Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #475042 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-16 20:12 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-10-29 17:26 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 150 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 20:12 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-17 08:56 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:34 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-17 16:45 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-17 18:58 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 10:09 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 22:34 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-18 15:54 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 00:37 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 20:05 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-18 18:25 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-18 19:07 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 07:53 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-19 19:29 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:19 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-20 02:32 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 23:04 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 12:11 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 13:25 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-19 08:25 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-22 08:14 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-10-19 11:17 +1100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 09:50 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-19 07:53 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 14:16 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-10-20 15:10 +1100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 08:37 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-20 07:27 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 17:31 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 18:40 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 21:56 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-20 22:04 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 00:05 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 06:52 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 13:06 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-21 01:55 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-20 16:03 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 02:17 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 02:21 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-21 10:09 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 17:32 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 09:15 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-22 20:38 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-23 08:09 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-23 15:34 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-23 23:46 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-23 18:21 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-24 09:16 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 19:34 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-21 19:55 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-22 20:43 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 08:30 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-20 10:18 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 09:09 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-21 10:17 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 18:34 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 12:18 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 20:09 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-23 01:38 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 08:25 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 12:23 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-23 07:31 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-23 15:07 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-23 09:13 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-23 18:47 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Gil Callow <snam@nawem.co> - 2018-10-23 23:01 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 06:15 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-24 11:33 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-24 13:36 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Gil Callow <snam@nawem.co> - 2018-10-24 20:41 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-22 09:04 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 12:32 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-22 10:34 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-23 13:08 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-23 13:15 +0200
Yet Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 14:34 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 13:45 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-20 19:18 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 23:18 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 12:40 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-25 20:39 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 20:07 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 20:07 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-21 01:56 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 01:08 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 06:40 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 16:42 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 19:34 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-19 19:35 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 21:08 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:46 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-20 02:37 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 23:08 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-20 10:20 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 09:31 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 06:52 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 12:31 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 02:42 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 12:15 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 04:42 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 02:40 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-19 22:00 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 02:38 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 20:37 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:53 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:45 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:53 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 11:01 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 12:48 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-20 08:13 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 13:39 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 20:15 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 22:35 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 00:09 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 23:12 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-21 09:16 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 22:26 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-20 22:11 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 23:10 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-21 09:38 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 16:51 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-10-22 19:09 +1100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 10:12 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 15:46 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 15:41 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 23:42 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 08:46 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 17:25 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 11:03 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 02:36 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-19 07:59 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 19:43 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 01:08 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 15:11 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-26 18:47 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-26 19:34 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 16:55 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-27 18:42 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 22:45 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-26 15:56 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 09:14 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-27 08:31 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-27 16:45 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-27 08:11 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-28 16:08 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-28 16:48 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-28 11:55 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-28 11:53 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-29 17:26 +0100
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 08:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <366c3623-2d5f-4c0f-bd59-7e73f11599bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475214 |
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 8:05:49 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 10/18/2018 7:37 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 18/10/2018 23:34, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 18/10/2018 00:58, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>> On 10/17/18 7:34 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>> Both light and sound require a medium, > >>>> > >>>> So you claim but have failed to show. All you have are your own claims, > >>>> and a few ambiguous quotes; > >>> > >>> How ambiguous is this Mr.Roberts ? > >>> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" > >>> which is the title of the final chapter in Maxwell's > >>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" eh! > > > >> Why would you insist that what is true for both light and sound is what > >> someone thought to be true 150 years ago? > > > > > > Waves don't travel relative to the observer, Mr.Bodkin. They travel > > relative to the stuff they are traveling through. That is just as true > > for electromagnetic waves as it is for sound waves. > > > > It is not because Maxwell said it that i believe it is true, Odd, > > rather it is because it is obviously true that i must believe it eh! > > > > What Maxwell wrote makes sense. What Einstein wrote makes nonsense. > > > > keith stein > > You are both right and wrong, keith. Relativity was shown true for > mechanical things by Galileo! It was suspected it was also true for > electromagnetic things before Einstein who sort of brought all the > musings together in one place to show it's true. If you deny that you > are as big an idiot as Boinker. > > However, waves REQUIRE a medium by definition. Maxwell noted and nobody > since has refuted that there are only two ways to transfer energy from > place to place. One is kinetically by particles and the other is by > waves in a medium. There is no third option. > > But back then everyone imagined that the medium for light was a fine > invisible substance they called (for historical reasons) aether. OK. > Then everyone imagined that the earth was constantly plowing through > this luminiferous (light bearing) aether. So Michelson and Morley in > Cleveland Ohio of all places, did the experiment and found....wait for > it...NO AETHER DRIFT! Basically they found that the earth was not > "plowing" through the aether. What the hell? All this has been tested > enough to be beyond doubt no matter what the nutjobs here say. > > Well, establishment science for whom Boinker is the spokesman here, > immediately decided (sort of egged on by Einstein who oddly did NOT > reject the concept of aether) that aether simply does not exist. Which > of course means that you have waves in nothing at all which is utter > insanity. Einstein pointed out that because "empty" space has > properties, it simply CANNOT be "nothing at all" In short there must be > some "medium" there producing properties! > > So what's the answer. Obviously, one must back up to the MM experiment > and assume that there must be an aether but it's properties are not as > we think. Somehow it does not seem to have the earth plowing through it. > This is where progress ends. The rest is up to you. The MM experiment failed to detect the aether because the aether is composed of compressed, very fine and continuous E-Strings. The total of these compressed E-Strings is called the E-Matrix (space). These E-Strings oriented isotropically in all directions and thus they transmit light isotropically in all directions. Every material object in the universe is in a state of absolute motion within the E-Matrix. However, absolute motion within the E-Matrix is not detectable because the E-Strings transmit light isotropically by a factor of gamma in all directions. A detailed description of the E-Matrix is in Chapter 3 of my book in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 11:17 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g2sm4jF2eemU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475211 |
On 19/10/2018 10:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 18/10/2018 23:34, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 18/10/2018 00:58, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 10/17/18 7:34 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> Both light and sound require a medium, >>>> >>>> So you claim but have failed to show. All you have are your own claims, >>>> and a few ambiguous quotes; >>> >>> How ambiguous is this Mr.Roberts ? >>> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" >>> which is the title of the final chapter in Maxwell's >>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" eh! > >> Why would you insist that what is true for both light and sound is what >> someone thought to be true 150 years ago? > > > Waves don't travel relative to the observer, Mr.Bodkin. They travel > relative to the stuff they are traveling through. That is just as true > for electromagnetic waves as it is for sound waves. You're assuming what you're trying to prove. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 09:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <EVgyD.105886$px6.51749@fx41.am4> |
| In reply to | #475216 |
On 19/10/2018 01:17, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19/10/2018 10:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> Waves don't travel relative to the observer, Mr.Bodkin. They travel >> relative to the stuff they are traveling through. That is just as true >> for electromagnetic waves as it is for sound waves. > > You're assuming what you're trying to prove. Perhaps you are right there Sylvia, but i would rather put it like this. I start from the most reasonable, and find no reason to reject it eh! keith stein > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 07:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <B7ednUkO2etPTlTGnZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475235 |
On 10/19/18 3:50 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > > I start from the most reasonable, and find > no reason to reject it eh! That is, of course, not science. Not physics. To do science you must follow EXPERIMENTS, not your personal armchair musings. Experiments show that light is not a wave. And experiments show SR to be valid, locally. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 14:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <EOkyD.197552$134.160770@fx03.am4> |
| In reply to | #475243 |
On 19/10/2018 13:53, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/19/18 3:50 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> > I start from the most reasonable, and find >> no reason to reject it eh! > > That is, of course, not science. Not physics. Do you really think it better to start from the less reasonable, Mr.Roberts ? > To do science you must follow EXPERIMENTS, not your personal armchair > musings. Experiments show that light is not a wave. Explain to me how a diffraction grating works Mr.Roberts. In fact every experiment at the macroscopic scale clearly shows that, at the macroscopic level, LIGHT IS A WAVE. > And experiments show > SR to be valid, locally. No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference, Mr. Roberts, and indeed none every will, because it's bullshit eh! keith stein > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 15:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g2vo5qFlck9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475246 |
On 20/10/2018 12:16 am, Keith Stein wrote: > On 19/10/2018 13:53, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 10/19/18 3:50 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> > I start from the most reasonable, and find >>> no reason to reject it eh! >> >> That is, of course, not science. Not physics. > > Do you really think it better to start from > the less reasonable, Mr.Roberts ? > >> To do science you must follow EXPERIMENTS, not your personal armchair >> musings. Experiments show that light is not a wave. > > Explain to me how a diffraction grating works Mr.Roberts. > > In fact every experiment at the macroscopic scale clearly > shows that, at the macroscopic level, LIGHT IS A WAVE. We can do analogous experiments with electrons, and get the corresponding results. These results might lead us to conclude that electrons are waves, but other results clearly show that they are not. The phenomenon of electron diffraction is well documented. If such experiments do not prove that electrons are waves, then they do not prove that light is a wave either, however compelling the initial analysis might seem. Quantum mechanics describes all of this perfectly well of course. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 08:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <UWAyD.176559$kh6.26462@fx32.am4> |
| In reply to | #475297 |
On 20/10/2018 05:10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 20/10/2018 12:16 am, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 19/10/2018 13:53, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> ...... Experiments show that light is not a wave.
>>
>> Explain to me how a diffraction grating works Mr.Roberts.
>> In fact every experiment at the macroscopic scale clearly
>> shows that, at the macroscopic level, LIGHT IS A WAVE.
>
> We can do analogous experiments with electrons, and get the
> corresponding results. These results might lead us to conclude that
> electrons are waves, but other results clearly show that they are not.
>
> The phenomenon of electron diffraction is well documented.
>
> If such experiments do not prove that electrons are waves, then they do
> not prove that light is a wave either, however compelling the initial
> analysis might seem.
>
> Quantum mechanics describes all of this perfectly well of course.
Thank you Sylvia. That all sounds very reasonable, and yet i repeat
"...... at the macroscopic level, LIGHT IS A WAVE."
It would be a mistake to dismiss *macroscopic* physics, Sylvia.
Physics was built on macroscopic theories and experiments, and
because we macroscopic physicists deal with things at the ordinary
visible level, we can be more certain of our facts eh!
Maxwell's theory and Einstein's SR are both macroscopic theories.
According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave,
which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the
"medium". Einstein ignores the medium, and is left with the
problem of what the speed of light is relative to. Since he has
omitted the "very stuff" which light does actually travel relative
to, there is no sensible solution to Einstein's dilemma.
Einstein's REVOLUTION SOLUTION was, as you know, that the
speed of light was constant relative to the observer, an
outrageous impossibility in the space and time of classical
physics.
My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the
macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed
appropriate to and relative to the medium, and that is
"Why the "Medium" Matters" eh!
keith stein
> Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 07:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7d13d18-cd70-4396-bc2e-0219e18fd787@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475304 |
On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 3:37:26 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 20/10/2018 05:10, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 20/10/2018 12:16 am, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 19/10/2018 13:53, Tom Roberts wrote: > > >>> ...... Experiments show that light is not a wave. > >> > >> Explain to me how a diffraction grating works Mr.Roberts. > >> In fact every experiment at the macroscopic scale clearly > >> shows that, at the macroscopic level, LIGHT IS A WAVE. > > > > We can do analogous experiments with electrons, and get the > > corresponding results. These results might lead us to conclude that > > electrons are waves, but other results clearly show that they are not. > > > > The phenomenon of electron diffraction is well documented. > > > > If such experiments do not prove that electrons are waves, then they do > > not prove that light is a wave either, however compelling the initial > > analysis might seem. > > > > Quantum mechanics describes all of this perfectly well of course. > > Thank you Sylvia. That all sounds very reasonable, and yet i repeat > > "...... at the macroscopic level, LIGHT IS A WAVE." > > It would be a mistake to dismiss *macroscopic* physics, Sylvia. > Physics was built on macroscopic theories and experiments, and > because we macroscopic physicists deal with things at the ordinary > visible level, we can be more certain of our facts eh! > > Maxwell's theory and Einstein's SR are both macroscopic theories. > According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave, > which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the > "medium". Einstein ignores the medium, and is left with the > problem of what the speed of light is relative to. Since he has > omitted the "very stuff" which light does actually travel relative > to, there is no sensible solution to Einstein's dilemma. > > Einstein's REVOLUTION SOLUTION was, as you know, that the > speed of light was constant relative to the observer, an > outrageous impossibility in the space and time of classical > physics. > > My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the > macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed > appropriate to and relative to the medium, and that is > "Why the "Medium" Matters" eh! All you do is renaming the Aether as “Medium”. What is your point?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 17:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kLIyD.89740$e55.53140@fx39.am4> |
| In reply to | #475323 |
On 20/10/2018 15:27, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 3:37:26 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >> It would be a mistake to dismiss *macroscopic* physics, Sylvia. >> Physics was built on macroscopic theories and experiments, and >> because we macroscopic physicists deal with things at the ordinary >> visible level, we can be more certain of our facts eh! >> >> Maxwell's theory and Einstein's SR are both macroscopic theories. >> According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave, >> which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the >> "medium". Einstein ignores the medium, and is left with the >> problem of what the speed of light is relative to. Since he has >> omitted the "very stuff" which light does actually travel relative >> to, there is no sensible solution to Einstein's dilemma. >> >> Einstein's REVOLUTION SOLUTION was, as you know, that the >> speed of light was constant relative to the observer, an >> outrageous impossibility in the space and time of classical >> physics. >> >> My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the >> macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed >> appropriate to and relative to the medium, and that is >> "Why the "Medium" Matters" eh! > > All you do is renaming the Aether as “Medium”. What is your point? The point, Mr.Seto, is that light travels relative to the "medium", i.e.the matter which it is traveling through. The frame of reference in which the "air",for example, is stationary is easy to establish unambiguously, unlike the frame of reference of the so called "aether", or even the E-matrix" eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <657ea173-e20e-a435-fc57-427512de0dd2@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475335 |
Keith Stein wrote: > On 20/10/2018 15:27, kenseto wrote: >> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 3:37:26 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>> My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the >>> macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed >>> appropriate to and relative to the medium, and that is >>> "Why the "Medium" Matters" eh! >> >> All you do is renaming the Aether as “Medium”. What is your point? > > The point, Mr.Seto, is that light travels relative to the "medium", No, it does NOT. Maxwell *specifically* said so. From Maxwell’s equations follows that c = 1∕√(ε₀ ε_r µ₀ µ_r). All the quantities on the right-hand side are constants (in a homogeneous medium), so is the quantity on the left-hand side, the phase speed of electromagnetic waves. If we assume perfect vacuum where ε_r = µ_r = 1, we find c₀ = 1∕√(ε₀ µ₀) = 299'792'458 m/s, *exactly* as used by the SI since *at least* 1983. <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=1%2Fsqrt(epsilon_0+mu_0)> End of story. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 21:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HDMyD.89750$e55.62893@fx39.am4> |
| In reply to | #475338 |
On 20/10/2018 17:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Keith Stein wrote: >> On 20/10/2018 15:27, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 3:37:26 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the >>>> macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed >>>> appropriate to and relative to the medium, and that is >>>> "Why the "Medium" Matters" eh! >>> >>> All you do is renaming the Aether as “Medium”. What is your point? >> >> The point, Mr.Seto, is that light travels relative to the "medium", > > No, it does NOT. Maxwell *specifically* said so. No, he did NOT. I suggest you read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", Mr Lahn. Neither ε₀ or µ₀ appear in Maxwell's Theory as written by Maxwell. > From Maxwell’s equations follows that > > c = 1∕√(ε₀ ε_r µ₀ µ_r) > > All the quantities on the right-hand side are constants (in a homogeneous > medium), so is the quantity on the left-hand side, the phase speed of > electromagnetic waves. > > If we assume perfect vacuum where ε_r = µ_r = 1, we find > > c₀ = 1∕√(ε₀ µ₀) = 299'792'458 m/s, I suggest you read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", Mr Lahn. Neither ε₀ or µ₀ appear in Maxwell's Theory as written by Maxwell. This is not just a question of the different notation used by Maxwell, rather it is clear that Maxwell would have rejected the VERY concepts. The final chapter of Maxwell's Treatise has the title "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 22:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqg8p2$616$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #475373 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 20/10/2018 17:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 20/10/2018 15:27, kenseto wrote: >>> >>> The point, Mr.Seto, is that light travels relative to the "medium", >> >> No, it does NOT. Maxwell *specifically* said so. >No, he did NOT. Yes he did. Maxwell realized that he could derive a speed from the product of the electric and magnetic constants. He also realized this speed matched the already known speed of light. Since this speed depends *only* on the electric and magnetic constants (now called ε� and µ₀, although Maxwell did not call them that), and specifically *not* on the speed of the emitter, this speed is the same for any and all observers. >This is not just a question of the different notation used >by Maxwell, rather it is clear that Maxwell would have rejected the >VERY concepts. Why do you believe that? > The final chapter of Maxwell's Treatise has the title >"A MEDIUM NECESSARY". We are not certain what we meant by that, however we now know that *no* medium is necessary. We have learned a lot since Maxwell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 00:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d0e19894-2b18-5b3a-e745-1ddf5a504428@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475373 |
Keith Stein wrote: > On 20/10/2018 17:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 20/10/2018 15:27, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 3:37:26 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the >>>>> macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed >>>>> appropriate to and relative to the medium, and that is >>>>> "Why the "Medium" Matters" eh! >>>> All you do is renaming the Aether as “Medium”. What is your point? >>> The point, Mr.Seto, is that light travels relative to the "medium", >> No, it does NOT. Maxwell *specifically* said so. > > No, he did NOT. Yes, he did. It was only realized later that this leads to contradictions in the discussion of the electromagnetic phenomena that need to be resolved. > I suggest you read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", > Mr Lahn. Neither ε₀ or µ₀ appear in Maxwell's Theory as written by > Maxwell. Prove it. > I suggest you read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", > Mr Lahn. Neither ε₀ or µ₀ appear in Maxwell's Theory as written by > Maxwell. This is not just a question of the different notation used > by Maxwell, rather it is clear that Maxwell would have rejected the > VERY concepts. The final chapter of Maxwell's Treatise has the title > "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". Cite evidence. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 06:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HuUyD.229606$wF4.168319@fx27.am4> |
| In reply to | #475385 |
On 20/10/2018 23:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Keith Stein wrote: >> On 20/10/2018 17:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 20/10/2018 15:27, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 3:37:26 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>> My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the >>>>>> macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed >>>>>> appropriate to and relative to the medium, and that is >>>>>> "Why the "Medium" Matters" eh! >>>>> All you do is renaming the Aether as “Medium”. What is your point? >>>> The point, Mr.Seto, is that light travels relative to the "medium", >>> No, it does NOT. Maxwell *specifically* said so. >> >> No, he did NOT. > > Yes, he did. It was only realized later that this leads to contradictions > in the discussion of the electromagnetic phenomena that need to be resolved. > >> I suggest you read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", >> Mr Lahn. Neither ε₀ or µ₀ appear in Maxwell's Theory as written by >> Maxwell. > > Prove it. > >> I suggest you read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", >> Mr Lahn. Neither ε₀ or µ₀ appear in Maxwell's Theory as written by >> Maxwell. This is not just a question of the different notation used >> by Maxwell, rather it is clear that Maxwell would have rejected the >> VERY concepts. The final chapter of Maxwell's Treatise has the title >> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". > > Cite evidence. I suggest you read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", Mr Lahn. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 13:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dda2a07e-8de7-570c-6c5a-54a5832ab5a1@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475401 |
Keith Stein wrote: > On 20/10/2018 23:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Keith Stein wrote: >>> I suggest you read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", >>> Mr Lahn. Neither ε₀ or µ₀ appear in Maxwell's Theory as written by >>> Maxwell. This is not just a question of the different notation used >>> by Maxwell, rather it is clear that Maxwell would have rejected the >>> VERY concepts. The final chapter of Maxwell's Treatise has the title >>> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY". >> >> Cite evidence. > > I suggest you read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", > Mr Lahn. I suggest that you look up the meaning of “(to) cite”. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 01:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e41f6409-715a-4427-822f-1fcf6bf7f30e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475338 |
On Saturday, 20 October 2018 18:40:32 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > The point, Mr.Seto, is that light travels relative to the "medium", > > No, it does NOT. Maxwell *specifically* said so. Poor, pointed ears idiot. You know, you could sometimes think about these idiocies you write…
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e23c708-b929-4abf-b139-633078c25cf6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475335 |
On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 12:31:14 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 20/10/2018 15:27, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 3:37:26 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > > >> It would be a mistake to dismiss *macroscopic* physics, Sylvia. > >> Physics was built on macroscopic theories and experiments, and > >> because we macroscopic physicists deal with things at the ordinary > >> visible level, we can be more certain of our facts eh! > >> > >> Maxwell's theory and Einstein's SR are both macroscopic theories. > >> According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave, > >> which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the > >> "medium". Einstein ignores the medium, and is left with the > >> problem of what the speed of light is relative to. Since he has > >> omitted the "very stuff" which light does actually travel relative > >> to, there is no sensible solution to Einstein's dilemma. > >> > >> Einstein's REVOLUTION SOLUTION was, as you know, that the > >> speed of light was constant relative to the observer, an > >> outrageous impossibility in the space and time of classical > >> physics. > >> > >> My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the > >> macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed > >> appropriate to and relative to the medium, and that is > >> "Why the "Medium" Matters" eh! > > > > All you do is renaming the Aether as “Medium”. What is your point? > > The point, Mr.Seto, is that light travels relative to the "medium", > i.e.the matter which it is traveling through. The frame of reference > in which the "air",for example, is stationary is easy to establish > unambiguously, unlike the frame of reference of the so called "aether", > or even the E-matrix" eh! > > keith stein How do you explain the observed fact that light in glass has speed slower than c and when it reemerges from the glass it regains its speed to be c? The valid explanation is that in the glass the E-Matrix is curved and that’s why it transmits the light at a slower speed than c. When light remerges from the glass it is being transmitted by non-curved E-Matrix and that’s why it regains it normal speed of c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 02:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4d3c16ee-a402-ce0f-bed2-f940dc0f177f@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475388 |
kenseto wrote:
> How do you explain the observed fact that light in glass has speed slower
> than c and when it reemerges from the glass it regains its speed to be c?
Since c is the speed of light in a medium, that is incorrect. A correct
statement would be that c_glass < c_air.
> The valid explanation is that in the glass the E-Matrix is curved […]
That *might* be *a* valid explanation.
It is certainly NOT *the* valid explanation as regards current knowledge.
That explanation is instead much simpler: Light is an electromagnetic wave.
The phase speed of electromagnetic waves is
c = λ f,
with λ the wavelength and f the frequency. λ depends on the electromagnetic
properties of the medium, and is in general less in glass than in air; so is c.
We call the quotient of the phase speed of light in a (non-vacuum) medium,
c (also: v), and the speed of light in vacuum, c₀ (then: c instead), the
*refractive index* or *index of refraction*, n, of the medium, because it
determines the *angle of refraction* when light passes from one medium to
another:
n = c/c₀.
That refraction towards the axis perpendicular to an interface (normal) must
occur from a medium whose refractive index is less to one that is greater,
and that the opposite is true in the reverse case, can already be presumed
by applying the principle of least time (Fermat’s principle):
incident beam . :
`. θ₁:
air (n₁ ≈ 1.000293) `. :
__________________________`.____________ interface
:\. __
glass (n₂ ≈ 1.52) : \ . |PE
:θ₂\ .
___________________________:___\___.____ interface
:_: `. .
air (n₁ ≈ 1.000293) : `. . potential light path
: `.
normal `. actual light path
Snell’s Law: n₁ sin θ₁ = n₂ sin θ₂
(here: n₁ < n₂ ⇒ sin θ₁ > sin θ₂ ⇒ θ₁ > θ₂)
[to avoid confusion, reflected beams are not drawn here]
If light is to travel the path between the interfaces in the least possible
time, but its phase speed is less in glass than in air, it follows that it
has to take a shorter path through glass (solid line) than the path that it
would have taken if it had continued in the direction of the incident beam
(dotted line). So the angle of refraction (θ₂) must be smaller than the
angle of incidence (θ₁) in this case.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction#/media/File:F%C3%A9nyt%C3%B6r%C3%A9s.jpg>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_principle>
Your “E-Matrix” cannot explain the *partial* reflection on the interface;
standard optics can.
Your “E-Matrix” cannot explain why the observed color of the refracted
monochromatic light does not change compared to the unrefracted light;
standard optics and quantum mechanics can.
This list is not meant to be exhaustive.
So your explanation of those phenomena, using your “E-Matrix”, is *wrong*.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 02:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d0295553-640c-a613-50cb-12af146fd964@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475390 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > We call the quotient of the phase speed of light in a (non-vacuum) medium, > c (also: v), and the speed of light in vacuum, c₀ (then: c instead), the > *refractive index* or *index of refraction*, n, of the medium, because it > determines the *angle of refraction* when light passes from one medium to > another: > > n = c/c₀. n = c₀/c of course. The description above also must be reversed (blame it on the late hour). -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 10:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lb6dncuMwIcTC1HGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475390 |
On 10/20/18 7:17 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Since c is the speed of light in a medium, [...] Most physicists, textbooks, and reference books use the symbol "c" for the VACUUM speed of light. This is true for Jackson, _Classical_Electrodynamics_, which is by far the most influential textbook on the subject. It is (obviously) true in Gaussian units for E&M, and is certainly true in QED and other QFTs (for which "medium" makes no sense). It is also true in the Lorentz transform and everywhere theorists use units with c=1. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web