Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #467109 > unrolled thread

Proof that photons do NOT have the same velocity c with repect to all frames of reference.

Started by	Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com>
First post	2018-08-06 19:36 +0100
Last post	2018-08-16 06:43 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 145 — 18 participants

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

Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →

#467659

From	"David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2018-08-12 15:08 -0700
Message-ID	<5e756e43-2809-4557-8ac5-b1de89d53746@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467134

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn escrito 

David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: 

[Quotation levels repaired, attribution novels trimmed] 

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: 
>> David (Kronos Prime) Fuller 
>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: 
>>>> Gary Harnagel wrote: 
>>>>> […]  The MOMENTUM of a photon bouncing off a moving mirror […] is 
>>>>>  INCREASED if the photon is moving to the left and the mirror is 
>>>>>  moving to the right. 
>>>> Oh, really?  I would really like to know which mechanism allows 
>>>> that. Because I really do want to produce energy out of nothing by 
>>>>  reflecting light off my bathroom mirror, which is moving through 
>>>> the universe with Earth. 
>>> this would require the mirror moving relative to a pre-referenced 
>>> medium 
>> No, it would require the mirror moving towards the light for any 
>> observer that is assumed to be stationary.  And it could only be 
>> observed in those observers’ rest frames. 
> 
> You’re not thinking clearly. 

Thank you.  (Coming from you who is completely confused, that is a compliment.) 

> It’s the same as [not even wrong] 

No. 

If it’s (Not Even Wrong) why don’t you leave my mistakes as an Everlasting reminder of my incompetence? 

It’s the same as Averaging the velocities Of All observers (which would Average to ZERO or c if you wish ) Same as Brownian motion. 

That’s precisely what (e^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2) is. 

(((6.5248935 ((kg m) / s)) / c) * ((6.5248935 ((kg m) / s)) / c) * G) / (planck length^2) = 1.21029546e+44 newtons 

https://youtu.be/J3xLuZNKhlY 
Same as Brownian motion cancelled. 

(6.5248935 / 8) * (((c^4) / G) / (((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (pi / 4) * (planck length^2))) = 1.03846905 = virtual particle motion force cancelled 
https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ

 
https://photos.app.goo.gl/2tHNZ8XSWgnvW5yS6 


BTW, is there any chance that you learn to quote? 

No ..... talk to google 


-- 
PointedEars 

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

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

#467257

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2018-08-08 09:00 +1000
Message-ID	<fsumk4F70n5U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#467109

On 7/08/2018 4:36 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> The average velocity of the photons within any closed box
> must be zero relative to the box. If this were not so the
> photons would be moving out of the CLOSED box.
> 
> The average velocity of the photons within any closed box
> relative to a frame of reference in which the box is moving
> with a velocity v, must be the same value v, or again
> photons would be moving out of the closed box. Thus photons
> can not possibly have the same velocity c with respect to
> all frames of reference, because if they did they must
> have an average velocity of zero with respect to all frames
> of reference, which they don't eh!
> 
> QED
> 
> keith stein

In a frame in which the box is moving the photons spend more time 
travelling towards the front of the box than they do travelling towards 
the back of the box, because the distance from the back to the front is 
longer than then distance from the front to the back.

So the averages work out.

Sylvia.

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

#467265

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-08 04:20 +0200
Message-ID	<e1ba99a7-089d-5d91-c6e6-639778b7786b@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467257

Sylvia Else wrote:
> In a frame in which the box is moving the photons spend more time 
> travelling towards the front of the box than they do travelling towards 
> the back of the box, because the distance from the back to the front is 
> longer than then distance from the front to the back.

Yes.

> So the averages work out.

Non sequitur.  Yours is circular reasoning.  The reason why the above is
true (which leads to the relativity of simultaneity) is a constant speed of
light, not vice-versa.

In fact, ISTM that any and all reasoning that concludes a constant speed of
light (including mine) is eventually circular.  (For example, if you are
assuming the Lorentz transform or the Minkowski metric, then you are already
assuming c to be constant.)

Instead, the constant speed of light in an electromagnetically homogeneous
medium is an EXPERIMENTAL, OBSERVED FACT.  (Deal with it.)

ISTM that what can be shown logically is only:

If the speed of light in vacuum is the maximum possible speed, and if light
is an electrodynamic phenomenon, of the electromagnetic interaction, and if
this interaction has infinite range, and if photons are the gauge bosons of
this interaction, then photons must have zero mass.  And particles that have
zero mass, including photons then, must move at the speed of light in vacuum
in all frames of reference.  (See my other follow-up.)

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#467440

From	Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-09 20:25 +0100
Message-ID	<Ry0bD.1025$av.311@fx30.am4>
In reply to	#467257

On 08/08/2018 00:00, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 7/08/2018 4:36 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> The average velocity of the photons within any closed box
>> must be zero relative to the box. If this were not so the
>> photons would be moving out of the CLOSED box.
>>
>> The average velocity of the photons within any closed box
>> relative to a frame of reference in which the box is moving
>> with a velocity v, must be the same value v, or again
>> photons would be moving out of the closed box. Thus photons
>> can not possibly have the same velocity c with respect to
>> all frames of reference, because if they did they must
>> have an average velocity of zero with respect to all frames
>> of reference, which they don't eh!
>>
>> QED
>>
>> keith stein
> 
> In a frame in which the box is moving the photons spend more time 
> travelling towards the front of the box than they do travelling towards 
> the back of the box, because the distance from the back to the front is 
> longer than then distance from the front to the back.
> 
> So the averages work out.
> 
> Sylvia.

Thank you Sylvia. Surprisingly you were the only one who pointed that 
out, and i do agree that that is indeed the correct explanation - for
an SR believer eh!

For myself, I can't help but believe that when one walks towards the box 
the photons are in no way affected and they still spend exactly equal 
time traveling to the right as they do to the left, but i do agree with 
you that in Einstein's crazy SR world what you say is indeed the correct 
explanation, so once again, thank you.

keith stein

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

#467443

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2018-08-09 12:42 -0700
Message-ID	<45d63008-cb58-4752-bbc9-25a9011b2ff9@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467440

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:25:40 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 08/08/2018 00:00, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> > In a frame in which the box is moving the photons spend more time 
> > travelling towards the front of the box than they do travelling towards 
> > the back of the box, because the distance from the back to the front is 
> > longer than then distance from the front to the back.
> > 
> > So the averages work out.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> Thank you Sylvia. Surprisingly you were the only one who pointed that 
> out, and i do agree that that is indeed the correct explanation - for
> an SR believer eh!
> 
> For myself, I can't help but believe that when one walks towards the box 
> the photons are in no way affected and they still spend exactly equal 
> time traveling to the right as they do to the left, but i do agree with 
> you that in Einstein's crazy SR world what you say is indeed the correct 
> explanation, so once again, thank you.
> 
> keith stein

By the Principle of Relativity, translation to the frame in which the box
is stationary REQUIRES that situation is identical to the original frame.
So you have TWO strikes against you:  Postulate #1 (all inertial frames
are the same) AND Postulate #2 (speed of light is invariant).  Note that
denying Postulate #1 also denies the Galilean Transform.

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

#467446

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2018-08-09 13:16 -0700
Message-ID	<a384c3c1-0523-4a4f-bb46-2d4af1158f4c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467443

On Thursday, 9 August 2018 21:42:55 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:

>  Note that
> denying Postulate #1 also denies the Galilean Transform.

Gary, poor idiot, for sane people A=>B doesn't
mean not A =>not B.

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

#467459

From	Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn>
Date	2018-08-09 21:57 +0000
Message-ID	<pkidd7$1jlk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467446

mlwozniak wrote:

> On Thursday, 9 August 2018 21:42:55 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:
> 
>>  Note that
>> denying Postulate #1 also denies the Galilean Transform.
> 
> Gary, poor idiot, for sane people A=>B doesn't mean not A =>not B.

I don't know, how abot this one 

/(AB) = /A + /B 

or maybe

//(A + B) = /(/A/B) = //A + //B = A + B

how do you like it.

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

#467449

From	Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-09 21:26 +0100
Message-ID	<_r1bD.11780$0v.9511@fx07.am4>
In reply to	#467443

On 09/08/2018 20:42, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:25:40 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 08/08/2018 00:00, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>> In a frame in which the box is moving the photons spend more time
>>> travelling towards the front of the box than they do travelling towards
>>> the back of the box, because the distance from the back to the front is
>>> longer than then distance from the front to the back.
>>>
>>> So the averages work out.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Thank you Sylvia. Surprisingly you were the only one who pointed that
>> out, and i do agree that that is indeed the correct explanation - for
>> an SR believer eh!
>>
>> For myself, I can't help but believe that when one walks towards the box
>> the photons are in no way affected and they still spend exactly equal
>> time traveling to the right as they do to the left, but i do agree with
>> you that in Einstein's crazy SR world what you say is indeed the correct
>> explanation, so once again, thank you.
>>
>> keith stein
> 
> By the Principle of Relativity, translation to the frame in which the box
> is stationary REQUIRES that situation is identical to the original frame.
> So you have TWO strikes against you:  Postulate #1 (all inertial frames
> are the same) AND Postulate #2 (speed of light is invariant).  Note that
> denying Postulate #1 also denies the Galilean Transform.


Let me quote that part of what Sylvia says with which i do agree:
"In a frame in which the box is moving ..... the distance from the back 
to the front is longer than then distance from the front to the back."
Do you not agree with that Gary ?

keith stein

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

#467450

From	mitchrae3323@gmail.com
Date	2018-08-09 13:28 -0700
Message-ID	<4c8dc0bc-10c3-43b7-8b76-d8524b54fe74@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467449

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:26:37 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 09/08/2018 20:42, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:25:40 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>
> >> On 08/08/2018 00:00, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In a frame in which the box is moving the photons spend more time
> >>> travelling towards the front of the box than they do travelling towards
> >>> the back of the box, because the distance from the back to the front is
> >>> longer than then distance from the front to the back.
> >>>
> >>> So the averages work out.
> >>>
> >>> Sylvia.
> >>
> >> Thank you Sylvia. Surprisingly you were the only one who pointed that
> >> out, and i do agree that that is indeed the correct explanation - for
> >> an SR believer eh!
> >>
> >> For myself, I can't help but believe that when one walks towards the box
> >> the photons are in no way affected and they still spend exactly equal
> >> time traveling to the right as they do to the left, but i do agree with
> >> you that in Einstein's crazy SR world what you say is indeed the correct
> >> explanation, so once again, thank you.
> >>
> >> keith stein
> > 
> > By the Principle of Relativity, translation to the frame in which the box
> > is stationary REQUIRES that situation is identical to the original frame.
> > So you have TWO strikes against you:  Postulate #1 (all inertial frames
> > are the same) AND Postulate #2 (speed of light is invariant).  Note that
> > denying Postulate #1 also denies the Galilean Transform.
> 
> 
> Let me quote that part of what Sylvia says with which i do agree:
> "In a frame in which the box is moving ..... the distance from the back 
> to the front is longer than then distance from the front to the back."
> Do you not agree with that Gary ?
> 
> keith stein

The only information a light wave contains is its quantity of its energy.


Mitchell Raemsch

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

#467455

From	Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-09 22:44 +0100
Message-ID	<SA2bD.7714$su.5688@fx23.am4>
In reply to	#467450

On 09/08/2018 21:28, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:26:37 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 09/08/2018 20:42, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:25:40 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/08/2018 00:00, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In a frame in which the box is moving the photons spend more time
>>>>> travelling towards the front of the box than they do travelling towards
>>>>> the back of the box, because the distance from the back to the front is
>>>>> longer than then distance from the front to the back.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the averages work out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Sylvia. Surprisingly you were the only one who pointed that
>>>> out, and i do agree that that is indeed the correct explanation - for
>>>> an SR believer eh!
>>>>
>>>> For myself, I can't help but believe that when one walks towards the box
>>>> the photons are in no way affected and they still spend exactly equal
>>>> time traveling to the right as they do to the left, but i do agree with
>>>> you that in Einstein's crazy SR world what you say is indeed the correct
>>>> explanation, so once again, thank you.
>>>>
>>>> keith stein
>>>
>>> By the Principle of Relativity, translation to the frame in which the box
>>> is stationary REQUIRES that situation is identical to the original frame.
>>> So you have TWO strikes against you:  Postulate #1 (all inertial frames
>>> are the same) AND Postulate #2 (speed of light is invariant).  Note that
>>> denying Postulate #1 also denies the Galilean Transform.
>>
>>
>> Let me quote that part of what Sylvia says with which i do agree:
>> "In a frame in which the box is moving ..... the distance from the back
>> to the front is longer than then distance from the front to the back."
>> Do you not agree with that Gary ?
>>
>> keith stein
> 
> The only information a light wave contains is its quantity of its energy.
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 
Not to mention,phase,type of polarization (if any), and frequency,
since for a WAVE energy is related to amplitude, not frequency eh!
(i suspect you are thinking of photons rather than waves Mitchell)

keith stein

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

#467468

From	mitchrae3323@gmail.com
Date	2018-08-09 17:29 -0700
Message-ID	<1b2acce0-4e76-4141-9ab0-b62fbc653264@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467455

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 2:44:20 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 09/08/2018 21:28, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:26:37 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> On 09/08/2018 20:42, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:25:40 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 08/08/2018 00:00, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In a frame in which the box is moving the photons spend more time
> >>>>> travelling towards the front of the box than they do travelling towards
> >>>>> the back of the box, because the distance from the back to the front is
> >>>>> longer than then distance from the front to the back.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So the averages work out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you Sylvia. Surprisingly you were the only one who pointed that
> >>>> out, and i do agree that that is indeed the correct explanation - for
> >>>> an SR believer eh!
> >>>>
> >>>> For myself, I can't help but believe that when one walks towards the box
> >>>> the photons are in no way affected and they still spend exactly equal
> >>>> time traveling to the right as they do to the left, but i do agree with
> >>>> you that in Einstein's crazy SR world what you say is indeed the correct
> >>>> explanation, so once again, thank you.
> >>>>
> >>>> keith stein
> >>>
> >>> By the Principle of Relativity, translation to the frame in which the box
> >>> is stationary REQUIRES that situation is identical to the original frame.
> >>> So you have TWO strikes against you:  Postulate #1 (all inertial frames
> >>> are the same) AND Postulate #2 (speed of light is invariant).  Note that
> >>> denying Postulate #1 also denies the Galilean Transform.
> >>
> >>
> >> Let me quote that part of what Sylvia says with which i do agree:
> >> "In a frame in which the box is moving ..... the distance from the back
> >> to the front is longer than then distance from the front to the back."
> >> Do you not agree with that Gary ?
> >>
> >> keith stein
> > 
> > The only information a light wave contains is its quantity of its energy.
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> Not to mention,phase,type of polarization (if any), and frequency,
> since for a WAVE energy is related to amplitude, not frequency eh!
> (i suspect you are thinking of photons rather than waves Mitchell)
> 
> keith stein

No. You can keep it simple.
Pound Rebka changes the information of a light energy wave.
The rest of light  changes with it...


Mitchell Raemsch

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

#467466

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2018-08-09 16:29 -0700
Message-ID	<694e9ba8-1233-454d-9da8-afa4996aeda1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467449

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 2:26:37 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 09/08/2018 20:42, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > By the Principle of Relativity, translation to the frame in which the box
> > is stationary REQUIRES that situation is identical to the original frame.
> > So you have TWO strikes against you:  Postulate #1 (all inertial frames
> > are the same) AND Postulate #2 (speed of light is invariant).  Note that
> > denying Postulate #1 also denies the Galilean Transform.
> 
> 
> Let me quote that part of what Sylvia says with which i do agree:
> "In a frame in which the box is moving ..... the distance from the back 
> to the front is longer than then distance from the front to the back."
> Do you not agree with that Gary ?
> 
> keith stein

Yes.  However, the photons reflecting from the front wall will have a lower
frequency than the photons reflecting from the back surface.  Momentum of
a photon is p = hf/c, so photons reflecting off the front surface will
deliver more momentum to the box than photons arriving at the back wall.
It turns out it just balances the reduced power due to the longer time
it takes for the photon to get there.  The opposite happens at the back wall.

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

#467473

From	Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-10 03:05 +0100
Message-ID	<Kp6bD.4375$%L2.2992@fx15.am4>
In reply to	#467466

On 10/08/2018 00:29, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 2:26:37 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 09/08/2018 20:42, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> By the Principle of Relativity, translation to the frame in which the box
>>> is stationary REQUIRES that situation is identical to the original frame.
>>> So you have TWO strikes against you:  Postulate #1 (all inertial frames
>>> are the same) AND Postulate #2 (speed of light is invariant).  Note that
>>> denying Postulate #1 also denies the Galilean Transform.
>>
>>
>> Let me quote that part of what Sylvia says with which i do agree:
>> "In a frame in which the box is moving ..... the distance from the back
>> to the front is longer than then distance from the front to the back."
>> Do you not agree with that Gary ?
>>
>> keith stein
> 
> Yes. 

:)  The Ambiguous "Yes" :)

My own fault. Let me rephrase my question:
Do you agree with what Sylvia says in the above quote Gary ?







? However, the photons reflecting from the front wall will have a lower
> frequency than the photons reflecting from the back surface.  Momentum of
> a photon is p = hf/c, so photons reflecting off the front surface will
> deliver more momentum to the box than photons arriving at the back wall.
> It turns out it just balances the reduced power due to the longer time
> it takes for the photon to get there.  The opposite happens at the back wall.
>

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

#467475

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2018-08-10 12:46 +1000
Message-ID	<ft4ck0FfnfeU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#467473

On 10/08/2018 12:05 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 10/08/2018 00:29, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 2:26:37 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/08/2018 20:42, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> By the Principle of Relativity, translation to the frame in which 
>>>> the box
>>>> is stationary REQUIRES that situation is identical to the original 
>>>> frame.
>>>> So you have TWO strikes against you:  Postulate #1 (all inertial frames
>>>> are the same) AND Postulate #2 (speed of light is invariant).  Note 
>>>> that
>>>> denying Postulate #1 also denies the Galilean Transform.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me quote that part of what Sylvia says with which i do agree:
>>> "In a frame in which the box is moving ..... the distance from the back
>>> to the front is longer than then distance from the front to the back."
>>> Do you not agree with that Gary ?
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>
>> Yes. 
> 
> :)  The Ambiguous "Yes" :)
> 
> My own fault. Let me rephrase my question:
> Do you agree with what Sylvia says in the above quote Gary ?
> 

He might have some difficulty with it, indeed I might, because you've 
left out the context that explains what distance is being referred to, 
being the distance travelled by the photons.

Otherwise, it might appear to be a suggestion that the front is further 
from the back than the back is from the front, which is something quite 
different, and would never do.

Sylvia.

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

#467474

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2018-08-10 12:42 +1000
Message-ID	<ft4ccvFfnfeU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#467440

On 10/08/2018 5:25 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 08/08/2018 00:00, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 7/08/2018 4:36 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> The average velocity of the photons within any closed box
>>> must be zero relative to the box. If this were not so the
>>> photons would be moving out of the CLOSED box.
>>>
>>> The average velocity of the photons within any closed box
>>> relative to a frame of reference in which the box is moving
>>> with a velocity v, must be the same value v, or again
>>> photons would be moving out of the closed box. Thus photons
>>> can not possibly have the same velocity c with respect to
>>> all frames of reference, because if they did they must
>>> have an average velocity of zero with respect to all frames
>>> of reference, which they don't eh!
>>>
>>> QED
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>
>> In a frame in which the box is moving the photons spend more time 
>> travelling towards the front of the box than they do travelling 
>> towards the back of the box, because the distance from the back to the 
>> front is longer than then distance from the front to the back.
>>
>> So the averages work out.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Thank you Sylvia. Surprisingly you were the only one who pointed that 
> out, and i do agree that that is indeed the correct explanation - for
> an SR believer eh!
> 
> For myself, I can't help but believe that when one walks towards the box 
> the photons are in no way affected and they still spend exactly equal 
> time traveling to the right as they do to the left, but i do agree with 
> you that in Einstein's crazy SR world what you say is indeed the correct 
> explanation, so once again, thank you.
> 
> keith stein
> 

What this means, though, is that your proof doesn't work, because it's 
circular.

I don't think anyone would question the proposition that SR is highly 
counter-intuitive. It seems to go against all our experience. Of course, 
our experience does not include things moving at relativistic speeds, so 
it's rather lacking as a basis for intuition about such situations.

We're stuck with an experimental result - the speed of light relative to 
an observer is always the same. This clearly goes against intuition, but 
faced with the measurements, intuition has to give way. Once you accept 
the experimental results, the equations of special relativity follow 
inexorably.

Sylvia.

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

#467478

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2018-08-09 21:07 -0700
Message-ID	<843f34f5-c782-4f43-96fa-a5de55e9e3ed@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467474

On Friday, 10 August 2018 04:42:42 UTC+2, Sylvia Else  wrote:
> On 10/08/2018 5:25 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> > On 08/08/2018 00:00, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 7/08/2018 4:36 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>> The average velocity of the photons within any closed box
> >>> must be zero relative to the box. If this were not so the
> >>> photons would be moving out of the CLOSED box.
> >>>
> >>> The average velocity of the photons within any closed box
> >>> relative to a frame of reference in which the box is moving
> >>> with a velocity v, must be the same value v, or again
> >>> photons would be moving out of the closed box. Thus photons
> >>> can not possibly have the same velocity c with respect to
> >>> all frames of reference, because if they did they must
> >>> have an average velocity of zero with respect to all frames
> >>> of reference, which they don't eh!
> >>>
> >>> QED
> >>>
> >>> keith stein
> >>
> >> In a frame in which the box is moving the photons spend more time 
> >> travelling towards the front of the box than they do travelling 
> >> towards the back of the box, because the distance from the back to the 
> >> front is longer than then distance from the front to the back.
> >>
> >> So the averages work out.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > 
> > Thank you Sylvia. Surprisingly you were the only one who pointed that 
> > out, and i do agree that that is indeed the correct explanation - for
> > an SR believer eh!
> > 
> > For myself, I can't help but believe that when one walks towards the box 
> > the photons are in no way affected and they still spend exactly equal 
> > time traveling to the right as they do to the left, but i do agree with 
> > you that in Einstein's crazy SR world what you say is indeed the correct 
> > explanation, so once again, thank you.
> > 
> > keith stein
> > 
> 
> What this means, though, is that your proof doesn't work, because it's 
> circular.
> 
> I don't think anyone would question the proposition that SR is highly 
> counter-intuitive. It seems to go against all our experience.

Only for dummies. As for real, it goes against definitions.
Your idiot guru has mistaken them for prejudices.

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

#467500

From	Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-10 14:06 +0100
Message-ID	<35gbD.5009$%L2.2974@fx15.am4>
In reply to	#467478

On 10/08/2018 05:07, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> On Friday, 10 August 2018 04:42:42 UTC+2, Sylvia Else  wrote:
>> On 10/08/2018 5:25 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> On 08/08/2018 00:00, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 7/08/2018 4:36 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>> The average velocity of the photons within any closed box
>>>>> must be zero relative to the box. If this were not so the
>>>>> photons would be moving out of the CLOSED box.
>>>>>
>>>>> The average velocity of the photons within any closed box
>>>>> relative to a frame of reference in which the box is moving
>>>>> with a velocity v, must be the same value v, or again
>>>>> photons would be moving out of the closed box. Thus photons
>>>>> can not possibly have the same velocity c with respect to
>>>>> all frames of reference, because if they did they must
>>>>> have an average velocity of zero with respect to all frames
>>>>> of reference, which they don't eh!
>>>>>
>>>>> QED
>>>>>
>>>>> keith stein
>>>>
>>>> In a frame in which the box is moving the photons spend more time
>>>> travelling towards the front of the box than they do travelling
>>>> towards the back of the box, because the distance from the back to the
>>>> front is longer than then distance from the front to the back.
>>>>
>>>> So the averages work out.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Thank you Sylvia. Surprisingly you were the only one who pointed that
>>> out, and i do agree that that is indeed the correct explanation - for
>>> an SR believer eh!
>>>
>>> For myself, I can't help but believe that when one walks towards the box
>>> the photons are in no way affected and they still spend exactly equal
>>> time traveling to the right as they do to the left, but i do agree with
>>> you that in Einstein's crazy SR world what you say is indeed the correct
>>> explanation, so once again, thank you.
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>>
>>
>> What this means, though, is that your proof doesn't work, because it's
>> circular.
>>
>> I don't think anyone would question the proposition that SR is highly
>> counter-intuitive. It seems to go against all our experience.
> 
> Only for dummies. As for real, it goes against definitions.
> Your idiot guru has mistaken them for prejudices.

Just so Mr.Wozniak, with the definitions in place when Einstein
wrote his 1905 SR paper, it was just as impossible for light to
have the same speed with respect to all frames of reference as it
would be for a dog.

Of course subsequently Einstein's acolytes changed the definition
of the meter to make Einstein's impossibility true - BY DEFINITION.
They quite happily live in a world where meter rules shrink, clocks
go out of sync, and tick slower whenever they walk away from, or indeed
towards, them, and they conveniently chose to ignore the fact that
it is possible to prove absolutely anything if changing the definitions 
of the terms is permissible.

But YOU of course, know all that eh!

keith stein

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

#467502

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2018-08-10 06:20 -0700
Message-ID	<12dcd836-7b1e-411d-978e-a9403c109f8a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467500

On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 7:06:10 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> Just so Mr.Wozniak, with the definitions in place when Einstein
> wrote his 1905 SR paper, it was just as impossible for light to
> have the same speed with respect to all frames of reference as it
> would be for a dog.

"Impossible" has NOTHING to do with experimental evidence. and there
WAS experimental evidence in 1905:  The conductor-magnet evidence
and the Fizeau evidence, both refuted the "definitions."

> Of course subsequently Einstein's acolytes changed the definition
> of the meter to make Einstein's impossibility true - BY DEFINITION.

This is totally dishonest.  It was QUITE clear that the speed of
light did not obey the GT long before the definition of the speed
of light was defined.  And the reason for that was because the speed
of light was MUCH more accurate than a length definition.

> They quite happily live in a world where meter rules shrink, clocks
> go out of sync, and tick slower whenever they walk away from, or indeed
> towards, them, and they conveniently chose to ignore the fact that
> it is possible to prove absolutely anything if changing the definitions 
> of the terms is permissible.
> 
> But YOU of course, know all that eh!
> 
> keith stein

“Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
-- Lawrence M. Krauss

Certainly, many scientists were dragged into the new views kicking
and screaming.  Only the ignorant, stupid and/or dishonest are STILL
kicking and screaming.

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

#467533

From	Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-10 19:26 +0100
Message-ID	<5NkbD.13428$ju.3300@fx18.am4>
In reply to	#467502

On 10/08/2018 14:20, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 7:06:10 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Just so Mr.Wozniak, with the definitions in place when Einstein
>> wrote his 1905 SR paper, it was just as impossible for light to
>> have the same speed with respect to all frames of reference as it
>> would be for a dog.
> 
> "Impossible" has NOTHING to do with experimental evidence. and there
> WAS experimental evidence in 1905:  The conductor-magnet evidence
> and the Fizeau evidence, both refuted the "definitions."

I don't know what you think this "conductor-magnet evidence" was,
but i do know that it certainly did not show that light has the
same speed with respect to all reference frames, and nor indeed
did Fizeau's confirmation of Fresnel's "partial drag" nonsense.

	A travels North at VA m/s
	B travels South at Vb m/s
After t second their distant apart is (VA + VB) * t meters
Therefore the speed of A relative to B is (VA + VB) m/s,
and it makes no difference if A is a pulse of light, or a donkey named 
Gary, the same result is inevitable with the definitions in place when 
Einstein wrote his SR bullshit in 1905.
'
So i repeat Einstein's claims where not just wrong, they were indeed
IMPOSSIBLE, without a redefinition of the meter of course.

I don't know where the rest of this post went, and i don't know
why i care anyway, could just as well talk to a donkey eh!

keith stein

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

#467546

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2018-08-10 12:49 -0700
Message-ID	<bb00e900-63cf-46f0-bea1-15d4cb650fd4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467533

On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 12:26:12 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 10/08/2018 14:20, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 7:06:10 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > Just so Mr.Wozniak, with the definitions in place when Einstein
> > > wrote his 1905 SR paper, it was just as impossible for light to
> > > have the same speed with respect to all frames of reference as it
> > > would be for a dog.
> > 
> > "Impossible" has NOTHING to do with experimental evidence. and there
> > WAS experimental evidence in 1905:  The conductor-magnet evidence
> > and the Fizeau evidence, both refuted the "definitions."
> 
> I don't know what you think this "conductor-magnet evidence" was,
> but i do know that it certainly did not show that light has the
> same speed with respect to all reference frames,

Actually, it shows that the first postulate applies to electromagnetism,
and since light is electromagnetic radiation, it implies that the speed
of light is independent of the frame.

And today, as one who believes that light is a wave, you should know
that c = 1/sqrt(epsilon0*mu0).  The fact is that capacitors and inductors
don't change value in spacecraft moving at 50 km/second,

> and nor indeed did Fizeau's confirmation of Fresnel's "partial drag"
> nonsense.

The "partial drag" assumption was indeed nonsense, but the experimental
evidence remains, and modern experiments confirm that the speed of
light through moving water is NOT c/n.

> 	A travels North at VA m/s
> 	B travels South at Vb m/s
> After t second their distant apart is (VA + VB) * t meters
> Therefore the speed of A relative to B is (VA + VB) m/s,
> and it makes no difference if A is a pulse of light, or a donkey named 
> Gary, the same result is inevitable with the definitions in place when 
> Einstein wrote his SR bullshit in 1905.

Assertion with absolutely NO evidence.

> So i repeat Einstein's claims where not just wrong, they were indeed
> IMPOSSIBLE, without a redefinition of the meter of course.

That is wishfullness and bull plop.

> I don't know where the rest of this post went, and i don't know
> why i care anyway, could just as well talk to a donkey eh!
> 
> keith stein

If you want to talk to a donkey, talk to yourself.

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

Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →

csiph-web

Proof that photons do NOT have the same velocity c with repect to all frames of reference.

Contents

#467659

#467257

#467265

#467440

#467443

#467446

#467459

#467449

#467450

#467455

#467468

#467466

#467473

#467475

#467474

#467478

#467500

#467502

#467533

#467546