Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476484 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-07 11:11 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-11-12 21:41 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 75 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pscdpc$rpk$7@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476855 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC Theory, was that at the MACROSCOPIC scale light >travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, "the medium". If >you Mr.Harnagel believe in some ATOMIC theory which says that very low >density gas can not act as the medium for electromagnetic waves, then >it is your ATOMIC theory which is wrong, not Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC >theory, because clearly very low density gas CAN act as medium for >electromagnetic waves. Maxwell was fully aware that light travels to us >from the stars eh! Umm, if the spacing between atoms the photons encounter is large compared to the wavelength, then it is quite obvious that a "Macroscopic" simplification of Maxwell's theories cannot work. It works where the density is large enough and the interatomic distances small enough, such as glass being a macroscopic substance with a particular value for epsilon and mu as opposed to a huge collection of silicon, oxygen etc. atoms. >> And, as has been pointed out, the photoelectric effect also refutes light >> as waves. >I have only ever claimed that Maxwell's Theory was correct at the >MACROSCOPIC scale, and of course Maxwell's Theory does indeed break >down at the ATOMIC scale, but I have never denied that eh! Again, so why do you keep claiming that Maxwell's macroscopic simplifications works with intergalactic gas densities?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EfjGD.236779$xB1.30076@fx13.am4> |
| In reply to | #476886 |
On 12/11/2018 17:37, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > >> Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC Theory, was that at the MACROSCOPIC scale light >> travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, "the medium". If >> you Mr.Harnagel believe in some ATOMIC theory which says that very low >> density gas can not act as the medium for electromagnetic waves, then >> it is your ATOMIC theory which is wrong, not Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC >> theory, because clearly very low density gas CAN act as medium for >> electromagnetic waves. Maxwell was fully aware that light travels to us >>from the stars eh! > > Umm, if the spacing between atoms the photons encounter is large compared > to the wavelength, then it is quite obvious that a "Macroscopic" > simplification of Maxwell's theories cannot work. It works where the > density is large enough and the interatomic distances small enough, such > as glass being a macroscopic substance with a particular value for epsilon > and mu as opposed to a huge collection of silicon, oxygen etc. atoms. > >>> And, as has been pointed out, the photoelectric effect also refutes light >>> as waves. > >> I have only ever claimed that Maxwell's Theory was correct at the >> MACROSCOPIC scale, and of course Maxwell's Theory does indeed break >> down at the ATOMIC scale, but I have never denied that eh! > > Again, so why do you keep claiming that Maxwell's macroscopic > simplifications works with intergalactic gas densities? That, Mr.Moroney, would be because i can not think of a more macroscopic object than the intergalactic gas - literally eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 18:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pscheq$1pmg$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476891 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/11/2018 17:37, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC Theory, was that at the MACROSCOPIC scale light >>> travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, "the medium". If >>> you Mr.Harnagel believe in some ATOMIC theory which says that very low >>> density gas can not act as the medium for electromagnetic waves, then >>> it is your ATOMIC theory which is wrong, not Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC >>> theory, because clearly very low density gas CAN act as medium for >>> electromagnetic waves. Maxwell was fully aware that light travels to us >>> from the stars eh! >> >> Umm, if the spacing between atoms the photons encounter is large compared >> to the wavelength, then it is quite obvious that a "Macroscopic" >> simplification of Maxwell's theories cannot work. It works where the >> density is large enough and the interatomic distances small enough, such >> as glass being a macroscopic substance with a particular value for epsilon >> and mu as opposed to a huge collection of silicon, oxygen etc. atoms. >> >>>> And, as has been pointed out, the photoelectric effect also refutes light >>>> as waves. >> >>> I have only ever claimed that Maxwell's Theory was correct at the >>> MACROSCOPIC scale, and of course Maxwell's Theory does indeed break >>> down at the ATOMIC scale, but I have never denied that eh! >> >> Again, so why do you keep claiming that Maxwell's macroscopic >> simplifications works with intergalactic gas densities? > > That, Mr.Moroney, would be because i can not think of a more > macroscopic object than the intergalactic gas - literally eh! > > keith stein > > You’re not thinking about it right. It’s not the size of the medium that matters. It’s whether it can be treated as CONTINUOUS. That is determined by whether the distance between the medium scatterers is large compared to the wave phenomena lengths. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 19:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HEkGD.163912$xH4.127366@fx33.am4> |
| In reply to | #476896 |
On 12/11/2018 18:40, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/11/2018 17:37, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC Theory, was that at the MACROSCOPIC scale light >>>> travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, "the medium". If >>>> you Mr.Harnagel believe in some ATOMIC theory which says that very low >>>> density gas can not act as the medium for electromagnetic waves, then >>>> it is your ATOMIC theory which is wrong, not Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC >>>> theory, because clearly very low density gas CAN act as medium for >>>> electromagnetic waves. Maxwell was fully aware that light travels to us >>>> from the stars eh! >>> >>> Umm, if the spacing between atoms the photons encounter is large compared >>> to the wavelength, then it is quite obvious that a "Macroscopic" >>> simplification of Maxwell's theories cannot work. It works where the >>> density is large enough and the interatomic distances small enough, such >>> as glass being a macroscopic substance with a particular value for epsilon >>> and mu as opposed to a huge collection of silicon, oxygen etc. atoms. >>> >>>>> And, as has been pointed out, the photoelectric effect also refutes light >>>>> as waves. >>> >>>> I have only ever claimed that Maxwell's Theory was correct at the >>>> MACROSCOPIC scale, and of course Maxwell's Theory does indeed break >>>> down at the ATOMIC scale, but I have never denied that eh! >>> >>> Again, so why do you keep claiming that Maxwell's macroscopic >>> simplifications works with intergalactic gas densities? >> >> That, Mr.Moroney, would be because i can not think of a more >> macroscopic object than the intergalactic gas - literally eh! >> >> keith stein >> >> > > You’re not thinking about it right. Let us rather say "One of us is not thinking about it right" eh! > It’s not the size of the medium that matters. It is usually men who have no medium at all that say that Odd. > It’s whether it can be treated as CONTINUOUS. In navigating through intergalactic space it is strongly advised to treat the intergalactic medium as CONTINUOUS. If you look at the atoms, you gonna get lost Odd. > That is determined by whether the distance between the medium scatterers is > large compared to the wave phenomena lengths. That there is were you are not thinking about it right Odd. What matters when applying the macroscopic approximation is that there are sufficient number of atoms for average or medium values to provide a reliable mean. On that basis the intergalactic medium well qualifies for macroscopic status, at any wavelength eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 22:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pscu42$gs7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476908 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/11/2018 18:40, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 12/11/2018 17:37, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC Theory, was that at the MACROSCOPIC scale light >>>>> travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, "the medium". If >>>>> you Mr.Harnagel believe in some ATOMIC theory which says that very low >>>>> density gas can not act as the medium for electromagnetic waves, then >>>>> it is your ATOMIC theory which is wrong, not Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC >>>>> theory, because clearly very low density gas CAN act as medium for >>>>> electromagnetic waves. Maxwell was fully aware that light travels to us >>>>> from the stars eh! >>>> >>>> Umm, if the spacing between atoms the photons encounter is large compared >>>> to the wavelength, then it is quite obvious that a "Macroscopic" >>>> simplification of Maxwell's theories cannot work. It works where the >>>> density is large enough and the interatomic distances small enough, such >>>> as glass being a macroscopic substance with a particular value for epsilon >>>> and mu as opposed to a huge collection of silicon, oxygen etc. atoms. >>>> >>>>>> And, as has been pointed out, the photoelectric effect also refutes light >>>>>> as waves. >>>> >>>>> I have only ever claimed that Maxwell's Theory was correct at the >>>>> MACROSCOPIC scale, and of course Maxwell's Theory does indeed break >>>>> down at the ATOMIC scale, but I have never denied that eh! >>>> >>>> Again, so why do you keep claiming that Maxwell's macroscopic >>>> simplifications works with intergalactic gas densities? >>> >>> That, Mr.Moroney, would be because i can not think of a more >>> macroscopic object than the intergalactic gas - literally eh! >>> >>> keith stein >>> >>> >> >> You’re not thinking about it right. > > Let us rather say "One of us is not thinking about it right" eh! > > >> It’s not the size of the medium that matters. > > It is usually men who have no medium at all that say that Odd. > > >> It’s whether it can be treated as CONTINUOUS. > > In navigating through intergalactic space it is strongly advised > to treat the intergalactic medium as CONTINUOUS. If you look at > the atoms, you gonna get lost Odd. I don’t see how it makes sense to treat the medium as continuous when there are one or two atoms per cubic meter and the lengths of wave phenomena are microns to cm. You HAVE to treat such a sparse medium as discontinuous. > >> That is determined by whether the distance between the medium scatterers is >> large compared to the wave phenomena lengths. > > That there is were you are not thinking about it right Odd. What matters > when applying the macroscopic approximation is that there are sufficient > number of atoms for average or medium values to provide a reliable mean. Not true. The mean would make sense only over a volume comparable to the lengths involved in the wave phenomena. Here the wavelengths are microns to centimeters. There aren’t enough atoms IN THAT VOLUME to average meaningfully. This is the point. If you have a phenomenon that takes place over a volume of a cubic centimeter, then the only way you can treat that cubic centimeter as a continuous medium is if the number of particles in that cubic centimeter is very large. It doesn’t matter at all that a cubic parsec contains a very large number of particles. > On that basis the intergalactic medium well qualifies for macroscopic > status, at any wavelength eh! > > > keith stein > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 17:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <32363fa7-1c2c-4a80-a401-fe7772436249@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476931 |
On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12/11/2018 18:40, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 12/11/2018 17:37, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > >>>> > >>>>> Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC Theory, was that at the MACROSCOPIC scale light > >>>>> travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, "the medium". If > >>>>> you Mr.Harnagel believe in some ATOMIC theory which says that very low > >>>>> density gas can not act as the medium for electromagnetic waves, then > >>>>> it is your ATOMIC theory which is wrong, not Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC > >>>>> theory, because clearly very low density gas CAN act as medium for > >>>>> electromagnetic waves. Maxwell was fully aware that light travels to us > >>>>> from the stars eh! > >>>> > >>>> Umm, if the spacing between atoms the photons encounter is large compared > >>>> to the wavelength, then it is quite obvious that a "Macroscopic" > >>>> simplification of Maxwell's theories cannot work. It works where the > >>>> density is large enough and the interatomic distances small enough, such > >>>> as glass being a macroscopic substance with a particular value for epsilon > >>>> and mu as opposed to a huge collection of silicon, oxygen etc. atoms. > >>>> > >>>>>> And, as has been pointed out, the photoelectric effect also refutes light > >>>>>> as waves. > >>>> > >>>>> I have only ever claimed that Maxwell's Theory was correct at the > >>>>> MACROSCOPIC scale, and of course Maxwell's Theory does indeed break > >>>>> down at the ATOMIC scale, but I have never denied that eh! > >>>> > >>>> Again, so why do you keep claiming that Maxwell's macroscopic > >>>> simplifications works with intergalactic gas densities? > >>> > >>> That, Mr.Moroney, would be because i can not think of a more > >>> macroscopic object than the intergalactic gas - literally eh! > >>> > >>> keith stein > >>> > >>> > >> > >> You’re not thinking about it right. > > > > Let us rather say "One of us is not thinking about it right" eh! > > > > > >> It’s not the size of the medium that matters. > > > > It is usually men who have no medium at all that say that Odd. > > > > > >> It’s whether it can be treated as CONTINUOUS. > > > > In navigating through intergalactic space it is strongly advised > > to treat the intergalactic medium as CONTINUOUS. If you look at > > the atoms, you gonna get lost Odd. > > I don’t see how it makes sense to treat the medium as continuous when there > are one or two atoms per cubic meter and the lengths of wave phenomena are > microns to cm. ===== BEGIN DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ===== However, vacuum polarisation exists (renormalization and all that). ===== END DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ===== -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gaston Castaneda <uucp@jav4ow.nq> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 20:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psfbeu$frp$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476937 |
JanPB wrote: >> I don’t see how it makes sense to treat the medium as continuous when >> there are one or two atoms per cubic meter and the lengths of wave >> phenomena are microns to cm. > > ===== BEGIN DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ===== > However, vacuum polarisation exists (renormalization and all that). > ===== END DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ===== good question. Vacuum is not empty space. Empty space is less than vacuum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 15:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <40514efe-0858-41da-b5ef-7f15cce48d6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476993 |
On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 12:16:34 PM UTC-8, Gaston Castaneda wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> I don’t see how it makes sense to treat the medium as continuous when > >> there are one or two atoms per cubic meter and the lengths of wave > >> phenomena are microns to cm. > > > > ===== BEGIN DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ===== > > However, vacuum polarisation exists (renormalization and all that). > > ===== END DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ===== > > good question. Vacuum is not empty space. Empty space is less than vacuum. However (devil's advocate squared) virtual particles do not propagate in a "medium" either according to our current model. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pscl68$nn3$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476891 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 12/11/2018 17:37, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC Theory, was that at the MACROSCOPIC scale light >>> travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, "the medium". If >>> you Mr.Harnagel believe in some ATOMIC theory which says that very low >>> density gas can not act as the medium for electromagnetic waves, then >>> it is your ATOMIC theory which is wrong, not Maxwell's MACROSCOPIC >>> theory, because clearly very low density gas CAN act as medium for >>> electromagnetic waves. Maxwell was fully aware that light travels to us >>>from the stars eh! >> >> Umm, if the spacing between atoms the photons encounter is large compared >> to the wavelength, then it is quite obvious that a "Macroscopic" >> simplification of Maxwell's theories cannot work. It works where the >> density is large enough and the interatomic distances small enough, such >> as glass being a macroscopic substance with a particular value for epsilon >> and mu as opposed to a huge collection of silicon, oxygen etc. atoms. >> >>>> And, as has been pointed out, the photoelectric effect also refutes light >>>> as waves. >> >>> I have only ever claimed that Maxwell's Theory was correct at the >>> MACROSCOPIC scale, and of course Maxwell's Theory does indeed break >>> down at the ATOMIC scale, but I have never denied that eh! >> >> Again, so why do you keep claiming that Maxwell's macroscopic >> simplifications works with intergalactic gas densities? >That, Mr.Moroney, would be because i can not think of a more >macroscopic object than the intergalactic gas - literally eh! That's incorrect, since the intergalactic gas is mostly empty space with an atom here and there for the photon to encounter once in a great while (in terms of its wavelength). So thinking of it as the biggest object possible is wrong, unless you want to treat it as a giant macroscopic perfect vacuum with a few defects here and there. Because for something with the wavelength of light or shorter, that is what it is! Remmember, Maxwell's macroscopic theories are a SIMPLIFICATION of what is actually happening, by treating the material the EM is in as a continuous smooth substance rather than individual atoms. This is because all the atoms and interatomic distances are all rather smaller than the wavelengths involved. Not true for intergalactic space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 17:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps4h8c$tnu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476581 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/11/2018 19:34, 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. > > So as an experimental physicist i am going to pass a monochromatic light > through a gas, in tight vessel with glass ends,to facilitate the passage > of the laser light.I am going to reduce the pressure in the vessel until > the scattering centers (ie the ions or atoms) are separated by distances > much larger than the wavelength of the light. > > At what pressure would i find that the light no longer traveled with a > a velocity of c(medium) RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, do you think,Mr.Bodkin, > and what physical differences could be observer in the behavior of the > light at these very low pressures ? > > Just wondering eh! This is not the right test. You’d need to make the medium moving relative to the detectors, so that you can distinguish the frame of the observer from the frame of the medium. > > keith stein > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2, then it makes absolutely no sense >> > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 03:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps86fc$fvh$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #476581 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 08/11/2018 19:34, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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. >So as an experimental physicist i am going to pass a monochromatic light >through a gas, in tight vessel with glass ends,to facilitate the passage >of the laser light.I am going to reduce the pressure in the vessel until >the scattering centers (ie the ions or atoms) are separated by distances >much larger than the wavelength of the light. >At what pressure would i find that the light no longer traveled with a >a velocity of c(medium) RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, do you think,Mr.Bodkin, Since we know that light does not move at c/n relative to the medium, the answer is "any pressure". Except of course when the medium is stationary in the lab frame. >and what physical differences could be observer in the behavior of the >light at these very low pressures ? Probably not a sudden change. At pressures with the interatomic distance much less than the wavelength you'd see one behavior, at low pressures with the interatomic distance much larger than the wavelength you'd see a different behavior. It would probably smoothly transition at pressures where the interatomic distance is similar to the wavelength. Kind of like metal window screen. It passes light since the wavelength of light is much smaller than the "holes" in the screen, but that same screen will block/reflect radio waves with wavelengths much larger than the "holes". >2, then it makes absolutely no sense >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 10:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ps48fi$ct9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476575 |
On 11/8/2018 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 08/11/2018 12:45, SolomonW wrote: >>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 11:11:20 +0000, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>>>> My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the >>>>> macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed >>>>> appropriate to and relative to the medium, and >>>> EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! >>> >>> Where did Einstein say that it would not, >> >> But did Einstein not know that even in the furthest reaches >> of outer space there is a gas of finite density, so that >> in reality there is in actual fact "medium" EVERYWHERE. >> >> So really NO ONE should be interested in Einstein's fictions, >> which clearly apply NOWHERE eh! >> >>> he knew that light travels slower >>> in water then in air. >> >> but did he also know that when light travels in water, >> it travels at c/n(water)) RELATIVE TO THE water ? >> >> did he also know that when light travels in air, >> it travels at c/n(air) RELATIVE TO THE air ? >> >> did he also know that when light travels in hydrogen, >> it travels at c/n(hydrogen) RELATIVE TO THE hydrogen ? >> >> >> Einstein knew how fast light travels in NOTHING eh! >> >> keith stein >> > > There comes a point with a medium where you cannot treat it as continuous. > In the case of light, as soon as you have a medium sparse enough that the > scattering centers (ie the ions or atoms) are separated by distances much > larger than the wavelength of the light, then it makes absolutely no sense > to think of continuum treatment of either the light or the medium. > This is correct. Now, Can you use that idea to explain the wave-[article duality? I'll wait right here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 17:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps4h8d$tnu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476642 |
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. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 20:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ps5auv$7i5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476651 |
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. 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. It's just a bunch of emission and reabsorption with least action that explains nothing at all. It's just more math fantasy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-10 02:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ebde1c19-a511-06a5-dbc9-df4612e77ca4@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #476681 |
benj wrote: > On 11/9/2018 12:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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. s/motion/notion/ > Oh I forgot! Science isn't about concepts and theories, it's like > software where ou have to have the "latest version" of Jargon. No, but it is about replacing obsolete concepts. > You have no idea what is wrong with QED. You have no idea what QED is. > So how does QED "explain" how a dual slit experiment works both as a > wave and as particles? See? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 19:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <023a81ee-9024-4511-af8d-87a35ce6dea7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476681 |
On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 5:06:44 PM UTC-8, benj 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. > > 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? You are a few decades behind the times. As a rule of thumb I'd recommend not assuming everyone is an idiot. This approach alone will save you a lot of time wasted on nonsense. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-10 13:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps6n8s$7hm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476681 |
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. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-10 05:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ecabcdd-3c78-4229-9825-4ad8d1490412@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476710 |
On Saturday, 10 November 2018 14:42:56 UTC+1, 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. And the idiot woodworker will tell us, which ones do and which ones don't! Oh the idiot woodworker is so incredibly wise…
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-10 20:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ps7v5u$9c6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476710 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-11 12:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3174a508-5d40-8e55-fb7b-6ab91a721849@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #476754 |
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. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web