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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #475042 > unrolled thread

Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters

Started byKeith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com>
First post2018-10-16 20:12 +0100
Last post2018-10-29 17:26 +0100
Articles 20 on this page of 150 — 13 participants

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

Contents

   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 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

#475318

Frommlwozniak@wp.pl
Date2018-10-20 04:42 -0700
Message-ID<4232e714-4d83-4196-88ff-d02a58b4b950@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#475314
On Saturday, 20 October 2018 12:15:52 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:
> Keith Stein wrote:
> > On 19/10/2018 21:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Keith Stein wrote:
> >>> So the speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly
> >>> depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds
> >>> your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh!
> >> The, perhaps counter-intuitive, FACT is that IT DOES NOT.
> > Not clear why you would say that Mr.Lahn.
> 
> Because it is so, as observed.  Observation trumps hypothesis.

Of course, only observation of a fanatic idiot
following The Shit of our ingenious Great Guru.
Observation of reality denying cranks not following
The Shit don't matter.


> 
> > FACT IS
> >      The speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly
> >   depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds
> >   your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh!
> 
> No.
> 
> >> First you need to GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
> > 
> > FACT IS:
> >   Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance/ Time = c + v   eh!
> 
> That is not a fact; it is a hypothesis and it is falsified by all observations.

Or, at least, by all observations of some fanatic 
idiots.

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

#475310

Frommlwozniak@wp.pl
Date2018-10-20 02:40 -0700
Message-ID<5f69e57c-c6e5-486d-8ad5-b8df507d28cf@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#475271
On Friday, 19 October 2018 22:45:09 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:
> The, perhaps counter-intuitive, FACT is that IT DOES NOT.

Even your idiot guru was not stupid enough to
insist on this "fact" for long, and his GR
shit had to rejected it. Of course, you're much
stupider.

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

#475267

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2018-10-19 22:00 +0200
Message-ID<276a2ab1-d0ed-5cbb-f4e2-0b2e6c81bec5@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#475261
Keith Stein wrote:
> On 19/10/2018 17:42, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2018 02:08, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Suppose i tell you i have a dog which travels at exactly the
>>>   same speed relative to all inertial frames of reference.
>> Dogs can’t travel at c.
> 
> That is true Mr.Bodkin, but then i never said it traveled at c eh!

That is implied by your statement.

You are still merely arguing from your own ignorance.

>> That’s not a good way to do science. What you are doing is staring with
>> some pre-conceived notions and insisting that anything that conflicts with
>> those pre-conceived notions is nonsense.
>> Sense and nonsense is not determined my intuition, world-view, or gut feel.
> 
> But i know of no reliable experiment, or observation, which conflicts 
> with Maxwell's (and my) view that the speed of light is appropriate to, 
> AND RELATIVE TO, the "medium".

“appropriate to” is, at best, a bad choice of words, as it refers to the
idea that someone has found something to be appropriate, i.e. they have
formed *an opinion* about this.

But measurement results are scientific *facts*; they do NOT depend on the
opinions about them.

When we say that an object B has a constant speed *relative to* an object A,
then we imply:

We can *measure* the *change of position of B in an interval of time
(measured using clocks)* using a one-dimensional spatial coordinate system
(laid out by meter sticks, if you will) in which A’s position (if we choose
“x” as label for the axis of motion with which we measure position, this is
simply A’s x-coordinate) does NOT change (with time; i.e. in which A is
*considered at rest*):

                       v
                   :------>
  ---+-------------+-------------+----------> x
     x_A(t = t₁)   x_B(t = t₁)   :
   = x_A(t = t₂)                 x_B(t = t₂)
                   :      ∆x     :
                   :<----------->:

and we define that to be the (relative) speed (in the x-direction)

  v = ∆x∕∆t

with

  ∆x = x_B(t = t₂) − x_B(t = t₁)
  ∆t = t₂ − t₁.

    [When it is obvious what A is, we often simplify and say that “B has
    such-and-such a speed”.  For example, if we say that a train has a speed
    v, then it is implied that this speed is measured relative to the
    rails which also define the axis of the motion of the train.]

It really is a *hopeless* endeavor of yours to try to understand
(relativistic) mechanics without having understood those basics first.

In general, it is a hopeless endeavor to try to understand physics *only*
*philosophically*, *only* *qualitatively* – without knowing, understanding
and using the *quantitative* *mathematics* that apply in (Euclidean)
coordinate systems; such as: the Pythagorean theorem, the definitions of the
trigonometric functions and their identities, calculus, and linear algebra
(e.g. vectors and vector algebra).

(Which is why the first semester of studying physics is mostly filled with
repeating or learning a lot of mathematics, and *doing* a lot of
mathematics, i.e. *calculating* a lot of things¹.  I can tell first-hand.)

__________
¹  Such as (roughly translated into English from physics exercises that
   I had to do; slightly modified to be more entertaining):

   “How much extra power must the engine of the Polar Express provide on
    which fall 10 kg of extra snow per second, if it should keep a constant
    speed of 108 km/h?” (requires knowledge of calculus and the relations
    between the mechanical quantities power, work, linear momentum, force,
    and velocity/speed; correct answer:
    <ROT13>rknpgyl avar gubhfnaq jnggf</ROT13>)

   Or funny things like this:

   “Donald Duck has a mass of 60 kg and wants to lie in a hammock whose
    two ropes are fixed to two nearby palm trees. [comic strip attached]
    Each rope should have an angle of 45° to the ground.  How much force
    must each rope be able to carry for Donald to enjoy his holidays?”
    (requires knowledge of trigonometry, basic vector algebra, and the
    gravitational force; correct answer:
    <ROT13>nobhg sbhe uhaqerq friragrra arjgbaf</ROT13>)
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#475309

Frommlwozniak@wp.pl
Date2018-10-20 02:38 -0700
Message-ID<428a788c-80d1-41f1-9dd3-fecea27d26cb@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#475267
On Friday, 19 October 2018 22:00:53 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:

> But measurement results are scientific *facts*; they do NOT depend on the
> opinions about them.

Oh, really? So our opinion they are correct or not doesn't 
matter at all, right, poor halfbrain?

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

#475270

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-19 20:37 +0000
Message-ID<pqdfa5$nch$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#475261
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/10/2018 17:42, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2018 02:08, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Suppose i tell you i have a dog which travels at exactly the
>>> same speed relative to all inertial frames of reference.
>> 
>> Dogs can’t travel at c.
> 
> That is true Mr.Bodkin, but then i never said it traveled at c eh!

Only things that travel at c have the same speed relative to all inertial
reference frames, and dogs aren’t in that class. 

> 
>>> Will you believe me ?
>>> 
>>> And your reasons for not believing me are..........
>>> the same as my reasons for not believing Einstein eh!
> 
> 
>> That’s not a good way to do science. What you are doing is staring with
>> some pre-conceived notions and insisting that anything that conflicts with
>> those pre-conceived notions is nonsense.
>> Sense and nonsense is not determined my intuition, world-view, or gut feel.
> 
> But i know of no reliable experiment, or observation, which conflicts 
> with Maxwell's (and my) view that the speed of light is appropriate to, 
> AND RELATIVE TO, the "medium".  Certainly the null result of the
> Michelson Morley experiment is exactly what we would expect.

Certainly the Michelson Morley experiment is not the only experiment
relevant to the claims of relativity, nor is it even a “definitive”
experiment as many have tried to claim. 

> 
>> So the question to you is this: given two hypotheses that are in stark
>> conflict to each other, how does science resolve which one is correct?
> 
> Right you are Mr.Bodkin. Let's suppose that i say the speed of light is
> relative to the medium, and you say "No rather is the speed of light ie
> the same in ALL inertial frames of reference."
> Then i would suggest we perform the following experiment Mr.Bodkin

We’ve already discussed this, and I’ve already pointed out the hidden
assumptions in your analysis which are INCORRECT. 

Furthermore and as you recall, a thought experiment is not an experiment
and I suggested real experiments that have been actually done, with
documented results, that defy your expectations. The fact that the results
make no sense to you is IRRELEVANT. In a clash between experimental
observations and intuition, it is intuition that caves. Every single time. 

> 
> 
>>> A                  B
>>> light-----><--------L---------->         <--YOU v m/s
>>> tA                  tB
>>> 
>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>> 
>>> Now YOU 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 = Distance/ Time = c + v
> 
> So the speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly
> depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds
> your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh!
> 
>>>>> What Maxwell wrote makes sense.  What Einstein wrote makes nonsense.
>>>> 
>>>> I don’t know how you are distinguishing the two.
>>> 
>>> Indeed no relativists can distinguish sense from nonsense, Odd,
>>> that's the problem eh!
>>> 
>>> keith stein
> 
> 
> 



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

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

#475274

FromKeith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-19 22:53 +0100
Message-ID<snsyD.41957$Do.31506@fx31.am4>
In reply to#475270

>>> What Maxwell wrote makes sense.  What Einstein wrote makes nonsense.

>> I don’t know how you are distinguishing the two.

> Indeed no relativists can distinguish sense from nonsense, Odd,
> that's the problem eh!

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

#475278

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-19 22:45 +0000
Message-ID<pqdmps$12vc$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#475274
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>> What Maxwell wrote makes sense.  What Einstein wrote makes nonsense.
> 
>>> I don’t know how you are distinguishing the two.
> 
>> Indeed no relativists can distinguish sense from nonsense, Odd,
>> that's the problem eh!
> 
> 
> 
> 

And you haven’t answered my question. 

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

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

#475290

Frombenj <benj.fake@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-19 22:53 -0400
Message-ID<pqe5bj$1mgt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#475261
On 10/19/2018 2:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 19/10/2018 17:42, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2018 02:08, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Suppose i tell you i have a dog which travels at exactly the
>>>   same speed relative to all inertial frames of reference.
>>
>> Dogs can’t travel at c.
> 
> That is true Mr.Bodkin, but then i never said it traveled at c eh!
> 
>>>   Will you believe me ?
>>>
>>>   And your reasons for not believing me are..........
>>> the same as my reasons for not believing Einstein eh!
> 
> 
>> That’s not a good way to do science. What you are doing is staring with
>> some pre-conceived notions and insisting that anything that conflicts 
>> with
>> those pre-conceived notions is nonsense.
>> Sense and nonsense is not determined my intuition, world-view, or gut 
>> feel.
> 
> But i know of no reliable experiment, or observation, which conflicts 
> with Maxwell's (and my) view that the speed of light is appropriate to, 
> AND RELATIVE TO, the "medium".  Certainly the null result of the
> Michelson Morley experiment is exactly what we would expect.

WE'd expect that ONLY if the medium is moving along with the earth.

>> So the question to you is this: given two hypotheses that are in stark
>> conflict to each other, how does science resolve which one is correct?
> 
> Right you are Mr.Bodkin. Let's suppose that i say the speed of light is
> relative to the medium, and you say "No rather is the speed of light ie
> the same in ALL inertial frames of reference."
> Then i would suggest we perform 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 YOU 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 = Distance/ Time = c + v
> 
> So the speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly
> depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds
> your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh!
> 
>>>>> What Maxwell wrote makes sense.  What Einstein wrote makes nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t know how you are distinguishing the two.
>>>
>>> Indeed no relativists can distinguish sense from nonsense, Odd,
>>> that's the problem eh!
>>>
>>> keith stein

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

#475312

FromKeith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-20 11:01 +0100
Message-ID<A1DyD.117801$5A2.15696@fx25.am4>
In reply to#475290
On 20/10/2018 03:53, benj wrote:
keith stein wrote:

>> But i know of no reliable experiment, or observation, which conflicts >> with Maxwell's (and my) view that the speed of light is appropriate
>> to, AND RELATIVE TO, the "medium".  Certainly the null result of the
>> Michelson Morley experiment is exactly what we would expect.

> WE'd expect that ONLY if the medium is moving along with the earth.

I'm going to give you a hand here with that PHYSICS TEST, which you,
Benj, along with everyone else, (so don't feel bad eh!) FAILED.

	1. When light passes through "glass",
   	 what is the medium ?

	2. When light passes through "water",
  	  what is the medium ?

	3. When light passes through "air",
  	  what is the medium ?

	4. When light passes through "Hydrogen",
  	  what is the medium ?


I'll just give you the answer to question 3 Benj,
and you should be able to work the rest out for yourself.

The correct answer to question 3 is "air", Benj,
so the medium IS moving along with the Earth, which
explains why we get a null result from the MMX eh!

keith stein

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

#475316

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2018-10-20 12:48 +0200
Message-ID<0b16d0a9-8599-eea1-e073-9c839b95c3ff@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#475312
Keith Stein wrote:
> On 20/10/2018 03:53, benj wrote:
> keith stein wrote:
>>> But i know of no reliable experiment, or observation, which conflicts
>>> with Maxwell's (and my) view that the speed of light is appropriate
>>> to, AND RELATIVE TO, the "medium".  Certainly the null result of the
>>> Michelson Morley experiment is exactly what we would expect.
> 
>> WE'd expect that ONLY if the medium is moving along with the earth.
> 
> I'm going to give you a hand here with that PHYSICS TEST, which you,
> Benj, along with everyone else, (so don't feel bad eh!) FAILED.
> 
> 	1. When light passes through "glass",
>    	 what is the medium ?

glass

> 	2. When light passes through "water",
>   	  what is the medium ?

water

> 	3. When light passes through "air",
>   	  what is the medium ?

air

> 	4. When light passes through "Hydrogen",
>   	  what is the medium ?

Hydrogen is only a chemical element.  It would make sense if you said, for
example, “a room filled with hydrogen *gas*”; then the hydrogen *gas* would
be the medium.

From which follows, because we can see stars and between us and them there
is virtually *nothing*, that light travels through (interstellar) vacuum.

You can then either say that the vacuum is the medium (as conceptually it is
the thing between light source and observer), or that light does not require
a medium.  Those statements are *conceptually* equivalent.

> so the medium IS moving along with the Earth,

Not necessarily.  There are huge clouds of gas (mostly hydrogen) in
interstellar space.  We can see those clouds because they are illuminated by
stars, i.e. because light travels through them towards us:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Nebula#/media/File:Eagle_Nebula_from_ESO.jpg>

They could not care less how that tiny planet on which you are living is moving.

> which explains why we get a null result from the MMX eh!

No:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Most_famous_"failed"_experiment>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light#Luminiferous_aether>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#475324

Fromkenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date2018-10-20 08:13 -0700
Message-ID<b0efd980-e78a-4047-a1ab-9e4892cc01e8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#475312
On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 6:01:07 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 20/10/2018 03:53, benj wrote:
> keith stein wrote:
> 
> >> But i know of no reliable experiment, or observation, which conflicts >> with Maxwell's (and my) view that the speed of light is appropriate
> >> to, AND RELATIVE TO, the "medium".  Certainly the null result of the
> >> Michelson Morley experiment is exactly what we would expect.
> 
> > WE'd expect that ONLY if the medium is moving along with the earth.
> 
> I'm going to give you a hand here with that PHYSICS TEST, which you,
> Benj, along with everyone else, (so don't feel bad eh!) FAILED.
> 
> 	1. When light passes through "glass",
>    	 what is the medium ?

The medium is the aether.
The aether in the glass is distorted and thus give slower than c for the speed of light....call this as C_g.

> 
> 	2. When light passes through "water",
>   	  what is the medium ?

The medium is the aether.
The aether in the water is distorted but not as severe as in glass because water is less dense than glass  and thus gives faster speed for the speed of light than in glass....call this as C_w. 
> 
> 	3. When light passes through "air",
>   	  what is the medium ?

The medium is the aether.
The aether in air is distorted but not as severe as in glass and water because air is less dense than glass and water and thus gives faster speed for light speed than in glass and water....call this as C_a

> 
> 	4. When light passes through "Hydrogen",
>   	  what is the medium ?.

The medium is the aether.
The hydrogen in interstellar space is so rare that we can assume that the aether in the interstellar space is transmitting light at c....nevertheless we can call this as C_h
 

As you can see, light speed  is dependent on the material substance within the aether....C_h is faster than C_a, C_a is faster than C_w and C_w is faster C_g. This is possible only if light is being transmitted by a common medium called the aether (the E-Matrix).

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

#475346

Frombenj <benj.fake@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-20 13:39 -0400
Message-ID<pqfp98$8eb$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#475312
On 10/20/2018 6:01 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 20/10/2018 03:53, benj wrote:
> keith stein wrote:
> 
>>> But i know of no reliable experiment, or observation, which conflicts 
>>> >> with Maxwell's (and my) view that the speed of light is appropriate
>>> to, AND RELATIVE TO, the "medium".  Certainly the null result of the
>>> Michelson Morley experiment is exactly what we would expect.
> 
>> WE'd expect that ONLY if the medium is moving along with the earth.
> 
> I'm going to give you a hand here with that PHYSICS TEST, which you,
> Benj, along with everyone else, (so don't feel bad eh!) FAILED.
> 
>      1. When light passes through "glass",
>         what is the medium ?
> 
>      2. When light passes through "water",
>         what is the medium ?
> 
>      3. When light passes through "air",
>         what is the medium ?
> 
>      4. When light passes through "Hydrogen",
>         what is the medium ?
> 
> 
> I'll just give you the answer to question 3 Benj,
> and you should be able to work the rest out for yourself.
> 
> The correct answer to question 3 is "air", Benj,
> so the medium IS moving along with the Earth, which
> explains why we get a null result from the MMX eh!
> 
> keith stein

Air is NOT the medium for light. Light passes through air but air is 
mostly empty space. Hence if space is truly empty there can be no light 
transmitted through air. You failed your own exam. Think much?

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

#475353

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2018-10-20 20:15 +0200
Message-ID<3b61d75a-9ae2-91a4-6613-e5b165b190c8@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#475346
benj wrote:
> Air is NOT the medium for light. Light passes through air

Correct.

> but air is mostly empty space.

Utter nonsense.  Air is *very* different from vacuum.  You are breathing it!

> Hence if space is truly empty there can be no light 
> transmitted through air.

That is correct only if “space” means “*outer* space”.

> You failed your own exam. Think much?

Pot, kettle, black.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#475378

FromKeith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-20 22:35 +0100
Message-ID<ycNyD.83597$aw7.38149@fx04.am4>
In reply to#475353
On 20/10/2018 19:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> benj wrote:
>> Air is NOT the medium for light. Light passes through air
> 
> Correct.


No wrong. "Air" was Maxwell's primary example of a medium for light.
Of course Maxwell's Theory is a macroscopic theory, in which the medium
is considered to be continuous. However Maxwell's Theory still works 
fine at the macroscopic level, and when light passes through "air" the 
medium is "air".


>> but air is mostly empty space.
> 
> Utter nonsense.  Air is *very* different from vacuum.  You are breathing it!
> 
>> Hence if space is truly empty there can be no light
>> transmitted through air.
> 
> That is correct only if “space” means “*outer* space”.
> 
>> You failed your own exam. Think much?
> 
> Pot, kettle, black.
>

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

#475386

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2018-10-21 00:09 +0200
Message-ID<8a238338-6580-19c5-b788-84e58df9bab7@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#475378
Keith Stein wrote:
> On 20/10/2018 19:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> benj wrote:
>>> Air is NOT the medium for light. Light passes through air
>> Correct.
> 
> No wrong.

No, we know this to be correct already because the sky above is blue
and sunrise/sunset is reddish (Rayleigh scattering).

> "Air" was Maxwell's primary example of a medium for light.

Cite evidence.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#475397

Frombenj <benj.fake@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-20 23:12 -0400
Message-ID<pqgqrh$1qe2$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#475378
On 10/20/2018 5:35 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 20/10/2018 19:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> benj wrote:
>>> Air is NOT the medium for light. Light passes through air
>>
>> Correct.
> 
> 
> No wrong. "Air" was Maxwell's primary example of a medium for light.
> Of course Maxwell's Theory is a macroscopic theory, in which the medium
> is considered to be continuous. However Maxwell's Theory still works 
> fine at the macroscopic level, and when light passes through "air" the 
> medium is "air".

Just wrong, dummy. How does air transver the light energy from one place 
to another? It does not.

>>> but air is mostly empty space.
>>
>> Utter nonsense.  Air is *very* different from vacuum.  You are 
>> breathing it!
>>
>>> Hence if space is truly empty there can be no light
>>> transmitted through air.
>>
>> That is correct only if “space” means “*outer* space”.
>>
>>> You failed your own exam. Think much?
>>
>> Pot, kettle, black.

You are stupid, everyone else is. Got it.

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

#475411

FromTom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Date2018-10-21 09:16 -0500
Message-ID<crmdnVwua-6zF1HGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#475397
On 10/20/18 10:12 PM, benj wrote:
>>> benj wrote:
>>>> Air is NOT the medium for light. 
> 
> Just wrong, dummy. How does air transver the light energy from one place 
> to another? It does not.

Hmmmm, air does not transfer light energy from place to place, the light 
itself does that. But air is certainly a possible medium for light, 
because the meaning of the word "medium" HAS CHANGED. For nearly a 
century, "medium" applied to light has meant whatever transparent 
material the light is passing through. Such as air. Since light is NOT a 
wave, this is appropriate and unambiguous.

	This is confusing only to idiots who refuse to study
	modern physics.

Tom Roberts

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

#475376

FromKeith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-20 22:26 +0100
Message-ID<X3NyD.16159$Z%1.4560@fx16.am4>
In reply to#475346
On 20/10/2018 18:39, benj wrote:
> On 10/20/2018 6:01 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 20/10/2018 03:53, benj wrote:
>> keith stein wrote:
>>
>>>> But i know of no reliable experiment, or observation, which 
>>>> conflicts >> with Maxwell's (and my) view that the speed of light is 
>>>> appropriate
>>>> to, AND RELATIVE TO, the "medium".  Certainly the null result of the
>>>> Michelson Morley experiment is exactly what we would expect.
>>
>>> WE'd expect that ONLY if the medium is moving along with the earth.
>>
>> I'm going to give you a hand here with that PHYSICS TEST, which you,
>> Benj, along with everyone else, (so don't feel bad eh!) FAILED.
>>
>>      1. When light passes through "glass",
>>         what is the medium ?
>>
>>      2. When light passes through "water",
>>         what is the medium ?
>>
>>      3. When light passes through "air",
>>         what is the medium ?
>>
>>      4. When light passes through "Hydrogen",
>>         what is the medium ?
>>
>>
>> I'll just give you the answer to question 3 Benj,
>> and you should be able to work the rest out for yourself.
>>
>> The correct answer to question 3 is "air", Benj,
>> so the medium IS moving along with the Earth, which
>> explains why we get a null result from the MMX eh!
>>
>> keith stein
> 
> Air is NOT the medium for light. Light passes through air but air is 
> mostly empty space. Hence if space is truly empty there can be no light 
> transmitted through air. You failed your own exam. Think much?
> 

"Air" was Maxwell's primary example of a medium for electromagnetic waves.

Of course Maxwell's Theory is a macroscopic theory, in which the medium
is considered to be continuous. This no doubt explains why Maxwell's 
theory breaks down at the atomic level.

However Maxwell's Theory still works fine at the macroscopic level, and
when light passes through "air" the medium is "air" eh!

keith stein

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

#475387

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2018-10-20 22:11 +0000
Message-ID<pqg97b$616$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#475376
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 20/10/2018 18:39, benj wrote:

>> Air is NOT the medium for light. Light passes through air but air is 
>> mostly empty space. Hence if space is truly empty there can be no light 
>> transmitted through air. You failed your own exam. Think much?

>"Air" was Maxwell's primary example of a medium for electromagnetic waves.

And we have since learned no medium is needed for light.

>Of course Maxwell's Theory is a macroscopic theory, in which the medium
>is considered to be continuous.

One form (a simplified form) is. It treats a solid dielectric as a 
homogeneous substance with a dielectric constant, rather than a huge 
collection of molecules. This works for light, but doesn't work for X-rays
with a wavelength much smaller than atoms.

> This no doubt explains why Maxwell's 
>theory breaks down at the atomic level.

You have to use the proper form.

>However Maxwell's Theory still works fine at the macroscopic level, and
>when light passes through "air" the medium is "air" eh!

Just not for short wave photons or when the interatomic distance is much 
larger than the wavelength.

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

#475396

Frombenj <benj.fake@gmail.com>
Date2018-10-20 23:10 -0400
Message-ID<pqgqnf$1qe2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#475376
On 10/20/2018 5:26 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 20/10/2018 18:39, benj wrote:
>> On 10/20/2018 6:01 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> On 20/10/2018 03:53, benj wrote:
>>> keith stein wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But i know of no reliable experiment, or observation, which 
>>>>> conflicts >> with Maxwell's (and my) view that the speed of light 
>>>>> is appropriate
>>>>> to, AND RELATIVE TO, the "medium".  Certainly the null result of the
>>>>> Michelson Morley experiment is exactly what we would expect.
>>>
>>>> WE'd expect that ONLY if the medium is moving along with the earth.
>>>
>>> I'm going to give you a hand here with that PHYSICS TEST, which you,
>>> Benj, along with everyone else, (so don't feel bad eh!) FAILED.
>>>
>>>      1. When light passes through "glass",
>>>         what is the medium ?
>>>
>>>      2. When light passes through "water",
>>>         what is the medium ?
>>>
>>>      3. When light passes through "air",
>>>         what is the medium ?
>>>
>>>      4. When light passes through "Hydrogen",
>>>         what is the medium ?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll just give you the answer to question 3 Benj,
>>> and you should be able to work the rest out for yourself.
>>>
>>> The correct answer to question 3 is "air", Benj,
>>> so the medium IS moving along with the Earth, which
>>> explains why we get a null result from the MMX eh!
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>
>> Air is NOT the medium for light. Light passes through air but air is 
>> mostly empty space. Hence if space is truly empty there can be no 
>> light transmitted through air. You failed your own exam. Think much?
>>
> 
> "Air" was Maxwell's primary example of a medium for electromagnetic waves.

Air is not a "medium". Air is just words subsituted for 'vacuum of empty 
space which is of course no empty but contains the "mythical" medium 
aether.

> Of course Maxwell's Theory is a macroscopic theory, in which the medium
> is considered to be continuous. This no doubt explains why Maxwell's 
> theory breaks down at the atomic level.

As written is a macroscopic theory, but the medium is FAR closer to 
continuous and differentiable than atoms. Which suggests that Maxwell 
theory CAN explain some things at the atomic level. Photons, for 
example, eh!

> However Maxwell's Theory still works fine at the macroscopic level, and
> when light passes through "air" the medium is "air" eh!

Totally WRONG dummy. You are as willfully ignorant as Odd. You two make 
a cute couple. Eh?

> keith stein
>

[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