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 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 09:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gMednbr2XOr7ElHGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475376 |
On 10/20/18 4:26 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > However Maxwell's Theory still works fine at the macroscopic level, and > when light passes through "air" the medium is "air" eh! No, Maxwell's theory does NOT work at the macroscopic level. Its Galilean transforms are falsified daily at particle accelerators, as are other aspects of his theory. Like so many people around here, apparently you are confused by the fact that the VALID macroscopic theory of light, classical electrodynamics, uses some of Maxwell's fields and equations. We even call them "Maxwell's equations", even though they are not all of his equations and don't use all of his fields. This is NOT AT ALL Maxwell's original theory (e.g. it uses Lorentz transforms, which were unknown in Maxwell's day). Unlike Maxwell's theory, classical electrodynamics does work fine at the macroscopic level. In it, air can be the "medium" (MODERN sense) for light, but what is waving are the E and B fields, not the air. You have always been confused by this change in the meaning of "medium" when applied to light. You need to LEARN about modern electrodynamics, and not remain mired in ancient history. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 16:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Xf1zD.103773$8J3.68845@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #475413 |
On 21/10/2018 15:38, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/20/18 4:26 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> However Maxwell's Theory still works fine at the macroscopic level, and >> when light passes through "air" the medium is "air" eh! > No, Maxwell's theory does NOT work at the macroscopic level. Its > Galilean transforms are falsified daily at particle accelerators, as are > other aspects of his theory. *particle* accelerators are surely not the way to test any theory at the *macroscopic* level, Mr.Roberts. > Like so many people around here, apparently you are confused by the fact > that the VALID macroscopic theory of light, classical electrodynamics, > uses some of Maxwell's fields and equations. We even call them > "Maxwell's equations", even though they are not all of his equations and > don't use all of his fields. This is NOT AT ALL Maxwell's original > theory (e.g. it uses Lorentz transforms, which were unknown in Maxwell's > day). When i refer to Maxwell's Theory, i mean the theory of J.C.Maxwell, Mr.Roberts. Too bad if that confuses you, but surely it is you who should find another name for your bastardized version eh! > Unlike Maxwell's theory, classical electrodynamics does work fine at the > macroscopic level. In it, air can be the "medium" (MODERN sense) for > light, but what is waving are the E and B fields, not the air. Don't try to imply that i have said that it is the "air" which waves, Mr.Roberts. I have never said that. Sure it is the E and B fields which wave, as i have said previously on this very thread eh! > You have always been confused by this change in the > meaning of "medium" when applied to light. You need > to LEARN about modern electrodynamics, and not remain > mired in ancient history. > Neither Maxwell, not i, ever thought the "medium" waves, Mr.Roberts. It's the electric and magnetic field which do the waving in an e-m wave. keith stein > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 19:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <g35et3FqkcgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475424 |
On 22/10/2018 2:51 am, Keith Stein wrote: > On 21/10/2018 15:38, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 10/20/18 4:26 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> However Maxwell's Theory still works fine at the macroscopic level, and >>> when light passes through "air" the medium is "air" eh! > >> No, Maxwell's theory does NOT work at the macroscopic level. Its >> Galilean transforms are falsified daily at particle accelerators, as >> are other aspects of his theory. > > *particle* accelerators are surely not the way to test any theory at > the *macroscopic* level, Mr.Roberts. A particle accelerator is a pretty macroscopic object. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 10:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <%vgzD.154728$p%6.50211@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #475469 |
On 22/10/2018 09:09, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 22/10/2018 2:51 am, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 21/10/2018 15:38, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 10/20/18 4:26 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> >>>> However Maxwell's Theory still works fine at the macroscopic level, and >>>> when light passes through "air" the medium is "air" eh! >> >>> No, Maxwell's theory does NOT work at the macroscopic level. Its >>> Galilean transforms are falsified daily at particle accelerators, as >>> are other aspects of his theory. >> >> *particle* accelerators are surely not the way to test any theory at >> the *macroscopic* level, Mr.Roberts. > > A particle accelerator is a pretty macroscopic object. :) Even the most humble photon detector is a macroscopic object, of course, Sylvia, but 'photons' are not a prediction of Maxwell's Theory. A photographic plate is another macroscopic object, and if one uses it to record the interference pattern produced in say the double slit experiment, then the *macroscopic pattern*, of alternating light and dark bands, is easily explained in terms of Maxwell's theory. However if one uses a photographic place to record individual photons, then, of course, one needs some kind of atomic theory to explain the interactions at the "particle", "atomic" or "molecular" level eh! keith stein > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 15:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pql9e0$q6g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475471 |
On 10/22/2018 5:12 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 22/10/2018 09:09, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 22/10/2018 2:51 am, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 21/10/2018 15:38, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 10/20/18 4:26 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>>>> However Maxwell's Theory still works fine at the macroscopic level, >>>>> and >>>>> when light passes through "air" the medium is "air" eh! >>> >>>> No, Maxwell's theory does NOT work at the macroscopic level. Its >>>> Galilean transforms are falsified daily at particle accelerators, as >>>> are other aspects of his theory. >>> >>> *particle* accelerators are surely not the way to test any theory at >>> the *macroscopic* level, Mr.Roberts. >> >> A particle accelerator is a pretty macroscopic object. > > :) > > Even the most humble photon detector is a macroscopic object, of > course, Sylvia, but 'photons' are not a prediction of Maxwell's > Theory. > > A photographic plate is another macroscopic object, and if > one uses it to record the interference pattern produced in > say the double slit experiment, then the *macroscopic pattern*, > of alternating light and dark bands, is easily explained in terms of > Maxwell's theory. Not "explained"! Only approximated by a mathematical assumption of uniform space. > However if one uses a photographic place to record individual photons, > then, of course, one needs some kind of atomic theory to explain the > interactions at the "particle", "atomic" or "molecular" level eh! Actually one need a BETTER wave theory, a MORE COMPLETE and accurate wave theory to better describe apparent quantum effects such as photons. > keith stein > >> Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 15:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pql94p$pbd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475469 |
On 10/22/2018 4:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 22/10/2018 2:51 am, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 21/10/2018 15:38, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 10/20/18 4:26 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> >>>> However Maxwell's Theory still works fine at the macroscopic level, and >>>> when light passes through "air" the medium is "air" eh! >> >>> No, Maxwell's theory does NOT work at the macroscopic level. Its >>> Galilean transforms are falsified daily at particle accelerators, as >>> are other aspects of his theory. >> >> *particle* accelerators are surely not the way to test any theory at >> the *macroscopic* level, Mr.Roberts. > > A particle accelerator is a pretty macroscopic object. > > Sylvia. <SNORT>! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 23:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <TPadnZPgoplUO1PGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475424 |
On 10/21/18 10:51 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 21/10/2018 15:38, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 10/20/18 4:26 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> However Maxwell's Theory still works fine at the macroscopic level, and >>> when light passes through "air" the medium is "air" eh! > >> No, Maxwell's theory does NOT work at the macroscopic level. Its >> Galilean transforms are falsified daily at particle accelerators, as >> are other aspects of his theory. > > *particle* accelerators are surely not the way to test any theory at > the *macroscopic* level, Mr.Roberts. Doesn't matter -- any refutation demonstrates the theory is not valid. > When i refer to Maxwell's Theory, i mean the theory of J.C.Maxwell, > Mr.Roberts. Too bad if that confuses you, It doesn't confuse me. But Maxwell's theory is dead as a doornail. So there's no point in your repeatedly invoking it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 08:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e720e945-82fd-4ede-87e0-34432daf5a3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475376 |
On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 5:26:17 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 20/10/2018 18:39, benj wrote: > > On 10/20/2018 6:01 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 20/10/2018 03:53, benj wrote: > >> keith stein wrote: > >> > >>>> But i know of no reliable experiment, or observation, which > >>>> conflicts >> with Maxwell's (and my) view that the speed of light is > >>>> appropriate > >>>> to, AND RELATIVE TO, the "medium". Certainly the null result of the > >>>> Michelson Morley experiment is exactly what we would expect. > >> > >>> WE'd expect that ONLY if the medium is moving along with the earth. > >> > >> I'm going to give you a hand here with that PHYSICS TEST, which you, > >> Benj, along with everyone else, (so don't feel bad eh!) FAILED. > >> > >> 1. When light passes through "glass", > >> what is the medium ? > >> > >> 2. When light passes through "water", > >> what is the medium ? > >> > >> 3. When light passes through "air", > >> what is the medium ? > >> > >> 4. When light passes through "Hydrogen", > >> what is the medium ? > >> > >> > >> I'll just give you the answer to question 3 Benj, > >> and you should be able to work the rest out for yourself. > >> > >> The correct answer to question 3 is "air", Benj, > >> so the medium IS moving along with the Earth, which > >> explains why we get a null result from the MMX eh! > >> > >> keith stein > > > > Air is NOT the medium for light. Light passes through air but air is > > mostly empty space. Hence if space is truly empty there can be no light > > transmitted through air. You failed your own exam. Think much? > > > > “Air" was Maxwell's primary example of a medium for electromagnetic waves. No, his primary example is the aether. Air does not transmit electromagnetic waves. > > Of course Maxwell's Theory is a macroscopic theory, in which the medium > is considered to be continuous. This no doubt explains why Maxwell's > theory breaks down at the atomic level. Your version of Maxwell’s theory breaks down at the atomic level. The original Maxwell theory works well at that level because it is based on a continuous aether. > > However Maxwell's Theory still works fine at the macroscopic level, and > when light passes through "air" the medium is "air" eh! There is no air in interstellar space .....so how does light from the sun reach to the earth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 17:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <yL1zD.139614$p%6.14294@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #475423 |
On 21/10/2018 16:46, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 5:26:17 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 20/10/2018 18:39, benj wrote: >>> Air is NOT the medium for light. Light passes through air but air is >>> mostly empty space. Hence if space is truly empty there can be no light >>> transmitted through air. You failed your own exam. Think much? >> “Air" was Maxwell's primary example of a medium for electromagnetic waves. > No, his primary example is the aether. Air does not transmit electromagnetic waves. Can i suggest you read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", Mr.Seto, You will discover that he NEVER mentions "aether". He does stress the importance of the "medium", and he does use the phrase "....where the medium is air..." in several places. >> Of course Maxwell's Theory is a macroscopic theory, in which the medium >> is considered to be continuous. This no doubt explains why Maxwell's >> theory breaks down at the atomic level. > > Your version of Maxwell’s theory breaks down at the atomic level. The original Maxwell theory works well at that level because it is based on a continuous aether. This is just more Bullshit, Mr.Seto. When i speak of Maxwell's theory i do indeed mean the original theory, and there is certainly no 'h' or any sort of 'photons' in that. >> However Maxwell's Theory still works fine at the macroscopic level, and >> when light passes through "air" the medium is "air" eh! > > There is no air in interstellar space .....so how does light from the sun reach to the earth? “Air" was Maxwell's primary EXAMPLE of a medium, Mr.Seto. Another EXAMPLE of a "medium" could be the "Hydrogen", in inter stellar space eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 11:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92c32508-9322-45d9-9471-b8ccd6749069@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475427 |
On Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 21/10/2018 16:46, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 5:26:17 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 20/10/2018 18:39, benj wrote: > > >>> Air is NOT the medium for light. Light passes through air but air is > >>> mostly empty space. Hence if space is truly empty there can be no light > >>> transmitted through air. You failed your own exam. Think much? > > >> “Air" was Maxwell's primary example of a medium for electromagnetic waves. > > > No, his primary example is the aether. Air does not transmit electromagnetic waves. > > Can i suggest you read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and > Magnetism", Mr.Seto, You will discover that he NEVER mentions > "aether". He does stress the importance of the "medium", and > he does use the phrase "....where the medium is air..." in > several places. > > >> Of course Maxwell's Theory is a macroscopic theory, in which the medium > >> is considered to be continuous. This no doubt explains why Maxwell's > >> theory breaks down at the atomic level. > > > > Your version of Maxwell’s theory breaks down at the atomic level. The original Maxwell theory works well at that level because it is based on a continuous aether. > > This is just more Bullshit, Mr.Seto. When i speak of Maxwell's theory > i do indeed mean the original theory, and there is certainly no 'h' or > any sort of ‘photons' in that. The “medium" in Maxwell’s theory is the aether. > > >> However Maxwell's Theory still works fine at the macroscopic level, and > >> when light passes through "air" the medium is "air" eh! > > > > There is no air in interstellar space .....so how does light from the sun reach to the earth? > > “Air" was Maxwell's primary EXAMPLE of a medium, Mr.Seto. > Another EXAMPLE of a "medium" could be the "Hydrogen", > in inter stellar space eh! Mr Stein, Air does not transmit light from one place to another. Clearly Maxwell recognized that some form of medium (including the aether) is need to transmit the light from one place to another but he mistakenly mentioned the Air as the primary example. Remember Maxwell is not infallible. Clearly interstellar hydrogen is not the medium that carries the light from the sun to reach earth. You are just bullshiting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 02:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3349580e-fe68-4675-9a45-941cff470b7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475255 |
On Friday, 19 October 2018 18:42:44 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 19/10/2018 02:08, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> 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. > >> > >> And your reasons for believing this are what? > > > > Suppose i tell you i have a dog which travels at exactly the > > same speed relative to all inertial frames of reference. > > Dogs can’t travel at c. Nothing with nonzero mass can. Apples and oranges. Even your idiot guru was unable to hold such an idiocy for long time, so his GR shit has rejected it. Of course, you're much stupider. > So the question to you is this: given two hypotheses that are in stark > conflict to each other, how does science resolve which one is correct? It surely follows the advice of wise woodworkers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 07:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc23e7ec-6782-46b1-b63c-a1afdd72da11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475211 |
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 7:37:57 PM UTC-4, 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 I agree! Sound, with the medium (air), travel at constant velocity wrt air. Light without a medium can’t travel at constant c. Light as photon particles can’t travel at c wrt all observers. You can invent magical quantum properties that allow photons to travel at constant c wrt all observers. But that is not physics. That is magic. Light comes in the form of wave-packets (photons) because the source is in a state of absolute motion wrt the medium. Http://www.modelmechaics.org/2015experiment.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 19:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pqb5q6$107q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475206 |
On 10/18/2018 6:34 PM, 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? > Why would you insist on dogma with words that actually make no sense. Waves are DEFINED as disturbances in a medium. With no medium there is no wave. That is logic, Mr. Vulcan. You can invent all the progressive lawyerly word games you want, counselor, but that does NOT change the meaning of the word waves. IF there is no medium you CANNOT call it waves. Call anything you like but in English it can't be waves. I've never seen anyone so religiously willfully ignorant in my life as you are. And John agrees with me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 01:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqbaq4$16es$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475213 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/18/2018 6:34 PM, 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? >> > Why would you insist on dogma with words that actually make no sense. > Waves are DEFINED as disturbances in a medium. No they’re not. Try again. Waves are what they are, not how we define them. Moreover they’re not defined that way, except maybe by you. > With no medium there is > no wave. That is logic, Mr. Vulcan. You can invent all the progressive > lawyerly word games you want, counselor, but that does NOT change the > meaning of the word waves. IF there is no medium you CANNOT call it > waves. Call anything you like but in English it can't be waves. I've > never seen anyone so religiously willfully ignorant in my life as you > are. And John agrees with me. Ha. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 15:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <admdnVS3kZI7s1PGnZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475213 |
On 10/18/18 6:43 PM, benj wrote: > Waves are DEFINED as disturbances in a medium. Not really, at least not anymore, in physics. Today physicists often apply the term "wave" to a quantity that satisfies a wave equation (i.e. a partial differential equation that is second order in both time and spatial coordinates). > IF there is no medium you CANNOT call it > waves. Not true. See above. For example, in many physical situations the probability of detecting a photon behaves in a wavelike manner, and satisfies a wave equation. We call this light waves, even though there is no medium involved (probabilities inherently require no medium). Similarly for phonons. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-26 18:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <g3guobF7parU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475511 |
Am 22.10.2018 um 22:11 schrieb Tom Roberts: > On 10/18/18 6:43 PM, benj wrote: >> Waves are DEFINED as disturbances in a medium. > > Not really, at least not anymore, in physics. > > Today physicists often apply the term "wave" to a quantity that > satisfies a wave equation (i.e. a partial differential equation that is > second order in both time and spatial coordinates). A wave is not a quantity, but a physical phenomenon in nature. The debate was about the cause and nature of this phenomenon, not whether or not it fulfills a second order differential equation. I also wonder what you want to plug into an equation, if you do not understand, how the thing you try to model works. >> IF there is no medium you CANNOT call it waves. > > Not true. See above. > > For example, in many physical situations the probability of detecting a > photon behaves in a wavelike manner, and satisfies a wave equation. We > call this light waves, even though there is no medium involved > (probabilities inherently require no medium). Similarly for phonons. probabilities are most likely not a physical entity neither. Both (quantities and probabilities) belong to mathematics. But math is not a science, since it is not about phenomena in nature. If you want to apply a mathematical construct to a model in physics, it deserves a reason and an explanation, which is both hard to find, if the phenomenon to model is not understood. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-26 19:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3ee3c475-7415-1b33-40ee-1f913d0749a4@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475668 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 22.10.2018 um 22:11 schrieb Tom Roberts: >> Today physicists often apply the term "wave" to a quantity that >> satisfies a wave equation (i.e. a partial differential equation that is >> second order in both time and spatial coordinates). > > A wave is not a quantity, Straw man. > but a physical phenomenon in nature. Not necessarily. > [misconceptions dumped] -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-26 16:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pqvv0k$7e1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475669 |
On 10/26/2018 1:34 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 22.10.2018 um 22:11 schrieb Tom Roberts: >>> Today physicists often apply the term "wave" to a quantity that >>> satisfies a wave equation (i.e. a partial differential equation that is >>> second order in both time and spatial coordinates). >> >> A wave is not a quantity, > > Straw man. > >> but a physical phenomenon in nature. > > Not necessarily. > >> [misconceptions dumped] > Translation: I'm stupid and absolutely intend to remain that way no matter how I must redefine words to do it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-27 18:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f89a51b0-2d33-0479-1cc4-a6757e195ce7@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475674 |
benj wrote: > On 10/26/2018 1:34 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 22.10.2018 um 22:11 schrieb Tom Roberts: >>>> Today physicists often apply the term "wave" to a quantity that >>>> satisfies a wave equation (i.e. a partial differential equation that is >>>> second order in both time and spatial coordinates). >>> A wave is not a quantity, >> Straw man. >> >>> but a physical phenomenon in nature. >> Not necessarily. >> >>> [misconceptions dumped] >> > Translation: I'm stupid and absolutely intend to remain that way no > matter how I must redefine words to do it. AW, don’t be so hard on yourself. You can learn if you want to. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-26 22:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pr05ei$hml$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475668 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 22.10.2018 um 22:11 schrieb Tom Roberts: >> On 10/18/18 6:43 PM, benj wrote: >>> Waves are DEFINED as disturbances in a medium. >> >> Not really, at least not anymore, in physics. >> >> Today physicists often apply the term "wave" to a quantity that >> satisfies a wave equation (i.e. a partial differential equation that is >> second order in both time and spatial coordinates). > > > A wave is not a quantity, but a physical phenomenon in nature. > > The debate was about the cause and nature of this phenomenon, not > whether or not it fulfills a second order differential equation. > > I also wonder what you want to plug into an equation, if you do not > understand, how the thing you try to model works. > >>> IF there is no medium you CANNOT call it waves. >> >> Not true. See above. >> >> For example, in many physical situations the probability of detecting a >> photon behaves in a wavelike manner, and satisfies a wave equation. We >> call this light waves, even though there is no medium involved >> (probabilities inherently require no medium). Similarly for phonons. > > probabilities are most likely not a physical entity neither. > > Both (quantities and probabilities) belong to mathematics. > > But math is not a science, since it is not about phenomena in nature. > > If you want to apply a mathematical construct to a model in physics, it > deserves a reason and an explanation, which is both hard to find, if the > phenomenon to model is not understood. > > TH > > There’s more to it than that. Math is not primary in physics, but it’s not an afterthought either. It’s quite a bit more integrated than what you suggest. What governs physical behaviors are not “causes” but laws of physics. Laws of physics are regularities observed or inferred from nature. Like conservation of momentum — this is an inferred regularity, and there is no “causal agent” behind momentum conservation. These laws are almost always expressive in mathematical form, in the sense of equations that can be solved. The way physics relies on math is that the solutions to the mathematical equations are magically the observed behaviors of the physical systems. That is how math brings its power into physics: providing the path from constraining laws to possible behaviors of the system. That path is virtually intractable to draw out with mathematics. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web