Prokaryitic Caspase Homolog > > Right now I've got a lot of things to think over, and I have some scientific papers to write, so I'm going to have to stop posting here for awhile. > > Good luck. > > Ed L Thick skinned imbecile. Only here you will get that much attention.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 19:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <29okddl8i1buejj6947ufq0t832757c51h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #456393 |
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 08:44:41 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lake wrote: > ... Yes, I maintain a "Do not reply" list of people who post here and > who I will not reply to because they mostly just post insults and > personal attacks. > > Here's the list: > > Odd Bodkin > David (Kronos Prime) Fuller > Dirk Van de Mootel > Python > Gary Harnagel > Dono > Shuba > Poutnik > Thomas 'Pointed ears' Lahn > Prokaryitic Caspase Homolog Pretty illustrious for the most part. One could take some pride in being included in such a list. BTW, be more careful with your spelling. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-21 01:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2075002.dZdCjAcuW4@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #456524 |
Lofty Goat wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 08:44:41 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lake wrote: >> ... Yes, I maintain a "Do not reply" list of people who post here and >> who I will not reply to because they mostly just post insults and >> personal attacks. >> >> Here's the list: >> >> Odd Bodkin >> David (Kronos Prime) Fuller >> Dirk Van de Mootel >> Python >> Gary Harnagel >> Dono >> Shuba >> Poutnik >> Thomas 'Pointed ears' Lahn >> Prokaryitic Caspase Homolog > > Pretty illustrious for the most part. One could take some pride in > being included in such a list. It is the growing list of people who he has lost arguments against because they demonstrated that he does not have the slightest clue what he is talking about. There are others who have done that he has just not included yet because he craves the undying attention they provide him with, no matter the extent of the nonsense that he claims, or he simply did not understand that they proved him wrong numerous times (both applies e.g. to Tom Roberts). > BTW, be more careful with your spelling. ACK. _PointedEars_ -- Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out? A: Sherlock Ohms. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | KronosPrime@outlook.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 12:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <680c53aa-b4b3-4993-bff4-a047188d1329@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456524 |
Lofty Goat wrote > ... Yes, I maintain a "Do not reply" list of people who post here and > who I will not reply to because they mostly just post insults and > personal attacks. > > Here's the list: > > Odd Bodkin > David (Kronos Prime) Fuller > Dirk Van de Mootel > Python > Gary Harnagel > Dono > Shuba > Poutnik > Thomas 'Pointed ears' Lahn > Prokaryitic Caspase Homolog Pretty illustrious for the most part. One could take some pride in being included in such a list. https://youtu.be/QHCGNf7KaVQ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 09:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02aefc98-8da5-4aff-9851-15c745aa7709@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456390 |
Edward Prochak prophesied Hey Ed L. Here is a clear crank post. I snipped the mandatory youtube link. Ed P. Ed P is now on my permanent “(Do) Reply List” !!! The “Particle Parameters & Qualities” are dictated by the Medium & it’s conditions Particles are an “energetic disturbance of the Medium “ Particles are “kinetic energy (in & of) the medium” https://youtu.be/tFq5lCNEZmU “Causality” originates from the “energetic boundaries” in the medium https://photos.app.goo.gl/HjGaozufxoKHtYaP2 https://photos.app.goo.gl/E0kRc6RcXkocR8j92 ((electron mass)/c/(planck length)/(kg s / m^2)*(2*5)^8)^0.5 = 137.114309109 (electron mass/kg)/137.0668725^2/(3 m^-1)/(planck length) = 1 ((electron mass / (3 kg)) / (137.035999172^2)) / (planck length / m) = 1.00045064
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 21:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <g_WdnTLWvc9SZkrHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #456368 |
On 4/18/18 6:38 PM, Steve BH wrote: > In 1930 or so, Dirac realized that even if you have lots of photons, > they don't interfere with each other. They always separately > interfere with themselves! The single photon experiment is not the > exception, but the rule. Hmmm. One must be very careful about the physical situation, and also about what one is calculating. The requirement that the amplitude be symmetric under exchange of any pair of photons inherently intermixes all of them. So multiple photons do interfere with each other. But if one calculates for multiple photons propagating between a single source event and a single detection event, that interference has no effect. In practice, of course, that never happens -- there are always finite sizes of both source and detector. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 10:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0eb5f7a-3711-4661-b3b7-78726708ce8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455891 |
On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 8:16:24 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > How could one ever know that a given model is "CORRECT"? The BEST > anyone can do is formulate a model that agrees with all the > experiments. How can you tell which of the two models that are antitheses to each other and both validated by all experiments is correct? <shrug> SR is based off the Lorentz transform, and LET is based on Larmor’s transform. The time dilation is dependent on relative speed, but LET is dependent on absolute speeds. All experiments conducted so far have been very benign in which it is very difficult to tell SR and LET apart, but at higher speeds (observer’s absolute speed), the mathematics of each would start to diverge. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-13 11:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6eb9dc7b-6d13-4092-8682-41b9f23d5b3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455482 |
How original!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-14 18:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be4a6869-b6d8-4a19-8e0e-020655c396be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455482 |
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 5:02:03 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." Source: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > Light is emitted from atoms as PHOTONS, which are emitted RANDOMLY in all directions. “This means you cannot predict the angular direction of any specific photon emitted." Source: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/radiationdir.html > > "Radio waves, gamma-rays, visible light, and all the other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be described in terms of a stream of mass-less particles, called photons, each traveling in a wave-like pattern at the speed of light." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html > > There wouldn’t be a “stream” of photons unless they were focused, as is done in a laser beam. Otherwise, the photons spread out like light radiating in all directions from a lightbulb. And the only “wave-like pattern” is the way each individual photon vibrates. > > "Each photon contains a certain amount of energy. The different types of radiation are defined by the amount of energy found in the photons. Radio waves have photons with low energies, microwave photons have a little more energy than radio waves, infrared photons have still more, then visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, and, the most energetic of all, gamma-rays." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html > > So, when you transmit radio signals using a standard antenna, the antenna emits trillions of radio photons RANDOMLY in every direction. To make the signals mean something, they are EMITTED in evenly spaced high-frequency PULSES erroneously called a “carrier wave.” > > AM radio, for example, is transmitted in the frequency range 535-1605 kHz. That means they send out a “carrier wave” of from 535,000 pulses to 1,605,000 pulses per second. The individual pulses vary in amplitude, meaning they are stronger or weaker depending upon the sound you want to create. The AM radio receiver can then decode the signals for a specific pulse frequency as music or people talking. > > FM radio is transmitted as a “carrier wave” in the frequency range of 88 to 108 Mhz, or 88,000,000 to 108,000,000 pulses per second. By varying the vibration frequency of the photons within a pulse, the pulses are coded to create whatever sounds you need to create. The FM radio receiver can then decode the signals as music or as people talking. > > Because the photons spread out as they leave the transmitter, the signal gets weaker and weaker the farther the receiver is from the transmitter. You can build a bigger antenna to capture more radio photons just the way you build a bigger telescope to capture more visible light photons. > > By building dish-shaped or tube-shaped transmitters you can also FOCUS the transmission of radio photons so that they do not spread out as much and so more will hit a target receiver. > > Light photons do NOT consist of waves, nor do radio photons. Evidently, that false image was created when it was believed that there needed to be some “medium” to transmit light waves, and they believed that “medium” was an invisible “ether” or “aether.” So, they envisioned light as moving wave-like just as sound moves wave-like through the air. > > It’s time to look at things the way they really are. Light does NOT travel as waves. Light travels as individual PHOTONS. > > Ed I agree. Waves are an indicator of the instrument. Particles, whether they are coordinated or not are the solution to the hard physics when dealing with the raw material of light. I think you are going a long way in speaking the truth- the photons get weaker and weaker as they travel outward. Where is the limit of their ability to be detected? Is it the limit of the umbra of the light source to illuminate other objects like planets? I think that all light traveling activity ends at this limit. What I believe happens when we exceed this limit is an instantaneous conglomeration of light sources that are illuminated to the observer instantaneously, but also possess no ability to illuminate any body except highly photo receptors such as our eyes. Outside of a sources' ability to illuminate objects (umbra) are observed stars by as much as the unaided human eye is not something that is close enough receive an umbra from a distant star.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-15 09:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9aeb9b9-9e0d-4b86-9dae-0d136b5bf792@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455983 |
On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:13:06 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 5:02:03 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." Source: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > > > Light is emitted from atoms as PHOTONS, which are emitted RANDOMLY in all directions. “This means you cannot predict the angular direction of any specific photon emitted." Source: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/radiationdir.html > > > > "Radio waves, gamma-rays, visible light, and all the other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be described in terms of a stream of mass-less particles, called photons, each traveling in a wave-like pattern at the speed of light." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html > > > > There wouldn’t be a “stream” of photons unless they were focused, as is done in a laser beam. Otherwise, the photons spread out like light radiating in all directions from a lightbulb. And the only “wave-like pattern” is the way each individual photon vibrates. > > > > "Each photon contains a certain amount of energy. The different types of radiation are defined by the amount of energy found in the photons. Radio waves have photons with low energies, microwave photons have a little more energy than radio waves, infrared photons have still more, then visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, and, the most energetic of all, gamma-rays." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html > > > > So, when you transmit radio signals using a standard antenna, the antenna emits trillions of radio photons RANDOMLY in every direction. To make the signals mean something, they are EMITTED in evenly spaced high-frequency PULSES erroneously called a “carrier wave.” > > > > AM radio, for example, is transmitted in the frequency range 535-1605 kHz. That means they send out a “carrier wave” of from 535,000 pulses to 1,605,000 pulses per second. The individual pulses vary in amplitude, meaning they are stronger or weaker depending upon the sound you want to create. The AM radio receiver can then decode the signals for a specific pulse frequency as music or people talking. > > > > FM radio is transmitted as a “carrier wave” in the frequency range of 88 to 108 Mhz, or 88,000,000 to 108,000,000 pulses per second. By varying the vibration frequency of the photons within a pulse, the pulses are coded to create whatever sounds you need to create. The FM radio receiver can then decode the signals as music or as people talking. > > > > Because the photons spread out as they leave the transmitter, the signal gets weaker and weaker the farther the receiver is from the transmitter. You can build a bigger antenna to capture more radio photons just the way you build a bigger telescope to capture more visible light photons. > > > > By building dish-shaped or tube-shaped transmitters you can also FOCUS the transmission of radio photons so that they do not spread out as much and so more will hit a target receiver. > > > > Light photons do NOT consist of waves, nor do radio photons. Evidently, that false image was created when it was believed that there needed to be some “medium” to transmit light waves, and they believed that “medium” was an invisible “ether” or “aether.” So, they envisioned light as moving wave-like just as sound moves wave-like through the air. > > > > It’s time to look at things the way they really are. Light does NOT travel as waves. Light travels as individual PHOTONS. > > > > Ed > > I agree. Waves are an indicator of the instrument. Particles, whether they are coordinated or not are the solution to the hard physics when dealing with the raw material of light. > I think you are going a long way in speaking the truth- the photons get weaker and weaker as they travel outward. Where is the limit of their ability to be detected? Is it the limit of the umbra of the light source to illuminate other objects like planets? I think that all light traveling activity ends at this limit. What I believe happens when we exceed this limit is an instantaneous conglomeration of light sources that are illuminated to the observer instantaneously, but also possess no ability to illuminate any body except highly photo receptors such as our eyes. Outside of a sources' ability to illuminate objects (umbra) are observed stars by as much as the unaided human eye is not something that is close enough receive an umbra from a distant star. Welcome to the discussion, however I would disagree with some of your terminology. You wrote: "the photons get weaker and weaker as they travel outward." That's is not true. Experiments show that photons retain their strength as they move outward. But as they move outward they get farther and farther apart from other photons. You then ask, "Where is the limit of their ability to be detected?" Our eyes can detect a single photon under the right circumstances. But, generally speaking, you need to see about 4 o 7 photons PER SECOND to realize that you are seeing something. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-eye-photon-20160719-snap-story.html So, when you look at the night sky, there are a lot more stars out there than you can see, because the photons from most stars are so far apart that your eye cannot collect even one per second, much less 4 to 7. We build telescopes with large lenses so that we can collect more photons. And we take time-exposures so that we do not have to depend upon what we see in one second. You wrote, "I think that all light traveling activity ends at this limit." The limit is really the time of the Big Bang. As Stephen Hawking wrote on page in "A Brief History of Time," "in an infinite static universe nearly every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. Thus one would expect that the whole sky would be as bright as the sun, even at night." He was saying that photons travel forever. So, if the universe had been around forever and was of infinite size, there would be a star at every point in the sky and we would be receiving photons from every star. So, the night sky would be pure white. Instead, it is mostly dark because no photons (or not enough photons) are coming to us from most areas in the sky. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-15 20:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dbc42429-e370-4ffd-8119-b47e32d34e8b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456013 |
On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:07:26 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:13:06 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 5:02:03 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." Source: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > > > > > Light is emitted from atoms as PHOTONS, which are emitted RANDOMLY in all directions. “This means you cannot predict the angular direction of any specific photon emitted." Source: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/radiationdir.html > > > > > > "Radio waves, gamma-rays, visible light, and all the other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be described in terms of a stream of mass-less particles, called photons, each traveling in a wave-like pattern at the speed of light." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html > > > > > > There wouldn’t be a “stream” of photons unless they were focused, as is done in a laser beam. Otherwise, the photons spread out like light radiating in all directions from a lightbulb. And the only “wave-like pattern” is the way each individual photon vibrates. > > > > > > "Each photon contains a certain amount of energy. The different types of radiation are defined by the amount of energy found in the photons. Radio waves have photons with low energies, microwave photons have a little more energy than radio waves, infrared photons have still more, then visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, and, the most energetic of all, gamma-rays." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html > > > > > > So, when you transmit radio signals using a standard antenna, the antenna emits trillions of radio photons RANDOMLY in every direction. To make the signals mean something, they are EMITTED in evenly spaced high-frequency PULSES erroneously called a “carrier wave.” > > > > > > AM radio, for example, is transmitted in the frequency range 535-1605 kHz. That means they send out a “carrier wave” of from 535,000 pulses to 1,605,000 pulses per second. The individual pulses vary in amplitude, meaning they are stronger or weaker depending upon the sound you want to create. The AM radio receiver can then decode the signals for a specific pulse frequency as music or people talking. > > > > > > FM radio is transmitted as a “carrier wave” in the frequency range of 88 to 108 Mhz, or 88,000,000 to 108,000,000 pulses per second. By varying the vibration frequency of the photons within a pulse, the pulses are coded to create whatever sounds you need to create. The FM radio receiver can then decode the signals as music or as people talking. > > > > > > Because the photons spread out as they leave the transmitter, the signal gets weaker and weaker the farther the receiver is from the transmitter. You can build a bigger antenna to capture more radio photons just the way you build a bigger telescope to capture more visible light photons. > > > > > > By building dish-shaped or tube-shaped transmitters you can also FOCUS the transmission of radio photons so that they do not spread out as much and so more will hit a target receiver. > > > > > > Light photons do NOT consist of waves, nor do radio photons. Evidently, that false image was created when it was believed that there needed to be some “medium” to transmit light waves, and they believed that “medium” was an invisible “ether” or “aether.” So, they envisioned light as moving wave-like just as sound moves wave-like through the air. > > > > > > It’s time to look at things the way they really are. Light does NOT travel as waves. Light travels as individual PHOTONS. > > > > > > Ed > > > > I agree. Waves are an indicator of the instrument. Particles, whether they are coordinated or not are the solution to the hard physics when dealing with the raw material of light. > > I think you are going a long way in speaking the truth- the photons get weaker and weaker as they travel outward. Where is the limit of their ability to be detected? Is it the limit of the umbra of the light source to illuminate other objects like planets? I think that all light traveling activity ends at this limit. What I believe happens when we exceed this limit is an instantaneous conglomeration of light sources that are illuminated to the observer instantaneously, but also possess no ability to illuminate any body except highly photo receptors such as our eyes. Outside of a sources' ability to illuminate objects (umbra) are observed stars by as much as the unaided human eye is not something that is close enough receive an umbra from a distant star. > > Welcome to the discussion, however I would disagree with some of your terminology. > > You wrote: "the photons get weaker and weaker as they travel outward." That's is not true. Experiments show that photons retain their strength as they move outward. But as they move outward they get farther and farther apart from other photons. > > You then ask, "Where is the limit of their ability to be detected?" > > Our eyes can detect a single photon under the right circumstances. But, generally speaking, you need to see about 4 o 7 photons PER SECOND to realize that you are seeing something. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-eye-photon-20160719-snap-story.html > > So, when you look at the night sky, there are a lot more stars out there than you can see, because the photons from most stars are so far apart that your eye cannot collect even one per second, much less 4 to 7. We build telescopes with large lenses so that we can collect more photons. And we take time-exposures so that we do not have to depend upon what we see in one second. > > You wrote, "I think that all light traveling activity ends at this limit." > > The limit is really the time of the Big Bang. As Stephen Hawking wrote on page in "A Brief History of Time," "in an infinite static universe nearly every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. Thus one would expect that the whole sky would be as bright as the sun, even at night." > > He was saying that photons travel forever. So, if the universe had been around forever and was of infinite size, there would be a star at every point in the sky and we would be receiving photons from every star. So, the night sky would be pure white. Instead, it is mostly dark because no photons (or not enough photons) are coming to us from most areas in the sky. > > Ed Thank you Ed for welcoming me and yes I am not the best always in my terminology. But, I will beckon you with what has the called "the second crucial experiment", performed and explained by Philip Lenard just before 1905, and was used by Einstein in critical analysis of his early miraculous papers. Lenard separates the concept of wave and the particle of light in a thought experiment concerning the most common light source: Lenard imagines a light source which emits light in all directions... 1) on the opaque screen (near) light is received as a wave, receiving on the opaque's screen per square area la/pi r squared. 2) as the opaque is taken farther and farther away from the source of light, the number of photons begin to diminish in proportion of the light sources' ability to illuminate the opaque screen. 3) Lenard assumes the number of photons is reduced to n=1, a single photon of opaque illumination. 4) Then Lenard says that n=0, which means the opaque screen lies in complete darkness. Then Lenard proposes a new idea. He proposes that from this point of n=0 in the wave equation of la/4pi r squared: 1) that we are able to set up a new PARTICLE equation which say that nla/4pi r squared may be established. 2) the establishment of this new particle equation is experienced by the manufacture of a photocell. 3) that this new photocell is capable of magnification of the original light source which the original opaque screen is capable of performing. Now we know from Max Born that particle experiments exist in the realm of the opaque screen and that Lenard's conception is fundamentally flawed because of this. Most of my problems and queries involve the separations and cooperations of wave/particle model.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 05:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5ad41b19$0$9288$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #456095 |
John Gogo wrote: > Most of my problems and queries involve the separations and cooperations of wave/particle model. No John. Most of your problems involve that you are a nut.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-15 20:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4f2fb1d-5dc7-4cd3-93a8-9757c1ba61f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456099 |
On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 10:40:11 PM UTC-5, Python wrote: > John Gogo wrote: > > Most of my problems and queries involve the separations and cooperations of wave/particle model. > > No John. Most of your problems involve that you are a nut. I would appreciate if you can give me your opines on Lenard and Born...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 07:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b09a3a2-df08-4f58-9124-64297cbbfbe7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456095 |
On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 10:27:39 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:07:26 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:13:06 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 5:02:03 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." Source: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > > > > > > > Light is emitted from atoms as PHOTONS, which are emitted RANDOMLY in all directions. “This means you cannot predict the angular direction of any specific photon emitted." Source: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/radiationdir.html > > > > > > > > "Radio waves, gamma-rays, visible light, and all the other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be described in terms of a stream of mass-less particles, called photons, each traveling in a wave-like pattern at the speed of light." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html > > > > > > > > There wouldn’t be a “stream” of photons unless they were focused, as is done in a laser beam. Otherwise, the photons spread out like light radiating in all directions from a lightbulb. And the only “wave-like pattern” is the way each individual photon vibrates. > > > > > > > > "Each photon contains a certain amount of energy. The different types of radiation are defined by the amount of energy found in the photons. Radio waves have photons with low energies, microwave photons have a little more energy than radio waves, infrared photons have still more, then visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, and, the most energetic of all, gamma-rays." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html > > > > > > > > So, when you transmit radio signals using a standard antenna, the antenna emits trillions of radio photons RANDOMLY in every direction. To make the signals mean something, they are EMITTED in evenly spaced high-frequency PULSES erroneously called a “carrier wave.” > > > > > > > > AM radio, for example, is transmitted in the frequency range 535-1605 kHz. That means they send out a “carrier wave” of from 535,000 pulses to 1,605,000 pulses per second. The individual pulses vary in amplitude, meaning they are stronger or weaker depending upon the sound you want to create. The AM radio receiver can then decode the signals for a specific pulse frequency as music or people talking. > > > > > > > > FM radio is transmitted as a “carrier wave” in the frequency range of 88 to 108 Mhz, or 88,000,000 to 108,000,000 pulses per second. By varying the vibration frequency of the photons within a pulse, the pulses are coded to create whatever sounds you need to create. The FM radio receiver can then decode the signals as music or as people talking. > > > > > > > > Because the photons spread out as they leave the transmitter, the signal gets weaker and weaker the farther the receiver is from the transmitter. You can build a bigger antenna to capture more radio photons just the way you build a bigger telescope to capture more visible light photons. > > > > > > > > By building dish-shaped or tube-shaped transmitters you can also FOCUS the transmission of radio photons so that they do not spread out as much and so more will hit a target receiver. > > > > > > > > Light photons do NOT consist of waves, nor do radio photons. Evidently, that false image was created when it was believed that there needed to be some “medium” to transmit light waves, and they believed that “medium” was an invisible “ether” or “aether.” So, they envisioned light as moving wave-like just as sound moves wave-like through the air. > > > > > > > > It’s time to look at things the way they really are. Light does NOT travel as waves. Light travels as individual PHOTONS. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > I agree. Waves are an indicator of the instrument. Particles, whether they are coordinated or not are the solution to the hard physics when dealing with the raw material of light. > > > I think you are going a long way in speaking the truth- the photons get weaker and weaker as they travel outward. Where is the limit of their ability to be detected? Is it the limit of the umbra of the light source to illuminate other objects like planets? I think that all light traveling activity ends at this limit. What I believe happens when we exceed this limit is an instantaneous conglomeration of light sources that are illuminated to the observer instantaneously, but also possess no ability to illuminate any body except highly photo receptors such as our eyes. Outside of a sources' ability to illuminate objects (umbra) are observed stars by as much as the unaided human eye is not something that is close enough receive an umbra from a distant star. > > > > Welcome to the discussion, however I would disagree with some of your terminology. > > > > You wrote: "the photons get weaker and weaker as they travel outward." That's is not true. Experiments show that photons retain their strength as they move outward. But as they move outward they get farther and farther apart from other photons. > > > > You then ask, "Where is the limit of their ability to be detected?" > > > > Our eyes can detect a single photon under the right circumstances. But, generally speaking, you need to see about 4 o 7 photons PER SECOND to realize that you are seeing something. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-eye-photon-20160719-snap-story.html > > > > So, when you look at the night sky, there are a lot more stars out there than you can see, because the photons from most stars are so far apart that your eye cannot collect even one per second, much less 4 to 7. We build telescopes with large lenses so that we can collect more photons. And we take time-exposures so that we do not have to depend upon what we see in one second. > > > > You wrote, "I think that all light traveling activity ends at this limit." > > > > The limit is really the time of the Big Bang. As Stephen Hawking wrote on page in "A Brief History of Time," "in an infinite static universe nearly every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. Thus one would expect that the whole sky would be as bright as the sun, even at night." > > > > He was saying that photons travel forever. So, if the universe had been around forever and was of infinite size, there would be a star at every point in the sky and we would be receiving photons from every star. So, the night sky would be pure white. Instead, it is mostly dark because no photons (or not enough photons) are coming to us from most areas in the sky. > > > > Ed > > Thank you Ed for welcoming me and yes I am not the best always in my terminology. But, I will beckon you with what has the called "the second crucial experiment", performed and explained by Philip Lenard just before 1905, and was used by Einstein in critical analysis of his early miraculous papers. Lenard separates the concept of wave and the particle of light in a thought experiment concerning the most common light source: > > Lenard imagines a light source which emits light in all directions... > 1) on the opaque screen (near) light is received as a wave, receiving on the opaque's screen per square area la/pi r squared. > 2) as the opaque is taken farther and farther away from the source of light, the number of photons begin to diminish in proportion of the light sources' ability to illuminate the opaque screen. > 3) Lenard assumes the number of photons is reduced to n=1, a single photon of opaque illumination. > 4) Then Lenard says that n=0, which means the opaque screen lies in complete darkness. > > Then Lenard proposes a new idea. He proposes that from this point of n=0 in the wave equation of la/4pi r squared: > 1) that we are able to set up a new PARTICLE equation which say that nla/4pi r squared may be established. > 2) the establishment of this new particle equation is experienced by the manufacture of a photocell. > 3) that this new photocell is capable of magnification of the original light source which the original opaque screen is capable of performing. > > Now we know from Max Born that particle experiments exist in the realm of the opaque screen and that Lenard's conception is fundamentally flawed because of this. Most of my problems and queries involve the separations and cooperations of wave/particle model. Sorry, but I don't quite follow that. I agree with the first 1,2,3,4, but when you start with "Then Lenard proposes a new idea," you lose me. It seems like that is just a THEORY that appears to conflict with the fact that there is NO PHOTON hitting the "opaque model." It seems Lenard is just arguing that through magnification he can find a photon - or part of a photon - or part of a wave. I see no reason to believe that theory. I'd need to see experimental evidence before I'd even consider it worth discussing. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e1cbfc53-f28e-457e-9e25-db28a3098dc4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456095 |
On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:27:39 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > Thank you Ed [Lake] for welcoming me and yes I am not the best > always in my terminology. But, I will beckon you with what has > the called "the second crucial experiment", performed and explained > by Philip Lenard just before 1905, and was used by Einstein in > critical analysis of his early miraculous papers. Lenard separates > the concept of wave and the particle of light in a thought > experiment concerning the most common light source: It was more than just a thought experiment. It was a proper lab experiment. > > Lenard imagines a light source which emits light in all directions... > 1) on the opaque screen (near) light is received as a wave, receiving > on the opaque's screen per square area la/pi r squared. > 2) as the opaque is taken farther and farther away from the source > of light, the number of photons begin to diminish in proportion of > the light sources' ability to illuminate the opaque screen. > 3) Lenard assumes the number of photons is reduced to n=1, a single > photon of opaque illumination. > 4) Then Lenard says that n=0, which means the opaque screen lies > in complete darkness. > > Then Lenard proposes a new idea. He proposes that from this point > of n=0 in the wave equation of la/4pi r squared: > 1) that we are able to set up a new PARTICLE equation which say > that nla/4pi r squared may be established. > 2) the establishment of this new particle equation is experienced > by the manufacture of a photocell. > 3) that this new photocell is capable of magnification of the > original light source which the original opaque screen is capable > of performing. Lenard received the 1905 Nobel Prize for Physics for this work. > > Now we know from Max Born that particle experiments exist in the > realm of the opaque screen and that Lenard's conception is > fundamentally flawed because of this. Most of my problems and > queries involve the separations and cooperations of > wave/particle model. Do you have a reference for this last observation? What experiments of Max Born shows and error in Lenard's work? just curious as usual, Ed Prochak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 23:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9a550cf-a74f-4ea0-9ac9-6c1c7398eca3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #455482 |
On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 7:32:03 AM UTC+9:30, Ed Lake wrote: > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." Source: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > Light is emitted from atoms as PHOTONS, which are emitted RANDOMLY in all directions. “This means you cannot predict the angular direction of any specific photon emitted." Source: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/radiationdir.html > > "Radio waves, gamma-rays, visible light, and all the other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be described in terms of a stream of mass-less particles, called photons, each traveling in a wave-like pattern at the speed of light." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html > > There wouldn’t be a “stream” of photons unless they were focused, as is done in a laser beam. Otherwise, the photons spread out like light radiating in all directions from a lightbulb. And the only “wave-like pattern” is the way each individual photon vibrates. > > "Each photon contains a certain amount of energy. The different types of radiation are defined by the amount of energy found in the photons. Radio waves have photons with low energies, microwave photons have a little more energy than radio waves, infrared photons have still more, then visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, and, the most energetic of all, gamma-rays." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html > > So, when you transmit radio signals using a standard antenna, the antenna emits trillions of radio photons RANDOMLY in every direction. To make the signals mean something, they are EMITTED in evenly spaced high-frequency PULSES erroneously called a “carrier wave.” > > AM radio, for example, is transmitted in the frequency range 535-1605 kHz. That means they send out a “carrier wave” of from 535,000 pulses to 1,605,000 pulses per second. The individual pulses vary in amplitude, meaning they are stronger or weaker depending upon the sound you want to create. The AM radio receiver can then decode the signals for a specific pulse frequency as music or people talking. > > FM radio is transmitted as a “carrier wave” in the frequency range of 88 to 108 Mhz, or 88,000,000 to 108,000,000 pulses per second. By varying the vibration frequency of the photons within a pulse, the pulses are coded to create whatever sounds you need to create. The FM radio receiver can then decode the signals as music or as people talking. > > Because the photons spread out as they leave the transmitter, the signal gets weaker and weaker the farther the receiver is from the transmitter. You can build a bigger antenna to capture more radio photons just the way you build a bigger telescope to capture more visible light photons. > > By building dish-shaped or tube-shaped transmitters you can also FOCUS the transmission of radio photons so that they do not spread out as much and so more will hit a target receiver. > > Light photons do NOT consist of waves, nor do radio photons. Evidently, that false image was created when it was believed that there needed to be some “medium” to transmit light waves, and they believed that “medium” was an invisible “ether” or “aether.” So, they envisioned light as moving wave-like just as sound moves wave-like through the air. > > It’s time to look at things the way they really are. Light does NOT travel as waves. Light travels as individual PHOTONS. > > Ed If a photon was a spinning bar magnet, travelling in a straight line, what would be its 'signature'? (as it approached, impacted, or passed an observer) Its rate of spin would dictate local field fluctuation ? and there maybe an element of kinetic energy from linear motion? (dog barks in the night-- is it a big dog close, or a small one further away?) Jim G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <466af1d2-2072-4180-822c-83a295d381b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456189 |
On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 1:28:58 AM UTC-5, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 7:32:03 AM UTC+9:30, Ed Lake wrote: > > The 8th DUMBEST Belief in Physics is "Light travels as waves." Source: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html > > > > Light is emitted from atoms as PHOTONS, which are emitted RANDOMLY in all directions. “This means you cannot predict the angular direction of any specific photon emitted." Source: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/radiationdir.html > > > > "Radio waves, gamma-rays, visible light, and all the other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be described in terms of a stream of mass-less particles, called photons, each traveling in a wave-like pattern at the speed of light." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html > > > > There wouldn’t be a “stream” of photons unless they were focused, as is done in a laser beam. Otherwise, the photons spread out like light radiating in all directions from a lightbulb. And the only “wave-like pattern” is the way each individual photon vibrates. > > > > "Each photon contains a certain amount of energy. The different types of radiation are defined by the amount of energy found in the photons. Radio waves have photons with low energies, microwave photons have a little more energy than radio waves, infrared photons have still more, then visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, and, the most energetic of all, gamma-rays." Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html > > > > So, when you transmit radio signals using a standard antenna, the antenna emits trillions of radio photons RANDOMLY in every direction. To make the signals mean something, they are EMITTED in evenly spaced high-frequency PULSES erroneously called a “carrier wave.” > > > > AM radio, for example, is transmitted in the frequency range 535-1605 kHz. That means they send out a “carrier wave” of from 535,000 pulses to 1,605,000 pulses per second. The individual pulses vary in amplitude, meaning they are stronger or weaker depending upon the sound you want to create. The AM radio receiver can then decode the signals for a specific pulse frequency as music or people talking. > > > > FM radio is transmitted as a “carrier wave” in the frequency range of 88 to 108 Mhz, or 88,000,000 to 108,000,000 pulses per second. By varying the vibration frequency of the photons within a pulse, the pulses are coded to create whatever sounds you need to create. The FM radio receiver can then decode the signals as music or as people talking. > > > > Because the photons spread out as they leave the transmitter, the signal gets weaker and weaker the farther the receiver is from the transmitter. You can build a bigger antenna to capture more radio photons just the way you build a bigger telescope to capture more visible light photons. > > > > By building dish-shaped or tube-shaped transmitters you can also FOCUS the transmission of radio photons so that they do not spread out as much and so more will hit a target receiver. > > > > Light photons do NOT consist of waves, nor do radio photons. Evidently, that false image was created when it was believed that there needed to be some “medium” to transmit light waves, and they believed that “medium” was an invisible “ether” or “aether.” So, they envisioned light as moving wave-like just as sound moves wave-like through the air. > > > > It’s time to look at things the way they really are. Light does NOT travel as waves. Light travels as individual PHOTONS. > > > > Ed > > If a photon was a spinning bar magnet, travelling in a straight line, what would be its 'signature'? (as it approached, impacted, or passed an observer) > Its rate of spin would dictate local field fluctuation ? and there maybe an element of kinetic energy from linear motion? > > (dog barks in the night-- is it a big dog close, or a small one further away?) > Jim G A photon "oscillates," it doesn't "spin." So, it's "signature" as it travels in a straight line at the speed of light is that of a wave. If it spun, you'd get either a corkscrew pattern if it was traveling face on, or you'd get a loop-diloop pattern if it was coming edge on. And a loop-d-loop pattern would indicate that the photon was constantly changing speeds. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 08:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4f76cf3-8d30-4864-b656-420f840141d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456204 |
Eduardo Del Lago prophesied A photon "oscillates," it doesn't "spin." So, it's "signature" as it travels in a straight line at the speed of light is that of a wave. If it spun, you'd get either a corkscrew pattern if it was traveling face on, or you'd get a loop-diloop pattern if it was coming edge on. And a loop-d-loop pattern would indicate that the photon was constantly changing speeds. Eduardo Ed Ed Ed A photon is very similar to a particle in a particle accelerator https://photos.app.goo.gl/dnYHeIu3criKWutK2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web