Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #456443 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-19 23:39 +0200 |
| Last post | 2018-04-22 13:39 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 23:39 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-20 12:56 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 22:40 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-21 09:28 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 17:42 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 17:45 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-20 17:48 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 16:08 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-20 21:09 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 11:08 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-22 10:40 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:01 -0500
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 18:53 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 12:14 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 08:26 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 19:57 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-23 05:50 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-23 05:26 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-23 06:09 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:32 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 01:48 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:33 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 02:53 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 12:00 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 04:08 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 04:33 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 05:11 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 14:13 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 09:26 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:04 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 12:37 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 19:58 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 20:06 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 20:42 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:40 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 17:01 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-23 09:17 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-23 10:05 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 16:07 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-24 13:47 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-23 21:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:25 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 14:49 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:05 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 06:32 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 15:38 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 16:27 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 10:01 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 18:13 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 11:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 22:29 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-25 09:25 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 21:27 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 21:39 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-26 10:42 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 21:37 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:59 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-27 09:07 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 22:38 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Jim Emile <leuu@wwjw.ce> - 2018-04-27 20:46 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 14:40 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-29 14:28 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-28 22:32 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 17:41 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-30 08:51 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 10:14 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-26 21:58 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 22:19 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 22:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 20:49 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-27 12:21 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-27 13:30 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 23:52 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 23:46 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "e-ps@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 10:27 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-22 10:45 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 10:51 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:16 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 13:39 -0700
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Jim Emile <leuu@wwjw.ce> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 20:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pc0270$qkm$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457056 |
Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 27/04/2018 01:07, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >> On 26/04/2018 8:59 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >> >>> Now I try to be rational. >>> Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. >> >> Light consists of photons. No medium required. Sylvia > > What is the photon? A photon is the smallest discrete amount or quantum > of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light. Actually that's wrong. Smallest amount of _energy_, not electromagnetic. An electromagnetic would require two separate and distinct sinus components. A _photon_ is nothing like that. It can't be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 14:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pc1q32$197b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457058 |
Il 27/04/2018 22:46, Jim Emile ha scritto: > Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> Il 27/04/2018 01:07, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>> On 26/04/2018 8:59 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>> >>>> Now I try to be rational. >>>> Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. >>> >>> Light consists of photons. No medium required. Sylvia >> >> What is the photon? A photon is the smallest discrete amount or quantum >> of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light. > > Actually that's wrong. Smallest amount of _energy_, not electromagnetic. > An electromagnetic would require two separate and distinct sinus > components. A _photon_ is nothing like that. It can't be. > Sylvia has practically claimed that the photon is not a wave and, therefore, does not need of a medium to manifest itself. To contest his claim, I could have cited the double-slit experiment, which shows that the photon also has a wave-like nature. But I wanted to be more precise and, therefore, I mentioned the statements, with the related sources, which state that the photon has the characteristics of an electromagnetic manifestation and, therefore, is a wave phenomenon. You intervened by stating, if I understood correctly, that the photon isn't an electromagnetic phenomenon, even if without mentioning any source and without specifying whether it is still a wave phenomenon or not. In any case, since the object of contention with Sylvia, is if the photon is also a wave phenomenon, I ask you to specify if your affirmation means that the photon is not a wave phenomenon. If so, I ask you to specify the source of your statement and also to justify the double-slit experiment. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 14:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fkkvusFs97fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #457092 |
On 28/04/2018 10:40 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 27/04/2018 22:46, Jim Emile ha scritto: >> Dino Bruniera wrote: >> >>> Il 27/04/2018 01:07, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>>> On 26/04/2018 8:59 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> >>>>> Now I try to be rational. >>>>> Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. >>>> >>>> Light consists of photons. No medium required. Sylvia >>> >>> What is the photon? A photon is the smallest discrete amount or quantum >>> of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light. >> >> Actually that's wrong. Smallest amount of _energy_, not electromagnetic. >> An electromagnetic would require two separate and distinct sinus >> components. A _photon_ is nothing like that. It can't be. >> > > Sylvia has practically claimed that the photon is not a wave and, > therefore, does not need of a medium to manifest itself. > To contest his claim, I could have cited the double-slit experiment, > which shows that the photon also has a wave-like nature. > But I wanted to be more precise and, therefore, I mentioned the > statements, with the related sources, which state that the photon has > the characteristics of an electromagnetic manifestation and, therefore, > is a wave phenomenon. Quantum mechanics correctly predicts the result of the double slit experiment without treating light as a wave. Indeed, the double slit experiment can be performed using electrons, which also produces an interference pattern. Yet there can be little doubt that electrons are not waves. Consequently the results of the double slit experiment cannot be used to demonstrate that light is a wave. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 22:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4336d39f-a12e-4140-a827-33502805c0be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457143 |
Quantum mechanics correctly predicts the result of the double slit experiment without treating light as a wave. Indeed, the double slit experiment can be performed using electrons, which also produces an interference pattern. Yet there can be little doubt that electrons are not waves. Consequently the results of the double slit experiment cannot be used to demonstrate that light is a wave. Sylvia. Electron parameters are dictated by the Vacuum Electrons are Relativistic Ballast of the Vacuum
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 17:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pc4p3r$1vq7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457143 |
Il 29/04/2018 06:28, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > On 28/04/2018 10:40 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >> Il 27/04/2018 22:46, Jim Emile ha scritto: >>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>> >>>> Il 27/04/2018 01:07, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>>>> On 26/04/2018 8:59 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Now I try to be rational. >>>>>> Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. >>>>> >>>>> Light consists of photons. No medium required. Sylvia >>>> >>>> What is the photon? A photon is the smallest discrete amount or quantum >>>> of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light. >>> >>> Actually that's wrong. Smallest amount of _energy_, not electromagnetic. >>> An electromagnetic would require two separate and distinct sinus >>> components. A _photon_ is nothing like that. It can't be. >>> >> >> Sylvia has practically claimed that the photon is not a wave and, >> therefore, does not need of a medium to manifest itself. >> To contest his claim, I could have cited the double-slit experiment, >> which shows that the photon also has a wave-like nature. >> But I wanted to be more precise and, therefore, I mentioned the >> statements, with the related sources, which state that the photon has >> the characteristics of an electromagnetic manifestation and, >> therefore, is a wave phenomenon. > > Quantum mechanics correctly predicts the result of the double slit > experiment without treating light as a wave. > Could you mention the source of your statement? Because to me the opposite is true. "The double-slit experiment is an experiment in quantum mechanics and optics demonstrating the wave-particle duality of electrons, photons, and other fundamental objects in physics. When streams of particles such as electrons or photons pass through two narrow adjacent slits to hit a detector screen on the other side, they don't form clusters based on whether they passed through one slit or the other. Instead, they interfere: simultaneously passing through both slits, and producing a pattern of interference bands on the screen. This phenomenon occurs even if the particles are fired one at a time, showing that the particles demonstrate some wave behavior by interfering with themselves as if they were a wave passing through both slits." From: https://brilliant.org/wiki/double-slit-experiment/ "Matter waves are a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics, being an example of wave–particle duality. All matter can exhibit wave-like behavior. For example, a beam of electrons can be diffracted just like a beam of light or a water wave. The concept that matter behaves like a wave was proposed by Louis de Broglie (/dəˈbrɔɪ/) in 1924. It is also referred to as the de Broglie hypothesis.[1] Matter waves are referred to as de Broglie waves." From wikipedia. > Indeed, the double slit experiment can be performed using electrons, > which also produces an interference pattern. Yet there can be little > doubt that electrons are not waves. > "De Broglie, in his 1924 PhD thesis, proposed that just as light has both wave-like and particle-like properties, electrons also have wave-like properties." From wikipedia > Consequently the results of the double slit experiment cannot be used to > demonstrate that light is a wave. > Consequently the results of the double slit experiment can be used to demonstrate that light have wave-like properties. However I await your possible quotes from sources contrary to the above. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 08:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fkn0jhFbk0lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #457166 |
On 30/04/2018 1:41 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 29/04/2018 06:28, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >> On 28/04/2018 10:40 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>> Il 27/04/2018 22:46, Jim Emile ha scritto: >>>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> >>>>> Il 27/04/2018 01:07, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>>>>> On 26/04/2018 8:59 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Now I try to be rational. >>>>>>> Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. >>>>>> >>>>>> Light consists of photons. No medium required. Sylvia >>>>> >>>>> What is the photon? A photon is the smallest discrete amount or >>>>> quantum >>>>> of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light. >>>> >>>> Actually that's wrong. Smallest amount of _energy_, not >>>> electromagnetic. >>>> An electromagnetic would require two separate and distinct sinus >>>> components. A _photon_ is nothing like that. It can't be. >>>> >>> >>> Sylvia has practically claimed that the photon is not a wave and, >>> therefore, does not need of a medium to manifest itself. >>> To contest his claim, I could have cited the double-slit experiment, >>> which shows that the photon also has a wave-like nature. >>> But I wanted to be more precise and, therefore, I mentioned the >>> statements, with the related sources, which state that the photon has >>> the characteristics of an electromagnetic manifestation and, >>> therefore, is a wave phenomenon. >> >> Quantum mechanics correctly predicts the result of the double slit >> experiment without treating light as a wave. >> > > Could you mention the source of your statement? > Because to me the opposite is true. > > "The double-slit experiment is an experiment in quantum mechanics and > optics demonstrating the wave-particle duality of electrons, photons, > and other fundamental objects in physics. > When streams of particles such as electrons or photons pass through two > narrow adjacent slits to hit a detector screen on the other side, they > don't form clusters based on whether they passed through one slit or the > other. Instead, they interfere: simultaneously passing through both > slits, and producing a pattern of interference bands on the screen. This > phenomenon occurs even if the particles are fired one at a time, showing > that the particles demonstrate some wave behavior by interfering with > themselves as if they were a wave passing through both slits." > > From: > https://brilliant.org/wiki/double-slit-experiment/ > > "Matter waves are a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics, > being an example of wave–particle duality. All matter can exhibit > wave-like behavior. For example, a beam of electrons can be diffracted > just like a beam of light or a water wave. The concept that matter > behaves like a wave was proposed by Louis de Broglie (/dəˈbrɔɪ/) in > 1924. It is also referred to as the de Broglie hypothesis.[1] Matter > waves are referred to as de Broglie waves." > > From wikipedia. > >> Indeed, the double slit experiment can be performed using electrons, >> which also produces an interference pattern. Yet there can be little >> doubt that electrons are not waves. >> > > "De Broglie, in his 1924 PhD thesis, proposed that just as light has > both wave-like and particle-like properties, electrons also have > wave-like properties." > > From wikipedia > >> Consequently the results of the double slit experiment cannot be used >> to demonstrate that light is a wave. >> > > Consequently the results of the double slit experiment can be used to > demonstrate that light have wave-like properties. > > However I await your possible quotes from sources contrary to the above. > > Dino Bruniera > Now you're conflating wave with wave-like. Wave-like does not mean that it's a wave. Remember what you're trying to prove, which is that light is a wave in a medium, so that you can prove that the medium exists. The waves are in the math, but the result is a description of the behaviour of a particle, whether it's an electron, proton, neutron etc, or indeed a photon. Any argument use to show that a photon is a wave would apply equally to those other particles. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 10:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pc6j9f$m5h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457188 |
Il 30/04/2018 00:51, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > On 30/04/2018 1:41 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >> Il 29/04/2018 06:28, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>> On 28/04/2018 10:40 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> Il 27/04/2018 22:46, Jim Emile ha scritto: >>>>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Il 27/04/2018 01:07, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>>>>>> On 26/04/2018 8:59 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now I try to be rational. >>>>>>>> Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Light consists of photons. No medium required. Sylvia >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the photon? A photon is the smallest discrete amount or >>>>>> quantum >>>>>> of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light. >>>>> >>>>> Actually that's wrong. Smallest amount of _energy_, not >>>>> electromagnetic. >>>>> An electromagnetic would require two separate and distinct sinus >>>>> components. A _photon_ is nothing like that. It can't be. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sylvia has practically claimed that the photon is not a wave and, >>>> therefore, does not need of a medium to manifest itself. >>>> To contest his claim, I could have cited the double-slit experiment, >>>> which shows that the photon also has a wave-like nature. >>>> But I wanted to be more precise and, therefore, I mentioned the >>>> statements, with the related sources, which state that the photon >>>> has the characteristics of an electromagnetic manifestation and, >>>> therefore, is a wave phenomenon. >>> >>> Quantum mechanics correctly predicts the result of the double slit >>> experiment without treating light as a wave. >>> >> >> Could you mention the source of your statement? >> Because to me the opposite is true. >> >> "The double-slit experiment is an experiment in quantum mechanics and >> optics demonstrating the wave-particle duality of electrons, photons, >> and other fundamental objects in physics. >> When streams of particles such as electrons or photons pass through >> two narrow adjacent slits to hit a detector screen on the other side, >> they don't form clusters based on whether they passed through one slit >> or the other. Instead, they interfere: simultaneously passing through >> both slits, and producing a pattern of interference bands on the >> screen. This phenomenon occurs even if the particles are fired one at >> a time, showing that the particles demonstrate some wave behavior by >> interfering with themselves as if they were a wave passing through >> both slits." >> >> From: >> https://brilliant.org/wiki/double-slit-experiment/ >> >> "Matter waves are a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics, >> being an example of wave–particle duality. All matter can exhibit >> wave-like behavior. For example, a beam of electrons can be diffracted >> just like a beam of light or a water wave. The concept that matter >> behaves like a wave was proposed by Louis de Broglie (/dəˈbrɔɪ/) in >> 1924. It is also referred to as the de Broglie hypothesis.[1] Matter >> waves are referred to as de Broglie waves." >> >> From wikipedia. >> >>> Indeed, the double slit experiment can be performed using electrons, >>> which also produces an interference pattern. Yet there can be little >>> doubt that electrons are not waves. >>> >> >> "De Broglie, in his 1924 PhD thesis, proposed that just as light has >> both wave-like and particle-like properties, electrons also have >> wave-like properties." >> >> From wikipedia >> >>> Consequently the results of the double slit experiment cannot be used >>> to demonstrate that light is a wave. >>> >> >> Consequently the results of the double slit experiment can be used to >> demonstrate that light have wave-like properties. >> >> However I await your possible quotes from sources contrary to the above. >> >> Dino Bruniera >> > > Now you're conflating wave with wave-like. Wave-like does not mean that > it's a wave. Remember what you're trying to prove, which is that light > is a wave in a medium, so that you can prove that the medium exists. > We aren't able to see a photon, because obviously it is too small to be observed. We can only deduce its conformation, based on its behavior. And if the photon behaves like a wave, it means that it is at least a wave phenomenon. And if it is a wave phenomenon, it needs of a medium. Even Einstein admitted it. Here is what he wrote in 1920, in paragraph 13 of the "Morgan manuscript": "in 1905, I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical [...]. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states." > The waves are in the math, but the result is a description of the > behaviour of a particle, whether it's an electron, proton, neutron etc, > or indeed a photon. Any argument use to show that a photon is a wave > would apply equally to those other particles. > Personally I am convinced that the Universe is composed of a single imponderable substance, in which all the so-called ponderable matter is manifested, through wave-like phenomena. In my two articles I called this substance as "space", but it could also be called as "ether". But a better name, in my opinion, is that of "apeiron", which was central to the cosmological theory created by Anaximander, a 6th to century BC. Also the physicists Werner Heisenberg e Max Born think so. Here is what is written on wikipedia. "Werner Heisenberg, noted for the creation of quantum mechanics, arrived at the idea that the elementary particles are to be seen as different manifestations, different quantum states, of one and the same "primordial substance". Because of its similarity to the primordial substance hypothesized by Anaximander, his colleague Max Born called this substance apeiron." Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 21:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <326f3e8b-cbdb-4cdd-91fa-616992307fb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456990 |
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 3:59:41 AM UTC-7, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. Well, if you can prove this, you will earn a Nobel Prize. Get busy!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 22:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e1b862d-525d-41d5-9f19-2eedba8f3b59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457039 |
pnal...@gmail.com On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 3:59:41 AM UTC-7, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. Well, if you can prove this, you will earn a Nobel Prize. Get busy! 1/((x)^(7)*(y)^(7))^(1/6) http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F((x)%5E(7)*(y)%5E(7))%5E(1%2F6)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 22:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <666d6fe5-7132-4110-bd33-73882ed21c8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457042 |
pnal...@gmail.com On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 3:59:41 AM UTC-7, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. Well, if you can prove this, you will earn a Nobel Prize. Get busy! 1/((x)^(7)*(y)^(7))^(1/6) http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F((x)%5E(7)*(y)%5E(7))%5E(1%2F6) https://photos.app.goo.gl/Cg5c3B9RUBmmtuUm6 https://photos.app.goo.gl/C49aNNCBAEHYd2Ng1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 20:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pbvrbl$fcl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457039 |
Il 27/04/2018 06:58, pnalsing@gmail.com ha scritto: > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 3:59:41 AM UTC-7, Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. > > Well, if you can prove this, you will earn a Nobel Prize. > > Get busy! > From Wikipedia: "Electromagnetic waves do not require a medium. Instead, they consist of periodic oscillations of electrical and magnetic fields originally generated by charged particles, and can therefore travel through a vacuum." So for the scientific community, light waves manifest themselves in a vacuum. But is the term "vacuum" understood as nothing? I don't think so. I think that for "vacuum" is meant without ponderable matter, but not without anything, that is without a medium in which electromagnetic waves can manifest themselves, as could be the aether, for example. Even Einstein himself thought so. Here is what he wrote in 1920, in paragraph 13 of the "Morgan manuscript": "in 1905, I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical [...]. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states." Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 12:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a5b38dc-7227-469f-b6d7-a1488be99c15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457051 |
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:49:29 PM UTC-5, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 27/04/2018 06:58, pnalsing@gmail.com ha scritto: > > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 3:59:41 AM UTC-7, Dino Bruniera wrote: > > > >> Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. > > > > Well, if you can prove this, you will earn a Nobel Prize. > > > > Get busy! > > > > From Wikipedia: > > "Electromagnetic waves do not require a medium. Instead, they consist of > periodic oscillations of electrical and magnetic fields originally > generated by charged particles, and can therefore travel through a vacuum." > So for the scientific community, light waves manifest themselves in a > vacuum. > But is the term "vacuum" understood as nothing? > I don't think so. > I think that for "vacuum" is meant without ponderable matter, but not > without anything, that is without a medium in which electromagnetic > waves can manifest themselves, as could be the aether, for example. > > Even Einstein himself thought so. > Here is what he wrote in 1920, in paragraph 13 of the "Morgan manuscript": > "in 1905, I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak > about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical > [...]. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling > all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter > as well) are its states." > > Dino Bruniera Yes ... The Ridiculous Religiosity of No Medium Both Light Waves & LIGO's Graivty Waves Without a Medium ???? Ridiculous Religiosity !!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 13:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ef02d0a-a8e3-48f4-b67b-ab434db5d298@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457052 |
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 2:21:51 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:49:29 PM UTC-5, Dino Bruniera wrote: > > Il 27/04/2018 06:58, pnalsing@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 3:59:41 AM UTC-7, Dino Bruniera wrote: > > > > > >> Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. > > > > > > Well, if you can prove this, you will earn a Nobel Prize. > > > > > > Get busy! > > > > > > > From Wikipedia: > > > > "Electromagnetic waves do not require a medium. Instead, they consist of > > periodic oscillations of electrical and magnetic fields originally > > generated by charged particles, and can therefore travel through a vacuum." > > So for the scientific community, light waves manifest themselves in a > > vacuum. > > But is the term "vacuum" understood as nothing? > > I don't think so. > > I think that for "vacuum" is meant without ponderable matter, but not > > without anything, that is without a medium in which electromagnetic > > waves can manifest themselves, as could be the aether, for example. > > > > Even Einstein himself thought so. > > Here is what he wrote in 1920, in paragraph 13 of the "Morgan manuscript": > > "in 1905, I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak > > about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical > > [...]. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling > > all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter > > as well) are its states." > > > > Dino Bruniera > > Yes ... The Ridiculous Religiosity of No Medium > > Both Light Waves & LIGO's Graivty Waves Without a Medium ???? > > Ridiculous Religiosity !!!! 1/(x^7*y^7)^(1/6) = "Medium" https://photos.app.goo.gl/rN6DR4aPANaSXQGCA (((m^2) * c) / (((Lp * 0.5)^3) / ((Tp) * 0.5))) / (c^2) = 1.70377849e+53 kg Entropy http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking_entropy#Formula_for_black_hole_entropy Sbh = A/(4*(Planck Length)^2) (4/c / ((Planck Length)^3/(Planck Time)) = 1.70377849e+53 ((1.70377849e+53 kg) / ((13.8880817391 billion light years * pi)^3)) / 6.52485 = 3.71295775e-28 kg / m^3
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 23:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b35555b4-8dba-4b06-8942-92e229191d3e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456724 |
On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 7:07:51 AM UTC-7, Dino Bruniera wrote: > > In his book "Weak Relativity", Franco Selleri Oh brother, not THAT dunce again. > has dedicated the entire > chapter 9 to show that "no theoretical justification of the > Sagnac effect has been obtained from the two relativistic theorie" Yes, yes, we've been through Selleri's papers on the Sagnac effect on this newgroup in excruciating detail in the late 1990s. I don't feel like going through his nonsense again. Sorry. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 23:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3caa75ef-73cd-4497-8e2f-458484b3c1da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456510 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 1:40:52 PM UTC-7, Dino Bruniera wrote: > > I assume that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of reality and > not that of a stipulation, like special relativity. Not even wrong. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "e-ps@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 10:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59cc836c-2a28-4b5e-b1e8-03abd1f69e9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456443 |
Hi Dino and folks, I wonder if you would be interested in looking at this group, which I believe demolishes S.R.concept of Time in the first post: Group title: Transcending Absolutism and Relativism and Closing a Circle Thread title: Demolition of Special Relativity Concept of Time through coming into tension with E-PS Concept First post: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/transcending-absolutism-and-relativism-and-closing-a-circle/2S5dk58g7Zg Thank you, E-PS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c213240c-21f4-4904-9e50-6f65631292b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456653 |
Group title: Transcending Absolutism and Relativism and Closing a Circle ************ Can't read the first post without joining the group, so it's worthless...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 10:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27ad5b54-970a-425b-a2d7-d7acd71f0b0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456659 |
On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 6:45:40 PM UTC+1, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > Group title: > Transcending Absolutism and Relativism and Closing a Circle > > ************ > > Can't read the first post without joining the group, so it's worthless... Thanks for that info, pnal. I am totally new here. I thought I had left it "public". So, I am at a bit of a loss why you can't red it? E-PS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 22:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pbiqi7$1qd9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456653 |
Il 22/04/2018 19:27, e-ps@gmail.com ha scritto: > Hi Dino and folks, > > I wonder if you would be interested in looking at this group, which I believe demolishes S.R.concept of Time in the first post: > > Group title: > Transcending Absolutism and Relativism and Closing a Circle > > Thread title: > Demolition of Special Relativity Concept of Time through coming into tension with E-PS Concept > > First post: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/transcending-absolutism-and-relativism-and-closing-a-circle/2S5dk58g7Zg > > Thank you, > E-PS > Before joining the group, I would like to know more precisely what the group is interested in. While I cannot read the first post without joining the group. What is the E-PS Concept? Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04625c3c-da58-4722-8cb8-edbf22acd18b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456673 |
On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 9:16:11 PM UTC+1, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 22/04/2018 19:27, e-ps@gmail.com ha scritto: > > Hi Dino and folks, > > > > I wonder if you would be interested in looking at this group, which I believe demolishes S.R.concept of Time in the first post: > > > > Group title: > > Transcending Absolutism and Relativism and Closing a Circle > > > > Thread title: > > Demolition of Special Relativity Concept of Time through coming into tension with E-PS Concept > > > > First post: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/transcending-absolutism-and-relativism-and-closing-a-circle/2S5dk58g7Zg > > > > Thank you, > > E-PS > > > Before joining the group, I would like to know more precisely what the > group is interested in. > While I cannot read the first post without joining the group. > > What is the E-PS Concept? > > Dino Bruniera Dino, I understand. Thanks. In my first post I present an alternative definition of time to that of S.R. and probably of the world generally. (It is somewhat clumsily stated in the thread description. Am trying to see how to change it). There are basically two issues to SR: Time and Frame. A.E. used a different concept than I do. Where one starts is where one finished. (So much convolution - SR - because of not copping on to the definition of time I feature). Thanks for your help and my apologies for imposing in your thread for all this. I hope you find a visit well worthwhile.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web