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 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 17:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2e300646-970b-8d03-7840-0a516ea5a195@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475415 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/20/18 7:17 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Since c is the speed of light in a medium, [...] > > Most physicists, textbooks, and reference books use the symbol "c" for > the VACUUM speed of light. […] Learn to read (more than the first sentence). -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 09:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d9c180c8-cd7a-4598-834b-084417bb0878@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475390 |
On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 8:17:12 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > How do you explain the observed fact that light in glass has speed slower > > than c and when it reemerges from the glass it regains its speed to be c? > > Since c is the speed of light in a medium, that is incorrect. A correct > statement would be that c_glass < c_air. You didn’t answer the question: What is the mechanism that enables light to change its speed from c_glass to c_air? > > > The valid explanation is that in the glass the E-Matrix is curved […] > > That *might* be *a* valid explanation. It is the only valid explanation. It explains the observed bending if light. > > It is certainly NOT *the* valid explanation as regards current knowledge. Current knowledge is wrong. > > That explanation is instead much simpler: Light is an electromagnetic wave. Not according to Tom Robertst . So you and Tom have different current explanation? > > The phase speed of electromagnetic waves is > > c = λ f, > > with λ the wavelength and f the frequency. λ depends on the electromagnetic > properties of the medium, and is in general less in glass than in air; so is c. This does not explain why c_glass<c_air. > > We call the quotient of the phase speed of light in a (non-vacuum) medium, > c (also: v), and the speed of light in vacuum, c₀ (then: c instead), the > *refractive index* or *index of refraction*, n, of the medium, because it > determines the *angle of refraction* when light passes from one medium to > another: > > n = c/c₀. > > That refraction towards the axis perpendicular to an interface (normal) must > occur from a medium whose refractive index is less to one that is greater, > and that the opposite is true in the reverse case, can already be presumed > by applying the principle of least time (Fermat’s principle): > > incident beam . : > `. θ₁: > air (n₁ ≈ 1.000293) `. : > __________________________`.____________ interface > :\. __ > glass (n₂ ≈ 1.52) : \ . |PE > :θ₂\ . > ___________________________:___\___.____ interface > :_: `. . > air (n₁ ≈ 1.000293) : `. . potential light path > : `. > normal `. actual light path > > Snell’s Law: n₁ sin θ₁ = n₂ sin θ₂ > > (here: n₁ < n₂ ⇒ sin θ₁ > sin θ₂ ⇒ θ₁ > θ₂) > > [to avoid confusion, reflected beams are not drawn here] > > If light is to travel the path between the interfaces in the least possible > time, but its phase speed is less in glass than in air, it follows that it > has to take a shorter path through glass (solid line) than the path that it > would have taken if it had continued in the direction of the incident beam > (dotted line). So the angle of refraction (θ₂) must be smaller than the > angle of incidence (θ₁) in this case. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction#/media/File:F%C3%A9nyt%C3%B6r%C3%A9s.jpg> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_principle> > > > Your “E-Matrix” cannot explain the *partial* reflection on the interface; > standard optics can. > > Your “E-Matrix” cannot explain why the observed color of the refracted > monochromatic light does not change compared to the unrefracted light; > standard optics and quantum mechanics can. > > This list is not meant to be exhaustive. > > So your explanation of those phenomena, using your “E-Matrix”, is *wrong*. > > -- > 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 | 2018-10-22 20:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <82a45be8-72cd-7a03-4126-d29e310acbf8@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475426 |
kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 8:17:12 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> How do you explain the observed fact that light in glass has speed slower >>> than c and when it reemerges from the glass it regains its speed to be c? >> Since c is the speed of light in a medium, that is incorrect. A correct >> statement would be that c_glass < c_air. > > You didn’t answer the question: What is the mechanism that enables light to change its speed from c_glass to c_air? I did answer the question. You need to learn to read (comprehensively). >>> The valid explanation is that in the glass the E-Matrix is curved […] >> That *might* be *a* valid explanation. > > It is the only valid explanation. It explains the observed bending if light.. Nonsense. >> It is certainly NOT *the* valid explanation as regards current knowledge. > > Current knowledge is wrong. It is not. You are just ignorant of what is says, and its many experimental confirmations. >> That explanation is instead much simpler: Light is an electromagnetic wave. > > Not according to Tom Robertst . Tom Roberts appears to be biased. For some reason apparently he cannot accept that sometimes the explanation using classical mechanics only suffices. I blame that on him being a particle physicist who in his work uses quantum mechanics more than classical mechanics. Because I know first-hand that it is being *taught* when studying physics that light is an electromagnetic wave (sic!), and what I told you, before one learns quantum mechanics and QED. > So you and Tom have different current explanation? It suffices in this case, for the description of the observed phenomena, to assume that light is an electromagnetic wave. However, I am certain that there is a QED-based explanation as well. >> The phase speed of electromagnetic waves is >> >> c = λ f, >> >> with λ the wavelength and f the frequency. λ depends on the electromagnetic >> properties of the medium, and is in general less in glass than in air; so is c. > > This does not explain why c_glass<c_air. Sure it does. If λ becomes smaller, then c MUST become smaller. Can’t you do simple arithmetic? > [Full quote] Learn to quote. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 08:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b643fcf-a09d-4525-9be9-d2c549aaed7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475498 |
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 2:38:38 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 8:17:12 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >>> How do you explain the observed fact that light in glass has speed slower > >>> than c and when it reemerges from the glass it regains its speed to be c? > >> Since c is the speed of light in a medium, that is incorrect. A correct > >> statement would be that c_glass < c_air. > > > > You didn’t answer the question: What is the mechanism that enables light to change its speed from c_glass to c_air? > > I did answer the question. You need to learn to read (comprehensively). No you didn’t answer the question. You did not give a reason why Lambda in glass in shorter than Lambda in air. > > >>> The valid explanation is that in the glass the E-Matrix is curved […] > >> That *might* be *a* valid explanation. > > > > It is the only valid explanation. It explains the observed bending if light.. > > Nonsense. Why is that nonsense? > > >> It is certainly NOT *the* valid explanation as regards current knowledge. > > > > Current knowledge is wrong. > > It is not. You are just ignorant of what is says, and its many experimental > confirmations. There are different alternate explanations for those experiments. > > >> That explanation is instead much simpler: Light is an electromagnetic wave. > > > > Not according to Tom Robertst . > > Tom Roberts appears to be biased. For some reason apparently he cannot > accept that sometimes the explanation using classical mechanics only > suffices. I blame that on him being a particle physicist who in his work > uses quantum mechanics more than classical mechanics. Because I know > first-hand that it is being *taught* when studying physics that light is an > electromagnetic wave (sic!), and what I told you, before one learns quantum > mechanics and QED. > > > So you and Tom have different current explanation? > > It suffices in this case, for the description of the observed phenomena, > to assume that light is an electromagnetic wave. > > However, I am certain that there is a QED-based explanation as well. > > >> The phase speed of electromagnetic waves is > >> > >> c = λ f, > >> > >> with λ the wavelength and f the frequency. λ depends on the electromagnetic > >> properties of the medium, and is in general less in glass than in air; so is c. > > > > This does not explain why c_glass<c_air. > > Sure it does. If λ becomes smaller, then c MUST become smaller. Can’t you > do simple arithmetic? No, it doesn’t. Why is λ becomes smaller in glass?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 15:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqnf1d$aij$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #475532 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 2:38:38 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >> > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 8:17:12 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> >>> The valid explanation is that in the glass the E-Matrix is curved [...] >> >> That *might* be *a* valid explanation. >> > It is the only valid explanation. It explains the observed bending if light.. >> Nonsense. >Why is that nonsense? Because your assertions are not proofs or evidence of anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 23:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9889f440-459b-4395-b9b6-cf83e8f9d657@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475535 |
On Tuesday, 23 October 2018 17:34:08 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > Because your assertions are not proofs or evidence of anything. Only assertions of our beloved Great Guru are!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 18:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d270bfc3-69c5-fdaa-76c8-a711d7579f6c@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475532 |
kenseto wrote: > On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 2:38:38 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 8:17:12 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>> How do you explain the observed fact that light in glass has speed slower >>>>> than c and when it reemerges from the glass it regains its speed to be c? >>>> Since c is the speed of light in a medium, that is incorrect. A correct >>>> statement would be that c_glass < c_air. >>> >>> You didn’t answer the question: What is the mechanism that enables light to change its speed from c_glass to c_air? >> >> I did answer the question. You need to learn to read (comprehensively). > > No you didn’t answer the question. You did not give a reason why Lambda in glass in shorter than Lambda in air. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index#Microscopic_explanation> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6745e44-f895-4544-892f-1b6f62b95cfa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475543 |
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 12:21:54 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 2:38:38 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 8:17:12 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>> How do you explain the observed fact that light in glass has speed slower > >>>>> than c and when it reemerges from the glass it regains its speed to be c? > >>>> Since c is the speed of light in a medium, that is incorrect. A correct > >>>> statement would be that c_glass < c_air. > >>> > >>> You didn’t answer the question: What is the mechanism that enables light to change its speed from c_glass to c_air? > >> > >> I did answer the question. You need to learn to read (comprehensively). > > > > No you didn’t answer the question. You did not give a reason why Lambda in glass in shorter than Lambda in air. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index#Microscopic_explanation> This website did not explain why the wavelength of light in glass is shorter than in air. It calculates the the speed of light in the glass according to the index of refraction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 19:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a305d10-4085-4af0-8051-1105d2fa8cb3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475390 |
On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 8:17:12 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > How do you explain the observed fact that light in glass has speed slower > > than c and when it reemerges from the glass it regains its speed to be c? > > Since c is the speed of light in a medium, that is incorrect. A correct > statement would be that c_glass < c_air. > > > The valid explanation is that in the glass the E-Matrix is curved […] > > That *might* be *a* valid explanation. > > It is certainly NOT *the* valid explanation as regards current knowledge. > > That explanation is instead much simpler: Light is an electromagnetic wave. > > The phase speed of electromagnetic waves is > > c = λ f, > > with λ the wavelength and f the frequency. λ depends on the electromagnetic > properties of the medium, and is in general less in glass than in air; so is c. > > We call the quotient of the phase speed of light in a (non-vacuum) medium, > c (also: v), and the speed of light in vacuum, c₀ (then: c instead), the > *refractive index* or *index of refraction*, n, of the medium, because it > determines the *angle of refraction* when light passes from one medium to > another: > > n = c/c₀. > > That refraction towards the axis perpendicular to an interface (normal) must > occur from a medium whose refractive index is less to one that is greater, > and that the opposite is true in the reverse case, can already be presumed > by applying the principle of least time (Fermat’s principle): > > incident beam . : > `. θ₁: > air (n₁ ≈ 1.000293) `. : > __________________________`.____________ interface > :\. __ > glass (n₂ ≈ 1.52) : \ . |PE > :θ₂\ . > ___________________________:___\___.____ interface > :_: `. . > air (n₁ ≈ 1.000293) : `. . potential light path > : `. > normal `. actual light path > > Snell’s Law: n₁ sin θ₁ = n₂ sin θ₂ > > (here: n₁ < n₂ ⇒ sin θ₁ > sin θ₂ ⇒ θ₁ > θ₂) > > [to avoid confusion, reflected beams are not drawn here] > > If light is to travel the path between the interfaces in the least possible > time, but its phase speed is less in glass than in air, it follows that it > has to take a shorter path through glass (solid line) than the path that it > would have taken if it had continued in the direction of the incident beam > (dotted line). So the angle of refraction (θ₂) must be smaller than the > angle of incidence (θ₁) in this case. This is not the cause why C_glass < C_air My question was: what is the mechanism that the slower C_glass becomes the faster C_air. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction#/media/File:F%C3%A9nyt%C3%B6r%C3%A9s.jpg> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_principle> > > > Your “E-Matrix” cannot explain the *partial* reflection on the interface; > standard optics can. Why not...the E-Matrix can indeed explains the partial reflection the same as the standard optics does. > > Your “E-Matrix” cannot explain why the observed color of the refracted > monochromatic light does not change compared to the unrefracted light; > standard optics and quantum mechanics can. The E-Matrix does not change the wavelength....only the relative motion between the source and the detector will change the wavelength and thus change the color. The monochromatic light remains the same color if there is no relative motion. > > This list is not meant to be exhaustive. > > So your explanation of those phenomena, using your “E-Matrix”, is *wrong*. > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 19:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b6633740-e39b-4d00-b5e5-ea3832607951@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475462 |
diamonds. Pressure resistance Used in so-called diamond anvil experiments to create high-pressure environments, diamonds are able to withstand crushing pressures in excess of 600 gigapascals (6 million atmospheres). 9.1224509E+20 pascals = electron pascals ((597.067756067 gigapascals) / (9.1224509E+20 pascals * G * kgf))^(1 / 4) = 1 s / m
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 20:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <07e49865-3d91-9a1f-10e8-f121ad4e52d7@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475462 |
kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 8:17:12 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> If light is to travel the path between the interfaces in the least possible >> time, but its phase speed is less in glass than in air, it follows that it >> has to take a shorter path through glass (solid line) than the path that it >> would have taken if it had continued in the direction of the incident beam >> (dotted line). So the angle of refraction (θ₂) must be smaller than the >> angle of incidence (θ₁) in this case. > > This is not the cause why C_glass < C_air Correct, the cause is the change in wavelength. Fermat’s principle works here, though. >> Your “E-Matrix” cannot explain the *partial* reflection on the interface; >> standard optics can. > > Why not...the E-Matrix can indeed explains the partial reflection the same as the standard optics does. Humor me. >> Your “E-Matrix” cannot explain why the observed color of the refracted >> monochromatic light does not change compared to the unrefracted light; >> standard optics and quantum mechanics can. > > The E-Matrix does not change the wavelength....only the relative motion between the source and the detector will change the wavelength […] Since the relative motion "between" the source and the detector¹ can be zero, and there is still refraction, your explanation is wrong. ______ ¹ The correct wording is “the velocity of the source relative to the detector” or “the velocity of the detector relative to the source”. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 08:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2dba44c-4c6f-4da7-9364-302d33b13a5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475335 |
On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 12:31:14 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 20/10/2018 15:27, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 3:37:26 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > > >> It would be a mistake to dismiss *macroscopic* physics, Sylvia. > >> Physics was built on macroscopic theories and experiments, and > >> because we macroscopic physicists deal with things at the ordinary > >> visible level, we can be more certain of our facts eh! > >> > >> Maxwell's theory and Einstein's SR are both macroscopic theories. > >> According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave, > >> which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the > >> "medium". Einstein ignores the medium, and is left with the > >> problem of what the speed of light is relative to. Since he has > >> omitted the "very stuff" which light does actually travel relative > >> to, there is no sensible solution to Einstein's dilemma. > >> > >> Einstein's REVOLUTION SOLUTION was, as you know, that the > >> speed of light was constant relative to the observer, an > >> outrageous impossibility in the space and time of classical > >> physics. > >> > >> My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the > >> macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed > >> appropriate to and relative to the medium, and that is > >> "Why the "Medium" Matters" eh! > > > > All you do is renaming the Aether as “Medium”. What is your point? > > The point, Mr.Seto, is that light travels relative to the "medium", > i.e.the matter which it is traveling through. The frame of reference > in which the "air",for example, is stationary is easy to establish > unambiguously, unlike the frame of reference of the so called "aether", > or even the E-matrix" eh! > So how does light regains its speed after it re-emerges from the glass to air? Where is the energy come from?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 10:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0o6dnQoEQteh2lbGnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475304 |
On 10/20/18 2:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > "...... at the macroscopic level, LIGHT IS A WAVE." So you claim but have failed to show. Physicists KNOW it is wrong. This is, of course, an EXPERIMENTAL issue, so quotes from ancient texts are useless. Of course it is NONSENSE to claim that the composition of light varies, depending on the scale at which it is observed. Light is CLEARLY quantized (and therefore not a wave) at the atomic and sub-atomic level. For some physical situations, light behaves APPROXIMATELY as a wave. I'll discuss three macroscopic phenomena that contradict your claim: 1) isotropic sources 2) blackbody spectra 3) coherence length (in much more detail) 1) Light, when observed to be wave-like, is a transverse wave. It is impossible to emit a transverse wave isotropically [#], but we see isotropic light sources all the time. They are emitting photons, not waves. [#] This is a topological restriction; see the "hairy ball theorem". 2) The blackbody spectra from stars and ordinary objects cannot be accurately modeled without applying quantum mechanics. It is not a set of emitted waves, it is a set of emitted photons. 3) Coherence length is characteristic of the source and is the maximum path length difference for there to be visible interference for light from the source being split and then recombined. For instance, the white light Michelson and Morley used had a coherence length less than a micron, so they had to carefully adjust their mirrors so the path lengths were equal to that accuracy. In our lab, the lasers have a coherence length of many meters, and the Michelson interferometer we use has a path length difference of ~ 0.5 meters. No wave exhibits such coherence length (it is an inherently quantum phenomenon). A monochromatic wave has an infinite coherence length. For a wave source that generates a range of wavelengths, interference will only occur for a path difference related to the bandwidth of the source, which repeats periodically -- for waves there is no upper bound on the path-length difference for which interference is visible. Light does NOT behave that way. It is remarkable how nearly wave-like that EM radiation behaves in certain circumstances. This is directly related to the fact that the classical limit of QED is Classical Electrodynamics. But light does not behave exactly like waves, and the quantum basis of light cannot be avoided. You keep repeating your argument from ignorance. That is not science, and is not reasonable behavior. The world is more complicated than you think; given your inability to read, it is more complicated than it is possible for you to think. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 09:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ivWyD.60790$Do.30828@fx31.am4> |
| In reply to | #475325 |
On 20/10/2018 16:18, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/20/18 2:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> "...... at the macroscopic level, LIGHT IS A WAVE."
<snip>
> ...It is remarkable how nearly wave-like that EM radiation
> behaves in certain circumstances. This is directly related
> to the fact that the classical limit of QED is Classical
> Electrodynamics.....
Thank you Mr.Roberts, you put it better than me i think:
"..the classical limit of QED is Classical Electrodynamics"
All you need now is to understand that in Classical Physics,
nothing, absolutely NOTHING, travels RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER.
In Classical Electrodynamics (i.e.Maxwell's Theory) light
travels RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM eh!
Thanks again.
keith stein
> Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 10:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <yaidnbKNPb3iBVHGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475403 |
On 10/21/18 3:09 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > All you need now is to understand that in Classical Physics, > nothing, absolutely NOTHING, travels RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER. That, of course, is NONSENSE. It is blatantly obvious to the most casual observer that light travels relative to ANY observer. Ditto for baseballs, birds, and practically every object in the universe. > In Classical Electrodynamics (i.e.Maxwell's Theory) Classical electrodynamics is NOT Maxwell's theory. It uses a subset of his fields and equations, but is QUITE different. In particular, classical electrodynamics is a VALID theory within its domain, while Maxwell's theory is NOT VALID in any useful domain. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 18:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pM2zD.54367$9M1.29652@fx23.am4> |
| In reply to | #475416 |
On 21/10/2018 16:17, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/21/18 3:09 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> All you need now is to understand that in Classical Physics, >> nothing, absolutely NOTHING, travels RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER. > > That, of course, is NONSENSE. It is blatantly obvious to the most casual > observer that light travels relative to ANY observer. Ditto for > baseballs, birds, and practically every object in the universe. > >> In Classical Electrodynamics (i.e.Maxwell's Theory) > > Classical electrodynamics is NOT Maxwell's theory. It uses a subset of > his fields and equations, but is QUITE different. In particular, > classical electrodynamics is a VALID theory within its domain, while > Maxwell's theory is NOT VALID in any useful domain. > > Tom Roberts Thank you for your corrections Mr.Roberts. So what i should have said was: In Classical Physics, nothing, absolutely NOTHING, travels with the same speed RELATIVE TO ALL OBSERVERS. and In Maxwell's Theory (as written by Maxwell) light travels with a speed appropriate to, and RELATIVE TO, the "medium". Thanks again. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 12:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <18qdnfj6dPZvmFPGnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475432 |
On 10/21/18 12:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > In Classical Physics, nothing, absolutely NOTHING, > travels with the same speed RELATIVE TO ALL OBSERVERS. Not true. You again merely display your personal ignorance. In classical electrodynamics, electromagnetic radiation travels in vacuum with speed c relative to ALL observers (inertial coordinates). Ditto for SR and GR (which are both classical theories). Note that in physics, "classical" means "not quantum" or "pre quantum", not whatever meaning you made up. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 20:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <UfpzD.95806$xE.86505@fx22.am4> |
| In reply to | #475489 |
On 22/10/2018 18:18, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/21/18 12:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> In Classical Physics, nothing, absolutely NOTHING, >> travels with the same speed RELATIVE TO ALL OBSERVERS. > Not true. You again merely display your personal ignorance. > > In classical electrodynamics, electromagnetic radiation travels in > vacuum with speed c relative to ALL observers (inertial coordinates). > Ditto for SR and GR (which are both classical theories). > > Note that in physics, "classical" means "not quantum" > or "pre quantum", If you think Relativity Theory is a Classic Physics Theory, then you could define it that way, myself, when I talk of Classical Physics, I mean Physics prior to Einstein's nonsense eh! > not whatever meaning you made up. I am not the only person who uses the term "Classical Physics" in the sense of "pre=relativity", Mr.Roberts. keith stein > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 01:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <efba455b-10d5-27a4-798b-23ce9f77ff63@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475502 |
Keith Stein wrote: > On 22/10/2018 18:18, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 10/21/18 12:34 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> In Classical Physics, nothing, absolutely NOTHING, >>> travels with the same speed RELATIVE TO ALL OBSERVERS. >> Not true. You again merely display your personal ignorance. >> >> In classical electrodynamics, electromagnetic radiation travels in >> vacuum with speed c relative to ALL observers (inertial coordinates). >> Ditto for SR and GR (which are both classical theories). >> >> Note that in physics, "classical" means "not quantum" >> or "pre quantum", > > If you think Relativity Theory is a Classic Physics Theory, > then you could define it that way, myself, when I talk of > Classical Physics, I mean Physics prior to Einstein's nonsense eh! If it were nonsense, you could *technically* not post here as your computer, built on special relativity theory, would not function. It does function, you are posting here (unfortunately). So it is not nonsense. If it were nonsense, mass would not be equivalent to rest energy, there would be no mass defect, and stars could not get energy from fusion. They would collapse and quickly go red giant or supernova; so planets could not exist 4.5 billion years later, evolution would not have been possible, and you could not exist. You are on a planet that receives energy from a star which we have evidence of that it works through nuclear fusion, so that you can live here (there might be people who would say “unfortunately” to that, too :->). So it is not nonsense. Shut up and study! -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 08:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <51f71524-f354-4358-9b7e-123de2fc0436@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475325 |
On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 11:18:26 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/20/18 2:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > > "...... at the macroscopic level, LIGHT IS A WAVE." > > So you claim but have failed to show. Physicists KNOW it is wrong. > > This is, of course, an EXPERIMENTAL issue, so quotes > from ancient texts are useless. > > Of course it is NONSENSE to claim that the composition of light varies, > depending on the scale at which it is observed. Light is CLEARLY > quantized (and therefore not a wave) at the atomic and sub-atomic level. > For some physical situations, light behaves APPROXIMATELY as a wave. > > I'll discuss three macroscopic phenomena that contradict your claim: > 1) isotropic sources > 2) blackbody spectra > 3) coherence length (in much more detail) > > 1) Light, when observed to be wave-like, is a transverse wave. It is > impossible to emit a transverse wave isotropically [#], but we see > isotropic light sources all the time. They are emitting photons, not waves. A source can indeed emits transverse wave-packets isotropically in all directions......these wave-packets are caused by the absolute motion of the source in a structured and elastic aether called the E-matrix. > > [#] This is a topological restriction; see the "hairy > ball theorem". > > 2) The blackbody spectra from stars and ordinary objects cannot be > accurately modeled without applying quantum mechanics. It is not a set > of emitted waves, it is a set of emitted photons. Yes, it can be accurately modeled if the photons are wave-packets in the E-Matrix. > > 3) Coherence length is characteristic of the source and is the maximum > path length difference for there to be visible interference for light > from the source being split and then recombined. > > For instance, the white light Michelson and Morley used > had a coherence length less than a micron, so they had > to carefully adjust their mirrors so the path lengths > were equal to that accuracy. In our lab, the lasers > have a coherence length of many meters, and the Michelson > interferometer we use has a path length difference of > ~ 0.5 meters. > > No wave exhibits such coherence length (it is an inherently quantum > phenomenon). A monochromatic wave has an infinite coherence length. For > a wave source that generates a range of wavelengths, interference will > only occur for a path difference related to the bandwidth of the source, > which repeats periodically -- for waves there is no upper bound on the > path-length difference for which interference is visible. Light does NOT > behave that way. Light in the form of wave-packet will behave that way. > > It is remarkable how nearly wave-like that EM radiation > behaves in certain circumstances. This is directly related > to the fact that the classical limit of QED is Classical > Electrodynamics. But light does not behave exactly like > waves, and the quantum basis of light cannot be avoided. > > You keep repeating your argument from ignorance. That is not science, > and is not reasonable behavior. The world is more complicated than you > think; given your inability to read, it is more complicated than it is > possible for you to think. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web