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 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 11:11 +0000 |
| Subject | EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! |
| Message-ID | <nLzED.117352$%T7.101830@fx30.am4> |
According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave,
> which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the
> "medium". Einstein ignores the medium, and is left with the
> problem of what the speed of light is relative to. Since he has
> omitted the "very stuff" which light does actually travel relative
> to, there is no sensible solution to Einstein's dilemma.
>
> Einstein's REVOLUTION SOLUTION was, as you know, that the
> speed of light was constant relative to the observer, an
> outrageous impossibility in the space and time of classical
> physics.
>
> My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the
> macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed
> appropriate to and relative to the medium, and
EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH!
> keith stein
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 03:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <436e27ec-6e74-4000-887c-006e8c23cfdb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476484 |
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 12:11:18 UTC+1, Keith Stein wrote: > According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave, > > which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the > > "medium". Einstein ignores the medium, and is left with the > > problem of what the speed of light is relative to. Since he has > > omitted the "very stuff" which light does actually travel relative > > to, there is no sensible solution to Einstein's dilemma. > > > > Einstein's REVOLUTION SOLUTION was, as you know, that the > > speed of light was constant relative to the observer, an > > outrageous impossibility in the space and time of classical > > physics. > > > > My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the > > macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed > > appropriate to and relative to the medium, and > EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! > Light doesn't matter at all. Poor idiot Einstein has imagined that desynchronized clocks are better and more comfortable than synchronized ones. As Monty Pythons said - what a GREAT idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 15:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <DiDED.195378$e55.60905@fx39.am4> |
| In reply to | #476485 |
On 07/11/2018 11:24, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 12:11:18 UTC+1, Keith Stein wrote:
>> According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave,
>> > which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the
>> > "medium". Einstein ignores the medium, and is left with the
>> > problem of what the speed of light is relative to. Since he has
>> > omitted the "very stuff" which light does actually travel relative
>> > to, there is no sensible solution to Einstein's dilemma.
>> >
>> > Einstein's REVOLUTION SOLUTION was, as you know, that the
>> > speed of light was constant relative to the observer, an
>> > outrageous impossibility in the space and time of classical
>> > physics.
>> >
>> > My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the
>> > macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed
>> > appropriate to and relative to the medium, and
>>
>>
>
> Light doesn't matter at all. Poor idiot
> Einstein has imagined that desynchronized
> clocks are better and more comfortable
> than synchronized ones.
> As Monty Pythons said - what a GREAT
> idiot.
>
Looks like all the "straights" have left
us "crackpots" to chunter on AMONG OURSELVES,Mr.Wozniak.
but you are the very last person i would need to tell
EINSTEIN WAS WRONG
EH! Mr. Wozniak
However YOU ARE WRONG
about light
,i think SO eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 10:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <QqednWINUe-uk37GnZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #476484 |
On 11/7/18 5:11 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > [...] No, it's KEITH STEIN who is wrong. > [...] at the macroscopic level light is a wave [...] Only in the sense that the chair I am sitting on "is" a continuous object. We KN)OW that the chair is actually made of discrete atoms, so it is continuous ONLY APPROXIMATELY. Similarly, at large scales and very large photon numbers, light is ONLY APPROXIMATELY a wave. IOW: your use of "is" is inappropriate. Moreover, while we have no macroscopic [@] observations that the chair is anything other than continuous [#], we do have macroscopic observations of light that are inconsistent with it being a wave: lasers and the properties of their emitted beams, the photoelectric effect, single-photon observations of very dim light beams, etc. [@] By "macroscopic" I mean at length scales ~ 1 mm or larger. [#] Hmmmm. The way crystals cleave implies that they are not actually continuous objects. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 17:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <OmFED.311761$p%6.173939@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #476503 |
On 07/11/2018 16:09, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/7/18 5:11 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> [...]
>
> No, it's KEITH STEIN who is wrong.
No, it is YOU Tom Roberts who is wrong, because this is strictly
EINSTEIN - V - MAXWELL
KEITH STEIN was not even a contestant eh!
> On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 12:11:18 UTC+1, Keith Stein wrote:
>> According to Maxwell's Theory light is an electromagnetic wave,
>> > which travels at a speed appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the
>> > "medium". Einstein ignores the medium, and is left with the
>> > problem of what the speed of light is relative to. Since he has
>> > omitted the "very stuff" which light does actually travel relative
>> > to, there is no sensible solution to Einstein's dilemma.
>> >
>> > Einstein's REVOLUTION SOLUTION was, as you know, that the
>> > speed of light was constant relative to the observer, an
>> > outrageous impossibility in the space and time of classical
>> > physics.
>> >
>> > My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the
>> > macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed
>> > appropriate to and relative to the medium, and
>>
>
> Tom Roberts
Please don't interrupt Tom, I've quite forgotten what i was going to
say now eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gaston Castaneda <agn@j2awdos.nc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 20:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prvhoo$l2n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476503 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 11/7/18 5:11 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> [...] > > No, it's KEITH STEIN who is wrong. > >> [...] at the macroscopic level light is a wave [...] > > Only in the sense that the chair I am sitting on "is" a continuous > object. We KN)OW that the chair is actually made of discrete atoms, so But the linkage among them is continuous. Unlinked atoms forming chairs is not possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 17:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <V4OdnUo1jcsD6n7GnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #476517 |
On 11/7/18 2:26 PM, Gaston Castaneda wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> Only in the sense that the chair I am sitting on "is" a continuous >> object. We KN)OW that the chair is actually made of discrete atoms, so > > But the linkage among them is continuous. Not true. Not even close. Atoms are mostly empty space. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gaston Castaneda <agn@j2awdos.nc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 00:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps01ab$1e23$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476527 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 11/7/18 2:26 PM, Gaston Castaneda wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> Only in the sense that the chair I am sitting on "is" a continuous >>> object. We KN)OW that the chair is actually made of discrete atoms, so >> >> But the linkage among them is continuous. > > Not true. Not even close. Atoms are mostly empty space. Without a linkage, of any art, your discrete components chair would disperse apart. That's what a crystal structure stands for. Come on, it's so simple I wonder you aint getting it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 23:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <11izd6qi7htpb.1wdlwujcqw2ny.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #476484 |
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 11:11:20 +0000, Keith Stein wrote: > > My point is very simple Sylvia, MAXWELL WAS RIGHT, at the > > macroscopic level light is a wave which travels at a speed > > appropriate to and relative to the medium, and > EINSTEIN WAS WRONG EH! Where did Einstein say that it would not, he knew that light travels slower in water then in air.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 13:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <IKWED.183852$px6.121141@fx41.am4> |
| In reply to | #476546 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 19:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ps2341$s5q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476547 |
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. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 11:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9215d52f-a5cd-45cc-99d4-55364dd24e65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476575 |
On Thursday, 8 November 2018 20:34:30 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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. Can you point the experiments confirming that it makes no sense, poor halfbrain?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 20:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <DK0FD.241736$8J3.222976@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #476575 |
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! keith stein 2, then it makes absolutely no sense >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 06:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ba07bb7f-bc14-4df9-befc-bd23533d899f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476581 |
On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 1:10:13 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 08/11/2018 19:34, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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! > > keith stein It would cease to propagate, of course. The fact that it continues refutes your assertion that light is actually a wave and confirms the theory that light is made up of particles (actually, quantum objects called photons). And, as has been pointed out, the photoelectric effect also refutes light as waves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 08:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pMaGD.196939$5A2.9843@fx25.am4> |
| In reply to | #476638 |
On 09/11/2018 14:52, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 1:10:13 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 08/11/2018 19:34, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Einstein knew how fast light travels in NOTHING eh! >>> 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! > It would cease to propagate, of course. The fact that it continues refutes > your assertion that light is actually a wave and confirms the theory that > light is made up of particles (actually, quantum objects called photons). 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! > 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! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 04:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <859eab4c-39ba-41fb-b3d6-30f46770449f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476855 |
On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 1:24:18 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 09/11/2018 14:52, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 1:10:13 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > 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! > > > > It would cease to propagate, of course. The fact that it continues > > refutes your assertion that light is actually a wave and confirms the > > theory that light is made up of particles (actually, quantum objects > > called photons). > > 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! So now you're an atom denier, too? :-) > > 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! > > > keith stein Actually, you have. You have claimed that the hydrogen in interstellar space is a medium for light even though the distance between neighboring atoms is MANY, MANY times greater than the wavelength of the light it's supposed to be handling. Are you now recanting your views? And you keep babbling about "Maxwell's equations" when you haven't written down a single equation, let alone actually solved them. Here are the twenty equations you keep harping about but have never referenced: https://ddcolrs.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/maxwells-equations-from-20-to-4/ Mu and epsilon are in there and you claim that Maxwell considered air to be the medium. Well, old bean, you have admitted that light is a transverse wave. Unfortunately, gases can't propagate transverse waves, so your assertion is complete baloney. Maxwell knew this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 20:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pZkGD.254645$8Q.50754@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #476866 |
On 12/11/2018 12:29, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 1:24:18 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> On 09/11/2018 14:52, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 1:10:13 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> >>>> 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! >>> >>> It would cease to propagate, of course. The fact that it continues >>> refutes your assertion that light is actually a wave and confirms the >>> theory that light is made up of particles (actually, quantum objects >>> called photons). >> >> 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! > > So now you're an atom denier, too? :-) > >>> 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! >> >> >> keith stein > > Actually, you have. You have claimed that the hydrogen in interstellar > space is a medium for light even Indeed i have Gary, and do claim so again right now eh! > even though the distance between neighboring > atoms is MANY, MANY times greater than the wavelength of the light it's > supposed to be handling. Are you now recanting your views? Certainly NOT Gary, light travels at a speed appropriate to and RELATIVE TO, the "medium", and at the MACROSCOPIC scale, that's what happens. > And you keep babbling about "Maxwell's equations" when you haven't > written down a single equation, let alone actually solved them. > > Here are the twenty equations you keep harping about but have never > referenced: > > https://ddcolrs.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/maxwells-equations-from-20-to-4/ > > Mu and epsilon are in there and you claim that Maxwell considered air to > be the medium. Well, old bean, you have admitted that light is a transverse > wave. Unfortunately, gases can't propagate transverse waves, so your > assertion is complete baloney. Maxwell knew this. Maxwell's primary example of a medium for electromagnetic waves WAS "air". Read his "treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" Gary. You will see i am right. keith stein >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 14:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <77b4e415-81fc-4bba-9b1a-7ac286cfdf67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #476914 |
On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 1:00:23 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 12/11/2018 12:29, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 1:24:18 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > 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! > > > > So now you're an atom denier, too? :-) So you ARE an atom denier. > > > 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! > > > > > > > > > keith stein > > > > Actually, you have. You have claimed that the hydrogen in interstellar > > space is a medium for light even > > Indeed i have Gary, and do claim so again right now eh! Which is actuallt quite insane. > > even though the distance between neighboring > > atoms is MANY, MANY times greater than the wavelength of the light it's > > supposed to be handling. Are you now recanting your views? > > > Certainly NOT Gary, light travels at a speed appropriate to > and RELATIVE TO, the "medium", and at the MACROSCOPIC scale, > that's what happens. No, that's not "what happens" as Fizeau-type experiments demonstrate. > > And you keep babbling about "Maxwell's equations" when you haven't > > written down a single equation, let alone actually solved them. > > > > Here are the twenty equations you keep harping about but have never > > referenced: > > > > https://ddcolrs.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/maxwells-equations-from-20-to-4/ > > > > Mu and epsilon are in there and you claim that Maxwell considered air > > to be the medium. Well, old bean, you have admitted that light is a > > transverse wave. Unfortunately, gases can't propagate transverse waves, > > so your assertion is complete baloney. Maxwell knew this. > > Maxwell's primary example of a medium for electromagnetic waves WAS > "air". Read his "treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" Gary. You > will see i am right. > > > keith stein Irrelevant. So you believe that once YOUR guru speaks, what he claims can NEVER be corrected or improved upon? That's also insane. So why are you insisting that light can propagate as a transverse wave through air when air cannot support a transverse wave?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gaston Castaneda <uucp@jav4ow.nq> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 20:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <psfcd2$ic0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #476933 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> Maxwell's primary example of a medium for electromagnetic waves WAS >> "air". Read his "treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" Gary. You will >> see i am right. keith stein > > Irrelevant. So you believe that once YOUR guru speaks, what he claims > can NEVER be corrected or improved upon? That's also insane. So why > are you insisting that light can propagate as a transverse wave through > air when air cannot support a transverse wave? Are you sure it can't? Please not confuse compressed air with water. I seen this error made in papers many times before.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-12 11:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <TfCdnU0nwfEDKnTGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #476855 |
On 11/12/18 2:23 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > I have only ever claimed that Maxwell's Theory was correct at the > MACROSCOPIC scale, But it ISN'T. It uses the Galilean transform, and for water moving in pipes with speed v relative to the lab, the speed of light in that water, measured in the lab, is NOT c/n+v. > of course Maxwell's Theory does indeed break > down at the ATOMIC scale, but I have never denied that eh! All macroscopic materials are comprised of atoms. If a theory fails for atoms, it fails for macroscopic materials. AND IT DOES. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web