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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #415648 > unrolled thread

Science School

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

Contents

  Science School The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-09 13:03 -0700
    Re: Science School The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-09 13:33 -0700
    Re: Science School Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2017-04-11 10:10 +0800
      Re: Science School Paul Colquhoun <newsposter@andor.dropbear.id.au> - 2017-04-11 17:39 +1000
      Re: Science School Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-11 15:06 +0200
        Re: Science School Jolie Osokuro <uuol@oowo.ou> - 2017-04-11 13:32 +0000
          Re: Science School Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 15:48 +0200
        Re: Science School kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-11 08:25 -0700
          Re: Science School Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-11 18:16 +0200
            Re: Science School Wendi Maddox <ox@awdodww.oe> - 2017-04-14 14:40 +0000
          Speed of light (was: Science School) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-11 18:21 +0200
            Re: Speed of light (was: Science School) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-11 11:25 -0700
              Re: Speed of light (was: Science School) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-11 20:49 +0200
                Re: Speed of light (was: Science School) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-11 12:17 -0700
                  Re: Speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-11 22:00 +0200
                Re: Speed of light (was: Science School) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-12 06:34 -0700
                  Re: Speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-13 00:36 +0200
                    Re: Speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 05:29 -0700
                      Re: Speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-13 14:41 +0200
                        Re: Speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 06:07 -0700
                          Re: Speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-13 15:20 +0200
                            Re: Speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 06:25 -0700
                              Re: Speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-13 15:43 +0200
                                Re: Speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 06:53 -0700
                    Re: Speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-13 05:47 -0700
                      Re: Speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-13 15:15 +0200
                      Re: Speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-13 16:54 +0000
                        Re: Speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-13 10:44 -0700
                          Re: Speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-13 21:33 +0000
              Re: Speed of light (was: Science School) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-11 20:22 +0000
                Re: Speed of light (was: Science School) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-12 07:16 -0700
                  Re: Speed of light (was: Science School) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-12 15:49 +0000
                    Re: Speed of light (was: Science School) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-12 10:04 -0700
                    Re: Speed of light (was: Science School) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-13 05:22 -0700
                      Re: Speed of light (was: Science School) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-13 16:33 +0000
    Re: Science School Nobody <nobody@nowhere.nohow> - 2017-04-11 00:41 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#416131 — Re: Speed of light

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your real name belongs there.

> W dniu czwartek, 13 kwietnia 2017 14:41:23 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

Which part of “attribution line” did you not understand?

>> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>> > And pears are growing on a willow. The willow
>> > is defined this way - I can write this definition
>> > whenever you want, [insult]
>> 
>> You can do that, but by contrast to the SI definition [of the meter]
>> you will find very few people, if any, agreeing with that, because by
>> contrast your definition has nothing to do with reality.
> 
> Unfortunately, you only imagined this contrast:(

Well, which international standard contains your definition?

> [insult]
> And my definition of willow will at least be consistent. By contrast.

You wish.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#416132 — Re: Speed of light

W dniu czwartek, 13 kwietnia 2017 15:20:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Your real name belongs there.
> 
> > W dniu czwartek, 13 kwietnia 2017 14:41:23 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas
> > 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> 
> Which part of “attribution line” did you not understand?

Command some glowing worms, will you?

 
> >> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >> > And pears are growing on a willow. The willow
> >> > is defined this way - I can write this definition
> >> > whenever you want, [insult]
> >> 
> >> You can do that, but by contrast to the SI definition [of the meter]
> >> you will find very few people, if any, agreeing with that, because by
> >> contrast your definition has nothing to do with reality.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, you only imagined this contrast:(
> 
> Well, which international standard contains your definition?

Changing the subject. As expected from a cornered idiot.
Yeah, Insult. You're so smart to recognize.

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

#416135 — Re: Speed of light

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:

> W dniu czwartek, 13 kwietnia 2017 15:20:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
>> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Your real name belongs there.
>> 
>> > W dniu czwartek, 13 kwietnia 2017 14:41:23 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas
>> > 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
>> 
>> Which part of “attribution line” did you not understand?
> 
> Command some glowing worms, will you?

That is not a response to my notice, and not an answer to my question.

>> >> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>> >> > And pears are growing on a willow. The willow
>> >> > is defined this way - I can write this definition
>> >> > whenever you want, [insult]
>> >> You can do that, but by contrast to the SI definition [of the meter]
>> >> you will find very few people, if any, agreeing with that, because by
>> >> contrast your definition has nothing to do with reality.
>> > Unfortunately, you only imagined this contrast:(
>> Well, which international standard contains your definition?
> 
> Changing the subject. […]

No, the subject is still the same.  We are still talking about the validity 
of definitions.  You have claimed that your definition would be on an equal 
level with the SI definition of the meter.  It is now up to you to either 
substantiate that claim or to retract it, lest you destroy what little 
credibility you might have left here.

(JFYI: Judging from your record, I do not expect that you are going to do 
either.  Further evasion/insults by you will cause EOD for me.)

> [insult]

You should be ashamed of yourself.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#416136 — Re: Speed of light

W dniu czwartek, 13 kwietnia 2017 15:43:23 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> 
> > W dniu czwartek, 13 kwietnia 2017 15:20:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas
> > 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> >> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Your real name belongs there.
> >> 
> >> > W dniu czwartek, 13 kwietnia 2017 14:41:23 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas
> >> > 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> >> 
> >> Which part of “attribution line” did you not understand?
> > 
> > Command some glowing worms, will you?
> 
> That is not a response to my notice, and not an answer to my question.

Wrong. That is the response to your notice, 
though (correct) that isn't an answer to your 
question.


> >> >> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >> >> > And pears are growing on a willow. The willow
> >> >> > is defined this way - I can write this definition
> >> >> > whenever you want, [insult]
> >> >> You can do that, but by contrast to the SI definition [of the meter]
> >> >> you will find very few people, if any, agreeing with that, because by
> >> >> contrast your definition has nothing to do with reality.
> >> > Unfortunately, you only imagined this contrast:(
> >> Well, which international standard contains your definition?
> > 
> > Changing the subject. […]
> 
> No, the subject is still the same.  We are still talking about the validity 
> of definitions. 

Fine. So, how, precisely, is your "meter" definition validated? 

> You have claimed that your definition would be on an equal 
> level with the SI definition of the meter.It is now up to you to either 
> substantiate that claim or to retract it, lest you destroy what little 
> credibility you might have left here.

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. It was YOU that 
claimed - that it isn't. 
It is now up to you to either  substantiate that claim 
or to retract it, lest you destroy what little  
credibility you might have left here.

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

#416126 — Re: Speed of light

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 6:36:29 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 2:49:45 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
> 
> Attribution *line*, _not_ attribution novel.
> 
> >> The speed of light in vacuum is c₀ = 299'792'458 m∕s.
> > 
> > This is an artificially
> 
> This is gibberish.  But if you mean “this is artificially”, then no, it is 
> not: It is the result of increasingly precise attempts at measurement.

Sight.....using the speed of light to defined the meter is circular physics. 

> 
> > The fields of QFT  defined speed and it is based on the circular
> > definition for the meter that a meter is 1/299,792,458 light-second.
> 
> Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.

What you said is wrong.....the definition of a meter is indeed 
1/299,792,458 light-second.
> 
> Instead:
> 
> By 1983, measurements of the speed of light in vacuum had become so precise 
> that, whereas in the International System of Units (SI) previously the speed 
> of light in vacuum had been based on the meter, with the meter defined based 
> on the wavelength of a specific emission line, it is now the other way 
> around: the meter is defined as 1∕299'792'458 of the distance that light 
> travels in vacuum in 1 second.

Originally the meter is the length of a metal bar in Paris. In order to save SRT the meter was redefined to be 1/299,792,458 light-second. This circular definition of the meter guarantees that the speed of light to be c in any frame.

Do you realize that I can walk at a speed of c if I define the length of a walk meter is 1/299,792,458 walk-second?

> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre#Wavelength_definition>
>  
> >> You can either say that the vacuum is the medium through which (_not_: by
> >> which) light is transmitted, or as vacuum is defined as “space void of
> >> matter” (QFTs notwithstanding), that there is no medium.  It is usually
> >> generally stated that the transmission of light, and electromagnetic
> >> radiation in general, does not require a medium.
> > 
> > The fields QFT do not exist without a medium.
> 
> Not even wrong.

Can you give us a physical description of a field in QFT? 

> 
> > Weinberg said that the fields in QFT are stress and stains in a medium.
> 
> Most likely he did not.  But you may cite evidence.

Page 25 in his book "Dream Of A Final Theory".

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

#416130 — Re: Speed of light

kenseto wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 6:36:29 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:

What part of “attribution line” did you not understand?

>> kenseto wrote:
>> >> The speed of light in vacuum is c₀ = 299'792'458 m∕s.
>> > This is an artificially
>> This is gibberish.  But if you mean “this is artificially”, then no, it
>> is not: It is the result of increasingly precise attempts at measurement.
> 
> Sight.....

You probably meant “Sigh” here.  Sloppy writer, sloppy thinker…

> using the speed of light to defined the meter is circular
> physics.

Not at all.

>> > The fields of QFT  defined speed and it is based on the circular
>> > definition for the meter that a meter is 1/299,792,458 light-second.
>> 
>> Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.
> 
> What you said is wrong.....the definition of a meter is indeed
> 1/299,792,458 light-second.

I have almost literally quoted the SI definition further below (and you 
quoted that), and what you say *now* is equivalent to that.

What you said *before* is nonsense, though.  Spot the difference.
 
>> Instead:
>> 
>> By 1983, measurements of the speed of light in vacuum had become so
>> precise that, whereas in the International System of Units (SI)
>> previously the speed of light in vacuum had been based on the meter, with
>> the meter defined based on the wavelength of a specific emission line, it
>> is now the other way around: the meter is defined as 1∕299'792'458 of the
>> distance that light travels in vacuum in 1 second.
> 
> Originally the meter is the length of a metal bar in Paris.

Yes, much earlier.  The SI definition of the meter had been updated *several 
times* since then, as science progressed.

> In order to save SRT the meter was redefined to be 1/299,792,458 light-
> second.

No.  SR (or _STR_; “SRT” is the _German_ abbreviation) was postulated in 
1905, and widely accepted by 1960/1961 (Hughes–Drever experiment), at the 
latest, already.  You would have known that your statement is nonsense if 
you had cared to read what I referred you to.

> This circular definition of the meter guarantees that the speed of light
> to be c in any frame.

Nonsense.  That the speed of light is constant and the same for all 
observers, depending only on the optical thickness of the medium through 
which it travels, was already known through experiments *before* 1905.
 
> Do you realize that I can walk at a speed of c if I define the length of a
> walk meter is 1/299,792,458 walk-second?

No, because that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong.

>> >> You can either say that the vacuum is the medium through which (_not_:
>> >> by which) light is transmitted, or as vacuum is defined as “space void
>> >> of matter” (QFTs notwithstanding), that there is no medium.  It is
>> >> usually generally stated that the transmission of light, and
>> >> electromagnetic radiation in general, does not require a medium.
>> > The fields QFT do not exist without a medium.
>> Not even wrong.
> 
> Can you give us a physical description of a field in QFT?

Yes.  (There is no “us” in the sense that you think; you are alone in that 
misconception, other crackpots aside.)

>> > Weinberg said that the fields in QFT are stress and stains in a medium.
>> Most likely he did not.  But you may cite evidence.
> 
> Page 25 in his book "Dream Of A Final Theory".

You need to be more precise.  What is the ISBN, URL etc.?  And which 
paragraph, which sentence on that page, do *you* think, says that?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#416165 — Re: Speed of light

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 6:36:29 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn=
> wrote:

>> > Weinberg said that the fields in QFT are stress and stains in a medium.

>> Most likely he did not.  But you may cite evidence.

>Page 25 in his book "Dream Of A Final Theory".

No, Stupid Ken. He said a field is "a sort of a stress in space,
something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within
a solid body, but a field is a stress in space itself."  Notice he
doesn't mention needing a medium, it is a sort of a stress in space.
Note he was making comparisons so that people can understand it.

http://bit.ly/2ovZxJD

Also he mentions the electron field (not the electrIC field, the
electrON field, whose quantum manifestations are the electron).
I repeat an earlier question: Do you believe the electron needs
a medium to propagate, since you believe the quantum manifestation
of the electric field, the photon, needs one? Why?

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

#416180 — Re: Speed of light

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:54:34 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 6:36:29 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn=
> > wrote:
> 
> >> > Weinberg said that the fields in QFT are stress and stains in a medium.
> 
> >> Most likely he did not.  But you may cite evidence.
> 
> >Page 25 in his book "Dream Of A Final Theory".
> 
> No, Stupid Ken. He said a field is "a sort of a stress in space,
> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within
> a solid body, but a field is a stress in space itself."  Notice he
> doesn't mention needing a medium, it is a sort of a stress in space.
> Note he was making comparisons so that people can understand it.

Moron, no medium no stress......he avoided saying medium by saying stress in space. What that mean is that space is some sort of undefined medium.

> 
> http://bit.ly/2ovZxJD
> 
> Also he mentions the electron field (not the electrIC field, the
> electrON field, whose quantum manifestations are the electron).
> I repeat an earlier question: Do you believe the electron needs
> a medium to propagate, since you believe the quantum manifestation
> of the electric field, the photon, needs one? Why?

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

#416229 — Re: Speed of light

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:54:34 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> 
>> >On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 6:36:29 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn=
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> >> > Weinberg said that the fields in QFT are stress and stains in a medium.
>> 
>> >> Most likely he did not.  But you may cite evidence.
>> 
>> >Page 25 in his book "Dream Of A Final Theory".
>> 
>> No, Stupid Ken. He said a field is "a sort of a stress in space,
>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within
>> a solid body, but a field is a stress in space itself."  Notice he
>> doesn't mention needing a medium, it is a sort of a stress in space.
>> Note he was making comparisons so that people can understand it.

>Moron, no medium no stress......he avoided saying medium by saying
>stress in space. What that mean is that space is some sort of
>undefined medium.

No, Stupid Ken.  That is all words you put in his mouth.  He never
mentioned any medium (YOU did!) or a need for one.  He also said
it was "sort of a stress", not an actual stress.  Remember, Stupid
Ken, the photon is neither a pure wave nor a pure particle.  One of
the particle-like characteristics of the photon is not needing any
medium.

>> Also he mentions the electron field (not the electrIC field, the
>> electrON field, whose quantum manifestations are the electron).
>> I repeat an earlier question: Do you believe the electron needs
>> a medium to propagate, since you believe the quantum manifestation
>> of the electric field, the photon, needs one? Why?

No answer, Stupid Ken?  Since Weinberg said that electrons are
quantum manifestations of the electron field, do you believe that
electrons need a medium to propagate?

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

#415954 — Re: Speed of light (was: Science School)

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:21:20 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:


>> > Your argument supports the concept that light is being transmitted by a
>> > medium occupying space.
>>
>> No, it does not.  How did you get that idea?

>You said that light takes 8 minute from the sun to arrive at the earth.....
>that means that light is being transmitted by a medium and the speed of light
>in that medium is 300,000 km/sec. With that speed it takes 8 minute for
>light from the sun to arrive at the earth.

No, Stupid Ken, it does not imply any medium in any way.  The simplest
counterexample would be, what if the sun sent out tiny bullets that
traveled at 300,000 km/sec? Would those little bullets need a medium? If so,
Why?

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

#416033 — Re: Speed of light (was: Science School)

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:22:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:21:20 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> kenseto wrote:
> 
> 
> >> > Your argument supports the concept that light is being transmitted by a
> >> > medium occupying space.
> >>
> >> No, it does not.  How did you get that idea?
> 
> >You said that light takes 8 minute from the sun to arrive at the earth.....
> >that means that light is being transmitted by a medium and the speed of light
> >in that medium is 300,000 km/sec. With that speed it takes 8 minute for
> >light from the sun to arrive at the earth.
> 
> No, Stupid Ken, it does not imply any medium in any way.  The simplest
> counterexample would be, what if the sun sent out tiny bullets that
> traveled at 300,000 km/sec? Would those little bullets need a medium? If so,
> Why?

Moron light waves are not bullets.....if light is bullets then it would obey that:
1. if you move toward a bullet source more bullets would hit you per second .....in other words, the speed of bullets arriving at you would increase.
2. If you move away from a bullet source less bullets would hit you per second...in other words, the speed of bullets arriving at you would decrease.

According to SRT both of the above concepts for light are false. 

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

#416042 — Re: Speed of light (was: Science School)

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:22:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> 
>> >On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:21:20 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> kenseto wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> >> > Your argument supports the concept that light is being transmitted by a
>> >> > medium occupying space.
>> >>
>> >> No, it does not.  How did you get that idea?
>> 
>> >You said that light takes 8 minute from the sun to arrive at the earth.....
>> >that means that light is being transmitted by a medium and the speed of light
>> >in that medium is 300,000 km/sec. With that speed it takes 8 minute for
>> >light from the sun to arrive at the earth.
>> 
>> No, Stupid Ken, it does not imply any medium in any way.  The simplest
>> counterexample would be, what if the sun sent out tiny bullets that
>> traveled at 300,000 km/sec? Would those little bullets need a medium? If so,
>> Why?

>Moron light waves are not bullets.....

Stupid Ken, light photons are not waves, either.  Light has some properties of
particles and some properties of waves.  One of the particle properties of light
is that photons don't need a medium to propagate.

Stupid Ken, since electrons also have properties of waves (electron microscope or
the double slit experiment using electrons, for example), will you also claim that
electrons need a medium to propagate?

>1. if you move toward a bullet source more bullets would hit you per second .....
>in other words, the speed of bullets arriving at you would increase.
>2. If you move away from a bullet source less bullets would hit you per second...
>in other words, the speed of bullets arriving at you would decrease.

No, using the relativistic speed combination formula, if one speed is c, the resulting
speed will be c no matter what the other speed is. So if you move toward a source of
light moving at c, the light is still moving at c relative to you.  If you move away
from a source of light moving at c, he light is still moving at c relative to you.

>According to SRT both of the above concepts for light are false. 

Nope.  Maybe according to IRT they are false, but that is just one of many reasons
why IRT is a complete, total failure.

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

#416046 — Re: Speed of light (was: Science School)

W dniu środa, 12 kwietnia 2017 17:49:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał:
> 
> No, using the relativistic speed combination formula, if one speed is c, the resulting
> speed will be c no matter what the other speed is.


Even your idiot guru was unable to hold this for long,
so his GR shit rejects it.



 So if you move toward a source of
> light moving at c, the light is still moving at c relative to you.  If you move away
> from a source of light moving at c, he light is still moving at c relative to you.
> 
> >According to SRT both of the above concepts for light are false. 
> 
> Nope.  Maybe according to IRT they are false, but that is just one of many reasons
> why IRT is a complete, total failure.

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

#416117 — Re: Speed of light (was: Science School)

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:49:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:22:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> >On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:21:20 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> >> kenseto wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >> > Your argument supports the concept that light is being transmitted by a
> >> >> > medium occupying space.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it does not.  How did you get that idea?
> >> 
> >> >You said that light takes 8 minute from the sun to arrive at the earth.....
> >> >that means that light is being transmitted by a medium and the speed of light
> >> >in that medium is 300,000 km/sec. With that speed it takes 8 minute for
> >> >light from the sun to arrive at the earth.
> >> 
> >> No, Stupid Ken, it does not imply any medium in any way.  The simplest
> >> counterexample would be, what if the sun sent out tiny bullets that
> >> traveled at 300,000 km/sec? Would those little bullets need a medium? If so,
> >> Why?
> 
> >Moron light waves are not bullets.....
> 
> Stupid Ken, light photons are not waves, either.  Light has some properties of
> particles and some properties of waves.  

Moron....that's why a photon is a wave-packet.

>One of the particle properties of light
> is that photons don't need a medium to propagate.

Moron.....A wave-packet needs a medium to move.

> 
> Stupid Ken, since electrons also have properties of waves (electron microscope or
> the double slit experiment using electrons, for example), will you also claim that
> electrons need a medium to propagate?

An electron is confined to follow the geometry exists in the medium. This give the apparent of electron waves

> 
> >1. if you move toward a bullet source more bullets would hit you per second .....
> >in other words, the speed of bullets arriving at you would increase.
> >2. If you move away from a bullet source less bullets would hit you per second...
> >in other words, the speed of bullets arriving at you would decrease.
> 
> No, using the relativistic speed combination formula, if one speed is c, the resulting
> speed will be c no matter what the other speed is. 

Moron.....light cannot change its speed during transit. If light in the medium is measured to be constant c wrt the source, you cannot made it change its speed to be c again when you are moving toward it or moving away from it.

>So if you move toward a source of
> light moving at c, the light is still moving at c relative to you.  If you move away
> from a source of light moving at c, he light is still moving at c relative to you.

This is something Einstein made up. In real life the incoming speed of light is:
c'=c(wavelength of the source/measured incoming wavelength)

> 
> >According to SRT both of the above concepts for light are false. 
> 
> Nope.  Maybe according to IRT they are false, but that is just one of many reasons
> why IRT is a complete, total failure.

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

#416158 — Re: Speed of light (was: Science School)

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:49:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> 
>> >On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:22:31 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> >On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:21:20 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> >> kenseto wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> >> > Your argument supports the concept that light is being transmitted by a
>> >> >> > medium occupying space.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, it does not.  How did you get that idea?
>> >> 
>> >> >You said that light takes 8 minute from the sun to arrive at the earth.....
>> >> >that means that light is being transmitted by a medium and the speed of light
>> >> >in that medium is 300,000 km/sec. With that speed it takes 8 minute for
>> >> >light from the sun to arrive at the earth.
>> >> 
>> >> No, Stupid Ken, it does not imply any medium in any way.  The simplest
>> >> counterexample would be, what if the sun sent out tiny bullets that
>> >> traveled at 300,000 km/sec? Would those little bullets need a medium? If so,
>> >> Why?
>> 
>> >Moron light waves are not bullets.....
>> 
>> Stupid Ken, light photons are not waves, either.  Light has some properties of
>> particles and some properties of waves.  

>Moron....that's why a photon is a wave-packet.

No, Stupid Ken, the photon is the quantum manifestation of the electric field.

>>One of the particle properties of light
>> is that photons don't need a medium to propagate.

>Moron.....A wave-packet needs a medium to move.

Irrelevant, since we're discussing manifestations of the electric field.

>> Stupid Ken, since electrons also have properties of waves (electron microscope or
>> the double slit experiment using electrons, for example), will you also claim that
>> electrons need a medium to propagate?

>An electron is confined to follow the geometry exists in the medium.
>This give the apparent of electron waves

That's babbling, Stupid Ken. Please repeat that in English.
And tell us, since the electron can be treated as a wave in some cases, does the
electron need a medium to propagate?

>> >1. if you move toward a bullet source more bullets would hit you per second .....
>> >in other words, the speed of bullets arriving at you would increase.
>> >2. If you move away from a bullet source less bullets would hit you per second...
>> >in other words, the speed of bullets arriving at you would decrease.
>> 
>> No, using the relativistic speed combination formula, if one speed is c, the resulting
>> speed will be c no matter what the other speed is. 

>Moron.....light cannot change its speed during transit.

Thats' right, Stupid Ken.  If you use the relativistic speed combination function on a
photon, you'll always get c no matter what the source's speed is!

>If light in the medium is measured to be constant c wrt the source, you cannot made
>it change its speed to be c again when you are moving toward it or moving away from it.

The good news is that you don't have to change its speed. In fact, you cannot do so.
If you measure the photon's speed with the relativistic speed combination function,
and keep changing v as you move toward and away from the source at various speeds, you'll
always get c for its speed.  So the speed is always the same!

>>So if you move toward a source of
>> light moving at c, the light is still moving at c relative to you.  If you move away
>> from a source of light moving at c, he light is still moving at c relative to you.

>This is something Einstein made up. In real life the incoming speed of light is:
>c'=c(wavelength of the source/measured incoming wavelength)

No, Stupid Ken. Don't accuse Einstein of making something up by making something up!

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

#415837

On 4/9/2017 4:03 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_GERMANY_JEWISH_CAMPUS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-09-05-11-10

Isn't it cool that they made a comeback in the very place such evil was 
cooked up against them 80 years ago.

Too bad they didn't build the school on the site of the Führerbunker)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web