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 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 03:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f372ee3d-da1a-4f27-9cde-25ecbb955df5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482514 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:57:49 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 28/01/2019 03:12, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > 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, Irrelevant to discussion about vacuum. The vacuum of interstellar space is close enough for most purposes and certainly for the speed of light. > 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. Complete and utter monomania which has NOTHING to do with real vacuum. > 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. Close enough for most purposes. > The speed of light varies > with the nature of, and the velocity of, the local medium > which it is traveling through. It makes no sense to consider the interstellar vacuum as a medium. This has been cogently explained but here you are babbling the same old asinine baloney. Interstellar (and even interplanetary) vacuum does NOT a frame of reference for light make. Experimental evidence refutes your nonsensical assertion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 19:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hsI3E.145997$dp2.22292@fx18.am4> |
| In reply to | #482521 |
On 28/01/2019 11:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, Keith Stein wrote: >> But there isn't any vacuum Sylvia, > Irrelevant to discussion about vacuum. Sure do seem relevant to me eh! :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 11:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b1ffed65-d7a3-450a-ba47-89f29fb4d6b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482540 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:10:07 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 28/01/2019 11:50, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Monday, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > But there isn't any vacuum Sylvia, > > > Irrelevant to discussion about vacuum. > > Sure do seem relevant to me eh! :) That's because you are a stupid, ignorant, demented crackpot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 16:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbi4lpFil56U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482521 |
On 28/01/2019 10:50 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:57:49 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> On 28/01/2019 03:12, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> That raises issues to do with the medium, and yet more red herrings. >>> Let's stick to discussions about light in a vacuum. >> >> But there isn't any vacuum Sylvia, > I missed, or forgot about, that comment earlier. The vacuum is interplanetary space is pretty thin. Certainly what remains in it is not dense enough to be described as having any particular velocity. Interactions between the particles therein are very infrequent. So, Keith, how is your theory going to determine the velocity of light within that level of vacuum? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 09:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <y8U4E.231486$mz2.36197@fx23.am4> |
| In reply to | #482706 |
On 01/02/2019 05:44, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/01/2019 10:50 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:57:49 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>> On 28/01/2019 03:12, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>> 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, >> > > I missed, or forgot about, that comment earlier. > > The vacuum is interplanetary space is pretty thin. Certainly what > remains in it is not dense enough to be described as having any > particular velocity. Interactions between the particles therein are very > infrequent. > > So, Keith, how is your theory going to determine the velocity of light > within that level of vacuum? Good question, Sylvia. As a first approximation it must circulate around the Sun, in the same direction and speed as the planets. Additionally there will be an outward radial velocity from the Sun, caused by the Solar wind. If you look up intergalactic medium on Google you will see, what i take to be computer simulations, of the the interplanetary medium, showing it spiraling out from the Sun, and so i suggest we go with those computer simulations for a start eh! keith stein > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 21:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbimp7Fme4eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482714 |
On 1/02/2019 8:17 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 01/02/2019 05:44, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/01/2019 10:50 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:57:49 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> >>>> On 28/01/2019 03:12, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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, >>> >> >> I missed, or forgot about, that comment earlier. >> >> The vacuum is interplanetary space is pretty thin. Certainly what >> remains in it is not dense enough to be described as having any >> particular velocity. Interactions between the particles therein are >> very infrequent. >> >> So, Keith, how is your theory going to determine the velocity of light >> within that level of vacuum? > > Good question, Sylvia. As a first approximation it must circulate > around the Sun, in the same direction and speed as the planets. > Additionally there will be an outward radial velocity from the Sun, > caused by the Solar wind. If you look up intergalactic medium on > Google you will see, what i take to be computer simulations, of the > the interplanetary medium, showing it spiraling out from the Sun, and > so i suggest we go with those computer simulations for a start eh! > > keith stein > The solar wind doesn't circulate. But in any case, you're evading the question. The issue relates to vacuums with very few particles per unit volume, and in which the particles are moving in different directions at different speeds. In interstellar space, and away from nebulae, such particles as there are are likely to have been emitted from stars at all kinds of speeds and directions. There's not going to be any way to meaningfully attach a specific speed to a volume of space. So how is your theory going to determine the speed of light? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 14:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XVY4E.141895$Ur2.50580@fx14.am4> |
| In reply to | #482717 |
On 01/02/2019 10:53, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/02/2019 8:17 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 01/02/2019 05:44, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 28/01/2019 10:50 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:57:49 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 28/01/2019 03:12, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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, >>>> >>> >>> I missed, or forgot about, that comment earlier. >>> >>> The vacuum is interplanetary space is pretty thin. Certainly what >>> remains in it is not dense enough to be described as having any >>> particular velocity. Interactions between the particles therein are >>> very infrequent. >>> >>> So, Keith, how is your theory going to determine the velocity of >>> light within that level of vacuum? >> >> Good question, Sylvia. As a first approximation it must circulate >> around the Sun, in the same direction and speed as the planets. >> Additionally there will be an outward radial velocity from the Sun, >> caused by the Solar wind. If you look up intergalactic medium on >> Google you will see, what i take to be computer simulations, of the >> the interplanetary medium, showing it spiraling out from the Sun, and >> so i suggest we go with those computer simulations for a start eh! >> >> keith stein >> > > The solar wind doesn't circulate. > > But in any case, you're evading the question. The issue relates to > vacuums with very few particles per unit volume, and in which the > particles are moving in different directions at different speeds. In > interstellar space, and away from nebulae, such particles as there are > are likely to have been emitted from stars at all kinds of speeds and > directions. If you look at a sufficiently large volume the MACROSCOPIC APPROXIMATION WILL STILL APPLY irrespective how low the density of the medium. The frame of reference in which the medium is stationary is the frame of reference in which that finite density has zero momentum. > There's not going to be any way to meaningfully attach a > specific speed to a volume of space. So how is your theory going to > determine the speed of light? > Need to know the velocity of the medium, and the velocity of light in the medium, Sylvia, Velocity of that light in your frame of reference is just the vector addition of those two velocities. If you don't know one then i can't do the sum eh! Sylvia. keith stein > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 08:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58f95dd9-5eda-4de4-a541-b0c27c593e09@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482730 |
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 7:43:06 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 01/02/2019 10:53, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 1/02/2019 8:17 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > Good question, Sylvia. As a first approximation it must circulate > > > around the Sun, in the same direction and speed as the planets. > > > Additionally there will be an outward radial velocity from the Sun, > > > caused by the Solar wind. If you look up intergalactic medium on > > > Google you will see, what i take to be computer simulations, of the > > > the interplanetary medium, showing it spiraling out from the Sun, and > > > so i suggest we go with those computer simulations for a start eh! > > > > The solar wind doesn't circulate. > > > > But in any case, you're evading the question. The issue relates to > > vacuums with very few particles per unit volume, and in which the > > particles are moving in different directions at different speeds. In > > interstellar space, and away from nebulae, such particles as there are > > are likely to have been emitted from stars at all kinds of speeds and > > directions. > > If you look at a sufficiently large volume the MACROSCOPIC APPROXIMATION > WILL STILL APPLY irrespective how low the density of the medium. The > frame of reference in which the medium is stationary is the frame of > reference in which that finite density has zero momentum. This refuted by communications with spacecraft: The speed of light is NOT affected by the solar wind. > > There's not going to be any way to meaningfully attach a > > specific speed to a volume of space. So how is your theory going to > > determine the speed of light? > > > > Need to know the velocity of the medium, > and the velocity of light in the medium, Sylvia, We know it: it's about 500 km/second. > Velocity of that light in your frame of reference > is just the vector addition of those two velocities. Nope. That assertion is refuted by experimental evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 09:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cafa37f2-bed8-4e2c-97db-34f52321f60c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482733 |
On Friday, 1 February 2019 17:12:53 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > Velocity of that light in your frame of reference > > is just the vector addition of those two velocities. > > Nope. That assertion is refuted by experimental evidence. Experimental evidence imagined by poor fanatic idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q31tf4$ehu$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #482730 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 01/02/2019 10:53, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 1/02/2019 8:17 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> The vacuum is interplanetary space is pretty thin. Certainly what >>>> remains in it is not dense enough to be described as having any >>>> particular velocity. Interactions between the particles therein are >>>> very infrequent. >>>> >>>> So, Keith, how is your theory going to determine the velocity of >>>> light within that level of vacuum? >>> >>> Good question, Sylvia. As a first approximation it must circulate >>> around the Sun, in the same direction and speed as the planets. Why would it? The solar wind goes pretty much straight out from the sun. >>> Additionally there will be an outward radial velocity from the Sun, >>> caused by the Solar wind. That's the only component. >>> If you look up intergalactic medium on >>> Google you will see, what i take to be computer simulations, of the >>> the interplanetary medium, showing it spiraling out from the Sun, and >>> so i suggest we go with those computer simulations for a start eh! >>> >>> keith stein >>> >> >> The solar wind doesn't circulate. >> >> But in any case, you're evading the question. The issue relates to >> vacuums with very few particles per unit volume, and in which the >> particles are moving in different directions at different speeds. In >> interstellar space, and away from nebulae, such particles as there are >> are likely to have been emitted from stars at all kinds of speeds and >> directions. >If you look at a sufficiently large volume the MACROSCOPIC APPROXIMATION >WILL STILL APPLY irrespective how low the density of the medium. No, it is an APPROXIMATION. Like all APPROXIMATIONS, it doesn't work everywhere. In the case of light with wavelengths smaller than the interparticle distance, the light is traveling through a VACUUM most of the time. >> There's not going to be any way to meaningfully attach a >> specific speed to a volume of space. So how is your theory going to >> determine the speed of light? >Need to know the velocity of the medium, >and the velocity of light in the medium, Sylvia, 500 km/sec for the solar wind, straight away from the sun. >Velocity of that light in your frame of reference >is just the vector addition of those two velocities. WRONG. Known to be false since Fizeau, way back in 1851. Verified many, many times since then, part of how things like laser gyroscopes work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 21:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <L335E.882551$Sj4.448565@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #482738 |
On 01/02/2019 16:51, Michael Moroney wrote: > interplanetary medium, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_medium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 22:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q32gtj$o46$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #482751 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 01/02/2019 16:51, Michael Moroney wrote: >> interplanetary medium, >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_medium What about it? Are you referring to the shape of the magnetic field and the heliospheric current it induces in it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet That's not the flow of the solar wind itself, but of magnetic and electric effects from the sun's rotating magnetic field on it. The Solar wind speed is some 500 km/sec, away from the sun. If light traveled at c+v away from the sun and c-v toward it, it would be _easily_ detected. 500 km/sec is over 0.15% the speed of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 22:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jY35E.691475$kk4.603779@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #482755 |
On 01/02/2019 22:23, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 01/02/2019 16:51, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> interplanetary medium, > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_medium > > What about it? > > Are you referring to the shape of the magnetic field and the > heliospheric current it induces in it? > That's not the flow of the solar wind itself, but of magnetic > and electric effects from the sun's rotating magnetic field > on it. > > The Solar wind speed is some 500 km/sec, away from the sun. > If light traveled at c+v away from the sun and c-v toward it, > it would be _easily_ detected. 500 km/sec is over 0.15% the > speed of light. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet Wikipedia wrote: "The solar wind travels outward from the Sun at a uniform rate, but an individual jet of solar wind from a particular feature on the Sun's surface rotates with the solar rotation, making a spiral pattern in space. Unlike the jet from a sprinkler, the solar wind is tied to the magnetic field by MHD effects, so that magnetic field lines are tied to the material in the jet and take on an arithmetic spiral shape...."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-02 11:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbk5grF1v42U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482730 |
On 2/02/2019 1:43 am, Keith Stein wrote: > On 01/02/2019 10:53, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 1/02/2019 8:17 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 01/02/2019 05:44, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 28/01/2019 10:50 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>>> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:57:49 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28/01/2019 03:12, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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, >>>>> >>>> >>>> I missed, or forgot about, that comment earlier. >>>> >>>> The vacuum is interplanetary space is pretty thin. Certainly what >>>> remains in it is not dense enough to be described as having any >>>> particular velocity. Interactions between the particles therein are >>>> very infrequent. >>>> >>>> So, Keith, how is your theory going to determine the velocity of >>>> light within that level of vacuum? >>> >>> Good question, Sylvia. As a first approximation it must circulate >>> around the Sun, in the same direction and speed as the planets. >>> Additionally there will be an outward radial velocity from the Sun, >>> caused by the Solar wind. If you look up intergalactic medium on >>> Google you will see, what i take to be computer simulations, of the >>> the interplanetary medium, showing it spiraling out from the Sun, and >>> so i suggest we go with those computer simulations for a start eh! >>> >>> keith stein >>> >> >> The solar wind doesn't circulate. >> >> But in any case, you're evading the question. The issue relates to >> vacuums with very few particles per unit volume, and in which the >> particles are moving in different directions at different speeds. In >> interstellar space, and away from nebulae, such particles as there are >> are likely to have been emitted from stars at all kinds of speeds and >> directions. > > If you look at a sufficiently large volume the MACROSCOPIC APPROXIMATION > WILL STILL APPLY irrespective how low the density of the medium. The > frame of reference in which the medium is stationary is the frame of > reference in which that finite density has zero momentum. > > > > > >> There's not going to be any way to meaningfully attach a specific >> speed to a volume of space. So how is your theory going to determine >> the speed of light? >> > > Need to know the velocity of the medium, > and the velocity of light in the medium, Sylvia, > > Velocity of that light in your frame of reference > is just the vector addition of those two velocities. > > If you don't know one then i can't do the sum eh! Sylvia. > > keith stein > > >> Sylvia. > > > For a given volume of space, one can always find a frame in which the content has net zero momentum. But for a different, but overlapping volume, the frame will not necessarily be the same. Your response would presumably be that that is just evidence that an insufficiently large volume has been considered. Yet it appears to me that no matter how large a volume you choose, one can always find a larger volume that totally encloses if for which the net momentum is different, and this is going to apply even on intergalactic scales. Despite that, for vacuum MM style experiments on Earth, you claim that the speed of light is determined by a small volume (by comparison). So, what is the rule that unambiguously determines the speed of light in your model? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-02 07:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7qb5E.234531$mz2.42755@fx23.am4> |
| In reply to | #482762 |
On 02/02/2019 00:11, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/02/2019 1:43 am, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 01/02/2019 10:53, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 1/02/2019 8:17 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 01/02/2019 05:44, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 28/01/2019 10:50 pm, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:57:49 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 03:12, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I missed, or forgot about, that comment earlier. >>>>> >>>>> The vacuum is interplanetary space is pretty thin. Certainly what >>>>> remains in it is not dense enough to be described as having any >>>>> particular velocity. Interactions between the particles therein are >>>>> very infrequent. >>>>> >>>>> So, Keith, how is your theory going to determine the velocity of >>>>> light within that level of vacuum? >>>> >>>> Good question, Sylvia. As a first approximation it must circulate >>>> around the Sun, in the same direction and speed as the planets. >>>> Additionally there will be an outward radial velocity from the Sun, >>>> caused by the Solar wind. If you look up intergalactic medium on >>>> Google you will see, what i take to be computer simulations, of the >>>> the interplanetary medium, showing it spiraling out from the Sun, and >>>> so i suggest we go with those computer simulations for a start eh! >>>> >>>> keith stein >>>> >>> >>> The solar wind doesn't circulate. >>> >>> But in any case, you're evading the question. The issue relates to >>> vacuums with very few particles per unit volume, and in which the >>> particles are moving in different directions at different speeds. In >>> interstellar space, and away from nebulae, such particles as there >>> are are likely to have been emitted from stars at all kinds of speeds >>> and directions. >> >> If you look at a sufficiently large volume the MACROSCOPIC APPROXIMATION >> WILL STILL APPLY irrespective how low the density of the medium. The >> frame of reference in which the medium is stationary is the frame of >> reference in which that finite density has zero momentum. >> >> >> >> >> >>> There's not going to be any way to meaningfully attach a specific >>> speed to a volume of space. So how is your theory going to determine >>> the speed of light? >>> >> >> Need to know the velocity of the medium, >> and the velocity of light in the medium, Sylvia, >> >> Velocity of that light in your frame of reference >> is just the vector addition of those two velocities. >> >> If you don't know one then i can't do the sum eh! Sylvia. >> >> keith stein >> >> >>> Sylvia. > For a given volume of space, one can always find a frame in which the > content has net zero momentum. True, and providing the number of atoms contained in the volume is sufficiently large that the momentum of any single atom does not SIGNIFICANTLY effect the momentum in the volume, then that will be the frame of reference with which light travels through that (little) volume with its characteristic velocity Sylvia. > But for a different, but overlapping > volume, the frame will not necessarily be the same. This is also true Sylvia, and this would be because the average velocity through the small volume does not necessarily equal the average velocity through the large volume eh! > Your response would presumably be that that is just evidence that an > insufficiently large volume has been considered. Yet it appears to me > that no matter how large a volume you choose, one can always find a > larger volume that totally encloses if for which the net momentum is > different, and this is going to apply even on intergalactic scales. > Imagine sound waves passing through a turbulent flow of air Sylvia. The instantaneous velocity of that sound at any one point, relative to you is in fact continuously changing, but for most purposes we don't need to consider this, and it is not difficult to obtain the average velocity of sound though a turbulent air flow. That is entirely analogous to how it is with light waves too eh! > Despite that, for vacuum MM style experiments on Earth, you claim that > the speed of light is determined by a small volume (by comparison). For vacuum MM style experiments there is no problem Sylvia. The frame of reference in which the medium is stationary, is simple the frame of reference in which the vacuum chamber is stationary. > So, what is the rule that unambiguously determines the speed of light in > your model? In my (Maxwell's) model, you need to determine the frame of reference in which the macroscopic medium is stationary, and if you can't do that then you can't determine the speed of light relative to you. Similar to sound waves eh! keith stein > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-02 22:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gblbtkF9oheU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482775 |
On 2/02/2019 6:13 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 02/02/2019 00:11, Sylvia Else wrote: >> For a given volume of space, one can always find a frame in which the >> content has net zero momentum. > > True, and providing the number of atoms contained in the volume > is sufficiently large that the momentum of any single atom does > not SIGNIFICANTLY effect the momentum in the volume, then that > will be the frame of reference with which light travels through > that (little) volume with its characteristic velocity Sylvia. > >> But for a different, but overlapping volume, the frame will not >> necessarily be the same. > > This is also true Sylvia, and this would be because > the average velocity through the small volume does > not necessarily equal the average velocity through > the large volume eh! At some point in space, light is travelling at some speed. So which volume does the Universe use for its average - the small one, or the large one? > >> Your response would presumably be that that is just evidence that an >> insufficiently large volume has been considered. Yet it appears to me >> that no matter how large a volume you choose, one can always find a >> larger volume that totally encloses if for which the net momentum is >> different, and this is going to apply even on intergalactic scales. >> > > Imagine sound waves passing through a turbulent flow of air Sylvia. > The instantaneous velocity of that sound at any one point, relative > to you is in fact continuously changing, but for most purposes we > don't need to consider this, and it is not difficult to obtain the > average velocity of sound though a turbulent air flow. > That is entirely analogous to how it is with light waves too eh! We may not usually care about the effects of turbulent flow on sound waves, but we can certainly detect it we want to. > >> Despite that, for vacuum MM style experiments on Earth, you claim that >> the speed of light is determined by a small volume (by comparison). > > For vacuum MM style experiments there is no problem Sylvia. > The frame of reference in which the medium is stationary, > is simple the frame of reference in which the vacuum chamber > is stationary. It's far from clear that that is true. More likely the net momentum of the medium will change each time a particle bounces off the walls of the chamber, causing the same change, in reverse to the chamber itself. The consequences of that would surely have been noticed. And why doesn't that apply to water. > >> So, what is the rule that unambiguously determines the speed of light >> in your model? > > In my (Maxwell's) model, you need to determine the frame > of reference in which the macroscopic medium is stationary, > and if you can't do that then you can't determine the speed > of light relative to you. Similar to sound waves eh! Nothing stops one from measuring the speed of light relative to oneself. The problem for you is explaining why the measurement doesn't produce varying results depending on whether it relates to light passing through a vacuum chamber on Earth, or passing through interplanetary space. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-03 11:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <JiA5E.225848$Pa4.150749@fx30.am4> |
| In reply to | #482779 |
"There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell On 02/02/2019 11:06, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/02/2019 6:13 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 02/02/2019 00:11, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> For a given volume of space, one can always find a frame in which the >>> content has net zero momentum. >> >> True, and providing the number of atoms contained in the volume >> is sufficiently large that the momentum of any single atom does >> not SIGNIFICANTLY effect the momentum in the volume, then that >> will be the frame of reference with which light travels through >> that (little) volume with its characteristic velocity Sylvia. >> >>> But for a different, but overlapping volume, the frame will not >>> necessarily be the same. >> >> This is also true Sylvia, and this would be because >> the average velocity through the small volume does >> not necessarily equal the average velocity through >> the large volume eh! > > At some point in space, light is travelling at some speed. So which > volume does the Universe use for its average - the small one, or the > large one? You make difficulties where there are none Sylvia. As i told you before light waves are totally analogous to how sound behaves. When light travels through the small volume its velocity is determined by the velocity of matter in that small volume, and when light passes through the large volume the speed of light is determined by the velocity of all the little volumes which the light travels through. Just like sound eh! >>> Your response would presumably be that that is just evidence that an >>> insufficiently large volume has been considered. Yet it appears to >>> me that no matter how large a volume you choose, one can always find >>> a larger volume that totally encloses if for which the net momentum >>> is different, and this is going to apply even on intergalactic scales. >>> >> Imagine sound waves passing through a turbulent flow of air Sylvia. >> The instantaneous velocity of that sound at any one point, relative >> to you is in fact continuously changing, but for most purposes we >> don't need to consider this, and it is not difficult to obtain the >> average velocity of sound though a turbulent air flow. >> That is entirely analogous to how it is with light waves too eh! > > We may not usually care about the effects of turbulent flow on sound > waves, but we can certainly detect it we want to. It can also be detected with light waves too Sylvia. Look at how light waves distort as they travel close to a how surface, like just above a road surface on a hot sunny day eh! >>> Despite that, for vacuum MM style experiments on Earth, you claim >>> that the speed of light is determined by a small volume (by comparison). >> >> For vacuum MM style experiments there is no problem Sylvia. >> The frame of reference in which the medium is stationary, >> is simple the frame of reference in which the vacuum chamber >> is stationary. > > It's far from clear that that is true. More likely the net momentum of > the medium will change each time a particle bounces off the walls of the > chamber, causing the same change, in reverse to the chamber itself. The > consequences of that would surely have been noticed. At the macroscopic scale, which is the scale i deal with, "atomic" effects are not noticeable, by definition eh! > And why doesn't that apply to water. It certainly does apply to water Sylvia. Do the MM experiment under water and you will still get no fringe shift eh! >>> So, what is the rule that unambiguously determines the speed of light >>> in your model? >> >> In my (Maxwell's) model, you need to determine the frame >> of reference in which the macroscopic medium is stationary, >> and if you can't do that then you can't determine the speed >> of light relative to you. Similar to sound waves eh! > > Nothing stops one from measuring the speed of light relative to oneself. > The problem for you is explaining why the measurement doesn't produce > varying results depending on whether it relates to light passing through > a vacuum chamber on Earth, > "There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive > and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell > or passing through interplanetary space. The light travels with a velocity (very nearly) equal to c, which is RELATIVE TO THE MATTER which the light is locally passing through, for both cases eh! keith stein > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-03 04:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bcb0927f-492f-46ec-a771-baffecafcecc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482812 |
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 4:31:55 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > "There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive > and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell Cherry-picking quotes leads to misunderstanding. > On 02/02/2019 11:06, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > And why doesn't that apply to water. > > It certainly does apply to water Sylvia. Do the MM experiment under > water and you will still get no fringe shift eh! "Misunderstanding" a rebuttal, Keith? The Fizeau-type experiments with MOVING water refute your assertion because the speed is NOT c +/- v, where v is the velocity of the water. The value is closest to c + v*(1 - 1/n²). This experiment has been repeated many times with increasing accuracy using methods that overcome ALL of the bogus objections you have raised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Repetitions > .... > The light travels with a velocity (very nearly) equal to c, > which is RELATIVE TO THE MATTER which the light is locally > passing through, for both cases eh! > > keith stein Both "c + v" AND "c + v*(1 - 1/n²)" satisfy your claim. Your problem is that you prefer the one refuted by experiment and eschew the one confirmed by experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-03 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PYF5E.174025$JE1.135138@fx11.am4> |
| In reply to | #482813 |
On 03/02/2019 12:12, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 4:31:55 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> "There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive >> and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell > > Cherry-picking quotes leads to misunderstanding. > >> On 02/02/2019 11:06, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> And why doesn't that apply to water. >> >> It certainly does apply to water Sylvia. Do the MM experiment under >> water and you will still get no fringe shift eh! > > "Misunderstanding" a rebuttal, Keith? The Fizeau-type experiments with > MOVING water refute your assertion because the speed is NOT c +/- v, > where v is the velocity of the water. The value is closest to > c + v*(1 - 1/n²). This experiment has been repeated many times with > increasing accuracy using methods that overcome ALL of the bogus objections > you have raised. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Repetitions Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory, it can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates, and if i look at Fizeau's experiment from some other Galilean frame of reference then the time at which anything happened in Fizeau's laboratory is exactly the same in both Galilean frames of reference,and nothing Fizeau discovered changes that fact eh! keith stein > >> .... >> The light travels with a velocity (very nearly) equal to c, >> which is RELATIVE TO THE MATTER which the light is locally >> passing through, for both cases eh! >> >> keith stein > > Both "c + v" AND "c + v*(1 - 1/n²)" satisfy your claim. Your problem is > that you prefer the one refuted by experiment and eschew the one confirmed > by experiment. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 08:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbp4htF4pmhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482828 |
On 4/02/2019 4:58 am, Keith Stein wrote: > On 03/02/2019 12:12, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 4:31:55 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>> "There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive >>> and transmit the undulations of light and heat..." Maxwell >> >> Cherry-picking quotes leads to misunderstanding. >> >>> On 02/02/2019 11:06, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>> And why doesn't that apply to water. >>> >>> It certainly does apply to water Sylvia. Do the MM experiment under >>> water and you will still get no fringe shift eh! >> >> "Misunderstanding" a rebuttal, Keith? The Fizeau-type experiments with >> MOVING water refute your assertion because the speed is NOT c +/- v, >> where v is the velocity of the water. The value is closest to >> c + v*(1 - 1/n²). This experiment has been repeated many times with >> increasing accuracy using methods that overcome ALL of the bogus >> objections >> you have raised. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Repetitions > > > Whatever happens in Fizeau's laboratory, > it can be described in terms of Galilean coordinates, > and if i look at Fizeau's experiment from some other > Galilean frame of reference then the time at which > anything happened in Fizeau's laboratory is exactly > the same in both Galilean frames of reference,and > nothing Fizeau discovered changes that fact eh! > > keith stein > > A direct consequence of that is that an observer travelling alongside moving water would get a different value for the speed of light in water from an observer doing the experiment with stationary water. Any evidence for that effect? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web