Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #482472 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-27 12:36 +0000 |
| Last post | 2019-02-03 15:33 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:36 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 05:01 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 15:30 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 08:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 11:15 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 21:38 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 16:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:36 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-28 22:07 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 08:07 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-29 04:47 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:00 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 06:59 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-01-31 00:34 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:42 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 23:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 18:36 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 19:07 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:57 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 11:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-27 10:10 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 17:53 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 14:15 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:05 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 22:12 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 16:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-28 07:42 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-31 14:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 03:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-01 08:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-02 11:59 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 23:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 14:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 11:29 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 02:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 14:12 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 07:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 19:26 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 00:38 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 09:37 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 22:14 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 14:15 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 07:46 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 17:15 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 11:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 09:07 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 12:03 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:29 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 21:42 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-30 15:31 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:00 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-30 20:45 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 23:33 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 18:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-31 10:57 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 12:21 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 06:24 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 20:06 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 12:32 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 08:33 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-31 07:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:31 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 12:47 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-02-01 20:03 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 18:26 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 20:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 19:16 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 01:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-05 12:12 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:14 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:35 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:19 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:33 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 18:50 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:55 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 17:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 04:11 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 22:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 10:05 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 09:37 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 23:37 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 18:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 06:02 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 00:32 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 17:32 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 10:43 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 19:17 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 15:17 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 23:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 23:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 23:55 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 16:02 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:56 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 23:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 18:23 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 14:46 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 10:49 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 09:37 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 18:21 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 16:31 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 22:27 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-05 02:04 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-05 09:27 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 10:40 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:07 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 10:29 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-02-04 18:16 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-31 09:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 09:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 20:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 23:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 20:11 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 03:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 03:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 19:10 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 16:44 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 21:53 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 14:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-01 08:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 09:31 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 21:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 22:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 22:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-02 11:11 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:13 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-02 22:06 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 11:31 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-03 04:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 17:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 08:25 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 10:50 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 22:23 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 12:11 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 23:33 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-06 17:13 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-06 00:00 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 15:18 +0000
Daft as Keith Stein eh! "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2019-02-04 08:51 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-05 11:49 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-03 19:51 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-04 09:26 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 06:39 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-04 10:08 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 07:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 16:51 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-05 07:45 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 08:13 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 21:52 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 12:02 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 23:43 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-04 04:49 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 00:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 12:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 10:56 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 23:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 22:18 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 04:55 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 00:28 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 05:48 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-28 07:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 09:25 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 12:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:41 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:44 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:56 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:24 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 20:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 20:05 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:24 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:33 -0800
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 00:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7c24edb5-7e27-467b-82cc-26e973107072@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482516 |
On Monday, 28 January 2019 09:26:51 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > Even if we accept, for the purpose of discussion, that that could be > true, is it really possible to construct a model of that behaviour that > gives consistent results? Of course. Lorentz has written such a theory a long time ago. > What I have in mind is a single light ray, with multiple observers > travelling at different speeds, measuring the speed of the ray over > different, but overlapping, parts of the ray's journey. They can get result whatever they want. It's just that your insane ideology will announce them unproper when they don't match it. That's all, lady.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 09:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <U2A3E.276700$ZE1.15453@fx24.am4> |
| In reply to | #482516 |
On 28/01/2019 08:26, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28/01/2019 6:58 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 28/01/2019 03:12, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 28/01/2019 1:43 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> On 28/01/2019 00:29, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 27/01/2019 11:36 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>> How i know clocks don't really go SLOW in in low Earth orbit
>>>>>> and FAST in high Earth orbit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course i am not saying that clocks can't be adjusted to do that,
>>>>>> but if you don't cheat by readjusting the clocks for each orbit,there
>>>>>> is no way that clocks will really lose 25 us/day in ISS orbit, and
>>>>>> gain 37 us/day in GPS orbit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If the speed of light is invariable and absolute, Einstein
>>>>>> realized, both space and time must be flexible and relative to
>>>>>> accommodate this."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is true, but in classical physics space and time are
>>>>>> invariable and absolute, and the velocity of light is relative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second,
>>>>>> so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any
>>>>>> way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must
>>>>>> be as daft as Einstein eh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> keith stein
>>>>>
>>>>> The definitions of the metre and the second are red-herrings in
>>>>> this discussion. Forget them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Construct two clocks. Don't worry about their specific tick rate,
>>>>> just make sure they tick at the same rate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, construct two rulers. Again, don't worry about their
>>>>> specific lengths, just ensure that they are the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Select two impartial observers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, choose a clock and a ruler and an observer, and accelerate
>>>>> them for a time, and then stop accelerating them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and
>>>>> let them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to
>>>>> measure the time it takes for light to travel that distance. The
>>>>> result will come out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length.
>>>>
>>>> What you say is true Sylvia, and not only that,
>>>> but they would also both get the same number for
>>>> the speed of sound eh!
>>
>>> That raises issues to do with the medium, and yet more red herrings.
>>> > Let's stick to discussions about light in a vacuum.
>>
>> But there isn't any vacuum Sylvia, and the medium is
>> NOT a "red herring". You simply can not understand
>> Maxwell's theory if you fail to recognize the role
>> of the medium. It is the MEDIUM which defines the
>> frame of reference with which light travels with
>> a speed determined by the electric and magnetic
>> properties OF THE MEDIUM.
>
> Michelson Morley was all about measuring the Earth's speed through the
> medium that light was thought to propagate through. They consistently
> got a result indistinguishable from zero. Even at different times of year.
Of course, because there is no ether flying through
Michelson's laboratory at any time of the year. In
the original experiment the medium was the air in
their laboratory, and although the experiment was
repeated with the apparatus inside a vacuum chamber,
this of course made no difference to the result, because
the medium was the matter which remained within the
vacuum chamber, which of course defines the same frame
of reference as the vacuum chamber itself.
>>>>> The experimental evidence supports the idea that each observer will
>>>>> arrive at the same number.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, Sylvia,but that in no way suggest that
>>>> they will get the same value for the velocity of
>>>> the remote experimenter's light, or indeed sound,
>>>> as they get for the velocity of their own local
>>>> light, or sound eh!
>>>
>>> It could be the same light that they're measuring.
>>
>> It could be the same ray of light yes, but a single
>> ray of light does not necessarily have the same speed
>> along the whole of its length. The speed of light varies
>> with the nature of, and the velocity of, the local medium
>> which it is traveling through.
>
> Even if we accept, for the purpose of discussion, that that could be
> true, is it really possible to construct a model of that behaviour that
> gives consistent results?
Yes.
> What I have in mind is a single light ray, with multiple observers
> travelling at different speeds, measuring the speed of the ray over
> different, but overlapping, parts of the ray's journey.
The "overlapping" part of the journey is a bit tricky,
because the local medium can not possible be stationary
with respect to both observers. However, providing you
carefully define exactly what your experimental setup
is, it can be done. In fact it isn't really that tricky,
because the speed of light for both observers is simply:
c(medium) + v(medium)
where v(medium) is the velocity of the medium relative
to the observer.
> Even if you managed to construct such a model, you'd still be left with
> a Universe that's modifying the speed of light over parts of the route
> based on who's measuring what.
Yes indeed Sylvia. That's the thing about the "speed" of
ANYTHING. It DOES indeed depend on who is measuring it eh!
> It doesn't sound tenable, let alone plausible.
>
> Anyway, the ball's in your court - let's see you propose a model.
>
> Sylvia.
It really is not difficult Sylvia. Light and sound both
obey the "wave equation", as you know, and sound travels
relative to the local medium it is traveling through,
and so too does light, only much faster eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 22:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gb86hcFcphtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482518 |
On 28/01/2019 8:37 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 28/01/2019 08:26, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/01/2019 6:58 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 28/01/2019 03:12, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 28/01/2019 1:43 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> On 28/01/2019 00:29, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 27/01/2019 11:36 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>> How i know clocks don't really go SLOW in in low Earth orbit >>>>>>> and FAST in high Earth orbit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course i am not saying that clocks can't be adjusted to do that, >>>>>>> but if you don't cheat by readjusting the clocks for each >>>>>>> orbit,there >>>>>>> is no way that clocks will really lose 25 us/day in ISS orbit, >>>>>>> and gain 37 us/day in GPS orbit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "If the speed of light is invariable and absolute, Einstein >>>>>>> realized, both space and time must be flexible and relative to >>>>>>> accommodate this." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is true, but in classical physics space and time are >>>>>>> invariable and absolute, and the velocity of light is relative. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, >>>>>>> so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any >>>>>>> way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must >>>>>>> be as daft as Einstein eh! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> keith stein >>>>>> >>>>>> The definitions of the metre and the second are red-herrings in >>>>>> this discussion. Forget them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Construct two clocks. Don't worry about their specific tick rate, >>>>>> just make sure they tick at the same rate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Similarly, construct two rulers. Again, don't worry about their >>>>>> specific lengths, just ensure that they are the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> Select two impartial observers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, choose a clock and a ruler and an observer, and accelerate >>>>>> them for a time, and then stop accelerating them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and >>>>>> let them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to >>>>>> measure the time it takes for light to travel that distance. The >>>>>> result will come out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. >>>>> >>>>> What you say is true Sylvia, and not only that, >>>>> but they would also both get the same number for >>>>> the speed of sound eh! >>> >>>> That raises issues to do with the medium, and yet more red herrings. >>>> > Let's stick to discussions about light in a vacuum. >>> >>> But there isn't any vacuum Sylvia, and the medium is >>> NOT a "red herring". You simply can not understand >>> Maxwell's theory if you fail to recognize the role >>> of the medium. It is the MEDIUM which defines the >>> frame of reference with which light travels with >>> a speed determined by the electric and magnetic >>> properties OF THE MEDIUM. >> >> Michelson Morley was all about measuring the Earth's speed through the >> medium that light was thought to propagate through. They consistently >> got a result indistinguishable from zero. Even at different times of >> year. > > Of course, because there is no ether flying through > Michelson's laboratory at any time of the year. In > the original experiment the medium was the air in > their laboratory, and although the experiment was > repeated with the apparatus inside a vacuum chamber, > this of course made no difference to the result, because > the medium was the matter which remained within the > vacuum chamber, which of course defines the same frame > of reference as the vacuum chamber itself. So what about light travelling through interplanetary space? That's not completely devoid of matter, so your model would imply that it travels at the speed of light relative to that matter which will not be the same as its speed relative to us. Yet if its speed relative to us is not the speed of light, our calculations of where we should expect to see the other planets will be wrong, because they assume a specific transit time. That effect is noticeably absent. Your model needs to explain that absence. Your model is also going to run into problems with extremely high vacuums, where the matter consists of particles moving at speed in random directions. How is light to determine what its speed should be relative to? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 14:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <D7E3E.286505$ZE1.140197@fx24.am4> |
| In reply to | #482519 |
On 28/01/2019 11:14, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/01/2019 8:37 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 28/01/2019 08:26, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> Michelson Morley was all about measuring the Earth's speed through >>> the medium that light was thought to propagate through. They >>> consistently got a result indistinguishable from zero. Even at >>> different times of year. >> >> Of course, because there is no ether flying through >> Michelson's laboratory at any time of the year. In >> the original experiment the medium was the air in >> their laboratory, and although the experiment was >> repeated with the apparatus inside a vacuum chamber, >> this of course made no difference to the result, because >> the medium was the matter which remained within the >> vacuum chamber, which of course defines the same frame >> of reference as the vacuum chamber itself. > So what about light travelling through interplanetary space? That's not > completely devoid of matter, so your model would imply that it travels > at the speed of light relative to that matter which will not be the same > as its speed relative to us. Correct, but because the speed of light is very much greater than the speed of the interplanetary medium the difference will not be very great. > Yet if its speed relative to us is not the speed of light, our > calculations of where we should expect to see the other planets will be > wrong, because they assume a specific transit time. That effect is > noticeably absent. Your model needs to explain that absence. The velocity of light relative to us at any point on light's journey to us will be the vector addition of the velocity of light (near enough c), and the velocity of the medium. So to calculate the effect of the medium you would need to know the magnitude and direction of the velocity of the medium relative to Earth at all points. The calculation would be a bit tricky, but if you think you have data which shows this can not be right, do post a reference Sylvia, and i will gladly take a look at it. > Your model is also going to run into problems with extremely high > vacuums, where the matter consists of particles moving at speed in > random directions. How is light to determine what its speed should be > relative to? Like most pre-20th century physics theories, Maxwell's e-m theory is a macroscopic theory, which implies that the medium is treated as continuous. The theory does of course break down at the atomic scale, but for most considerations the Solar system is well big enough for the macroscopic approximation to be applied without significant loss of accuracy eh! keith stein > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 07:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b96331e0-444a-44d1-8c5c-09398be64897@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482525 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 6:15:01 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > Of course, because there is no ether flying through > Michelson's laboratory at any time of the year. As you know, Maxwell already explained why that is not true. The medium of light propagation is not air or any other ordinary matter, it is (according to Maxwell) the luminiferous ether, which is not dragged along appreciably by ordinary material (like air) with index of refraction very close to 1. That's why Fizeau showed no appreciable effect when air is used instead of water, and that's why Maxwell predicted a second-order fringe shift in an experiment like the one Michelson later performed. Of course, it is true that light propagates at speed c/n in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the ordinary material (if any) through which it is passing is at rest, but this is perfectly consistent with special relativity. > ...if you think you have data which shows this can not be right, do > post a reference Sylvia, and i will gladly take a look at it. Many empirical observations show that the total convection theory that you espouse is false. That's why it was abandoned over a century ago. To give just one example, if the earth totally drags the medium of light propagation (as you need for Michelson), it obviously does not drag the medium out to the distant stars, so starlight would arrive along rays in the medium of interstellar space, and then as they approach the earth they would need to curve into the local convection field being dragged by the earth. This is inconsistent with the observed aberration of starlight. Stokes tried to salvage the convection idea by making a weird assumption about boundary conditions, but Lorentz showed (back in the 1800s) that Stokes' assumption entails a contradiction. > Like most pre-20th century physics theories, Maxwell's e-m theory is a > macroscopic theory, which implies that the medium is treated as > continuous. As always, you are mistaken and confused. Among Maxwell's more important contributions to science was the kinetic theory of gases, in which gas was recognized and treated as consisting of small particles moving ballistically in empty space. As noted above, Maxwell explained that the medium of light propagation was manifestly *not* ordinary matter, it was some underlying ether, whose properties were not known. He considered whether the ether itself might also be particulate, although when working on electromagnetism he tended to assume it was continuous, homogeneous, isotropic, and nearly stationary, definitely *not* dragged along significantly by ordinary matter like air or even the earth. Hence his predicted second-order effect for Michelson. > They would also both get the same number for the speed of sound... No they would be quite different for sound, but nearly identical for light (in regions where the index of refraction is close to 1). Letting u denote the speed of sound in the inertial coordinates of the acoustic medium, the speed in terms of inertial coordinates in which the medium is moving at speed v is (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2), which of course is virtually u+v for ordinary acoustic waves. Hence the speeds are quite different in terms of the two inertial coordinate systems. In contrast, if u = c/n is the speed of a pulse of light in inertial coordinates of a medium with index of refraction n, the speed of the pulse in terms of inertial coordinates in which the medium is moving with speed v is (just as in the case of sound) (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2), which is just c/n times the factor (1+nv/c)/(1+v/(nc)). As an example, air has n = 1.0003 so the speed of a pulse of light is 0.9997c in the inertial coordinates of the air, but in terms of inertial coordinates moving at speed v = c/2 the speed of that pulse of light is 0.9999c, so approaching the source at half the speed of light makes almost no difference in terms of the speed. So, although sound and light obey exactly the same equation, the result is radically different because of the great difference in their speeds compared with c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 17:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <TLG3E.92152$nC1.7927@fx04.am4> |
| In reply to | #482528 |
On 28/01/2019 15:46, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 6:15:01 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >> Of course, because there is no ether flying through >> Michelson's laboratory at any time of the year. > > As you know, Maxwell already explained why that is not true. The medium of light propagation is not air or any other ordinary matter, Bull shit. "Air" was Maxwell's primary example of a medium for his e-m waves, and his only other specific example was "paraffin wax". Both ordinary matter eh! > it is (according to Maxwell) the luminiferous ether, which is not dragged along appreciably by ordinary material (like air) with index of refraction very close to 1. More bull shit. Maxwell never mentions ether or aether in his long "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism". Read it Henry. That's why Fizeau showed no appreciable effect when air is used instead of water, I don't think Fizeau used air, but give a reference, if you not lying again. > and that's why Maxwell predicted a second-order fringe shift in an experiment like the one Michelson later performed. and give a reference for that too, if you can. > Of course, it is true that light propagates at speed c/n in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the ordinary material (if any) through which it is passing is at rest, but this is perfectly consistent with special relativity. > >> ...if you think you have data which shows this can not be right, do >> post a reference Sylvia, and i will gladly take a look at it. > > Many empirical observations show that the total convection theory that you espouse is false. That's why it was abandoned over a century ago. To give just one example, if the earth totally drags the medium of light propagation (as you need for Michelson), it obviously does not drag the medium out to the distant stars, so starlight would arrive along rays in the medium of interstellar space, and then as they approach the earth they would need to curve into the local convection field being dragged by the earth. This is inconsistent with the observed aberration of starlight. Stokes tried to salvage the convection idea by making a weird assumption about boundary conditions, but Lorentz showed (back in the 1800s) that Stokes' assumption entails a contradiction. You are just full of bull shit Henry. There is no difficulty in fully explaining stellar aberration when assuming that the light travels relative to the matter it travels through. >> Like most pre-20th century physics theories, Maxwell's e-m theory is a >> macroscopic theory, which implies that the medium is treated as >> continuous. > > As always, you are mistaken and confused. Among Maxwell's more important contributions to science was the kinetic theory of gases, in which gas was recognized and treated as consisting of small particles moving ballistically in empty space. As noted above, Maxwell explained that the medium of light propagation was manifestly *not* ordinary matter, it was some underlying ether, whose properties were not known. He considered whether the ether itself might also be particulate, although when working on electromagnetism he tended to assume it was continuous, homogeneous, isotropic, and nearly stationary, definitely *not* dragged along significantly by ordinary matter like air or even the earth. Hence his predicted second-order effect for Michelson. That is certainly NOT what he says in his famous Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. >> They would also both get the same number for the speed of sound... > > No they would be quite different for sound, More bull shit. In the scenario given by Sylvia, which i was responding to the would certainly both get the same number for the speed of sound and light. > but nearly identical for light (in regions where the index of refraction is close to 1). > > Letting u denote the speed of sound in the inertial coordinates of the acoustic medium, the speed in terms of inertial coordinates in which the medium is moving at speed v is (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2), which of course is virtually u+v for ordinary acoustic waves. Hence the speeds are quite different in terms of the two inertial coordinate systems. READ SYLVIA, and cut the bull shit eh! >>>> Construct two clocks. Don't worry about their specific tick rate, just make sure they tick at the same rate. >>>> >>>> Similarly, construct two rulers. Again, don't worry about their specific lengths, just ensure that they are the same. >>>> >>>> Select two impartial observers. >>>> >>>> Now, choose a clock and a ruler and an observer, and accelerate them for a time, and then stop accelerating them. >>>> >>>> Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure the time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will come out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. >>> >>> What you say is true Sylvia, and not only that, >>> but they would also both get the same number for >>> the speed of sound eh! >>>> The experimental evidence supports the idea that each observer will arrive at the same number. >>> Of course, Sylvia,but that in no way suggest that >>> they will get the same value for the velocity of >>> the remote experimenter's light, or indeed sound, >>> as they get for the velocity of their own local >>> light, or sound eh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 11:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <06698413-ce08-4fa7-88dc-d076d6012fcc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482533 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9:14:30 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > "Air" was Maxwell's primary example of a medium for his e-m waves... "When light travels through the atmosphere it is manifest that the medium through which the light is propagated is *not* the air itself... We cannot therefore suppose the constitution of the aether to be like that of a gas..." James Clerk Maxwell > Maxwell never mentions ether or aether in his long > "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism". That's a gross misreading, because Maxwell used the word "medium" in that treatise in two different senses. In some places he used the word to refer to an ordinary material substance, but in other places he used the word to refer to the "luminiferous medium", for which he later adopted the word aether to distinguish it from ordinary material media. Indeed he wrote the long article on Ether for the Encyclopedia Britannica, in which he explains that this is the luminiferous medium that formed the basis of his electromagnetic theory. As he said, the entire treatise was intended to form a mental representation of the constitution and workings of that underlying luminiferous medium. >> That's why Fizeau showed no appreciable effect when air is used >> instead of water, > > I don't think Fizeau used air, but give a reference, if you not lying again. "In another experiment Fizeau has observed that the propagation of light in a stream of water... and that the phenomenon does not occur when air is substituted for water". James Clerk Maxwell Maxwell routinely noted that the propagation of light in air is essentially the same as in vacuum: "According to our result, the ratio of electromagnetic to electrostatic units should be equal to the velocity of light in air or vacuum". James Clerk Maxwell. > > and that's why Maxwell predicted a second-order fringe shift in an experiment like the one Michelson later performed. > > and give a reference for that too, if you can. What is wrong with you? I gave you all these quotes and references before. Are you undergoing shock therapy or something? Are memories being wiped from your brain? Or are the facts just too painful for you to absorb? Your behavior is really bizarre. > There is no difficulty in fully explaining stellar aberration > when assuming that the light travels relative to the matter it > travels through. Well, the difficulties of accounting for stellar aberration (and other effects) in a fully dragged theory of the kind you espouse are well known. This is precisely why such theories were discarded. I explained the problem in the text you quoted, and you didn't respond. > That is certainly NOT what he says in his famous Treatise on Electricity > and Magnetism. He didn't address the subject there. He addressed the subject years later in his treatise on the aether. So, not only are you appeals to ancient authority irrelevant, your authorities actually contradict everything you say. > In the scenario given by Sylvia, which i was responding to the would > certainly both get the same number for the speed of sound and light. The speeds in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates, one stationary with the source and one approaching the source at speed v, will differ by almost exactly v for sound, but will differ by almost nothing for light (in air, for example), as explained.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 09:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <043586cf-b0b6-4dc3-b898-8779d2de22e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482525 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 7:15:01 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 28/01/2019 11:14, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 28/01/2019 8:37 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > Of course, because there is no ether flying through > > > Michelson's laboratory at any time of the year. In > > > the original experiment the medium was the air in > > > their laboratory, and although the experiment was > > > repeated with the apparatus inside a vacuum chamber, > > > this of course made no difference to the result, because > > > the medium was the matter which remained within the > > > vacuum chamber, which of course defines the same frame > > > of reference as the vacuum chamber itself. > > > So what about light travelling through interplanetary space? That's not > > completely devoid of matter, so your model would imply that it travels > > at the speed of light relative to that matter which will not be the same > > as its speed relative to us. > > Correct, but because the speed of light is very much greater > than the speed of the interplanetary medium the difference > will not be very great. The solar wind is the primary medium and is moving outward from the sun at about 500 to 700 km/sec at earth orbit. That amounts to 0.2% of c and would be VERY noticeable. It doesn't affect the speed of light noticeably and refutes your assertion. > > Yet if its speed relative to us is not the speed of light, our > > calculations of where we should expect to see the other planets will be > > wrong, because they assume a specific transit time. That effect is > > noticeably absent. Your model needs to explain that absence. > > The velocity of light relative to us at any point on light's journey to > us will be the vector addition of the velocity of light (near enough c), Nope. 500 km/sec is not "near enough" by a long shot. > and the velocity of the medium. So to calculate the effect of the > medium you would need to know the magnitude and direction of the > velocity of the medium relative to Earth at all points. No problem to anyone with a little knowledge. > The calculation would be a bit tricky, No it's not. > but if you think you have data which shows this can not be right, do > post a reference Sylvia, and i will gladly take a look at it. It's been posted. YOU ran away ... again. > > Your model is also going to run into problems with extremely high > > vacuums, where the matter consists of particles moving at speed in > > random directions. How is light to determine what its speed should be > > relative to? > > Like most pre-20th century physics theories, Maxwell's e-m theory is a > macroscopic theory, which implies that the medium is treated as > continuous. The theory does of course break down at the atomic scale, > but for most considerations the Solar system is well big enough for the > macroscopic approximation to be applied without significant loss of > accuracy eh! > > keith stein Pure wishful prevarication.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 18:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <VzH3E.212673$mz2.122879@fx23.am4> |
| In reply to | #482532 |
On 28/01/2019 17:07, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 7:15:01 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> On 28/01/2019 11:14, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> On 28/01/2019 8:37 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> >>>> Of course, because there is no ether flying through >>>> Michelson's laboratory at any time of the year. In >>>> the original experiment the medium was the air in >>>> their laboratory, and although the experiment was >>>> repeated with the apparatus inside a vacuum chamber, >>>> this of course made no difference to the result, because >>>> the medium was the matter which remained within the >>>> vacuum chamber, which of course defines the same frame >>>> of reference as the vacuum chamber itself. >> >>> So what about light travelling through interplanetary space? That's not >>> completely devoid of matter, so your model would imply that it travels >>> at the speed of light relative to that matter which will not be the same >>> as its speed relative to us. >> >> Correct, but because the speed of light is very much greater >> than the speed of the interplanetary medium the difference >> will not be very great. > > The solar wind is the primary medium and is moving outward from the > sun at about 500 to 700 km/sec at earth orbit. That amounts to 0.2% > of c and would be VERY noticeable. It doesn't affect the speed of > light noticeably and refutes your assertion. The solar medium spirals outward from the sun,and its effect will depend on both speed and direction, and exactly what measurement is being made. Your .2% figure is just made up nonsense eh! >>> Yet if its speed relative to us is not the speed of light, our >>> calculations of where we should expect to see the other planets will be >>> wrong, because they assume a specific transit time. That effect is >>> noticeably absent. Your model needs to explain that absence. >> >> The velocity of light relative to us at any point on light's journey to >> us will be the vector addition of the velocity of light (near enough c), > > Nope. 500 km/sec is not "near enough" by a long shot. > >> and the velocity of the medium. So to calculate the effect of the >> medium you would need to know the magnitude and direction of the >> velocity of the medium relative to Earth at all points. > > No problem to anyone with a little knowledge. > >> The calculation would be a bit tricky, > > No it's not. Not if you just make up bull shit like you do eh! Gary. >> but if you think you have data which shows this can not be right, do >> post a reference Sylvia, and i will gladly take a look at it. > > It's been posted. YOU ran away ... again. No it hasn't. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 11:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fe695f87-a51f-4b43-9d1e-e5c50c8a2dce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482536 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 11:09:59 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein lied: > > On 28/01/2019 17:07, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > The solar wind is the primary medium and is moving outward from the > > sun at about 500 to 700 km/sec at earth orbit. That amounts to 0.2% > > of c and would be VERY noticeable. It doesn't affect the speed of > > light noticeably and refutes your assertion. > > The solar medium spirals outward from the sun,and its effect > will depend on both speed and direction, Are you listening to your schizophrenic voices that tell you that? It certainly is pure fabrication. "Although it is always directed away from the Sun, it changes speed" https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SolarWind.shtml > and exactly what measurement is being made. More bull plop. Everyone except crackpots know how to measure velocity. > Your .2% figure is just made up nonsense eh! "the slow solar wind is observed to have a velocity of 300–500 km/s, ... the fast solar wind has a typical velocity of 750 km/s" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind#Fast_and_slow_solar_wind A value of 600 km/sec is 600/3x10^5 = 0.002 = 0.2%, dishonest creature. It's just TOO easy to refute your asinine assertions, Keith. > > No it's not. > > Not if you just make up bull shit like you do eh! Gary. Your projecting your own dishonest nature, Keith. > > It's been posted. YOU ran away ... again. > > No it hasn't. > > keith stein Liar! You seem to like it in the middle of a river in northeast Africa. “Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme “Denial is an essential part of existence. Without it I am nothng.” – Jason Krumbine “I have a very highly developed sense of denial.” – Gweneth Paltrow “It’s not denial. I’m just selective about the reality I accept.” – Bill Watterson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 12:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gb9n34Fn6gvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482525 |
On 29/01/2019 1:15 am, Keith Stein wrote: > On 28/01/2019 11:14, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/01/2019 8:37 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 28/01/2019 08:26, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> Michelson Morley was all about measuring the Earth's speed through >>>> the medium that light was thought to propagate through. They >>>> consistently got a result indistinguishable from zero. Even at >>>> different times of year. >>> >>> Of course, because there is no ether flying through >>> Michelson's laboratory at any time of the year. In >>> the original experiment the medium was the air in >>> their laboratory, and although the experiment was >>> repeated with the apparatus inside a vacuum chamber, >>> this of course made no difference to the result, because >>> the medium was the matter which remained within the >>> vacuum chamber, which of course defines the same frame >>> of reference as the vacuum chamber itself. > >> So what about light travelling through interplanetary space? That's >> not completely devoid of matter, so your model would imply that it >> travels at the speed of light relative to that matter which will not >> be the same as its speed relative to us. > > Correct, but because the speed of light is very much greater > than the speed of the interplanetary medium the difference > will not be very great. > >> Yet if its speed relative to us is not the speed of light, our >> calculations of where we should expect to see the other planets will >> be wrong, because they assume a specific transit time. That effect is >> noticeably absent. Your model needs to explain that absence. > > The velocity of light relative to us at any point on light's journey to > us will be the vector addition of the velocity of light (near enough c), > and the velocity of the medium. So to calculate the effect of the > medium you would need to know the magnitude and direction of the > velocity of the medium relative to Earth at all points. The calculation > would be a bit tricky, but if you think you have data which shows this > can not be right, do post a reference Sylvia, and i will gladly take a > look at it. > >> Your model is also going to run into problems with extremely high >> vacuums, where the matter consists of particles moving at speed in >> random directions. How is light to determine what its speed should be >> relative to? > > Like most pre-20th century physics theories, Maxwell's e-m theory is a > macroscopic theory, which implies that the medium is treated as > continuous. The theory does of course break down at the atomic scale, > but for most considerations the Solar system is well big enough for the > macroscopic approximation to be applied without significant loss of > accuracy eh! > > keith stein > >> Sylvia. > You seem to be arguing in favour of a kind of aether dragging model, except in your model, matter substitutes for the aether, no matter how tenuous the matter. Such a model faces the same obstacles as the aether dragging model did. It was impossible to make it fit the experimental evidence without introducing ever more implausible assumptions about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis For your model to be viable, you would have to address all the issues that faced physicists in the pre-relativity era. In the end, they were not successful. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 09:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <J1V3E.430173$3si.286785@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #482565 |
On 29/01/2019 01:03, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 29/01/2019 1:15 am, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 28/01/2019 11:14, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 28/01/2019 8:37 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 28/01/2019 08:26, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>>>> Michelson Morley was all about measuring the Earth's speed through >>>>> the medium that light was thought to propagate through. They >>>>> consistently got a result indistinguishable from zero. Even at >>>>> different times of year. >>>> >>>> Of course, because there is no ether flying through >>>> Michelson's laboratory at any time of the year. In >>>> the original experiment the medium was the air in >>>> their laboratory, and although the experiment was >>>> repeated with the apparatus inside a vacuum chamber, >>>> this of course made no difference to the result, because >>>> the medium was the matter which remained within the >>>> vacuum chamber, which of course defines the same frame >>>> of reference as the vacuum chamber itself. >> >>> So what about light travelling through interplanetary space? That's >>> not completely devoid of matter, so your model would imply that it >>> travels at the speed of light relative to that matter which will not >>> be the same as its speed relative to us. >> >> Correct, but because the speed of light is very much greater >> than the speed of the interplanetary medium the difference >> will not be very great. >> >>> Yet if its speed relative to us is not the speed of light, our >>> calculations of where we should expect to see the other planets will >>> be wrong, because they assume a specific transit time. That effect is >>> noticeably absent. Your model needs to explain that absence. >> >> The velocity of light relative to us at any point on light's journey to >> us will be the vector addition of the velocity of light (near enough c), >> and the velocity of the medium. So to calculate the effect of the >> medium you would need to know the magnitude and direction of the >> velocity of the medium relative to Earth at all points. The calculation >> would be a bit tricky, but if you think you have data which shows this >> can not be right, do post a reference Sylvia, and i will gladly take a >> look at it. >> >>> Your model is also going to run into problems with extremely high >>> vacuums, where the matter consists of particles moving at speed in >>> random directions. How is light to determine what its speed should be >>> relative to? >> >> Like most pre-20th century physics theories, Maxwell's e-m theory is a >> macroscopic theory, which implies that the medium is treated as >> continuous. The theory does of course break down at the atomic scale, >> but for most considerations the Solar system is well big enough for the >> macroscopic approximation to be applied without significant loss of >> accuracy eh! >> >> keith stein >> >>> Sylvia. >> > > You seem to be arguing in favour of a kind of aether dragging model, > except in your model, matter substitutes for the aether, no matter how > tenuous the matter. Exactly so Sylvia. One could say that it is equivalent to a fully dragged ether model, but i would much rather we not do that, as, from experience, the introduction of the notion of "ether" only serves to confuse. The medium, for any wave, be it water, sound, or light, is the "matter" which it is passing through. > Such a model faces the same obstacles as the aether dragging model did. > It was impossible to make it fit the experimental evidence without > introducing ever more implausible assumptions about it. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis If we limit our discussion to inertial coordinate systems, like Einstein did in his SR, i do not agree that any additional assumptions are required. Your link, while entirely appropriate and relevant, actually illustrates how the notion of "ether" only served to confuse. I would happily explain the fallacies in any of those arguments given in your Wikipedia article, but really do not have time to take that lot on right now eh! > For your model to be viable, you would have to address all the issues > that faced physicists in the pre-relativity era. In the end, they were > not successful. > Pick the argument which you think most clearly demonstrates that my model is wrong Sylvia, and i will explain to you why it doesn't eh! keith stein > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 21:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbap0sFu3n3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482581 |
On 29/01/2019 8:29 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 29/01/2019 01:03, Sylvia Else wrote: >> You seem to be arguing in favour of a kind of aether dragging model, >> except in your model, matter substitutes for the aether, no matter how >> tenuous the matter. > > Exactly so Sylvia. One could say that it is equivalent > to a fully dragged ether model, but i would much rather we > not do that, as, from experience, the introduction of the > notion of "ether" only serves to confuse. The medium, for > any wave, be it water, sound, or light, is the "matter" > which it is passing through. > >> Such a model faces the same obstacles as the aether dragging model >> did. It was impossible to make it fit the experimental evidence >> without introducing ever more implausible assumptions about it. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis > > If we limit our discussion to inertial coordinate systems, > like Einstein did in his SR, i do not agree that any > additional assumptions are required. Your link, while > entirely appropriate and relevant, actually illustrates > how the notion of "ether" only served to confuse. I would > happily explain the fallacies in any of those arguments > given in your Wikipedia article, but really do not have > time to take that lot on right now eh! > >> For your model to be viable, you would have to address all the issues >> that faced physicists in the pre-relativity era. In the end, they were >> not successful. >> > > Pick the argument which you think most clearly > demonstrates that my model is wrong Sylvia, and > i will explain to you why it doesn't eh! > > keith stein > >> Sylvia. > > Let's consider the situation being examined by the Fizeau experiment. If light travels through stationary water at some speed v, and then the water itself is moved at speed w relative to some observer, what does your model say about the speed that the light will travel relative to that observer. v +/- w? Something else? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 15:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2zi4E.352357$ZE1.251104@fx24.am4> |
| In reply to | #482582 |
Den 29.01.2019 11.42, skrev Sylvia Else: > On 29/01/2019 8:29 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> Pick the argument which you think most clearly >> demonstrates that my model is wrong Sylvia, and >> i will explain to you why it doesn't eh! >> >> keith stein >> >>> Sylvia. >> >> > > Let's consider the situation being examined by the Fizeau experiment. > > If light travels through stationary water at some speed v, and then the > water itself is moved at speed w relative to some observer, what does > your model say about the speed that the light will travel relative to > that observer. > > v +/- w? > > Something else? > > Sylvia. > Nothing to say about Fizeau's experiment, Keith? https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 16:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <RSj4E.592805$Fi6.514076@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #482582 |
On 29/01/2019 10:42, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 29/01/2019 8:29 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 29/01/2019 01:03, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> You seem to be arguing in favour of a kind of aether dragging model, >>> except in your model, matter substitutes for the aether, no matter >>> how tenuous the matter. >> >> Exactly so Sylvia. One could say that it is equivalent >> to a fully dragged ether model, but i would much rather we >> not do that, as, from experience, the introduction of the >> notion of "ether" only serves to confuse. The medium, for >> any wave, be it water, sound, or light, is the "matter" >> which it is passing through. >> >>> Such a model faces the same obstacles as the aether dragging model >>> did. It was impossible to make it fit the experimental evidence >>> without introducing ever more implausible assumptions about it. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis >> >> If we limit our discussion to inertial coordinate systems, >> like Einstein did in his SR, i do not agree that any >> additional assumptions are required. Your link, while >> entirely appropriate and relevant, actually illustrates >> how the notion of "ether" only served to confuse. I would >> happily explain the fallacies in any of those arguments >> given in your Wikipedia article, but really do not have >> time to take that lot on right now eh! >> >>> For your model to be viable, you would have to address all the issues >>> that faced physicists in the pre-relativity era. In the end, they >>> were not successful. >>> >> >> Pick the argument which you think most clearly >> demonstrates that my model is wrong Sylvia, and >> i will explain to you why it doesn't eh! >> >> keith stein >> >>> Sylvia. >> >> > > Let's consider the situation being examined by the Fizeau experiment. > > If light travels through stationary water at some speed v, and then the > water itself is moved at speed w relative to some observer, what does > your model say about the speed that the light will travel relative to > that observer. > > v +/- w? > > Something else? > > Sylvia. Sorry for the delay responding, been away on the boat. If you put the water in a tank on a train, then for sure it is easy (for me :) ) to show that the speed of light in the water relative to observer on the embankment = v +/- w where v is the speed of the train, and w = c/n(water) Now this was not of course how Fizeau determined the speed of light in moving water, and i have two quite separate objections to Fizeau's method. Firstly he relies on reversing the water flow without changing the optical path by a fraction on the wavelength of light, and i am very doubtful that he could do that, or know that he had, even if he could. Even more important, because the water circulates, i.e. changes direction, the velocity of water is not constant, and therefore the water does not constitute an inertial frame of reference. One of the few things Einstein got right, in my opinion, was to start by limiting his considerations to inertial ,constant velocity, systems, as Einstein did his SR. So is there ANY experiment (using inertial systems) which proves that light does not travel with a velocity appropriate to, and relative to, the matter it is traveling through, Sylvia? keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 20:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k9n4E.219224$AD1.24444@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #482614 |
Den 30.01.2019 17.00, skrev Keith Stein: > On 29/01/2019 10:42, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> Let's consider the situation being examined by the Fizeau experiment. >> >> If light travels through stationary water at some speed v, and then >> the water itself is moved at speed w relative to some observer, what >> does your model say about the speed that the light will travel >> relative to that observer. >> >> v +/- w? >> >> Something else? >> >> Sylvia. > > Sorry for the delay responding, been away on the boat. > > If you put the water in a tank on a train, then for sure > it is easy (for me :) ) to show that the speed of light > in the water relative to observer on the embankment > = v +/- w > where v is the speed of the train, and w = c/n(water) > > Now this was not of course how Fizeau determined the > speed of light in moving water, and i have two quite > separate objections to Fizeau's method. Firstly he > relies on reversing the water flow without changing > the optical path by a fraction on the wavelength of > light, and i am very doubtful that he could do that, > or know that he had, even if he could. > > Even more important, because the water circulates, > i.e. changes direction, the velocity of water is > not constant, and therefore the water does not > constitute an inertial frame of reference. > > One of the few things Einstein got right, in my > opinion, was to start by limiting his considerations > to inertial ,constant velocity, systems, as Einstein > did his SR. > > So is there ANY experiment (using inertial systems) > which proves that light does not travel with a velocity > appropriate to, and relative to, the matter it is > traveling through, Sylvia? https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 22:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vyp4E.602574$Fi6.349429@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #482626 |
On 30/01/2019 19:45, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 30.01.2019 17.00, skrev Keith Stein: >> On 29/01/2019 10:42, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> Let's consider the situation being examined by the Fizeau experiment. >>> >>> If light travels through stationary water at some speed v, and then >>> the water itself is moved at speed w relative to some observer, what >>> does your model say about the speed that the light will travel >>> relative to that observer. >>> >>> v +/- w? >>> >>> Something else? >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Sorry for the delay responding, been away on the boat. >> >> If you put the water in a tank on a train, then for sure >> it is easy (for me :) ) to show that the speed of light >> in the water relative to observer on the embankment >> = v +/- w >> where v is the speed of the train, and w = c/n(water) >> >> Now this was not of course how Fizeau determined the >> speed of light in moving water, and i have two quite >> separate objections to Fizeau's method. Firstly he >> relies on reversing the water flow without changing >> the optical path by a fraction on the wavelength of >> light, and i am very doubtful that he could do that, >> or know that he had, even if he could. >> >> Even more important, because the water circulates, >> i.e. changes direction, the velocity of water is >> not constant, and therefore the water does not >> constitute an inertial frame of reference. >> >> One of the few things Einstein got right, in my >> opinion, was to start by limiting his considerations >> to inertial ,constant velocity, systems, as Einstein >> did his SR. >> >> So is there ANY experiment (using inertial systems) >> which proves that light does not travel with a velocity >> appropriate to, and relative to, the matter it is >> traveling through, Sylvia? > > > https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf > https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf > Thank you Paul. Your links links on Fizeau are appreciated, but what do you want me to say that i didn't say to Sylvia ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 23:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uvq4E.602577$Fi6.78185@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #482630 |
On 30/01/2019 22:28, Keith Stein wrote: > On 30/01/2019 19:45, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 30.01.2019 17.00, skrev Keith Stein: >>> On 29/01/2019 10:42, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>> Let's consider the situation being examined by the Fizeau experiment. >>>> >>>> If light travels through stationary water at some speed v, and then >>>> the water itself is moved at speed w relative to some observer, what >>>> does your model say about the speed that the light will travel >>>> relative to that observer. >>>> >>>> v +/- w? >>>> >>>> Something else? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Sorry for the delay responding, been away on the boat. >>> >>> If you put the water in a tank on a train, then for sure >>> it is easy (for me :) ) to show that the speed of light >>> in the water relative to observer on the embankment >>> = v +/- w >>> where v is the speed of the train, and w = c/n(water) >>> >>> Now this was not of course how Fizeau determined the >>> speed of light in moving water, and i have two quite >>> separate objections to Fizeau's method. Firstly he >>> relies on reversing the water flow without changing >>> the optical path by a fraction on the wavelength of >>> light, and i am very doubtful that he could do that, >>> or know that he had, even if he could. >>> >>> Even more important, because the water circulates, >>> i.e. changes direction, the velocity of water is >>> not constant, and therefore the water does not >>> constitute an inertial frame of reference. >>> >>> One of the few things Einstein got right, in my >>> opinion, was to start by limiting his considerations >>> to inertial ,constant velocity, systems, as Einstein >>> did his SR. >>> >>> So is there ANY experiment (using inertial systems) >>> which proves that light does not travel with a velocity >>> appropriate to, and relative to, the matter it is >>> traveling through, Sylvia? >> >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf >> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf >> > > Thank you Paul. Your links links on Fizeau are appreciated, > but what do you want me to say that i didn't say to Sylvia ? Sorry Paul, i posted in haste, without studying your links, and now that i do, i do see that they do indeed attempt to answer my criticisms of Fizeau. Your first link concludes with the somewhat mysterious statement "We now see that the ether is entirely unaffected by the motion of the matter which it permeates", which seems a very strange conclusion for anyone to come to, to me. Can you explain ? Henry has claimed that Fizeau has been repeated with air as the moving medium. Can you confirm that, and do you have any link for that? Thanks again. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 18:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56307914-bea7-42dd-a4f8-40c6d04d7a89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482631 |
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 5:33:49 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: > Henry has claimed that Fizeau has been repeated with air > as the moving medium. Can you confirm that, and do you have > any link for that? Measurements have been made in flowing air, rotating glass disks, fused silica, etc. using light of varying wavelengths. Zeeman's measurements using different colors of light. He used -very- large bore tubes to eliminate uncertainty about the flow rate, requiring special permission to tap directly into Amsterdam's main water line. Being a Nobel prize-winner helped, I imagine. https://archive.org/details/p1proceedingsofs17akad/page/445 https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofsec181koni/page/398 Measurements of the drag coefficient in various fluids including air https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1702908 Measurement using rotating solid silica disk https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.16.313 Various glass samples of differing refractive index and dispersion https://www.osapublishing.org/josab/abstract.cfm?uri=josab-5-3-674
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 10:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <hEz4E.188898$gy2.22779@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #482631 |
Den 31.01.2019 00.33, skrev Keith Stein: >> On 30/01/2019 19:45, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 30.01.2019 17.00, skrev Keith Stein: >>>> On 29/01/2019 10:42, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Let's consider the situation being examined by the Fizeau experiment. >>>>> >>>>> If light travels through stationary water at some speed v, and then >>>>> the water itself is moved at speed w relative to some observer, >>>>> what does your model say about the speed that the light will travel >>>>> relative to that observer. >>>>> >>>>> v +/- w? >>>>> >>>>> Something else? >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> Sorry for the delay responding, been away on the boat. >>>> >>>> If you put the water in a tank on a train, then for sure >>>> it is easy (for me :) ) to show that the speed of light >>>> in the water relative to observer on the embankment >>>> = v +/- w >>>> where v is the speed of the train, and w = c/n(water) >>>> >>>> Now this was not of course how Fizeau determined the >>>> speed of light in moving water, and i have two quite >>>> separate objections to Fizeau's method. Firstly he >>>> relies on reversing the water flow without changing >>>> the optical path by a fraction on the wavelength of >>>> light, and i am very doubtful that he could do that, >>>> or know that he had, even if he could. >>>> >>>> Even more important, because the water circulates, >>>> i.e. changes direction, the velocity of water is >>>> not constant, and therefore the water does not >>>> constitute an inertial frame of reference. >>>> >>>> One of the few things Einstein got right, in my >>>> opinion, was to start by limiting his considerations >>>> to inertial ,constant velocity, systems, as Einstein >>>> did his SR. >>>> >>>> So is there ANY experiment (using inertial systems) >>>> which proves that light does not travel with a velocity >>>> appropriate to, and relative to, the matter it is >>>> traveling through, Sylvia? >>> >>> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf >>> > > Your first link concludes with the somewhat mysterious > statement "We now see that the ether is entirely unaffected > by the motion of the matter which it permeates", which seems > a very strange conclusion for anyone to come to, to me. Can > you explain ? No. Michelson's thoughts about the "luminiferous ether" are quite irrelevant. The important point is what he measured, not how he in 1886 interpreted his measurements. He measured that the speed of light in moving water was: c/n ± x⋅v where x = 0.437 ± 0.02 when n = 1.334 This shows that the speed c/n transforms according to the Lorentz transform, and not according to the Galilean transform. > > Henry has claimed that Fizeau has been repeated with air > as the moving medium. Can you confirm that, and do you have > any link for that? That is in the very same paper: https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf see page 385 The x was measured to be less than the measuring precision 0.02. The Lorentz transform predicts x = 0.0036 (n = 1.0018) The Galilean transform predicts x = 1 See the posting from from Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog He has references to several measurements in different media. > > Thanks again. > > keith stein > Fizeau's experiment and its numerous repetitions show that the speed of light in a medium transforms according to the Lorentz transform, not according to the Galilean transform. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web