Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391847 > unrolled thread

MIT Lunar reflector experiment

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 22:25 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-09 13:53 +0000
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-09-09 10:03 -0700
        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-09 10:31 -0700
          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-09-09 11:43 -0700
            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 12:06 -0700
          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-10 11:46 +0200
            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-10 06:53 -0700
              Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-11 09:03 +0200
                Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-11 05:57 -0700
                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-11 10:04 -0500
                    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-11 10:32 -0700
                      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-12 11:52 -0500
                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-13 01:23 -0700
                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 04:51 -0700
                            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-13 10:39 -0700
                              Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 16:10 -0700
                                Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-14 06:05 -0700
                                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 06:22 -0700
                                    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-15 00:14 -0700
                                      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:52 -0700
                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-15 05:48 -0700
                                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 06:29 -0700
                                            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-15 13:42 -0700
                                              Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 14:57 -0700
                                                Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-16 10:34 -0700
                                                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 14:53 -0500
                                                    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-17 02:21 -0700
                                                      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-17 10:37 -0500
                                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 10:21 -0700
                                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-17 15:36 -0700
                                                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:37 -0500
                                                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-21 23:18 -0500
                                                            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2016-09-25 16:01 -0400
                                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-17 15:47 -0700
                                                What does "classical" mean? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-16 22:35 -0500
                                                  Re: What does "classical" mean? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-17 05:13 +0000
                                                    Re: What does "classical" mean? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-17 08:31 +0000
                                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:04 -0700
        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 02:33 +0000
        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-11 22:32 +1000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:36 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-09 20:20 -0500
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:37 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:40 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:43 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 02:38 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 19:46 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 03:41 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 19:52 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 14:48 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 14:35 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 20:48 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-12 11:55 -0500
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 14:38 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 16:43 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 00:05 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:41 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 19:08 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 20:56 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 04:35 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:58 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 13:24 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 13:54 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 15:21 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 15:21 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 11:35 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 16:56 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 14:38 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 15:18 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 16:34 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 17:50 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 11:51 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-18 02:50 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 16:22 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 21:22 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 12:26 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 12:40 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 00:53 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 12:41 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 01:02 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 19:33 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:21 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 15:18 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 02:53 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 09:15 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-20 12:24 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 13:08 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 21:36 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 14:17 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 15:22 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-21 14:57 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 11:35 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:27 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:33 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:34 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:36 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:18 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-24 15:24 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:22 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 12:06 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 01:19 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 11:13 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 19:04 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 15:48 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 10:07 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 12:15 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Jan2 - 2016-09-30 11:20 +0200
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 14:13 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 14:51 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 16:00 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 11:05 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-08 15:21 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-08 16:03 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-09 11:41 -0700

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#392431

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:14:45 AM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Prokoryatic Caspase Homolog...
> 
> >> So you accept that light can travel isotropically at c relative to 
> >> a rotating source as classical theory predicts?
> 
> >Very imprecise wording. I have no idea what you mean. Classical theory does not state what you think it states, so your question is equivalent to "When did >you stop beating your wife?"
> 
> Whats imprecise about my above question? Its clear and unambiguous. 
> But I knew that as a relativist and a true hypocrite you wouldnt be able to answer it.
> Because on the one hand you pretend,  as the revised wiki pages rewritten by dishonest 
> relativists do, that sagnac is now consistent with classical theory and its predictions. The reason
> being that the old relativist argument that light travels at c+-v in the labframe in sagnac 
> for classical has been shown to be mathematically incorrect. As you know, if classical
> theory dictates light is always at c relative to a rotating source, it is not possible to
> have this light travel at a constant speed c+-v in the *lab frame* if one does the maths
> correctly. Because this erroneous assumption means it will be a VARIABLE speed in the 
> source frame for a classical model.
> Yet when pressed, you are unable to admit that light can travel isotropically at c relative to a 
> rotating source. Because that is not consistent with special relativity. Even though,  hypocritically,
> you accept that light can travel at c relative to a rotating source as classical theory dictates.
> I know this because your very own sagnac wiki pages admit that sagnac is consistent
> with a classical model where light is always at c relative to a source only. True schizoid
> hypocrisy from relativists. And you try to get out of this by trying to make it sound like 
> I am a wife beater?!!! You are sick.

You are indeed very mixed up. The Wikipedia article on the Sagnac effect has
never stated what you claim it once stated, and I have explained to you how,
on a mobile device, can check this out for yourself. Classical theory does
not state what you claim that it states, although you are unclear because 
you refuse to specify from what frame light travels at c relative to the
source. Relativity is perfectly consistent with the Sagnac effect. So is
classical theory, because Sagnac devices operate at low speed where v << c.
The wife beating analogy was to explain how your questions begin with such
misguided premises, that there is no way to answer them directly.

You are confused.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392439

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog...

>You are indeed very mixed up. The Wikipedia article on the Sagnac effect has never stated what you claim it once stated, and I have explained to you how, >on a mobile device, can check this out for yourself.

That is unprovable on a platform that allows rewrites. But that doesnt address the 
current claim on wiki that sagnac is consistent with a classical model. Currently 
and historically, light was assumed to travel at c relative to the source and that
was and still is true  for a classical model. As MMX shows. And incidentally 
there are no sagnac setups that rotate at near c , so the pretense that classical
cannot explain these imaginary experiments is bogus pseudoscience on your part.


> Classical theory does not state what you claim that it states, 

Show me a link or reference that  states that a classical model
predicts that light travels at variable non c speeds relative to its
source.


>although you are unclear because you refuse to specify from what frame light travels at c >relative to the source. 

You must have reading problems. I have said numerous times...relative to the 
source. If you need a frame. Then try to imagine a frame where the source
doesnt move relative to an imaginary grid reference. Dont  forget, classical
theory is not SR. Classical theory is modeled on observation only. Not false assumptions
like SR.

>Relativity is perfectly consistent with the Sagnac effect. So is classical theory, because Sagnac devices operate at low speed where v << c. The wife beating >analogy was to explain how your questions begin with such misguided premises, that there is no way to answer them directly.
( You are obsessed with this subject. But your analogy was a deliberate smear 
from a sicko, apart from any suspicious sounding obsession you have with it.
Obviously you havent forgotten the political truth that when mud is slung ,
mud sticks, however unjustified)

If classical theory is consistent with sagnac then how do you explain
the interference shift "classically" when sagnac rotates?
Up till now relativists like yourself said light leaving  the source was
shifted in speed  at c+-v and therefore the path difference was nullified
by the difference of speed on each path. Hence, till recently, the relativistic 
claptrap was that classical predicts a null shift in sagnac when rotating.
Which as we all know isnt observed.
Now, you  guys have realized you  got the maths wrong. And youve changed
your tune pretending that in fact classical does predict a fringe shift
in sagnac. Yet you havent explained how  you think this happens.

So how does classical theory predict a fringe shift in sagnac if you also now pretend
that classical theory cannot have light at c relative to a source? ( another bullshit claim
from relativists that is unsubstantiated.)

Which   reminds me. Youd better hurry up and delete all those erroneous
claims on wiki based on incorrect maths regarding the de sitter argument  about 
how light *supposedly* piles up as it travels towards earth from a rotating 
source, in a classical model.
Once again your maths is incorrect. You have light leaving a source
and propagating away from it at constant speed in the earth frame as you
relativists like to claim. But this is bad maths; as if its at a constant speed in the
earth frame, as you relativist wackos on wiki like to pretend, then it will
HAVE TO BE travelling away from the source at a variable speed. Which is neither
claimed nor predicted in any  classical model. Nor  observed in any experiment.
Pre or post SR.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392444

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 7:48:37 AM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog...
> 
> >You are indeed very mixed up. The Wikipedia article on the Sagnac effect has never stated what you claim it once stated, and I have explained to you how, >on a mobile device, can check this out for yourself.
> 
> That is unprovable on a platform that allows rewrites. 

The current text may be rewritten.
The history maintains a permanent record of all rewrites.
The history cannot be rewritten.

> But that doesnt address the 
> current claim on wiki that sagnac is consistent with a classical model. 

Of course it is, for v << c

> Currently 
> and historically, light was assumed to travel at c relative to the source and that
> was and still is true  for a classical model. 

NO. In the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether, light was assumed to travel at c
relative to the aether.

> As MMX shows. And incidentally 
> there are no sagnac setups that rotate at near c , so the pretense that classical
> cannot explain these imaginary experiments is bogus pseudoscience on your part.
> 
> 
> > Classical theory does not state what you claim that it states, 
> 
> Show me a link or reference that  states that a classical model
> predicts that light travels at variable non c speeds relative to its
> source.

NO. In the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether, light was assumed to travel at c
relative to the aether. So yes, this constant c relative to the the aether
implied non-c speeds relative to the source.

> >although you are unclear because you refuse to specify from what frame light travels at c >relative to the source. 
> 
> You must have reading problems. I have said numerous times...relative to the 
> source. 

In the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether, light was assumed to travel at c
relative to the aether.

Classical theory did not predict that light traveled at c relative to the
source. Your statements do not compute.

> If you need a frame. Then try to imagine a frame where the source
> doesnt move relative to an imaginary grid reference. Dont  forget, classical
> theory is not SR. Classical theory is modeled on observation only. Not false assumptions
> like SR.

Classical theory postulated an unobservable aether.

> >Relativity is perfectly consistent with the Sagnac effect. So is classical theory, because Sagnac devices operate at low speed where v << c. The wife beating >analogy was to explain how your questions begin with such misguided premises, that there is no way to answer them directly.
> ( You are obsessed with this subject. But your analogy was a deliberate smear 
> from a sicko, apart from any suspicious sounding obsession you have with it.
> Obviously you havent forgotten the political truth that when mud is slung ,
> mud sticks, however unjustified)
> 
> If classical theory is consistent with sagnac then how do you explain
> the interference shift "classically" when sagnac rotates?

Because classical theory is not what you state that it is.

> Up till now relativists like yourself said light leaving  the source was
> shifted in speed  at c+-v and therefore the path difference was nullified
> by the difference of speed on each path. Hence, till recently, the relativistic 
> claptrap was that classical predicts a null shift in sagnac when rotating.
> Which as we all know isnt observed.
> Now, you  guys have realized you  got the maths wrong. And youve changed
> your tune pretending that in fact classical does predict a fringe shift
> in sagnac. Yet you havent explained how  you think this happens.

You are totally mixed up in all of your premises.

> So how does classical theory predict a fringe shift in sagnac if you also now pretend
> that classical theory cannot have light at c relative to a source? ( another bullshit claim
> from relativists that is unsubstantiated.)

Classical theory was never what you claim it to have been.

> Which   reminds me. Youd better hurry up and delete all those erroneous
> claims on wiki based on incorrect maths regarding the de sitter argument  about 
> how light *supposedly* piles up as it travels towards earth from a rotating 
> source, in a classical model.
> Once again your maths is incorrect. You have light leaving a source
> and propagating away from it at constant speed in the earth frame as you
> relativists like to claim. But this is bad maths; as if its at a constant speed in the
> earth frame, as you relativist wackos on wiki like to pretend, then it will
> HAVE TO BE travelling away from the source at a variable speed. Which is neither
> claimed nor predicted in any  classical model. Nor  observed in any experiment.
> Pre or post SR.

Apparently, you don't even understand emission theory.
You misrepresent all sides.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392482

Prokoryatic caspase homo...
>In the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether, light was assumed to travel at c relative to the aether.

>Classical theory did not predict that light traveled at c relative to the source. Your statements do not compute.
> classical theory postulated an unobservable aether.

Some theorists postulated that the aether/ vacuum was a medium like air
or water that effected emr speed relative to the source such as glass or 
water do. But they werent making predictions of different emission
speeds for light. They were speculating on what properties the vacuum
had. And MMX only proved the vacuum did not effect lightspeed. What
MMX did for classical was confirm that light indeed did always leave
and propagate away from a source at c. Regardless of the motion of
the source. You see your problem is you dont know any physics.
You cant tell the difference between light and a vacuum.

And you still cant explain how the relativist page on how light travels
from a rotating star to earth can "pile up" when for the last 100 years
classical physics has known that the vacuum cannot effect light speed.
How in your untutored brain does a classical model have light leaving
a source at a variable speed, as your erroneous wiki de sitter page 
incorrectly claims. When in fact currently, classical physics predicts, and
has observations to back it up, that light always travels at c relative
to the source?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392495

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 3:42:49 PM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Prokoryatic caspase homo...
> >In the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether, light was assumed to travel at c relative to the aether.
> 
> >Classical theory did not predict that light traveled at c relative to the source. Your statements do not compute.
> > classical theory postulated an unobservable aether.
> 
> Some theorists postulated that the aether/ vacuum was a medium like air
> or water that effected emr speed relative to the source such as glass or 
> water do. But they werent making predictions of different emission
> speeds for light. They were speculating on what properties the vacuum
> had. And MMX only proved the vacuum did not effect lightspeed. What
> MMX did for classical was confirm that light indeed did always leave
> and propagate away from a source at c. 

What in ***heck*** do you mean by the word "classical"? 

The pre-Michelson luminiferous aether predicted no such thing.

Neither did the FitzGerald-Lorentz aether. 

Ritz emission theory would have predicted such, but Ritz emission theory is not
"classical".

> Regardless of the motion of
> the source. You see your problem is you dont know any physics.
> You cant tell the difference between light and a vacuum.
> 
> And you still cant explain how the relativist page on how light travels
> from a rotating star to earth can "pile up" when for the last 100 years
> classical physics has known that the vacuum cannot effect light speed.
> How in your untutored brain does a classical model have light leaving
> a source at a variable speed, as your erroneous wiki de sitter page 
> incorrectly claims. When in fact currently, classical physics predicts, and
> has observations to back it up, that light always travels at c relative
> to the source?

Again, your concept of what "classical physics" predicts does not correspond
with what practically anybody else would call "classical physics." 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392600

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog...

>>>In the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether, light was assumed to travel at c relative to the aether. > > >Classical theory did not predict that light traveled at c relative to the source. Your statements do not compute. > > classical theory postulated an unobservable aether. >

>>Some theorists postulated that the aether/ vacuum was a medium like air > or water that effected emr speed relative to the source such as glass or > water do. But they werent making predictions of different emission > speeds for light. They were speculating on what properties the vacuum > had. And MMX only proved the vacuum did not effect lightspeed. What > MMX did for classical was confirm that light indeed did always leave > and propagate away from a source at c.

>What in ***heck*** do you mean by the word "classical"?

What in the **** do you think it means?  Its not SR, and its not GR.
Nor is it religious text written by one person as is SR&GR . Its a cumulative
model based on observation over the centuries. So its whatever
observation has shown us, as for example wave nature of light, refraction,
dispersion, polarization etc. Its not aether theory,  because those specific
speculations didnt match MMX Sagnac etc. It is emmission theory but
not a ballistic version because it is a wave based model. Alberts 
particle fantasy is not consistent with a wave model of light. 
Most importantly, it didnt get preserved in amber pre 1880 like relativists
such as yourself and that lousy mathematician de sitter would like to
pretend. Because it is only by ignoring MMX and sagnac does SR get
to pretend that light piles up etc in examples like de sitters.
And to erroneously conclude that light travels at a variable speed away
from a source. 

And incidentally, maybe relativists have deleted c+-v references from wiki,
but its still there in places like math pages on google. 
This is  a deliberate false claim made by relativists desperate to
remove any competition for relativistic dogma. The fact is that we know
from experiments like MMX and sagnac that a classical model always has
light at c isotropically relative to any rotating source. Hence any relativists
claim that classically light has to be at c+-v in the lab frame in sagnac or
at c+-v in the earth frame in de sitter is not only ignoring experimental
evidence and utilizing bad maths. But a deliberate rewriting of history to falsify
an erroneous claim made by relativity.



>the pre-Michelson luminiferous aether predicted no such thing.

>Neither did the FitzGerald-Lorentz aether.

>Ritz emission theory would have predicted such, but Ritz emission theory is not "classical".

Classical theory is based on observation accumulated over centuries. Classical
theory  was not owned by any one individual theorist. Classical theory is not
based on one specific  set of assumptions like aether. Especially when those
particular assumptions are not consistent with observation. 
A classical model of light did not predict interference or any wave like
properties. They were observed and  reobserved and accepted as properties
of light in a classical model. SR on the other makes up predictions that
are not observed. It is an unsubstantiated religious model, unlike clasical theory
which is BASED on observation only.

> Regardless of the motion of > the source. You see your problem is you dont know any physics. > You cant tell the difference between light and a vacuum. > > And you still cant explain how the relativist page on how light travels > from a rotating star to earth can "pile up" when for the last 100 years > classical physics has known that the vacuum cannot effect light speed. > How in your untutored brain does a classical model have light leaving > a source at a variable speed, as your erroneous wiki de sitter page > incorrectly claims. When in fact currently, classical physics predicts, and > has observations to back it up, that light always travels at c relative > to the source?

>Again, your concept of what "classical physics" predicts does not correspond with what practically anybody else would call "classical physics."

Thats  because relativists like yourself make up versions of classical physics that ignore
certain experimental observation to create a falsified version designed deliberately to 
fail. To prop up a relativity model that itself cannot explain MMX and Sagnac. Light travels
at c in the source frame only. No experiment has been made to show otherwise. This
is inconsistent with SR.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392625

On 9/16/2016 12:34 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >What in ***heck*** do you mean by the word "classical"?
> What in the **** do you think it means?  Its not SR, and its not GR.
> Nor is it religious text written by one person as is SR&GR . Its a cumulative
> model based on observation over the centuries. So its whatever
> observation has shown us, as for example wave nature of light, refraction,
> dispersion, polarization etc. Its not aether theory,  because those specific
> speculations didnt match MMX Sagnac etc. It is emmission theory but
> not a ballistic version because it is a wave based model. Alberts
> particle fantasy is not consistent with a wave model of light.
> Most importantly, it didnt get preserved in amber pre 1880 like relativists
> such as yourself and that lousy mathematician de sitter would like to
> pretend. Because it is only by ignoring MMX and sagnac does SR get
> to pretend that light piles up etc in examples like de sitters.
> And to erroneously conclude that light travels at a variable speed away
> from a source.
>
> And incidentally, maybe relativists have deleted c+-v references from wiki,
> but its still there in places like math pages on google.
> This is  a deliberate false claim made by relativists desperate to
> remove any competition for relativistic dogma. The fact is that we know
> from experiments like MMX and sagnac that a classical model always has
> light at c isotropically relative to any rotating source. Hence any relativists
> claim that classically light has to be at c+-v in the lab frame in sagnac or
> at c+-v in the earth frame in de sitter is not only ignoring experimental
> evidence and utilizing bad maths. But a deliberate rewriting of history to falsify
> an erroneous claim made by relativity.
>

I think you were asked a legitimate question and you didn't do a good 
job of answering it.

If you are declaring anything that is not relativity or quantum 
mechanics is classical, then I would dispute that. Had you said that 
classical physics comprises the Newtonian mechanics of material bodies, 
the thermodynamics of Gibbs and Carnot and Boltzmann, the 
electrodynamics of Faraday and Maxwell, and the optics of Huygens and 
Young, then this might have been a starting point. But I don't think you 
would even say this is right, in your view. I think you have a mixture 
of your own hodgepodge, plus some aspirations of what classical physics 
MIGHT HAVE been had others pursued it more aggressively.

One other point. "Albert's particle" view of light is indeed not 
consistent with the wave notion of light. However, the modern 
understanding of light as a quantum field -- that's post-Einstein and 
post-Maxwell -- is consistent with BOTH observed wavelike phenomena and 
particlelike phenomena. It is not consistent with wave mental models or 
particle mental models, but it IS consistent with the measured phenomena.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392678

Odd Bodkin...

>I think you were asked a legitimate question and you didn't do a good job of answering it.

That you didnt like my answer doesnt mean I did a bad job.  In fact
I would  say I did a goodjob if you didnt like it.

 >If you are declaring anything that is not relativity or quantum mechanics is classical, then I would dispute that.

You misunderstood that part of my answer. I was simply emphasizing 
that GR and SR definitely arent part of what I would call the  classical
canon. Its interesting that Tom Roberts seems to be suggesting they are?
Its funny that, because over the years I have read relativists specifically
saying that a classical physics cannot explain things like sagnac but SR 
can.
Why make the distinction and then say there isnt one?


>Had you said that classical physics comprises the Newtonian mechanics of material bodies, the thermodynamics of Gibbs and Carnot and Boltzmann, the electrodynamics of Faraday and Maxwell, and the optics of Huygens and Young, then this might have been a starting point. But I don't think you would even say this is right, in your view. I think you have a mixture of your own hodgepodge, plus some aspirations of what classical physics MIGHT HAVE been had >others pursued it more aggressively.

I think I was quite specific in that I specify observed phenomena is probably
the most important aspect in defining classical physics. Whereas assumption
isnt. So for instance,  the WMAP cmdb observations are part of classical. But
not the relativistic influenced assumption of a big bang. Or, Sagnac is
part of classical but not the relativistic assumption that light is at c in the lab frame.
And thats primarily because MMX shows light at c in the source frame, which
conflicts with the relativistic assumption that it cant be.
Regarding aspirations,.. whats wrong with that? It wasnt pursued, but it
should have been. If theorists had realized that proving the vacuum didnt
effect lightspeed was only what MMX had shown. Then they wouldnt have 
needed SR. They could  have accepted the truth that light was only at c
relative  to a source ( in a vacuum) and gone on to explain other experiments
classicaly without a problem, like sagnac. But for some reason they were so
obsessed with needing a particulate aether they couldnt see the wood for the trees.
The vacuum never needed to be a " baryonic" medium. It certainly would have
slowed the planetary orbits noticeably if it had slowed  light. Something the late
victorian physicists should have realized.

>One other point. "Albert's particle" view of light is indeed not consistent with the wave notion of light. However, the modern understanding of light as a quantum field -- that's post-Einstein and post-Maxwell -- is consistent with BOTH observed wavelike phenomena and particlelike phenomena. It is not >consistent with wave mental models or particle mental models, but it IS consistent with the measured phenomena.

Thats another argument. But you ignore the fact that its also true that all measured
phenomena is consistent with a wave only model. You and I have disagreed  on this
numerous times. But I still have yet to see a credible argument for any phenomena
not being explainable as  wave based. Take the photoelectric effect. Not only can
it be explained as wave energy quantized at the detector atom. But I have shown that
the famous  grangier coincidence experiment can not only be modelled classically.
Itis more consistent with a classical model. I explained this years ago on sci.physics
in the 'what evidence photon' thread. QT predicts a drop off to zero below a threshold.
My modelling indicates it gradually moved to zero to infinity. Experimental evidence
supports my argument. QT gets out of jail clause is..." unexplainable accidentals"

In fact if ever I got any funding to investigate my claims I would hire a supercomputer
and trained staff to do a peer reviewed simulation to prove beyond a doubt that
my classical modelling matches the observations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392702

On 9/17/16 9/17/16   4:21 AM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote:
> I was simply emphasizing that GR
> and SR definitely arent part of what I would call the  classical canon. Its
> interesting that Tom Roberts seems to be suggesting they are?

Yes. To physicists, SR and GR are both classical theories.


> Its funny that,
> because over the years I have read relativists specifically saying that a
> classical physics cannot explain things like sagnac but SR can. Why make the
> distinction and then say there isnt one?

Probably because what you read was not written by a modern physicist.

Note that some pre-SR theories can explain Sagnac, and others cannot. 
Specifically: ballistic theories of light can, while aether theories cannot; 
Fresnel's ad-hoc guess about aether drag can, but with the puzzle that the 
aether seems to always be at rest relative to a lab on the rotating earth. 
Remember that before ~ 1900 the by far dominant theory of electromagnetism and 
light was Maxwell's theory [#], which is explicitly based on aether. But there 
were then-recent unresolved puzzles, such as the MMX, blackbody radiation, the 
photoelectric effect, etc. -- change was in the air back then.

	[#] His original theory, not the modern evolution of it called
	Maxwell's equations (or classical electrodynamics) which involves
	no aether.


> the WMAP cmdb observations are part of
> classical. But not the relativistic influenced assumption of a big bang.

Where do you get this nonsense? The COBE, WMAP, and Planck observations of the 
CMBR are major observations supporting big-bang cosmology, which is based on GR.

Note also that NONE of these observations would have been possible without 
modern electronics, which is all based on quantum (non-classical) theory.


> Or,
> Sagnac is part of classical but not the relativistic assumption that light is
> at c in the lab frame.

Again, this is nonsense. SR provides a simple and natural explanation for the 
Sagnac effect. In a rotating Sagnac interferometer of course, the light does NOT 
travel at c in the lab frame. But SR models such interferometers very accurately 
(including a vacuum Sagnac interferometer in which the light does travel at c 
relative to the lab).


> And thats primarily because MMX shows light at c in
> the source frame, which conflicts with the relativistic assumption that it
> cant be.

More nonsense. MMX shows no such thing. It shows that the fringe positions are 
independent of orientation, nothing more. Several models can explain this, 
including SR.


> [... completely nonsensical speculations about history that never happened]

> But you ignore the fact that its also true that all
> measured phenomena is consistent with a wave only model.

This is just plain not true. Look up the photoelectric effect, the many EPR 
tests using light, the many aspects of quantum optics, and the myriad tests of 
QED in particle physics.

Like so many others around here, you merely display your personal ignorance of 
the experimental record. So it is HOPELESS for you to attempt to "model" the 
world using your "classical" notions. Thinking you can just "Make it up as you 
go along" is also HOPELESS -- there is a lot of knowledge about physics, and we 
KNOW it is very subtle; you haven't a hope of contributing to the field without 
a thorough understanding of what is known today, ESPECIALLY about the 
experiments that have been performed. IOW you need to STUDY. But doing it on 
your own will probably fail -- you need an EDUCATION.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392716

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 10:37:56 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/17/16 9/17/16   4:21 AM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I was simply emphasizing that GR
> > and SR definitely arent part of what I would call the  classical canon. Its
> > interesting that Tom Roberts seems to be suggesting they are?
> 
> Yes. To physicists, SR and GR are both classical theories.

(to Jay)
Note that Tom's dividing line lumps into "classical" theories that are 
considered valid (within specified domains of applicability) and theories which
are not valid.
- Newton's theories of motion and of gravitation are valid despite having been
  superseded by SR and GR
- SR is valid despite being only applicable when the curvature of spacetime due
  to gravity is negligible
- GR is valid despite its well-known incompatibilities with QM
- Ritz's emission theory of light is invalid
- Tolman's and Stewart's emission theories of light are invalid
- Le Sage's theory of gravitation is invalid
- Descartes' Theory of Vortices is invalid
- Theories of the luminiferous aether are invalid
- Caloric theory is invalid
- Scholastic philosophers' theory that each heavenly sphere is associated with
  a soul that is moved by an unmoved separate intelligence (angel) is invalid 
- Ptolemy's theory of epicycles is invalid
- Aristotelian dynamics is invalid
- The extramission theory of vision is invalid

> > Its funny that,
> > because over the years I have read relativists specifically saying that a
> > classical physics cannot explain things like sagnac but SR can. Why make the
> > distinction and then say there isnt one?
> 
> Probably because what you read was not written by a modern physicist.
> 
> Note that some pre-SR theories can explain Sagnac, and others cannot. 
> Specifically: ballistic theories of light can

Some can, most can't

> while aether theories cannot; 

Some can, some can't

> Fresnel's ad-hoc guess about aether drag can, but with the puzzle that the 
> aether seems to always be at rest relative to a lab on the rotating earth. 
> Remember that before ~ 1900 the by far dominant theory of electromagnetism and 
> light was Maxwell's theory [#], which is explicitly based on aether. But there 
> were then-recent unresolved puzzles, such as the MMX, blackbody radiation, the 
> photoelectric effect, etc. -- change was in the air back then.
> 
> 	[#] His original theory, not the modern evolution of it called
> 	Maxwell's equations (or classical electrodynamics) which involves
> 	no aether.
> 
> 
> > the WMAP cmdb observations are part of
> > classical. But not the relativistic influenced assumption of a big bang.
> 
> Where do you get this nonsense? The COBE, WMAP, and Planck observations of the 
> CMBR are major observations supporting big-bang cosmology, which is based on GR.
> 
> Note also that NONE of these observations would have been possible without 
> modern electronics, which is all based on quantum (non-classical) theory.
> 
> 
> > Or,
> > Sagnac is part of classical but not the relativistic assumption that light is
> > at c in the lab frame.
> 
> Again, this is nonsense. SR provides a simple and natural explanation for the 
> Sagnac effect. In a rotating Sagnac interferometer of course, the light does NOT 
> travel at c in the lab frame. 

Note that modern Sagnac interferometers include fiber optic interferometers,
where light travels at c/n within the fibers, and ring laser gyroscopes, where
light travels at slightly less than c within the laser medium.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392761

Tom Roberts...
>> > Or, > Sagnac is part of classical but not the relativistic assumption that light is > at c in the lab frame.

>Again, this is nonsense. SR provides a simple and natural explanation for the Sagnac effect. In a rotating Sagnac interferometer of course, the light does NOT travel at c in the lab frame. But SR models such interferometers very accurately (including a vacuum Sagnac interferometer in which the light does travel at >c > c relative to the lab).

I wasnt disputing the SR explanation vis a vis sagnac. Thats your cross to bear. 
All I meant was that the relativistic assumption of c in the lab frame be it in a vacuum
is not acceptable in a classical model. Currently, classical physics models light
*only* at c isotropically relative to the rotating sagnac source. MMX proves this.
Mathematical calculations using c isotropic in the rotating frame do also
give fringe shift. Meaning that sagnac is consistent with classical theory of light

>> And thats primarily because MMX shows light at c in > the source frame, which conflicts with the relativistic assumption that it > cant be.

>More nonsense. MMX shows no such thing. It shows that the fringe positions are independent of orientation, nothing more. Several models can explain this, > including SR.

You couldnt get the null result in MMX if light wasnt travelling at the same speed
isotropically relative to the source and the setup.
And the setup rotates around the earths axis. Which means in MMX, light is 
travelling isotropically relative to a rotating source. Which is impossible 
under SR. Unless youve just rewritten the rules.


>> But you ignore the fact that its also true that all > measured phenomena is consistent with a wave only model.

>This is just plain not true. Look up the photoelectric effect, the many EPR tests using light, the many aspects of quantum optics, and the myriad tests of QED >n particle physics.

The photoelectric effect can be modelled by quantization of wave energy
at the detector atom. Using resonance, which is a classical effect.
And any quantum properties are in fact fantasies and can be explained
by various classical effects like polarization.
For instance classical eraser experiments, ( sometimes erroneously called
quantum eraser experiments) can be explained solely by polarization
of the various beam paths and selective matching of various polarized states 
by  a coincidence counter. A purely classical effect. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392944

On 9/17/2016 5:36 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote:
> I wasnt disputing the SR explanation vis a vis sagnac. Thats your cross to bear.
> All I meant was that the relativistic assumption of c in the lab frame be it in a vacuum
> is not acceptable in a classical model.

So you don't consider Maxwell's equations to be classical physics, or 
you don't consider Maxwell's equations to be applicable in the lab 
frame. Which?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393289

On 9/17/16 9/17/16   5:36 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote:
> All I meant was that the relativistic assumption of c in the lab frame
> be it in a vacuum is not acceptable in a classical model. Currently,
> classical physics models light *only* at c isotropically relative to the
> rotating sagnac source.

You seem to think that "classical physics" means something as a model for light 
propagation. It doesn't, and there are several quite different models of light 
that fit your unusual meaning of "classical" (meaning pre-SR).


> MMX proves this.

Nonsense.


> You couldnt get the null result in MMX if light wasnt travelling at the same
> speed isotropically relative to the source and the setup. And the setup
> rotates around the earths axis. Which means in MMX, light is travelling
> isotropically relative to a rotating source. Which is impossible under SR.
> Unless youve just rewritten the rules.

You need to learn about QUANTITATIVE analysis of experiments, analysis of their 
resolution, and analysis of their errors. Here you merely display your personal 
ignorance of basic experimental physics.

For the MMX, the relevant time for establishing the fringe positions is the time 
light takes to traverse the apparatus, about 35 nanoseconds -- that is, every 35 
ns one can consider a new light ray emerging from the source and painting the 
fringes on the observer's eyeball (which then reacts far more slowly). The point 
is, the non-inertial motions you mention, as well as the effect of gravity, are 
all completely unobservable, as they are thousands to millions of times smaller 
than the resolution of the measurement.

To well within the experimental resolution, the MMX can be considered at rest in 
an inertial frame, separately at each orientation.


>>> But you ignore the fact that its also true that all > measured phenomena
>>> is consistent with a wave only model.
>
>> This is just plain not true. Look up the photoelectric effect, the many EPR
>> tests using light, the many aspects of quantum optics, and the myriad tests
>> of QED >n particle physics.
>
> The photoelectric effect can be modelled by quantization of wave energy at
> the detector atom. Using resonance, which is a classical effect.

Nope. That is well known not to work (except by you).


> And any
> quantum properties are in fact fantasies and can be explained by various
> classical effects like polarization.

Nope. Polarization cannot begin to cope with phenomena like frequency doubling 
crystals.

	Claiming that sort of thing is quantum mechanics applied to
	atoms, not light, is hopeless, because quantum transitions
	cannot possibly emit classical waves. For instance, the
	radiation emitted by Cs133 used to define the second has a
	wavelength almost a billion times larger than the atom.


> [... further fantasies even more disconnected from the real world]

Stop wasting your time posting nonsense to the net and go STUDY. All you will 
achieve by posting GUESSES is to demonstrate how ignorant and stupid you are.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393754

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> On 9/17/16 9/17/16   5:36 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote:
>> The photoelectric effect can be modelled by quantization of wave
>> energy at the detector atom. Using resonance, which is a classical
>> effect.
>
> Nope. That is well known not to work (except by you).

This turns out to be surprisingly subtle.  Most of the features of
the photoelectric effect can be reproduced via a semi-classical model
(Lamb & Scully 1969, "The photoelectric effect without photons" gets
cited a lot for this).  The current state of the art, AIUI, is that
semi-classical models can't reproduce the anti-correlation/bunching
effects predicted by the fully quantum model and observed in
experiments.

My usual question for the "no photon" advocates is what is it that you
get when an electron and positron annihilate at rest...

-dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392762

>For instance classical eraser experiments, ( sometimes erroneously called quantum eraser experiments) can be explained solely by polarization of the various beam paths and selective matching of various polarized states by a coincidence counter. A purely classical effect..


http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html?m=1 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392670 — What does "classical" mean?

On 9/15/16 9/15/16   4:57 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> [to someone else] What in ***heck*** do you mean by the word "classical"?

For the record, when PHYSICISTS use the word "classical", we mean "pre-quantum".

In particular, all of these theories are classical ones:
	Newtonian mechanics
	Special Relativity
	General Relativity
	Thermodynamics
	classical electrodynamics
	classical statistical mechanics
	big-bang cosmological models; the standard model of cosmology

These theories are not classical:
	quantum mechanics
	QED
	the standard model of particle physics
	BCS theory of superconductivity
	various models of solid state / condensed matter physics


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392673 — Re: What does "classical" mean?

Tom Roberts wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > [to someone else] What in ***heck*** do you mean
> > by the word "classical"?
>
> For the record, when PHYSICISTS use the word "classical",
> we mean "pre-quantum".

Oh? You claim to be a physicist? Why is it then, that you
need to lie when "arguing" physics?

----snup----

Ned

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392677 — Re: What does "classical" mean?

Ned Latham wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > [to someone else] What in ***heck*** do you mean
> > > by the word "classical"?
> >
> > For the record, when PHYSICISTS use the word "classical",
> > we mean "pre-quantum".
>
> Oh? You claim to be a physicist? Why is it then, that you
> need to lie when "arguing" physics?

I aplogise for that baseless accusation, Mr Roberts.
In making it, I was guilty of a grievous error.

Med Lartham

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392435

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:05:28 AM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Right,  and if a relativist wanted to delete an erroneous claim about 
> classical theory that other relativists have made. They'd leave the 
> ridiculous claim in other earlier versions?

The earlier versions CANNOT BE MODIFIED. 

There are only certain items in the historical record that will not be
retrievable. For example, a copyrighted image deleted for lack of permission
by the copyright holders cannot be undeleted except by an administrator.
These are exceptional cases, and do not apply to text.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391926

dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> writes:

>Those mirrors are very special.  They only reflect incident light back
>*exactly* along the line the light came in from.

You are right, they are corner reflectors.  Of course *exactly* depends on
the preciseness of manufacture.  For example, reflectors on cars and 
bicycles have little corner reflectors molded in plastic. They don't
reflect exactly back which is fine since a driver's eyeballs aren't
where the headlights are.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web