Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #361091 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-17 06:28 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-08-24 10:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-17 06:28 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-17 18:21 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Jason Burchett <jasb@h3ipotal.org> - 2015-08-19 15:12 +0000
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-21 08:27 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 00:50 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 05:34 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 06:20 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 20:07 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-19 01:16 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-19 05:39 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-22 18:48 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> - 2015-08-19 20:03 +0000
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-21 09:34 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-21 08:15 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-21 12:10 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-21 10:28 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> - 2015-08-21 17:31 +0000
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-21 15:47 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> - 2015-08-22 09:10 +0000
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-21 19:35 +0200
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-21 11:44 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-21 20:59 +0200
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-21 13:12 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-21 22:24 +0200
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-21 17:56 +0200
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> - 2015-08-21 17:19 +0000
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-21 21:03 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> - 2015-08-22 09:05 +0000
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-22 20:09 +0200
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-21 21:21 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-22 07:13 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> - 2015-08-22 15:58 +0000
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-22 11:05 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> - 2015-08-22 16:19 +0000
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-22 17:09 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN James Birdy <jamesb@barefootwalking.org> - 2015-08-22 22:24 +0000
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-23 08:35 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-23 15:45 +0200
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-23 08:59 +0200
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-22 20:19 +0200
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-23 15:39 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 10:30 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-24 10:47 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 13:23 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-25 05:19 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-25 08:45 -0400
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:18 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-25 06:58 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 09:05 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-25 12:09 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 14:50 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-25 15:58 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 06:58 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-26 09:28 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 11:37 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-26 17:57 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 07:58 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-27 07:08 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-27 07:28 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-27 08:09 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 10:36 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 10:40 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-28 09:02 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 11:55 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-28 17:24 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 10:10 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-28 17:12 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 08:18 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-31 08:48 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 11:09 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-31 15:08 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 17:36 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-31 20:24 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 08:23 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-01 07:26 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 09:47 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-01 10:07 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 12:10 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-01 12:22 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 14:58 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-01 14:57 -0700
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 17:48 -0500
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-26 13:40 -0400
Re: EINSTEINIANS TOPPLE EINSTEIN kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-24 10:35 -0700
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 11:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ad4bbfb-b98a-4554-b316-5946ece7f472@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361464 |
On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 11:35:25 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Unfortunately, as we can see at GPS, real clocks indicate > t'=t, just like they always did. What a stinking pile of lying bullshit! You are a willful, reality-denying troll and a profoundly dishonest one at that. http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html You are an embarrassment to humanity, so pick some nonhuman name, like "Henry Wilson"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 20:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mr7sfi$lsn$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #361466 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:8ad4bbfb-b98a-4554-b316-5946ece7f472@googlegroups.com... On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 11:35:25 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Unfortunately, as we can see at GPS, real clocks indicate > t'=t, just like they always did. |What a stinking pile of lying bullshit! A simple, easy to check facts. You are a willful, reality-denying troll and a profoundly dishonest one at that. And, of course, a total moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 13:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <111c5f88-b587-48cb-a39b-8a0eefdb9f64@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361467 |
On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 1:00:05 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:8ad4bbfb-b98a-4554-b316-5946ece7f472@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 11:35:25 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Unfortunately, as we can see at GPS, real clocks indicate > > > t'=t, just like they always did. > > > What a stinking pile of lying bullshit! > > A simple, easy to check facts. You are a willful, reality-denying > troll and a profoundly dishonest one at that. > And, of course, a total moron. So all the stupid troll can do is throw back the same in an infantile taunt. What a stupid fool!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 22:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mr81es$qqm$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #361472 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:111c5f88-b587-48cb-a39b-8a0eefdb9f64@googlegroups.com... On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 1:00:05 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:8ad4bbfb-b98a-4554-b316-5946ece7f472@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 11:35:25 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Unfortunately, as we can see at GPS, real clocks indicate > > > t'=t, just like they always did. > > > What a stinking pile of lying bullshit! > > A simple, easy to check facts. You are a willful, reality-denying > troll and a profoundly dishonest one at that. > And, of course, a total moron. |So all the stupid troll can do is throw back the same in an infantile |taunt. What a stupid fool! So, all the relativistic moron can do is yellling and lying. What a stupid fool!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 17:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mr7hnv$aqh$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #361448 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nIqdnSwyzPN0q0rInZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... |They also make different measurements of everything else, which |is summarized by the phrases "time dilation" and "length |contraction". Only in the world you inhabit. Only in your moronic imagination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 17:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mr7mia$j14$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #361448 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/19/15 8/19/15 - 3:03 PM, Karolina Vandeweghe wrote: >> [about Doppler shift] >> And still. More or less arrival of crests over an unit of time, say >> second, would imply on of two things. Either the entire light >> approaches faster/slower, or the wavelength of the same light is >> altered to the larger/smaller. >> >> According to the filter, the later is the case and happens. In which >> case you have to explain how that light knows ANYTHING about the >> Observer (or any other Observers) in order to change its own WaveLength >> accordingly. > > But it it NOT the light "changing its own wavelength". Rather, it is > different observers using DIFFERENT instruments to measure the > wavelength. For differently moving observers, the instruments are > oriented differently in spacetime, and thus obtain different results > when measuring the wavelength of a given light ray. I am very happy with that. But you are not suggesting that the Observers are changing the already emitted light? Let's see the emitted light like a well defined entity (speed, wavelength, amplitude/strength etc). I am stating that an Observer cannot alter an already emitted light under any circumstances. The detection is done directly on light, destructive or non-destructive. > They also make different measurements of everything else, which is > summarized by the phrases "time dilation" and "length contraction". Yes, sure. Let's just talk about the speed of light only for now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 21:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <zqGdnbWVLdPnRUrInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #361459 |
On 8/21/15 8/21/15 12:19 PM, Karolina Vandeweghe wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> But it it NOT the light "changing its own wavelength". Rather, it is >> different observers using DIFFERENT instruments to measure the >> wavelength. For differently moving observers, the instruments are >> oriented differently in spacetime, and thus obtain different results >> when measuring the wavelength of a given light ray. > > I am very happy with that. But you are not suggesting that the Observers > are changing the already emitted light? No. How could an observer measuring the light possibly "change" the light in any way (other than by intercepting some of it)? > Let's see the emitted light like a well defined entity (speed, wavelength, > amplitude/strength etc). There's your problem/confusion: Light does not "posses" any wavelength, frequency, or amplitude/strength -- these can only be determined by a MEASUREMENT, and such a measurement requires an instrument at rest in some frame; as the instrument projects whatever it is measuring onto itself, these are NECESSARILY properties RELATIVE TO THAT FRAME. Intrinsic properties of anything must be invariant under coordinate transforms (e.g. change of frames). This is so because coordinates are arbitrary human constructs that cannot possibly affect any physical phenomenon -- they are used to describe phenomena, not determine them. Neither wavelength, frequency, not amplitude/strength of light are invariant, and thus cannot be intrinsic to the light. In classical electrodynamics, the intrinsic property of a light ray that is related to frequency and wavelength is its phase: the light ray has a phase that is a function on the manifold (i.e. it has a definite value at each point in spacetime through which the ray passes). Any instrument that measures frequency or wavelength necessarily projects this invariant phase onto itself in order to perform the measurement. > I am stating that an Observer cannot alter an > already emitted light under any circumstances. Sure. I agree. But you don't understand what light is, and more importantly: which properties it has and which properties it does not have. > The detection is done > directly on light, destructive or non-destructive. Hmmm. An observation of light can only be performed by destroying that portion of the light which is observed. In the process of being detected, the light alters the state of the detector and is destroyed (this is a quantum process). But an observer (light detector) can sample a portion of a light ray, and thus need not destroy it all. When you look at a distant star, the light that hits the retinas in your eyes is destroyed while it excites pigments in your retinas that ultimately produce the vision in your brain. But someone next to you can also see the star, because your eyes did not intercept the light that hits their eyes. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 09:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mr9e03$3mp$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #361493 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/21/15 8/21/15 12:19 PM, Karolina Vandeweghe wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> But it it NOT the light "changing its own wavelength". Rather, it is >>> different observers using DIFFERENT instruments to measure the >>> wavelength. For differently moving observers, the instruments are >>> oriented differently in spacetime, and thus obtain different results >>> when measuring the wavelength of a given light ray. >> >> I am very happy with that. But you are not suggesting that the >> Observers are changing the already emitted light? > > No. How could an observer measuring the light possibly "change" the > light in any way (other than by intercepting some of it)? > > >> Let's see the emitted light like a well defined entity (speed, >> wavelength, >> amplitude/strength etc). > > There's your problem/confusion: Light does not "posses" any wavelength, > frequency, or amplitude/strength -- these can only be determined by a > MEASUREMENT, and such a measurement requires an instrument at rest in > some What a monsterous megabullshit to read this place!! So a Source does not emit a Light if no Observer is to be find in that designated area !! Okay, I can play with. Please define YOUR Light as such. With AND Without the Observer. YOUR words, not mine! I strongly believer you just got cornered :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 20:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mradts$79g$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #361493 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:zqGdnbWVLdPnRUrInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |There's your problem/confusion: Light does not "posses" any wavelength, |frequency, or amplitude/strength -- these can only be determined by a |MEASUREMENT, and such a measurement requires an instrument at rest in some |frame; as the instrument projects whatever it is measuring onto itself, these |are NECESSARILY properties RELATIVE TO THAT FRAME. A mumble of a moron, knowing nothing about. |Intrinsic properties of anything must be invariant under |coordinate transforms (e.g. change of frames). This is so |because coordinates are arbitrary human constructs that Yes, they are. Samely as intrinisic properties of anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-21 21:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2bd6aa45-a676-4128-8517-d1e35fae06b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361448 |
On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 10:34:19 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/19/15 8/19/15 - 3:03 PM, Karolina Vandeweghe wrote: > > [about Doppler shift] > > And still. More or less arrival of crests over an unit of time, say > > second, would imply on of two things. Either the entire light approaches > > faster/slower, or the wavelength of the same light is altered to the > > larger/smaller. > > > > According to the filter, the later is the case and happens. In which case > > you have to explain how that light knows ANYTHING about the Observer (or > > any other Observers) in order to change its own WaveLength accordingly. > > But it it NOT the light "changing its own wavelength". Rather, it is different > observers using DIFFERENT instruments to measure the wavelength. For differently > moving observers, the instruments are oriented differently in spacetime, and > thus obtain different results when measuring the wavelength of a given light ray. > > They also make different measurements of everything else, which > is summarized by the phrases "time dilation" and "length > contraction". So tha means a clock second is not a universal interval of time.....right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 07:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02777b30-be98-408e-a0a4-bd7f2138b513@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #361448 |
On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 10:34:19 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/19/15 8/19/15 - 3:03 PM, Karolina Vandeweghe wrote: > > [about Doppler shift] > > And still. More or less arrival of crests over an unit of time, say > > second, would imply on of two things. Either the entire light approaches > > faster/slower, or the wavelength of the same light is altered to the > > larger/smaller. > > > > According to the filter, the later is the case and happens. In which case > > you have to explain how that light knows ANYTHING about the Observer (or > > any other Observers) in order to change its own WaveLength accordingly. > > But it it NOT the light "changing its own wavelength". So does that imply that you agree that the wavelength of a specfic source is universal......eg the universal wavelength of sodium is 589 nm??? >Rather, it is different > observers using DIFFERENT instruments to measure the wavelength. For differently > moving observers, the instruments are oriented differently in spacetime, and > thus obtain different results when measuring the wavelength of a given light ray. Different instruements measure different wavelengths of sodium because they have different states of absolute motion wrt light. This means that one can detect the speed of incoming light as follows: c'= c((univesal wavelength of sodium 589 nm)/measured incoming wavelength of sodium)) This means that the absolute motion of the instruement can be determined as follows: Absolute motion of detector=(c-c') > > They also make different measurements of everything else, which > is summarized by the phrases "time dilation" and "length > contraction". > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 15:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mra66t$r35$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #361526 |
kenseto wrote: > On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 10:34:19 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 8/19/15 8/19/15 - 3:03 PM, Karolina Vandeweghe wrote: >> > [about Doppler shift] >> > And still. More or less arrival of crests over an unit of time, say >> > second, would imply on of two things. Either the entire light >> > approaches faster/slower, or the wavelength of the same light is >> > altered to the larger/smaller. >> > >> > According to the filter, the later is the case and happens. In which >> > case you have to explain how that light knows ANYTHING about the >> > Observer (or any other Observers) in order to change its own >> > WaveLength accordingly. >> >> But it it NOT the light "changing its own wavelength". > > So does that imply that you agree that the wavelength of a specfic > source is universal......eg the universal wavelength of sodium is 589 > nm??? LOL, valid point Kenseto, thanks. Keep up with the good work. >>Rather, it is different >> observers using DIFFERENT instruments to measure the wavelength. For >> differently moving observers, the instruments are oriented differently >> in spacetime, and thus obtain different results when measuring the >> wavelength of a given light ray. > > Different instruements measure different wavelengths of sodium because > they have different states of absolute motion wrt light. This means that > one can detect the speed of incoming light as follows: > c'= c((univesal wavelength of sodium 589 nm)/measured incoming > wavelength of sodium)) > > This means that the absolute motion of the instruement can be determined > as follows: > Absolute motion of detector=(c-c') Absolutely good point. Accordingly the Source is not changing the wavelength of light, neither the Light itself, nor the Observer. Who is changing the length of Light's wave? I mean, PHYSICALLY. Who?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 11:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <y9adnRSBIOBWAEXInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #361526 |
On 8/22/15 8/22/15 9:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 10:34:19 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> But it it NOT the light "changing its own wavelength". > > So does that imply that you agree that the wavelength of a specfic source is > universal......eg the universal wavelength of sodium is 589 nm??? YOU HAVE TO READ WHAT I WROTE. Light does not "have" a wavelength, only suitable MEASUREMENTS of light attribute a wavelength to it. AS I SAID the intrinsic property of light is its phase as a function on the manifold, not any wavelength or frequency. Differently moving frames measure that phase with different instruments and obtain different answers. There is NOTHING "universal" about any wavelength -- wavelength is ALWAYS a property that depends on BOTH a light ray and a frame. Ditto for frequency. Of course in the rest frame of the emitting sodium, the light always has a wavelength of 589 nm. This is not "universal", and applies ONLY IN THAT REST FRAME. This is independent of which frame the sodium is at rest in, but that is not "universal" either. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Karolina Vandeweghe <newisa@kerseyhouse.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 16:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mra7es$upp$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #361532 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/22/15 8/22/15 9:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 10:34:19 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >>> But it it NOT the light "changing its own wavelength". >> >> So does that imply that you agree that the wavelength of a specfic >> source is universal......eg the universal wavelength of sodium is 589 >> nm??? > > YOU HAVE TO READ WHAT I WROTE. > > Light does not "have" a wavelength, only suitable MEASUREMENTS of light > attribute a wavelength to it. AS I SAID the intrinsic property of light > is its phase as a function on the manifold, not any wavelength or > frequency. Differently moving frames measure that phase with different > instruments and obtain different answers. Now you change your story. Might feel cornered. Nobody said "intrinsic" anywhere, but asked you to describe or to define your Light. Any children know that Light is denoted, in schools and everywhere, as either WAVE, PARTICLE or as a WAVE OF PARTICLES. I got news for you, Waves HAVE wavelengths INTRINSICALLY, without which no wave can exists. This is actually what makes a WAVE wave, its WAVELENGTH and AMPLITUDE. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 17:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <BtSdnVakN-WsbkXInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #361534 |
On 8/22/15 8/22/15 11:19 AM, Karolina Vandeweghe wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> Light does not "have" a wavelength, only suitable MEASUREMENTS of light >> attribute a wavelength to it. AS I SAID the intrinsic property of light >> is its phase as a function on the manifold, not any wavelength or >> frequency. Differently moving frames measure that phase with different >> instruments and obtain different answers. > > Now you change your story. Nope. It seems you cannot read accurately enough. > Nobody said "intrinsic" > anywhere, but asked you to describe or to define your Light. You need learn how to apply logic -- the way to describe something like light is to give its intrinsic properties. Non-intrinsic properties for light, such as frequency or wavelength, involve something else in addition to the light, and thus do not describe it. > Any children > know that Light is denoted, in schools and everywhere, as either WAVE, > PARTICLE or as a WAVE OF PARTICLES. Children who "know" that are mistaken; they probably confuse an approximation with the real situation. A light ray is neither wave nor particle, but rather a huge number of QUANTUM OBJECTS called photons. > I got news for you, Waves HAVE wavelengths INTRINSICALLY, without which no > wave can exists. This is actually what makes a WAVE wave, its WAVELENGTH > and AMPLITUDE. Sure. WAVES in a medium intrinsically have a wavelength and a frequency, because one always refers them to the rest frame of the medium. But light is NOT a wave in a medium, and has neither wavelength nor frequency as an intrinsic property. An observer can MEASURE the wavelength and/or frequency of a monochromatic light ray, but observers in different frames obtain different values, showing that they are NOT intrinsic properties of the light. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Birdy <jamesb@barefootwalking.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 22:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrasro$g87$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #361573 |
*/Tom Roberts/* wrote: >> I got news for you, Waves HAVE wavelengths INTRINSICALLY, without which >> no wave can exists. This is actually what makes a WAVE wave, its >> WAVELENGTH and AMPLITUDE. > > Sure. WAVES in a medium intrinsically have a wavelength and a frequency, > because one always refers them to the rest frame of the medium. But > light is NOT a wave in a medium, and has neither wavelength nor > frequency as an intrinsic property. An observer can MEASURE the > wavelength and/or frequency of a monochromatic light ray, but observers > in different frames obtain different values, showing that they are NOT > intrinsic properties of the light. This must be intentionally confusing. Are you going to burn all the books describing light as wave? A wave relates directly to the Mathematical Model, specifically the differential form of the 2nd Order Wave Equation. Concretely, does light exhibits and behaves like a wave or not? If the answer is yes, then the light is as much wave as any other wave. The wave equation still applies, disregard medium, be that solid, liquid, gas, vacuum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 08:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KMudnW1AYIGrUUTInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #361574 |
On 8/22/15 8/22/15 5:24 PM, James Birdy wrote: > */Tom Roberts/* wrote: >> WAVES in a medium intrinsically have a wavelength and a frequency, >> because one always refers them to the rest frame of the medium. But >> light is NOT a wave in a medium, and has neither wavelength nor >> frequency as an intrinsic property. An observer can MEASURE the >> wavelength and/or frequency of a monochromatic light ray, but observers >> in different frames obtain different values, showing that they are NOT >> intrinsic properties of the light. > > This must be intentionally confusing. It may be confusing to people who don't understand it, but it is not "intentionally" so -- it is merely modeling what nature is observed to do. So the confusion is YOURS. Einstein said "Describe things as simply as possible, BUT NO SIMPLER." It's just that nature is more complicated than you wish or undeerstand. > Are you going to burn all the books > describing light as wave? No. In some applications a wave is a good model. But not in all. And only the stupidest books describe light that way, without mentioning the caveats.... > Concretely, does light exhibits and behaves like a wave or not? Sometimes. But not always. In diffraction and interference experiments it behaves like a wave. But in the photoelectric effect and numerous quantum optics experiments it does not. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is an excellent model for all aspects of light that have been observed. In QED, a light ray consists of myriad photons, which are discrete packets of energy, each of which has an amplitude; the intensity of the ray is proportional to the sum of the amplitudes squared. Since the amplitudes interfere over space and time, the ray can act like a wave (even though it is not really a wave) -- a wave in PROBABILITY, not in any medium. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 15:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mrciqh$c6p$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #361614 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:KMudnW1AYIGrUUTInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... On 8/22/15 8/22/15 5:24 PM, James Birdy wrote: > */Tom Roberts/* wrote: >> WAVES in a medium intrinsically have a wavelength and a frequency, >> because one always refers them to the rest frame of the medium. But >> light is NOT a wave in a medium, and has neither wavelength nor >> frequency as an intrinsic property. An observer can MEASURE the >> wavelength and/or frequency of a monochromatic light ray, but observers >> in different frames obtain different values, showing that they are NOT >> intrinsic properties of the light. > > This must be intentionally confusing. |It may be confusing to people who don't understand it, but it is not |"intentionally" so -- it is merely modeling what nature is observed to do. So |the confusion is YOURS. Tom knows NOTHING about modelling reality, and never knew anything about it. So, he doesn't even try to discuss about it. All he can do is yelling "YOU MUST READ, WHAT I WRITE!!!" or something alike. |Einstein said "Describe things as simply as possible, BUT NO |SIMPLER." It's just that nature is more complicated than you |wish or undeerstand. Nature isn't 5% as complicated, as observers. And your pathetic "model" of an observer is - just - pathetic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-23 08:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mrbr15$k2p$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #361573 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:BtSdnVakN-WsbkXInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |You need learn how to apply logic -- the way to describe something like light is |to give its intrinsic properties. Non-intrinsic properties for light, such as |frequency or wavelength, involve something else in addition to the light, and |thus do not describe it. You need to learn, how to apply logic. Description is not a physical object. Neither mathematical. Tou have NO authority, when talking about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 20:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mraefs$7rb$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #361532 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:y9adnRSBIOBWAEXInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |YOU HAVE TO READ WHAT I WROTE. Would be a waste of time, moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web