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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #478951 > unrolled thread

Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again?

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 23:18 +0100
    Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 23:32 +0100
      Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 18:57 -0800
    Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 07:34 -0800
      Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-13 16:15 +0000
      Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-13 17:22 +0100
        Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-18 07:54 -0800
        Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-18 08:02 -0800
          Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-18 12:30 -0800
          Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-22 14:52 +0100
            Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 11:53 -0800
            Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-22 13:42 -0800
              Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-23 01:36 +0100
        Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 03:18 +0000
          Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 20:12 -0800
          Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-23 09:13 -0600
            Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 16:50 +0000
              Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-24 17:30 +0000
                Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:46 +0000
                  Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-25 01:33 +0000
                    Re:MACROSCOPIC THEORY. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 09:52 +0000
                      Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-26 09:33 -0600
                        Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. Edko Czka <ziue@wuasrvi.kw> - 2018-12-26 17:19 +0000
                      Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-26 18:10 +0000
                      Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-26 13:10 -0800
                        Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-26 13:21 -0800
              Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-24 18:26 -0600
      Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-12-13 19:38 +0100
      Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 11:05 -0800
        Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-13 19:10 +0000
          Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 13:20 -0800
            Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-13 22:53 +0000
              Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 15:59 -0800
                Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 16:01 -0800
                  Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-15 19:15 +0000
                    Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 11:41 -0800
            Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-18 07:59 -0800
        Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 12:54 -0800
          Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 13:22 -0800
            Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 13:49 -0800
    Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 11:24 -0800
    Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 15:18 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#478951 — Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again?

Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Gravity acts on mass.

Not only, in a manner of speaking.

> Light Has no mass,

You are arguing from your ignorance, based on Newton’s law of gravitation
only, which provides only an incomplete picture of the universe in which we
live.

In that, you are more than a century behind current knowledge.

Special relativity (1905+) once introduced the notion of “relativistic mass”

  m_rel(v) = γ(v) m₀,

with m₀ the “rest mass”, by the equation E = m₀²c⁴ + p²c² = γ m₀ c² = m_rel
c².  In that sense, light has no rest mass, but does have *relativistic*
mass m_rel = ℎ f/c².

    [One can see how this can be confusing, and that it contradicts the
     knowledge that the term produced by the Minkowski norm of the
     four-momentum that contains mass, −m²c², is the same regardless of the
     relative velocity.  Therefore, the notions of “rest mass” and
     “relativistic mass” are considered obsolete at least since Okun 1984.
     Einstein already deprecated it publicly in the 1940s.]

General relativity (1915+) provides a more complete, and I think more
convincing, picture than either of those approaches.  According to it (which
was confirmed by observation many times; the last major confirmation
occurred in October – google “VLT black hole”), gravity is just an
observable effect of the curvature of spacetime:

Spacetime is curved corresponding to the density of energy and momentum in
it.  As always, objects on which no force acts follow trajectories that are
described by geodesics; but this time the geodesics of space*time*, which
are curved lines if spacetime is curved.  This applies to (particles of)
light as well as to other physical objects.

> it is a travelling me wave.

What is a “me wave”?

Light can be described as an electromagnetic wave (and it can be a made into
a *standing* wave; experiments have shown that).  This is a *model* of light
(one of two major ones).  Which is very different from a statement about
what light is, which we do not, and probably never can, know.

> It changes direction as it progresses through media of varying refractive
> indices.

Correct.

> It appears to travel in a curve when observed from a moving platform such as the Earth.

No.

> Sooner these facts enter the heads of the vast public the better off they will be.

The vast public will be better off not subscribing to your pseudo-scientific
(self-)delusions.  Trust me.

F’up2 sci.physics.relativity

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#478955

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Special relativity (1905+) once introduced the notion of “relativistic mass”
> 
>   m_rel(v) = γ(v) m₀,
> 
> with m₀ the “rest mass”, by the equation E = m₀²c⁴ + p²c² = γ m₀ c² = m_rel
> c².

Correction: E = √(m₀²c⁴ + p²c²) = γ m₀ c².

    [The energy–momentum relation as formulated by Paul Dirac in 1929
     is equivalent to E² = m₀²c⁴ + p²c².]

> In that sense, light has no rest mass, but does have *relativistic*
> mass m_rel = ℎ f/c².
> 
>     [One can see how this can be confusing, and that it contradicts the
>      knowledge that the term produced by the Minkowski norm of the
>      four-momentum that contains mass, −m²c², is the same regardless of the

−m₀²c², then.  (In the approach where there is only Lorentz-invariant mass:
m = m₀.)

>      relative velocity.  Therefore, the notions of “rest mass” and
>      “relativistic mass” are considered obsolete at least since Okun 1984.
>      Einstein already deprecated it publicly in the 1940s.]
> 
> General relativity (1915+) provides a more complete, and I think more
> convincing, picture than either of those approaches.  […]

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#478977

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:32:59 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Special relativity (1905+) once introduced the notion of “relativistic mass”
> > 
> >   m_rel(v) = γ(v) m₀,
> > 
> > with m₀ the “rest mass”, by the equation E = m₀²c⁴ + p²c² = γ m₀ c² = m_rel
> > c².
> 
> Correction: E = √(m₀²c⁴ + p²c²) = γ m₀ c².
> 
>     [The energy–momentum relation as formulated by Paul Dirac in 1929
>      is equivalent to E² = m₀²c⁴ + p²c².]
> 
> > In that sense, light has no rest mass, but does have *relativistic*
> > mass m_rel = ℎ f/c².
> > 
> >     [One can see how this can be confusing, and that it contradicts the
> >      knowledge that the term produced by the Minkowski norm of the
> >      four-momentum that contains mass, −m²c², is the same regardless of the
> 
> −m₀²c², then.  (In the approach where there is only Lorentz-invariant mass:
> m = m₀.)
> 
> >      relative velocity.  Therefore, the notions of “rest mass” and
> >      “relativistic mass” are considered obsolete at least since Okun 1984.
> >      Einstein already deprecated it publicly in the 1940s.]
> > 
> > General relativity (1915+) provides a more complete, and I think more
> > convincing, picture than either of those approaches.  […]
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Light never bends. Gravity is motion curving it.
Gravity motion curves.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#479745

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 5:18:14 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Gravity acts on mass.
> 
> Not only, in a manner of speaking.
> 
> > Light Has no mass,
> 
> You are arguing from your ignorance, based on Newton’s law of gravitation
> only, which provides only an incomplete picture of the universe in which we
> live.
> 
> In that, you are more than a century behind current knowledge.
> 
> Special relativity (1905+) once introduced the notion of “relativistic mass”
> 
>   m_rel(v) = γ(v) m₀,
> 
> with m₀ the “rest mass”, by the equation E = m₀²c⁴ + p²c² = γ m₀ c² = m_rel
> c².  In that sense, light has no rest mass, but does have *relativistic*
> mass m_rel = ℎ f/c².
> 
>     [One can see how this can be confusing, and that it contradicts the
>      knowledge that the term produced by the Minkowski norm of the
>      four-momentum that contains mass, −m²c², is the same regardless of the
>      relative velocity.  Therefore, the notions of “rest mass” and
>      “relativistic mass” are considered obsolete at least since Okun 1984.
>      Einstein already deprecated it publicly in the 1940s.]
> 
> General relativity (1915+) provides a more complete, and I think more
> convincing, picture than either of those approaches.  According to it (which
> was confirmed by observation many times; the last major confirmation
> occurred in October – google “VLT black hole”), gravity is just an
> observable effect of the curvature of spacetime:
> 
> Spacetime is curved corresponding to the density of energy and momentum in
> it.  As always, objects on which no force acts follow trajectories that are
> described by geodesics; but this time the geodesics of space*time*, which
> are curved lines if spacetime is curved.  This applies to (particles of)
> light as well as to other physical objects.

Gravity does not bend light. Massive body such as the sun will cause the medium that transmits light to be curved and thus light is being transmitted by these curved medium.

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

#479749

kenseto wrote:

>> Spacetime is curved corresponding to the density of energy and momentum
>> in it.  As always, objects on which no force acts follow trajectories
>> that are described by geodesics; but this time the geodesics of
>> space*time*, which are curved lines if spacetime is curved.  This
>> applies to (particles of)
>> light as well as to other physical objects.
> 
> Gravity does not bend light. Massive body such as the sun will cause the
> medium that transmits light to be curved and thus light is being
> transmitted by these curved medium.

Absolutely, a valid correct obs.

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

#479752

kenseto wrote:
> Gravity does not bend light. Massive body such as the sun will cause the medium that transmits light to be curved and thus light is being transmitted by these curved medium.

The only problem with that approach is that your "medium" does not have any
measurable mass.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#480140

On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 11:22:36 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> > Gravity does not bend light. Massive body such as the sun will cause the medium that transmits light to be curved and thus light is being transmitted by these curved medium.
> 
> The only problem with that approach is that your "medium" does not have any
> measurable mass.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#480142

On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 11:22:36 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> > Gravity does not bend light. Massive body such as the sun will cause the medium that transmits light to be curved and thus light is being transmitted by these curved medium.
> 
> The only problem with that approach is that your "medium" does not have any
> measurable mass.

The E-Matrix has structure. Gravity is the result of interacting objects moving in this structure.

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

#480164

No straight light paths. If there were no gravity then it could be true.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#480423

kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 11:22:36 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> Gravity does not bend light. Massive body such as the sun will cause the medium that transmits light to be curved and thus light is being transmitted by these curved medium.
>>
>> The only problem with that approach is that your "medium" does not have any
>> measurable mass.
> 
> The E-Matrix has structure. Gravity is the result of interacting objects moving in this structure.

But I was not talking about that.  I said that your ”medium” does not have
any measurable mass.  Learn to read.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#480439

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 5:52:33 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 11:22:36 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >>> Gravity does not bend light. Massive body such as the sun will cause the medium that transmits light to be curved and thus light is being transmitted by these curved medium.
> >>
> >> The only problem with that approach is that your "medium" does not have any
> >> measurable mass.
> > 
> > The E-Matrix has structure. Gravity is the result of interacting objects moving in this structure.
> 
> But I was not talking about that.  I said that your ”medium” does not have
> any measurable mass.  Learn to read.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Gravity curves atomic motion...
Light is not special. That would
be the only foolish...

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#480440

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 8:52:33 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 11:22:36 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >>> Gravity does not bend light. Massive body such as the sun will cause the medium that transmits light to be curved and thus light is being transmitted by these curved medium.
> >>
> >> The only problem with that approach is that your "medium" does not have any
> >> measurable mass.
> > 
> > The E-Matrix has structure. Gravity is the result of interacting objects moving in this structure.
> 
> But I was not talking about that.  I said that your ”medium” does not have
> any measurable mass.  Learn to read.

Mass for the E-Matrix is meaningless. Its structure and elasticity give particle moving in it give rise to all the observed properties of the particle...such as mass, charge....etc.

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

#480443

kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 8:52:33 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 11:22:36 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> kenseto wrote:
>>>>> Gravity does not bend light. Massive body such as the sun will cause the medium that transmits light to be curved and thus light is being transmitted by these curved medium.
>>>>
>>>> The only problem with that approach is that your "medium" does not have any
>>>> measurable mass.
>>>
>>> The E-Matrix has structure. Gravity is the result of interacting objects moving in this structure.
>>
>> But I was not talking about that.  I said that your ”medium” does not have
>> any measurable mass.  Learn to read.
> 
> Mass for the E-Matrix is meaningless. Its structure and elasticity give particle moving in it give rise to all the observed properties of the particle....such as mass, charge....etc.

You were not talking about any "E-Matrix".  You were talking about “the
medium that transmits light”, and I said that your medium does not have
any measurable mass.  Stay focused.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#480450

On 13/12/2018 16:22, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> kenseto wrote:

>> Gravity does not bend light. Massive body such as the sun will cause the medium that transmits light to be curved and thus light is being transmitted by these curved medium.
> 
> The only problem with that approach is that your "medium" does not have any
> measurable mass.

The medium which transmits light does have mass Thomas, it's
just ordinary matter of finite density, and it is certainly
going to be increasingly dense as one approaches the star's surface,
just as the air on this planet is more dense at ground level

Admittedly you were talking to Ken, and maybe you are
correct in saying that "Ken's medium" does not have mass,
but the "actual medium" certainly does have mass, and therefore
there will be refraction, causing light to bend (at least
to some extent) around any star, as Ken says eh!

keith stein

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

#480453

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:18:09 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:

> The medium which transmits light does have mass...

So, let's see your empirical evidence to support that claim.

https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

"Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method."

Put up or shut up, OK? Your constant drivel and empty claims don't matter at all.

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

#480456

On 12/22/18 9:18 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> The medium which transmits light does have mass Thomas, it's
> just ordinary matter of finite density, 

NONSENSE! Ordinary matter does NOT "transmit light", because it is made 
of atoms, and "something" must "transmit light" between them. Of course 
in modern physics there is no "medium which transmits light", because 
light consists of photons (which propagate through the vacuum between 
atoms).

	Note that today the word "medium" in this context does
	refer to ordinary matter -- it RETARDS light, not
	"transmits" it.

You REALLY need to LEARN about the subject before attempting to write 
about it. Essentially everything you say is nonsense, because you refuse 
to STUDY. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS, 
even when based on ancient texts.

Tom Roberts

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

#480492

On 23/12/2018 15:13, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/22/18 9:18 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> The medium which transmits light does have mass Thomas, it's
>> just ordinary matter of finite density, 
> 
> NONSENSE! Ordinary matter does NOT "transmit light", because it is made 
> of atoms, and "something" must "transmit light" between them. Of course 
> in modern physics there is no "medium which transmits light", because 
> light consists of photons (which propagate through the vacuum between 
> atoms).
> 
>      Note that today the word "medium" in this context does
>      refer to ordinary matter -- it RETARDS light, not
>      "transmits" it.
> 
> You REALLY need to LEARN about the subject before attempting to write 
> about it. Essentially everything you say is nonsense, because you refuse 
> to STUDY. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS, 
> even when based on ancient texts.
> 
> Tom Roberts

The truth is Mr.Roberts, that it is YOU who does not UNDERSTAND,
                   about MACROSCOPIC THEORY.
MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.
There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.
One could say that "NO ATOMS" is
  what "MACROSCOPIC" means eh!


The  "density" at every point throughout ALL SPACE,
will have a FINITE,non zero ,value,
  and yet ironically
"DENSITY" does not exist
     at a "POINT".

  Dose it
Mr.Roberts ?

keith stein

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

#480493

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 23/12/2018 15:13, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 12/22/18 9:18 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> The medium which transmits light does have mass Thomas, it's
>>> just ordinary matter of finite density, 
>> 
>> NONSENSE! Ordinary matter does NOT "transmit light", because it is made 
>> of atoms, and "something" must "transmit light" between them. Of course 
>> in modern physics there is no "medium which transmits light", because 
>> light consists of photons (which propagate through the vacuum between 
>> atoms).
>> 
>>      Note that today the word "medium" in this context does
>>      refer to ordinary matter -- it RETARDS light, not
>>      "transmits" it.
>> 
>> You REALLY need to LEARN about the subject before attempting to write 
>> about it. Essentially everything you say is nonsense, because you refuse 
>> to STUDY. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS, 
>> even when based on ancient texts.
>> 
>> Tom Roberts

>The truth is Mr.Roberts, that it is YOU who does not UNDERSTAND,
>                   about MACROSCOPIC THEORY.
>MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
>that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.

A simplification is the continuous version of Maxwell's Theory.
Much simpler to treat the dielectric in a capacitor as a continuous
substance than a bunch of individual atoms...

>>There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.
>One could say that "NO ATOMS" is
>  what "MACROSCOPIC" means eh!

Which is why the macroscopic version isn't valid for a very sparse vacuum,
where the distance between atoms is large compared to wavelength. In such
a case, the light really does travel through a perfect vacuum between 
encounters with the odd gas molecule.

>The  "density" at every point throughout ALL SPACE,
>will have a FINITE,non zero ,value,

And a finite, zero value between atoms, for light with short enough
wavelength.

Tom's point was that a physical medium such as interstellar gas just
gets in the way of the light, slowing it slightly.

You want to argue that interstellar gas is continuous for radio waves?
Fine, an excellent model. You want to argue that interstellar gas is 
continuous for X-rays?  Sorry, not valid.

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

#480498

                  MACROSCOPIC THEORY.
MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.
There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.
One could say that "NO ATOMS" is
  what "MACROSCOPIC" means eh!


The  "density" at every point throughout ALL SPACE,
will have a FINITE,non zero ,value,
  and yet ironically
"DENSITY" does not exist
     at a "POINT".

  Dose it
Mr.MORONEY ?


On 24/12/2018 17:30, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: 
>> On 23/12/2018 15:13, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 12/22/18 9:18 PM, Keith Stein wrote:

>>>> The medium which transmits light does have mass Thomas, it's
>>>> just ordinary matter of finite density,

>>> NONSENSE! Ordinary matter does NOT "transmit light", because it is made
>>> of atoms, and "something" must "transmit light" between them. Of course
>>> in modern physics there is no "medium which transmits light", because
>>> light consists of photons (which propagate through the vacuum between
>>> atoms).
>>>
>>>       Note that today the word "medium" in this context does
>>>       refer to ordinary matter -- it RETARDS light, not
>>>       "transmits" it.
>>>
>>> You REALLY need to LEARN about the subject before attempting to write
>>> about it. Essentially everything you say is nonsense, because you refuse
>>> to STUDY. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS,
>>> even when based on ancient texts.
>>>
>>> Tom Roberts
> 
>> The truth is Mr.Moroney, that it is YOU who does not UNDERSTAND,
>>                    about MACROSCOPIC THEORY.
>> MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
>> that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.
> 
> A simplification is the continuous version of Maxwell's Theory.
> Much simpler to treat the dielectric in a capacitor as a continuous
> substance than a bunch of individual atoms...
> 
>>> There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.
>> One could say that "NO ATOMS" is
>>   what "MACROSCOPIC" means eh!
> 
> Which is why the macroscopic version isn't valid for a very sparse vacuum,
> where the distance between atoms is large compared to wavelength. In such
> a case, the light really does travel through a perfect vacuum between
> encounters with the odd gas molecule.
> 
>> The  "density" at every point throughout ALL SPACE,
>> will have a FINITE,non zero ,value,
> 
> And a finite, zero value between atoms, for light with short enough
> wavelength.
> 
> Tom's point was that a physical medium such as interstellar gas just
> gets in the way of the light, slowing it slightly.
> 
> You want to argue that interstellar gas is continuous for radio waves?
> Fine, an excellent model. You want to argue that interstellar gas is
> continuous for X-rays?  Sorry, not valid.


Radio waves, light waves, and x-rays, all travel at the same speed,
Mr. Moroney, and that speed is relative to the macroscopic medium,
not the observer, Mr.Moroney.

keith stein

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

#480508

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:


>The  "density" at every point throughout ALL SPACE,
>will have a FINITE,non zero ,value,

Wrong. Only as a simplification can this be done, when the simplification
is valid.

>  and yet ironically
>"DENSITY" does not exist
>     at a "POINT".

>  Dose it
>Mr.MORONEY ?

For very small volumes, the density will be 0 if the small volume does not
contain an atom, or nonzero if it contains an atom.

For larger volumes (such as with radio waves) the large volumes will
always contain about the same number of atoms, so their density will all
be about the same.

If the wavelength is large enough, you can use this simplification of 
Maxwell's Equations.

>> You want to argue that interstellar gas is continuous for radio waves?
>> Fine, an excellent model. You want to argue that interstellar gas is
>> continuous for X-rays?  Sorry, not valid.


>Radio waves, light waves, and x-rays, all travel at the same speed,

No, there is a small frequency dependent component for actual interstellar
space. This is used to guesstimate distance to pulsars.

>Mr. Moroney, and that speed is relative to the macroscopic medium,
>not the observer, Mr.Moroney.

Disproven by experiment. Ever since Fizeau and tests of the speed of light.

Remember:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

-Richard P. Feynman

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web