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

Groups > sci.physics > #680349 > unrolled thread

Re: The Speeed of Light

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: The Speeed of Light Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 20:02 +0100
    Re: The Speeed of Light Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-04-08 22:03 +0200
      Re: The Speeed of Light Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 22:16 -0500
    Re: The Speeed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 18:10 -0700
    Re: The Speeed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-09 09:39 -0500
      Re: The Speeed of Light Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 16:04 +0100
        Re: The Speeed of Light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-04-09 18:16 +0200
          GPS satellites. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-09 10:45 -0700
            Re: GPS satellites. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 11:33 -0700
              Re: GPS satellites. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-09 12:34 -0700
            Re: GPS satellites. J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 23:28 -0400
              GPS satellites. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-09 20:49 -0700
              Re: GPS satellites. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-10 06:00 +0200
              Re: GPS satellites. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-11 14:36 -0500
                Re: GPS satellites. J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 22:22 -0400
                  Re: GPS satellites. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-12 04:38 +0200
        Re: The Speeed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 09:51 -0700
        Re: The Speeed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-09 14:00 -0500
        Re: The Speeed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 19:34 +0000
        Re: The Speeed of Light Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 21:10 -0500
          Re: The Speeed of Light Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 17:56 +0100
            Re: The Speeed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 18:39 +0000
            Re: The Speeed of Light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-04-10 20:40 +0200
            Re: The Speeed of Light Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 14:23 -0500
              LET EXPERIMENT DECIDE ('cos i think Relativists are Charlatans eh!) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 21:28 +0100
            Re: The Speeed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-14 09:11 -0500
              Re: The Speeed of Light Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 18:44 +0100
      Re: The Speeed of Light Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> - 2018-04-10 20:43 +1000
        Speed of light (was: The Speeed of Light) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-12 06:25 +0200
    Re: The Speeed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:58 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#680627

On 10/04/2018 03:10, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 16:04:59 +0100, Keith Stein wrote:
> 
>> What is 'silly' Mr.Roberts is to believe that the velocity of any
>> given light beam could possibly be the same value 'c' relative to all
>> inertial coordinates, irrespective of how those coordinates are moving
>> relative to each other.
> 
> What is silly about it?  Weird, maybe, but "silly"?
> 
> It is, after all, a central tenet of a mathematical model of our world
> which provides useful predictions of how that world will behave under
> all but the most extreme of circumstances.  Some people who post here
> use that model every day of their professional lives.
> 
> One wonders why you feel compelled to attack the notion.
> 
> This is like so many people I meet who look right at something, in front
> of them and staring them in the face, and say, "But... that can't be!"
> 
> Stupid of me to ask, but I'm curious and have a few moments free: What's
> the problem?  Do you find it aesthetically displeasing?  What?

I find it weird certainly, also "silly" and "aesthetically displeasing" 
too. What you should appreciate Goat is that if one goes back in time, 
just 120 years, every competent physicist in the world would agree with 
me.  The simple truth is that it is i who am the conservative here, and 
my message is simple "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

Einstein had probably not read, and certainly not understood Maxwell's 
electro-magnetic theory. Maxwell insisted "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", and in 
his 1905 paper Einstein drops the medium from Maxwell's equations, 
(thereby making the derived velocity meaningless), and does not even 
mention that he is making this (disastrous) modification to the theory.

There are many, many other things too, but i have enough experience to 
know i'd be wasting my time to tell you about them eh!

keith stein

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

#680631

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/04/2018 03:10, Lofty Goat wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 16:04:59 +0100, Keith Stein wrote:
>> 
>>> What is 'silly' Mr.Roberts is to believe that the velocity of any
>>> given light beam could possibly be the same value 'c' relative to all
>>> inertial coordinates, irrespective of how those coordinates are moving
>>> relative to each other.
>> 
>> What is silly about it?  Weird, maybe, but "silly"?
>> 
>> It is, after all, a central tenet of a mathematical model of our world
>> which provides useful predictions of how that world will behave under
>> all but the most extreme of circumstances.  Some people who post here
>> use that model every day of their professional lives.
>> 
>> One wonders why you feel compelled to attack the notion.
>> 
>> This is like so many people I meet who look right at something, in front
>> of them and staring them in the face, and say, "But... that can't be!"
>> 
>> Stupid of me to ask, but I'm curious and have a few moments free: What's
>> the problem?  Do you find it aesthetically displeasing?  What?
> 
> I find it weird certainly, also "silly" and "aesthetically displeasing" 
> too. What you should appreciate Goat is that if one goes back in time, 
> just 120 years, every competent physicist in the world would agree with 
> me.  The simple truth is that it is i who am the conservative here, and 
> my message is simple "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

Well, the problem is a little complicated in that for some applications,
classical physics is fine. This doesn’t mean it’s right, only that it’s
good enough for those cases. But what is true is that there are a lot of
applications for which classical physics definitely is broken. This is what
sparks the interest in asking, “well, if that’s not the right answer, then
what’s a better answer?” And against the tally sheet of measurements, there
is absolutely no question that relativity is a better answer. This isn’t a
matter of conservatism or aesthetics. It’s a brute force confrontation with
a long tally sheet of cold, objective facts. In the domain of science,
history or intuition or aesthetics take a distant back seat to that. Some
folks don’t care for that. 

> 
> Einstein had probably not read, and certainly not understood Maxwell's 
> electro-magnetic theory. Maxwell insisted "A MEDIUM NECESSARY", and in 
> his 1905 paper Einstein drops the medium from Maxwell's equations, 
> (thereby making the derived velocity meaningless), and does not even 
> mention that he is making this (disastrous) modification to the theory.
> 
> There are many, many other things too, but i have enough experience to 
> know i'd be wasting my time to tell you about them eh!
> 
> keith stein
> 



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

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

#680633

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> [...]
> just 120 years, every competent physicist in the world would agree with 
> me.  The simple truth is that it is i who am the conservative here, and 
> my message is simple "If it ain't broke don't fix it".
> 
The point is, the old classical  theories were found  broken even
 before  Einstein. 

Since 1880s, physicists are fixing or replacing  them to fit
 observations,  that were not known in Maxwell  time.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#680641

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 17:56:48 +0100, Keith Stein
<keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:

>I find it weird certainly, also "silly" and "aesthetically displeasing" 
>too. What you should appreciate Goat is that if one goes back in time, 
>just 120 years, every competent physicist in the world would agree with 
>me.  The simple truth is that it is i who am the conservative here, and 
>my message is simple "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

Every theory is in that sense "broke".

Classical mechanics, on which the notions held by those competent
physicists are based, breaks down, as I mentioned, under circumstances
which just aren't that unusual these days, and was supplanted, no,
rather augmented, by relativity, which does give accurate and useful
answers under those circumstances.

Under conditions today regarded as extreme, such as in the very centers
of black holes or at a distance of 1E-60m from an electron, which should
be inside that "dimensionless" particle's event horizon, relativity
breaks down, giving us answers which are nonsense.

So some more detailed theory, which will provide the same answers as
relativity under now-normal circumstances and reasonable answers under
those now-extreme ones, will take its place.  Classical mechanics will
remain a good approximation of the "true" theory, and relativity will
remain a better approximation, but the new one will be better still.

It's broke.  All scientific theories are.  So smart folks think about
it, conduct experiments, and fix it... then find ways i nwhich the new
theory is broke, so they then set about fixing that.

It's called scientific progress.  It'll go on for a while yet.

It isn't "conservatism" to hold that such progress should end, it's
reactionary.  Why?  Because those competent physicists of yore, most of
them at least, expected it to proceed.

And hey, watching it beats the hell out of watching guys walk around a
pasture hitting a ball with a curved metal stick while some guy
off-camera mutters into a microphone.  For me, at least.

-- 
Goat

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

#680662 — LET EXPERIMENT DECIDE ('cos i think Relativists are Charlatans eh!)

 >> Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein:
 >>> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

 >>>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is
 >>>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day.

 >>> EXCELLENT!
 >>>
 >>> Now are you seriously trying to tell me that no one thought to take 
 >>> a couple of clocks up to the ISS to demonstrate the 24.7 us/day ?
 >>> That is a HUGE AMOUNT !!! You could measure that with the ticker in 
 >>> the computer you are sitting at now.
 >>>
 >>> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS.
 >>> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS.
 >>> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER.
 >>> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS.
 >>>
 >>> If you can demonstrate even half the 24.7 us/day you are admitting
 >>> I WOULD BE AMAZED !
 >>> Certainly it would be a lot more convincing than anything reported 
 >>> in the many references you so kindly provided Mr.Anderson.

 >>> keith stein

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

#681018

On 4/10/18 11:56 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> if one goes back in time, 
> just 120 years, every competent physicist in the world would agree with 
> me. 

How silly, how STUPID -- THEY were ignorant of modern physics, too.

> The simple truth is that it is i who am the conservative here,

No, you are the FOOL here.

> Einstein had probably not read, and certainly not understood Maxwell's 
> electro-magnetic theory. 

This merely shows how comprehensively IGNORANT you are, not only about 
basic physics, but also about history.

Like every physicist of his day, Einstein was extensively educated in 
Maxwell's theory. His 1905 paper that introduced SR to the world was 
titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and was a demonstration 
how Maxwell's equations can be valid in all inertial frames. That 
resolved the puzzle of how his equations could be experimentally valid 
here on earth (which orbits the sun, rotates, ...). Of course today 
there are zillions of experiments confirming SR, not just electrodynamics.

You have no hope of understanding modern physics until you sit down and 
STUDY. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is USELESS.

Tom Roberts

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

#681036

The speed of light in vacuum is a silly concept,
because what can this speed be relative to ?

But since there is FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE,
there is no need to solve this conundrum.

LIGHT TRAVELS RELATIVE TO THE STUFF IT IS TRAVELING THROUGH,
AS DOES EVERY OTHER TYPE OF WAVE TOO.

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

#680587

On 10/04/2018 12:39 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/8/18 2:02 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> The speed of light in vacuum is a silly concept,
>> because what can this speed be relative to ?
> 
> Like ALL speeds, it is relative to the coordinates used to measure it.
> 

Measure it anyway you like. Doesn't change the fact we are fucking too 
far away.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

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

#680830 — Speed of light (was: The Speeed of Light)

Whisper wrote:

> On 10/04/2018 12:39 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 4/8/18 2:02 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> The speed of light in vacuum is a silly concept,
>>> because what can this speed be relative to ?
>> Like ALL speeds, it is relative to the coordinates used to measure it.
> 
> Measure it anyway you like. Doesn't change the fact we are fucking too
> far away.

“To far away” from what?  To do what?

*Please* stop this amok-crossposting to 4 newsgroups.


F’up2 sci.physics.relativity

PointedEars
-- 
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. 
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" 
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#680770

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 3:02:59 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> The speed of light in vacuum is a silly concept,
> because what can this speed be relative to ?
> 
> But since there is FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE,
> there is no need to solve this conundrum.
> 
> LIGHT TRAVELS RELATIVE TO THE STUFF IT IS TRAVELING THROUGH,
> AS DOES EVERY OTHER TYPE OF WAVE TOO.
> 
> Don't tell me i'm wrong, rather tell me what experiment proves what i 
> say is not true eh!
> 
> keith stein

Time dilation is a direct consequence of the constant SOLIV,
and here is another experiment that actually measures it.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

And note this is OLD news, 2010.

Enjoy,
  ed

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web