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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476484 > unrolled thread

EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH!

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

Contents

  EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 11:11 +0000
    Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-07 03:24 -0800
      Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 15:13 +0000
    Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-07 10:09 -0600
      Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 17:34 +0000
      Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <agn@j2awdos.nc> - 2018-11-07 20:26 +0000
        Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-07 17:39 -0600
          Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <agn@j2awdos.nc> - 2018-11-08 00:51 +0000
    Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-11-08 23:45 +1100
      Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 13:20 +0000
        Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 19:34 +0000
          Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-08 11:42 -0800
          Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 20:10 +0000
            Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-09 06:52 -0800
              Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 08:23 +0000
                Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-12 04:29 -0800
                  Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 20:00 +0000
                    Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-12 14:51 -0800
                      Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <uucp@jav4ow.nq> - 2018-11-13 20:32 +0000
                Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-12 11:25 -0600
                Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 17:37 +0000
                  Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 18:03 +0000
                    Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 18:40 +0000
                      Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 19:38 +0000
                        Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 22:16 +0000
                          Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 17:34 -0800
                            Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <uucp@jav4ow.nq> - 2018-11-13 20:16 +0000
                              Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 15:00 -0800
                    Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 19:44 +0000
            Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 17:47 +0000
            Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-11 03:08 +0000
          Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 10:18 -0500
            Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 17:47 +0000
              Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 20:06 -0500
                Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 02:41 +0100
                Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 19:33 -0800
                Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 13:42 +0000
                  Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 05:49 -0800
                  Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 20:04 -0500
                    Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-11 12:13 +0100
                      Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-11 03:23 -0800
                      Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4ow.nv> - 2018-11-11 15:49 +0000
                    Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 21:01 +0000
                      Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 21:13 -0500
                        Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-12 22:41 -0600
                        Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 14:03 +0000
                Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-10 08:39 -0600
        Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-11 02:36 +0000
          Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 15:06 +0000
            Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-11 17:21 +0000
              Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-11 09:47 -0800
              Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 20:06 +0000
                Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 17:20 +0000
                  Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-12 09:53 -0800
                    Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 19:33 +0000
                      Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-12 12:41 -0800
                        Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-12 12:44 -0800
              Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-11 20:14 -0600
                Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 07:42 +0000
                  Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 17:29 +0000
                    Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 18:29 +0000
                      Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 19:49 +0000
                Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 17:25 +0000
            Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-12 07:25 -0800
              Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 17:50 +0000
                Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-12 10:46 -0800
                  Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-12 19:55 +0000
                    Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-11-12 12:05 -0800
        Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 15:29 -0800
          Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 23:43 +0000
            Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-12 10:45 -0800
              Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 19:07 +0000
                Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4ow.nv> - 2018-11-12 19:11 +0000
                  Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 13:05 -0800
                    Re: EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4ow.nv> - 2018-11-12 21:41 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#476767

On Sunday, 11 November 2018 12:13:54 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:

> > So you thing a load of math fantasy is an "explanation"? It's not. 
> 
> It is.  Your computer would have stopped working if it were different;

Being a rational, scientific mind - of course, you 
can point zillions of experiments confirming
that his computer wouldn't work if it were different.
Right, poor halfbrain?

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

#476781

the homepage designer differential calculus challenged Thomas 
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> benj wrote:
>> On 11/10/2018 8:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You have no idea what is wrong with QED. It's one more fairy tale
>>>> that you buy hook line and sinker. Your gullibility is astounding.
>>>>
>>>> So how does QED "explain" how a dual slit experiment works both as a
>>>> wave and as particles? It doesn't.
>>>
>>> That’s incorrect. Weinberg does this analysis with QED in his book.
>>> Does it help you to just make things up like that?
>>>
>>>> It's just a bunch of emission and reabsorption with least action that
>>>> explains nothing at all. It's just more math fantasy.
>> 
>> So you thing a load of math fantasy is an "explanation"? It's not.
> 
> It is.  Your computer would have stopped working if it were different;
> it did not: you posted here.  q.e.d.

The myth coming from a homepage designer is not a surprise. It has nothing 
to do with computers, which are based on simply states of zeros and ones.

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

#476807

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2018 8:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2018 12:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/8/2018 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/11/2018 12:45, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 11:11:20 +0000, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Where did Einstein say that it would not,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But did Einstein not know that even in the furthest reaches
>>>>>>> of outer space there is a gas of finite density, so that
>>>>>>> in reality there is in actual fact "medium" EVERYWHERE.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So really NO ONE should be interested in Einstein's fictions,
>>>>>>> which clearly apply NOWHERE eh!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> he knew that light travels slower
>>>>>>>> in water then in air.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> but did he also know that when light travels in water,
>>>>>>> it travels at c/n(water)) RELATIVE TO THE water ?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> did he also know that when light travels in air,
>>>>>>> it travels at c/n(air) RELATIVE TO THE air ?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> did he also know that when light travels in hydrogen,
>>>>>>> it travels at c/n(hydrogen) RELATIVE TO THE hydrogen ?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Einstein knew how fast light travels in NOTHING eh!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> keith stein
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There comes a point with a medium where you cannot treat it as continuous.
>>>>>> In the case of light, as soon as you have a medium sparse enough that the
>>>>>> scattering centers (ie the ions or atoms) are separated by distances much
>>>>>> larger than the wavelength of the light, then it makes absolutely no sense
>>>>>> to think of continuum treatment of either the light or the medium.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> This is correct. Now, Can you use that idea to explain the wave-[article
>>>>> duality? I'll wait right here.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Particle wave duality is an outmoded motion rendered antiquated in the
>>>> 1950s when QED emerged.
>>>> 
>>> Oh I forgot! Science isn't about concepts and theories, it's like
>>> software where ou have to have the "latest version" of Jargon.
>> 
>> Well, some ideas don’t work well, like relativistic mass and particle wave
>> duality and phlogiston and LeSagian ultra mundane particles.
>> 
>>> 
>>> You have no idea what is wrong with QED. It's one more fairy tale that
>>> you buy hook line and sinker. Your gullibility is astounding.
>>> 
>>> So how does QED "explain" how a dual slit experiment works both as a
>>> wave and as particles? It doesn't.
>> 
>> That’s incorrect. Weinberg does this analysis with QED in his book. Does it
>> help you to just make things up like that?
>> 
>>> It's just a bunch of emission and
>>> reabsorption with least action that explains nothing at all. It's just
>>> more math fantasy.
> 
> So you thing a load of math fantasy is an "explanation"? It's not. It's 
> just jargon and consistent bullshit. Something you are never going to 
> understand.
> 
> 

Well, Ben, as you’ve said many times, you believe that math is a shorthand
for expressing things that can be said in words. I do not believe that
physical laws are fantasies. I do believe that physical laws can be
expressed mathematically. If you choose to elaborately use pages and pages
of words to capture the same meaning that can be captured in a few lines of
mathematical shorthand, that’s up to you. 

QED is a theory based on a collection of physical laws. If you want to try
to express the math in words instead, be my guest. QED does offer an
explanation for the double slit experiment. Whether you ever learned that
explanation or not. 

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

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

#476939

On 11/11/2018 4:01 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/10/2018 8:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/2018 12:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/8/2018 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/11/2018 12:45, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 11:11:20 +0000, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where did Einstein say that it would not,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But did Einstein not know that even in the furthest reaches
>>>>>>>> of outer space there is a gas of finite density, so that
>>>>>>>> in reality there is in actual fact "medium" EVERYWHERE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So really NO ONE should be interested in Einstein's fictions,
>>>>>>>> which clearly apply NOWHERE eh!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> he knew that light travels slower
>>>>>>>>> in water then in air.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but did he also know that when light travels in water,
>>>>>>>> it travels at c/n(water)) RELATIVE TO THE water ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> did he also know that when light travels in air,
>>>>>>>> it travels at c/n(air) RELATIVE TO THE air ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> did he also know that when light travels in hydrogen,
>>>>>>>> it travels at c/n(hydrogen) RELATIVE TO THE hydrogen ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Einstein knew how fast light travels in NOTHING eh!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> keith stein
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There comes a point with a medium where you cannot treat it as continuous.
>>>>>>> In the case of light, as soon as you have a medium sparse enough that the
>>>>>>> scattering centers (ie the ions or atoms) are separated by distances much
>>>>>>> larger than the wavelength of the light, then it makes absolutely no sense
>>>>>>> to think of continuum treatment of either the light or the medium.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is correct. Now, Can you use that idea to explain the wave-[article
>>>>>> duality? I'll wait right here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Particle wave duality is an outmoded motion rendered antiquated in the
>>>>> 1950s when QED emerged.
>>>>>
>>>> Oh I forgot! Science isn't about concepts and theories, it's like
>>>> software where ou have to have the "latest version" of Jargon.
>>>
>>> Well, some ideas don’t work well, like relativistic mass and particle wave
>>> duality and phlogiston and LeSagian ultra mundane particles.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have no idea what is wrong with QED. It's one more fairy tale that
>>>> you buy hook line and sinker. Your gullibility is astounding.
>>>>
>>>> So how does QED "explain" how a dual slit experiment works both as a
>>>> wave and as particles? It doesn't.
>>>
>>> That’s incorrect. Weinberg does this analysis with QED in his book. Does it
>>> help you to just make things up like that?
>>>
>>>> It's just a bunch of emission and
>>>> reabsorption with least action that explains nothing at all. It's just
>>>> more math fantasy.
>>
>> So you thing a load of math fantasy is an "explanation"? It's not. It's
>> just jargon and consistent bullshit. Something you are never going to
>> understand.
>>
>>
> 
> Well, Ben, as you’ve said many times, you believe that math is a shorthand
> for expressing things that can be said in words. I do not believe that
> physical laws are fantasies. I do believe that physical laws can be
> expressed mathematically. If you choose to elaborately use pages and pages
> of words to capture the same meaning that can be captured in a few lines of
> mathematical shorthand, that’s up to you.

As usual, Odd you have no understanding of math or science which is why 
you are unable to describe any concepts or theories in words. I never 
said that words were better, or that math is not a more compact 
shorthand, but that does not make it necessarily better. Sometimes less 
is NOT more! Your ignorance of science is clearly shown that you think 
that humans know physical laws of reality. They do not. All are fantasy, 
and all ware WRONG! I understand yo worship at the true church of 
science truth, and desperately cling to every word but you are a fool.

> QED is a theory based on a collection of physical laws. If you want to try
> to express the math in words instead, be my guest. QED does offer an
> explanation for the double slit experiment. Whether you ever learned that
> explanation or not.

Does NOT offer an "explanation". It merely shows some mathematics that 
seems to work. Things based on averages and probability are obviously
a "science of ignorance" because that is what one resorts to when the 
underlying reality is unknown or unknowable. To pretend that is 
something it is not is basically dishonest and dishonesty is something 
that has no place in science.

So explain to me if one considers all possible photon paths why does the 
photon end up traveling only one of them. EXPLAIN that to me? You can't 
because you have NO explanation. But you think you do. THat is how 
little you understand science. You can't even tell me what a photon is!

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

#476946

On 11/12/18 8:13 PM, benj wrote:
> Things based on averages and probability are obviously a "science of
> ignorance" because that is what one resorts to when the underlying
> reality is unknown or unknowable.

This is just plain not true. Your IGNORANCE of modern physics is evident.

For most physical situations QED can calculate only probabilities; the 
FACT that it accurately models all phenomena within its domain 
indicates: a) the underlying reality is not "unknown or unknowable"; and 
b) it is not "a science of ignorance" [#]. It's just that your personal 
desires and fantasies do not correspond to the world we inhabit.

	[#] Except for YOUR ignorance, of course.

> So explain to me if one considers all possible photon paths why does
> the photon end up traveling only one of them.

But it DOESN'T!

In configuration space, one integrates over all possible locations of
every vertex, which for a diagram with two external photon legs implies
one integrates over all possible paths.

When one considers the amplitude for a photon being emitted at event A,
and a photon being detected at event B, and only considers diagrams with
no other external legs, then the amplitude is identically zero unless A
and B are separated by a future-directed null interval. So it is AS IF
the photon "traveled directly from A to B at the speed of light", but
that's only because for every other path there is a nearby path that
cancels its contribution to the integral. Every one of those (infinite 
number of) paths is necessary for the integral to converge, and for the 
theory to make sense. In particular it must also make sense when one 
considers myriad external electron legs in an optical medium.

	Summing over all such diagrams and symmetrizing over the
	external photon legs means that the simple description
	above is by no means the whole story.

> You can't even tell me what a photon is! 

Sure I can! It is whatever is modeled by the photon legs in Feynman 
diagrams. That is in the perturbative approximation to QED; in the 
theory itself, photons are (quantum) excitations of the photon field.

You display as much if not more ignorance of modern physics than does 
Odd Bodkin. Plus a completely unwarranted arrogance.

Tom Roberts

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

#476963

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2018 4:01 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2018 8:42 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/9/2018 12:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/8/2018 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 08/11/2018 12:45, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 11:11:20 +0000, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Where did Einstein say that it would not,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But did Einstein not know that even in the furthest reaches
>>>>>>>>> of outer space there is a gas of finite density, so that
>>>>>>>>> in reality there is in actual fact "medium" EVERYWHERE.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So really NO ONE should be interested in Einstein's fictions,
>>>>>>>>> which clearly apply NOWHERE eh!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> he knew that light travels slower
>>>>>>>>>> in water then in air.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> but did he also know that when light travels in water,
>>>>>>>>> it travels at c/n(water)) RELATIVE TO THE water ?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> did he also know that when light travels in air,
>>>>>>>>> it travels at c/n(air) RELATIVE TO THE air ?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> did he also know that when light travels in hydrogen,
>>>>>>>>> it travels at c/n(hydrogen) RELATIVE TO THE hydrogen ?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Einstein knew how fast light travels in NOTHING eh!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> keith stein
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There comes a point with a medium where you cannot treat it as continuous.
>>>>>>>> In the case of light, as soon as you have a medium sparse enough that the
>>>>>>>> scattering centers (ie the ions or atoms) are separated by distances much
>>>>>>>> larger than the wavelength of the light, then it makes absolutely no sense
>>>>>>>> to think of continuum treatment of either the light or the medium.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is correct. Now, Can you use that idea to explain the wave-[article
>>>>>>> duality? I'll wait right here.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Particle wave duality is an outmoded motion rendered antiquated in the
>>>>>> 1950s when QED emerged.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Oh I forgot! Science isn't about concepts and theories, it's like
>>>>> software where ou have to have the "latest version" of Jargon.
>>>> 
>>>> Well, some ideas don’t work well, like relativistic mass and particle wave
>>>> duality and phlogiston and LeSagian ultra mundane particles.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> You have no idea what is wrong with QED. It's one more fairy tale that
>>>>> you buy hook line and sinker. Your gullibility is astounding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So how does QED "explain" how a dual slit experiment works both as a
>>>>> wave and as particles? It doesn't.
>>>> 
>>>> That’s incorrect. Weinberg does this analysis with QED in his book. Does it
>>>> help you to just make things up like that?
>>>> 
>>>>> It's just a bunch of emission and
>>>>> reabsorption with least action that explains nothing at all. It's just
>>>>> more math fantasy.
>>> 
>>> So you thing a load of math fantasy is an "explanation"? It's not. It's
>>> just jargon and consistent bullshit. Something you are never going to
>>> understand.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Well, Ben, as you’ve said many times, you believe that math is a shorthand
>> for expressing things that can be said in words. I do not believe that
>> physical laws are fantasies. I do believe that physical laws can be
>> expressed mathematically. If you choose to elaborately use pages and pages
>> of words to capture the same meaning that can be captured in a few lines of
>> mathematical shorthand, that’s up to you.
> 
> As usual, Odd you have no understanding of math or science which is why 
> you are unable to describe any concepts or theories in words. 

The next sentence is going to be a doozy. 

> I never 
> said that words were better, or that math is not a more compact 
> shorthand, but that does not make it necessarily better. 

There it is! Words are not better than math, and math is not better than
words! How pot-stirring of you, Ben!

> Sometimes less 
> is NOT more! Your ignorance of science is clearly shown that you think 
> that humans know physical laws of reality. They do not. All are fantasy, 
> and all ware WRONG! 

Such extremely statements are pointless. Science is not black and white, a
choice between understanding something perfectly and completely vs knowing
nothing at all. Science has very high confidence (which is not to say
absolute certainty) in good chunks of heir models of the world, and that
confidence is based on the match between predictions and measurements. Is
you have a model that gets hundreds of measurements right to ten decimal
places, then most scientists will say that even though this does not
represent absolute certainty, it represents sufficient grounds for
acceptance of its validity. Only a die-hard fool would still claim that
scientists still know NOTHING about what’s going on because they lack that
absolute certainty. Absolute certainty is a trait reserved for
overreligious nut jobs. 

> I understand yo worship at the true church of 
> science truth, and desperately cling to every word but you are a fool.
> 
>> QED is a theory based on a collection of physical laws. If you want to try
>> to express the math in words instead, be my guest. QED does offer an
>> explanation for the double slit experiment. Whether you ever learned that
>> explanation or not.
> 
> Does NOT offer an "explanation". It merely shows some mathematics that 
> seems to work. 

“Seems to work” in the sense of accurately predicting measurable quantities
IS the measure of successful explanation in science. That’s exactly what it
means in science to say that you have a good explanation, because that’s
how the validity of a scientific idea is measured. 

> Things based on averages and probability are obviously
> a "science of ignorance" because that is what one resorts to when the 
> underlying reality is unknown or unknowable. To pretend that is 
> something it is not is basically dishonest and dishonesty is something 
> that has no place in science.

Bullshit. You are wedded to a Newtonian “clockwork universe” world view
that insists that this is the goal of science. It isn’t. Hasn’t been since
before you were born. Hasn’t been since you were educated in the subject. 

> 
> So explain to me if one considers all possible photon paths why does the 
> photon end up traveling only one of them. EXPLAIN that to me? You can't 
> because you have NO explanation. But you think you do. THat is how 
> little you understand science. You can't even tell me what a photon is!
> 

A photon is the object described in the model called quantum
electrodynamics. I’m sure it’s possible to translate the math of quantum
electrodynamics into less compact prose, but I’m not going to take that
pointless task on. You aren’t any good at it either, by the way.  This
doesn’t mean there is NO explanation.

Here you are baiting again for an explanation here that is readily
available in books. You have a hundred excuses for not reading those books.
“They use too much math. They don’t offer absolute certainty and so they’re
absolutely wrong, and there’s no value reading them. Why read books, when
the important thing is discussing physics here? I won’t be a sucker for
conformity and be brainwashed by majority opinion, when I want to discern
everything by just thinking about it. The books make statements I just
don’t believe, and so I learn nothing from them.” These are all pathetic
EXCUSES. 



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

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

#476720

On 11/9/18 7:06 PM, benj wrote:
> You have no idea what is wrong with QED. 

Rather, YOU have no idea what QED actually is.

> So how does QED "explain" how a dual slit experiment works both as a 
> wave and as particles? It doesn't.

OF COURSE NOT! Because in QED light is not "both a wave and a particle". 
Neither are electrons....

     If you are interested in learning about QED rather than just
     making stuff up and pretending it is true, read: Feynman, _QED_.
     For the details at the graduate level: Peskin and Schroeder,
     _An_Introduction_to_Quantum_Field_theory_.

Tom Roberts

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

#476756

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 08/11/2018 12:45, SolomonW wrote:

>> he knew that light travels slower
>> in water then in air.

>but did he [Einstein] also know that when light travels in water,
>it travels at c/n(water)) RELATIVE TO THE water ?

Hey, Einstein wasn't stupid, he knew of Fizeau's experiment, so of course
he knew that claim was false!

Even better, Einstein figured out *why* it is false!

>did he also know that when light travels in air,
>it travels at c/n(air) RELATIVE TO THE air ?

And again, he wasn't stupid, he'd know that statement is even more wrong
for air than it is for water since the index of refraction of air is 
closer to 1 than that of water.

>did he also know that when light travels in hydrogen,
>it travels at c/n(hydrogen) RELATIVE TO THE hydrogen ?

And he would know that was even more wrong!

>Einstein knew how fast light travels in NOTHING eh!

He knew of limits. He'd likely would have been impressed how the
speed of light in the interplanetary medium is so close to that of the
theoretical speed of light in a perfect vacuum, that a photon traveling
the Earth-Sun distance would trail the theoretical perfect vacuum photon
by less than an atomic diameter at that distance!

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

#476775

On 11/11/2018 02:36, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 08/11/2018 12:45, SolomonW wrote:
> 
>>> he knew that light travels slower
>>> in water then in air.
> 
>> but did he [Einstein] also know that when light travels in water,
>> it travels at c/n(water)) RELATIVE TO THE water ?
> 
> Hey, Einstein wasn't stupid, he knew of Fizeau's experiment, so of course
> he knew that claim was false!


So please tell us all what the speed c/n(water) IS ?
RELATIVE TO WHAT EXACTLY eh?

> Even better, Einstein figured out *why* it is false!
> 
>> did he also know that when light travels in air,
>> it travels at c/n(air) RELATIVE TO THE Aair ?


> And again, he wasn't stupid,

Indeed he must of been a genius,
to achieve the position he achieved.
Especially as he hadn't got a clue
  about PHYSICS eh!


>> Einstein knew how fast light travels in NOTHING eh!

> He knew of limits.

Not of his own he didn't.

> He'd likely would have been impressed how the
> speed of light in the interplanetary medium is so close to that of the
> theoretical speed of light in a perfect vacuum,

The "theoretical speed of light" is derived from Maxwell's Theory,
and Maxwell's Theory give the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM.
Maxwell could not of been clearer, "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", he wrote,in big 
crackpot capitals, just like that eh!

> that a photon traveling
> the Earth-Sun distance would trail the theoretical perfect vacuum photon
> by less than an atomic diameter at that distance!


The point is Mr.Moroney that there isn't any "perfect vacuum", and
in actual fact light travels relative to the "stuff" it is traveling
through.

keith stein

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

#476788

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 11/11/2018 02:36, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 08/11/2018 12:45, SolomonW wrote:
>> 
>>>> he knew that light travels slower
>>>> in water then in air.
>> 
>>> but did he [Einstein] also know that when light travels in water,
>>> it travels at c/n(water)) RELATIVE TO THE water ?
>> 
>> Hey, Einstein wasn't stupid, he knew of Fizeau's experiment, so of course
>> he knew that claim was false!

>So please tell us all what the speed c/n(water) IS ?

Are you asking what the speed of light in moving water is, or are you 
asking what the value of c/n(water) is? Different answers, you know, as
Fizeau demonstrated.

Since water has an index of refraction of about 1.33, c/n(water) gives a
speed (for stationary water) of about 225,400 km/s.

If the water is moving at v<<c, we get approximately c_w = c/n+v(1-1/n^2)
or (approximately) 225,400 km/s + 0.43*v, relative to the frame which v
is measured relative to.

For air (n=1.00029) it is even more extreme, with
c_a = 299,705.543 km/s + 0.00058*v.

>RELATIVE TO WHAT EXACTLY eh?

If we're talking about "moving" water, it would be relative to whatever
the water is moving relative to, typically what is referred to as the lab 
frame.

>> Even better, Einstein figured out *why* it is false!

>>> did he also know that when light travels in air,
>>> it travels at c/n(air) RELATIVE TO THE Aair ?

>> And again, he wasn't stupid,

>Indeed he must of been a genius,
>to achieve the position he achieved.
>Especially as he hadn't got a clue
>  about PHYSICS eh!

Nope. He came up with the answer _why_ light doesn't move at c/n relative
to moving water. And why c/n(air) relative to moving air is even MORE
wrong. Einstein could have told you why. And c/n(good lab vacuum) is even
MORE wrong. For example, as I stated, light from the sun doesn't move at
c/n(solar wind)+v(solar solar wind), it moves so close to c(vacuum) that
the difference is an atomic diameter.  Cool, eh?

Of course, if the medium is STATIONARY in the lab frame, light moving at
c/n(medium) relative to the medium is technically true, but this is a 
degenerate case, since the light is also moving at c/n relative to the lab 
frame, because the lab frame and the medium frame are one and the same.

>>> Einstein knew how fast light travels in NOTHING eh!

>> He knew of limits.

>Not of his own he didn't.

Yet he still knew of limits.

>> He'd likely would have been impressed how the
>> speed of light in the interplanetary medium is so close to that of the
>> theoretical speed of light in a perfect vacuum,

>The "theoretical speed of light" is derived from Maxwell's Theory,
>and Maxwell's Theory give the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM.

No, Maxwell noticed that a speed came out of the equation
v = 1/sqrt(E0*mu0), and that value does NOT depend on the motion of any 
medium. It doesn't depend on the motion of anything, only on what he knew
as the electric and magnetic constants. Since this speed depends ONLY on
fixed constants, it must ALSO be a constant, so it CANNOT depend on the
motion of anything.

Maxwell noticed that that speed happened to be the same as the measured
vacuum speed of light and he realized that was not a coincidence.
Also Maxwell's equations have since been updated by later physics.

>Maxwell could not of been clearer, "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", he wrote,in big 
>crackpot capitals, just like that eh!

Whatever he meant by that, he never claimed a connection between whatever
this "NECESSARY" medium was and its motion when deriving the invariant
speed that depends ONLY on unvarying constants. He realized that since the
speed of light depended ONLY on fixed constants, it MUST also be a fixed
constant.

>> that a photon traveling
>> the Earth-Sun distance would trail the theoretical perfect vacuum photon
>> by less than an atomic diameter at that distance!

>The point is Mr.Moroney that there isn't any "perfect vacuum",

Irrelevant.

> and
>in actual fact light travels relative to the "stuff" it is traveling
>through.

Experiments show otherwise.  If a theory (light moves at c/n relative to
the medium) disagrees with actual measurements, it is the theory which is
wrong, not the measurements! Stating the opposite (disputing measurements
is disputing reality) is delusional behavior, often a sign of mental
illness.  Don't forget this has been known for well over 150 years, from
Fizeau's experiment.

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

#476789

On Sunday, 11 November 2018 18:21:29 UTC+1, Michael Moroney  wrote:

> >in actual fact light travels relative to the "stuff" it is traveling
> >through.
> 
> Experiments show otherwise. 

But they only show it to some brainwashed fanatic morons.

 If a theory (light moves at c/n relative to
> the medium) disagrees with actual measurements, it is the theory which is
> wrong, not the measurements!


On the other hand, however, when another
theory (The Shit of your idiot guru) disagrees
with measurements - that obviously means that 
the clocks are BROKEN!!!!!!!!!!! Right, poor 
halfbrain?

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

#476803

On 11/11/2018 17:21, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 11/11/2018 02:36, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 08/11/2018 12:45, SolomonW wrote:
>>>
>>>>> he knew that light travels slower
>>>>> in water then in air.
>>>
>>>> but did he [Einstein] also know that when light travels in water,
>>>> it travels at c/n(water)) RELATIVE TO THE water ?
>>>
>>> Hey, Einstein wasn't stupid, he knew of Fizeau's experiment, so of course
>>> he knew that claim was false!
> 
>> So please tell us all what the speed c/n(water) IS ?
> 
> Are you asking what the speed of light in moving water is, or are you
> asking what the value of c/n(water) is? Different answers, you know, as
> Fizeau demonstrated.
> 
> Since water has an index of refraction of about 1.33, c/n(water) gives a
> speed (for stationary water) of about 225,400 km/s.

Thank you Mr.Moroney, and what is the speed of that light relative to
a particle which is also traveling at 225,400 km/s, and in the same 
direction as the light ?

> If the water is moving at v<<c, we get approximately c_w = c/n+v(1-1/n^2)
> or (approximately) 225,400 km/s + 0.43*v, relative to the frame which v
> is measured relative to.

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

#476880

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 11/11/2018 17:21, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>>>> Hey, Einstein wasn't stupid, he knew of Fizeau's experiment, so of course
>>>> he knew that claim was false!
>> 
>>> So please tell us all what the speed c/n(water) IS ?
>> 
>> Are you asking what the speed of light in moving water is, or are you
>> asking what the value of c/n(water) is? Different answers, you know, as
>> Fizeau demonstrated.
>> 
>> Since water has an index of refraction of about 1.33, c/n(water) gives a
>> speed (for stationary water) of about 225,400 km/s.

>Thank you Mr.Moroney, and what is the speed of that light relative to
>a particle which is also traveling at 225,400 km/s, and in the same 
>direction as the light ?

I know where you are leading, so I will mention that yes, it is possible
for a particle to go faster than the speed of light IN A MEDIUM. See
"Cherenkov radiation" for details on the "sonic booms" of light that
this creates.

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

#476890

Michael Moroney excreted out of his anus

Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes: 

>On 11/11/2018 17:21, Michael Moroney wrote: 
>> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes: 

>>>> Hey, Einstein wasn't stupid, he knew of Fizeau's experiment, so of course 
>>>> he knew that claim was false! 
>> 
>>> So please tell us all what the speed c/n(water) IS ? 
>> 
>> Are you asking what the speed of light in moving water is, or are you 
>> asking what the value of c/n(water) is? Different answers, you know, as 
>> Fizeau demonstrated. 
>> 
>> Since water has an index of refraction of about 1.33, c/n(water) gives a 
>> speed (for stationary water) of about 225,400 km/s. 

>Thank you Mr.Moroney, and what is the speed of that light relative to 
>a particle which is also traveling at 225,400 km/s, and in the same 
>direction as the light ? 

I know where you are leading, so I will mention that yes, it is possible 
for a particle to go faster than the speed of light IN A MEDIUM. See 
"Cherenkov radiation" for details on the "sonic booms" of light that 
this creates. 


If a particle moves faster than the speed of light, it must create a shockwave, and radiate energy. ... 

So, to wrap everything up, let me restate: 

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum. 

It is possible to travel faster than light in a material, and if you do, you will emit Cerenkov radiation.

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

#476907

"David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> writes:

>>> Since water has an index of refraction of about 1.33, c/n(water) gives a 
>>> speed (for stationary water) of about 225,400 km/s. 

>>Thank you Mr.Moroney, and what is the speed of that light relative to 
>>a particle which is also traveling at 225,400 km/s, and in the same 
>>direction as the light ? 

>I know where you are leading, so I will mention that yes, it is possible 
>for a particle to go faster than the speed of light IN A MEDIUM. See 
>"Cherenkov radiation" for details on the "sonic booms" of light that 
>this creates. 


>If a particle moves faster than the speed of light, it must create a 
>shockwave, and radiate energy. ... 

>So, to wrap everything up, let me restate: 

>Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum. 

>It is possible to travel faster than light in a material, and if you do, 
>you will emit Cerenkov radiation.

Which is exactly what I said. What is your problem?

If an electron exceeds 0.75c in water, it will exceed the speed of light
IN WATER and you'll get Cherenkov radiation. Note that the electron never
does (cannot) exceed the speed of light in a vacuum.

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

#476920

Michael Moroney
"David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller...@hotmail.com> writes: 

>>> Since water has an index of refraction of about 1.33, c/n(water) gives a 
>>> speed (for stationary water) of about 225,400 km/s. 

>>Thank you Mr.Moroney, and what is the speed of that light relative to 
>>a particle which is also traveling at 225,400 km/s, and in the same 
>>direction as the light ? 

>I know where you are leading, so I will mention that yes, it is possible 
>for a particle to go faster than the speed of light IN A MEDIUM. See 
>"Cherenkov radiation" for details on the "sonic booms" of light that 
>this creates. 


>If a particle moves faster than the speed of light, it must create a 
>shockwave, and radiate energy. ... 

>So, to wrap everything up, let me restate: 

>Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum.

>It is possible to travel faster than light in a material, and if you do, 
>you will emit Cerenkov radiation. 

Which is exactly what I said. What is your problem? 

If an electron exceeds 0.75c in water, it will exceed the speed of light 
IN WATER and you'll get Cherenkov radiation. Note that the electron never 
does (cannot) exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. 


The (effect energy density) of the denser medium is lower than the pure Vacuum. 

Lower energy density = lower pressure 

The heavier medium has an effectively higher Entropy 

(The Particle with an (effect Speed above c) after entering the denser medium)  lowers the Entropy Of the Denser medium by depositing its excess Kinetic energy into the medium, raising its energy density. 

Was the Particle was ever really above c? No....

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

#476921

Michael Moroney 
- hide quoted text -
"David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller...@hotmail.com> writes: 

>>> Since water has an index of refraction of about 1.33, c/n(water) gives a 
>>> speed (for stationary water) of about 225,400 km/s. 

>>Thank you Mr.Moroney, and what is the speed of that light relative to 
>>a particle which is also traveling at 225,400 km/s, and in the same 
>>direction as the light ? 

>I know where you are leading, so I will mention that yes, it is possible 
>for a particle to go faster than the speed of light IN A MEDIUM. See 
>"Cherenkov radiation" for details on the "sonic booms" of light that 
>this creates. 


>If a particle moves faster than the speed of light, it must create a 
>shockwave, and radiate energy. ... 

>So, to wrap everything up, let me restate: 

>Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum.

>It is possible to travel faster than light in a material, and if you do, 
>you will emit Cerenkov radiation. 

Which is exactly what I said. What is your problem? 

If an electron exceeds 0.75c in water, it will exceed the speed of light 
IN WATER and you'll get Cherenkov radiation. Note that the electron never 
does (cannot) exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. 


The (effect energy density) of the denser medium is lower than the pure Vacuum. 

Lower energy density = lower pressure 

The heavier medium has an effectively higher Entropy 

(The Particle with an (effect Speed above c) after entering the denser medium)  lowers the Entropy Of the Denser medium by depositing its excess Kinetic energy into the medium, raising its energy density. 

Was the Particle was ever really above c? No.... 

The Denser Medium literally becomes a (Particle Decelerator) absorbing energy instead of adding energy 

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

#476838

On 11/11/18 11:21 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> [... lots of correct stuff] 
> No, Maxwell noticed that a speed came out of the equation
> v = 1/sqrt(E0*mu0), and that value does NOT depend on the motion of any
> medium. It doesn't depend on the motion of anything, only on what he knew
> as the electric and magnetic constants. Since this speed depends ONLY on
> fixed constants, it must ALSO be a constant, so it CANNOT depend on the
> motion of anything.

This is incorrect. Maxwell's vacuum speed of light, 1/sqrt(E0*mu0), is 
relative to the medium (i.e. its rest frame). BUT IN HIS DAY "MEDIUM" 
MEANT "THAT WHICH IS WAVING", and for light in Maxwell's theory that was 
the aether.

Einstein noticed the inconsistency in Maxwell's theory well before 1905: 
with the Galilean transform one can consider an inertial frame in which 
a given light beam is at rest. Presumably then it would appear as a 
static "wave", as if its undulations had been cut out of cardboard. But 
that is INCONSISTENT with the wave equation derived from Maxwell's 
equations -- such waves MUST be moving with speed 1/sqrt(E0*mu0) [#].

This was of course resolved by using the Lorentz transform between 
inertial frames. In particular, that means it simply is not possible to 
have an inertial frame in which the light beam "is at rest".

	[#] This can be reconciled, because Maxwell's original theory
	had additional fields related to the motion of the aether.
	The equations are NOT invariant under Galilean transforms,
	which changes the puzzle to: how is it possible for ALL
	experiments to behave as if the aether was at rest in the
	lab? Numerous experiments, including the MMX, were designed
	to measure the velocity of the aether relative to the lab;
	all obtained results equivalent to zero, which is
	INCONSISTENT with the observed orbit of the earth.
	(Dragging the aether does not solve the problem; for instance
	the Fresnel drag coefficient for the air in a lab is about
	0.0000008, but the experiments need it to be 1.)
	
Tom Roberts

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

#476853

On 12/11/2018 02:14, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/11/18 11:21 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:

You teach BULLSHIT and LIES, Mr.Roberts.

>> [... lots of correct stuff] No, Maxwell noticed that a speed came out 
>> of the equation
>> v = 1/sqrt(E0*mu0), and that value does NOT depend on the motion of any
>> medium. It doesn't depend on the motion of anything, only on what he knew
>> as the electric and magnetic constants. Since this speed depends ONLY on
>> fixed constants, it must ALSO be a constant, so it CANNOT depend on the
>> motion of anything.

> This is incorrect.

That is about the one thing you said which is TRUE eh!


> Maxwell's vacuum speed of light, 1/sqrt(E0*mu0)
LIES, and you know it. I told you often enough eh!
There was no E0 or mu0 in Maxwell's Theory.


> is relative to the medium (i.e. its rest frame). BUT IN HIS DAY "MEDIUM" 
> MEANT "THAT WHICH IS WAVING", and for light in Maxwell's theory that was 
> the aether.

MORE LIES.
You can't possibly believe that Maxwell thought that when light
passes through paraffin wax (one of Maxwell's actual examples of
a medium)the wax was waving. Maxwell knew perfectly well that it
was the electric and magnetic fields which do the waving. That's
why he called them "electro-magnetic waves" eh!

> Einstein noticed the inconsistency in Maxwell's theory well before 1905: 
> with the Galilean transform one can consider an inertial frame in which 
> a given light beam is at rest. Presumably then it would appear as a 
> static "wave", as if its undulations had been cut out of cardboard. But 
> that is INCONSISTENT with the wave equation derived from Maxwell's 
> equations -- such waves MUST be moving with speed 1/sqrt(E0*mu0) [#].

BULLSHIT.
Maxwell's wave equation is of exactly the same form as the wave
equation for sound. If you travel through the medium at the
speed of sound in the same direction as a sound wave, then the
pressure at the point you are at is constant, so the wave disappears,
and similarly if you travel through the medium at the speed of light,
in the same direction as the light wave, then the electric and
magnetic fields at the point you are at are constant.  There is
NO INCONSISTENCY - that is what happens eh!

> 
> This was of course resolved by using the Lorentz transform between 
> inertial frames. In particular, that means it simply is not possible to 
> have an inertial frame in which the light beam "is at rest".

BULLSHIT.

>      [#] This can be reconciled, because Maxwell's original theory
>      had additional fields related to the motion of the aether.
LIES

>      The equations are NOT invariant under Galilean transforms,
BULLSHIT AND LIES

keith stein

> Tom Roberts

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

#476885

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>> Maxwell's vacuum speed of light, 1/sqrt(E0*mu0)
>LIES, and you know it. I told you often enough eh!
>There was no E0 or mu0 in Maxwell's Theory.

>MORE LIES.

>BULLSHIT.

>BULLSHIT.

>LIES

>BULLSHIT AND LIES

I thought you were a fan of Maxwell. Why do you keep stating what he
said was "BULLSHIT" and "LIES"?

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web