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 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 12:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3P6dnUPsToOhmlPGnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475419 |
On 10/21/18 10:25 AM, kenseto wrote: > A source can indeed emits transverse wave-packets isotropically in > all directions Nope. That is topologically impossible. Fantasizing an "E matrix" cannot change the topology of the world we inhabit. You simply do not understand the issues, and prefer to just make things up rather than learning what is actually possible. > [... further fantasies contrary to fact.] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 07:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0a1c04f-fe2d-4133-8980-febeaf78ec4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475490 |
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 1:22:11 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/21/18 10:25 AM, kenseto wrote: > > A source can indeed emits transverse wave-packets isotropically in > > all directions > > Nope. That is topologically impossible. Fantasizing an "E matrix" cannot > change the topology of the world we inhabit. That’s a hand waving argument. Traverse waves in the E-Matrix not only topological possible, they are the only waves exit in the E-Matrix. Take a look on page 33 of my book in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf The E-Matrix is the physical form of space. Interactions between Objects is the result of objects are confined to the geometries of the E-Matrix to which they exist. This concept replaces the complex quantum fields and virtual particles. > > You simply do not understand the issues, and prefer to just make things > up rather than learning what is actually possible. > Again hand-waving and authority argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 15:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqndf1$mmc$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #475530 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 1:22:11 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 10/21/18 10:25 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > A source can indeed emits transverse wave-packets isotropically in >> > all directions >> Nope. That is topologically impossible. Fantasizing an "E matrix" cannot >> change the topology of the world we inhabit. >That's a hand waving argument. Traverse waves in the E-Matrix not only >topological possible, they are the only waves exit in the E-Matrix. Wrong. You are apparently unfamiliar with the "hairy ball" theorem, first stated by Henri Poincaré, which states it is not possible for a transverse field on a sphere to be nonzero everywhere. This means that it is impossible for a sphere to emit transverse waves isotropically in all directions, since in one direction it must be zero, it means that there is always at least one point on earth's surface where the wind is perfectly calm, and it explains why the hair on a boy's head forms a whorl. Your hand waving argument that your stupid Model Mechanics can do that as well as being a dessert and a floor wax is meaningless. You never provide any proof or any example calculations of any of your claims, ever. Because you can't. All you do is claim it does everything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <beb406d4-a877-4bed-8dfb-6c1a5c4bb282@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475531 |
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:07:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 1:22:11 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 10/21/18 10:25 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > A source can indeed emits transverse wave-packets isotropically in > >> > all directions > > >> Nope. That is topologically impossible. Fantasizing an "E matrix" cannot > >> change the topology of the world we inhabit. > > >That's a hand waving argument. Traverse waves in the E-Matrix not only > >topological possible, they are the only waves exit in the E-Matrix. > > Wrong. You are apparently unfamiliar with the "hairy ball" theorem, first > stated by Henri Poincaré, which states it is not possible for a transverse > field on a sphere to be nonzero everywhere. This means that it is > impossible for a sphere to emit transverse waves isotropically in all > directions, since in one direction it must be zero, it means that there is > always at least one point on earth's surface where the wind is perfectly > calm, and it explains why the hair on a boy’s head forms a whorl. The hairy ball theory is wrong. A spherical source in the E-Matrix can certainly deposit transverse waves isotropically in all directions in the E-Matrix....no whorl exits. > > Your hand waving argument that your stupid Model Mechanics can do that as > well as being a dessert and a floor wax is meaningless. You never provide > any proof or any example calculations of any of your claims, ever. > Because you can't. All you do is claim it does everything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqnqcm$65o$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #475540 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:07:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 1:22:11 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> >> On 10/21/18 10:25 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> > A source can indeed emits transverse wave-packets isotropically in >> >> > all directions >> >> Nope. That is topologically impossible. Fantasizing an "E matrix" cannot >> >> change the topology of the world we inhabit. >> >That's a hand waving argument. Traverse waves in the E-Matrix not only >> >topological possible, they are the only waves exit in the E-Matrix. >> Wrong. You are apparently unfamiliar with the "hairy ball" theorem, first >> stated by Henri Poincar=C3=A9, which states it is not possible for a transverse >> field on a sphere to be nonzero everywhere. This means that it is >> impossible for a sphere to emit transverse waves isotropically in all >> directions, since in one direction it must be zero, it means that there is >> always at least one point on earth's surface where the wind is perfectly >> calm, and it explains why the hair on a boy=E2=80=99s head forms a whorl. >The hairy ball theory is wrong. Henri Poincaré stated this and Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer mathematically proved how every smooth vector field on a sphere must have a singular point in 1912. Show your proof, and it will have to meet the requirements of a formal mathematical proof if you wish to invalidate another formal mathematical proof. Show your proof or admit that you are wrong. >A spherical source in the E-Matrix can certainly deposit transverse waves >isotropically in all directions in the E-Matrix....no whorl exits. Your assertion is not a valid proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gil Callow <snam@nawem.co> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 23:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqo97d$1ltu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475552 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>A spherical source in the E-Matrix can certainly deposit transverse >>waves isotropically in all directions in the E-Matrix....no whorl exits. > > Your assertion is not a valid proof. Of course it is, for the competent and the experienced. All greek to you as I can see. Or serbian, so to speak.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 06:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ieTzD.97334$xE.49636@fx22.am4> |
| In reply to | #475490 |
On 22/10/2018 18:23, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/21/18 10:25 AM, kenseto wrote: >> A source can indeed emits transverse wave-packets isotropically in >> all directions > > Nope. That is topologically impossible. Fantasizing an "E matrix" cannot > change the topology of the world we inhabit. Surely the Sun is a source which emits transverse wave-packets isotropically in all directions eh! keith stein > You simply do not understand the issues, and prefer to just make things > up rather than learning what is actually possible.ur > >> [... further fantasies contrary to fact.] > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 11:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8-6dnebJfsAWA03GnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475568 |
On 10/24/18 12:15 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 22/10/2018 18:23, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 10/21/18 10:25 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> A source can indeed emits transverse wave-packets isotropically in >>> all directions >> Nope. That is topologically impossible. Fantasizing an "E matrix" >> cannot change the topology of the world we inhabit. > > Surely the Sun is a source which emits transverse wave-packets > isotropically in all directions eh! Nope. It emits PHOTONS isotropically (well, approximately, due to its rotation, oblateness, surface storms, etc.). Photons are NOT transverse waves, and the theorem does not apply. It is remarkable how you adamantly refuse to learn anything. It is also remarkably STUPID. Hint: The existence of isotropic light sources is merely one more way we KNOW that light is not a (transverse) wave. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60229f97-948a-4630-8958-9ab48b6b942b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475592 |
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 12:32:17 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/24/18 12:15 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 22/10/2018 18:23, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 10/21/18 10:25 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> A source can indeed emits transverse wave-packets isotropically in > >>> all directions > >> Nope. That is topologically impossible. Fantasizing an "E matrix" > >> cannot change the topology of the world we inhabit. > > > > Surely the Sun is a source which emits transverse wave-packets > > isotropically in all directions eh! > > Nope. It emits PHOTONS isotropically (well, approximately, due to its > rotation, oblateness, surface storms, etc.). Photons are NOT transverse > waves, and the theorem does not apply. Photons are wave-packets. If you think not then give us the quantum properties that a photon has that a wave-packet in the E-Matrix don’t have. > > It is remarkable how you adamantly refuse to learn anything. It is also > remarkably STUPID. > > Hint: The existence of isotropic light sources is merely > one more way we KNOW that light is not a (transverse) wave. Wrong, a light source emits transverse wave-packets into the E-Matrix due to its (he source) state of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. Without this explanation your assertion of a photon is just an assertion
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gil Callow <snam@nawem.co> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 20:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqqle3$1hta$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475607 |
kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 12:32:17 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 10/24/18 12:15 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> > Surely the Sun is a source which emits transverse wave-packets >> > isotropically in all directions eh! >> >> Nope. It emits PHOTONS isotropically (well, approximately, due to its >> rotation, oblateness, surface storms, etc.). Photons are NOT transverse >> waves, and the theorem does not apply. > > Photons are wave-packets. > If you think not then give us the quantum properties that a photon has > that a wave-packet in the E-Matrix don’t have. Both relativity, IRT and Model Mechanics are subsets of one another. Purely cyclic recursive redundant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 09:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <g35b43Fpsn1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475325 |
Am 20.10.2018 um 17:18 schrieb Tom Roberts: > On 10/20/18 2:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> "...... at the macroscopic level, LIGHT IS A WAVE." > > So you claim but have failed to show. Physicists KNOW it is wrong. > > This is, of course, an EXPERIMENTAL issue, so quotes > from ancient texts are useless. > > Of course it is NONSENSE to claim that the composition of light varies, > depending on the scale at which it is observed. Light is CLEARLY > quantized (and therefore not a wave) at the atomic and sub-atomic level. > For some physical situations, light behaves APPROXIMATELY as a wave. > > I'll discuss three macroscopic phenomena that contradict your claim: > 1) isotropic sources > 2) blackbody spectra > 3) coherence length (in much more detail) > > 1) Light, when observed to be wave-like, is a transverse wave. It is > impossible to emit a transverse wave isotropically [#], but we see > isotropic light sources all the time. They are emitting photons, not waves. > You use the term 'photon' analogous to 'particle' and think about them as distinct entities. But IMHO the so called 'particle concept' is wrong. The term 'particle' denotes certain structures, not 'things' (lasting entities). The structure called 'photon' is more or less the same thing as what is called 'electron', but kind of stretched. IOW you could convert photons into electrons by stopping them or by co-moving at the same pace. So: why do we have these packets called 'quanta'? I think about the spacetime of GR as background, which has internal structures. Timelike stable structures are, what we call 'matter'. A certain subset are what we call 'particles'. The effect of quantization is caused by the mechanism by which such structures emerge. It's somehow like this: you throw a hammer with a lot of spin. The hammer shaft in vertical is a certain pattern and gets a certain name. Since the hammer spins, the shaft is only occasionally vertical, so this thing 'hammer with vertical shaft' pops in and out of existence. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 12:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <a5qdnbLRi8PVlFPGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475467 |
On 10/22/18 2:04 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 20.10.2018 um 17:18 schrieb Tom Roberts: >> [...] > > You use the term 'photon' analogous to 'particle' and think about them > as distinct entities. NOT AT ALL. You REALLY need to learn how to read. I said NOTHING like that. Photons are quantum excitations of the electromagnetic field; they are NEITHER particles nor waves. In some physical situations they can behave similar to particles, and in some physical situations they can behave like waves; in other physical situations they act like NEITHER. > The structure called 'photon' is more or less the same thing as what is > called 'electron', but kind of stretched. NOT AT ALL. Your dreams and fantasies are hopelessly inconsistent with the actual physics of QFT. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is USELESS -- you need to STUDY. Essentially everything you write is word salad -- using the words of physics in nonsensical ways. You REALLY need to learn what the words you use ACTUALLY mean. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 10:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba9487c8-f922-45f3-8cd6-0128412c926c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475492 |
tjrob137 escrito On 10/22/18 2:04 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 20.10.2018 um 17:18 schrieb Tom Roberts: >> [...] > > You use the term 'photon' analogous to 'particle' and think about them > as distinct entities. NOT AT ALL. You REALLY need to learn how to read. I said NOTHING like that. Photons are quantum excitations of the electromagnetic field...... So..... this “electromagnetic field” you speak of is the “Aether Medium” ??????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 13:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <g38dpbFesv3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475494 |
Am 22.10.2018 um 19:34 schrieb David (Kronos Prime) Fuller: > tjrob137 escrito > > On 10/22/18 2:04 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 20.10.2018 um 17:18 schrieb Tom Roberts: >>> [...] >> >> You use the term 'photon' analogous to 'particle' and think about them >> as distinct entities. > > NOT AT ALL. You REALLY need to learn how to read. I said NOTHING like that. > > Photons are quantum excitations of the electromagnetic field...... > > So..... this “electromagnetic field” you speak of is the “Aether Medium” ?????? > Sure, but what 'is' the electromagnetic field??? The field strength can be zero and go up to infinity (or close). So something must exist at any spot, what could be kind of 'tuned' from zero to infinity. My personal assumption: the thing that GR calls 'spacetime' would provide a nice background. And this could be created from nothing. We only need a single new assumption: points have features These features can build patterns and certain patterns are called 'photons'. The reason for their behavior is ascribed to something called 'em-field'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 13:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <g38e5oFevgrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475492 |
Am 22.10.2018 um 19:32 schrieb Tom Roberts: > On 10/22/18 2:04 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 20.10.2018 um 17:18 schrieb Tom Roberts: >>> [...] >> >> You use the term 'photon' analogous to 'particle' and think about them >> as distinct entities. > > NOT AT ALL. You REALLY need to learn how to read. I said NOTHING like that. > > Photons are quantum excitations of the electromagnetic field; they are > NEITHER particles nor waves. In some physical situations they can behave > similar to particles, and in some physical situations they can behave > like waves; in other physical situations they act like NEITHER. > Well, then the question 'what are they?', if neither waves nor particles. Actually they are both, since they show both behaviors. But what could that be, that behaves in such a way. >> The structure called 'photon' is more or less the same thing as what >> is called 'electron', but kind of stretched. > > NOT AT ALL. Your dreams and fantasies are hopelessly inconsistent with > the actual physics of QFT. Just making stuff up and pretending it is > true is USELESS -- you need to STUDY. Well, modern physics is hopelessly inconsistent with my fantasies. In case you (or anybody else) like to know, what these fantasies are and how I relate them to photons (and other subjects of modern physics), you may read my 'book': https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 I'm actually way too far from the mainstream, hence nobody likes my assumptions. But - still - I think they are valid (more or less). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 14:34 +0100 |
| Subject | Yet Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters |
| Message-ID | <zlkzD.570962$134.460308@fx03.am4> |
| In reply to | #475304 |
On 20/10/2018 08:37, 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 > "Yet Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters" > > keith stein > >> Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 13:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pqfpk4$9hq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475297 |
On 10/20/2018 12:10 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > 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. Actually QM does not explain it at all. It merely recognizes the problem. The question is really how can a particle be a wave? Or more exactly how can a wave act like a particle! There are answers to that question and once you learn them, you will have discovered something extremely fundamental about the universe that physics has mostly missed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 19:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <W8ydnZZ3qPZfWFbGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475348 |
On 10/20/18 12:45 PM, benj wrote: > The question is really how can a particle be a wave? No. The ACTUAL question is: how can "particles" have wave-LIKE behavior? And this is answered directly by QFT. Hint: there are no particles, there are just quantum fields that have excitations that act like particles in some physical situations, and like waves in others. We often call these excitations "particles", but that is a very non-classical meaning, quite different from how you use the word. > Or more > exactly how can a wave act like a particle! I know of no instance of this. Give an example. Make sure it is an experimental example, and not just fantasy. > There are answers to that > question and once you learn them, you will have discovered something > extremely fundamental about the universe that physics has mostly missed. There are answers to the ACTUAL question (above). "Answers" to your rather vague musings phrased as questions are unlikely to be useful. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 23:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pqgr6e$1r0b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475391 |
On 10/20/2018 8:18 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/20/18 12:45 PM, benj wrote: >> The question is really how can a particle be a wave? > > No. The ACTUAL question is: how can "particles" have wave-LIKE behavior? > And this is answered directly by QFT. > > Hint: there are no particles, there are just quantum fields > that have excitations that act like particles in some > physical situations, and like waves in others. We often > call these excitations "particles", but that is a very > non-classical meaning, quite different from how you use > the word. In other words, all you have is hand waving and babbling nonsense. Have you ever heard of phlogiston? Is it not "particles"? What are "quantum fields" exactly? It's just so much fantasy and jargon. >> Or more exactly how can a wave act like a particle! > > I know of no instance of this. Give an example. Make sure it is an > experimental example, and not just fantasy. I just did above. Didn't you catch it? >> There are answers to that question and once you learn them, you will >> have discovered something extremely fundamental about the universe >> that physics has mostly missed. > > There are answers to the ACTUAL question (above). "Answers" to your > rather vague musings phrased as questions are unlikely to be useful. Especially when your idea of something NOT vague musings are "quantum fields" that get "excited" and in the "right conditions" act like particles and when they don't feel like it they don't. Right. Very exact and experimental...NOT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 12:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d6SdnWk_tbLYllPGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475398 |
On 10/20/18 10:18 PM, benj wrote: > On 10/20/2018 8:18 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 10/20/18 12:45 PM, benj wrote: >>> The question is really how can a particle be a wave? >> >> No. The ACTUAL question is: how can "particles" have wave-LIKE >> behavior? And this is answered directly by QFT. >> >> Hint: there are no particles, there are just quantum fields >> that have excitations that act like particles in some >> physical situations, and like waves in others. We often >> call these excitations "particles", but that is a very >> non-classical meaning, quite different from how you use >> the word. > > In other words, all you have is hand waving and babbling nonsense. Not at all! I "have" a complete physical theory that passes all experimental tests so far: the standard model. But around here it is not possible to discuss it in detail. > What are "quantum > fields" exactly? It's just so much fantasy and jargon. Not true. It's just that you have never bothered to STUDY and LEARN what they are. Weinberg, _The_Quantum_Theory_of_Fields_, I, II, III. Peskin and Schroeder, _An_Introduction_to_Quantum_ _Field_Theory_. ... and many other textbooks. Start here: Feynman, _QED_. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web