Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #359958 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-08 06:55 +1000 |
| Last post | 2015-08-12 08:37 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-08 06:55 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:40 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-08 08:27 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:36 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:48 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 08:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 08:13 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 17:20 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 12:25 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 19:58 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:11 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-10 10:06 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:08 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-10 15:28 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-11 06:30 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-11 23:43 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-12 08:26 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-12 10:23 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 01:51 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 16:03 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 11:39 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 19:24 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-14 14:52 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 11:37 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-13 18:41 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 19:28 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-17 17:08 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-18 03:27 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-17 21:42 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-18 08:23 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-18 21:33 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-19 06:11 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 13:20 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 05:53 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-19 14:09 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 19:14 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 03:42 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-20 12:33 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-21 09:17 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-21 09:17 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 19:39 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-19 14:22 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 05:55 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-20 09:52 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-20 19:17 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-20 12:25 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-17 21:20 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-18 08:22 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-18 03:15 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-18 19:39 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-18 14:22 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-18 21:38 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 09:27 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-11 06:22 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 18:52 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 15:34 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 03:01 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-08 19:35 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 15:45 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 07:46 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-09 08:57 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 07:44 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 20:00 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-08 23:36 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 15:18 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-09 07:09 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 08:19 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-09 18:31 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 09:40 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-09 21:30 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 13:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 18:16 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-10 07:50 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:37 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:39 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:43 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 08:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-11 08:59 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Felipe Delgado <fd@spreadspectrum.org> - 2015-08-11 16:27 +0000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-11 22:49 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-11 17:58 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-12 07:49 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-12 08:01 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-13 19:27 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-14 05:29 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 03:32 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 07:50 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-12 22:53 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:57 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-13 11:16 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 06:05 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-13 21:21 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-18 06:22 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 07:06 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-18 19:55 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 16:25 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-21 06:09 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 12:18 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 12:22 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:23 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 07:59 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 08:15 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 18:55 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-09 22:10 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 20:27 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:15 +1000
Stephane Baune inserts foot in mouth. Deeper "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-13 12:38 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 19:19 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 19:25 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-08 13:02 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:37 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-09 14:32 +0200
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 07:33 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-09 18:10 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 07:56 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-10 20:19 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 06:39 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-11 06:35 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 16:28 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-12 08:30 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 08:07 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-13 07:25 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 17:14 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 02:01 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-13 11:57 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-14 19:36 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 06:08 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-15 06:00 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:04 -0500
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-15 06:43 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 15:07 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-09 11:23 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-10 08:25 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-10 14:37 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-11 08:24 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-12 11:14 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-13 07:29 +1000
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-13 13:07 -0700
Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 20:02 -0700
Re: Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-12 08:37 +1000
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 06:55 +1000 |
| Subject | Interferometry Does Not Measure Light Speed. |
| Message-ID | <c94asaton2r6djpu1bc6e93lpd0fa43g07@4ax.com> |
There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. If that were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of the existence of that medium. Accordingly, interferometry experiments such as the Sagnac Effect and this one: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light which claim to refute the ballistic theory of light are completely misinterpreted and do not do that at all. Even in the original MMX, the actual mechanism that gives a wavelike impression is completely unknown. In pure light, as distinct from a generated radio wave, something appears to be 'waving'. What actually is it? __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 16:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mq38je$uik$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #359958 |
On 8/7/2015 3:55 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the > technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they > are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the > terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. > > The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an > assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. Sorry, you misspoke on that last sentence. Should be "....behaves like a wavelike disturbance." Last three words you wrote are spurious and wrong. > If that > were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of the > existence of that medium. What medium? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 08:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <55casa5iqrtjdbnbjiljfsvj70jsrc20u3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #359960 |
On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 16:40:01 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 8/7/2015 3:55 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the >> technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they >> are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the >> terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. >> >> The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an >> assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. > >Sorry, you misspoke on that last sentence. Should be "....behaves like a >wavelike disturbance." Last three words you wrote are spurious and wrong. > >> If that >> were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of the >> existence of that medium. > >What medium? The medium that people like you assume exists .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 16:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <777854be-cb61-4f0a-85e0-d8343a2693ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359967 |
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 5:27:26 PM UTC-5, HG Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 16:40:01 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On 8/7/2015 3:55 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > >> There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the > >> technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they > >> are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the > >> terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. > >> > >> The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an > >> assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. > > > >Sorry, you misspoke on that last sentence. Should be "....behaves like a > >wavelike disturbance." Last three words you wrote are spurious and wrong. > > > >> If that > >> were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of the > >> existence of that medium. > > > >What medium? > > The medium that people like you assume exists > What medium? Waves are phenomena that satisfy the wave equation. There is NOTHING in the wave equation that demands a medium.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 18:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fa4esa91smjlj3mr9i8m1dp0ir575gnq3i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #359972 |
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:36:16 -0700 (PDT), Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> wrote: >On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 5:27:26 PM UTC-5, HG Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 16:40:01 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On 8/7/2015 3:55 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> >> There are many experiments that purport to measure light speed using the >> >> technique of interferometry. Not one measures light speed directly. What they >> >> are sensitive to is anyone's guess because nobody knows precisely what the >> >> terms 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean in the case of light. >> >> >> >> The interpretation of all such experiments is invariably based on an >> >> assumption that light behaves like a wavelike disturbance in a medium. >> > >> >Sorry, you misspoke on that last sentence. Should be "....behaves like a >> >wavelike disturbance." Last three words you wrote are spurious and wrong. >> > >> >> If that >> >> were true, any scientist in his right mind would want some evidence of the >> >> existence of that medium. >> > >> >What medium? >> >> The medium that people like you assume exists >> > >What medium? > >Waves are phenomena that satisfy the wave equation. >There is NOTHING in the wave equation that demands a medium. Well, take the simple traveling wave eqation: A = AoSin2pi(ft-x/L) It assumes both a frequency and a wavelength. It says that at any particular instant, there exists a sionusoidal wave in space, (emanating from the source). It also says that at any particular point in space, x, there is a sinusoidally fluctuating amplitude (of something) That could indeed apply to a machine gun that fired bullets sinusoidally. Einstein's theory requires a universal medium so that light emitted by two differently moving sources anywhere in the universe will IMMEDIATELY find a common speed. Einstein merely plagiarized Lorentz's theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 08:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c13ccbcd-1367-4b3b-aefe-740a18db4565@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360078 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 4:48:17 AM UTC-4, HG Wilson wrote: > Well, take the simple traveling wave eqation: A = AoSin2pi(ft-x/L) > It assumes both a frequency and a wavelength. > > It says that at any particular instant, there exists a sionusoidal wave in > space, Not quite. It says: the detector located at x which indicates time t will indicate an Amp of AoSin2pi(ft-x/L). There is no "there exists a wave". There is just the math and the values given by the detectors. No need of "exist". > Einstein's theory requires a universal medium so that light emitted by two > differently moving sources anywhere in the universe will IMMEDIATELY find a > common speed. No, SR doesnt require it. There are "fluid dynamics" models that predict "c". But in SR, such "fluids" are not necesary and not even part of SR. Some models may use "fluids" and some may not. SR doenst.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 08:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <knjfsa5hpt5cfafh64r0o5k9nbjtgqs7pb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360112 |
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 08:05:25 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 4:48:17 AM UTC-4, HG Wilson wrote: > >> Well, take the simple traveling wave eqation: A = AoSin2pi(ft-x/L) >> It assumes both a frequency and a wavelength. >> >> It says that at any particular instant, there exists a sionusoidal wave in >> space, > >Not quite. It says: the detector located at x which indicates time t will indicate an Amp of AoSin2pi(ft-x/L). Wrong.... bullshit in fact. Read my explanation of the wave equation again. This time think about what I said. >There is no "there exists a wave". There is just the math and the values given by the detectors. No need of "exist". Gawd! You don't even know the basics. No wonder you were so easily conned by Einsten. I can't see any point in tryng to educate you. >> Einstein's theory requires a universal medium so that light emitted by two >> differently moving sources anywhere in the universe will IMMEDIATELY find a >> common speed. > >No, SR doesnt require it. There are "fluid dynamics" models that predict "c". But in SR, such "fluids" are not >necesary and not even part of SR. Some models may use "fluids" and some may not. SR doenst. What model of SR accounts for its claim that light from differently moving sources IMMEDIATELY reaches a common speed. More importantly, how can a photon in Andromeda know how to move at the same speed as one on Earth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 17:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dac65b39-620c-4e28-8e10-23d3c6494caf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360154 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 4:13:33 PM UTC-6, HG Wilson wrote: > > What model of SR accounts for its claim that light from differently moving > sources IMMEDIATELY reaches a common speed. There is NO such claim in SR. That claim resides in the diseased mind of Ralphie-boy. The SR claim is that the SoL will be measured as the same value no matter the speed of the receiver wrt the source. > More importantly, how can a photon in Andromeda know how to move at the > same speed as one on Earth? This is a specious argument based on an intentional misunderstanding of the 2nd postulate by dishonest Ralphie-boy who denies reality. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 12:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <0n2gsaledvm7i4ljnsap5o7pb5bcelbhej@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360164 |
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 4:13:33 PM UTC-6, HG Wilson wrote: >> >> What model of SR accounts for its claim that light from differently moving >> sources IMMEDIATELY reaches a common speed. > >There is NO such claim in SR. That claim resides in the diseased mind of >Henrie-boy. The SR claim is that the SoL will be measured as the same >value no matter the speed of the receiver wrt the source. ..and if there are differently moving sources, all their light will somehow travel at the same speed towards that observer. How come? Oh I get it! The fairies are involved! >> More importantly, how can a photon in Andromeda know how to move at the >> same speed as one on Earth? > >This is a specious argument based on an intentional misunderstanding of >the 2nd postulate by dishonest Henrie-boy who denies reality. Poor boy....hasn't a clue about Einstein's silly theory...no wonder he's so brainwashed. >Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 19:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56c659e3-6d0a-46aa-ad8b-ed469de43ee1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #360173 |
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 10:25:40 PM UTC-4, HG Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel > ..and if there are differently moving sources, all their light will somehow > travel at the same speed towards that observer. How come? How many time we need to tell you...? "how come" or "causes" are *irrelevant*! No matter the causes, 1+1 still will equal 2. The 2nd postulate, or, taken as an axiom, is true per definition: Axiom: a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based. So try to understand: Based on a few "what if's", we build a model and its predictions. It so happens that the "what if's" of SR imply the same results as observations. Why dont you ask what are the causes of 0<1 ? 0<1 is per *definition* of the set of reals (or simpler, integers here). > Oh I get it! The fairies are involved! Ever hear of 'axioms' ? > >This is a specious argument based on an intentional misunderstanding of > >the 2nd postulate by dishonest Henrie-boy who denies reality. > > Poor boy....hasn't a clue about Einstein's silly theory...no wonder he's so > brainwashed. No wonder you are stuck at where you are in life. You havent bettered yourself in the past 15 yeras, whereas we, we have gotten more Porshes, more dwellings, more trips, more chicks etc... Keep up the good your good work wilson... we make lots of $ off of idiots like you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 20:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <i0ugsapdcg0aeb7h8rmqe6s8f6a1c6p1t9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360175 |
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 19:58:18 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 10:25:40 PM UTC-4, HG Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel > >> ..and if there are differently moving sources, all their light will somehow >> travel at the same speed towards that observer. How come? > >How many time we need to tell you...? "how come" or "causes" are *irrelevant*! >No matter the causes, 1+1 still will equal 2. The 2nd postulate, or, taken as an axiom, is true per definition: Poor fellow...totally indoctrinated and impossible. >> Oh I get it! The fairies are involved! >Ever hear of 'axioms' ? What are they, kind of Gnomes or something? Helping the fairies, perhaps? __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 10:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mq9m1s$505$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #360173 |
On 10.08.2015 04:25, HG Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > >> >> The SR claim is that the SoL will be measured as the same >> value no matter the speed of the receiver wrt the source. Which is confirmed by experimental evidence: https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > > ..and if there are differently moving sources, all their light will somehow > travel at the same speed towards that observer. How come? > Oh I get it! The fairies are involved! > I note with interest that according to the fully competent experimental physicist Doctor Ralph Malcom Rabbidge, the only way Nature can behave as she factually does is because of fairies! :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 20:08 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mjtgsah0hgbgg4img08ebgcf7acf5vfg7l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360190 |
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:06:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 10.08.2015 04:25, HG Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> The SR claim is that the SoL will be measured as the same >>> value no matter the speed of the receiver wrt the source. > >Which is confirmed by experimental evidence: > >https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > >> >> ..and if there are differently moving sources, all their light will somehow >> travel at the same speed towards that observer. How come? >> Oh I get it! The fairies are involved! >> > >I note with interest that according to the fully competent >experimental physicist Doctor Henry George Wilson, >the only way Nature can behave as she factually does is >because of fairies! :-D Paul, your silly list does not answer the question. How does light in Andromeda INSTANTLY know how to travel at the same speed as light here? I would say that requires communication faster than c, wouldn't you. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 15:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqa8uq$7d1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #360201 |
On 10.08.2015 12:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:06:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> > wrote: > >> On 10.08.2015 04:25, HG Wilson wrote: >>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> The SR claim is that the SoL will be measured as the same >>>> value no matter the speed of the receiver wrt the source. >> >> Which is confirmed by experimental evidence: >> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >> >>> >>> ..and if there are differently moving sources, all their light will somehow >>> travel at the same speed towards that observer. How come? >>> Oh I get it! The fairies are involved! >>> >> >> I note with interest that according to the fully competent >> experimental physicist Doctor Ralph Malcom Rabbidge, >> the only way Nature can behave as she factually does is >> because of fairies! :-D > > Paul, your silly list does not answer the question. But it does show that the speed of light is invariant. You can kick and scream and call the experimental evidence silly and nauseating, but you can't make it go away. > How does light in > Andromeda INSTANTLY know how to travel at the same speed as light here? Nature doesn't have to explain _why_ she behaves as it does. The experimentally verified fact is that the speed of light is invariant and will therefore be measured to move at c (in vacuum) in any inertial frame of reference. > > I would say that requires communication faster than c, And that's why it obvious that you are no 'Doctor of science, or a 'fully qualified physicist' and never have studied math and physics for 11 years at any university. I will never understand why you voluntarily make a gigantic fool of yourself by putting a 'DSc' after you fake name, when the content of your postings makes it blazingly obvious that you are utterly ignorant of science and physics. Everybody knows that 'Henry Wilson DSc.' is Ralph Malcom Rabbidge, so this doesn't work: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ChangeName.html -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 06:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <c02isahduk4b8a2qapltg490qkdbqb9epu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360208 |
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:28:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 10.08.2015 12:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >>> Which is confirmed by experimental evidence: >>> >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >> Paul, your silly list does not answer the question. > >But it does show that the speed of light is invariant. It is a list of bogus experiments performed BY dingleberries FOR dingleberries and referreed BY dingleberries. Not one is credible. >You can kick and scream and call the experimental >evidence silly and nauseating, but you can't make it go away. You cannot run away from the fact that some physical process is required to unify the speeds of light from differently moving sources, something demanded by Einstein's P2. So what is that process Paul? Is it just the Lorentzian aether that the hoaxer Einstein plagiarized? > > How does light in >> Andromeda INSTANTLY know how to travel at the same speed as light here? >Nature doesn't have to explain _why_ she behaves as it does. No, but you do! Why do you always behave like a brainwashed idiot? >The experimentally verified fact is that the speed of >light is invariant and will therefore be measured to move >at c (in vacuum) in any inertial frame of reference. crap, as usual! OWLS has never been measured from a moving source. >> I would say that requires communication faster than c, > >And that's why it obvious that you are no 'Doctor of science, >or a 'fully qualified physicist' and never have studied math >and physics for 11 years at any university. Paul, I realise you immediately lose your temper when beaten into a corner but nobody really cares. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 23:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqdqb0$6b9$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #360257 |
On 10.08.2015 22:30, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:28:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > >> On 10.08.2015 12:08, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >>> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > >>> Paul, your silly list does not answer the question. >> >> But it does show that the speed of light is invariant. > > It is a list of bogus experiments performed BY dingleberries FOR dingleberries > and referreed BY dingleberries. > Not one is credible. You can kick and scream and call the experimental evidence bogus and incredible, but you can't make it go away. It's still here: https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >> The experimentally verified fact is that the speed of >> light is invariant and will therefore be measured to move >> at c (in vacuum) in any inertial frame of reference. > > crap, as usual! OWLS has never been measured from a moving source. You can kick and scream and call the experimental evidence crap, but you can't make it go away. It's still here: https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >>> I would say that requires communication faster than c, >> >> And that's why it obvious that you are no 'Doctor of science, >> or a 'fully qualified physicist' and never have studied math >> and physics for 11 years at any university. >> >> I will never understand why you voluntarily make a gigantic >> fool of yourself by putting a 'DSc' after you fake name, >> when the content of your postings makes it blazingly obvious >> that you are utterly ignorant of science and physics. >> >> Everybody knows that 'Henry Wilson DSc.' is Ralph Malcom Rabbidge, >> so this doesn't work: >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ChangeName.html Ooops. Hit a nerve: > Paul, I realise you immediately lose your temper when beaten into a corner but > nobody really cares. You are kicking and screaming and calling the experimental evidence silly, bogus, incredible, crap and nauseating. Have you then beaten me into a corner? :-D -- Paul, cornered with lost temper https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 08:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <4htksa9ce8nmu9i7moq9g80kuab3nq16dm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360391 |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:43:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 10.08.2015 22:30, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > >> Paul, I realise you immediately lose your temper when beaten into a corner but >> nobody really cares. > >You are kicking and screaming and calling the experimental evidence >silly, bogus, incredible, crap and nauseating. > >Have you then beaten me into a corner? :-D Paul, you made your own corner to collapse into when you made your hilarious animation of a light clock. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 10:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqevph$8nd$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #360398 |
On 12.08.2015 00:26, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:43:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > >> On 10.08.2015 22:30, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> >>> Paul, I realise you immediately lose your temper when beaten into a corner but >>> nobody really cares. >> >> You are kicking and screaming and calling the experimental evidence >> silly, bogus, incredible, crap and nauseating. >> >> Have you then beaten me into a corner? :-D > > Paul, you made your own corner to collapse into when you made your hilarious > animation of a light clock. Does that mean that you didn't think that you beat me into a corner by calling the following experimental evidence silly, bogus, crap and nauseating? https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf Does that mean that you have realized that you can't make the experimental evidence go away by kicking and screaming? BTW: https://paulba.no/LightClock.html Does this animation frustrate you because it shows that the emission theory predicts that the speed of light is frame dependent and thus is falsified by a lot of experimental evidence? -- Paul, having fun https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 01:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <q5fpsa5t3b62813dod975d1e68vn49qk9d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #360436 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:23:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 12.08.2015 00:26, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >>> Have you then beaten me into a corner? :-D >> >> Paul, you made your own corner to collapse into when you made your hilarious >> animation of a light clock. > >Does that mean that you didn't think that you beat me into >a corner by calling the following experimental evidence >silly, bogus, crap and nauseating? > >https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf >https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > >Does that mean that you have realized that you can't make >the experimental evidence go away by kicking and screaming? > >BTW: >https://paulba.no/LightClock.html >Does this animation frustrate you because it shows that >the emission theory predicts that the speed of light is >frame dependent and thus is falsified by a lot of >experimental evidence? pAUL,NOT INE OF YOUR SILLY LIST OF EXPERIMENTS MEASURES owls DIRECTLY, __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mqif59$rlk$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #360617 |
Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> writes: >pAUL,NOT INE OF YOUR SILLY LIST OF EXPERIMENTS MEASURES owls DIRECTLY, Ralph, you won't even read any of those experiments. If you did, you'd see they all do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web