Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376518 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-18 23:15 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-24 12:47 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-18 23:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 18:44 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-18 23:59 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-19 09:42 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 01:02 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-19 10:15 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 01:21 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-19 12:23 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 03:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 05:48 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 06:04 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 07:24 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 22:03 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-19 19:20 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 20:01 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 19:56 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 01:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 00:11 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 03:45 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:02 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 08:53 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:48 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 10:02 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:14 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 10:29 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 10:30 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:43 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:40 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 03:49 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 20:13 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-20 07:13 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:27 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-02-27 15:08 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:04 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kunz <gx@fp.cdfy.7h> - 2016-02-19 13:08 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-21 14:20 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-07 20:44 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:24 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:37 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-19 09:40 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-19 17:13 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:14 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-24 09:44 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 16:50 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:38 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-20 11:11 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-19 14:16 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-20 07:49 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 22:08 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-21 09:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-21 09:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 20:00 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 18:28 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:18 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 18:11 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-21 09:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 10:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-21 11:30 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:18 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-23 12:33 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:54 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-23 15:27 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-23 12:21 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-23 23:11 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 14:18 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-24 08:10 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 09:00 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 17:14 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 09:34 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 22:10 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-25 23:22 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:54 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-24 22:36 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 18:27 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 08:59 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 04:53 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 18:17 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:43 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:55 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 19:20 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:53 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:28 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-24 11:26 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:40 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-25 16:10 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-25 07:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 08:01 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 10:26 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-25 12:11 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 12:43 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 13:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 22:21 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:51 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-25 20:07 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:36 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:33 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-25 23:31 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:12 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-27 12:08 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 22:50 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 22:56 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-28 09:50 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 22:18 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-25 16:56 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:45 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 23:12 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-25 23:35 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 00:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 00:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 00:32 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 00:33 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:41 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 15:04 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-27 11:51 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 12:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-27 13:08 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 13:48 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-28 08:46 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 10:24 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-28 11:36 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 16:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-29 12:28 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-28 23:35 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 00:21 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 00:32 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 04:58 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 05:42 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:04 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:16 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:46 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 16:39 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 13:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:30 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 14:25 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:31 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:34 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:35 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:37 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 23:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 04:40 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:23 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 22:55 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:19 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:26 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-29 16:45 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 04:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-07 12:05 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 19:50 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 23:13 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:19 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-20 07:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 18:29 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-20 16:35 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-21 10:09 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 22:29 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 10:39 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 03:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 05:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 05:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 06:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 06:25 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 06:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 06:46 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:25 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 23:50 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:43 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-22 18:50 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 21:14 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-22 13:47 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-23 21:59 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-23 23:07 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:14 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 11:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:54 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-24 11:58 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 12:47 -0800
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 08:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naf7dm$ku6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376526 |
On 2/19/2016 2:11 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:28:04 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/16/2016 10:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> Space-time is just another name for a medium. Physicist reject >>> the idea of a medium >> >> Ken, physicists do not reject spacetime. So if you want to call it >>> a medium, then you won't find physicists rejecting a medium, as >>> long as it has the same traits as spacetime. > > Spacetime physics gives so many problems as explained below. <shrug> You perceive a problem. That doesn't mean that there is actually a problem. Nor does it imply that physicists owe it to you that your perception of a problem must be addressed. > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ > > Physicists ought to reject spacetime. It is the only logical thing to > do for science. <shrug> I disagree that physicists should reject spacetime because you perceive a problem with it. > > Please understand this. The concept of the Aether deals with tangible > reality, but spacetime deals with abstract spiritual enlightenment I disagree. Spacetime deals with measurable reality. Splashing red paint over that with the aspersions you freely fling doesn't change that. > aka wherever > heaven is aka whatever that can keep the religion of relativity > proliferating. <shrug> > > > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 11:44:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> What are the experimental results that you consider confirms [the >> existence of] the ether? > > The null results of the MMX, of course. These null results gave rise > to the Voigt, Larmor's, and Lorentz's infinite other transforms. All > these transforms say the absolute frame of reference must exist. <shrug> > Well, Koobee, to cite YOUR OWN arguments about experimental support, if TWO DIFFERENT THEORIES (one with an ether and another without an ether) are consistent with the null results of the MMX, then by no stretch can one say that the ether theory is confirmed by those results. If you don't know this, then you really should stop blathering about science in general. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 09:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <95200657-cc59-4adb-94f3-07c6bf49b909@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376846 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:53:46 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Spacetime physics gives so many problems as explained below. <shrug> > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ > You perceive a problem. Yes, Koobee Wublee has identified many problems with relativity. <shrug> > [rest of non sequitur snipped]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 10:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <61bd5d6f-22a0-48db-a8e6-82a4d2474700@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376868 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:48:15 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Yes, Koobee Wublee has identified many problems with relativity. <shrug> hilong has identified many problems with K-dub's assertions. One is that he can't derive his derivative form of the LT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 12:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nafj53$1c87$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376868 |
On 2/22/2016 11:48 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:53:46 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> Spacetime physics gives so many problems as explained below. <shrug> >> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ > >> You perceive a problem. > > Yes, Koobee Wublee has identified many problems with relativity. <shrug> OK, but why would anybody care what you perceive? > >> [rest of non sequitur snipped] -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 10:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <62bed6e9-c9b2-411e-aa18-a6fd46bcaf78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376873 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:13:59 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Spacetime physics gives so many problems as explained below. <shrug> > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ > > OK, but why would anybody care what you perceive? Why not? <shrug> Why would anyone allow Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to whisper into their ears? <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 10:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a4344c50-20ce-4e44-9462-78e5be3d7885@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376875 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:29:16 PM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:13:59 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > Spacetime physics gives so many problems as explained below. <shrug> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ > > > > OK, but why would anybody care what you perceive? > > Why not? <shrug> > > Why would anyone allow Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to whisper into their ears? <shrug> the liar to whisper into their ears? LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 12:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nafksh$1dr4$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376875 |
On 2/22/2016 12:29 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:13:59 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> Spacetime physics gives so many problems as explained below. <shrug> >> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ >> >> OK, but why would anybody care what you perceive? > > Why not? <shrug> Because you haven't earned it. > > Why would anyone allow Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to > whisper into their ears? <shrug> > Well, it's not just Einstein, of course. It's hundreds of physicists besides Einstein who have developed relativity further than Einstein. This is in no way a pitting of you vs. Einstein, of the attention you get vs. the attention Einstein gets. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 15:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f0105ccc-555b-4878-a6a0-7fb880d33a69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376879 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:43:33 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/22/2016 12:29 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Why not? <shrug> > > Because you haven't earned it. Yes, you have to earn a godhood through being a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar such as Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> > > Why would anyone allow Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and > > the liar to whisper into their ears? <shrug> > > Well, it's not just Einstein, of course. It's hundreds of physicists > besides Einstein who have developed relativity further than Einstein. But either they all worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar or had their works plagiarized by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> > This is in no way a pitting of you vs. Einstein, of the attention > you get vs. the attention Einstein gets. Koobee Wublee is in no completion to be a god such as Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 03:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <YGAxy.438$7h2.14@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #376522 |
On 02/19/2016 02:44 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 19/02/2016 6:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>
>>
>> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
>> dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent
>> with its
>> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to
>> have no
>> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some
>> confirming
>> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming
>> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no
>> refuting
>> ones,
>> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general
>> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not
>> case
>> in
>> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along....
>>
>> Looks almost logical, doesn't it?
>> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether
>> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality
>> deniers!!!!!!"
>> Why.
>> Because "logic" above isn't any logic. It's just a sorry
>> excuse for placing good looking words, like "confirmation",
>> "support" or "evidence" near relativistics idiocies - against
>> common sense managing these words in a sane people
>> minds.
>>
>> A primitive, common, brainwashing trick. Expected from
>> brainwashed fanatics.
>>
>
> What are the experimental results that you consider confirms [the
> existence of] the ether?
>
> Sylvia.
You can start, "Sylvia" with the fact that "empty" space has properties.
People shrug this off with word games saying that really there is no
Aether but the properties belong to "space itself". What does that
nonsense mean? Nothing. It means it's a word game switching the term
"aether" for some other label. Fact is that if there are propagating
waves, then by definition there MUST be a medium. IF there is a medium
it MUST have properties. All these things are well known, yet the aether
deniers persist in their word games for some unknown political purpose.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 20:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dio4miFlmd0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376530 |
On 19/02/2016 7:49 PM, benj wrote: > On 02/19/2016 02:44 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 19/02/2016 6:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> >>> >>> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup >>> dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> >>> >>> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent >>> with its >>> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to >>> have no >>> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some >>> confirming >>> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming >>> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no >>> refuting >>> ones, >>> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general >>> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not >>> case >>> in >>> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along.... >>> >>> Looks almost logical, doesn't it? >>> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether >>> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality >>> deniers!!!!!!" >>> Why. >>> Because "logic" above isn't any logic. It's just a sorry >>> excuse for placing good looking words, like "confirmation", >>> "support" or "evidence" near relativistics idiocies - against >>> common sense managing these words in a sane people >>> minds. >>> >>> A primitive, common, brainwashing trick. Expected from >>> brainwashed fanatics. >>> >> >> What are the experimental results that you consider confirms [the >> existence of] the ether? >> >> Sylvia. > > You can start, "Sylvia" with the fact that "empty" space has properties. > People shrug this off with word games saying that really there is no > Aether but the properties belong to "space itself". What does that > nonsense mean? Nothing. It means it's a word game switching the term > "aether" for some other label. Fact is that if there are propagating > waves, then by definition there MUST be a medium. IF there is a medium > it MUST have properties. All these things are well known, yet the aether > deniers persist in their word games for some unknown political purpose. > You're assuming what you're trying to prove. How do you know that waves always require a medium? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 07:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d00628c8-83bf-48f4-ada5-ece78a937b43@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376539 |
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:13:58 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19/02/2016 7:49 PM, benj wrote: > > On 02/19/2016 02:44 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 19/02/2016 6:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > >>> dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... > >>> > >>> > >>> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent > >>> with its > >>> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to > >>> have no > >>> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some > >>> confirming > >>> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming > >>> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no > >>> refuting > >>> ones, > >>> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general > >>> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not > >>> case > >>> in > >>> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along.... > >>> > >>> Looks almost logical, doesn't it? > >>> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether > >>> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality > >>> deniers!!!!!!" > >>> Why. > >>> Because "logic" above isn't any logic. It's just a sorry > >>> excuse for placing good looking words, like "confirmation", > >>> "support" or "evidence" near relativistics idiocies - against > >>> common sense managing these words in a sane people > >>> minds. > >>> > >>> A primitive, common, brainwashing trick. Expected from > >>> brainwashed fanatics. > >>> > >> > >> What are the experimental results that you consider confirms [the > >> existence of] the ether? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > You can start, "Sylvia" with the fact that "empty" space has properties. > > People shrug this off with word games saying that really there is no > > Aether but the properties belong to "space itself". What does that > > nonsense mean? Nothing. It means it's a word game switching the term > > "aether" for some other label. Fact is that if there are propagating > > waves, then by definition there MUST be a medium. IF there is a medium > > it MUST have properties. All these things are well known, yet the aether > > deniers persist in their word games for some unknown political purpose. > > > > You're assuming what you're trying to prove. How do you know that waves > always require a medium? By definition......no medium no wave.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 09:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naf9d2$p91$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376627 |
On 2/20/2016 9:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > By definition......no medium no wave. Which definition are you referring to? One that I can look up or one that you've made up? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <brol@brol.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 15:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nasand$1ecv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376627 |
kenseto schreef op 20/02/2016 om 16:13: > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:13:58 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 19/02/2016 7:49 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 02/19/2016 02:44 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 19/02/2016 6:15 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup >>>>> dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent >>>>> with its >>>>> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to >>>>> have no >>>>> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some >>>>> confirming >>>>> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming >>>>> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no >>>>> refuting >>>>> ones, >>>>> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general >>>>> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not >>>>> case >>>>> in >>>>> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along.... >>>>> >>>>> Looks almost logical, doesn't it? >>>>> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether >>>>> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality >>>>> deniers!!!!!!" >>>>> Why. >>>>> Because "logic" above isn't any logic. It's just a sorry >>>>> excuse for placing good looking words, like "confirmation", >>>>> "support" or "evidence" near relativistics idiocies - against >>>>> common sense managing these words in a sane people >>>>> minds. >>>>> >>>>> A primitive, common, brainwashing trick. Expected from >>>>> brainwashed fanatics. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What are the experimental results that you consider confirms [the >>>> existence of] the ether? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> You can start, "Sylvia" with the fact that "empty" space has properties. >>> People shrug this off with word games saying that really there is no >>> Aether but the properties belong to "space itself". What does that >>> nonsense mean? Nothing. It means it's a word game switching the term >>> "aether" for some other label. Fact is that if there are propagating >>> waves, then by definition there MUST be a medium. IF there is a medium >>> it MUST have properties. All these things are well known, yet the aether >>> deniers persist in their word games for some unknown political purpose. >>> >> >> You're assuming what you're trying to prove. How do you know that waves >> always require a medium? > > By definition......no medium no wave. It's perfectly possible to think up some wave motion without a medium, eg, a crowd of people who are trying to transmit a message or objects from one location amongst them to another. The wave characteristics wouldn't depend on the "medium" (air, water, ground) in which the people move themselves, or at least not directly, but rather on the way the individuals communicate with their neighbours. And if you'd think of assimilating the crowd itself with that "wave's" medium, that's indeed the way the "particles" of media like air, water or solids have to communicate amongst them: between neighbours, bridging gaps of emptiness. Thus depending ultimately on the properties of "empty space". At last, if you'd want to fill space entirely with an "ether" medium, 1) it would be and behave totally differently from any other medium you want to compare it with; 2) it would be undistinguishable from "empty space" itself, resulting, as stated elsewhere, in a mere play of words: space, ether, whatever you like to call it. -- guido 'wugi'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 09:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naf82e$m5e$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376539 |
On 2/19/2016 3:13 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> You can start, "Sylvia" with the fact that "empty" space has properties. >> People shrug this off with word games saying that really there is no >> Aether but the properties belong to "space itself". What does that >> nonsense mean? Nothing. It means it's a word game switching the term >> "aether" for some other label. Fact is that if there are propagating >> waves, then by definition there MUST be a medium. IF there is a medium >> it MUST have properties. All these things are well known, yet the aether >> deniers persist in their word games for some unknown political purpose. >> > > You're assuming what you're trying to prove. How do you know that waves > always require a medium? Ben holds an understanding of "space" that says it cannot have physical properties, and an understanding of "wave" that says it must have a medium. And because this is HIS understanding of those words, he believes that is the ONLY CORRECT meaning of those words. Perhaps this is how he was taught that those words mean, and he is generally opposed to any shifting of meanings of those words since he was taught them decades ago. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kunz <gx@fp.cdfy.7h> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 13:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <na70aj$ucv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #376530 |
benj wrote: > > You can start, "Sylvia" with the fact that "empty" space has properties. > People shrug this off with word games saying that really there is no > Aether but the properties belong to "space itself". What does that > nonsense mean? Nothing. It means it's a word game switching the term > "aether" for some other label. Fact is that if there are propagating > waves, then by definition there MUST be a medium. IF there is a medium > it MUST have properties. All these things are well known, yet the aether > deniers persist in their word games for some unknown political purpose. > What you describe as a medium, or 'properties of empty space' goes back to the concept of a force field, invented by Maxwell for electromagnetic waves (and also for static fields, lines of magnetic force etc.), and Newton for gravity, because objects do not seem to move normally in empty space, but are pushed and pulled by some mysterious thing attributed to space itself. Thus one regards empty space as filled with some intangible fluid called 'field'. It is this mysterious notion that was debunked by Einstein's general relativity. Taking light as an example, we observe it as as a delayed force field: If you shake a charged object in one place, after a short moment a second charged object in a different place begins to shake as well. This describes all that is really observed about light. You don't need an electromagnetic field that exists in the empty space between the two places, because *nothing* is really there. When we see light, all that happens is the above process (electrons in our eye being the second object). So you can choose your model of reality: it is either that we live in Euclidean space, filled with something weird that pulls objects around, or we live in a dynamic spacetime where space is truely empty and objects move on geodesics. This also helps to understand vacuum light speed invariance, by recognizing that light is not a physical thing of any kind, moving in space. The above light-action is not changed by relative speeds of the two objects, because there is nothing emitted or absorbed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 14:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1650280.2n2qWtO46H@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #376549 |
kunz wrote: ^^^^ Who? > What you describe as a medium, or 'properties of empty space' goes back > to the concept of a force field, invented by Maxwell for electromagnetic > waves (and also for static fields, lines of magnetic force etc.), and > Newton for gravity, because objects do not seem to move normally in > empty space, but are pushed and pulled by some mysterious thing > attributed to space itself. Yes, except that those things are not mysterious anymore because of the great work of those fine gentlemen; they can be measured and calculated. > Thus one regards empty space as filled with some intangible fluid called > 'field'. Not at all. Instead, a field is a mathematical concept that assigns a value to each point of a space. A field in physics is the application of that concept to the values of (measurable) physical quantities. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)> > It is this mysterious notion that was debunked by Einstein's > general relativity. Which is why the equations of general relativity are the (Einstein) field equations :-> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> Instead, what Einstein _made superfluous_ with postulating _special_ relativity is the (experimentally falsified) notion that there had to be an ether medium in order to propagate light. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity> > Taking light as an example, we observe it as as a delayed force field: Light is a self-propagating disturbance *of* the electromagnetic field. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light> > If you shake a charged object in one place, after a short moment a > second charged object in a different place begins to shake as well. How did you get that idea? > This describes all that is really observed about light. In your humble opinion. > You don't need an electromagnetic field that exists in the empty space > between the two places, because *nothing* is really there. Every capacitor that stores electric energy (including those in the computer you are using to write this) shows that the opposite of what you are saying is true. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor> The Casimir effect also shows that the opposite of what you are saying is true. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect> Please get yourself informed before you post here again. PointedEars -- Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy? A: They get Bohr'ed. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 20:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7127318.k4H08NUBN2@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #376755 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > kunz wrote: >> Taking light as an example, we observe it as as a delayed force field: > > Light is a self-propagating disturbance *of* the electromagnetic field. The word I was looking for here was not “disturbance”, but “excitation”. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light> PointedEars -- Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy? A: They get Bohr'ed. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 21:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbkri3$pmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378195 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> kunz wrote: >>> Taking light as an example, we observe it as as a delayed force field: >> >> Light is a self-propagating disturbance *of* the electromagnetic field. > > The word I was looking for here was not “disturbance”, but “excitation”. > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light> Does not matter, is still wrong. There is no such field out there waiting to be excitated. But you are a nobody, that's all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 14:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.313e67f06ff92c85989fb6@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #376549 |
In article <na70aj$ucv$1@dont-email.me>, gx@fp.cdfy.7h says... > > benj wrote: > > > > You can start, "Sylvia" with the fact that "empty" space has properties. > > People shrug this off with word games saying that really there is no > > Aether but the properties belong to "space itself". What does that > > nonsense mean? Nothing. It means it's a word game switching the term > > "aether" for some other label. Fact is that if there are propagating > > waves, then by definition there MUST be a medium. IF there is a medium > > it MUST have properties. All these things are well known, yet the aether > > deniers persist in their word games for some unknown political purpose. > > > > What you describe as a medium, or 'properties of empty space' goes back > to the concept of a force field, invented by Maxwell for electromagnetic > waves (and also for static fields, lines of magnetic force etc.), and > Newton for gravity, because objects do not seem to move normally in > empty space, but are pushed and pulled by some mysterious thing > attributed to space itself. > > Thus one regards empty space as filled with some intangible fluid called > 'field'. It is this mysterious notion that was debunked by Einstein's > general relativity. > > Taking light as an example, we observe it as as a delayed force field: > If you shake a charged object in one place, after a short moment a > second charged object in a different place begins to shake as well. This > describes all that is really observed about light. > > You don't need an electromagnetic field that exists in the empty space > between the two places, because *nothing* is really there. When we see > light, all that happens is the above process (electrons in our eye being > the second object). > > So you can choose your model of reality: it is either that we live in > Euclidean space, filled with something weird that pulls objects around, > or we live in a dynamic spacetime where space is truely empty and > objects move on geodesics. > > This also helps to understand vacuum light speed invariance, by > recognizing that light is not a physical thing of any kind, moving in > space. The above light-action is not changed by relative speeds of the > two objects, because there is nothing emitted or absorbed. You might want to google "photon".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 09:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <cKedncM4krQfqlrLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #376530 |
On 2/19/16 2/19/16 2:49 AM, benj wrote: > the fact that "empty" space has properties. People > shrug this off with word games saying that really there is no Aether but the > properties belong to "space itself". Hmmmm. What "properties" are these? Note that aspects of the model such as spacetime curvature are not properties of "space" or spacetime, they are properties of the collection of distance measurements made between points (locations in space and time). That is QUITE DIFFERENT from being a "property of space", and it CLEARLY needs no "medium". Note also that "space" and spacetime are properties of the model, not of the world. You are intermixing world and model, which is invalid. > Fact is > that if there are propagating waves, then by definition there MUST be a medium. Making up "facts" is neither physics nor science, it's just stupid, and demonstrates your lack of any real argument. You merely display your profound ignorance of modern physics -- not knowing the sense in which "wave" is used has confused you. To a physicist, "wave" means that the phenomenon follows an equation that describes waves, not that some medium is "waving". Propagating light waves in QED are a counterexample -- their wavelike behavior is due to "waves" in PROBABILITY, which clearly needs no "medium". (It OUGHT to be obvious that probabilities need no "medium".) Propagating gravitational waves in GR are a counterexample -- their wavelike behavior is "waves" in curvature, which clearly needs no "medium". (See above for why curvature does not imply a "medium".) > IF there is a medium it MUST have properties. Hmmmm. What about wavelike behavior when there is no medium.... Sure, waves on the surface of a liquid, sound waves, salinity saves in the ocean, etc., all have a medium. Apparently these are the only types of waves you know. The fact that light and gravitation can display wavelike behavior is an interesting coincidence due to the fact that in certain physical situations aspects of light and gravitation follow equations similar to the equations that describe those waves. Neither light nor gravitation is actually a wave, but in certain situations they can look like waves to people ignorant of the underlying physics. Note that water waves and sound waves are ALWAYS waves, but both light and gravitation look like waves ONLY in certain situations (e.g. for light one must arrange some sort of interference; for gravitation one must have some time-varying source with certain characteristics). Exercise for the reader: For both water waves and sound waves it is obvious what is moving back-and-forth in the wave. What is the analogous object for "light waves"? Or "gravitational waves"? Hint: there is a Nobel prize for a definitive and believable answer that can be demonstrated experimentally, because that would completely revolutionize physics. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web