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

Groups > sci.physics > #590843 > unrolled thread

Re: Gravity and light question

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 21:36 +0200
    Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:05 -0500
      Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 18:36 +0200
        Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 13:08 -0500
          Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-28 00:15 +0200
            Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:24 -0500
              Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-29 07:05 +0200
    i.q at most zero noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:19 -0700
      Light (was: i.q at most zero) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-29 07:16 +0200
        Re: Light (was: i.q at most zero) LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 22:34 -0700
          see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_ noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:38 -0700
            Re: see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_ brandonahenley9@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 12:38 -0700

#590843 — Re: Gravity and light question

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 7/18/2016 12:03 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 9:57:07 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> There is a difference between the acceleration of
>>>  massive SLOW particles and
>>>  massless Speed-of-light particles
>>>  by gravity.
>> This is precisely the fucking point. There should be no difference if the
>> equivalence principle was true.
>>
>> Haysoos Martinez! I'm arguing with a cult of cretins.
> 
> Don't you find it interesting that it is pretty straightforward to
> DERIVE (logically and mathematically) the dependence of the acceleration
> on the speed of the object FROM the Equivalence Principle?

Pardon?  Speed is defined to be the magnitude of velocity (v = ||v⃗||), 
velocity is the time-derivative of position (v⃗ = ∂x⃗∕∂t), and acceleration 
is the time-derivative of velocity (a⃗ = ∂v⃗∕∂t; so all those quantities are 
dependent on the chosen frame of reference).  How does any equivalence 
principle (there are in fact *several*) feature in that?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle>
 
> When I say Equivalence Principle, I'm referring to what physicists mean
> by that phrase, not what YOU think it means.

I do not think that you know what you are talking about either.
 
> So, to sum up, all you've managed to do is show that the experimentally
> MEASURED dependence of the acceleration on the speed is in conflict with
> YOUR version of the equivalence principle, which (no surprise) is not
> what physicists mean by it.

Given your history, you should not presume that you know what physicists 
mean by anything, or everything, either.  Reading a lot of books is not 
equivalent to understanding what they are about.

-- 
PointedEars

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#590849

On 7/26/2016 2:36 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Given your history, you should not presume that you know what physicists
> mean by anything, or everything, either.  Reading a lot of books is not
> equivalent to understanding what they are about.

Maybe, but the more I read, the more I learn, and the more I discover 
that my understanding to that point is validated. That's what learning 
means.

As for you lecturing me about not knowing what physicists mean by 
anything, I would caution any web designer and Star Trek fanboy not to 
get too uppity about making the same claim. As far as I'm concerned, 
your credentials and right to claim level of understanding are no better 
than mine.

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

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

#590930

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 7/26/2016 2:36 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Given your history, you should not presume that you know what physicists
>> mean by anything, or everything, either.  Reading a lot of books is not
>> equivalent to understanding what they are about.
> 
> Maybe, but the more I read, the more I learn, and the more I discover
> that my understanding to that point is validated. That's what learning
> means.

You cannot be sure until a professional tells you so.  And the record shows 
that a professional has corrected you on what I would consider basics more 
than one time here.  So as for uppity, *you* have something that you can 
improve.

> As for you lecturing me about not knowing what physicists mean by
> anything,

It was merely a recommendation (“should”).

> I would caution any web designer and Star Trek fanboy

First of all, you have no clue what you are talking about there.

Second: There we have it again.  While I refer to your *postings* *here*, 
and measure you *only* *by* *them*, you keep referring to my occupation and 
hobbies (I already regret telling you about that).  What does have to do 
with anything?  You are not a physicist either, so you have no advantage 
there.

So will you please stop making your “web designer” (I am not one, I work as 
a *software* *developer* with expertise in Web _development_) “and Star Trek 
fanboy” (I am not one, I am a Star Trek follower) argument?  Not only is it 
fallacious, it is getting old.  TIA.

> […] As far as I'm concerned, your credentials and right to claim level of
> understanding are no better than mine.

Well, I did not claim anything.  However, there is more professional physics 
in my life than you know.  I would gladly tell you the details, but 
unfortunately you have shown that you cannot be trusted.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#590957

On 7/27/2016 11:36 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/2016 2:36 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Given your history, you should not presume that you know what physicists
>>> mean by anything, or everything, either.  Reading a lot of books is not
>>> equivalent to understanding what they are about.
>>
>> Maybe, but the more I read, the more I learn, and the more I discover
>> that my understanding to that point is validated. That's what learning
>> means.
>
> You cannot be sure until a professional tells you so.  And the record shows
> that a professional has corrected you on what I would consider basics more
> than one time here.  So as for uppity, *you* have something that you can
> improve.

Maybe. I know I've had a disagreement with Tom Roberts, a professional. 
So maybe I haven't learned that subject, but I think I'm following what 
I've read. For the record, the area where I've had some disagreement 
with Tom is precisely the area where you ALSO have a disagreement, and 
where you and I seem to be in agreement. So where does that leave your 
assessment?

>
>> As for you lecturing me about not knowing what physicists mean by
>> anything,
>
> It was merely a recommendation (“should”).
>
>> I would caution any web designer and Star Trek fanboy
>
> First of all, you have no clue what you are talking about there.
>
> Second: There we have it again.  While I refer to your *postings* *here*,
> and measure you *only* *by* *them*, you keep referring to my occupation and
> hobbies (I already regret telling you about that).  What does have to do
> with anything?  You are not a physicist either, so you have no advantage
> there.

I'm not claiming any advantage. I'm only disclaiming DISadvantage. You 
and I are BOTH going by what we have acquired as nonprofessionals in 
physics. That should be remembered by you, and I assure you I'm 
completely aware of it.

>
> So will you please stop making your “web designer” (I am not one, I work as
> a *software* *developer* with expertise in Web _development_) “and Star Trek
> fanboy” (I am not one, I am a Star Trek follower) argument?  Not only is it
> fallacious, it is getting old.  TIA.
>
>> […] As far as I'm concerned, your credentials and right to claim level of
>> understanding are no better than mine.
>
> Well, I did not claim anything.  However, there is more professional physics
> in my life than you know.  I would gladly tell you the details, but
> unfortunately you have shown that you cannot be trusted.
>

Trusted with what? I've presented nothing other than what you have 
presented YOURSELF.


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

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

#590989

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 7/27/2016 11:36 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> So will you please stop making your “web designer” (I am not one, I work
>> as a *software* *developer* with expertise in Web _development_) “and
>> Star Trek fanboy” (I am not one, I am a Star Trek follower) argument? 
>> Not only is it fallacious, it is getting old.  TIA.
>>
>>> […] As far as I'm concerned, your credentials and right to claim level
>>> [of understanding are no better than mine.
>>
>> Well, I did not claim anything.  However, there is more professional
>> physics in my life than you know.  I would gladly tell you the details,
>> but unfortunately you have shown that you cannot be trusted.
> 
> Trusted with what?

Personal information.

> I've presented nothing other than what you have presented YOURSELF.

You really need it spelt out for you?  OK.  You have showed that you cannot 
be trusted _not_ to misuse personal information to try (and fail, see above; 
but that is beside the point) to gain an advantage.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#591033

On 7/27/2016 5:15 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2016 11:36 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> So will you please stop making your “web designer” (I am not one, I work
>>> as a *software* *developer* with expertise in Web _development_) “and
>>> Star Trek fanboy” (I am not one, I am a Star Trek follower) argument?
>>> Not only is it fallacious, it is getting old.  TIA.
>>>
>>>> […] As far as I'm concerned, your credentials and right to claim level
>>>> [of understanding are no better than mine.
>>>
>>> Well, I did not claim anything.  However, there is more professional
>>> physics in my life than you know.  I would gladly tell you the details,
>>> but unfortunately you have shown that you cannot be trusted.
>>
>> Trusted with what?
>
> Personal information.

Which YOU have exposed PUBLICLY. So why would you expect this 
information to be held closely in a trust basis?

>
>> I've presented nothing other than what you have presented YOURSELF.
>
> You really need it spelt out for you?  OK.  You have showed that you cannot
> be trusted _not_ to misuse personal information to try (and fail, see above;
> but that is beside the point) to gain an advantage.

I'll repeat something you apparently did not read or did not retain. I 
am not claiming advantage. I am disclaiming DISadvantage.


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

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

#591118

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 7/27/2016 5:15 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2016 11:36 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> So will you please stop making your “web designer” (I am not one, I
>>>> work as a *software* *developer* with expertise in Web _development_)
>>>> “and Star Trek fanboy” (I am not one, I am a Star Trek follower)
>>>> argument? Not only is it fallacious, it is getting old.  TIA.
>>>>
>>>>> […] As far as I'm concerned, your credentials and right to claim level
>>>>> [of understanding are no better than mine.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I did not claim anything.  However, there is more professional
>>>> physics in my life than you know.  I would gladly tell you the details,
>>>> but unfortunately you have shown that you cannot be trusted.
>>> Trusted with what?
>> Personal information.
> 
> Which YOU have exposed PUBLICLY. So why would you expect this
> information to be held closely in a trust basis?

I expect personal information that I disclosed, publicly or not, which has 
nothing to do with the matter, to not be used against me, however futilely, 
by a trustworthy person and reasonable individual.  Since you did that and 
keep doing that, I do not consider you trustworthy at least.  So I will 
withhold any further details about my life, even though they would certainly 
be in my favor, from you, until you have proven by your actions that you are 
trustworthy in that regard.

>>> I've presented nothing other than what you have presented YOURSELF.
>>
>> You really need it spelt out for you?  OK.  You have showed that you
>> cannot be trusted _not_ to misuse personal information to try (and fail,
>> see above; but that is beside the point) to gain an advantage.
> 
> I'll repeat something you apparently did not read or did not retain. I
> am not claiming advantage. I am disclaiming DISadvantage.

And because you are doing that based on wrong informationn, irrelevant 
information if corrected, and incomplete information, about a person,
that is your fallacy.

EOD

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#591072 — i.q at most zero

ipso facto, and that is why there is properly no velocity
of light, only the speed of the waveform; that is to say that
merely saying that "the photon is a zero-dimensional object
with no mass is a no-brainer

> Pardon?  Speed is defined to be the magnitude of velocity (v = ||v⃗||), 
> velocity is the time-derivative of position (v⃗ = ∂x⃗∕∂t), and acceleration 
> is the time-derivative of velocity (a⃗ = ∂v⃗∕∂t; so all those quantities are 
> dependent on the chosen frame of reference).  How does any equivalence 
> principle (there are in fact *several*) feature in that?
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle>
>  
> > When I say Equivalence Principle, I'm referring to what physicists mean
> > by that phrase, not what YOU think it means.
> 
> I do not think that you know what you are talking about either.
>  
> > So, to sum up, all you've managed to do is show that the experimentally
> > MEASURED dependence of the acceleration on the speed is in conflict with
> > YOUR version of the equivalence principle, which (no surprise) is not
> > what physicists mean by it.
> 
> Given your history, you should not presume that you know what physicists 
> mean by anything, or everything, either.  Reading a lot of books is not 
> equivalent to understanding what they are about.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#591119 — Light (was: i.q at most zero)

noTthaTguY wrote:

> ipso facto, and that is why there is properly no velocity
> of light, only the speed of the waveform;

Nonsense.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Quantum_theory>

> that is to say that merely saying that "the photon is a zero-dimensional
> object with no mass is a no-brainer

Pardon?

Learn to post and get a real name.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#591123 — Re: Light (was: i.q at most zero)

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:16:21 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> noTthaTguY wrote:
> 
> > ipso facto, and that is why there is properly no velocity
> > of light, only the speed of the waveform;
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Quantum_theory>
> 
> > that is to say that merely saying that "the photon is a zero-dimensional
> > object with no mass is a no-brainer
> 
> Pardon?
> 
> Learn to post and get a real name.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

LOL. It's obvious you're talking to a machine, a stupid and mindless bot.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

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

#591158 — see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_

only note that the seocndpower of the speed of light
is the rate of growth of the area of the wavefornt, mod pi times diameter;
use thirty-one tenths, or
use thirty-two hundredths for the reciprocate

> > > ipso facto, and that is why there is properly no velocity
> > > of light, only the speed of the waveform;
> > 
> > Nonsense.
> > 
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light>
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Quantum_theory>
> > 
> > > that is to say that merely saying that "the photon is a zero-dimensional
> > > object with no mass is a no-brainer
> > 
> > Pardon?
> > 
> > Learn to post and get a real name.
> > 
> > -- 
> > PointedEars
> > 
> > Twitter: @PointedEars2
> > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
> 
> LOL. It's obvious you're talking to a machine, a stupid and mindless bot.
> 
> ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

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

#591193 — Re: see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_

oops; simplify 32/100, if you like that ... powers of ten!

> only note that the seocndpower of the speed of light
> is the rate of growth of the area of the wavefornt, mod pi times diameter;
> use thirty-one tenths, or
> use thirty-two hundredths for the reciprocate

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web