Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #479229 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-07 11:15 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-12-15 10:32 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 102 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
"Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 11:15 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-08 11:51 +1100
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 08:26 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-09 13:11 +1100
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 07:08 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 00:45 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 10:50 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 13:08 +0000
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 11:54 +0000
Re: "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 04:13 -0800
Re: "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 13:17 +0000
Re: "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 23:22 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 07:51 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 04:21 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 20:49 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 12:55 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-11 12:59 +1100
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 09:55 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-12-11 22:33 +1100
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 17:29 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-11 21:14 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 07:45 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-12 03:53 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 16:27 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 08:40 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 18:24 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 13:47 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-13 00:13 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 06:10 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 08:18 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 23:01 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 16:46 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 18:55 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 14:41 +0000
Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 15:59 +0000
Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-14 08:11 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 18:19 +0000
Re: the first 4 equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-14 13:28 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 14:45 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-14 15:04 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 02:13 +0000
Re: the first 4 equations JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 19:16 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-14 19:22 -0800
Re: the first 4 equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 06:30 +0000
Re: the first 4 equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 08:38 +0000
Re: the first 4 equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-15 07:58 -0800
Re: three INCOMPATABLE equations Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 17:11 +0000
Re: three INCOMPATABLE equations "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 09:15 -0800
Re: three INCOMPATABLE equations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-15 14:45 -0800
Re: three INCOMPATABLE equations Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-16 00:59 +0000
Re: then there were .......Just 3 equations eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 12:10 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 10:13 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 06:49 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 15:47 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 08:00 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 17:25 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-15 15:04 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 01:19 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 01:41 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-15 18:57 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 07:12 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-16 05:45 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 14:34 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-16 15:42 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-16 07:54 -0800
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 17:56 +0000
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-16 10:07 -0800
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-16 18:57 +0000
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-16 11:34 -0800
Re: pathologcal imbecile replies "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-16 11:50 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-16 13:34 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 22:13 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-16 15:38 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 01:30 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-15 18:54 -0800
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile replies Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 19:01 +0000
Re: Keith Stein, pathologcal imbecile continues to be alying piece of shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-16 11:56 -0800
Re: Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 14:20 -0800
Re: Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 09:44 +0000
Re: Have you ever read Einstein's foundation paper of Special Relativity Henry JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 14:07 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-14 08:54 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 18:11 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 09:57 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 17:08 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 08:37 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 01:38 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:47 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 19:17 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 12:51 -0800
Re: "Einstein's Bad" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 12:54 -0800
"keith stein, Imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-10 06:44 -0800
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 16:27 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 16:41 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 05:37 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 05:43 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 08:56 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 13:28 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:30 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 19:28 +0000
Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 19:56 +0000
Re: "keith stein, Imbecile replied: Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 10:32 +0000
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-14 08:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <138e67f9-7cbb-4d2f-84a7-4ad6e0894f8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479809 |
On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 6:41:37 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > When i say "actual" i mean THE "ACTUAL READINGS on the clocks" Sure, but there are different sets of clocks, some at rest and synchronized by mechanical inertia (Newton's laws hold good) in terms of the lab frame, and some at rest and synchronized by mechanical inertia (Newton's equations hold good) in terms of the walker's frame. So this does not confer more "actuality" upon one system of inertial coordinates versus another. But, ironically, by your definition of "actuality", the one system we can say is NOT actual is x",t", defined by a Galilean transformation from x,t, because an actual ideal clock at rest with the walker will NOT read t". > Are you intending to carry this infinite grid of watchers with you as > YOU walk toward the light. Whatever you are certainly not going to get > a more accurate value than ME who is sat at A waiting for the light to > ARRIVE AT A eh! I didn't mention any "watchers". I described, in operational terms, what an inertial coordinate system represents using standard measuring rods and clocks, all at rest in a certain frame. Obviously we don't actually construct infinite grids (either in the lab frame or the walker's frame). Likewise, when we describe the motions of the planets in the solar system, using inertial coordinates at rest in the frame of the center of mass, we have not actually constructed a grid of rulers covering the entire solar system, in which the entire earth is moving at high speed. Knowing the laws of physics and the operational definition of inertial coordinates (i.e., unaccelerated and such that inertia is homogeneous and isotropic) we can determine the coordinates of objects without actually constructing a grid. I shouldn't need to explain this. Your seem to be resorting to pure sophistry. > Well i did warn you this was going to get boring Henry, You have that backwards. It was I who predicted that once everything had been clearly explained, and you recognized that you had no rational rebuttal, and all your beliefs were falsified, you would declare yourself bored and run away. > Here a question for you Henry > abour EVERY EQUATION > famous paper on which Special Relativity is foundered > keep readind to > the end ? Apparently truth has driven you to drink.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-14 18:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xnSQD.2802$jz5.75@fx41.am4> |
| In reply to | #479812 |
On 14/12/2018 14:41, Keith Stein wrote: > > Well i did warn you this was going to get boring Here a question for you Henry Assuming that it is true what someone once said abour EVERY EQUATION reducing the number of remaining readers by 50%,' then tell me this Henry: What percentage of readers who start Einstein's famous paper on which Special Relativity is foundered keep readind to the end ? No not "The End". I have more questions for you Henry, plus ................. 1. Are you that reader ? or have you never read it, perhaps ? I only got as far as the first 4 equations myself and since two of those are certainly WRONG, i didn't bother with the rest of the bull shit eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 09:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <663e8285-471a-454d-8229-f5f11dd1623e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479673 |
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 11:45:28 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 12/12/2018 05:14, yeurohenry@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 9:29:34 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > >> Maxwell never mentions "aether" in his "Treatise on Electricity and > >> Magnetism", not "ether" either... > > > > "The process [of light propagation is] an electromagnetic one... We must now turn our attention to the medium in which it takes place. We may use the term aether to denote this medium, whatever it may be." James Clerk Maxwell > > > >> Maxwell's primary example of a medium for his electromagnetic waves > >> was "air"... > > > > "When light travels through the atmosphere it is manifest that the medium through which the light is propagated is NOT the air itself... We are therefore obliged to suppose that the medium through which light is propagated is something distinct from the transparent medium known to us." James Clerk Maxwell > > > >> Well I understand the null result in the same way Maxwell would, because > >> there is no reason on Earth why the fringes should shift... > > > > "The time required for the double journey from one station to the other and back again, and the increase of this time on account of the relative velocity of the aether equal to that of the earth in its orbit would be about [(v/c)^2]..." James Clerk Maxwell > > > > The latter prediction is what prompted Michelson to create his interferometer to test Maxwell's prediction. The results were not consistent with Maxwell's prediction. > > > > Well i was aware that Maxwell wrote a lot in his short life, most of > which i had not read. In fact the only thing of his i have read is his > famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", and i don't think any of > the Maxwell quotes above come from that. Although it is a long and in > places tedious Treatise, so maybe i overlooked something eh! > > Certainly the impression I got from reading his Treatise was that he was > of the same opinion as myself i.e. that light travels relative to the > stuff/matter it travels through. He certainly uses the phrase "where the > medium is air", and his only other specific example is "paraffin wax". > > What i think your quotes show us Henry is that anyone who writes a lot > is bound to say some daft things, so best i say no more eh! OK, why don't you just say that whatever you think is correct by definition and whatever anybody else says, including creators of theories themselves, is incorrect no matter what, and be done with it? At least it would make your intellectual standing clear. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 17:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2a704199-ee64-4679-a462-347a2cc42355@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479229 |
On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 3:15:24 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > > 30 listopada 2018 00:18:29 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > >> Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905: > >> > >> 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but Maxwell's > >> equation aren't. > > That's "Einstein's Bad", if he said that, because Maxwell's Eauations > are just as invariant as Newton's under x' = x - vt. > > > Tell me this Einstein: > > - "Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?" > > > because Maxwell's Waves obey EXACT;Y the same law as Sound Waves > only faster. No, they are not the same. Maxwell's equations imply wave equation but not vice-versa. Maxwell includes more constraints. For example, EM waves in vacuum must be transverse which is something the wave equation alone does not imply. (More specifically, two of Maxwell's equations are Galilean invariant, and two are not.) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 08:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <OoLOD.443050$kh6.290385@fx32.am4> |
| In reply to | #479297 |
On 08/12/2018 01:08, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 3:15:24 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >>> 30 listopada 2018 00:18:29 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: >> >> >> Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905: >> >> >> >> 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but Maxwell's >> >> equation aren't. >> >> That's "Einstein's Bad", if he said that, because Maxwell's Eauations >> are just as invariant as Newton's under x' = x - vt. >> >> >> Tell me this Einstein: >> >> - "Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?" >> >> >> because Maxwell's Waves obey EXACT;Y the same law as Sound Waves >> only faster. > > No, they are not the same. Maxwell's equations imply wave equation but > not vice-versa. Maxwell includes more constraints. For example, EM > waves in vacuum Maxwell never applied his electromagnetic theory to "vacuum", and if you attempt to do that then you will end up with the same sort of nonsense which Einstein did in his SR. > must be transverse which is something the wave equation > alone does not imply. (More specifically, two of Maxwell's equations are > Galilean invariant, and two are not.) Providing one includes the medium, as Maxwell insisted was "necessary", then i think you will find that ALL of Maxwell's equations are Galilean invariant. keith stein > -- > Jan >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 01:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10712ea7-4a60-41bf-9bd0-35c3527535c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479310 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:37:04 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 08/12/2018 01:08, JanPB wrote: > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 3:15:24 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> 30 listopada 2018 00:18:29 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > >> > >> >> Here are some reasons Einstein started with in 1905: > >> >> > >> >> 1. Newton's equations are invariant under x' = x - vt but Maxwell's > >> >> equation aren't. > >> > >> That's "Einstein's Bad", if he said that, because Maxwell's Eauations > >> are just as invariant as Newton's under x' = x - vt. > >> > >> > >> Tell me this Einstein: > >> > >> - "Are Sound Waves invariant under x' = x - vt ?" > >> > >> > >> because Maxwell's Waves obey EXACT;Y the same law as Sound Waves > >> only faster. > > > > No, they are not the same. Maxwell's equations imply wave equation but > > not vice-versa. Maxwell includes more constraints. For example, EM > > waves in vacuum > > Maxwell never applied his electromagnetic theory to "vacuum", > and if you attempt to do that then you will end up with > the same sort of nonsense which Einstein did in his SR. OK, change my word "vacuum" to "medium" in Maxwell's sense. It doesn't change my point: Maxwell's equations contain more information and hence constrain the EM waves more than the wave equation does. For example, EM waves whose propagation is not bound in some way (as it would be in a waveguide, say) and with no charges or currents present, must necessarily be transverse which is something the wave equation alone does not enforce. > > must be transverse which is something the wave equation > > alone does not imply. (More specifically, two of Maxwell's equations are > > Galilean invariant, and two are not.) > > Providing one includes the medium, as Maxwell insisted > was "necessary", then i think you will find that ALL of > Maxwell's equations are Galilean invariant. No, they are not. And this lack of invariance has nothing to do with the medium, it's simply their property. Of course a medium was then needed to establish a physical basis for distinguishing experiments in which one could apply Maxwell's equations. Towards the end of the 19th century this became more and more problematic as despite heroic efforts by many people, there was no viable theory that would explain why aether did not support longitudinal components of EM waves, not to mention that it had to be both dragged and not dragged, both FAPP infinitely rigid while being FAPP infinitely permeable, etc. etc. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <MCTPD.682207$Tt4.113194@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #479314 |
It is really very simple Jan. Stand and look at a train. The velocity relative to you of EVERYTHING on that train is equal to the vector addition of its velocity on the train with the velocity of the train. That IS Galilean Relativity, and according to Maxwell's theory, as written by Maxwell, it is just as true for the velocity of light as it is for the velocity of sound, or indeed for the velocity of the ticket collector eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 19:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pup2fp$gps$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479624 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It is really very simple Jan. Stand and look at a train. > The velocity relative to you of EVERYTHING on that train is > equal to the vector addition of its velocity on the train > with the velocity of the train. Experimentally invalidated in related experiments. > > That IS Galilean Relativity, and according to Maxwell's > theory, as written by Maxwell, it is just as true for the > velocity of light as it is for the velocity of sound, > or indeed for the velocity of the ticket collector eh! It’s in fact not true for any of them. What’s true is that the Einsteinian composition of velocities has been verified in a number of experiments, including a huge number of them in particle physics. It is also true for the ticket collector though harder to verify in that case. > > > keith stein > > > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 12:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <510efbf4-c738-4ae5-a3cd-6a10f021d99c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479624 |
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:47:10 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > It is really very simple Jan. Stand and look at a train. > The velocity relative to you of EVERYTHING on that train is > equal to the vector addition of its velocity on the train > with the velocity of the train. You can say this as many times as you want. > That IS Galilean Relativity, and according to Maxwell's > theory, as written by Maxwell, it is just as true for the > velocity of light as it is for the velocity of sound, No, because his equations were not Galilean invariant. This was a major thorn. And the sound analogy is too loose because Maxwell's equations force free EM waves to be transverse. This requires any medium for light to be VERY bizarre. No satisfactory theory of such a medium was ever created, and not for the lack of trying. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 12:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4057a9b9-a00d-410e-a03d-4b2990ae9b8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479624 |
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:47:10 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > It is really very simple Jan. Stand and look at a train. > The velocity relative to you of EVERYTHING on that train is > equal to the vector addition of its velocity on the train > with the velocity of the train. Tell it to the banker who is paying the electric bill for a collider-type particle accelerator. Tell him it would be the same amount of money spent each month if a stationary-target type accelerator were built instead. See how much traction you get. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 06:44 -0800 |
| Subject | "keith stein, Imbecile |
| Message-ID | <21869141-e673-40e3-9a33-5455e78d628a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479229 |
On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 3:15:24 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >snip imbecilities<
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 16:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down |
| Message-ID | <9uwPD.443717$F96.367385@fx40.am4> |
| In reply to | #479524 |
Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth. Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2. This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well with what is found in practice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 16:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down |
| Message-ID | <gHwPD.877224$wF4.648777@fx27.am4> |
| In reply to | #479533 |
>> On 29/11/2018 15:44, Keith Stein wrote: >> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this will necessarily >> lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance, as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all. >> >> >> Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1) >> I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2) >> and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3) >> >> K ~= 10^-10 /year >> t = time in years >> >> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more accurate value of K, >> did the obvious solution occur to me........... >> >> K = H = Hubble's Constant >> and t = -t ( so times past become +ve) >> >> which substituted in (3) gives: >> >> Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4) >> >> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared >> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation: >> e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5) >> >> So for t << 1/H we have: >> >> Red-Shift = H * t ............(6) >> >> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only >> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years). >> >> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law expressed in >> equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate >> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found >> in observatories all around the world eh! >> >> Conclusions: >> 1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down. >> 2. There was no "Big Bang" >> 3. There was no "Inflation" >> 4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us. >> 5. There is no "Dark Energy" >> >> keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down |
| Message-ID | <pummhj$vf2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479533 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is > 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good > planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a > whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly > 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be > alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to > reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been > holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in > 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly > 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth. > > Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because > the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer > on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the > same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss > any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2. > This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well > with what is found in practice. > > > > > > > > Note that a velocity based frequency shift also explains these observations and has been confirmed in desktop experiments. So I repeat a question to you: at what range do you think the mechanism you propose dominates over the velocity based effect? And why? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 05:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down |
| Message-ID | <L2IPD.382251$RM7.146048@fx24.am4> |
| In reply to | #479566 |
On 10/12/2018 21:41, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is >> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good >> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a >> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly >> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be >> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to >> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been >> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in >> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly >> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth. >> >> Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because >> the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer >> on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the >> same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss >> any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2. >> This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well >> with what is found in practice. > Note that a velocity based frequency shift also explains these observations > and has been confirmed in desktop experiments. Well of course the Doppler Effect is real, but that in no way proves that the systematic increases in wavelength discovered by Hubble are due to the Doppler Effect. Indeed Hubble himself doubted that it was. > So I repeat a question to you: at what range do you think the mechanism you > propose dominates over the velocity based effect? And why? The reason i ignored this question when you asked it the first time Odd was because i thought the answer was obvious. For distances out to one billion light years the predictions of the VSL i propose are identical to those of Big Bang theory, and the range at which the VSL mechanism dominates over random galactic velocities would of course be identical to the range at which expansion (as per conventional Big Bang theory) dominates over random galactic velocities. At a distance of one billion light years the predicted red shift due light slowing down would be about 1/15, and i should think that is more than any Doppler Shift due to a real velocity, but who knows what the maximum random velocities of galaxies are ? Not me eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 05:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down |
| Message-ID | <punipa$ktm$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479595 |
You'd get a blue shift from slowing light speed, not a redshift, since the wavelength would decrease as the light slowed, and the waves would start bunching up. Just like light going from air to glass, the speed of light in glass is slower, so the wavelengths are shorter in glass than in air.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 08:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down |
| Message-ID | <dZKPD.396174$5A2.258303@fx25.am4> |
| In reply to | #479596 |
On 11/12/2018 05:43, Michael Moroney wrote: > You'd get a blue shift from slowing light speed, not a redshift, since the > wavelength would decrease as the light slowed, and the waves would start > bunching up. Just like light going from air to glass, the speed of light > in glass is slower, so the wavelengths are shorter in glass than in air. > when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES. When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as it travels through intergalactic space. So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light was higher than it is now. The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 13:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down |
| Message-ID | <puoe2i$drm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479595 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/12/2018 21:41, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is >>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good >>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a >>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly >>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be >>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to >>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been >>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in >>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly >>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth. >>> >>> Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because >>> the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer >>> on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the >>> same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss >>> any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2. >>> This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well >>> with what is found in practice. > > >> Note that a velocity based frequency shift also explains these observations >> and has been confirmed in desktop experiments. > > Well of course the Doppler Effect is real, but that in no way proves > that the systematic increases in wavelength discovered by Hubble are > due to the Doppler Effect. No, it doesn’t. However, there’s no reason to presume that it isn’t, either. More importantly, if you have two causes with the same outcome, then there has to be an accounting for the crossover where one cause no longer dominates and the other one does. This is what I’m asking you about. > Indeed Hubble himself doubted that it was. > >> So I repeat a question to you: at what range do you think the mechanism you >> propose dominates over the velocity based effect? And why? > > The reason i ignored this question when you asked it the first time Odd > was because i thought the answer was obvious. For distances out to one > billion light years the predictions of the VSL i propose are identical > to those of Big Bang theory, and the range at which the VSL mechanism > dominates over random galactic velocities would of course be identical > to the range at which expansion (as per conventional Big Bang theory) > dominates over random galactic velocities. Which is at what scale? Put another way, what do you think the distribution of random motion is, superimposed on this other effect? > > At a distance of one billion light years the predicted red shift due > light slowing down would be about 1/15, and i should think that is > more than any Doppler Shift due to a real velocity, but who knows > what the maximum random velocities of galaxies are ? Not me eh! Or for that matter what the systematic velocity of galaxies might be. > > keith stein > > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 16:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down |
| Message-ID | <sCRPD.26218$Xv2.6931@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #479602 |
On 11/12/2018 13:28, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/12/2018 21:41, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is >>>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good >>>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a >>>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly >>>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be >>>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to >>>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been >>>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in >>>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly >>>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth. >>>> >>>> Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because >>>> the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer >>>> on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the >>>> same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss >>>> any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2. >>>> This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well >>>> with what is found in practice. >> >> >>> Note that a velocity based frequency shift also explains these observations >>> and has been confirmed in desktop experiments. >> >> Well of course the Doppler Effect is real, but that in no way proves >> that the systematic increases in wavelength discovered by Hubble are >> due to the Doppler Effect. > > No, it doesn’t. However, there’s no reason to presume that it isn’t, > either. > More importantly, if you have two causes with the same outcome, then there > has to be an accounting for the crossover where one cause no longer > dominates and the other one does. This is what I’m asking you about. > >> Indeed Hubble himself doubted that it was. >> >>> So I repeat a question to you: at what range do you think the mechanism you >>> propose dominates over the velocity based effect? And why? >> >> The reason i ignored this question when you asked it the first time Odd >> was because i thought the answer was obvious. For distances out to one >> billion light years the predictions of the VSL i propose are identical >> to those of Big Bang theory, and the range at which the VSL mechanism >> dominates over random galactic velocities would of course be identical >> to the range at which expansion (as per conventional Big Bang theory) >> dominates over random galactic velocities. > > Which is at what scale? > Put another way, what do you think the distribution of random motion is, > superimposed on this other effect? > >> >> At a distance of one billion light years the predicted red shift due >> light slowing down would be about 1/15, and i should think that is >> more than any Doppler Shift due to a real velocity, but who knows >> what the maximum random velocities of galaxies are ? Not me eh! > > Or for that matter what the systematic velocity of galaxies might be. > >> >> keith stein Whatever eh! I do thank you for your interest and questions Odd. I think any other questions you raised in this post are answered in the post i posted 14 minutes after the one you are currently responding to Odd. I would welcome your comments and questions on that second posting, which is a more quantitative treatment of my light slowing down hypotheses. I look forward to receiving a question or two on Posting2, Mr.Bodkin. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 19:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Speed of Light is Slowing Down |
| Message-ID | <gjdQD.448073$F96.405584@fx40.am4> |
| In reply to | #479614 |
On 03/12/2018 23:12, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/12/2018 8:59 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > >> Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1) >> I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2) >> and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3) >> >> K ~= 10^-10 /year >> t = time in years >> >> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me........... >> >> K = H = Hubble's Constant >> and t = -t ( so times past become +ve) >> >> which substituted in (3) gives: >> >> Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4) >> >> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared >> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation: >> e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5) >> >> So for t << 1/H we have: >> >> Red-Shift = H * t ............(6) >> >> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only >> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years). >> >> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate >> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found >> in observatories all around the world eh! >> >> Conclusions: >> 1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down. >> 2. There was no "Big Bang" >> 3. There was no "Inflation" >> 4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us. >> 5. There is no "Dark Energy" >> ******************************************************************** >> >> keith stein > > You need a model of space-time to interpret the possible consequences of a changing speed of light. However, the model we have involves a constant speed of light. > > You seem to be working with some other model, but you haven't stated > what it is. I think you understand very well the difference between an expanding universe and a static universe in which the speed of light slows down, Sylvia. Conceptually they are very different i think. However i do understand that if one *defines* the speed of light as constant, then one will indeed be forced to interpret a reduction in the speed of light as an expansion of space, and indeed it is my belief that is the mistake made by our current Big Bang Cosmology. keith stein > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web