Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #410654 > unrolled thread

Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics

Started by	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
First post	2017-02-23 17:27 -0600
Last post	2017-02-27 18:00 -0800
Articles	20 on this page of 71 — 19 participants

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

  Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 17:27 -0600
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 19:23 -0800
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-23 21:35 -0600
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-24 06:20 -0500
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-24 06:22 -0600
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-23 23:02 -0800
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-24 05:28 -0500
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-24 20:00 +0000
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 03:19 -0500
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-25 17:48 +0000
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Bret Noss <osotr@rwtropsws.org> - 2017-02-25 18:41 +0000
              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-25 19:07 +0000
                Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Bret Noss <osotr@rwtropsws.org> - 2017-02-25 19:35 +0000
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 13:34 -0600
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-25 17:01 -0500
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-25 22:21 +0000
              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-25 17:56 -0500
                Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-26 01:22 +0000
                  Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-25 21:18 -0500
                    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-26 02:58 +0000
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 15:44 -0600
              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 22:45 -0500
                Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 07:22 -0600
                  Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-27 16:53 -0500
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 14:41 -0800
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 03:45 -0800
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 03:48 -0800
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 07:33 -0600
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 06:50 -0800
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 10:09 -0600
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-24 06:27 -0800
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 09:14 -0600
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-24 07:42 -0800
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-24 12:44 -0800
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 13:34 -0600
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-27 16:35 +0000
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-24 17:40 +0000
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-24 12:45 -0800
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-27 07:10 +0000
    Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-24 07:11 -0800
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-25 20:08 +1100
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-25 02:47 -0800
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-25 12:55 +0100
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 11:36 -0800
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-26 15:01 +1100
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-26 00:12 +1100
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-26 15:06 +1100
              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-26 07:13 -0800
                Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-27 12:59 +1100
              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-27 01:08 +0000
                Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-27 13:00 +1100
                  Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-27 07:15 +0000
                    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-27 19:58 +1100
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-26 01:08 -0800
              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-26 20:43 +1100
                Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-26 06:26 -0800
                  Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 08:57 -0800
                    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 09:15 -0800
                      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 09:37 -0800
                        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 09:49 -0800
                          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 10:00 -0800
                            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 10:12 -0800
                            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 10:18 -0800
                              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 10:59 -0800
                  Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-27 09:57 +1100
                    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-27 00:42 -0800
                      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-27 20:10 +1100
                        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-27 12:05 -0800
                          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-28 12:24 +1100
                            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-27 18:11 -0800
                          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-27 18:00 -0800

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

#410813

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2017-02-25 20:08 +1100
Message-ID	<ehcvt7Fbq3aU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#410733

On 25/02/2017 2:11 AM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> There is no doubt that maths is vital in technology. We can't do without it.
> Making sure exact amounts are used etc. And then there is the digital
> age. Computers genetics etc. Without maths these would be impossible.
> But you ignore where maths is used to falsify theory. The classic
> example is fizeau. In this experiment light travels at variable speeds
> in the water. This is indisputable. But it is also inconsistent with
> SR.

SR does not require light to travel at c through water. It does require 
that light travel at some fixed velocity through water (for a given 
state; temperature, pressure, etc.), relative to the water. Further if 
the water is moving relative to an observer, then the speed of the light 
in the water relative to the observer obeys the velocity composition 
rule identified in SR, rather than being the result of simple addition. 
So far from falsifying SR, it verifies it.

Sylvia.

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

#410816

From	matt.rush200@outlook.com
Date	2017-02-25 02:47 -0800
Message-ID	<88a0b3d5-7345-4df2-a188-1689dc25cc63@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#410813

Sylvia
>>On 25/02/2017 2:11 AM, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote: 
>> There is no doubt that maths is vital in technology. We can't do without it. 
>> Making sure exact amounts are used etc. And then there is the digital 
>> age. Computers genetics etc. Without maths these would be impossible. 
>> But you ignore where maths is used to falsify theory. The classic 
>> example is fizeau. In this experiment light travels at variable speeds 
>> in the water. This is indisputable. But it is also inconsistent with 
>> SR. 

>SR does not require light to travel at c through water. It does require 
>that light travel at some fixed velocity through water (for a given 
>state; temperature, pressure, etc.), relative to the water. Further if 
>the water is moving relative to an observer, then the speed of the light 
>in the water relative to the observer obeys the velocity composition 
>rule identified in SR, rather than being the result of simple addition. 
>So far from falsifying SR, it verifies it. 

In other words you have just admitted that light is observed to travel at 
variable speeds in the water frame, contrary to SR, and this needs to 
be "fixed" mathematically by the 'velocity composition rule' to falsely 
make it appear that it has a fixed velocity.

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

#410818

From	Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not>
Date	2017-02-25 12:55 +0100
Message-ID	<o8rrat$4jq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#410816

Op 25-feb-2017 om 11:47 schreef matt.rush200@outlook.com:
> Sylvia
>>> On 25/02/2017 2:11 AM, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote:
>>> There is no doubt that maths is vital in technology. We can't do without it.
>>> Making sure exact amounts are used etc. And then there is the digital
>>> age. Computers genetics etc. Without maths these would be impossible.
>>> But you ignore where maths is used to falsify theory. The classic
>>> example is fizeau. In this experiment light travels at variable speeds
>>> in the water. This is indisputable. But it is also inconsistent with
>>> SR.
>
>> SR does not require light to travel at c through water. It does require
>> that light travel at some fixed velocity through water (for a given
>> state; temperature, pressure, etc.), relative to the water. Further if
>> the water is moving relative to an observer, then the speed of the light
>> in the water relative to the observer obeys the velocity composition
>> rule identified in SR, rather than being the result of simple addition.
>> So far from falsifying SR, it verifies it.
>
> In other words you have just admitted that light is observed to travel at
> variable speeds in the water frame,

The words say:
"... some fixed velocity through water (for a given state;
temperature, pressure, etc.), relative to the water."
If you are incapable of reading and understanding simple words,
then paraphrasing them "in other words" is usually a bad idea.

Dirk Vdm

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

#410864

From	John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com>
Date	2017-02-25 11:36 -0800
Message-ID	<ff61719e-43bc-4741-b653-62024a694b10@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#410818

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:55:14 AM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 25-feb-2017 om 11:47 schreef matt.rush200@outlook.com:
> > Sylvia
> >>> On 25/02/2017 2:11 AM, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote:
> >>> There is no doubt that maths is vital in technology. We can't do without it.
> >>> Making sure exact amounts are used etc. And then there is the digital
> >>> age. Computers genetics etc. Without maths these would be impossible.
> >>> But you ignore where maths is used to falsify theory. The classic
> >>> example is fizeau. In this experiment light travels at variable speeds
> >>> in the water. This is indisputable. But it is also inconsistent with
> >>> SR.
> >
> >> SR does not require light to travel at c through water. It does require
> >> that light travel at some fixed velocity through water (for a given
> >> state; temperature, pressure, etc.), relative to the water. Further if
> >> the water is moving relative to an observer, then the speed of the light
> >> in the water relative to the observer obeys the velocity composition
> >> rule identified in SR, rather than being the result of simple addition.
> >> So far from falsifying SR, it verifies it.
> >
> > In other words you have just admitted that light is observed to travel at
> > variable speeds in the water frame,
> 
> The words say:
> "... some fixed velocity through water (for a given state;
> temperature, pressure, etc.), relative to the water."
> If you are incapable of reading and understanding simple words,
> then paraphrasing them "in other words" is usually a bad idea.
> 
> Dirk Vdm

Its a combination of the two. Without mathematics physics does not have a structure to work from. On the other hand if someone is not turning over rocks to see what is underneath mathematicians are twiddling their thumbs. Faraday is not much without a Maxwell and Maxwell not much without a Faraday. A feel good bit of history. Faraday lived long enough for Maxwell to give him a thumbs up on the speed of light derived electromagnetic forces.

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

#410898

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2017-02-26 15:01 +1100
Message-ID	<ehf28rFojfiU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#410818

On 25/02/2017 10:55 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 25-feb-2017 om 11:47 schreef matt.rush200@outlook.com:
>> Sylvia
>>>> On 25/02/2017 2:11 AM, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote:
>>>> There is no doubt that maths is vital in technology. We can't do
>>>> without it.
>>>> Making sure exact amounts are used etc. And then there is the digital
>>>> age. Computers genetics etc. Without maths these would be impossible.
>>>> But you ignore where maths is used to falsify theory. The classic
>>>> example is fizeau. In this experiment light travels at variable speeds
>>>> in the water. This is indisputable. But it is also inconsistent with
>>>> SR.
>>
>>> SR does not require light to travel at c through water. It does require
>>> that light travel at some fixed velocity through water (for a given
>>> state; temperature, pressure, etc.), relative to the water. Further if
>>> the water is moving relative to an observer, then the speed of the light
>>> in the water relative to the observer obeys the velocity composition
>>> rule identified in SR, rather than being the result of simple addition.
>>> So far from falsifying SR, it verifies it.
>>
>> In other words you have just admitted that light is observed to travel at
>> variable speeds in the water frame,
>
> The words say:
> "... some fixed velocity through water (for a given state;
> temperature, pressure, etc.), relative to the water."
> If you are incapable of reading and understanding simple words,
> then paraphrasing them "in other words" is usually a bad idea.
>
> Dirk Vdm
>

Seems to be an example of reading between the lines, but not reading the 
lines themselves. These people must use a manner of reasoning completely 
alien to us. We'll probably never get through to them.

Doesn't stop us from trying, over and over, though.

;)

Sylvia.

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

#410821

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2017-02-26 00:12 +1100
Message-ID	<ehde5bFelstU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#410816

On 25/02/2017 9:47 PM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> Sylvia
>>> On 25/02/2017 2:11 AM, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote:
>>> There is no doubt that maths is vital in technology. We can't do without it.
>>> Making sure exact amounts are used etc. And then there is the digital
>>> age. Computers genetics etc. Without maths these would be impossible.
>>> But you ignore where maths is used to falsify theory. The classic
>>> example is fizeau. In this experiment light travels at variable speeds
>>> in the water. This is indisputable. But it is also inconsistent with
>>> SR.
>
>> SR does not require light to travel at c through water. It does require
>> that light travel at some fixed velocity through water (for a given
>> state; temperature, pressure, etc.), relative to the water. Further if
>> the water is moving relative to an observer, then the speed of the light
>> in the water relative to the observer obeys the velocity composition
>> rule identified in SR, rather than being the result of simple addition.
>> So far from falsifying SR, it verifies it.
>
> In other words you have just admitted that light is observed to travel at
> variable speeds in the water frame, contrary to SR, and this needs to
> be "fixed" mathematically by the 'velocity composition rule' to falsely
> make it appear that it has a fixed velocity.
>
What's variable about it? For a given state of the water, the velocity 
relative to the water is fixed. That's all that SR requires, since that 
is consistent with the requirement that the laws of physics be the same 
for all inertial frames.

Sylvia.

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

#410899

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2017-02-26 15:06 +1100
Message-ID	<ehf2hpFojfiU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#410821

On 26/02/2017 12:12 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 25/02/2017 9:47 PM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
>> Sylvia
>>>> On 25/02/2017 2:11 AM, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote:
>>>> There is no doubt that maths is vital in technology. We can't do
>>>> without it.
>>>> Making sure exact amounts are used etc. And then there is the digital
>>>> age. Computers genetics etc. Without maths these would be impossible.
>>>> But you ignore where maths is used to falsify theory. The classic
>>>> example is fizeau. In this experiment light travels at variable speeds
>>>> in the water. This is indisputable. But it is also inconsistent with
>>>> SR.
>>
>>> SR does not require light to travel at c through water. It does require
>>> that light travel at some fixed velocity through water (for a given
>>> state; temperature, pressure, etc.), relative to the water. Further if
>>> the water is moving relative to an observer, then the speed of the light
>>> in the water relative to the observer obeys the velocity composition
>>> rule identified in SR, rather than being the result of simple addition.
>>> So far from falsifying SR, it verifies it.
>>
>> In other words you have just admitted that light is observed to travel at
>> variable speeds in the water frame, contrary to SR, and this needs to
>> be "fixed" mathematically by the 'velocity composition rule' to falsely
>> make it appear that it has a fixed velocity.
>>
> What's variable about it? For a given state of the water, the velocity
> relative to the water is fixed. That's all that SR requires, since that
> is consistent with the requirement that the laws of physics be the same
> for all inertial frames.
>
> Sylvia.

You could have pointed out that the speed through water depends somewhat 
on the frequency of the light, so I should have included the same 
frequency as a caveat. But probably you didn't know that.

Sylvia.

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

#410912

From	matt.rush200@outlook.com
Date	2017-02-26 07:13 -0800
Message-ID	<fb467359-accd-4e2e-b838-39de562b83f0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#410899

Sylvia
> You could have pointed out that the speed of light in the water depends
>on somewhat on the frequency of the light, so I should have included the same 
>frequency as a caveat. But probably you didn't know that. 

I didn't "know that If the speed of the light varies in the water the frequency 
changes"? You only imagine I wasn't already aware of the Doppler effect.

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

#410966

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2017-02-27 12:59 +1100
Message-ID	<ehhfghF90enU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#410912

On 27/02/2017 2:13 AM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> Sylvia
>> You could have pointed out that the speed of light in the water depends
>> on somewhat on the frequency of the light, so I should have included the same
>> frequency as a caveat. But probably you didn't know that.
>
> I didn't "know that If the speed of the light varies in the water the frequency
> changes"? You only imagine I wasn't already aware of the Doppler effect.
>

I didn't say anything about your awareness of the Doppler effect. The 
other thing - I don't know why you've reversed it.

Sylvia.

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

#410964

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-02-27 01:08 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnob6uvo.qd0.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#410899

Sylvia Else wrote:

----sniup----

> You could have pointed out that the speed through water depends
> somewhat on the frequency of the light, so I should have included
> the same frequency as a caveat. But probably you didn't know that.

Do feel free to tell is when and how the speeds of light in water
were measured.

Ned

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

#410967

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2017-02-27 13:00 +1100
Message-ID	<ehhfh4F90enU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#410964

On 27/02/2017 12:08 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> ----sniup----
>
>> You could have pointed out that the speed through water depends
>> somewhat on the frequency of the light, so I should have included
>> the same frequency as a caveat. But probably you didn't know that.
>
> Do feel free to tell is when and how the speeds of light in water
> were measured.

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

Sylvia.

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

#410977

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-02-27 07:15 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnob7kh5.c5c.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#410967

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> > ----sniup----
> >
> > > You could have pointed out that the speed through water depends
> > > somewhat on the frequency of the light, so I should have included
> > > the same frequency as a caveat. But probably you didn't know that.
> >
> > Do feel free to tell is when and how the speeds of light in water
> > were measured.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment

That's not a speed measurement. It is at best a speed difference
measurement, but even that is uncertain unless it can be shown that
the phase shift is less that 2 Pi.

Med

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

#410984

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2017-02-27 19:58 +1100
Message-ID	<ehi824FdbhpU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#410977

On 27/02/2017 6:15 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>> ----sniup----
>>>
>>>> You could have pointed out that the speed through water depends
>>>> somewhat on the frequency of the light, so I should have included
>>>> the same frequency as a caveat. But probably you didn't know that.
>>>
>>> Do feel free to tell is when and how the speeds of light in water
>>> were measured.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
>
> That's not a speed measurement. It is at best a speed difference
> measurement, but even that is uncertain unless it can be shown that
> the phase shift is less that 2 Pi.
>
> Med
>
There is always going to be a speed for the water such that the phase 
shift is less than 2 pi.

In any case, the speed of light relative to the water it's travelling 
through is obtained directly by applying wave theory to the refractive 
index, which is known to vary with frequency.

Sylvia.

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

#410901

From	matt.rush200@outlook.com
Date	2017-02-26 01:08 -0800
Message-ID	<a370c772-c40b-42e3-aca6-0eef785237d1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#410821

Sylvia
>>On 25/02/2017 9:47 PM, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote
>>> SR does not require light to travel at c through water. It does require 
>>> that light travel at some fixed velocity through water (for a given 
>>> state; temperature, pressure, etc.), relative to the water. Further if 
>>> the water is moving relative to an observer, then the speed of the light 
>>> in the water relative to the observer obeys the velocity composition 
>>> rule identified in SR, rather than being the result of simple addition. 
>>> So far from falsifying SR, it verifies it. 
> 
>> In other words you have just admitted that light is observed to travel at 
>> variable speeds in the water frame, contrary to SR, and this needs to 
>> be "fixed" mathematically by the 'velocity composition rule' to falsely 
>> make it appear that it has a fixed velocity. 
> 
>What's variable about it? For a given state of the water, the velocity 
>relative to the water is fixed. That's all that SR requires, since that 
>is consistent with the requirement that the laws of physics be the same 
>for all inertial frames. 

It's not fixed if the speed of the source varies. Speed up the water flow
and you also speed up the source relative to the water frame. 
So over time an observer in the water rest frame sees, in the experiment,
lightspeed increase over time. That is not a fixed speed c in the water 
frame.

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

#410902

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2017-02-26 20:43 +1100
Message-ID	<ehfmasFs74lU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#410901

On 26/02/2017 8:08 PM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote:
> Sylvia
>>> On 25/02/2017 9:47 PM, matt.r...@outlook.com wrote
>>>> SR does not require light to travel at c through water. It does require
>>>> that light travel at some fixed velocity through water (for a given
>>>> state; temperature, pressure, etc.), relative to the water. Further if
>>>> the water is moving relative to an observer, then the speed of the light
>>>> in the water relative to the observer obeys the velocity composition
>>>> rule identified in SR, rather than being the result of simple addition.
>>>> So far from falsifying SR, it verifies it.
>>
>>> In other words you have just admitted that light is observed to travel at
>>> variable speeds in the water frame, contrary to SR, and this needs to
>>> be "fixed" mathematically by the 'velocity composition rule' to falsely
>>> make it appear that it has a fixed velocity.
>>
>> What's variable about it? For a given state of the water, the velocity
>> relative to the water is fixed. That's all that SR requires, since that
>> is consistent with the requirement that the laws of physics be the same
>> for all inertial frames.
>
> It's not fixed if the speed of the source varies. Speed up the water flow
> and you also speed up the source relative to the water frame.
> So over time an observer in the water rest frame sees, in the experiment,
> lightspeed increase over time. That is not a fixed speed c in the water
> frame.
>

Why do you think the speed of the source is relevant? Even with sound 
waves the speed of the source doesn't affect the speed of the sound.

Sylvia.

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

#410910

From	matt.rush200@outlook.com
Date	2017-02-26 06:26 -0800
Message-ID	<98174f1a-2c02-478c-8912-6d7e2008b47c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#410902

Sylvia Else
>Why do you think the speed of the source is relevant? Even with sound 
>waves the speed of the source doesn't affect the speed of the sound. 

Sound waves are compression waves in a medium. Light waves are not.
The speed of the source is relevant because it is observed to change
the speed of light in water. If light waves were constant in the water frame
regardless of the motion of the source relative to the water then one 
wouldnt need to transform the data showing a variable speed using a 
mathematical transformation as SR does.

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

#410919

From	"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2017-02-26 08:57 -0800
Message-ID	<017ca803-6323-42da-9637-38ba8122ae36@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#410910

8:26 AMmatt.r...@outlook.com
Sylvia Else 
>Why do you think the speed of the source is relevant? Even with sound 
>waves the speed of the source doesn't affect the speed of the sound. 

Sound waves are compression waves in a medium. Light waves are not. 
The speed of the source is relevant because it is observed to change 
the speed of light in water. If light waves were constant in the water frame 
regardless of the motion of the source relative to the water then one 
wouldnt need to transform the data showing a variable speed using a 
mathematical transformation as SR does. 

Bulk Modulus & Wave Speed formulas 

The Medium is the Quantum Entangled Foam
No one argues against quantum Virtual particles popping in and out of existence...
But as soon as anyone says Aether Medium everybody loses their fucking minds
Total hypocrisy & intellectual dishonesty 

https://goo.gl/photos/GbPiA18LvL592o7Z7

https://goo.gl/photos/jFksRjsdmryo977T9

https://goo.gl/photos/Tvx3wqUMhEaV8Kwc8

https://goo.gl/photos/Aor3erE2JQYy5UmTA

Space time IS the Medium

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

#410923

From	"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2017-02-26 09:15 -0800
Message-ID	<c650c910-eb13-410d-bd35-f7cdba58290f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#410919

Bulk Modulus & Wave Speed formulas 

The Medium is the Quantum Entangled Foam 
No one argues against quantum Virtual particles popping in and out of existence... 
But as soon as anyone says Aether Medium everybody loses their fucking minds 
Total hypocrisy & intellectual dishonesty 

https://goo.gl/photos/GbPiA18LvL592o7Z7 

https://goo.gl/photos/jFksRjsdmryo977T9 

https://goo.gl/photos/Tvx3wqUMhEaV8Kwc8 

https://goo.gl/photos/Aor3erE2JQYy5UmTA 

Space time IS the Medium 

Susskind, "Quantum Mechanics "IS" an Aether Theory 

Quantum Entanglement IS the Aether 

https://youtu.be/OBPpRqxY8Uw?t=18m9s

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

#410924

From	"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2017-02-26 09:37 -0800
Message-ID	<5cb98b6c-463f-439f-90ba-5c152a0cfd1a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#410923

((137/(43*pi)-1))/((c/2)*2^0.5)

http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%28137%2F%2843*pi%29-1%29%29%2F%28%28299792458%2F2%29*2%5E0.5%29+&x=0&y=0


6.6750401e-11

G / (((137 / (43 * pi)) - 1) / ((299792458 / 2) * (2^0.5))) = 0.999856162

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

#410926

From	"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2017-02-26 09:49 -0800
Message-ID	<27f2d009-a01f-45a9-a134-f0efd9b2916f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#410924

((137/(43*pi)-1))/((c/2)*2^0.5) 

http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%28137%2F%2843*pi%29-1%29%29%2F%28%28299792458%2F2%29*2%5E0.5%29+&x=0&y=0 


6.6750401e-11 

G / (((137 / (43 * pi)) - 1) / ((299792458 / 2) * (2^0.5))) = 0.999856162 

Fibonacci & Von Klitzing Quantum Hall effect 

(377/137)/2  = 25824.5

25812.807557 / 25824.5 = 0.99954723448

3e+8 / ((299792458 / 433494437000) + 1) =
299792671.891

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

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

csiph-web

Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics

Contents

#410813

#410816

#410818

#410864

#410898

#410821

#410899

#410912

#410966

#410964

#410967

#410977

#410984

#410901

#410902

#410910

#410919

#410923

#410924

#410926