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

Groups > sci.physics > #680631

Re: The Speeed of Light

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web