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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #473066 > unrolled thread

" A MEDIUM NECESSARY"

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

Contents

  " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 20:53 +0100
    Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-25 14:36 -0700
      Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 09:34 +0100
        Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-26 11:29 +0200
        Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-26 02:41 -0700
        Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-26 13:56 -0700
          Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 10:48 +0100
            Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-27 04:32 -0700
              Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-27 05:18 -0700
              Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 13:48 +0100
                Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-27 06:13 -0700
                  Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-27 06:28 -0700
                  Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 15:48 +0100
                    Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-27 10:45 -0700
                      Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 19:45 +0100
                    Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-28 05:27 -0700
                      Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 16:01 +0100
                        Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-28 08:27 -0700
                          Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 17:35 +0100
                        Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-28 19:18 +0200
            Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-27 06:00 -0700
          Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-27 03:30 -0700
    Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-25 18:03 -0700
    Re:" A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-26 05:45 +0200
      Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 13:12 +0100
        Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 12:54 +0000
          Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 16:09 +0100
            Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 15:56 +0000
    " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-26 04:41 -0700
      Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 12:00 +0100
        Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-28 11:11 -0700
          Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-28 11:15 -0700
            Re: " A MEDIUM NECESSARY" "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-28 11:50 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#473251

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 3:48:20 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 26/09/2018 21:56, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 2:34:39 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > And yet you have not yet learned that light travels at a
> > > speed appropriate to and relative to the medium eh!
> > 
> > Why would I learn bullshit?  I learned just the opposite by observing
> > REAL, SOLID experimental evidence:  NASA determines the distance
> > between earth and its spacecraft by timing two-way em pulses and
> > assuming the speed of light is independent of the speed of either
> > the earth or the spacecraft,
> 
> Let a signal leave Earth at time tA and arrive at the spacecraft
> at time tB.Let the distance between the Earth and spacecraft at the
> time the signal leaves Earth be x meters. Then in the frame of reference 
> of the spacecraft the speed of light is x/(tB-tA)

How do you know what the time, tB, is?  You DON'T.

NASA knows the ROUNDTRIP time and calculates the distance (at the
time of arrival of the pulse at the spacecraft) as d = c*tRT/2.
If the speed of light weren't c, but c + v going out and c - v coming
back (where v is the velocity of the solar wind), they would get a
different answer for d.  They don't.

> Let the distance between the Earth and spacecraft at the time
> the signal arrives at the spacecraft be x' meters. (Note that
> if the spacecraft is moving away from the Earth x' > x )
> Also note that in the frame of reference of the Earth the
> signal has traveled x' meters, not x meters eh! Therefore
> in the frame of reference of the Earth the speed of light
> is x'/(tB=tA)
> 
> Thus the speed of light relative to the Earth is not, indeed
> cannot possibly be, the same as the speed of light relative
> to the spacecraft, unless the spacecraft is stationary relative
> to the Earth eh!

So now you're forgetting about the medium and embracing ballistic theory?

> > and ignoring the solar wind which amounts to several hundred
> > km/second.  That observation blows your whole pile of crap higher
> > than Pluto.
> >
> Note that there are indeed anomalies in the ranging of spacecraft
> (many references on "Pioneer Anomaly"),

That's a completely different phenomenon which didn't become apparent
until the Pioneers were FAR beyond Saturn.

> but you are not going to understand that if you can't see the difference
> between the speed of light relative to the Earth, and speed of light
> relative to the spacecraft, i think.

The roundtrip calculations don't involve "the speed of light relative
to the spacecraft."  You are just yammering bullshit.

> > > You are wrong Gary, old bean. The constancy of the speed of light
> > > is not an experimental fact.
> > 
> > Yes, it is, bullshit spewer.
> 
> You are still wrong Gary, old bean.
> 
> Every determination of the one way speed of light shows that the
> speed of light is frame dependent, because the time for light's
> journey is NOT frame dependent, while the distance traveled IS
> frame dependent
> 
> 
> keith stein

You are spewing a delusional assertion contrary to experimental evidence.
Repeating bullshit doesn't make it smell any better.

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

#473240

On Wednesday, 26 September 2018 22:56:25 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:

> Why would I learn bullshit?  I learned just the opposite by observing
> REAL, SOLID experimental evidence: 

It's only REAL and SOLID for some fanatic idiots like you.


> Yes, it is NOW.  That's because experiment shows it to be, dishonest
> weasel.

And if the clocks don't want to really indicate your 
idiocies you delete them from the reality. Right,
poor halfbrain?

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

#473097

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 12:53:45 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
>    of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".
> 
>    In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
> of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.
> 
> It is certainly not the same value in all frames of reference,
> as suggested by Einstein, but certainly NOT by Maxwell's Theory,
> as is sometimes claimed eh!
> 
> 
> keith stein

Medium: Immaterial to immaterial
        Aether to Aether

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#473107

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>   "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
>    of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".

You must mean James Clerk Maxwell.

Many things the famous scientists once said are already obsolete.

This is just one of them.




-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#473131

On 26/09/2018 04:45, Libor Striz wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>    "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
>>     of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".
> 
> You must mean James Clerk Maxwell.
>
Indeed i do, silly me, getting my media mixed eh!

> Many things the famous scientists once said are already obsolete.

Never truer or more relevant this:

"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
   of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".

   In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.

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

#473133

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 26/09/2018 04:45, Libor Striz wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>    "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
>>>     of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".

>> Many things the famous scientists once said are already obsolete.

>Never truer or more relevant this:

>"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
>   of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".

That's true, that's one of the obsolete ones. Or rather, it is a useful
shortcut, treat a macroscopically homogeneous medium such as the
dielectric of a capacitor as homogeneous rather than dealing with every
single atom, electron etc. individually.

Of course, what we know as "Maxwell's Equations" have been heavily 
modified by Heaviside and others.

>   In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
>of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.

Maxwell knew of, or should have known of, Fizeau's work showing the speed
of light is not relative to the medium for small values of (n-1) with n
being the index of refraction. Instead it approaches c as a limit for n
near 1.

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

#473147

On 26/09/2018 13:54, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>>    In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
>> of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.

> Maxwell knew of, or should have known of, Fizeau's work showing the speed
> of light is not relative to the medium for small values of (n-1) with n
> being the index of refraction. Instead it approaches c as a limit for n
> near 1.
> 

I'm sure Maxwell would have known of Fizeau's claimed confirmation
of Fresnel's "partial drag" nonsense. He would also have known that
a wave traveling trough a medium at speed c will be traveling at c=v
(vector addition) in a frame of reference in which the medium is 
traveling at v m/s.

Fizeau's Bullshit would never have persuaded Maxwell to give up
Galilean Transformations.

keith stein

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

#473159

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 26/09/2018 13:54, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>>>    In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
>>> of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.

>> Maxwell knew of, or should have known of, Fizeau's work showing the speed
>> of light is not relative to the medium for small values of (n-1) with n
>> being the index of refraction. Instead it approaches c as a limit for n
>> near 1.

>I'm sure Maxwell would have known of Fizeau's claimed confirmation
>of Fresnel's "partial drag" nonsense.

The "partial drag" stuff was what people believed at the time.
Fizeau's results were correct (verified many times since then), but
the aether partial drag explanation isn't.

> He would also have known that a wave traveling trough a medium at speed 
>c will be traveling at c=v (vector addition) in a frame of reference in 
>which the medium is traveling at v m/s.

If he knew of Fizeau's experiment, he would have known that that "obvious"
"common sense" explanation (c'=c/n+v) was actually incorrect. The speed of
light in moving water in Fizeau's experiment was modified by the speed of
the water, but only at 43% of what would be expected if c+v added
vectorally. We now know the speeds c/n and v add according to the SR speed
combination formula, not simple vector addition.

>Fizeau's Bullshit would never have persuaded Maxwell to give up
>Galilean Transformations.

How can actual experimental results be "bullshit"? The interpretation of
them may be BS (aether partial drag), but the truth is the truth.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

-Richard P. Feynman

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

#473128

Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity = Medium 

(((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) * (1 second)) / (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = 8.98755179e+16 m^2 / s 

((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) * (1 second)) = Friedmann energy density 

(3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = Friedmann mass density 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter 

((1.50122737e+23 / (2 * pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879 


http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%281.50122737e%2B23+%2F+%282+*+pi%29%29+%2F+%28%284+*+%28pi%5E2%29%29+*+%28%28%282%5E6%29+*+%283+*+%28pi%5E2%29%29+*+%28%28%28pi%5Ee%29+%2F+%28e%5E%28e+-+1%29%29%29%5E%285+%2F+2%29%29%29%5E3%29%29%29%5E%281+%2F+3%29+ 


#BoltzmannConstant & the #Electron 

1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 

(c / (((2.4263263e-12 m) / c) / ((2.4263263e-12 m)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394325 m^2 / s 

(c / (electron Compton period ) / ((electron Compton length)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394325 m^2 / s = Kinematic viscosity 

(c / (((planck length * 1.50122737E+23) / c) / ((planck length * 1.50122737E+23)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394316 m^2 / s 

(c / ((planck length / c) / (planck length^3)))^0.5 = 4.84533077e-27 m^2 / s 

(((c / ((planck length / c) / (planck length^3)))^0.5) / (((0.5 kg) * G) / (c^2))) / 2 = 6.5248935 m / s 



(((6.5248935 / (2pi)) * 1.70377849e53 kg * G) / (13.8880509 billion light year))^0.5 = 299792458 m / s 

((0.5 Planck Time) / ((0.5 Planck Length)^3)) / 299792458 = 1.70377849e+53 s / m^3 

1.70377849e+53 kg = mass of visible universe 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14dGOjOuRXXIBSg-0N-vBovhwDCnrMbBioONasYH9FG0 



Programming Planck units from a virtual electron; a Simulation Hypothesis 
Malcolm J. Macleod 

https://philpapers.org/archive/MACAMU.pdf 

(1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * 137.035999172 * (2.0071199557^5))^3)) = 1.00000000136

((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^0.5 = 2.00713495432 



((1.50122737e+23 / (2 * pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879198 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant 


https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime

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

#473340

On 26/09/2018 12:41, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:

> https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime

Very impressive Mr.Fuller.
I was particularly impressed by the "Acknowledgements" eh!

One difficulty with trying to model space-time as a gas would
seem to me to be in the very different variation of energy density
with temperature.

We know that for electromagnetic radiation:
             Energy Density proportional to T^4

Whereas for a gas:
             Energy Density proportional to T^1


How could one explain that with a gas model?

keith stein

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

#473389

Keith Stein escrito 

On 26/09/2018 12:41, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: 

> https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime 

Very impressive Mr.Fuller. 
I was particularly impressed by the "Acknowledgements" eh!

One difficulty with trying to model space-time as a gas would
seem to me to be in the very different variation of energy density 
with temperature. 

We know that for electromagnetic radiation: 
             Energy Density proportional to T^4 

Whereas for a gas: 
             Energy Density proportional to T^1 


How could one explain that with a gas model? 

keith stein 

T^4 = (N*x)^4 = 1.50122737e+23^4

1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 

((((((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / ((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals)) / (1.50122737e+23^4)) * ((hbar / c) / kg)) / 4) / 2.4263263e-12 = 0.990797488 meters

Pretty close over the span of the entire universe & Planck Pressure 

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

#473390

Keith Stein escrito 

On 26/09/2018 12:41, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: 

> https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime 

Very impressive Mr.Fuller. 
I was particularly impressed by the "Acknowledgements" eh!

One difficulty with trying to model space-time as a gas would
seem to me to be in the very different variation of energy density 
with temperature. 

We know that for electromagnetic radiation: 
             Energy Density proportional to T^4 

Whereas for a gas: 
             Energy Density proportional to T^1 


How could one explain that with a gas model? 

keith stein 

T^4 = (N*x)^4 = 1.50122737e+23^4 

1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 

((((((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / ((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals)) / (1.50122737e+23^4)) * ((hbar / c) / kg)) / 4) / 2.4263263e-12 = 0.990797488 meters 

Pretty close over the span of the entire universe & Planck Pressure 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ljusv5jFVIiNWHzOEejwQJyrToKbJkoq68XLLuOnEkk

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17W_L19_YvxkKXv1vNya0YekR0vb8K31XTq4_4-CssSM

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

#473394

Keith Stein escrito 

On 26/09/2018 12:41, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: 

> https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime 

Very impressive Mr.Fuller. 
I was particularly impressed by the "Acknowledgements" eh!

One difficulty with trying to model space-time as a gas would
seem to me to be in the very different variation of energy density 
with temperature. 

We know that for electromagnetic radiation: 
             Energy Density proportional to T^4 

Whereas for a gas: 
             Energy Density proportional to T^1 


How could one explain that with a gas model? 

keith stein 

T^4 = (N*x)^4 = 1.50122737e+23^4 

1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 

((((((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / ((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals)) / (1.50122737e+23^4)) * ((hbar / c) / kg)) / 4) / 2.4263263e-12 = 0.990797488 meters 

Pretty close over the span of the entire universe & Planck Pressure 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ljusv5jFVIiNWHzOEejwQJyrToKbJkoq68XLLuOnEkk 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17W_L19_YvxkKXv1vNya0YekR0vb8K31XTq4_4-CssSM 

The Mainstream Physics community does not seem to have any problem with proclaiming an "Aether-less space time" with a necessary energy density of (10^113 joules per cubic meter) 

The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales. Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy of free space has been estimated to be 10^−9 joules (10^−2 ergs) per cubic meter.

However, in both quantum electrodynamics (QED) and stochastic electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck constant suggest a much larger value of 10^113 joules per cubic meter. 

This huge discrepancy is known as the cosmological constant problem. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy 

an ("Ideal Fluid Solution" under pressure) seems entirely more Fitting and Logical 

(9.270391e+111 joules/m^3) / c^5 *(Planck length)^2 = 1 

((9.270391e+111 (joules / (m^3))) / (299792458^5)) * ((Planck length / m)^2) = 1 pascals 

((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / ((c^5) / (Planck length^2)) = 49.9790376 kg s^3 / m^4 

(((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / ((c^5) / (Planck length^2))) * (G * c) = 1 

((Planck Pressure) / ((c^5) / (Planck length^2))) * (G * c) = 1 

Decagon Dodecahedral Penrose Fractal = c^5 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17W_L19_YvxkKXv1vNya0YekR0vb8K31XTq4_4-CssSM/ 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web