Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #473779 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-02 09:47 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-10-16 19:13 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 155 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:47 +0100
Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 04:20 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:21 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 06:02 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:12 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-02 12:39 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:08 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-07 08:40 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 07:22 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-07 14:42 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 17:41 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:19 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-02 06:56 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:00 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:12 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:14 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-02 07:12 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 14:15 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-02 08:49 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-02 13:31 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 06:06 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 06:09 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:05 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 07:14 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 15:38 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 16:43 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 08:51 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 16:06 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 09:17 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 07:24 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 08:53 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:22 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 14:38 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-04 21:47 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 22:03 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 08:30 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-05 04:26 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 15:01 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 08:11 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-06 08:32 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 20:20 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 07:19 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 19:19 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 01:00 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 21:40 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 16:45 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:10 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:15 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:18 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 06:41 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 19:06 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 07:52 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Hilton Packett <wod@wcotahr.ce> - 2018-10-02 20:28 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-03 03:32 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 05:18 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 05:06 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 10:51 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 09:58 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 03:19 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 12:28 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 12:44 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 05:57 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:05 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 09:16 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 19:36 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 18:59 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 19:53 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 21:56 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 04:45 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 00:06 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 09:58 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 02:46 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 10:03 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 03:31 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 12:21 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 11:49 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 05:42 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 14:46 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 09:41 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 18:26 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-04 11:45 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 07:15 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 06:39 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-05 00:31 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:53 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 08:51 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-05 00:58 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 12:17 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 14:54 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 08:10 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 19:17 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 20:20 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 05:37 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 09:17 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-07 04:57 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-07 04:59 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-07 05:39 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:36 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-06 22:59 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 07:13 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:25 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-04 09:00 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 12:33 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 05:38 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 11:30 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 06:18 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 13:41 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-03 20:01 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> - 2018-10-03 20:00 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-04 14:28 -0400
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:32 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 06:44 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 09:03 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-07 08:59 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 07:33 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-07 16:37 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-08 12:30 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> - 2018-10-08 17:41 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-08 20:00 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-08 22:12 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 23:39 -0400
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-08 20:46 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-09 13:30 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-15 22:21 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 21:14 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-15 22:10 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-16 08:50 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-16 18:43 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-17 03:30 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 22:47 -0400
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-15 22:07 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-15 22:14 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-16 08:39 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-10-16 05:03 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 21:08 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-16 18:50 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-17 03:31 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 06:28 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:02 -0400
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 18:47 +0100
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-19 19:15 +0000
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 11:44 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-16 23:11 +0200
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-16 18:41 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-22 13:04 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-09 06:06 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-09 08:45 -0500
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-09 07:27 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-09 07:40 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-09 07:43 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-10 07:08 -0700
Re: Why the *Medium* Matters. Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> - 2018-10-09 14:04 +0000
Another Reason "Why the *Medium* Matters." Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 19:13 +0100
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 22:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0850e46f-d1cd-4187-b4ed-d8eaebb81da4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474307 |
On Saturday, 6 October 2018 22:20:20 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 06/10/2018 15:54, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 05/10/2018 07:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>> That's a good point Mr.Bodkin. Fortunately i do know how to > >>>>> synchronize the clocks UNAMBIGUOUSLY. From the midpoint between > >>>>> two clocks we send a signal to both clocks through stationary air, > >>>>> (or any other STATIONARY medium). Clocks synchronized in this way > >>>>> will be synchronized in all frames of reference. > > > >>>> This of course would violate the > >>>> principle of relativity. > > > >>> If you mean it is incompatible with Einstein's ridiculous > >>> assumption that the speed of light has the same value in all > >>> frames of reference, then you are entirely correct Mr.Bodkin. > > > >> No, that’s not what the principle of relativity says. > > > > Well if you mean that synchronizing clocks in the frame of > > reference in which the medium is stationary would violate > > the principle that the laws of physics are the same in all > > inertial frames of reference, then NO it would certainly > > NOT violate the principle of relativity Mr.Bodkin. What on > > Earth makes you think that it would ? > > Well, because the synchronization procedure will have to work for pairs of > clocks at rest in ANY inertial reference frame, In the imaginattion of a poor fanatic halfbrain. In the real world, however, GPS engineers have managed. > or the laws of physics will > not be the same in different reference frames. And, as GPS engineers have managed - they are not. Too bad.:(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 07:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b35156b3-71b2-47ed-a329-3f820400f432@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474053 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 6:03:43 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 04/10/2018 05:45, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 03/10/2018 20:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >>>> I don’t have any idea why you think a one way speed measurement result is > >>>> inconsistent with the speed of light being the same in all frames of > >>>> reference. > >>>> > >>>> Here is a simple experiment that has been done: > >>>> 1. Identify a process that emits equal flashes of light in opposite > >>>> directions from a common trigger event. > >>>> 2. Perform a test where the time of flight of both light signals is > >>>> measured when the source is at rest. Verify that in each and every case, > >>>> the times of flight of the oppositely directed signals is equal. > > > > Let's do the experiment your way then Mr.Bodkin. > > We put a light with a clock in the middle of a railway carriage, > > No, Keith, let’s not do a mental experiment. Let’s refer to a REAL > experiment, one that has already been done. Furthermore, let us not make > any conclusions based on hypothetical assumptions about what you or I > *think* is the reasonable thing to happen. Instead, we should look at the > actual experiment conducted and see what *actually* happened, no matter how > unreasonable you or I think that outcome would be. > > > and flash the light on at t = t0 > > > > We have photocells and clocks at the front and rear of the carriage > > to measure when the light arrived at the front (t=t1 say) and at the > > back (t=t2) > > > > With the rail carriage stationary we turn on the light and > > discover that indeed t1 = t2, as you say Mr.Bodkin > > > >>>> 3. Now repeat the same measurement when the same source is traveling at a > >>>> significant speed, > > > > Right. I start the train moving and discover that once again t1 = t2, > > and that this applies whatever the speed of the train, and whenever i > > turn the light on, i.e. for all values of t0 > > > >>>> such that the flash is triggered when the source passes > >>>> the center of the detecting apparatus. See if the times of flight of the > >>>> two flashes are now different (your expectation), or still identical > >>>> (the >>> expectation of relativity). > > > > I can assure you that "My expectation" is that t1 = t2 whatever the > > speed of the train, Mr.Bodkin > > > >>>> Since you are looking at the same process from the same source from two > >>>> different reference frames, > > > > BUT YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT IT FROM DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAMES. > > From any frame of reference in which the train is moving, > > the front of the railway carriage is moving away from the > > point where the light was emitted, and the back of the train > > is moving towards the point where the light was emitted. > > The only way to determine the speed of light relative to me is for ME to > MEASURE that speed. > You can calculate a CLOSING speed between me and the light in the frame of > the train, but then you are making the assumption that this closing speed > is the same as the speed of light that I would measure in my frame. That is > an incorrect assumption. Closing speed is not frame-independent. If the speed of light is measured to be isotropic in the train then there is no different closing speeds exist in the train. The track observer erroneously assumes that the closing speeds of light in the train (in the track frame) are different.....these fictitious closing speeds are not measurable and do not exist. What this mean is that if you claim the speed of light is isotropic in all frames then you cannot turn around and make the contradictory claim that light have different closing speeds. The track observer must use the LT to show that there is no different closing speeds of light in the train and thus agree with the train observer’s measurement. > > This kind of false assumptions being made is exactly why referring to an > *actual* experiment’s results and NOT a mental experiment is so important. > > > > > So > > the forward traveling light must travel a distance > > = half the length of carriage + v(t1-t0) > > and > > the backward traveling light travels must travel a distance > > = half the length of carriage - v(t2-t0) > > > > So although t2 IS ALWAYS EQUAL TO t1 (as you say Bodkin), > > the distances traveled by the forward and backward light > > can only be equal in the frame of reference in which v=0 > > In any other frame the distance traveled by the forward light > > is greater than the distance traveled by the backward light, > > but the time for the journeys t1-t0, and t2-t0 are equal, > > AND THUS THE SPEED OF THE FORWARD BEAM IS GREATER THAN THE > > SPEED OF THE BACKWARD BEAM. > > > >>>> this is a clear test of the hypothesis. > > > > This is entirely within the expectation of my hypothesis, > > Mr Bodkin. > > It's SR which claims the speed of light is constant eh! > > > > > > keith stein > > > > > >>>> This experiment has already been done. > >>>> > >>> > >>> If YOU have access to a laboratory do please try the following > >>> experiment, Mr.Bodkin: > >>> > >>> A B > >>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s > >>> tA tB > >>> > >>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s > >>> > >>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s > >>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, > >>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, > >>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B > >>> > >>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) m/s > >>> = (c + v) m/s > >> > >> This is not a measurement. This is a hypothetical calculation that is based > >> on an assumption. This assumption is wrong. There are several ways to > >> describe this incorrect assumption. > >> > >> One way to describe it is that you are trying to transform the velocity of > >> the light signal from the lab frame to my frame and you are assuming that > >> the way to to that is u’ = u + v. This is incorrect. > >> > >> Another way to describe it is to say that the times tA and tB are the same > >> for me as they are in the lab. This is also incorrect. > > > > > > tA is the time when the light beam passes A as recorded by a clock at A > > tB is the time when the light beam passes B as recorded by a clock at B > > Clocks at rest in WHICH FRAME? > > > > > Since we know exactly which clocks are being referred to (think of them > > as digitally displayed times in seconds), they MUST BE THE SAME FOR ALL > > OBSERVERS eh! > > No, and this is exactly the point. Clocks at rest and synchronized at A and > B in one frame will NOT be synchronized in any other frame. So you are > ASSUMING that all that’s needed to record times is to specify the clock’s > location, and that should be sufficient for any observer. That is an > incorrect assumption. A pair of clocks in different locations must also be > synchronized, and synchronization is frame dependent. You can synchronize > those two clocks in your frame and they will continue to be synchronized in > your frame and they will provide the tA and tB that are appropriate for > your frame. > > However those two clocks are NOT synchronized in my frame, and so those > times tA and tB don’t work in my frame. I need a pair of clocks at A and B > that are synchronized in MY frame. These will provide two DIFFERENT times > tA’ and tB’ from the clocks that are synched in my frame. This is what I > meant when I was saying that the times tA and tB are not the same times for > me. > > > > > > >> Your “experiment” draws incorrect conclusions from incorrect assumptions. > >> > >> A real experiment is like the one I described. The results of this real > >> experiment are confounding to you, I know. But real experimental results > >> trump theoretical hypotheses, every single time. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> SO that experiment trumps Einstein's theoretical hypothesis that > >>> the speed of light is constant for all observers eh! > >>> > > > > Both your experiment, and my experiment draw the same > > conclusion Mr.Bodkin. THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT. > > You have not looked at the experimental result I mentioned. > > > > > > >>> keith stein > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp5bcs$1na6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474066 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 6:03:43 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 04/10/2018 05:45, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 03/10/2018 20:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>>>>> I don’t have any idea why you think a one way speed measurement result is >>>>>> inconsistent with the speed of light being the same in all frames of >>>>>> reference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is a simple experiment that has been done: >>>>>> 1. Identify a process that emits equal flashes of light in opposite >>>>>> directions from a common trigger event. >>>>>> 2. Perform a test where the time of flight of both light signals is >>>>>> measured when the source is at rest. Verify that in each and every case, >>>>>> the times of flight of the oppositely directed signals is equal. >>> >>> Let's do the experiment your way then Mr.Bodkin. >>> We put a light with a clock in the middle of a railway carriage, >> >> No, Keith, let’s not do a mental experiment. Let’s refer to a REAL >> experiment, one that has already been done. Furthermore, let us not make >> any conclusions based on hypothetical assumptions about what you or I >> *think* is the reasonable thing to happen. Instead, we should look at the >> actual experiment conducted and see what *actually* happened, no matter how >> unreasonable you or I think that outcome would be. >> >>> and flash the light on at t = t0 >>> >>> We have photocells and clocks at the front and rear of the carriage >>> to measure when the light arrived at the front (t=t1 say) and at the >>> back (t=t2) >>> >>> With the rail carriage stationary we turn on the light and >>> discover that indeed t1 = t2, as you say Mr.Bodkin >>> >>>>>> 3. Now repeat the same measurement when the same source is traveling at a >>>>>> significant speed, >>> >>> Right. I start the train moving and discover that once again t1 = t2, >>> and that this applies whatever the speed of the train, and whenever i >>> turn the light on, i.e. for all values of t0 >>> >>>>>> such that the flash is triggered when the source passes >>>>>> the center of the detecting apparatus. See if the times of flight of the >>>>>> two flashes are now different (your expectation), or still identical >>>>>> (the >>> expectation of relativity). >>> >>> I can assure you that "My expectation" is that t1 = t2 whatever the >>> speed of the train, Mr.Bodkin >>> >>>>>> Since you are looking at the same process from the same source from two >>>>>> different reference frames, >>> >>> BUT YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT IT FROM DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAMES. >>> From any frame of reference in which the train is moving, >>> the front of the railway carriage is moving away from the >>> point where the light was emitted, and the back of the train >>> is moving towards the point where the light was emitted. >> >> The only way to determine the speed of light relative to me is for ME to >> MEASURE that speed. >> You can calculate a CLOSING speed between me and the light in the frame of >> the train, but then you are making the assumption that this closing speed >> is the same as the speed of light that I would measure in my frame. That is >> an incorrect assumption. Closing speed is not frame-independent. > > If the speed of light is measured to be isotropic in the train then there > is no different closing speeds exist in the train. Bullshit. Stop using terms you don’t know the meaning of. > The track observer erroneously assumes that the closing speeds of light > in the train (in the track frame) are different.....these fictitious > closing speeds are not measurable and do not exist. > > What this mean is that if you claim the speed of light is isotropic in > all frames then you cannot turn around and make the contradictory claim > that light have different closing speeds. The track observer must use the > LT to show that there is no different closing speeds of light in the > train and thus agree with the train observer’s measurement. > >> >> This kind of false assumptions being made is exactly why referring to an >> *actual* experiment’s results and NOT a mental experiment is so important. >> >>> >>> So >>> the forward traveling light must travel a distance >>> = half the length of carriage + v(t1-t0) >>> and >>> the backward traveling light travels must travel a distance >>> = half the length of carriage - v(t2-t0) >>> >>> So although t2 IS ALWAYS EQUAL TO t1 (as you say Bodkin), >>> the distances traveled by the forward and backward light >>> can only be equal in the frame of reference in which v=0 >>> In any other frame the distance traveled by the forward light >>> is greater than the distance traveled by the backward light, >>> but the time for the journeys t1-t0, and t2-t0 are equal, >>> AND THUS THE SPEED OF THE FORWARD BEAM IS GREATER THAN THE >>> SPEED OF THE BACKWARD BEAM. >>> >>>>>> this is a clear test of the hypothesis. >>> >>> This is entirely within the expectation of my hypothesis, >>> Mr Bodkin. >>> It's SR which claims the speed of light is constant eh! >>> >>> >>> keith stein >>> >>> >>>>>> This experiment has already been done. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If YOU have access to a laboratory do please try the following >>>>> experiment, Mr.Bodkin: >>>>> >>>>> A B >>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >>>>> tA tB >>>>> >>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >>>>> >>>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >>>>> >>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) m/s >>>>> = (c + v) m/s >>>> >>>> This is not a measurement. This is a hypothetical calculation that is based >>>> on an assumption. This assumption is wrong. There are several ways to >>>> describe this incorrect assumption. >>>> >>>> One way to describe it is that you are trying to transform the velocity of >>>> the light signal from the lab frame to my frame and you are assuming that >>>> the way to to that is u’ = u + v. This is incorrect. >>>> >>>> Another way to describe it is to say that the times tA and tB are the same >>>> for me as they are in the lab. This is also incorrect. >>> >>> >>> tA is the time when the light beam passes A as recorded by a clock at A >>> tB is the time when the light beam passes B as recorded by a clock at B >> >> Clocks at rest in WHICH FRAME? >> >>> >>> Since we know exactly which clocks are being referred to (think of them >>> as digitally displayed times in seconds), they MUST BE THE SAME FOR ALL >>> OBSERVERS eh! >> >> No, and this is exactly the point. Clocks at rest and synchronized at A and >> B in one frame will NOT be synchronized in any other frame. So you are >> ASSUMING that all that’s needed to record times is to specify the clock’s >> location, and that should be sufficient for any observer. That is an >> incorrect assumption. A pair of clocks in different locations must also be >> synchronized, and synchronization is frame dependent. You can synchronize >> those two clocks in your frame and they will continue to be synchronized in >> your frame and they will provide the tA and tB that are appropriate for >> your frame. >> >> However those two clocks are NOT synchronized in my frame, and so those >> times tA and tB don’t work in my frame. I need a pair of clocks at A and B >> that are synchronized in MY frame. These will provide two DIFFERENT times >> tA’ and tB’ from the clocks that are synched in my frame. This is what I >> meant when I was saying that the times tA and tB are not the same times for >> me. >> >>> >>> >>>> Your “experiment” draws incorrect conclusions from incorrect assumptions. >>>> >>>> A real experiment is like the one I described. The results of this real >>>> experiment are confounding to you, I know. But real experimental results >>>> trump theoretical hypotheses, every single time. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> SO that experiment trumps Einstein's theoretical hypothesis that >>>>> the speed of light is constant for all observers eh! >>>>> >>> >>> Both your experiment, and my experiment draw the same >>> conclusion Mr.Bodkin. THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT. >> >> You have not looked at the experimental result I mentioned. >> >>> >>> >>>>> keith stein >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 09:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e372884-2a71-47c3-8234-434e094c7007@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474072 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:25:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 6:03:43 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 04/10/2018 05:45, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 03/10/2018 20:53, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> I don’t have any idea why you think a one way speed measurement result is > >>>>>> inconsistent with the speed of light being the same in all frames of > >>>>>> reference. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here is a simple experiment that has been done: > >>>>>> 1. Identify a process that emits equal flashes of light in opposite > >>>>>> directions from a common trigger event. > >>>>>> 2. Perform a test where the time of flight of both light signals is > >>>>>> measured when the source is at rest. Verify that in each and every case, > >>>>>> the times of flight of the oppositely directed signals is equal. > >>> > >>> Let's do the experiment your way then Mr.Bodkin. > >>> We put a light with a clock in the middle of a railway carriage, > >> > >> No, Keith, let’s not do a mental experiment. Let’s refer to a REAL > >> experiment, one that has already been done. Furthermore, let us not make > >> any conclusions based on hypothetical assumptions about what you or I > >> *think* is the reasonable thing to happen. Instead, we should look at the > >> actual experiment conducted and see what *actually* happened, no matter how > >> unreasonable you or I think that outcome would be. > >> > >>> and flash the light on at t = t0 > >>> > >>> We have photocells and clocks at the front and rear of the carriage > >>> to measure when the light arrived at the front (t=t1 say) and at the > >>> back (t=t2) > >>> > >>> With the rail carriage stationary we turn on the light and > >>> discover that indeed t1 = t2, as you say Mr.Bodkin > >>> > >>>>>> 3. Now repeat the same measurement when the same source is traveling at a > >>>>>> significant speed, > >>> > >>> Right. I start the train moving and discover that once again t1 = t2, > >>> and that this applies whatever the speed of the train, and whenever i > >>> turn the light on, i.e. for all values of t0 > >>> > >>>>>> such that the flash is triggered when the source passes > >>>>>> the center of the detecting apparatus. See if the times of flight of the > >>>>>> two flashes are now different (your expectation), or still identical > >>>>>> (the >>> expectation of relativity). > >>> > >>> I can assure you that "My expectation" is that t1 = t2 whatever the > >>> speed of the train, Mr.Bodkin > >>> > >>>>>> Since you are looking at the same process from the same source from two > >>>>>> different reference frames, > >>> > >>> BUT YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT IT FROM DIFFERENT REFERENCE FRAMES. > >>> From any frame of reference in which the train is moving, > >>> the front of the railway carriage is moving away from the > >>> point where the light was emitted, and the back of the train > >>> is moving towards the point where the light was emitted. > >> > >> The only way to determine the speed of light relative to me is for ME to > >> MEASURE that speed. > >> You can calculate a CLOSING speed between me and the light in the frame of > >> the train, but then you are making the assumption that this closing speed > >> is the same as the speed of light that I would measure in my frame. That is > >> an incorrect assumption. Closing speed is not frame-independent. > > > > If the speed of light is measured to be isotropic in the train then there > > is no different closing speeds exist in the train. > > Bullshit. Stop using terms you don’t know the meaning of. It is you who is bullshitting.....There is no different closing speeds if the speed of light is measured to be isotropic. > > > The track observer erroneously assumes that the closing speeds of light > > in the train (in the track frame) are different.....these fictitious > > closing speeds are not measurable and do not exist. > > > > What this mean is that if you claim the speed of light is isotropic in > > all frames then you cannot turn around and make the contradictory claim > > that light have different closing speeds. The track observer must use the > > LT to show that there is no different closing speeds of light in the > > train and thus agree with the train observer’s measurement. > > > >> > >> This kind of false assumptions being made is exactly why referring to an > >> *actual* experiment’s results and NOT a mental experiment is so important. > >> > >>> > >>> So > >>> the forward traveling light must travel a distance > >>> = half the length of carriage + v(t1-t0) > >>> and > >>> the backward traveling light travels must travel a distance > >>> = half the length of carriage - v(t2-t0) > >>> > >>> So although t2 IS ALWAYS EQUAL TO t1 (as you say Bodkin), > >>> the distances traveled by the forward and backward light > >>> can only be equal in the frame of reference in which v=0 > >>> In any other frame the distance traveled by the forward light > >>> is greater than the distance traveled by the backward light, > >>> but the time for the journeys t1-t0, and t2-t0 are equal, > >>> AND THUS THE SPEED OF THE FORWARD BEAM IS GREATER THAN THE > >>> SPEED OF THE BACKWARD BEAM. > >>> > >>>>>> this is a clear test of the hypothesis. > >>> > >>> This is entirely within the expectation of my hypothesis, > >>> Mr Bodkin. > >>> It's SR which claims the speed of light is constant eh! > >>> > >>> > >>> keith stein > >>> > >>> > >>>>>> This experiment has already been done. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> If YOU have access to a laboratory do please try the following > >>>>> experiment, Mr.Bodkin: > >>>>> > >>>>> A B > >>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s > >>>>> tA tB > >>>>> > >>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s > >>>>> > >>>>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s > >>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, > >>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, > >>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B > >>>>> > >>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) m/s > >>>>> = (c + v) m/s > >>>> > >>>> This is not a measurement. This is a hypothetical calculation that is based > >>>> on an assumption. This assumption is wrong. There are several ways to > >>>> describe this incorrect assumption. > >>>> > >>>> One way to describe it is that you are trying to transform the velocity of > >>>> the light signal from the lab frame to my frame and you are assuming that > >>>> the way to to that is u’ = u + v. This is incorrect. > >>>> > >>>> Another way to describe it is to say that the times tA and tB are the same > >>>> for me as they are in the lab. This is also incorrect. > >>> > >>> > >>> tA is the time when the light beam passes A as recorded by a clock at A > >>> tB is the time when the light beam passes B as recorded by a clock at B > >> > >> Clocks at rest in WHICH FRAME? > >> > >>> > >>> Since we know exactly which clocks are being referred to (think of them > >>> as digitally displayed times in seconds), they MUST BE THE SAME FOR ALL > >>> OBSERVERS eh! > >> > >> No, and this is exactly the point. Clocks at rest and synchronized at A and > >> B in one frame will NOT be synchronized in any other frame. So you are > >> ASSUMING that all that’s needed to record times is to specify the clock’s > >> location, and that should be sufficient for any observer. That is an > >> incorrect assumption. A pair of clocks in different locations must also be > >> synchronized, and synchronization is frame dependent. You can synchronize > >> those two clocks in your frame and they will continue to be synchronized in > >> your frame and they will provide the tA and tB that are appropriate for > >> your frame. > >> > >> However those two clocks are NOT synchronized in my frame, and so those > >> times tA and tB don’t work in my frame. I need a pair of clocks at A and B > >> that are synchronized in MY frame. These will provide two DIFFERENT times > >> tA’ and tB’ from the clocks that are synched in my frame. This is what I > >> meant when I was saying that the times tA and tB are not the same times for > >> me. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Your “experiment” draws incorrect conclusions from incorrect assumptions. > >>>> > >>>> A real experiment is like the one I described. The results of this real > >>>> experiment are confounding to you, I know. But real experimental results > >>>> trump theoretical hypotheses, every single time. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> SO that experiment trumps Einstein's theoretical hypothesis that > >>>>> the speed of light is constant for all observers eh! > >>>>> > >>> > >>> Both your experiment, and my experiment draw the same > >>> conclusion Mr.Bodkin. THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT. > >> > >> You have not looked at the experimental result I mentioned. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> keith stein > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 12:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp2cvg$8lg$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473912 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 03/10/2018 06:06, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Do you consider all of classical physics to be obsolete Mr.Striz? >> >> Of course it isn't. Fizeau stumbled across an effect of special relativity >> way back in 1851 when he discovered the speed of light is not c/n relative >> to moving water. I'm sure that caused Maxwell to scratch his head. >So you choose to accept Fizeau's bullshit How can actual experimental results be "bullshit"? Remember, observational results ALWAYS trump theory. If reproduceable results of Fizeau's experiments show the speed of light in moving water is not c/n+v (and they do), that means Fizeau's results CANNOT be "bullshit" and your (mis)interpretation of Maxwell's theory is wrong! "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 Not too hard to calculate the correct speed in the lab frame, using the SR velocity addition formula. u=c/n (speed of light in the water, in the frame of the water) v - speed of the water V=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) - lab frame speed of light in the moving water > and reject Maxwell's theory. No conflict, I accept Maxwell's theories. Maxwell also discovered the vacuum speed of light was c according to all observers, although he didn't pursue the idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 05:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <421fe4ac-c4a7-4e25-abd3-ba0c23db668d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473919 |
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 14:33:55 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > How can actual experimental results be "bullshit"? Simply. You know, in the real world, out of your primitive ideology, there is a thing called "stupidity". It has no mass and no energy, but it can still affect experimental results and make them bullshit. Simple, but still nothing you could possibly understand, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 11:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lZltD.349336$GU1.94845@fx34.am4> |
| In reply to | #473882 |
On 03/10/2018 05:18, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 03/10/2018 02:32, Libor Striz wrote: > >> The idea of medium for light was coined in ancient time when >> matter and light were thought to be continuous. >> >> Now, the idea is as obsolete as the continuity idea. > > > Do you consider all of classical physics to be obsolete Mr.Striz? > > Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is indeed a macroscopic > theory in which the medium is treated as continuous,but it > is just as relevant today as the day that he first wrote it. > > Electromagnetic waves travel with a speed which is appropriate to, > and relative to, the macroscopic medium that they pass through. I rather > think all waves behave like that. I mean it would be silly to > talk of the speed of a water wave between water molecules, but no one > has given up on the concept of water waves eh! > > keith stein The continuous oceans invite you to sail away Mr.Striz, and as you navigate your way from A to B you would be well advised to respect the continuous nature of the oceans , because if you start looking at the position and velocities of the water molecules, then you go'na get lost, for sure eh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <117418af-e6b4-4898-aa32-115ac2755cee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473873 |
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:32:45 PM UTC-4, Libor Striz wrote: > Hilton Packett <wod@wcotahr.ce> Wrote in message: > > kenseto wrote: > > > > >> > >> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the > >> “E-Matrix”. > > > > Both incorrect. The medium for sound can be anything. The latter as a > > subset, may appear correct. It depends on the mechanism presented. > > > > The idea of medium for light was coined in ancient time when > matter and light were thought to be continuous. > > Now, the idea is as obsolete as the continuity idea. Wrong....the E-Matrix is continuous and it transmits light isotropically.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 13:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp2gum$ep2$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473927 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:32:45 PM UTC-4, Libor Striz wrote: >> The idea of medium for light was coined in ancient time when >> matter and light were thought to be continuous. >> Now, the idea is as obsolete as the continuity idea. >Wrong....the E-Matrix is continuous and it transmits light isotropically. As he stated, that idea is obsolete.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 20:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp377h$8ka$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473927 |
kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:32:45 PM UTC-4, Libor Striz wrote: >> Hilton Packett <wod@wcotahr.ce> Wrote in message: >> > kenseto wrote: >> >> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the >> >> “E-Matrix”. >> > >> > Both incorrect. The medium for sound can be anything. The latter as a >> > subset, may appear correct. It depends on the mechanism presented. >> >> The idea of medium for light was coined in ancient time when >> matter and light were thought to be continuous. >> Now, the idea is as obsolete as the continuity idea. > > Wrong....the E-Matrix is continuous and it transmits light > isotropically. You talk like a serbian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 20:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp374l$8ka$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473873 |
Libor Striz wrote: > Hilton Packett <wod@wcotahr.ce> Wrote in message: >> kenseto wrote: >>> The medium for sound is the AIR and the medium for light is the >>> “E-Matrix”. >> >> Both incorrect. The medium for sound can be anything. The latter as a >> subset, may appear correct. It depends on the mechanism presented. > > The idea of medium for light was coined in ancient time when > matter and light were thought to be continuous. > Now, the idea is as obsolete as the continuity idea. light and continuity are not related in any way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 14:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k76dnTtCS_8uxivGnZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #473779 |
On 10/2/18 4:47 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which > the wave travels, and in all cases the wave velocity is > relative to the medium. Apparently you do not understand how the word "medium" is actually used. In particular, there are important PUNS here -- the word has multiple meanings. You have clearly been confused by those puns. For an ocean wave, the water is the medium(1) -- it is what is "waving" (i.e. moving back-and-forth in a systematic manner called a "wave"). For a sound wave in air, the air is the medium(1) -- it is what is "waving" (i.e. moving back-and-forth in a systematic manner called a "wave"). For a spin wave in a magnetic material, the spins of the atoms are the medium(1) -- they are NOT moving-back-and-forth, but rather are varying in orientation in a systematic manner called a "wave". For all of these waves, the medium(1) is ESSENTIAL -- there can be no wave without its medium(1). The medium(1) is NOT "the matter through which the wave travels", the medium(1) IS WHAT IMPLEMENTS THE WAVE. In particular, for the spin wave the magnetic material is NOT the medium(1) -- the medium(1) is not any physical material and is not composed of matter, is is a collection of spins. Note, however, that Light IS NOT A WAVE, so "medium" for light has taken a VERY different meaning. For a light beam in air, the air is the medium(2) -- it is NOT moving back-and-forth, and is not implementing any wave; rather it is RETARDING the light. Moreover, unlike any wave, light CAN propagate in perfect vacuum [#]. In certain physical situations, light exhibits wavelike behavior. What appears to be "waving" is the PROBABILITY of detecting a photon. It OUGHT to be obvious that probabilities have no need of any underlying medium(1) -- NOTHING is moving-back-and-forth when light exhibits interference, refraction, and diffraction (which are the main wavelike behaviors of light in suitable conditions). What Maxwell said about a medium(1) for light is useless -- he did not know about or understand the quantum aspects of light. Or anything about medium(2) and the quantum aspects of matter -- it is now CRYSTAL CLEAR that air cannot possibly move back-and-forth at optical frequencies, so air cannot possibly be the medium(1) for light; moreover, light must propagate in the vacuum between atoms. You obviously don't know any of this, but in 1865 Maxwell had the excuse that quantum aspects were completely unknown; YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EXCUSE, all you have is your personal IGNORANCE. [#] The fact that we have no MACROSCOPIC regions of perfect vacuum is irrelevant; there are necessarily microscopic regions of perfect vacuum between atoms. Bottom line: any medium(2) affects the propagation of light, but is not essential for its propagation; there is no medium(1) for light -- light CLEARLY propagates in vacuum. > Relativists ignore the medium, which is why they can't > unambiguously synchronize two clocks. Nonsense. Any medium(1) for any wave, or any medium(2) for light, is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the issues of synchronizing clocks in SR [#]. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is USELESS. [#] The difficulties are purely GEOMETRICAL. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 06:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <GHCtD.716661$iK2.670879@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #474099 |
On 04/10/2018 19:28, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/2/18 4:47 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which
>> the wave travels, and in all cases the wave velocity is
>> relative to the medium.
>
> Apparently you do not understand how the word "medium" is actually used.
> In particular, there are important PUNS here -- the word has multiple
> meanings. You have clearly been confused by those puns.
A week or two back you did not even know that one of the meanings
of the word "medium" was "average", Mr.Roberts, and it was I who
pointed out to you that this was the case, and that indeed this
was a significant pun. So don't lecture me on what i taught you eh!
> For an ocean wave, the water is the medium(1) -- it is what is "waving"
> (i.e. moving back-and-forth in a systematic manner called a "wave").
>
> For a sound wave in air, the air is the medium(1) -- it is what is
> "waving" (i.e. moving back-and-forth in a systematic manner called a
> "wave").
>
> For a spin wave in a magnetic material, the spins of the atoms are the
> medium(1) -- they are NOT moving-back-and-forth, but rather are varying
> in orientation in a systematic manner called a "wave".
>
> For all of these waves, the medium(1) is ESSENTIAL -- there can be no
> wave without its medium(1). The medium(1) is NOT "the matter through
> which the wave travels", the medium(1) IS WHAT IMPLEMENTS THE WAVE.
>
> In particular, for the spin wave the magnetic material
> is NOT the medium(1) -- the medium(1) is not any physical
> material and is not composed of matter, is is a collection
> of spins.
>
> Note, however, that Light IS NOT A WAVE, so "medium" for light has
> taken a VERY different meaning. For a light beam in air, the air is the
> medium(2) -- it is NOT moving back-and-forth, and is not implementing
> any wave; rather it is RETARDING the light. Moreover, unlike any wave,
> light CAN propagate in perfect vacuum [#].
At the macroscopic level light is an electromagnetic wave which
travels at a speed appropriate to and relative to the medium.
Also macroscopically there is finite non zero density everywhere,
and it is the the frame of reference in which this non zero density
has zero momentum which gives us the frame of reference in which the
medium is stationary.
<snip>
> What Maxwell said about a medium(1) for light is useless --
What Maxwell said was "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", and he was RIGHT eh!
>> Relativists ignore the medium, which is why they can't
>> unambiguously synchronize two clocks.
>
> Nonsense........
Well the truth is Mr.Roberts that because i am aware of the
"medium" i would have no difficulty in synchronizing two clocks
unambiguously. Can you do that?
keith stein
> Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 06:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp717l$hll$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #474148 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >At the macroscopic level light is an electromagnetic wave which >travels at a speed appropriate to and relative to the medium. >Also macroscopically there is finite non zero density everywhere, >and it is the the frame of reference in which this non zero density >has zero momentum which gives us the frame of reference in which the >medium is stationary. That simplification works well for largish wavelength light/"slow" changes but not for something like a gamma ray in intergalactic space. It would travel in a perfect vacuum between encounters with the odd atom here and there, VERY far apart in terms of its wavelength.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 09:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dVEtD.716679$iK2.663350@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #474153 |
On 05/10/2018 07:44, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > >> At the macroscopic level light is an electromagnetic wave which >> travels at a speed appropriate to and relative to the medium. >> Also macroscopically there is finite non zero density everywhere, >> and it is the the frame of reference in which this non zero density >> has zero momentum which gives us the frame of reference in which the >> medium is stationary. > > That simplification works well for largish wavelength light/"slow" changes > but not for something like a gamma ray in intergalactic space. It would > travel in a perfect vacuum between encounters with the odd atom here and > there, VERY far apart in terms of its wavelength. > So far as i am aware gamma rays in intergalactic space travel at the same speed as visible light and radio waves in intergalactic space. Now if that is true, they must all be traveling with the speed 'c' RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 08:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <zdmdnfEv_8nLjCfGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #474148 |
On 10/5/18 12:32 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 04/10/2018 19:28, Tom Roberts wrote: >> Note, however, that Light IS NOT A WAVE, so "medium" for light has >> taken a VERY different meaning. For a light beam in air, the air is >> the medium(2) -- it is NOT moving back-and-forth, and is not >> implementing any wave; rather it is RETARDING the light. Moreover, >> unlike any wave, light CAN propagate in perfect vacuum [#]. > > At the macroscopic level light is an electromagnetic wave NO, it is NOT. It is a collection of myriad photons. It behaves like a wave in certain specific physical situations, but that does NOT mean it actually "is a wave". > which > travels at a speed appropriate to and relative to the medium. That would be true if light were a wave, and you meant medium(1). But light is not a wave, and there is no medium(1) for light, so your claims are just plain WRONG. > Also macroscopically there is finite non zero density everywhere, That does not matter, because there is no medium(1) for light. >> What Maxwell said about a medium(1) for light is useless -- > > What Maxwell said was "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", and he was RIGHT eh! No. Because he used the word as medium(1), and there is no medium(1) for light. Maxwell did not know about the quantum aspects of light, nor about the quantum aspects of matter. He had no inkling that light would have to travel through the PERFECT VACUUM BETWEEN ATOMS. He did not know that atoms cannot possibly oscillate at optical frequencies, and thus cannot possibly be a medium(1) for light. (Maxwell thought that matter was continuous, and could vibrate at any frequency, including optical frequencies.) If is downright STUPID for you to ignore the lessons of physics over the past century. > Well the truth is Mr.Roberts that because i am aware of the > "medium" i would have no difficulty in synchronizing two clocks > unambiguously. This is not "truth", this is your personal FANTASY. You can certainly synchronize clocks in the rest frame of whatever medium(2) is present, but they will not be synchronized in inertial frames moving relative to the medium(2). You keep ignoring the geometry of spacetime, and the lessons of physics over the past century. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a10d04d-f11e-49b0-9f0c-c2fcf2166b45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #474355 |
On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:59:57 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/5/18 12:32 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 04/10/2018 19:28, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> Note, however, that Light IS NOT A WAVE, so "medium" for light has > >> taken a VERY different meaning. For a light beam in air, the air is > >> the medium(2) -- it is NOT moving back-and-forth, and is not > >> implementing any wave; rather it is RETARDING the light. Moreover, > >> unlike any wave, light CAN propagate in perfect vacuum [#]. > > > > At the macroscopic level light is an electromagnetic wave > > NO, it is NOT. It is a collection of myriad photons. It behaves like a > wave in certain specific physical situations, but that does NOT mean it > actually “is a wave". Then please explain why a collection of myriad photons obeys the inverse square law. Better explanation is that light is composed of wave-packets and these wave-packets are being transmitted by a medium called the E-Matrix. The structure of the E-Matrix is continuous and obeys the inverse square law. > > > which > > travels at a speed appropriate to and relative to the medium. > > That would be true if light were a wave, and you meant medium(1). But > light is not a wave, and there is no medium(1) for light, so your claims > are just plain WRONG. > > > Also macroscopically there is finite non zero density everywhere, > > That does not matter, because there is no medium(1) for light. > > >> What Maxwell said about a medium(1) for light is useless -- > > > > What Maxwell said was "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", and he was RIGHT eh! > > No. Because he used the word as medium(1), and there is no medium(1) for > light. > > Maxwell did not know about the quantum aspects of light, nor about the > quantum aspects of matter. He had no inkling that light would have to > travel through the PERFECT VACUUM BETWEEN ATOMS. He did not know that > atoms cannot possibly oscillate at optical frequencies, and thus cannot > possibly be a medium(1) for light. (Maxwell thought that matter was > continuous, and could vibrate at any frequency, including optical > frequencies.) > > If is downright STUPID for you to ignore the lessons of physics over the > past century. > > > Well the truth is Mr.Roberts that because i am aware of the > > "medium" i would have no difficulty in synchronizing two clocks > > unambiguously. > > This is not "truth", this is your personal FANTASY. You can certainly > synchronize clocks in the rest frame of whatever medium(2) is present, > but they will not be synchronized in inertial frames moving relative to > the medium(2). You keep ignoring the geometry of spacetime, and the > lessons of physics over the past century. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 16:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <c6c58d01-0de2-0149-c82d-ea92e06c0755@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #474355 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/5/18 12:32 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 04/10/2018 19:28, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> Note, however, that Light IS NOT A WAVE, so "medium" for light has >>> taken a VERY different meaning. For a light beam in air, the air is >>> the medium(2) -- it is NOT moving back-and-forth, and is not >>> implementing any wave; rather it is RETARDING the light. Moreover, >>> unlike any wave, light CAN propagate in perfect vacuum [#]. >> At the macroscopic level light is an electromagnetic wave > > NO, it is NOT. It is a collection of myriad photons. It behaves like a > wave in certain specific physical situations, but that does NOT mean it > actually "is a wave". There can be no doubt that light can be *modeled* as an electromagnetic wave, a self-propagating excitation of the electromagnetic field. There is a *wave* equation that describes that: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation> That it can be *modeled* like a collection of _myriads of_ photons in certain specific physical situations, as *elementary* excitations of that field when that interacts with matter, does NOT mean that it actually "is a collection of myriad photons" either. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 12:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kvidnfD4NvPfCSbGnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #474361 |
On 10/7/18 9:37 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > There can be no doubt that light can be *modeled* as an electromagnetic > wave, a self-propagating excitation of the electromagnetic field. There > is a *wave* equation that describes that: > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation> Sure, IN CERTAIN PHYSICAL SITUATIONS. But this model is quite limited in domain, and is completely useless for modeling a laser, or frequency-doubling crystals, or many other aspects of quantum optics. > That it can be *modeled* like a collection of _myriads of_ photons in > certain specific physical situations, as *elementary* excitations of that > field when that interacts with matter, does NOT mean that it actually "is > a collection of myriad photons" either. Yeah. This is a MUCH better model, that includes the wave model, and all known optical phenomena. But you're right, we don't really know what light actually is, this is just a much better model of its behavior. > You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Hmmm. I can have a better model, and it's QUITE CLEAR that light is not a wave, for the simple reason that many observed phenomena involving light cannot be modeled as a wave. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 17:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppg4s5$1jn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #474471 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/7/18 9:37 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> That it can be *modeled* like a collection of _myriads of_ photons in >> certain specific physical situations, as *elementary* excitations of that >> field when that interacts with matter, does NOT mean that it actually "is >> a collection of myriad photons" either. > > Yeah. This is a MUCH better model, that includes the wave model, and all known > optical phenomena. But you're right, we don't really know what light actually > is, this is just a much better model of its behavior. Forget it, it is easier to fool people, than to convince them they have been fooled.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web