speed of light
Lucas
through different media?
Abe
@msn.com says...
> If a photon is massless, then why does it travel at different speeds
> through different media?
Just because it's massless, doesn't mean it doesn't interact with the
medium.
Androcles
"Lucas" <rufu...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f8b57198.04012...@posting.google.com...
> If a photon is massless, then why does it travel at different speeds
> through different media?
That would be an interesting question without the preface "if a photon is
massless".
Photons ARE massless. Would you expect a radio broadcast to have mass?
Yet that too will vary its speed from medium to medium.
I don't know why the speed changes in a medium, and nor does anyone else.
That leaves us with conjecture.
Perhaps the answer lies in crystallography, the highest refractive index of
any material is diamond.
Diamond crystals are tetrahedral, found by applying shear forces to them
when they are cut.
In any regular array or lattice, several possible planes can be made. The
photon/wave clearly has to pass through the diamond lattice, past the
electrons that bond atom to atom in one giant molecule of carbon atoms. I
would expect some interference between the electric field of the photon/wave
and a control of its velocity, by that interaction. Something akin to a set
of rollers in a steel rolling mill where the metal's speed is controlled by
the rolling mills and is in no way dependent on its speed when it is
introduced to the mill. In the diamond tetrahedron, there is always an atom
in the direct path of the incoming ray, and I believe that may be the cause
of the ray moving at its slowest. It has to 'go around' an atom instead of
between them. Possibly someone will create a computer model to see if the
spectrum of white light can be 'rainbowed' in this way.
See
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Radio%20Wave.htm
for a follow up.
Androcles
Abe
@antispamblueyonder.co.uk says...
>
> "Lucas" <rufu...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:f8b57198.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > If a photon is massless, then why does it travel at different speeds
> > through different media?
>
> That would be an interesting question without the preface "if a photon is
> massless".
> Photons ARE massless. Would you expect a radio broadcast to have mass?
> Yet that too will vary its speed from medium to medium.
> I don't know why the speed changes in a medium, and nor does anyone else.
> That leaves us with conjecture.
I thought the particles of the medium absored, and then re-emitted, the
photons, this interaction determining the "speed" of light through the
medium?
Bill Hobba
> If a photon is massless, then why does it travel at different speeds
> through different media?
Because in the media atomic process cause it to be absorbed and reemitted (I
would say a different photon - but you really can not tell the difference
between photons). This process of absorption and reemission takes time and
so slows it down.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> I don't know why the speed changes in a medium, and nor does anyone else.
Wrong - read Feynamn - QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Just
because you brain can not comprehend it do not assume other can't.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> I thought the particles of the medium absored, and then re-emitted, the
> photons, this interaction determining the "speed" of light through the
> medium?
Pretty close to spot on. Which begs the question of why you asked it eh
question in the first place. Was it jus to stir people up or did you have
some other motive?
Thanks
Bill
sal
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:40:16 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
> Perhaps the answer lies in crystallography, the highest refractive index of
> any material is diamond.
Well, now, according to the good ol' rubber bible, the refractive index of
diamond is in the ballpark of 2.6 or 2.7. 'Way higher than glass or other
such mundane stuff, it's true.
But ... have you perhaps forgotten that not all materials with
well defined refractive indicies are transparent (at least when present in
normal thicknesses)?
Consider, for instance, tungsten. For a photon energy of 5 eV, tungsten
has a refractive index of 3.4, neatly outdistancing that wimpy value for
diamonds.
And if you're willing to drop down to near infrared photons, plain old
iron will beat out diamond quite handily, as well. And if we go a bit
deeper into the IR spectrum, when we hit 0.1 eV we have items like iridium
with a refractive index of 28.49 -- more than 10 times the index of
diamond.
Cheers...
--
To email me directly, take out nospam and put back foobox.
pholroyd
that very good book i read last year. want learn more about qed. you
right feynman explain what happen make indx refraction. he call it
extra turning cause by scatter atoms. make lot sense.
@@@ph@@@
Tom Roberts
> If a photon is massless, then why does it travel at different speeds
> through different media?
This has several answers, at differing levels of sophistication:
A) In a medium "the photon" is absorbed and re-emitted many times,
and this "slows it down".
B) Only photons that are on mass shell "travel" at c. Inside a
medium photons are not on mass shell because of the interactions
with the charged particles in the medium (mostly electrons).
C) A photon has no definite path within a medium, but the expectation
value for a measurement of its "speed" is determined by a properly-
(anti-)symmetrized path integral over all possible paths and
interactions; in vacuum this is sharp at c, but in a medium it is
fuzzy with a mean less than c because of the interactions (the
fuzziness is vastly smaller than typical experimental resolutions).
[Many phrases are in quotes as they are not really well
defined in QED.]
The common explanation given in this thread is actually the least
sophisticated. To really understand this requires a study of Quantum
ElectroDynamics. As a start of that, I suggest:
Feynman, _QED_.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Abe
Bernardz
Question.
Imagine a millions of rays of light suddenly switched on and then they
travel the same parallel distance though the same medium. Would all the
rays of light arrive at exactly the same time at the other end?
--
Good research produces more questions for others to answer.
37th observation of Bernard
Androcles
"Abe" <du...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a8253cfb...@news.cis.dfn.de...
I expect a dumb relativist gave you that wild idea.
They'll say anything to promote their religion, including downright lies.
Atoms can and do absorb light of particular wavelengths, just as radio
antennae do. Long waves (no longer popular) use enormous antennae, short
waves use shorter antennae, FM radio uses antennae that are 300,000,000
meters/sec divided by 100,000,000 Hz = 3 divided by 2 for 1/2wavelength =
1.5 meters long, which is why you see these antennae on roof-tops tuned in
to 100MHz FM, Broadcast terrestrial TV uses even shorter wavelengths and
cell phones operating in the Gigahertz range have very short antennae. Cell
phones don't pick up long waves very well.
Atoms do not absorb and re-emit radio waves at all, and the CMBR does not
use any medium for its transmission.
I have demonstrated the myopic relativist is talking out of his arse at
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/cheating_with_stars.htm,
I have tried to answer what a photon is at
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Radio%20Wave.htm,
explained what is wrong with the concept of relativity at
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/gardner.htm
proven the mathematics is faulty at
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental_rev_2.1.htm,
and shown the way astronomy will go in the 21st century at
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
Physics will have to return to reality, instead of following a fictional
sci-fi mentality of twins that age one greater than the other because one of
them decided to go the Alpha-Centauri McDonald's for breakfast.
Androcles
Bill Vajk
snip
> Physics will have to return to reality,
Physics has never been anything but realistic. It is clearly
you who uses the illegitimate metrics.
A pied piper you're not.
Yrevaiw
momentum when absorbed or reflective. The classic expression for the momentum
of a photon gives its momentum as its energy divided by the velocity of light.
Since momentum is the product of mass and velocity, dividing its momentum by C
provides its mass which turns out to be in satisfying agreement with E=M*C^2.
The kind of crap that is taught as mainstream science is very distrubing. It
leads to the kind of foolishness presented by Brian Greene on NOVA.
Androcles
"sal" <beli...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.29....@nospam.com...
> Uh, oh -- I see a nit -- can't resist picking it!
>
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:40:16 +0000, Androcles wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps the answer lies in crystallography, the highest refractive index
of
> > any material is diamond.
>
> Well, now, according to the good ol' rubber bible, the refractive index of
> diamond is in the ballpark of 2.6 or 2.7. 'Way higher than glass or other
> such mundane stuff, it's true.
>
> But ... have you perhaps forgotten that not all materials with
> well defined refractive indicies are transparent (at least when present in
> normal thicknesses)?
>
> Consider, for instance, tungsten. For a photon energy of 5 eV, tungsten
> has a refractive index of 3.4, neatly outdistancing that wimpy value for
> diamonds.
Point taken. The last time I looked, visible light didn't pass through
tungsten, at least not in my light bulb filaments. :-)
Since the angle differs from wavelength to wavelength, refractive index is
really an approximation.
Diamond is popular among the ladies because they like pretty coloured beads
and this elevates their status in society.Why, I don't know. There is much I
do not know.
My turn to nit pick.
Have you forgotten that refractive indices are actually relative? A plastic
toy with the same refractive index (relative to air) as that of water will
not exhibit refraction when dropped into a fish tank?
>
> And if you're willing to drop down to near infrared photons, plain old
> iron will beat out diamond quite handily, as well. And if we go a bit
> deeper into the IR spectrum, when we hit 0.1 eV we have items like iridium
> with a refractive index of 28.49 -- more than 10 times the index of
> diamond.
>
> Cheers...
We can do even better, use silver or aluminium and completely reflect, too.
We call that a mirror... :-)
I did refer to that stuff as aluminum when I lived in the States, but now
that I'm back in Britain, why do you have Einsteinium and not Einsteinum?
(just to pick a nit)
Good seeing,
Androcles.
Androcles
"pholroyd" <phol...@REMOVEno-spam-allowed.com> wrote in message
news:20040128223816.653$7...@news.newsreader.com...
Just because 'feynman' has an explanation doesn't mean 'feynman' knows any
more than I do. I didn't claim to know about photons, but I do claim to know
that Bubba Hobba gets everything he thinks he knows from the thinking of
others, and does no thinking for himself.
Why do you write such atrocious, improperly punctuated English? Can you not
learn by example, or do you have a learning disability, Mr. "want learn more
about qed"? Just for starters, try using a capital letter at the start of
sentence. I really do think your style is deliberate and fake.
Androcles.
Androcles
Bill Vajk
> Just because 'feynman' has an explanation doesn't mean 'feynman' knows any
> more than I do.
ROTFLMAO
sal
>
> "sal" <beli...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> Consider, for instance, tungsten. For a photon energy of 5 eV, tungsten
>> has a refractive index of 3.4, neatly outdistancing that wimpy value for
>> diamonds.
>
> Point taken. The last time I looked, visible light didn't pass through
> tungsten, at least not in my light bulb filaments. :-)
Right ... but then, how did they measure the refractive index? Beats me... :-)
> Since the angle differs from wavelength to wavelength, refractive index is
> really an approximation.
The CRC handbook gives a long list of values for each material, with each
value given for a specific photon energy. For metals it typically varies
enormously as the energy changes.
> My turn to nit pick.
> Have you forgotten that refractive indices are actually relative? A
> plastic toy with the same refractive index (relative to air) as that of
> water will not exhibit refraction when dropped into a fish tank?
Right -- and a piece of glass dropped into a tank of carbon tetrachloride
will apparently vanish (or so I've read -- I don't have a tank of carbon
tet around to try it with).
>> And if you're willing to drop down to near infrared photons, plain old
>> iron will beat out diamond quite handily, as well. And if we go a bit
>> deeper into the IR spectrum, when we hit 0.1 eV we have items like
>> iridium with a refractive index of 28.49 -- more than 10 times the
>> index of diamond.
>>
>> Cheers...
> We can do even better, use silver or aluminium and completely reflect,
> too. We call that a mirror... :-)
Actually, so does iron, and so does tungsten. But just the same the
penetration depth of the photons into the material isn't zero unless the
material is a superconductor; airplane cockpit windshields are (at least
sometimes) coated with metallic gold. The layer is thin enough so
the pilots can see through it.
I'm actually pretty hazy on the meaning of the "refractive index" of a
material like tungsten. I just had a tickle of a memory that some metals
had sky-high indices so I poked around in the CRC Handbook to find them;
turns out most have very low indices in the visible spectrum but high ones
in IR. Again, I have no idea why. (But then I haven't read Feynman on
QED, either.)
> I did refer to that stuff as aluminum when I lived in the States, but
> now that I'm back in Britain, why do you have Einsteinium and not
> Einsteinum? (just to pick a nit)
Or Albert-um for that matter.
> Good seeing,
> Androcles.
sal
> Question.
>
> Imagine a millions of rays of light suddenly switched on and then they
> travel the same parallel distance though the same medium. Would all the
> rays of light arrive at exactly the same time at the other end?
I'm sorry but you can't ask that. The rays are distributed over
a space-like region and so the question of whether they arrive
"simultaneously" is obviously meaningless.
Dirk Van de moortel
"sal" <beli...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:pan.2004.01.29....@nospam.com...
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:10:12 +1100, Bernardz wrote:
> > Question.
> >
> > Imagine a millions of rays of light suddenly switched on and then they
> > travel the same parallel distance though the same medium. Would all the
> > rays of light arrive at exactly the same time at the other end?
I think Tom Robert's part (C) of his reply answers the question.
>
> I'm sorry but you can't ask that. The rays are distributed over
> a space-like region and so the question of whether they arrive
> "simultaneously" is obviously meaningless.
On the contrary I would say: the question is meaningful *because*
they are distributed over a space-like region. For every pair of
spacelike related events one can always find an inertial frame
in which the events are simultaneous.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:fd9Sb.4495$4d1....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
maybe he physically disabled just like you mentally disabled
Dirk Vdm
> Androcles.
>
> Androcles
>
>
Dirk Van de moortel
"Yrevaiw" <yre...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040129094519...@mb-m18.aol.com...
It really hurts, doesn't it - A 6000 years old universe is much
easier to grasp for Wittkes and Bushes, right?
"Ernest Wittke" between 6-Feb-1999 and 19-Jun-1999
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:ernest+author:wittke&&filter=0
"H.E.Retic" between 1-Aug-1999 and 10-Nov-1999
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:*.physics.*+author:retic&filter=0
"ret...@home.com" between 28-Apr-2000 and 27-Nov-2001
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:*.physics.*+author:ret...@home.com&filter=0
"ret...@gti.net" between 22-Feb-2002 and 22-Apr-2002
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:*.physics.*+author:ret...@gti.net&filter=0
"Reticher" between 31-May-2002 and 22-Oct-2002
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:*.physics.*+author:reticher&filter=0
"Reticher1" between 7-Jul-2002 and 31-Oct-2002
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:*.physics.*+author:reticher1&filter=0
"Einsteinhoax" between 2-Dec-2002 and 4-Feb-2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:*.physics.*+author:einsteinhoax&filter=0
"HERetic3" between 20-Jan-2003 and 21-Jan-2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:*.physics.*+author:HERetic3&filter=0
From then Ernest Wittke Einste...@aol.com started using random
names in order to get his spam crap through the killfile filters.
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
>They'll say anything to promote their religion, including downright lies.
As soon as you come up with something that doesn't have a simple
answer, you can test that hypothesis. So far, having to make up something
to refute your objections would be effort that than the truth.
>Atoms can and do absorb light of particular wavelengths, just as radio
>antennae do.
It's not the same, although it is rather easy to explain.
>Long waves (no longer popular) use enormous antennae, short
>waves use shorter antennae, FM radio uses antennae that are 300,000,000
>meters/sec divided by 100,000,000 Hz = 3 divided by 2 for 1/2wavelength =
>1.5 meters long, which is why you see these antennae on roof-tops tuned in
>to 100MHz FM, Broadcast terrestrial TV uses even shorter wavelengths and
>cell phones operating in the Gigahertz range have very short antennae. Cell
>phones don't pick up long waves very well.
>Atoms do not absorb and re-emit radio waves at all, and the CMBR does not
>use any medium for its transmission.
Proving what, exactly? Car radios were AM for a long time. AM is
in the 100 kHz range (mostly below). Let's see, that would be,
(3 x 10^8 m/s)/10^5 = 3000 meters, so for a halfwave dipole, that's
a little under a mile. Even taking into account the increase in
the effective length due to the image dipole obtained by the car
body at ground, it's a mighty long antenna.
[...]
>
>Physics will have to return to reality, instead of following a fictional
>sci-fi mentality of twins that age one greater than the other because one of
>them decided to go the Alpha-Centauri McDonald's for breakfast.
Well, then I have good news. Physics has returned to reality and is
just waiting for you to beam back and join reality with us.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:0F8Sb.4413$4d1....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Gasp! I can't keep up with this.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dumb.html
Slow down will you?
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
>"pholroyd" <phol...@REMOVEno-spam-allowed.com> wrote in message
>news:20040128223816.653$7...@news.newsreader.com...
>> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> > Landraces wrote:
>> >> I don't know why the speed changes in a medium, and nor does
>> >> anyone else.
>> >
>> > Wrong - read Feynamn - QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.
>> > Just because you brain can not comprehend it do not assume other
>> > can't.
>> >
>>
>> that very good book i read last year. want learn more about qed. you
>> right feynman explain what happen make indx refraction. he call it
>> extra turning cause by scatter atoms. make lot sense.
>>
>> @@@ph@@@
>Feynamn - never heard of her.
>Just because 'feynman' has an explanation doesn't mean 'feynman' knows any
>more than I do. I didn't claim to know about photons, but I do claim to know
>that Bubba Hobba gets everything he thinks he knows from the thinking of
>others, and does no thinking for himself.
those who refused to cave in to the fashionable ideas that the
earth isn't flat, that the moon landing wasn't faked or that
an android from mars didn't shoot jfk or jr. Certainly without such
original thinkers, the world would be less entertaining.
greywolf42
news:ic1Sb.5731$BA2....@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com...
> Lucas wrote:
> > If a photon is massless, then why does it travel at different speeds
> > through different media?
Quite simply, because light speed is not constant.
Think of a sound wave. The sound wave has no rest mass, but it travels at
different speeds when the medium (air) changes density, temperature or
pressure -- or when impurities are suspended in the air. Same thing for
light (according to Maxwell).
> This has several answers, at differing levels of sophistication:
>
> A) In a medium "the photon" is absorbed and re-emitted many times,
> and this "slows it down".
>
> B) Only photons that are on mass shell "travel" at c. Inside a
> medium photons are not on mass shell because of the interactions
> with the charged particles in the medium (mostly electrons).
>
> C) A photon has no definite path within a medium, but the expectation
> value for a measurement of its "speed" is determined by a properly-
> (anti-)symmetrized path integral over all possible paths and
> interactions; in vacuum this is sharp at c, but in a medium it is
> fuzzy with a mean less than c because of the interactions (the
> fuzziness is vastly smaller than typical experimental resolutions).
>
> [Many phrases are in quotes as they are not really well
> defined in QED.]
That's because QED is not a physical theory of why things work.
> The common explanation given in this thread is actually the least
> sophisticated. To really understand this requires a study of Quantum
> ElectroDynamics. As a start of that, I suggest:
>
> Feynman, _QED_.
IIRC, in that book, Feynman doesn't explain photons -- and states that if
you think you understand, then you haven't understood what he's saying.
One of the key points is that photons travel at different speeds, even when
they are 'supposed to be' constant. He admits QED is simply a cookbook of
procedures. Not a theory of reality.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Bilge
when it conflicts with a thought experiment that only has a few
flaws.
>It transfers momentum when absorbed or reflective. The classic expressi
>of a photon gives its momentum as its energy divided by the velocity of
>Since momentum is the product of mass and velocity, dividing its moment
>provides its mass which turns out to be in satisfying agreement with E=
>
>The kind of crap that is taught as mainstream science is very distrubing.
Yeah, a lot of school districts have capitulated to the fringe
and played down just how nutty claims like yours really are.
But, never fear. We'll keep harping on them to not replace real
experiments by faulty gedanken experiments to save money.
Androcles
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:47:04 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
> >
> > "sal" <beli...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> Consider, for instance, tungsten. For a photon energy of 5 eV,
tungsten
> >> has a refractive index of 3.4, neatly outdistancing that wimpy value
for
> >> diamonds.
> >
> > Point taken. The last time I looked, visible light didn't pass through
> > tungsten, at least not in my light bulb filaments. :-)
>
> Right ... but then, how did they measure the refractive index? Beats
me... :-)
Dunno. Maybe it becomes transparent when glowing :-)
>
> > Since the angle differs from wavelength to wavelength, refractive index
is
> > really an approximation.
>
> The CRC handbook gives a long list of values for each material, with each
> value given for a specific photon energy. For metals it typically varies
> enormously as the energy changes.
I don't really want to get into metallurgy or chemistry, I was proposing
a possible avenue to explore why a spectrum appears. Glasses are not
crystalline, yet the same phenomeon occurs, making the subject quite
difficult.
I don't pretend to have the answers.
>
>
> > My turn to nit pick.
> > Have you forgotten that refractive indices are actually relative? A
> > plastic toy with the same refractive index (relative to air) as that of
> > water will not exhibit refraction when dropped into a fish tank?
>
> Right -- and a piece of glass dropped into a tank of carbon tetrachloride
> will apparently vanish (or so I've read -- I don't have a tank of carbon
> tet around to try it with).
It's quite cheap and useful as a solvent for cleaning clothes. ('dry'
cleaning).
> >> And if you're willing to drop down to near infrared photons, plain old
> >> iron will beat out diamond quite handily, as well. And if we go a bit
> >> deeper into the IR spectrum, when we hit 0.1 eV we have items like
> >> iridium with a refractive index of 28.49 -- more than 10 times the
> >> index of diamond.
> >>
> >> Cheers...
> > We can do even better, use silver or aluminium and completely reflect,
> > too. We call that a mirror... :-)
>
> Actually, so does iron, and so does tungsten. But just the same the
> penetration depth of the photons into the material isn't zero unless the
> material is a superconductor; airplane cockpit windshields are (at least
> sometimes) coated with metallic gold. The layer is thin enough so
> the pilots can see through it.
Yep. And the window of a Boeing 747 is a lens. CAE in Montreal were building
a 747 simulator for KLM. My company was supplying the visual display and
the specification is fairly rigid, it has to pass FAA standards. The
installation crew placed a theodolite at the pilot's eye point (removed the
seat) and put a test pattern on the screen (seen through a half-silvered
mirror and an enormous shaving mirror, so the simulated runway appeared life
size), expecting to tweak pincushion, horizontal and vertical offsets and
gains, routine stuff.
But no matter what they did, they couldn't get a sharp focus. After changing
the monitor and still not succeeding a week later, they called me in. CAE
build a pressured simulator, going that extra yard, so instead of using a
thin perspex as in non-pressurised simulators, this one has two inch thick
real aircraft windows. No focus possible, its a lens. That meant a
compromise was needed, a decision at the highest level of management, and
agreement with the FAA as well.
So having identified the problem within 30 minutes of walking in the place,
another three days were wasted proving I was right and three weeks were
wasted as I twiddled my thumbs and kept nearby, waiting for a decision from
the top. One month lost for me, the installation crew and the co-pilot from
KLM that was there to accept the system and oversee the testing. We spent
quite some time together, thumb twiddling. Nice guy, but I lost touch with
him afterwards. As you can probably imagine, the decision to do nothing was
taken and I went home. We had gone ahead and ran the tests anyway, it took
less than a day.
>
> I'm actually pretty hazy on the meaning of the "refractive index" of a
> material like tungsten. I just had a tickle of a memory that some metals
> had sky-high indices so I poked around in the CRC Handbook to find them;
> turns out most have very low indices in the visible spectrum but high ones
> in IR. Again, I have no idea why. (But then I haven't read Feynman on
> QED, either.)
Nor I. I became suspicious a long time ago when Dirac tried to wed QED with
SR, a marriage made in hell.
Possibly some connection with Rutherford? Larger atomic nucleii in heavy
metal? Just a thought...
>
> > I did refer to that stuff as aluminum when I lived in the States, but
> > now that I'm back in Britain, why do you have Einsteinium and not
> > Einsteinum? (just to pick a nit)
>
> Or Albert-um for that matter.
Actinum
Alumin-i-um
Americum
Barum
Berkelum
Beryllum
Cadmum
Calcum
Californum
Cerum
Chromum
Curum
Dysprosum
Einsteinum
Erbum
Europum
Fermum
Francum
Gadolum
Gallum
Germanum
Hafnum
Helum
Holmum
Indum
Iridum
Lanthan-i-um (weird, same for both sides of the Atlanticium)
Lawrencum
PLUMBUM
Lithum
Lutetum
Magnesum
Mendelevum
Molybden-i-um (another weirdo)
Neodymum
Neptunum
Niobum
Nobelum
Osmum
Paladum
Platin-i-um (and another)
Plutonum
Polonum
Potassum
Praseodymum
Promethum
Protactinum
Radum
Rhenum
Rhodum
Rubidum
Ruthenum
Samarum
Scandum
Selenum
Sodum
Strontum
Tantal-i-um (and another)
Technetum
Tellurum
Terbum
Thallum
Titanum
Uranum
Vanadum
Ytterbum
Yttrum
Zirconum
Androcles
kenseto
"Bill Hobba" <bill...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:40187...@news.iprimus.com.au...
If that is the case why light is not scattered upon entering the medium?
Ken Seto
kenseto
> through different media?
The ether explanation:
1. A photon is a wave packet in a stationary ether that conducts it..
2. Inside the medium the ether is more curved.
3. The photon follows this more curved ether and thus it is measured
to be moving slower.
Ken Seto
Androcles
One must be pretty stupid to assert that radio antennae lose mass, but I
don't suppose you can help it.
> It transfers
> momentum when absorbed or reflective. The classic expression for the
momentum
> of a photon gives its momentum as its energy divided by the velocity of
light.
> Since momentum is the product of mass and velocity, dividing its momentum
by C
> provides its mass which turns out to be in satisfying agreement with
E=M*C^2.
Right. So the energy that we call a photon has a mass equivalent, but is
converted entirely to energy, so the photon has no mass, only energy. If it
had any mass, it would not have any energy. It cannot have both. Radio waves
have no mass.
> The kind of crap that is taught as mainstream science is very distrubing.
It
> leads to the kind of foolishness presented by Brian Greene on NOVA.
>
> Einste...@aol.com
If you cannot understand mass equivalence, all I can do is try to teach you.
What is the flubber that makes up the mass of an electron? No known element
we know of, because each element differs from any other by its number of
electrons.
Carbon 14 has the same number of electrons as Carbon 12, but two extra
neutrons.
What is the flubber that the neutron is made of, that you call 'mass'?
And how do you know it is flubber anyway?
The only way you can detect it is by the way it pulls itself to other
flubber, and we call that gravity.
So what do you mean by 'mass' anyway? Flubber?
I'd be careful calling other people's understanding 'crap' if I were you,
you may make yourself look a fool.
Androcles
Androcles
I don't see the connection, I thought is was a legitimate question.
The answer is 'yes'.
To simplify the problem, I'll use just two rays, not millions.
The Androclean clock is a perfect counter with an almost perfect oscillator,
simulating reality. However, the counter is not adjacent to the oscillator.
The oscillator is connected to the counters via an em signal, so that I can
'synchronise' by simply by presetting the counter as we do with any clock,
which in no way affects the oscillator .
For this experiment, I need two clocks.
I will place remote oscillators distant and at rest, and I will reset my
counters as I send a signal to the oscillators, which are perpetually and
individually incrementing my counters. When the signal reaches the
oscillators, it will throw a switch to prevent the oscillators transmitting,
although they do not cease oscillating.
Some time later my counters will cease incrementing, and the count of each
will agree.
So the question of whether they arrive "simultaneously" is obviously
meaningFUL, and I have successfully measured OWLS (One Way Light Speed).
If I chose, I can place the oscillators further apart, and measure the
distance between them remotely.
All it takes is an Androclean clock.
Androcles
pholroyd
thank you dirk. androcles sick in head. if andorcles live one day inmy
body with physcal problems he probably shoot self. i not give up.
world bettr with no androcles. he like other prson who have hate for
self. make mean and nasty to all. i learng relatvity but i see
androcles not undrstand so he mean to people.
@@@ph@@@
pholroyd
thank you bilge. feynman great man hobba posts look good. androcles
sick in head. he nasty person.
@@@ph@@@
Androcles
"pholroyd" <phol...@REMOVEno-spam-allowed.com> wrote in message
Androcles
Bill Hobba
> > Feynamn - never heard of her.
Excellent - a liaison between you two would be more I could contemplate for
it may lead to breeding - what a discussing thought.
Androcles wrote:
> > Just because 'feynman' has an explanation doesn't mean 'feynman' knows
any
> > more than I do.
I am afraid that being able to explain something that another can not does
mean they know more than you do. I know its a hard thing to accept but
better to face facts now that to continue to write your usual tripe.
Androcles wrote:
'I didn't claim to know about photons, but I do claim to know that Bubba
Hobba gets everything he thinks he knows from the thinking of others, and
does no thinking for himself.'
Yep - I am a moron who has no original thoughts of his own. But that of
course does not mean those issues aren't valid.
Androcles wrote:
'Why do you write such atrocious, improperly punctuated English? Can you not
learn by example, or do you have a learning disability, Mr. "want learn more
about qed"? Just for starters, try using a capital letter at the start of
sentence. I really do think your style is deliberate and fake.'
Or maybe it is because I want to discuss physics, which you obviously do
not, as indicated by your concentration on my spelling and grammatical
errors. Concentration on the form of what someone writes rather than the
content is strongly suggestive that the content is beyond the person in
question. I recall one time many years ago, my director came in laughing
his head off and invited me over to see the comments by his boss on a
computer security report he and I jointly wrote. It consisted of spelling
and grammar corrections and nothing about what was being proposed or said -
which of course meant he did not understand it and was not willing to admit
it. Ring any bells Androcles?
Dirk wrote:
> maybe he physically disabled just like you mentally disabled.
I am physically disabled - I have a bad case of psoriatic arthritis. But
that is not he cause of my spelling and grammatical errors - that is simple
slackness on my part - I kind of figure I am dealing with are least semi
intelligent people who can see past such things to the core of what I am
trying to say. As to why I quote references - well at uni I was taught that
was good practice. And, as I am sure Dirk is aware, even if Androcles is
not, is untrue to say that I only regurgitate what others have said - on a
number of occasions I have posted my own thoughts on matters - ie IMHO
symmetry is one of the key 'things' in physics if not the key thing. In
fact I believe that eventually much deeper laws of nature will be found and
those laws WHEN VIEWED CORRECTLY will have startling symmetry. That is not
something I got from a book - that is something I firmly believe and figured
out for myself. However I based that view on what I have read in genuine
textbooks and peer reviewed papers. When Androcles makes statements like
'I don't know why the speed changes in a medium, and nor does anyone else.'
he is not demonstrating the ability to independently think - something I
believe he is incapable of - he is demonstrating the ability to believe what
he wants to believe rather than the facts. The fact being of course that
explanations of why light changes speed is well known - stating with
certainly such is not the case is the method of the shyster, con merchant or
crackpot.
Thanks
Bill
Androcles
"pholroyd" <phol...@REMOVEno-spam-allowed.com> wrote in message
Bilge forgot to add:
Or cave in to the fashionable idea that the speed of light is a universal
constant.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
All this bullshit about who likes who isn't going to change the way Nature
is, or the simple fact that Einstein can't 'do math'.
I really don't care if you don't like me, you aren't going to learn anything
from these flat-earth, moonlanding-fake, speed-of-light-is-constant fools.
Here's the proof that Einstein's math sucks.
For the argument that follows, refer to :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
are contradictory statements, and that is clear to the meanest intelligence.
Einstein defines x' = x-vt.
Einstein takes x' to be infinitessimally small.
The Lorentz transforms, as given in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies", are
tau = (t-vx/c^2) /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
eta = y,
zeta = z.
Any child learning algebra will agree that if
x' = x-vt
then
x = x' +vt,
When x' is infinitessimally small,
x' = 0+h as h tends to zero, hence,
x = h + vt, and v = dx/dt
If we substitute for x its value, then
xi = (h + vt-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= h/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= 0 in the limit of h tending to zero.
So, in time t, the displacement of x from the origin of the 'stationary'
frame is nearly nothing = 0, hence
v = 0 for all v, t > 0, and not dx/dt, a contradiction and proof.
Applying our value we have found for v,
tau = (t - 0.x/c2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= t.
Conclusion:
Einstein's version of the Lorentz transforms actually are:
xi = 0,
tau = t.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
If that goes over their heads, that's not my problem.
Androcles
Bill Hobba
> thank you bilge. feynman great man hobba posts look good. androcles
> sick in head. he nasty person.
Thanks you for the support. Feynman was a great man and you are doing
yourself a favor in reading him. I also highly recommend the Feynman
Lectures on Physics - I believe no better introductory physics text books
exist. Do not be put off by the fact that the students in the classes the
lectures were delivered to did not perform well on exams - that has nothing
to do with the content of those excellent lectures - I suspect it had to do
with how committed the audience was to physics. Evidently all who attended
those lectures were deeply impressed, and those that actually stuck it out
all report a good learning experience.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> IIRC, in that book, Feynman doesn't explain photons -- and states that if
> you think you understand, then you haven't understood what he's saying.
That is true, but of course as is usual for Greywolf he does not tell the
whole story. In explaining what he means by that statement Feynman says:
'Finally there is the possibility after I tell you something you just can't
believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes
down and you don't listen anymore. I am going to describe ho how nature
is - and if you don like it that is going to get in the way of your
understanding it. It is a problem that physicists have learnt to deal
with.'
After adding the context, the context deliberately avoided by Greywolf
because it does not suit his position, it is obvious what Feynman meant. He
meant it is against common sense. But of course 'common sense' has nothing
to do with science - only correspondence with experiment does. And if I had
more time I would quote more where Feynman explicitly states that is want he
meant - but of course I have better things to do with my time than copy text
verbatim - especially when it is so obvious what is going on.
greywolf42 wrote:
'One of the key points is that photons travel at different speeds, even
when, they are 'supposed to be' constant.'
Different theories are built on different assumptions. That a more complete
theory contains things at variance with less compete theories is quite
common eg classical mechanics has absolute time but SR does not.
greywolf42 wrote:
' He admits QED is simply a cookbook of procedures. Not a theory of
reality.'
I think it would be reasonable to demand even an out of context quote to
reply to that one. Of course once the full context is given just like the
statements made above it will be seen to be the rubbish it is.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> > Pretty close to spot on. Which begs the question of why you asked it eh
> > question in the first place. Was it jus to stir people up or did you
have
> > some other motive?
>
Abe
> Uh, it wasn't me, Bill.
Idiot Bill Hobba strikes again.
Sorry
Bill
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bill Hobba" <bill...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:4019c...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> pholroyd wrote:
> > thank you bilge. feynman great man hobba posts look good. androcles
> > sick in head. he nasty person.
>
> Thanks you for the support. Feynman was a great man and you are doing
> yourself a favor in reading him. I also highly recommend the Feynman
> Lectures on Physics - I believe no better introductory physics text books
> exist.
Couldn't agree more.
I have read the 3 volumes 3 times during the last 25
years - as a non-alcoholic nightcap in bed ;-)
... and I'm sure I will take a 4th reading sometime.
> Do not be put off by the fact that the students in the classes the
> lectures were delivered to did not perform well on exams - that has nothing
> to do with the content of those excellent lectures - I suspect it had to do
> with how committed the audience was to physics. Evidently all who attended
> those lectures were deeply impressed, and those that actually stuck it out
> all report a good learning experience.
They are absolutely brilliant.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
Cheers, and take care,
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:101ik49...@corp.supernews.com...
The above explanation is supported by the fact that the photon will regain
its speed c after it re-emerges from the medium. Why? Because the ether
outside the medium is less distorted.
Ken Seto
Oriel36
I see this guy Feynman write that Roemer had confidence in Newton's
gravitational laws ten years before Newton came up with them.Roemer's
method and insight had nothing to do with gravitation or Newton and so
whatever Feynman says is simply nonsense.
"I was thumbing through the small volume by Richard Feynman, entitled
"The Character of Physical Law", and in the pages on Newton's law of
gravity (pages 22-23) he mentions that observations of the moons of
jupiter
showed that they "were ahead of schedule when Jupiter was close to the
earth
and behind schedule when it was far away, a rather odd circumstance.
Mr.
Roemer [Olaus Roemer, 1644-1710, Danish astronomer], having confidence
in the
Law of Gravitation, came to the interesting conclusion that it takes
light
some time to travel from the moons of Jupiter to the earth, and what
we are
looking at when we see the moons is not how they are now but how they
were the time ago it took light to get here."
greywolf42
news:4019e...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > IIRC, in that book, Feynman doesn't explain photons -- and states that
> > if you think you understand, then you haven't understood what he's
> > saying.
>
> That is true, but of course as is usual for Greywolf he does not tell the
> whole story. In explaining what he means by that statement Feynman says:
>
> 'Finally there is the possibility after I tell you something you just
> can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little
screen
> comes down and you don't listen anymore. I am going to describe ho how
> nature is - and if you don like it that is going to get in the way of your
> understanding it. It is a problem that physicists have learnt to deal
> with.'
>
> After adding the context, the context deliberately avoided by Greywolf
> because it does not suit his position, it is obvious what Feynman meant.
> He meant it is against common sense. But of course 'common sense' has
> nothing to do with science - only correspondence with experiment does.
> And if I had more time I would quote more where Feynman explicitly
> states that is want he meant -
;)
> but of course I have better things to do with my time than copy
> text verbatim - especially when it is so obvious what is going on.
LOL!
> greywolf42 wrote:
> 'One of the key points is that photons travel at different speeds, even
> when, they are 'supposed to be' constant.'
>
> Different theories are built on different assumptions. That a more
> complete theory contains things at variance with less compete theories
> is quite common eg classical mechanics has absolute time but SR
> does not.
There is no absolute time in classical mechanics. Just like there are no
absolute spatial coordinate systems in classical mechanics.
> greywolf42 wrote:
> ' He admits QED is simply a cookbook of procedures. Not a theory of
> reality.'
>
> I think it would be reasonable to demand even an out of context quote to
> reply to that one. Of course once the full context is given just like the
> statements made above it will be seen to be the rubbish it is.
Bill, do you follow me around, just to argue? There was a point to the
question asked. Which was "why does (a photon) travel at different speeds
through different media?"
Tom's reply was to exhort Lucas to read a book. I felt that Tom's response
was both unnecessarily vague and patronising. Not to mention proseletyzing
(read the bible and learn the Truth!) So I attempted to provide a more
comprehensible answer, while pointing out that Tom's reference does not
actually answer the question that was asked.
You have now (in your usual violation of NG etiquette) 'invisibly' snipped
the entire set of answers, in order to quibble over the perceived slight to
QED.
Go troll elsewhere....
Bill Hobba
> Androcles wrote:
> 'Why do you write such atrocious, improperly punctuated English? Can you
not
> learn by example, or do you have a learning disability, Mr. "want learn
more
> about qed"? Just for starters, try using a capital letter at the start of
> sentence. I really do think your style is deliberate and fake.'
>
Bill Hobba wrote:
'Or maybe it is because I want to discuss physics, which you obviously do
not, as indicated by your concentration on my spelling and grammatical
errors Concentration on the form of what someone writes rather than the
content is strongly suggestive that the content is beyond the person in
question. I recall one time many years ago, my director came in laughing
his head off and invited me over to see the comments by his boss on a
computer security report he and I jointly wrote. It consisted of spelling
and grammar corrections and nothing about what was being proposed or said -
which of course meant he did not understand it and was not willing to admit
it. Ring any bells Androcles?
I goofed - I thought Androcles was referring to me but he was referring to
pholroyd. What a pitiful excuse for a human being Androcles is to have a go
at someone who is making the genuine effort to learn based entirely on the
form of their posts. It is one thing to have a go at me, I have a lot of
experience in dealing with wiseasses where I work, and ignorant ones like
Androcles are more of a joke than a challenge - but I have no idea whatever
about pholroyd's background except it is evident he actually wants to
learn. Not to reciprocate genuine interest with at least respect and
dignity is to demonstrate such a lack of understanding of how to relate to
others that I am surprised Androcles has survived this long without having
some sense knocked into him. Androcles, you have much to learn in more ways
than
one, much indeed.
BTW having studied martial arts I am against violence in all forms except
for
self defense - but people like Androcles sorely tempt me, sorely indeed.
Also sorry for the late response - we have had a power outage here for the
last 24 hours.
Slightly Sickened
Bill
Bill Hobba
> > > Imagine a millions of rays of light suddenly switched on and then they
> > > travel the same parallel distance though the same medium. Would all
the
> > > rays of light arrive at exactly the same time at the other end?
Dirk Van de moortel repleid:
> On the contrary I would say: the question is meaningful *because*
> they are distributed over a space-like region. For every pair of
> spacelike related events one can always find an inertial frame
> in which the events are simultaneous.
It is a meaningful question all right - it is just one that I would find
hard to answer - even with Toms reply. All that I can suggest is that for a
parallel slab of something - say glass - a light beam (of one frequency -
different frequencies - different speeds) that enters exits it in one
piece - which suggests to me it does. Non quantum mechanically it of course
would.
Thanks
Bill
Androcles
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:401b4...@news.iprimus.com.au...
I wrote :
"I don't know why the speed changes in a medium, and nor does
anyone else."
I followed that with a proposal that was snipped out of ignorance by someone
that is dishonest enough to quote me out of context.
This was followed by
"Wrong - read Feynamn - QED The Strange Theory of Light and
Matter. Just because you brain can not comprehend it do not
assume other can't."
which implies that the matter is completely resolved by 'Feynamn', and the
person making that claim is an extremely rude liar, because the matter is
not resolved at all. 'Feynamn' can only conjecture, as I did. 'Feynamn' does
not KNOW why the speed changes in a medium, and nor does anyone else.
Pholroyd jumped in with:
"that very good book i read last year. want learn more about qed.
you right feynman explain what happen make indx refraction. he
call it extra turning cause by scatter atoms. make lot sense."
To which I replied:
"Feynamn - never heard of her.
Just because 'feynman' has an explanation doesn't mean 'feynman'
knows any more than I do. I didn't claim to know about photons,
but I do claim to know that Bubba Hobba gets everything he thinks
he knows from the thinking of others, and does no thinking for
himself."
Which does not harm to pholroyd whatsoever, and attacks Hobba for making
unsubstantiated assertions, which I have come to expect from relativists.
Then I asked why pholroyd was writing so badly, because he does.
Apparently, and I was not aware of this, he has a physical disability.
Under that circumstance I'll withdraw my gripe, I was the one out of line.
In the meantime, Dinky van der mumble feeds his some sympathy does his usual
slanging, and pholroyd makes a personsal attack on me, with
"thank you dirk. androcles sick in head. if andorcles live one day inmy
body with physcal problems he probably shoot self. i not give up.
world bettr with no androcles. he like other prson who have hate for
self. make mean and nasty to all. i learng relatvity but i see
androcles not undrstand so he mean to people."
which isn't anything to do with him learning a damn thing, except
how to be cajoled and mollycoddled by the likes of you and mumble, and
certainly not a desire to learn physics, which you obviously do not. You are
as much a wiseass as any I have seen, a frigging know-it-all from books and
your highschool teacher that has never once analysed how light from a star
might behave, and you'll completely ignore any data you do not like if it
disagrees with your religion.
Any parrot can mouth off what he's read in a book, and the only thing I can
do for pholroyd is to give him some insight into other ways of thinking
besides you indoctrination. Apparently he doesn't want to know, and that's
fine, I'll leave him alone.
I am not particularly polite to people, I'm aware of that, but nor a I
deliberately rude unless they are first. I am blunt. If pholroyd chooses to
call me 'sick in the head' because I bitched about his atrocious writing
( which it is, that is fact, he could at least use a spell checker), then he
is being damned rude. You may have noticed that I made no retaliation, which
is vastly different to how I would handle you or Cesar Sirvent, whom I
expect to know better.
Now, Mr. Martial Arts, I have an answer to anyone that wishes to attack me
with violence, tempted as you may be. I too am physically disabled, but I
have two very good friends, Mr Smith and Mr Wesson. I can defend myself
too. Bring it on.
Androcles.
sal
>
> "sal" <beli...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.01.29....@nospam.com...
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:10:12 +1100, Bernardz wrote:
>> > Question.
>> >
>> > Imagine a millions of rays of light suddenly switched on and then they
>> > travel the same parallel distance though the same medium. Would all the
>> > rays of light arrive at exactly the same time at the other end?
>>
>> I'm sorry but you can't ask that. The rays are distributed over
>> a space-like region and so the question of whether they arrive
>> "simultaneously" is obviously meaningless.
> Huh?
> I don't see the connection, I thought is was a legitimate question.
It is a legitimate question for _you_, but only because you don't believe
in relativity.
Bernardz does, however. So, if he's going to ask if a bunch of spacelike
separated events are "simultaneous" he must first specify how he's
defining "simultaneous". Otherwise the answer is vacuously "yes, for
_somebody_, by definition of SR". It's like saying 0/0 = 3. Well, sure,
but it equals four, too. Since he didn't specify what he meant by
simultaneous, his question was effectively meaningless.
Dirk Van de moortel
"sal" <beli...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:pan.2004.02.01....@nospam.com...
But the question was not meaningless. Iit was obvious (well,
at least for me) that Bernardz meant simultaneous for both
the medium and for the lab frame in which the medium is
motionless. It was a perfectly meaningful question and Tom
Roberts gave the answer.
Don't you agree?
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:11:35 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
> >
> > "sal" <beli...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.01.29....@nospam.com...
> >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:10:12 +1100, Bernardz wrote:
> >> > Question.
> >> >
> >> > Imagine a millions of rays of light suddenly switched on and then
they
> >> > travel the same parallel distance though the same medium. Would all
the
> >> > rays of light arrive at exactly the same time at the other end?
> >>
> >> I'm sorry but you can't ask that. The rays are distributed over
> >> a space-like region and so the question of whether they arrive
> >> "simultaneously" is obviously meaningless.
>
> > Huh?
> > I don't see the connection, I thought is was a legitimate question.
>
> It is a legitimate question for _you_, but only because you don't believe
> in relativity.
>
> Bernardz does, however.
Perhaps Bernardz is not so certain anymore and is asking pertinent questions
to explore physics instead of religion?
> So, if he's going to ask if a bunch of spacelike
> separated events are "simultaneous" he must first specify how he's
> defining "simultaneous".
I don't think the Androclean clock, a technological advance that will
contribute to the cause of theoretical physics by eliminating previously
vague definitions of simultaneity, actually denies SR, does it? My clock
perfectly synchronizes remote events at the coordinates (x,t,z,t) and (xi,
eta,zeta, tau), does it not? The t and tau counters are adjacent.
It is of course an SR clock, it would fail if Newtonian Mechanics were
applied, the signals would travel at c+v and c-u instead of c.
> Otherwise the answer is vacuously "yes, for
> _somebody_, by definition of SR". It's like saying 0/0 = 3. Well, sure,
> but it equals four, too.
Division by zero is undefined, but multiplication by zero is well-defined.
For all x (x belongs to R), x = 1/0.
x*0 = 0.
Hence 0/0 = 0. :-)
> Since he didn't specify what he meant by
> simultaneous, his question was effectively meaningless.
He didn't, true, so I supplied a meaning and answered him. :-)
Androcles
sal
> I don't think the Androclean clock, a technological advance that will
> contribute to the cause of theoretical physics by eliminating previously
> vague definitions of simultaneity, actually denies SR, does it?
Well, as a matter of fact...
As long as the counter and the display are stopped relative to each other
(ignoring such trivia as the motion of the pendulum, if it has one) then
it's not an issue. But it also doesn't really address Bernardz's question
in that case, because it's exactly the issue of moving observers that
Bernardz disregarded.
Alternatively, if you allow the counter and the display to be in relative
motion, then you definitely run into a problem with SR. Applying the
Lorentz transforms to the two pieces of the clock you find that your
readings are being scrambled both by time dilation and by clock skew over
distance, and if you're trying to run a distributed computer network using
the clock then you have a serious issue to overcome (or you need to be
sure the universe you're in doesn't implement Einsteinian
relativity -- see the "system requirements" section in the Androclean
Clock Installation Guide for more information).
> My clock
> perfectly synchronizes remote events at the coordinates (x,t,z,t) and (xi,
> eta,zeta, tau), does it not? The t and tau counters are adjacent.
> It is of course an SR clock, it would fail if Newtonian Mechanics were
> applied, the signals would travel at c+v and c-u instead of c.
If my old eyes are not deceiving me this is the argument against
Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform, dredged up again and given
a fresh suit of clothes. We've been around the block a few times on
that already, and unless you ask nicely I'm not going to touch it again.
>> Otherwise the answer is vacuously "yes, for
>> _somebody_, by definition of SR". It's like saying 0/0 = 3. Well,
>> sure, but it equals four, too.
>
> Division by zero is undefined, but multiplication by zero is
> well-defined. For all x (x belongs to R), x = 1/0. x*0 = 0. Hence 0/0 =
> 0. :-)
My point exactly.
>> Since he didn't specify what he meant by
>> simultaneous, his question was effectively meaningless.
>
> He didn't, true, so I supplied a meaning and answered him. :-) Androcles
Doing his homework for him is liable to weaken his moral fiber.
sal
>
> "sal" <beli...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> Right ... but then, how did they measure the refractive index? Beats
> me... :-)
>
> Dunno. Maybe it becomes transparent when glowing :-)
I don't think so. I'm pretty sure incandescent materials absorb at the
same frequencies they're radiating at.
For an interesting experiment along these lines, put two lit candles next
to each other, with a light-colored surface off to one side of them. You
can actually see a shadow cast by the _flame_ of the candle nearer to the
screen. (Oh, well, I thought it was an "interesting" experiment, anyway.)
>> Right -- and a piece of glass dropped into a tank of carbon
>> tetrachloride will apparently vanish (or so I've read -- I don't have a
>> tank of carbon tet around to try it with).
>
> It's quite cheap and useful as a solvent for cleaning clothes. ('dry'
> cleaning).
Not on this side of the Atlantic! It's pretty nasty stuff if you
breath the vapors, and it was pulled off the market as a "cleaning fluid"
a couple decades back. It used to be used in fire extinguishers, too, but
it turns to something extremely toxic (don't recall what) in the presence
of high heat, so that wasn't such a good idea and it's not used for that
anymore, either.
Nowadays dry cleaners use a simpler petroleum distillate (naphtha, I
think, which consists entirely or mostly of straight chains something like
unadulterated gasoline) or they use liquid carbon dioxide which is
harmless unless you live too close to sea level.
>>... airplane cockpit windshields are (at
>> least sometimes) coated with metallic gold. The layer is thin enough
>> so the pilots can see through it.
>
> Yep. And the window of a Boeing 747 is a lens. CAE in Montreal were
> building a 747 simulator for KLM. My company was supplying the visual
> display and the specification is fairly rigid, it has to pass FAA
> standards. The installation crew placed a theodolite at the pilot's eye
> point (removed the seat) and put a test pattern on the screen (seen
> through a half-silvered mirror and an enormous shaving mirror, so the
> simulated runway appeared life size), expecting to tweak pincushion,
> horizontal and vertical offsets and gains, routine stuff. But no matter
> what they did, they couldn't get a sharp focus. After changing the
> monitor and still not succeeding a week later, they called me in. CAE
> build a pressured simulator, going that extra yard, so instead of using
> a thin perspex as in non-pressurised simulators, this one has two inch
> thick real aircraft windows. No focus possible, its a lens.
Two inches thick?? Wow, I'll say it's a lens.
If I recall correctly, if it has plane-parallel surfaces then it's also a
lens with rather bad spherical aberration (focuses light like a spherical
lens would, rather than like a parabolic lens would). Probably has
some wicked chromatic aberration, too. I'm surprised the pilots don't
complain about the blurred view off-axis (but I guess there isn't much
choice, after all).
> That meant a
> compromise was needed, a decision at the highest level of management,
> and agreement with the FAA as well. So having identified the problem
> within 30 minutes of walking in the place, another three days were
> wasted proving I was right and three weeks were wasted as I twiddled my
> thumbs and kept nearby, waiting for a decision from the top. One month
> lost for me, the installation crew and the co-pilot from KLM that was
> there to accept the system and oversee the testing. We spent quite some
> time together, thumb twiddling. Nice guy, but I lost touch with him
> afterwards. As you can probably imagine, the decision to do nothing was
> taken and I went home. We had gone ahead and ran the tests anyway, it
> took less than a day.
Well, after all, the pilots in the real planes have to look through that
windshield, so they're seeing a slightly blurred view. So, if the
simulator was to be accurate, it should present the trainees with a
blurred view, too. Right? :-)
[snip parts for which I had no reply]
Androcles
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:15:41 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
> > I don't think the Androclean clock, a technological advance that will
> > contribute to the cause of theoretical physics by eliminating previously
> > vague definitions of simultaneity, actually denies SR, does it?
>
> Well, as a matter of fact...
>
> As long as the counter and the display are stopped relative to each other
You are confusing the counter and display with the counter and the
oscillator.
The pendulum of the grandfather clock is in the USA, the wooden case and
gear mechanism are in Great Britain.
The pendulum is connected to the gears via satellite and telephone.
Each swing of the pendulum sends a click over the phone line as it taps
against (collides with) your cell phone, and a solenoid driven by an
amplifier that is connected to the phone pushs the escapement. All I ask is
that you keep the pendulum swinging and your phone charges escalating.
> (ignoring such trivia as the motion of the pendulum, if it has one) then
> it's not an issue. But it also doesn't really address Bernardz's question
> in that case, because it's exactly the issue of moving observers that
> Bernardz disregarded.
I can move my grandfather clock, no problem. It no longer has a pendulum, it
is perfect. I can mount it in my car upside down and take it for ride, put
it on a ship, cross the Atlantic with it. Harrison didn't think of radio.
There will be some doppler shift, but that isn't a problem I cannot overcome
with triangulation.
> Alternatively, if you allow the counter and the display to be in relative
> motion, then you definitely run into a problem with SR.
I'm not moving the display, I'm moving the counter and display together.
The pendulum gets left behind.
> Applying the
> Lorentz transforms to the two pieces of the clock you find that your
> readings are being scrambled both by time dilation and by clock skew over
> distance, and if you're trying to run a distributed computer network using
> the clock then you have a serious issue to overcome (or you need to be
> sure the universe you're in doesn't implement Einsteinian
> relativity -- see the "system requirements" section in the Androclean
> Clock Installation Guide for more information).
Nothing that a little engineering cannot over come. Anyway, it is designed
to measure time dilation. It is an SR clock. It won't work if the velocity
of light is c+v. See the "SR system requirements" section in the Androclean
Clock Installation Guide for more information, not the "NM system
requirements".
>
> > My clock
> > perfectly synchronizes remote events at the coordinates (x,t,z,t) and
(xi,
> > eta,zeta, tau), does it not? The t and tau counters are adjacent.
> > It is of course an SR clock, it would fail if Newtonian Mechanics were
> > applied, the signals would travel at c+v and c-u instead of c.
>
> If my old eyes are not deceiving me this is the argument against
> Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform, dredged up again and given
> a fresh suit of clothes. We've been around the block a few times on
> that already, and unless you ask nicely I'm not going to touch it again.
Not that far advanced, I'm afraid. This clock is specifically designed to
update the 1905 method of synchronizing two clocks to the 2004 method. All
one does is reset the counters. It is a theoretical clock designed for the
SR system, but quite practical as well.
>
> >> Otherwise the answer is vacuously "yes, for
> >> _somebody_, by definition of SR". It's like saying 0/0 = 3. Well,
> >> sure, but it equals four, too.
> >
> > Division by zero is undefined, but multiplication by zero is
> > well-defined. For all x (x belongs to R), x = 1/0. x*0 = 0. Hence 0/0 =
> > 0. :-)
>
> My point exactly.
>
Then I must have missed what the point was, sorry.
I thought you were saying 3 = 4. :-)
>
> >> Since he didn't specify what he meant by
> >> simultaneous, his question was effectively meaningless.
> >
> > He didn't, true, so I supplied a meaning and answered him. :-) Androcles
>
> Doing his homework for him is liable to weaken his moral fiber.
Hopefully I was giving him some homework to do with something new to
learn...
Androcles
Androcles
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:16:55 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
> >
> > "sal" <beli...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> Right ... but then, how did they measure the refractive index? Beats
> > me... :-)
> >
> > Dunno. Maybe it becomes transparent when glowing :-)
>
> I don't think so. I'm pretty sure incandescent materials absorb at the
> same frequencies they're radiating at.
The last time I checked, tungsten had a full spectrum, I saw no absorption
lines. You know, point the spectrometer at the street lights, see the
mercury lines, the other street lights and see the double yellow of sodium,
then the fluorescent in the kitchen and of course the good old tungsten
filament. Then you really get crazy with the new toy and start heating
different metals in a flame, and the sodium keeps popping up.
It's been a long time since I did that, I could be wrong.
> For an interesting experiment along these lines, put two lit candles next
> to each other, with a light-colored surface off to one side of them. You
> can actually see a shadow cast by the _flame_ of the candle nearer to the
> screen. (Oh, well, I thought it was an "interesting" experiment, anyway.)
Darn, I'm fresh out of candles.
I'll get some tomorrow and show my grandson. Thanks, sal, good idea.
Hey! I just tried it which two old cigarette lighters, didn't work!
I guess it has to be candles, huh?
>
> >> Right -- and a piece of glass dropped into a tank of carbon
> >> tetrachloride will apparently vanish (or so I've read -- I don't have a
> >> tank of carbon tet around to try it with).
> >
> > It's quite cheap and useful as a solvent for cleaning clothes. ('dry'
> > cleaning).
>
> Not on this side of the Atlantic! It's pretty nasty stuff if you
> breath the vapors, and it was pulled off the market as a "cleaning fluid"
> a couple decades back. It used to be used in fire extinguishers, too, but
> it turns to something extremely toxic (don't recall what) in the presence
> of high heat, so that wasn't such a good idea and it's not used for that
> anymore, either.
Hmm... when I was kid I used to mix it with water and paraffin
(kerosine to you), we used it for heat, shake it all up and watch
the three liquids separate.
Great fun! Didn't know it was toxic though.
>
> Nowadays dry cleaners use a simpler petroleum distillate (naphtha, I
> think, which consists entirely or mostly of straight chains something like
> unadulterated gasoline) or they use liquid carbon dioxide which is
> harmless unless you live too close to sea level.
>
>
> >>... airplane cockpit windshields are (at
> >> least sometimes) coated with metallic gold. The layer is thin enough
> >> so the pilots can see through it.
> >
> > Yep. And the window of a Boeing 747 is a lens. CAE in Montreal were
> > building a 747 simulator for KLM. My company was supplying the visual
> > display and the specification is fairly rigid, it has to pass FAA
> > standards. The installation crew placed a theodolite at the pilot's eye
> > point (removed the seat) and put a test pattern on the screen (seen
> > through a half-silvered mirror and an enormous shaving mirror, so the
> > simulated runway appeared life size), expecting to tweak pincushion,
> > horizontal and vertical offsets and gains, routine stuff. But no matter
> > what they did, they couldn't get a sharp focus. After changing the
> > monitor and still not succeeding a week later, they called me in. CAE
> > build a pressured simulator, going that extra yard, so instead of using
> > a thin perspex as in non-pressurised simulators, this one has two inch
> > thick real aircraft windows. No focus possible, its a lens.
>
> Two inches thick?? Wow, I'll say it's a lens.
Bird strike is another consideration.
>
> If I recall correctly, if it has plane-parallel surfaces then it's also a
> lens with rather bad spherical aberration (focuses light like a spherical
> lens would, rather than like a parabolic lens would). Probably has
> some wicked chromatic aberration, too. I'm surprised the pilots don't
> complain about the blurred view off-axis (but I guess there isn't much
> choice, after all).
You don't really notice it until you pear through it with a telescope
or theodolite. In reality, pilots seldom look through the window anyway.
Just a quick glance that there is no ground fog or obvious obstruction,
then it's eyes back to the instrument panel for the touchdown.
The autopilot trips out with weight on wheels, the pilot takes over with air
brakes and reverse thrust, slows on the runway and taxiways are next.
> > That meant a
> > compromise was needed, a decision at the highest level of management,
> > and agreement with the FAA as well. So having identified the problem
> > within 30 minutes of walking in the place, another three days were
> > wasted proving I was right and three weeks were wasted as I twiddled my
> > thumbs and kept nearby, waiting for a decision from the top. One month
> > lost for me, the installation crew and the co-pilot from KLM that was
> > there to accept the system and oversee the testing. We spent quite some
> > time together, thumb twiddling. Nice guy, but I lost touch with him
> > afterwards. As you can probably imagine, the decision to do nothing was
> > taken and I went home. We had gone ahead and ran the tests anyway, it
> > took less than a day.
>
> Well, after all, the pilots in the real planes have to look through that
> windshield, so they're seeing a slightly blurred view. So, if the
> simulator was to be accurate, it should present the trainees with a
> blurred view, too. Right? :-)
As I said, you don't notice it without the theodolite.
Androcles
sal
>
> "sal" <beli...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> For an interesting experiment along these lines, put two lit candles next
>> to each other, with a light-colored surface off to one side of them. You
>> can actually see a shadow cast by the _flame_ of the candle nearer to the
>> screen. (Oh, well, I thought it was an "interesting" experiment, anyway.)
>
> Darn, I'm fresh out of candles.
> I'll get some tomorrow and show my grandson. Thanks, sal, good idea.
> Hey! I just tried it which two old cigarette lighters, didn't work!
> I guess it has to be candles, huh?
Er ... I don't see why it would make a difference. A flame's a flame;
they both burn evaporated petroleum distillates (unless you use bee's wax
candles or something odd like that).
I've got a reasonably clear memory of seeing a shadow of a candle flame...
but current reality trumps old memories every time. If it doesn't work,
then I'm wrong.
I'll try it again this evening and see if I'm totally deluded.
Bernardz
dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com says...
Thanks! Tom Roberts explanation makes sense for (a) & (C) but I don't
really see what he is getting at with (b).
--
More quantity is easier to produce then higher quality.
39th observation of Bernard
Androcles
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:11:52 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>
> >
> > "sal" <beli...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> >> For an interesting experiment along these lines, put two lit candles
next
> >> to each other, with a light-colored surface off to one side of them.
You
> >> can actually see a shadow cast by the _flame_ of the candle nearer to
the
> >> screen. (Oh, well, I thought it was an "interesting" experiment,
anyway.)
> >
> > Darn, I'm fresh out of candles.
> > I'll get some tomorrow and show my grandson. Thanks, sal, good idea.
> > Hey! I just tried it which two old cigarette lighters, didn't work!
> > I guess it has to be candles, huh?
>
> Er ... I don't see why it would make a difference. A flame's a flame;
> they both burn evaporated petroleum distillates (unless you use bee's wax
> candles or something odd like that).
I would have thought so too. Have you actually tried it yourself, or was it
something
you heard, like the Great Wall of China that is visible from space but
isn't?
My eyes are not all that good, but I did see some reflection fom the silvery
top of the lighter faintly glowing on the wall, and the shadow of the body
of the lighter. No sign of a flame shadow, though. Perhaps its like time
dilation, something you heard about?
>
> I've got a reasonably clear memory of seeing a shadow of a candle flame...
> but current reality trumps old memories every time. If it doesn't work,
> then I'm wrong.
>
> I'll try it again this evening and see if I'm totally deluded.
Memory can play some funny tricks. When I was six years old we moved into a
new house. It was shortly after WWII and we had previously been living in a
prefabricated shack, Britain had a housing shortage following the bombing
and new houses were going up as fast as they could.
Being a kid, I was excited and ran around inspecting everything. Under the
kitchen sink on the water trap was a centipede, the first I had ever seen,
which ran down the pipe and vanished through a crack. I ran to my mother,
somewhat frightened at this strange apparition.
I have to tell you that to this day, the memory I have of that centipede is
that it was 18 inches long with a segmented body 1 inch thick. I can only
conjecture that I dreamt of it that night, woke from the nightmare, and the
memory of the dream is stronger than the memory of the real thing. I
certainly did not go into the sink cabinet again.
Another was of a building in Canterbury. I had returned to Britain in 1984
taking my American wife (now divorced) and showed her the Cathedral, and we
had lunch in Pizza Hut, a restaurant familiar to her but new to Britain.
Also in Canterbury at the time some new construction was planned, the old
buildings had been razed and a team of archaeologists were in the pit,
Canterbury is OLD. Seven years later, somehow this connection was made in my
mind and I imagined the Pizza Hut was of the American
stand-alone-in-big-parking-lot red roofed style, the construction completed.
When I returned to Canterbury I was actually quite pleased that my own vague
memory was at fault and the architectural style of the old place had not
actually changed as drastically as I had imagined.
Once again I can only conjecture that this was the result of a dream,
because we certainly hadn't eaten at the bottom of an archaeological dig.
This leads me to the conjecture that some of what we perceive as reality is
actually the memory of dreams that closely resemble reality, results in the
exclamation "I could have sworn..." and that all people, to a greater or
lesser extent, have quite real memories of events that are dreamt rather
than observed.
I've never taken drugs in my life, but I can imagine how horrendous it must
be for those that do when they hallucinate and cannot tell reality from
dream. Scary thought, my own dreams are vivid enough.
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bernardz" <Berna...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1a8918ca2466940a9898ab@news...
I had never heard the term "on mass shell" before and I had to
use google to find out.
Try keywords
photons "mass shell"
or better, ask Tom...
Good luck :-)
Dirk Vdm
Gauge
> I am not particularly polite to people, I'm aware of that, but nor a I
> deliberately rude unless they are first.
That's a lie. You started swearing at me and insulting me when you
couldn't force your opinions on me and I was never rude to you before
that.
> Now, Mr. Martial Arts, I have an answer to anyone that wishes to attack me
> with violence, tempted as you may be.
That wasn't what Bill said. He said that people like you make him want
to. He didnt' say people like you will make him actually carry out a
violent act. People like us have something we call "restraint" in that
we have the ability to be pissed off and yet not attack someone. Is
this something new to you?
> I too am physically disabled, but I
> have two very good friends, Mr Smith and Mr Wesson. I can defend myself
> too. Bring it on.
That is highly impractical. First off Bill is not someone who will
attack someone in that manner. In the second place if someone were to
do that in this context it would be you being in their presence and
provking them into it. Do you have a tendancy to carry a gun with you
at all times and point it at the person you're insulting?
Any use of a gun in that manner will end you up in the gas chamber if
you can't prove that your life is in danger. And all this swearing you
do here is a permanent record of you being the antagonizer.
Do you usually shoot people who want to smack you upside the head when
you're swearing at them?
Pmb
"Gauge" <gau...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7203033.04021...@posting.google.com...
Not to mention that if someone knows martial arts well then it'd be over
before you knew it. If the person is at a distance where he can't touch you
and that is when you shoot him then you go away for murder. If the person is
close to you and for some strange unknown reason you have your gun out then
that is mostly useless too. An expert in martial arts is trained in that.
For the most part you'd never stand a chance and even if you did then you'd
have to convince a jury that he was going to kill you. Otherwise it;s off
the prison for androcles - or the gas chamber depending on where you live
and how pissed off the prosecution/jury gets at you for provoking it.
Androcles
>
> > I am not particularly polite to people, I'm aware of that, but nor a I
> > deliberately rude unless they are first.
>
> That's a lie. You started swearing at me and insulting me when you
> couldn't force your opinions on me and I was never rude to you before
> that.
>
> > Now, Mr. Martial Arts, I have an answer to anyone that wishes to attack
me
> > with violence, tempted as you may be.
>
> That wasn't what Bill said. He said that people like you make him want
> to.
saying he wants to? Sematics, perhaps?
> He didnt' say people like you will make him actually carry out a
> violent act.
I didn't actually say I would shoot him if he tried, and I'm not actually
saying I would shoot you if you tried, either. If you can find where I did,
cite it.
> People like us have something we call "restraint" in that
> we have the ability to be pissed off and yet not attack someone.
Then use restraint in your words as well.
> Is
> this something new to you?
To have someone hint that I might be threatened with violence for exposing
the fraud pholroyd? Yes, I suppose it is.
>
> > I too am physically disabled, but I
> > have two very good friends, Mr Smith and Mr Wesson. I can defend myself
> > too. Bring it on.
>
> That is highly impractical. First off Bill is not someone who will
> attack someone in that manner.
Nothing is ever done unless it is first thought of. Bill has betrayed his
temptation to do so.
> In the second place if someone were to
> do that in this context it would be you being in their presence and
> provking them into it.
I made no provocation of Bill, my remarks were addressed to pholroyd.
Once I came under Bill's verbal attack on me, I retaliated.
> Do you have a tendancy to carry a gun with you
> at all times and point it at the person you're insulting?
I was not insulting Bill. I wasn't even insulting pholroyd. Bill stuck his
nose in, as you are doing. But then, this is an open forum, you can say as
you please and I'll defend your right to say it. I will not defend your
right to attack me or anyone else physically, though. I also reserve my
right to reply, and should I ever be unfortunate enough to be in the
presence of Slightly Sick Bill the Impulsive, I'll be prepared. He may get
sicker and is dangerous.
>
> Any use of a gun in that manner will end you up in the gas chamber if
> you can't prove that your life is in danger.
Any attack by a self-confessed martial arts practitioner is adequate proof
that harm to me is premeditated, and I will have adequate proof of
self-defence.
> And all this swearing you
> do here is a permanent record of you being the antagonizer.
If anglo-saxon words offend you, then good. I happen to be of anglo-saxon
origin and reserve the right to use whatever words from my language I
choose. Your words offend me.
Even with this post you are the antagonizer. I wrote nothing to you on this
subject, so fuck off, cunt.
> Do you usually shoot people who want to smack you upside the head when
> you're swearing at them?
Oh... another one that sees violence as a solution. Ok, I'll be prepared for
you, too. Thanks for the warning.
Androcles
Gauge
> "Gauge" <gau...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e7203033.04021...@posting.google.com...
> > "Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > I am not particularly polite to people, I'm aware of that, but nor a I
> > > deliberately rude unless they are first.
> >
> > That's a lie. You started swearing at me and insulting me when you
> > couldn't force your opinions on me and I was never rude to you before
> > that.
> Ok, quote the post.
> >
> > > Now, Mr. Martial Arts, I have an answer to anyone that wishes to attack
> me
> > > with violence, tempted as you may be.
> >
> > That wasn't what Bill said. He said that people like you make him want
> > to.
> What's the difference in my referring to his 'wish' and 'temptation' and you
> saying he wants to? Sematics, perhaps?
What is real. The other is not. I wanted to smack by drill instuctor
in boot camp - but that was something that would never happen. I guess
you don't know the difference between these two things.
>
> > He didnt' say people like you will make him actually carry out a
> > violent act.
> I didn't actually say I would shoot him if he tried, and I'm not actually
> saying I would shoot you if you tried, either. If you can find where I did,
> cite it.
So you told us about your gus because you wanted to tell us you had
pretty shiney things?
[snipped childish bilge-type flames]
Yes. You've sunk as low as to be compared to bilge.
Androcles
You are good at guessing, not quite so good at deductive reasoning.
> >
> > > He didnt' say people like you will make him actually carry out a
> > > violent act.
> > I didn't actually say I would shoot him if he tried, and I'm not
actually
> > saying I would shoot you if you tried, either. If you can find where I
did,
> > cite it.
**
> So you told us about your gus because you wanted to tell us you had
> pretty shiney things?
>
> [snipped childish bilge-type flames]
>
> Yes. You've sunk as low as to be compared to bilge.
** Leaving childish unsnipped childish gauge-type flames for all to see.
Androcles
Gauge
> Ok, quote the post.
That was too long ago to go searching through all these posts. Are you
denying it?
> What's the difference in my referring to his 'wish' and 'temptation' and you
> saying he wants to? Sematics, perhaps?
Let me back off on that a bit. I was in your place not all that long
ago. There's a flamer who posts as 'bruce pew' who posted a message at
another forum. I.e. this lowlife whined/flamed at
http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/forum/printmsg.cgi?msg=51125
---------------------------------------
Normally I wouldn't stupe to such fudgepacking petey pariah tactics
but since I can't kick your fucking ass I guess it will have to
do...for now.
---------------------------------------
I took that as a direct threat from the lowlife pew and it pissed me
off big time. I guess I was in your shoes at that point. So I guess
its all in how one interprets the comments of others. Since I was not
on the receiving end of Bill's post I guess I interpreted it
differently.
Let's leave it at that.
Androcles
> "Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Ok, quote the post.
>
> That was too long ago to go searching through all these posts. Are you
> denying it?
I'll apologise. If not, I expect you to.
>
> > What's the difference in my referring to his 'wish' and 'temptation' and
you
> > saying he wants to? Sematics, perhaps?
>
> Let me back off on that a bit.
Good idea.
> I was in your place not all that long
> ago. There's a flamer who posts as 'bruce pew' who posted a message at
> another forum. I.e. this lowlife whined/flamed at
> http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/forum/printmsg.cgi?msg=51125
> ---------------------------------------
> Normally I wouldn't stupe to such fudgepacking petey pariah tactics
> but since I can't kick your fucking ass I guess it will have to
> do...for now.
> ---------------------------------------
Nothing to do with me and therefore irrelevant. I use the English word
'arse'. An ass is a donkey or mule.
Flaming is not my objective, education is. When flamed, I bite back,
demonstrating that I can use language more extreme than the flamer. Then, if
I have no use for the moron, I killfile. If I have a use, I may watch his
posts.
Do you have any idea how many times I've carefully and not impolitely
explained the illogicality of relativity, only to have it snipped, ignored,
and be called stupid, I should read some text book by some tail wagging the
dog? Yet I still try to educate.
> I took that as a direct threat from the lowlife pew and it pissed me
> off big time. I guess I was in your shoes at that point. So I guess
> its all in how one interprets the comments of others. Since I was not
> on the receiving end of Bill's post I guess I interpreted it
> differently.
>
> Let's leave it at that.
No, let's not leave it at that. Let's have it out, man to man.
You are spreading the nonsense of relativity, yet you are not totally
stupid.
You present your page with your 'light-clock' and I have pointed out that it
fails. Now, argue you case logically and without flaming.
I don't ask you to be polite, but I do expect you to be not impolite.
If you are impolite, expect the same from me. Anyone that flames me is doing
so out of frustration that I do not accept their point of view. I respond
with words that are quite coldly calculated to offend the flamer, without
any emotion on my part. I'm so used to being called idiot or moron that it
is like water off a duck's back. I hope to find reasoned discourse, not
flames. I have come to expect flames.
Androcles
Bruce Pew
Zero dummy.
, only to have it snipped, ignored,
> and be called stupid,
[snipped, ignored, and stupid again].