Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614301 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-02 16:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-03 09:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 66 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 16:46 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 16:52 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-03 10:24 +1000
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 17:39 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-02 19:43 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 23:23 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:39 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 00:08 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:31 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:45 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:50 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 01:01 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-03 09:52 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-03 12:16 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:04 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:28 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:53 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:03 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-03 22:56 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 10:36 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-05 21:21 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 14:27 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:59 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 00:11 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:12 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-03 13:27 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:02 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 14:36 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 18:45 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 19:15 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:05 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:34 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:49 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:15 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:38 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:03 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 16:10 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-02 23:19 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:22 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 00:26 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:55 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 01:23 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 10:37 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 02:01 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:43 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 03:03 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:23 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 05:29 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 14:33 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 05:39 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 14:57 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 06:08 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 15:42 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 06:53 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2023-07-03 15:21 +0000
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 20:10 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:34 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 12:17 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:17 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:22 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:24 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:39 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 17:22 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:06 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:35 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:14 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-05 21:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qdeyvq.pfc3byfgsr19N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #614516 |
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote: > On July 3, J. J. Lodder wrote: [wrote none of that] > >>> You are disagreeing with Feynman. I'm with Feynman. > > > >> Feynman was snookered by the proposed superluminal > >> communications device, supposedly based on quantum > >> entanglement, utilizing quantum state replication. Until > >> he was informed of its essential defect. > > > > Source? > > Wojiech Zurek. > > Alice and Bob receive a pair of entangled particles. The idea was > that each would make multiple copies of the quantum state of the > received particles. Then, through redundancy, using statistical > methods, they could communicate instantaneously. It should be obvious that both Alice and Bob cannot do that by themselves. > It's a clever idea. Later, someone proved it's impossible to clone a > quantum state. It fooled many people. Though it wasn't intended as > a hoax, the inventors proposed it as physically permissible. I think Zurek himself proved that. Feynman was 'snookered'? [still no source] Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-05 14:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12099b31-179b-4a3b-98c9-1b2c1b466456n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614525 |
On July 5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >> Feynman was snookered by the proposed superluminal >> >> communications device, supposedly based on quantum >> >> entanglement, utilizing quantum state replication. Until >> >> he was informed of its essential defect. > >>> Source? > >> Wojiech Zurek. >> Alice and Bob receive a pair of entangled particles. The idea was > > that each would make multiple copies of the quantum state of the > > received particles. Then, through redundancy, using statistical > > methods, they could communicate instantaneously. > > It should be obvious that both Alice and Bob > cannot do that by themselves. Maybe obvious, but wrong. Alice sends a single bit, by choosing to align her spin detector on the N-S axis, or E-W axis. The receiving apparatus makes multiple copies of the quantum state, and multiple measurements, along specific angles, the same idea Bell used in his paper. Bob can then infer Alice's alignment. >> It's a clever idea. Later, someone proved it's impossible to clone a >> quantum state. It fooled many people. Though it wasn't intended as a hoax > > I think Zurek himself proved that. > Feynman was 'snookered'? [still no source] Zurek, in an interview. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-02 20:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd05c8e4-59ef-4ede-b64a-41b9614ffac2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614313 |
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:23:38 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 7/2/2023 8:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 5:24:53 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 03-July-23 9:46 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source. > >> Run that past me again. Why does particle behaviour mean velocity is not > >> source independent? They look to me to be two unrelated things. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > Particle behavior means something shares the velocity of the source which is the opposite of independence from the velocity of the source. > That's not part of the definition of a particle. > > Don't forget that the SR speed combination formula works for particles, > and at relativistic speeds the velocity is not a simple sum. Light is always moving at relativistic speeds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 00:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u7thp9$3k0vo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614318 |
On 7/2/2023 11:59 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:23:38 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 7/2/2023 8:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> Particle behavior means something shares the velocity of the source which is the opposite of independence from the velocity of the source. >> That's not part of the definition of a particle. >> >> Don't forget that the SR speed combination formula works for particles, >> and at relativistic speeds the velocity is not a simple sum. > Light is always moving at relativistic speeds. Exactly. The speed of light from a source moving at v is not the simple sum c+v but simply c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1dfd3ab5-3256-4d77-9c91-25582b6ac6c9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614323 |
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:11:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 7/2/2023 11:59 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:23:38 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/2/2023 8:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > >>> Particle behavior means something shares the velocity of the source which is the opposite of independence from the velocity of the source. > > >> That's not part of the definition of a particle. > >> > >> Don't forget that the SR speed combination formula works for particles, > >> and at relativistic speeds the velocity is not a simple sum. > > > Light is always moving at relativistic speeds. > Exactly. The speed of light from a source moving at v is not the simple > sum c+v but simply c. Feynman says the opposite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 13:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <GtqdnZWfWN5mjz75nZ2dnZfqlJz8fwAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #614366 |
On 7/3/23 1:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:11:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> The speed of light from a source moving at v is not the simple >> sum c+v but simply c. > Feynman says the opposite. Provide a COMPLETE quote where he says that. You will fail, because Feynman knew full well that light emitted from a moving source propagates at c, not c+v (over macroscopic distances). Feynman said "light is particles" (or equivalent). It is YOU who added "therefore it moves at c+v", and it is YOU who is wrong. The "particles" Feynman referred to are photons, which are quantum excitations of the electromagnetic field; they do not act like the "particles" you are thinking of (e.g. billiard balls). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 13:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06653faf-7029-47ac-b0e4-7d27fb7a32d3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614372 |
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 11:27:15 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/3/23 1:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:11:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> The speed of light from a source moving at v is not the simple > >> sum c+v but simply c. > > Feynman says the opposite. > Provide a COMPLETE quote where he says that. > > You will fail, because Feynman knew full well that light emitted from a > moving source propagates at c, not c+v (over macroscopic distances). > > Feynman said "light is particles" (or equivalent). It is YOU who added > "therefore it moves at c+v", and it is YOU who is wrong. The "particles" > Feynman referred to are photons, which are quantum excitations of the > electromagnetic field; they do not act like the "particles" you are > thinking of (e.g. billiard balls). > > Tom Roberts I would prefer to think Feynman was not so stupid as to accept the second postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 14:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u7v4el$3ou0k$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614366 |
On 7/3/2023 2:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:11:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 7/2/2023 11:59 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:23:38 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>> On 7/2/2023 8:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> >>>>> Particle behavior means something shares the velocity of the source which is the opposite of independence from the velocity of the source. >> >>>> That's not part of the definition of a particle. >>>> >>>> Don't forget that the SR speed combination formula works for particles, >>>> and at relativistic speeds the velocity is not a simple sum. >> >>> Light is always moving at relativistic speeds. >> Exactly. The speed of light from a source moving at v is not the simple >> sum c+v but simply c. > Feynman says the opposite. No, he didn't, regardless of what out-of-context mined quotes you find.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-02 18:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b281c6d0-baca-4f3c-916d-246e118c964fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614301 |
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:46:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source. But then there is this... https://physics-archive.wooster.edu/JrIS/Files/Web_Article_Fuller.pdf "With the empirical evidence brought to bear, the answer to the question “Is light a particle or a wave?” appears to be “yes.” Light has both particle and wave properties. Which property is more relevant to the situation at hand, however, is what makes these experiments interesting. The Feynman experiment forces both properties to be relevant. It is impossible to describe the results otherwise." Don't count your chickens before they are hatched...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-02 19:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d3461452-c975-45af-954b-c112ed8d7b5bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614306 |
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 6:45:04 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:46:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source. > But then there is this... > > https://physics-archive.wooster.edu/JrIS/Files/Web_Article_Fuller.pdf > > "With the empirical evidence brought to bear, the answer to the question “Is light a particle or a wave?” appears to be “yes.” Light has both particle and wave properties. Which property is more relevant to the situation > at hand, however, is what makes these experiments interesting. The Feynman experiment forces both properties > to be relevant. It is impossible to describe the results otherwise." > > Don't count your chickens before they are hatched... Thank you. Very interesting. However, light cannot both share and not share the velocity of the source. If it ever shares the velocity of the source, the second postulate is falsified. The property he spoke of was shared velocity of the source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-02 21:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd7cd6f6-2cb4-4b52-8481-070b49011b2an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614306 |
On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 03:45:04 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:46:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source. > But then there is this... > > https://physics-archive.wooster.edu/JrIS/Files/Web_Article_Fuller.pdf > > "With the empirical evidence brought to bear, the answer to the question “Is light a particle or a wave?” appears to be “yes.” Light has both particle and wave properties. The logic of an idiot, as expected from an idiot. To be wave, light would have to have ALL properties of wave, not just some of them. Does it have them? To be particles, light would have to have ALL properties of particles, not just some of them. Does it have them?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-02 21:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f7fd840-41ac-444d-9750-70c50c1cb1b9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614321 |
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:05:26 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > To be wave, light would have to have ALL > properties of wave, not just some of them. > Does it have them? > To be particles, light would have to have ALL > properties of particles, not just some of them. > Does it have them? It is statements like this that move me to advise you not to post here anymore, Woz. You simply don't know shit about relativity!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-02 21:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b16ddc88-57f3-45dc-812d-97e7f3644414n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614327 |
On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 06:34:23 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:05:26 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > > To be wave, light would have to have ALL > > properties of wave, not just some of them. > > Does it have them? > > To be particles, light would have to have ALL > > properties of particles, not just some of them. > > Does it have them? > It is statements like this that move me to advise you not to post here anymore, Woz. You simply don't know shit about relativity! You're an idiot, but I bet you still can guess how much your advice means to me. And know enough to prove your mumble to be inconsistent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a93df4f-3a13-42fb-89c1-a82d2e34349bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614327 |
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:34:23 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:05:26 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > > To be wave, light would have to have ALL > > properties of wave, not just some of them. > > Does it have them? > > To be particles, light would have to have ALL > > properties of particles, not just some of them. > > Does it have them? > It is statements like this that move me to advise you not to post here anymore, Woz. You simply don't know shit about relativity! By the same token, why don't you set an example and stop posting here?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 13:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kggiscF88a7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614367 |
On 7/3/2023 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:34:23 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:05:26 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >> >>> To be wave, light would have to have ALL >>> properties of wave, not just some of them. >>> Does it have them? >>> To be particles, light would have to have ALL >>> properties of particles, not just some of them. >>> Does it have them? >> It is statements like this that move me to advise you not to post here anymore, Woz. You simply don't know shit about relativity! > By the same token, why don't you set an example and stop posting here? So you can't stand the competition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09c89f9c-b9cf-4c5c-a737-dda6c16d4ad9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614379 |
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 11:38:08 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 7/3/2023 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:34:23 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > >> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:05:26 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > >> > >>> To be wave, light would have to have ALL > >>> properties of wave, not just some of them. > >>> Does it have them? > >>> To be particles, light would have to have ALL > >>> properties of particles, not just some of them. > >>> Does it have them? > > >> It is statements like this that move me to advise you not to post here anymore, Woz. You simply don't know shit about relativity! > > > By the same token, why don't you set an example and stop posting here? > So you can't stand the competition. You aren't competition. You're not even in a scientific league. Go back to business consulting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kggrqpF9bq1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614392 |
On 7/3/2023 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 11:38:08 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 7/3/2023 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:34:23 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:05:26 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>>> >>>>> To be wave, light would have to have ALL >>>>> properties of wave, not just some of them. >>>>> Does it have them? >>>>> To be particles, light would have to have ALL >>>>> properties of particles, not just some of them. >>>>> Does it have them? >> >>>> It is statements like this that move me to advise you not to post here anymore, Woz. You simply don't know shit about relativity! >>> By the same token, why don't you set an example and stop posting here? >> So you can't stand the competition. > You aren't competition. Oh but I am. You show us that in the way you reply. You're not even in a scientific league. Go back to business consulting. ibid. You cannot stand the competition. So what precisely is "a scientific league?" Based on your postings in your most recent iterations of pseudonyms you certainly don't have any understanding of the scientific topics you propound. You seem to think you're reaching for the stars but you don't understand the basics of science taught to high school students. You lash out like this whenever the discussion gets too close to the truths you cannot deal with. Take a deep breath and deal with (accept) the realities that provide you so much discomfort. You have (and had) an opportunity to advance science. Instead you've wasted everyone's time rehashing long disproved ideas. Shame on you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-02 23:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kkKdnfidyL_50T_5nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #614301 |
Feynman did NOT "reject the second postulate". His discussion is much more nuanced, but you are too stupid and have not bothered to to understand it. On 7/2/23 6:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. Yes. And he also asserted that in certain physical situations, light can mimic wave-like behavior (interference, refraction, etc.). > That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source. No. Because the "particle" he meant is a photon, which is a quantum excitation of the electromagnetic field. In particular, light does NOT behave like "little billiard balls", it behaves as modeled by QED, which is very much more complicated. It is quite clear that over macroscopic distances in vacuum, light propagates with speed c relative to any (locally) inertial frame, because literally zillions of experiments have demonstrated that. Bottom line: it simply does not matter what Feynman, Einstein, or anybody else said or did, what matters is how modern theoretical physics models the behavior of light, elementary particles, and everything else. For that, within the domains of the various models, modern theoretical physics does an excellent job. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 09:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kgfb8sF2dieU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614301 |
On 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means > its velocity is not independent of that of the source. Feynman devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures on Physics to explaining relativity. Why do you suppose he did that if he believed what the crackpots say? -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 00:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76151140-1115-4401-bec7-7c8569ff0675n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614336 |
On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 09:22:09 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > > > He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means > > its velocity is not independent of that of the source. > Feynman devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures on > Physics to explaining relativity. Did he also explain why it is inconsistent?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web