Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #475042 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-16 20:12 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-10-29 17:26 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 150 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 20:12 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-17 08:56 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:34 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-17 16:45 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-17 18:58 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 10:09 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 22:34 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-18 15:54 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 00:37 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 20:05 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-18 18:25 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-18 19:07 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 07:53 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-19 19:29 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:19 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-20 02:32 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 23:04 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 12:11 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 13:25 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-19 08:25 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-22 08:14 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-10-19 11:17 +1100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 09:50 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-19 07:53 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 14:16 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-10-20 15:10 +1100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 08:37 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-20 07:27 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 17:31 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 18:40 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 21:56 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-20 22:04 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 00:05 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 06:52 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 13:06 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-21 01:55 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-20 16:03 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 02:17 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 02:21 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-21 10:09 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 17:32 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 09:15 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-22 20:38 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-23 08:09 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-23 15:34 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-23 23:46 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-23 18:21 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-24 09:16 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 19:34 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-21 19:55 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-22 20:43 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 08:30 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-20 10:18 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 09:09 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-21 10:17 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 18:34 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 12:18 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 20:09 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-23 01:38 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 08:25 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 12:23 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-23 07:31 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-23 15:07 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-23 09:13 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-23 18:47 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Gil Callow <snam@nawem.co> - 2018-10-23 23:01 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 06:15 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-24 11:33 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-24 13:36 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Gil Callow <snam@nawem.co> - 2018-10-24 20:41 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-22 09:04 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 12:32 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-22 10:34 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-23 13:08 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-23 13:15 +0200
Yet Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 14:34 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 13:45 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-20 19:18 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 23:18 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 12:40 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-25 20:39 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 20:07 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 20:07 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-21 01:56 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 01:08 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 06:40 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 16:42 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 19:34 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-19 19:35 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 21:08 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:46 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-20 02:37 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 23:08 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-20 10:20 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 09:31 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 06:52 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 12:31 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 02:42 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 12:15 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 04:42 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 02:40 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-19 22:00 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 02:38 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 20:37 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:53 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:45 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:53 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 11:01 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 12:48 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-20 08:13 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 13:39 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 20:15 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 22:35 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 00:09 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 23:12 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-21 09:16 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 22:26 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-20 22:11 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 23:10 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-21 09:38 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 16:51 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-10-22 19:09 +1100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 10:12 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 15:46 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 15:41 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 23:42 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 08:46 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 17:25 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 11:03 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 02:36 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-19 07:59 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 19:43 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 01:08 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 15:11 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-26 18:47 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-26 19:34 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 16:55 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-27 18:42 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 22:45 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-26 15:56 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 09:14 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-27 08:31 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-27 16:45 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-27 08:11 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-28 16:08 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-28 16:48 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-28 11:55 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-28 11:53 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-29 17:26 +0100
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-16 20:12 +0100 |
| Subject | Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters |
| Message-ID | <HKqxD.98164$wF4.44464@fx27.am4> |
It is the "medium" or average value, or rather variations of it,
that carry the information.
Any one event, say the click of a photon detector, carries zero
information.
Some of you are no doubt thinking "just like this post eh!"
B U T
If you wish to really understand the MUSIC, then study it at the
*atomic level*, and keep studying until either you or the atoms
go deaf and blind eh!
keith stein
On 02/10/2018 09:47, Keith Stein wrote:
> The 'medium' for any wave is just the matter through which
> the wave travels, and in all cases the wave velocity is
> relative to the medium.
>
> Relativists ignore the medium, which is why they can't
> unambiguously synchronize two clocks.
>
> I think so.
>
> keith stein
Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 08:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pq6meo$cns$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #475042 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > > It is the "medium" or average value, or rather variations of it, > that carry the information. > Any one event, say the click of a photon detector, carries zero > information. Events do not carry information by principle, they provide it. Particles as quanta of quantum fields, molecules as matter quanta carry information. Their collective behaviour may form waves carrying information. Their detection as an event does not carry information, it provides it. If we stay at waves of medium, like sound, it is not the medium that carries information, but it's wave. Medium just carries its wave. In case of transversal waves of solid medium, the medium even does not move in direction of information propagation. Both sound and EM waves are in details formed by collective characteristics of air molecules and photons, respectively. Therefore, in some sense, we may say air molecules and photons themselves are "medium" for sound and light waves, respectively. Saying photons need medium to form light waves is like saying air molecules need medium to form sound waves. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 13:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <%_FxD.33441$g31.12456@fx17.am4> |
| In reply to | #475083 |
On 17/10/2018 07:56, Libor Striz wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message: >> >> >> It is the "medium" or average value, or rather variations of it, >> that carry the information. >> Any one event, say the click of a photon detector, carries zero >> information. > > Events do not carry information by principle, they provide it. What i was thinking here was that since all photon detectors have a background click rate, any single click provides no information. It is only changes in the "mean" click rate which has any "meaning" eh! > Particles as quanta of quantum fields, molecules as matter quanta > carry information. > Their collective behaviour may form waves carrying information. > Their detection as an event does not carry information, it provides it. > > If we stay at waves of medium, like sound, > it is not the medium that carries information, but it's wave. > Medium just carries its wave. > In case of transversal waves of solid medium, > the medium even does not move > in direction of information propagation. > > Both sound and EM waves are in details formed > by collective characteristics of air molecules and photons, > respectively. > > Therefore, in some sense, we may say air molecules and photons > themselves are "medium" for sound and light waves, > respectively. > > Saying photons need medium to form light waves > is like saying air molecules need medium to form sound waves. Both light and sound require a medium, Mr.Striz. and indeed the medium is the same in both cases i.e. the medium is the "stuff" (or matter) which the wave travels through. The frame of reference in which the medium is stationary is also the frame of reference in which the wave travels at its characteristic velocity see? No chance eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 16:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pq7oun$mcp$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #475090 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >What i was thinking here was that since all photon detectors >have a background click rate, any single click provides no >information. A single click means a single photon. That is information. >> Saying photons need medium to form light waves >> is like saying air molecules need medium to form sound waves. >Both light and sound require a medium, Mr.Striz. and indeed >the medium is the same in both cases i.e. the medium is the >"stuff" (or matter) which the wave travels through. Yet light needs no matter medium. >The frame of reference in which the medium is stationary is >also the frame of reference in which the wave travels at its >characteristic velocity see? But we already know this is false for light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 18:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <DbednVpRPIs6UVrGnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475090 |
On 10/17/18 7:34 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > Both light and sound require a medium, So you claim but have failed to show. All you have are your own claims, and a few ambiguous quotes; you have no supporting evidence at all. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 10:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t5YxD.96210$px6.60654@fx41.am4> |
| In reply to | #475156 |
On 18/10/2018 00:58, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/17/18 7:34 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> Both light and sound require a medium,
>
> So you claim but have failed to show. All you have are your own claims,
> and a few ambiguous quotes;
How ambiguous is this Mr.Roberts ?
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY"
which is the title of the final chapter in Maxwell's
"Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" eh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 22:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqb1p3$qqb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475177 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18/10/2018 00:58, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 10/17/18 7:34 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> Both light and sound require a medium, >> >> So you claim but have failed to show. All you have are your own claims, >> and a few ambiguous quotes; > > How ambiguous is this Mr.Roberts ? > "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" > which is the title of the final chapter in Maxwell's > "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" eh! > > > > Why would you insist that what is true for both light and sound is what someone thought to be true 150 years ago? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 15:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2181c56e-e459-48be-9895-65fa99678ca2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475206 |
Odd Bodkin - hide quoted text - Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18/10/2018 00:58, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 10/17/18 7:34 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> Both light and sound require a medium, >> >> So you claim but have failed to show. All you have are your own claims, >> and a few ambiguous quotes; > > How ambiguous is this Mr.Roberts ? > "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" > which is the title of the final chapter in Maxwell's > "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" eh! > > > > Why would you insist that what is true for both light and sound is what someone thought to be true 150 years ago? Duh!!! https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.08771.pdf The mass of sound Angelo Esposito, Rafael Krichevsky, and Alberto Nicolis Department of Physics, Center for Theoretical Physics, Columbia University, 538W 120th Street, New York, NY, 10027, USA We show that the commonly accepted statement that sound waves do not transport mass is only true at linear order. Using effective field theory techniques, we confirm the result found in [1] for zero-temperature superfluids, and extend it to the case of solids and ordinary fluids. We show that, in fact, sound waves do carry mass—in particular, gravitational mass. This implies that a sound wave not only is affected by gravity but also generates a tiny gravitational field. Our findings are valid for non-relativistic media as well, and could have intriguing experimental implications. PACS numbers: 46.40.Cd, 47.10.-g, 47.35.Rs, 47.37.+q Keywords: Phonons, Sound Waves, Superfluids, Fluids, Solids I. INTRODUCTION It is usually said that sound waves do not transport mass. They carry momentum and energy, and lead to temporary oscillations of the local mass density of any region they happen to pass through, but it is an accepted fact that the net mass transported by a sound wave van- ishes. Here, we want to question this “fact”. A first indication that sound waves can in fact carry a nonzero net mass is contained in the results of [1]: there, using an effective point-particle theory, it was shown that phonons in zero-temperature superfluids have an effec- tive coupling to gravity, which depends solely on their energy (or momentum) and on the superfluid’s equation of state. For ordinary equations of state, such a coupling corresponds to a negative effective gravitational mass: in the presence of an external gravitational field, such as that of Earth, a phonon’s trajectory bends upwards. Now, this effect is completely equivalent to standard refraction in the form of Snell’s law: in the presence of gravity, the pressure of the superfluid depends on depth, and so does the speed of sound. As a result, in the geometric acoustics limit sound waves do not prop- agate along straight lines. Because of this, one might be tempted to dismiss any interpretation of this phe- nomenon in terms of “gravitational mass”. However, since in the formalism of [1] the effect is due to a coupling with gravity in the effective Lagrangian or Hamiltonian of the phonon, the same coupling must affect the field equa- tion for gravity. That is, the (tiny) effective gravitational mass of the phonon generates a (tiny) gravitational field. And the source of this gravitational field travels with the phonon. Thus, in a very physical sense, the phonon car- ries (negative) mass. Moreover, this is not due to the usual equivalence of mass and energy in relativity: the effect survives in the non-relativistic limit. And, finally, it is not a quantum effect, because the formalism of [1] applies unaltered to classical wave packets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 00:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nP8yD.57056$xH4.37489@fx33.am4> |
| In reply to | #475206 |
On 18/10/2018 23:34, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 18/10/2018 00:58, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 10/17/18 7:34 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> Both light and sound require a medium, >>> >>> So you claim but have failed to show. All you have are your own claims, >>> and a few ambiguous quotes; >> >> How ambiguous is this Mr.Roberts ? >> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" >> which is the title of the final chapter in Maxwell's >> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" eh! > Why would you insist that what is true for both light and sound is what > someone thought to be true 150 years ago? Waves don't travel relative to the observer, Mr.Bodkin. They travel relative to the stuff they are traveling through. That is just as true for electromagnetic waves as it is for sound waves. It is not because Maxwell said it that i believe it is true, Odd, rather it is because it is obviously true that i must believe it eh! What Maxwell wrote makes sense. What Einstein wrote makes nonsense. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 20:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pqb74p$11tp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475211 |
On 10/18/2018 7:37 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 18/10/2018 23:34, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 18/10/2018 00:58, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 10/17/18 7:34 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> Both light and sound require a medium, >>>> >>>> So you claim but have failed to show. All you have are your own claims, >>>> and a few ambiguous quotes; >>> >>> How ambiguous is this Mr.Roberts ? >>> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" >>> which is the title of the final chapter in Maxwell's >>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" eh! > >> Why would you insist that what is true for both light and sound is what >> someone thought to be true 150 years ago? > > > Waves don't travel relative to the observer, Mr.Bodkin. They travel > relative to the stuff they are traveling through. That is just as true > for electromagnetic waves as it is for sound waves. > > It is not because Maxwell said it that i believe it is true, Odd, > rather it is because it is obviously true that i must believe it eh! > > What Maxwell wrote makes sense. What Einstein wrote makes nonsense. > > keith stein You are both right and wrong, keith. Relativity was shown true for mechanical things by Galileo! It was suspected it was also true for electromagnetic things before Einstein who sort of brought all the musings together in one place to show it's true. If you deny that you are as big an idiot as Boinker. However, waves REQUIRE a medium by definition. Maxwell noted and nobody since has refuted that there are only two ways to transfer energy from place to place. One is kinetically by particles and the other is by waves in a medium. There is no third option. But back then everyone imagined that the medium for light was a fine invisible substance they called (for historical reasons) aether. OK. Then everyone imagined that the earth was constantly plowing through this luminiferous (light bearing) aether. So Michelson and Morley in Cleveland Ohio of all places, did the experiment and found....wait for it...NO AETHER DRIFT! Basically they found that the earth was not "plowing" through the aether. What the hell? All this has been tested enough to be beyond doubt no matter what the nutjobs here say. Well, establishment science for whom Boinker is the spokesman here, immediately decided (sort of egged on by Einstein who oddly did NOT reject the concept of aether) that aether simply does not exist. Which of course means that you have waves in nothing at all which is utter insanity. Einstein pointed out that because "empty" space has properties, it simply CANNOT be "nothing at all" In short there must be some "medium" there producing properties! So what's the answer. Obviously, one must back up to the MM experiment and assume that there must be an aether but it's properties are not as we think. Somehow it does not seem to have the earth plowing through it. This is where progress ends. The rest is up to you. Now if you want to have some lawyerly fun debating Odd in the kind of political/religious discussion he enjoys, have at it. But there will be no science thought coming out of him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 18:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <091d0b7d-f84c-4705-a2da-7c86d80de651@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475214 |
benj escrito You are both right and wrong, keith. Relativity was shown true for mechanical things by Galileo! It was suspected it was also true for electromagnetic things before Einstein who sort of brought all the musings together in one place to show it's true. c = Galilean Relativity = https://swissharmony.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Fotolia_39490194_XS.jpg c^2 = Einstein SR Relativity = https://photos.app.goo.gl/YsWFD2R8vn2jtwgE8
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 19:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b463c3e-3cdb-42a4-bfd7-a9ef0533d64c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475223 |
benj escrito You are both right and wrong, keith. Relativity was shown true for mechanical things by Galileo! It was suspected it was also true for electromagnetic things before Einstein who sort of brought all the musings together in one place to show it's true. c = Galilean Relativity = https://swissharmony.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Fotolia_39490194_XS.jpg c^2 = Einstein SR Relativity = https://photos.app.goo.gl/YsWFD2R8vn2jtwgE8 = https://photos.app.goo.gl/1v9bq8EMaAycBqMJ7 = https://photos.app.goo.gl/BWFKxrtnv631Q9Zr9
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 07:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <LbfyD.48344$2T2.13580@fx42.am4> |
| In reply to | #475214 |
On 19/10/2018 01:05, benj wrote:
> On 10/18/2018 7:37 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> Waves don't travel relative to the observer, Mr.Bodkin. They travel
>> relative to the stuff they are traveling through. That is just as true
>> for electromagnetic waves as it is for sound waves.
>>
>> It is not because Maxwell said it that i believe it is true, Odd,
>> rather it is because it is obviously true that i must believe it eh!
>>
>> What Maxwell wrote makes sense. What Einstein wrote makes nonsense.
>>
>> keith stein
>
> You are both right and wrong, keith. Relativity was shown true for
> mechanical things by Galileo! It was suspected it was also true for
> electromagnetic things before Einstein who sort of brought all the
> musings together in one place to show it's true.....
I don't dispute Einstein's first postulate, Benj, or even the second,
but it certainly does not follow from these that the speed of light
is the same in all inertial frames of reference, and the only reason
Einstein came to conclusion that it did was because he ignored the medium.
> However, waves REQUIRE a medium by definition. Maxwell noted and nobody
> since has refuted that there are only two ways to transfer energy from
> place to place. One is kinetically by particles and the other is by
> waves in a medium. There is no third option.
>
> But back then everyone imagined that the medium for light was a fine
> invisible substance they called (for historical reasons) aether. OK. > Then everyone imagined that the earth was constantly plowing through
> this luminiferous (light bearing) aether.
You really believe that ALL scientists believed that there was an
invisible 'rigid' fluid flowing through their laboratories at thousands
of miles per hour. They weren't all mad eh! Maxwell never mentions
"aether" in his long Treatise. His primary example of a medium for
electromagnetic waves is "air", his only other specific example is
"paraffin wax", and it is clear that Maxwell just thought of the
"medium" as the stuff the e-m wave was traveling through.
> So Michelson and Morley in
> Cleveland Ohio of all places, did the experiment and found....wait for
> it...NO AETHER DRIFT! Basically they found that the earth was not
> "plowing" through the aether. What the hell? All this has been tested
> enough to be beyond doubt no matter what the nutjobs here say.
The first Michelson Morley experiment was carried out in air,
Maxwell's primary example of a medium for light. For certain
Maxwell, had he been alive, would have predicted zero fringe
shift. Maxwell would also have told you that it will make no
difference how much you reduce the pressure in the apparatus,
the medium will remain stationary within the vessel in which
you think you have a Vacuum eh!
Actually Maxwell put it rather better, he said:
" A vacuum is what remains in the vessel after everything
which can be removed from the vessel has been removed."
For sure Maxwell knew light would travel through a "Crooks Tube",
and from the stars eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 19:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqdbb3$947$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #475234 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >I don't dispute Einstein's first postulate, Benj, or even the second, >but it certainly does not follow from these that the speed of light >is the same in all inertial frames of reference, What part of the second postulate, light moves in a vacuum at the speed c relative to all observers, don't you understand? And Einstein explicitly states 'in a vacuum', not in a medium. > and the only reason >Einstein came to conclusion that it did was because he ignored the medium. No, he said 'in a vacuum', meaning there was NO medium. >The first Michelson Morley experiment was carried out in air, >Maxwell's primary example of a medium for light. For certain >Maxwell, had he been alive, would have predicted zero fringe >shift. Maxwell would also have told you that it will make no >difference how much you reduce the pressure in the apparatus, >the medium will remain stationary within the vessel in which >you think you have a Vacuum eh! Then Maxwell would slap his forehead and say 'Crap! I forgot all about Fizeau's work! Fizeau showed that light does NOT move at a speed relative to the medium!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 22:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eTryD.86303$e55.60179@fx39.am4> |
| In reply to | #475264 |
On 19/10/2018 20:29, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > >> I don't dispute Einstein's first postulate, Benj, or even the second, >> but it certainly does not follow from these that the speed of light >> is the same in all inertial frames of reference, > > What part of the second postulate, light moves in a vacuum at the speed c > relative to all observers, don't you understand? And Einstein explicitly > states 'in a vacuum', not in a medium. Firstly that was NOT Einstein's second postulate Michael. The second postulate was that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the SOURCE, which is TRUE, unlike your version which is WRONG, and is erroneously derived by Einstein from the postulates. Secondly no one ever has, or ever will, measure the speed of light "in a vacuum", because there isn't any vacuum eh! >> and the only reason >> Einstein came to conclusion that it did was because he ignored the medium. > > No, he said 'in a vacuum', meaning there was NO medium. So Special Relativity applies NOWHERE, because in reality there is medium (matter of finite density) EVERYWHERE. >> The first Michelson Morley experiment was carried out in air, >> Maxwell's primary example of a medium for light. For certain >> Maxwell, had he been alive, would have predicted zero fringe >> shift. Maxwell would also have told you that it will make no >> difference how much you reduce the pressure in the apparatus, >> the medium will remain stationary within the vessel in which >> you think you have a Vacuum eh! > > Then Maxwell would slap his forehead and say 'Crap! I forgot all about > Fizeau's work! Fizeau showed that light does NOT move at a speed relative > to the medium!! I don't think Maxwell forgot Fizeau's work, Michael, but i think he may well of said "Crap!" eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 02:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqe430$8up$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #475272 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 19/10/2018 20:29, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I don't dispute Einstein's first postulate, Benj, or even the second, >>> but it certainly does not follow from these that the speed of light >>> is the same in all inertial frames of reference, >> >> What part of the second postulate, light moves in a vacuum at the speed c >> relative to all observers, don't you understand? And Einstein explicitly >> states 'in a vacuum', not in a medium. >Firstly that was NOT Einstein's second postulate Michael. Yes it was. >The second postulate was that the speed of light is >independent of the speed of the SOURCE, which is TRUE, Yes, it is independent of the speed of its source for ALL observers, so it cannot be c relative to its source! That is a HUGE contradiction! Anyway, Einstein wrote (translated): "Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." Meaning it moves at c relative to the observer as well! He uses the "stationary" frame as the frame of the observer. In the same paper he also mentions that "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." >Secondly no one ever has, or ever will, measure the >speed of light "in a vacuum", because there isn't >any vacuum eh! Except between atoms for X-rays. Regardless, the speed of light has ALWAYS been measured as c in a good lab vacuum, because the difference between the speed of light in a lab vacuum and a theoretical perfect vacuum is so small it is much smaller than the measurement error of the measuring equipment. Remember from an earlier post, that a photon traveling through interplanetary space and a theoretically perfect vacuum through a distance from the earth to the sun, the vacuum photon would be only an atom's diameter ahead of the one in the non-perfect vacuum? How could you measure the difference in those speeds? You don't! You know the non-perfect interplanetary "vacuum" is plenty good enough! It's like saying you can never get the length of a circumference of a circle with a known diameter, because we can't multiply by pi, because since pi is irrational we can never get all its digits! >>> and the only reason >>> Einstein came to conclusion that it did was because he ignored the medium. >> >> No, he said 'in a vacuum', meaning there was NO medium. >So Special Relativity applies NOWHERE, Except between atoms in a hard vacuum. > because in reality >there is medium (matter of finite density) EVERYWHERE. And again, the difference between a good hard vacuum and a theoretically perfect vacuum is so small it is irrelevant! Here, I need the circumference of this 2" diameter pipe. Please supply me with the exact value of pi so I can do so. >>> The first Michelson Morley experiment was carried out in air, >>> Maxwell's primary example of a medium for light. For certain >>> Maxwell, had he been alive, would have predicted zero fringe >>> shift. Maxwell would also have told you that it will make no >>> difference how much you reduce the pressure in the apparatus, >>> the medium will remain stationary within the vessel in which >>> you think you have a Vacuum eh! >> >> Then Maxwell would slap his forehead and say 'Crap! I forgot all about >> Fizeau's work! Fizeau showed that light does NOT move at a speed relative >> to the medium!! >I don't think Maxwell forgot Fizeau's work, Michael, but i think >he may well of said "Crap!" eh! And why would you think Maxwell would be so stupid as to ignore Fizeau's discovery if he knew of it??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 23:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pqe5v9$1nac$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475272 |
On 10/19/2018 5:19 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 19/10/2018 20:29, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I don't dispute Einstein's first postulate, Benj, or even the second, >>> but it certainly does not follow from these that the speed of light >>> is the same in all inertial frames of reference, >> >> What part of the second postulate, light moves in a vacuum at the speed c >> relative to all observers, don't you understand? And Einstein explicitly >> states 'in a vacuum', not in a medium. > > Firstly that was NOT Einstein's second postulate Michael. > The second postulate was that the speed of light is > independent of the speed of the SOURCE, which is TRUE, > unlike your version which is WRONG, and is erroneously > derived by Einstein from the postulates. > > Secondly no one ever has, or ever will, measure the > speed of light "in a vacuum", because there isn't > any vacuum eh! Who are you to say a "true vacuum" cannot be attained? Proof by assertion? But you can't measure the speed of light in a true vacuum because then there is no medium hence there can be waves propagated. >>> and the only reason >>> Einstein came to conclusion that it did was because he ignored the >>> medium. >> >> No, he said 'in a vacuum', meaning there was NO medium. > > So Special Relativity applies NOWHERE, because in reality > there is medium (matter of finite density) EVERYWHERE. Special relativity applies everywhere (except in true vacuum) BECAUSE there is medium everywhere. Relativity applies to EM quantities the same as it does to mechanical things (dogs). This was long suspected and by Einstein's time pretty well proven. >>> The first Michelson Morley experiment was carried out in air, >>> Maxwell's primary example of a medium for light. For certain >>> Maxwell, had he been alive, would have predicted zero fringe >>> shift. Maxwell would also have told you that it will make no >>> difference how much you reduce the pressure in the apparatus, >>> the medium will remain stationary within the vessel in which >>> you think you have a Vacuum eh! >> >> Then Maxwell would slap his forehead and say 'Crap! I forgot all about >> Fizeau's work! Fizeau showed that light does NOT move at a speed relative >> to the medium!! > > I don't think Maxwell forgot Fizeau's work, Michael, but i think > he may well of said "Crap!" eh! > > keith stein You need to figure out that the speed of light in the medium is always the same but the catch is that the medium is stretchable and moveable. A fly in the ointment!.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 12:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9c2e2784-afe2-056d-e0dd-f7afcb24bcc5@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475272 |
Keith Stein wrote:
> On 19/10/2018 20:29, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I don't dispute Einstein's first postulate, Benj, or even the second,
>>> but it certainly does not follow from these that the speed of light
>>> is the same in all inertial frames of reference,
>>
>> What part of the second postulate, light moves in a vacuum at the speed c
>> relative to all observers, don't you understand? And Einstein explicitly
>> states 'in a vacuum', not in a medium.
>
> Firstly that was NOT Einstein's second postulate Michael.
That Einstein means “light moves […] at the speed […] relative to all
observers” is implied by assuming that all light needs a source by which
it is emitted.
> The second postulate was that the speed of light is
> independent of the speed of the SOURCE,
That is a correct interpretation:
,-<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/157>
|
| §2. On the relativity of lengths and times
|
| […]
|
| 2. Each ray of light moves in the coordinate system “at rest” with the
| definite velocity V independent of whether this ray of light is emitted
| by a body at rest or a body in motion. Here,
|
| velocity = (light path)/(time interval),
|
| where “time interval” should be understood in the sense of the definition
| in §1.
However, that does not mean that the other (Michael’s) interpretation is
incorrect. And indeed, in later papers on the same subject, Einstein refers
to the “speed of light in vacuum” and labels it “c“ as that had become the
convention instead.
That in OEoMB he means with “V” what we now label “c”, or “c₀” for maximum
precision, the speed of light in vacuum, becomes apparent by considering his
definition for “V” at the end of the previous section, §1 (further up on the
same page of the translation), which he explicitly refers to:
,-<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/157>
|
| [§1. Definition of simultaneity]
|
| […]
|
| Based on experience, we also postulate that the quantity
|
| (2 A̅B̅)/(t'_A − t_A) = V
|
| is a universal constant (the velocity of light in empty space).
In OEDoMB, Einstein uses the term “empty space”. Vacuum is space in a state
that is (made) (mostly) devoid of matter, when and where it is *empty*. So
the terms “empty space” and “vacuum” are synonyms: the mean the same thing.
See below.
However, there is one error in this translation into English. In the
original German, Einstein uses the word „Geschwindigkeit“:
,-<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/315>
|
| Wir setzen noch der Erfahrung gemäß fest, daß die Größe
|
| (2 A̅B̅)/(t'_A − t_A) = V
|
| eine universelle Konstante (die Lichtgeschwindigkeit im leeren Raume) sei.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
| […]
|
| § 2. Über die Relativität von Längen und Zeiten.
|
| […]
| 2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im „ruhenden“ Koordinatensystem mit der
| bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhängig davon, ob dieser Lichtstrahl
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Körper emittiert ist. Hierbei ist
|
| Geschwindigkeit = Lichtweg/Zeitdauer,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| wobei "Zeitdauer" im Sinne der Definition des § 1 aufzufassen ist.
In German, one uses „Geschwindigkeit“ both for the rate of change of
position per unit time – which, as position is in general a vector, and time
is a scalar, is a vector too –, *and* for the magnitude of that vector
(sometimes also called precisely „*Betrag* der Geschwindigkeit“ “*magnitude*
of velocity”; see below). Einstein means the *magnitude* of that vector,
a scalar, because all the quantities with which he defines it are scalars.
In English, there are two words: “velocity” and “speed”. “velocity” is
the word for the vector quantity, and “speed” is the word for the magnitude
of that vector, which is (of course) a scalar. So the translator should
have used the word “speed” instead of “velocity” in this context. (She also
uses the word “velocity” *correctly* in different places in the translation.)
> Secondly no one ever has, or ever will, measure the
> speed of light "in a vacuum", because there isn't
> any vacuum eh!
That you do not know any does not mean that it does not exist.
We can to a large part recreate a particular state of space in the
laboratory by pumping out (from Latin: evacuating) all the air from an
airtight vessel. Therefore, we call the resulting state of the space
inside that vessel a *vacuum* (also from Latin):
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum>
We can then do experiments in and with that vacuum:
<https://youtu.be/BeiW_37rS-U?t=611>
For example, Otto von Guericke’s “Magdeburg semi-spheres”, from the inside
of which he previously removed all air as best as possible, creating a
vacuum, could not be pulled apart by 32 horses in 1657:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Guericke#Air_pressure_and_the_vacuum>
[Have you never wondered why that housekeeping device is called
“*vacuum* cleaner”? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_cleaner>]
For you have to become aware that you are basically living at the bottom of
an ocean of air (atmosphere), which is kept to the surface of the planet
that you are living on (Earth/Terra) by the mutual gravitation of that
planet and the air (the mass of the planet is much larger than that of the
air). The further up you go in that ocean of air, the less is the density
of the air and the pressure of the air above you on you – the less air
molecules there are per unit volume.
When you go near the surface of that ocean, towards the upper edge of the
atmosphere, you need special training and equipment to survive. A climber
needs an oxygen bottle to breathe near the point of highest elevation of the
surface on which this ocean rests, the peak of Chomolungma (commonly known
as “Mt. Everest”):
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest#/media/File:Iv%C3%A1n_Ernesto_G%C3%B3mez_Carrasco_en_la_cima_del_Monte_Everest.jpg>
A pilot of a fighter jet airplane needs a pressure mask to breathe at even
higher altitudes:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_pilot#/media/File:USAF_pilot.jpg>
When you leave the ocean entirely (outer space), there is virtually no air
to breathe, so you need a special gear (spacesuit) and/or an airtight vessel
(capsule, rocket, space station, spaceship) to survive:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_suit#/media/File:Iss009e29620.jpg>
Not only that, but as you can see in the video I referred to above, without
a pressurized spacesuit, the water in your body, especially in your blood,
would boil, which would be fatal.
For measuring the speed of light in vacuum, we can (because of the above)
also use outer space itself. We can use the time that it takes the light of
a celestial object to reach us, knowing the approximate distance to that
object. If light always travels at the same speed, then it should take
light longer to reach us when we are farther away from that object than when
we are closer to it (because it has to travel the extra distance, and that
takes more time). From the difference of the light travel times and the
difference of our known distances to the object we can calculate the speed
of light in vacuum (mean speed is the distance traveled divided by the time
that takes, remember?).
This was first assumed, confirmed, and done in the 17th century CE(!) by
Giovanni Domenico Cassini, Ole Rømer, and Christiaan Huygens, using
observations of the moon Io of the planet Jupiter (ca. 630'000'000 km away):
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_R%C3%B8mer#Rømer_and_the_speed_of_light>
Later, more precise measurements with more elaborate methods have been made:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#History>
We currently know the speed of light (different in various media) to such
high precision (in whatever units you like), in accordance with Maxwell’s
equations, that since 1983 the speed of light in vacuum is (implicitly)
*defined* to be *exactly*
c₀ = 299'792'458 m/s.
So that rather the SI base unit of length, the metre, is defined as
1/299'792'458 of the distance that light travels in vacuum in one second
(1 s) since then (whereas 1 s is defined based on cesium atomic clocks):
1 m = c₀ × (1 s)/299'792'458.
<https://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/>
[I seriously hope that we do not have to repeat this lesson.]
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 13:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <b6e24f73-3e16-148a-a09c-cfcca33a975e@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475313 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > In German, one uses „Geschwindigkeit“ both for the rate of change of > position per unit time – […] Clarification: I meant, and should have said, either “rate of change of position” (which implies change of position within an interval of time) or “change of position per unit time”. The “rate of change of (change of) position per unit time” is the rate of change of velocity, which is the acceleration (German: „Beschleunigung“), instead: a⃗ = dv⃗∕dt. (Note that in the case of acceleration, both English and German have only one word for both the vector and its magnitude, so both context and precision of speech matter). -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 08:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c562d223-93d5-40a6-8ded-330e91ec7b77@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475214 |
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 8:05:49 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 10/18/2018 7:37 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 18/10/2018 23:34, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 18/10/2018 00:58, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>> On 10/17/18 7:34 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>> Both light and sound require a medium, > >>>> > >>>> So you claim but have failed to show. All you have are your own claims, > >>>> and a few ambiguous quotes; > >>> > >>> How ambiguous is this Mr.Roberts ? > >>> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" > >>> which is the title of the final chapter in Maxwell's > >>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" eh! > > > >> Why would you insist that what is true for both light and sound is what > >> someone thought to be true 150 years ago? > > > > > > Waves don't travel relative to the observer, Mr.Bodkin. They travel > > relative to the stuff they are traveling through. That is just as true > > for electromagnetic waves as it is for sound waves. > > > > It is not because Maxwell said it that i believe it is true, Odd, > > rather it is because it is obviously true that i must believe it eh! > > > > What Maxwell wrote makes sense. What Einstein wrote makes nonsense. > > > > keith stein > > You are both right and wrong, keith. Relativity was shown true for > mechanical things by Galileo! It was suspected it was also true for > electromagnetic things before Einstein who sort of brought all the > musings together in one place to show it's true. If you deny that you > are as big an idiot as Boinker. > > However, waves REQUIRE a medium by definition. Maxwell noted and nobody > since has refuted that there are only two ways to transfer energy from > place to place. One is kinetically by particles and the other is by > waves in a medium. There is no third option. > > But back then everyone imagined that the medium for light was a fine > invisible substance they called (for historical reasons) aether. OK. > Then everyone imagined that the earth was constantly plowing through > this luminiferous (light bearing) aether. So Michelson and Morley in > Cleveland Ohio of all places, did the experiment and found....wait for > it...NO AETHER DRIFT! Basically they found that the earth was not > "plowing" through the aether. What the hell? All this has been tested > enough to be beyond doubt no matter what the nutjobs here say. > > Well, establishment science for whom Boinker is the spokesman here, > immediately decided (sort of egged on by Einstein who oddly did NOT > reject the concept of aether) that aether simply does not exist. Which > of course means that you have waves in nothing at all which is utter > insanity. Einstein pointed out that because "empty" space has > properties, it simply CANNOT be "nothing at all" In short there must be > some "medium" there producing properties! > > So what's the answer. Obviously, one must back up to the MM experiment > and assume that there must be an aether but it's properties are not as > we think. Somehow it does not seem to have the earth plowing through it. > This is where progress ends. The rest is up to you. Lights are wave-packets (photons) and are being transported isotropically in all directions by a structured aether called the E-Matrix. That’s why the MMX is not able to detect the motion of the earth in the E-Matrix. The reason why light comes in the form of wave-packets because of the source for light is in a state of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. See how a source deposits wave-packets in the E-Matrix in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > Now if you want to have some lawyerly fun debating Odd in the kind of > political/religious discussion he enjoys, have at it. But there will be > no science thought coming out of him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web