Pentcho Valev's biggest misunderstanding

[Ed Lake]

I see Pentcho Valev endlessly ranting about "Einsteinians" being wrong. But, nearly every time he is not ranting about what Einstein or Einstein's followers say, he is ranting about what MATHEMATICIANS who DISAGREE with Einstein say. The problem is: the MATHEMATICIANS claim that what they are saying is what Einstein said. It isn't.

Einstein stated as his "Second Postulate" in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity that "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body."

It's near the bottom of the first page of his paper at this link: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf

Notice that he was only talking about the "EMITTING body," NOT about what any other observer might see or measure. He was saying that there is a natural speed limit for light, therefore the speed of the EMITTER cannot be added to the speed of light emitted.

MATHEMATICIANS immediately distorted what Einstein wrote and have preached something totally different for the past 112 years. Examples:

"Second postulate: The speed of light is a constant and will be the same for ALL OBSERVERS independent of their motion relative to the light source.”

Source: Michael A. Seeds, Dana Backman, Foundations of Astronomy, Enhanced, Brooks Cole; 11th edition, page 91 (2011)

“The unusual properties of the velocity of light are: It is a constant for ALL OBSERVERS, irrespective of how they are moving. It is a universal speed limit, which no material object can exceed. It is independent of the velocity of its source and that of the observer.”

Source: Boden, M,: Primer of Relativity: A Student’s Introduction, Tafford Publishing; Student Edition (November 8, 2006

"The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value, c = 2.997,924,58 x 108 m/s, in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.

Source: Raymond A. Serway, Chris Vuille, College Physics – Ninth Edition, page 888, Brooks/Cole (2012)

The MATHEMATICIAN's "ALL OBSERVERS" theory is WRONG. It is RIDICULOUS. It has been PROVEN WRONG countless times. Yet, it is still being taught in colleges and universities all around the world!

When a moving object emits light, the light cannot exceed c, regardless of how fast the EMITTER is moving, because c is the maximum speed of light.

When I am moving at high speed toward an object and view light coming at me from that object, I CAN and WILL measure the light as arriving at c + v, where v is my velocity. My velocity does not change the speed at which the light moves. It's just MATHEMATICS. The light moves at c and I move at v and therefore I measure the light as arriving at my location at c + v. It's COMMON SENSE, but the mathematicians will argue that it is wrong. Why? Evidently because the math works better their way.

Ed

[Dono,]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:50:46 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> When I am moving at high speed toward an object and view light coming at me from that object, I CAN and WILL measure the light as arriving at c + v, where v is my velocity. My velocity does not change the speed at which the light moves. It's just MATHEMATICS. The light moves at c and I move at v and therefore I measure the light as arriving at my location at c + v. It's COMMON SENSE, but the mathematicians will argue that it is wrong. Why? Evidently because the math works better their way.
>
> Ed

"c+v" is the CLOSING speed by which "Joe" and the light beam cover the distance between them, it is not the speed of light.

[Ed Lake]

Agreed. Isn't that what I said? Isn't it in disagreement with the Mathematician's "All observers" nonsense?

Ed

[Dono,]

No. this is not what you said. You don't even understand what you are saying.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Lake Excreted

<snip excretion>

Stupid Ed, learn Physics!!!!!

Yer a dunce !!!!!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/imgqua/Compton.gif

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/compton.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod2.html

https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/-space-time-as-a-frictionless-superfluid

[John Heath]

End of quote.

Consistency of the speed of light does not come from Einstein or mathematicians.
Measurements made says the speed of light is constant to the observer regardless of their relative velocity to the source of the light. It as been measure by the best minds in physics and it is always c not c + v. There is no getting around a measurement made so the best course is a nice bottle of rum then take the bitter pill. And it is not the end of the world as there is still local aether entrainment ,, maybe ??

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 18.08.2017 17.50, skrev Ed Lake:
>
> When I am moving at high speed toward an object and view light coming at me from that object, I CAN and WILL measure the light as arriving at c + v, where v is my velocity. My velocity does not change the speed at which the light moves. It's just MATHEMATICS. The light moves at c and I move at v and therefore I measure the light as arriving at my location at c + v. It's COMMON SENSE, but the mathematicians will argue that it is wrong. Why? Evidently because the math works better their way.
>
> Ed
>

A and B are moving towards each other.
A is emitting a light pulse and B is measuring
the speed of the light that reaches her.

You are claiming that B will measure different speed
if:
B is stationary and A is moving towards B,
and:
A is stationary and B is moving towards A.

Please explain the physical difference between:
A is moving and B is stationary
and:
B is moving and A is stationary.

How can we determine who is stationary and who is moving?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Lake Excreted

<snip excretion>

"I'm with Stupid" by Static-X

https://youtube.com/watch?v=nqiVvOXotyw

[Ed Lake]

And you, evidently, cannot explain anything. If it is not what I said, what is the difference between "closing speed" and the speed of oncoming light added to the speed of an observer moving toward the source of the light?

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Ah yes. More personal attacks and meaningless links. It once again shows that there is no way to have an intelligent conversation on this forum.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

THERE ARE NO SUCH EXPERIMENTS! If there are, why don't you cite them? The experiments mathematicians typically cite are experiments that DO NOT HAVE ANY OUTSIDE OBSERVERS, such as tests with pions (Alväger et al) and "ultrarelativistic electron bunches" (Aleksandrov et al). I cite them in my paper as not proving anything regarding Einstein's Second Postulate.

If you want a test to show that c + v is measured routinely, just look at the way a police radar gun works. It sends out radio wave pulses at regular intervals, say 1 per millisecond. The pulses travel at c to an oncoming car. The pulses arrive at the car at c + v, where v is the speed of the car. They are then re-emitted (bounced back) to the radar gun at c but at the higher pulse rate. The radar gun receives the returning signals and calculates the difference in pulse rate it transmitted and the pulse rate received back. The difference is v, the speed of the oncoming vehicle.

That wouldn't be possible if the pulses arrived at the car at c and not at c + v.

My paper lists many other, more formal experiments.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Thank you!!! That is the standard MATHEMATICIAN'S absurd argument, i.e, nothing is real. It is impossible to tell if a car crashed into a wall or if the wall crashed into the car. All movement is reciprocal. Yada yada yada.

It exists only in a FANTASY UNIVERSE where there are only two objects and no other frame of reference. So, no one can tell who is moving. WE DO NOT LIVE IN THAT FANTASY MATHEMATICAL UNIVERSE.

In our REAL universe, if A is a car and B is a wall, we know from the evidence and PHYSICS that the car moved and crashed into the wall. The wall and the rest of the universe did not move and crash into the car. There is no mechanism to make that happen.

Look out the window. See all those cars moving in different directions? If you think they are all stationary, and you are the one who is moving, please explain how they can appear to be all moving in different directions.

Yes, I am moving along with the earth as it spins on its axis, and with the earth as it orbits the sun, etc., so I am ALSO moving, but that in NO WAY means that we cannot tell if a car crashed into a wall or if the wall crashed into the car.

Ed

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Gee ... Yer Dumb

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

STUPID ED STUPID ED STUPID ED STUPID ED STUPID ED STUPID ED

Space Time as a Friction-less Super-fluid

(((6.666666666e-11 / 2) * (newtons / (meters^2))) / (3.7037037037037e-28 * (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = 300000000 m/s

(((6.666666666e-11 / 2) * pascals) / (3.7037037037037e-28 * (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = 300000000 m / s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_(physics)#Pulsation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjPFfT2EyxQ

https://goo.gl/photos/vsZhLb91da3gDrtHA

https://goo.gl/photos/4kKneRRmbW6fGGzM7

https://goo.gl/photos/GxpHZfAdP2fqUh1d6

https://goo.gl/photos/GbRqgZiya8M1991Z9

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1


3.7037037037037e-28 kg = 0.223042269781 AMU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter

To date, the critical density is estimated to be approximately five atoms (of monatomic hydrogen) per cubic meter, whereas the average density of ordinary matter in the Universe is believed to be 0.2–0.25 atoms per cubic meter

(0.22360679775^2) / (3e+8 * 3.3333333333333e-11) = 5

((3.7037037037e-28 m) / (1.666666666e-35 m)) / (3e+8 / 1822.5) = 135

((Friedman Length m) / (Planck Length)) / (speed of light / (Proton Electron Mass Ratio)) = Fine Structure Constant

(22.27154401726^4) / 1822.5 = 135

(Critical Density) / (Actual Density) = Ratio 22.27154401726

(22.27154401726^4) / (Proton Electron Mass Ratio) = Fine Structure Constant

((1836.15267389 * 137.035999)^0.25)) = 22.3967944855

(5 / ((1836.15267389 * 137.035999)^0.25)) * atomic mass unit = 0.223246233 atomic mass units

(((3.71295775e-28 m) / (1.616229e-35 m)) / (c / 1836.15)) / 137.03600 = 1.02676225 s / m

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

(5 atomic mass units) / ((1836.15 * 137.03600)^0.25) = 0.223246314 atomic mass units

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vC.pdf

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

https://goo.gl/photos/Chjw6BX8PuyqD4us7

https://goo.gl/photos/2mZ8mMyKr4FvVJFTA

Truncated Octahedral Tessellation

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 11:09:21 AM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:

Spam reported.
I invite other readers to do the same if they consider this spam.

[rotchm]

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

http://www.science4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Adding-Corrugations.png

http://www.science4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/longueur_tore_taille_reduite.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

https://westy31.home.xs4all.nl/Geometry/SpaceDivider.gif

https://westy31.home.xs4all.nl/Geometry/Gerard.gif

[Dono,]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:50:46 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
>

> When I am moving at high speed toward an object and view light coming at me from that object, I CAN and WILL measure the light as arriving at c + v,

Mo. you won't , stubborn imbecile. If you knew what you were doing (which you obviously don't), you would be measuring light moving at speed "c", not "c+v".

[Ed Lake]

Personal attacks just show you have no intelligent arguments. The same with mindlessly stating CLAIMS with no explanation for why your CLAIMS disprove countless experiments and undeniable facts.

Ed

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 11:39:53 AM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:

> http://www.science4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/longueur_tore_taille_reduite.jpg
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY
>
> https://westy31.home.xs4all.nl/Geometry/SpaceDivider.gif
>
> https://westy31.home.xs4all.nl/Geometry/Gerard.gif

Why dont you give an intro to what you are peddling?
Dont you know how to communicate or how to use a NG?
Just random links makes your stuff look like SPAM, didnt you know?

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 10:46:24 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:

You also change the argument. I stated that I will measure the light ARRIVING at c + v, and you argue that I will measure the light MOVING at c. Yes, the light MOVES at c, but it ARRIVES at c + v because I am ALSO MOVING toward the oncoming light.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

It seems they post random links without explanation because they are incapable of explaining anything. If you only memorize mathematical formulas and do not really understand anything, you cannot explain anything.

Ed

[Dono,]

Calling you an imbecile is not a personal attack, it is a statement of FACT.

[Dono,]

Still, what one would measure for the light speed is "c".

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

I did, but you morons Snipped out the explanation ...

if you had a Brain to read.

I am not going to waste my time Teaching you Lazy Bastards the Totality of Physics.

you are too Stupid to Understand .... Obviously

Space Time as a Friction-less Super-fluid

To date, the critical density is estimated to be approximately five atoms (of monatomic hydrogen) per cubic meter, whereas the average density of ordinary matter in the Universe is believed to be 0.2–0.25 atoms per cubic meter

https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/-space-time-as-a-frictionless-superfluid

[Ed Lake]

Yes, yes, yes, yes. The speed of light is c. No one disagrees with that. The disagreement is over what you would MEASURE if you were moving toward the source of the light. You would MEASURE light photons to be ARRIVING at c + v, where v is your velocity, even though the light photons are really only MOVING at c.

Why is that impossible for mathematicians to understand?

Ed

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Stupid Ed excreted

> Still, what one would measure for the light speed is "c".

Yes, yes, yes, yes. The speed of light is c. No one disagrees with that. The disagreement is over what you would MEASURE if you were moving toward the source of the light. You would MEASURE light photons to be ARRIVING at c + v, where v is your velocity, even though the light photons are really only MOVING at c.

Why is that impossible for mathematicians to understand?

Ed

Stupid Ed

E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

This says what ever is actually making/taking the measurement of the actual speed of light " IS MADE OF ENERGY"..
There is no other choice but to measure a (blue or red shifted energy) traveling at c.

Because the wave speed of the Medium of space time is c meters/second

[John Heath]

Let us slow things down a bit so that we can make reliable measurements. We will use sound not light.

The speed of sound is constant at 1000 feet per second to the observer regardless of the the relative movement of the source provided it is not a windy day and temperature is constant. I can use sound to detect the speed of an on coming car using the Doppler effect only with a constant speed of sound at 1000 feet per second. Why would the consistency of the speed of light have different laws of physics than the consistency of the speed of sound?

Police radar uses a Doppler change of a 4 GHz carrier not the speed of light to detect the speed of a car.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/radar.html

[Ed Lake]

So, we have another mathematical equation that doesn't represent reality. How many times has that happened in history? MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS DO NOT REPRESENT REALITY, they represent a mathematical MODEL of reality.

And spacetime is nonsense. It's just another mathematical model that doesn't represent reality.

In reality, when we move toward a source of light we measure the light ARRIVING a c + v, where v is our velocity. That has been confirmed countless times.

Another example: Pulsars along the plane of ecliptic emit pulses at a FIXED rate. When we move toward the pulsar in the spring, the pulse rate is MEASURED TO BE FASTER. When we move away from the pulsar in the fall, the pulse rate is MEASURE TO BE SLOWER. Mathematicians cannot cope with that, so they pretend it isn't happening and they measure the pulse rate of pulsars from the center of the sun. That makes things work for them, even though it doesn't represent reality.

Ed

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/18/17 8/18/17 10:50 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> I see Pentcho Valev endlessly ranting about "Einsteinians" being wrong. But,
> nearly every time he is not ranting about what Einstein or Einstein's
> followers say, he is ranting about what MATHEMATICIANS who DISAGREE with
> Einstein say. The problem is: the MATHEMATICIANS claim that what they are
> saying is what Einstein said. It isn't.

Like Valev, Lake is also very confused about basic physics. I won't address
Valev's many errors, and will only discuss what Lake says here.

Lake attempts to distinguish between Einstein and "mathematicians", using the
latter term as a pejorative in his personal lexicon. But it is really LAKE who
is wrong, not modern physicists (or mathematicians).

> Einstein stated as his "Second Postulate" in his 1905 paper on Special
> Relativity that "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
> velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body."

> Notice that he was only talking about the "EMITTING body," NOT about what any
> other observer might see or measure.

What part of "always propagated" do you fail to understand? -- he IS talking
about HOW LIGHT IS PROPAGATED, and he is talking about how light is seen and
measured by observers, ALL OF THEM ("always"). This comes from his INTRODUCTION,
and he supports it throughout the paper.

If you are going to quote Einstein's second postulate, you should do it
CORRECTLY. Your quote is NOT his second postulate, which is given section I.2:

2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body

Note that his "stationary" system is defined in the first sentence of I.1 as
an ARBITRARY inertial frame. So his second postulate is indeed saying that any
ray of light moves with the determined velocity c relative to any inertial
frame, whether the ray be emitted by a body at rest in the frame or moving
relative to it.

In section I.5 he reiterates that his "stationary" system is NOT unique in this,
and that light moves with speed c relative to ANY inertial frame.

> He was saying that there is a natural speed limit for light, therefore the
> speed of the EMITTER cannot be added to the speed of light emitted.

Hmmm. In this paper he does not mention any "speed limit" (that is in a later
paper). But in I.5 he does show that the speed of the emitter IS NOT added to
the speed of light measured in ANY inertial frame. He says: "It follows,
further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a
velocity less than that of light."

(I.e. given that light moves with speed c relative to the "stationary"
system, it moves with speed c relative to any other inertial frame,
as long as that frame moves with speed less than c relative to the
"stationary" system.)

> MATHEMATICIANS immediately distorted what Einstein wrote and have preached
> something totally different for the past 112 years.

This is just plain not true. EINSTEIN HIMSELF said what you claim is
"distorted". The error is YOURS. Apparently you have not read the ENTIRE paper,
or did not understand what he wrote.

> The MATHEMATICIAN's "ALL OBSERVERS" theory is WRONG.

No, it is not. Examples below. YOU are wrong.

> It is RIDICULOUS.

Only to someone like yourself who does not understand basic physics. And who has
clearly not read the entire 1905 paper. The WHOLE POINT of the paper is to show
that the speed of light can be c relative to EVERY inertial frame, without
contradiction.

> It has been PROVEN WRONG countless times.

Nope. Indeed it has been verified zillions of times in experiments and measurements.

"Proof" is not possible in physics. You REALLY need to learn
what science ACTUALLY is.

> When I am moving at high speed toward an object and view light coming at me
> from that object, I CAN and WILL measure the light as arriving at c + v,

Nope. This is your basic mistake. Moreover, this is subject to direct
experimental tests, and they show that the speed of light emitted from a moving
object is c relative to the lab.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests

The annual Doppler effect DIRECTLY refutes your claim: As the earth moves in its
orbit around the sun the frequency and wavelength of EM waves from distant
astronomical objects are affected by earth's velocity projected onto the line of
sight. The frequency of pulsars increases as earth is approaching, and decreases
as earth is receding; the wavelength of atomic lines is reduced as earth is
approaching, and increased as earth is receding. Quantitatively, the phase speed
of such light, frequency*wavelength, REMAINS THE SAME, and is equal to c to
within the measurement resolutions. Those resolutions are MUCH better than
earth's orbital speed 30 km/sec.

> My velocity does not change the speed at which the light moves.

RIGHT. You finally said something correct (without realizing it). The light
moves completely independent of anyone observing or measuring it. But still,
regardless of how you might be moving, you measure c for the speed of light.

There are caveats to this, but your mistakes are so fundamental
that they will only confuse you further.

Tom Roberts

[Ed Lake]

That's what Einstein explained in his 1905 paper. Light has a MAXIMUM speed limit. That is why the speed of light cannot be added to the speed of the source, since the result would exceed the maximum speed of light. No matter how fast the source moving (or in what direction), the light it EMITS will still travel at c.

Sound works in a similar way. In normal air it's maximum speed is 1000 feet per second, as you say. So, when a train is blowing its whistle as it is coming toward you, you hear MORE SOUND WAVES PER SECOND (a higher pitch), but the sound is still traveling at the same speed it would if the train was standing still. And as the train moves away from you, the sound still arrives at the same speed, but there are fewer sound waves per second, so the pitch is lower.

Light will be BRIGHTER if the source is moving toward you.

>
> Police radar uses a Doppler change of a 4 GHz carrier not the speed of light to detect the speed of a car.
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/radar.html

Right. Sorry about that. I meant to use LIDAR, not radar. Lidar measures the speed of light ulses. Radar measures the apparent change in wavelength. Police have been changing over from radar to Lidar for years.

Ed

[Dono,]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 9:36:12 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> You would MEASURE light photons to be ARRIVING at c + v,

Nope

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Stupid Ed excreted

Light will be BRIGHTER if the source is moving toward you.

WRONG
BLUER not brighter

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/19/17 8/19/17 11:36 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Yes, yes, yes, yes. The speed of light is c. No one disagrees with that.
> The disagreement is over what you would MEASURE if you were moving toward
> the source of the light. You would MEASURE light photons to be ARRIVING at c
> + v, where v is your velocity, even though the light photons are really only
> MOVING at c.

[As usual I change your "photons" to light rays -- you CLEARLY do
not understand the implications of QM on this. But it's irrelevant.]

You attempt to make a distinction without a difference, basically because you do
not know what "speed" means.

Speed is ALWAYS measured relative to some set of coordinates -- THIS IS WHAT THE
WORD MEANS. Here we'll restrict ourselves to inertial frames and only discuss
propagation in vacuum.

As you said, the speed of light is c, and this applies relative to the inertial
frame in which you are at rest. That means that the light "arrives" with speed
c, and you measure its speed to be c. And this applies even if your inertial
frame is moving relative to the source of the light.

A major part of your error is attempting to discuss "speed"
without specifying the frame relative to which it is measured.
You have confused yourself with the way you phrase your claims.

Actual measurements show conclusively that your "c+v" is wrong:

The annual Doppler effect DIRECTLY refutes your claim: As the earth moves in its
orbit around the sun the frequency and wavelength of EM waves from distant
astronomical objects are affected by earth's velocity projected onto the line of
sight. The frequency of pulsars increases as earth is approaching, and decreases
as earth is receding; the wavelength of atomic lines is reduced as earth is
approaching, and increased as earth is receding. Quantitatively, the phase speed
of such light, frequency*wavelength, REMAINS THE SAME, and is equal to c to
within the measurement resolutions. Those resolutions are MUCH better than
earth's orbital speed 30 km/sec.

> Why is that impossible for mathematicians to understand?

Because your claims are WRONG.
Why is it impossible for YOU to understand relativity?
Why do YOU refuse to accept actual measurements that show YOU ARE WRONG?

Tom Roberts

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 12:03:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/18/17 8/18/17 10:50 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I see Pentcho Valev endlessly ranting about "Einsteinians" being wrong. But,
> > nearly every time he is not ranting about what Einstein or Einstein's
> > followers say, he is ranting about what MATHEMATICIANS who DISAGREE with
> > Einstein say. The problem is: the MATHEMATICIANS claim that what they are
> > saying is what Einstein said. It isn't.
>
> Like Valev, Lake is also very confused about basic physics. I won't address
> Valev's many errors, and will only discuss what Lake says here.
>
> Lake attempts to distinguish between Einstein and "mathematicians", using the
> latter term as a pejorative in his personal lexicon. But it is really LAKE who
> is wrong, not modern physicists (or mathematicians).
>
> > Einstein stated as his "Second Postulate" in his 1905 paper on Special
> > Relativity that "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
> > velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body."
> > Notice that he was only talking about the "EMITTING body," NOT about what any
> > other observer might see or measure.
>
> What part of "always propagated" do you fail to understand? -- he IS talking
> about HOW LIGHT IS PROPAGATED, and he is talking about how light is seen and
> measured by observers, ALL OF THEM ("always"). This comes from his INTRODUCTION,
> and he supports it throughout the paper.

No, he does NOT. That is a mathematician's distortion of what Einstein wrote. Einstein ONLY talks about how the speed of light is not affected by the motion of the EMITTER. He says NOTHING about what any other observers might see.

>
> If you are going to quote Einstein's second postulate, you should do it
> CORRECTLY. Your quote is NOT his second postulate, which is given section I.2:
>
> 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates
> with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
> stationary or by a moving body

Right. The speed of light remains c whether it is EMITTED by a moving body or a stationary body. That's what I've been saying, and that is what Einstein stated in BOTH sections.

>
> Note that his "stationary" system is defined in the first sentence of I.1 as
> an ARBITRARY inertial frame. So his second postulate is indeed saying that any
> ray of light moves with the determined velocity c relative to any inertial
> frame, whether the ray be emitted by a body at rest in the frame or moving
> relative to it.

NO. You added the word "arbitrary" to twist and distort what Einstein wrote. It implies what you believe, but it is NOT what Einstein wrote.

>
> In section I.5 he reiterates that his "stationary" system is NOT unique in this,
> and that light moves with speed c relative to ANY inertial frame.
>
> > He was saying that there is a natural speed limit for light, therefore the
> > speed of the EMITTER cannot be added to the speed of light emitted.
>
> Hmmm. In this paper he does not mention any "speed limit" (that is in a later
> paper). But in I.5 he does show that the speed of the emitter IS NOT added to
> the speed of light measured in ANY inertial frame. He says: "It follows,
> further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a
> velocity less than that of light."
>
> (I.e. given that light moves with speed c relative to the "stationary"
> system, it moves with speed c relative to any other inertial frame,
> as long as that frame moves with speed less than c relative to the
> "stationary" system.)

FALSE!!!! Einstein says that in another "inertial frame" they will observe that the light they EMIT does NOT combine with THEIR velocity just as light I EMIT does not combine with MY velocity.

>
> > MATHEMATICIANS immediately distorted what Einstein wrote and have preached
> > something totally different for the past 112 years.
>
> This is just plain not true. EINSTEIN HIMSELF said what you claim is
> "distorted". The error is YOURS. Apparently you have not read the ENTIRE paper,
> or did not understand what he wrote.

One of us doesn't. And it is you. Einstein wrote "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." That's his FIRST postulate.

Mathematicians TWIST and DISTORT that to say that it means what you measure as the speed of light YOU EMIT will be the same as what I measure as the speed of light YOU EMIT. The whole purpose of the paper and of relativity is to show that is NOT true.

What Einstein wrote was that what you measure as the speed of light YOU CREATE in YOUR "frame of reference" will be the same as what I measure as the speed light I CREATE in my "frame of reference." But when we compare what is observed in our different frames of reference, we will see that they are NOT really the same BECAUSE TIME MOVES AT A DIFFERENT RATE FOR YOU THAN FOR ME. Your speed of light per second will involve a second of a different length.

If the length of a second is different for you than for me, then the speed of light per second will be different for you than for me.

>
> > The MATHEMATICIAN's "ALL OBSERVERS" theory is WRONG.
>
> No, it is not. Examples below. YOU are wrong.
>
> > It is RIDICULOUS.
>
> Only to someone like yourself who does not understand basic physics. And who has
> clearly not read the entire 1905 paper. The WHOLE POINT of the paper is to show
> that the speed of light can be c relative to EVERY inertial frame, without
> contradiction.
>
> > It has been PROVEN WRONG countless times.
>
> Nope. Indeed it has been verified zillions of times in experiments and measurements.
>
> "Proof" is not possible in physics. You REALLY need to learn
> what science ACTUALLY is.
>
> > When I am moving at high speed toward an object and view light coming at me
> > from that object, I CAN and WILL measure the light as arriving at c + v,
>
> Nope. This is your basic mistake. Moreover, this is subject to direct
> experimental tests, and they show that the speed of light emitted from a moving
> object is c relative to the lab.
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests

The argument is over what an outside observer sees, not what a moving source sees.

>
> The annual Doppler effect DIRECTLY refutes your claim: As the earth moves in its
> orbit around the sun the frequency and wavelength of EM waves from distant
> astronomical objects are affected by earth's velocity projected onto the line of
> sight. The frequency of pulsars increases as earth is approaching, and decreases
> as earth is receding; the wavelength of atomic lines is reduced as earth is
> approaching, and increased as earth is receding.

Right. Light from a pulsar will arrive at c + v in the spring and at c - v in the fall due to us moving toward the pulsar in the spring and away from it in the fall.

Quantitatively, the phase speed
> of such light, frequency*wavelength, REMAINS THE SAME, and is equal to c to
> within the measurement resolutions. Those resolutions are MUCH better than
> earth's orbital speed 30 km/sec.

WRONG!!! The wavelength remains the same but the FREQUENCY APPEARS to change because we are a MOVING OBSERVER.

>
> > My velocity does not change the speed at which the light moves.
>
> RIGHT. You finally said something correct (without realizing it). The light
> moves completely independent of anyone observing or measuring it. But still,
> regardless of how you might be moving, you measure c for the speed of light.
>
> There are caveats to this, but your mistakes are so fundamental
> that they will only confuse you further.
>
> Tom Roberts

Your mistakes are so fundamental that I won't try explain further until you can grasp what Einstein actually wrote.

Ed

[John Heath]

We are in a hot air balloon. Need to known which direction we are moving. There is a mountain near by. I shout HELLO at the mountain and time how long it takes for the echo to come back. I do this again 5 minutes later and from those numbers I calculate how fast we are moving towards the mountain in the hot air balloon. Note the speed of sound is still constant at 1000 feet per second. You see the problem? A Lidar detector can not detect the speed of a car with one echo only. It requires 2 echos. Technically it is hundreds of 30 n second pulses then crank the numbers with a microprocessor. Nice try and you had me going there for a while but no cigar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIDAR_traffic_enforcement

Pay attention to how it works to see my point.

There could be some pay dirt in red and blue shifted stars with the spectrum thumb print of hydrogen to verify the red shift. Some of them are red shifted to the tune of 10 percent c. 10 percent c should be within the range of measurement. A shuttered speed test of 100 meters of this star light should verify if it is c + v or just c.

I am not aware of this test being done.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed excreted
Tom Roberts mistakes are so fundamental that I won't try explain further until you can grasp what Einstein actually wrote.

????
STUPID

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:21:05 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> Den 18.08.2017 17.50, skrev Ed Lake:
>>>
>>> When I am moving at high speed toward an object and view light coming
>>> at me from that object, I CAN and WILL measure the light as arriving at
>>> c + v, where v is my velocity. My velocity does not change the speed
>>> at which the light moves. It's just MATHEMATICS. The light moves at c
>>> and I move at v and therefore I measure the light as arriving at my
>>> location at c + v. It's COMMON SENSE, but the mathematicians will
>>> argue that it is wrong. Why? Evidently because the math works better their way.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>
>>

>> A and B are moving towards each other.
>> A is emitting a light pulse and B is measuring
>> the speed of the light that reaches her.
>>
>> You are claiming that B will measure different speed
>> if:
>> B is stationary and A is moving towards B,
>> and:
>> A is stationary and B is moving towards A.
>>
>> Please explain the physical difference between:
>> A is moving and B is stationary
>> and:
>> B is moving and A is stationary.
>>
>> How can we determine who is stationary and who is moving?
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/
>
> Thank you!!! That is the standard MATHEMATICIAN'S absurd argument, i.e,
> nothing is real. It is impossible to tell if a car crashed into a wall
> or if the wall crashed into the car. All movement is reciprocal. Yada yada yada.
>
> It exists only in a FANTASY UNIVERSE where there are only two objects and
> no other frame of reference. So, no one can tell who is moving. WE DO
> NOT LIVE IN THAT FANTASY MATHEMATICAL UNIVERSE.
>
> In our REAL universe, if A is a car and B is a wall, we know from the
> evidence and PHYSICS that the car moved and crashed into the wall. The
> wall and the rest of the universe did not move and crash into the car.
> There is no mechanism to make that happen.

Here's a scenario for you to think about. A meteorite comes crashing to
earth, creating a giant crater after plowing through the atmosphere at
67,000 mph.

Now Ed, was this collision due to the meteor moving into the earth, or the
earth moving into the meteor. Answer very carefully.


>
> Look out the window. See all those cars moving in different directions?
> If you think they are all stationary, and you are the one who is moving,
> please explain how they can appear to be all moving in different directions.
>
> Yes, I am moving along with the earth as it spins on its axis, and with
> the earth as it orbits the sun, etc., so I am ALSO moving, but that in NO
> WAY means that we cannot tell if a car crashed into a wall or if the wall
> crashed into the car.
>
> Ed
>



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

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 11:52:13 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 10:46:24 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:

> Personal attacks just show you have no intelligent arguments.

Hi Ed. Welcome back...

Indeed, thats dono's motto. Even when he is wrong (as it is the case VERY often), he embarks on a path of slanders, diversions and cries. Just ignore such him.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 11:56:13 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:

> You also change the argument.

Yes he doest that. But Im not here to discuss him...

> I stated that I will measure the light ARRIVING at c + v,

The word "speed" and "measure speed" have very specific (operational) definitions. So if you want to measure_the_speed_of_incoming_light, you must apply the definition of *that meaning*. When one performs the prescribed procedure (definition), we *always* get that the_speed_of_incoming_light to be c. This is an empirical fact and is routinely verified.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 12:06:48 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 10:54:34 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> > Why dont you give an intro to what you are peddling?
> > Dont you know how to communicate or how to use a NG?
> > Just random links makes your stuff look like SPAM, didnt you know?
>
> I did, but you morons Snipped out the explanation ...

Thats a lie. I quoted your post *as is*. Google kept a record.

> you are too Stupid to Understand ....

Actually, you mean that you are not smart enough to know how to interest people in your work. Its one thing to have a theory, but its another thing to communicate it. You might want to learn on how to communicate efficiently, or how to communicate in an appropriate manner in a NG.

> Space Time as a Friction-less Super-fluid

Perhaps it can be modeled as such. A few short & well written introductory paragraphs in a OP would be more enticing to read.

> To date, the critical density is estimated to be approximately
> five atoms (of monatomic hydrogen) per cubic meter, whereas
> the average density of ordinary matter in the Universe is
> believed to be 0.2–0.25 atoms per cubic meter

See, even that is far more interesting to read than just random numbers & random links. To hint you further, & to get a better audience, post your "theory" only on occasion, like once a month. More than that, people will view it as spam, or that you are someone desperate for attention.

Communication skills...look into it. Even a pure nutcase can become "scientifically popular" if he knows how to communicate!

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

2:48 PMrotchm

Hey Stupid Ass
This isn't remedial school.
I am not going to post half of a webpage of physics you are already supposed to know.

It is not my responsibility if your shitty newsreader doesn't interface with google properly and snips off pertinent information

All you Ever do is "strain gnats from the wine" while spilling half on the floor.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 19.08.2017 16.19, skrev Ed Lake:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:21:05 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> A and B are moving towards each other.
>> A is emitting a light pulse and B is measuring
>> the speed of the light that reaches her.
>>
>> You are claiming that B will measure different speed
>> if:
>> B is stationary and A is moving towards B,
>> and:
>> A is stationary and B is moving towards A.
>>
>> Please explain the physical difference between:
>> A is moving and B is stationary
>> and:
>> B is moving and A is stationary.
>>
>> How can we determine who is stationary and who is moving?
>>
>

> Thank you!!! That is the standard MATHEMATICIAN'S absurd argument,
> i.e, nothing is real. It is impossible to tell if a car crashed
> into a wall or if the wall crashed into the car.
> All movement is reciprocal. Yada yada yada.
>
> It exists only in a FANTASY UNIVERSE where there are
> only two objects and no other frame of reference.
> So, no one can tell who is moving.
> WE DO NOT LIVE IN THAT FANTASY MATHEMATICAL UNIVERSE.
>
> In our REAL universe, if A is a car and B is a wall,
> we know from the evidence and PHYSICS that the car moved
> and crashed into the wall. The wall and the rest of
> the universe did not move and crash into the car.
> There is no mechanism to make that happen.

So if B is stationary on the ground, she is not moving.

18.08.1017 Ed Lake wrote:
| But what about Joe Scientist in an observatory on Earth who
| measures the speed of light coming from a reflector on the moon.
| Joe Scientist is MOVING as the Earth spins on its axis.
| Joe Scientist will measure the light coming from the reflector
| on the moon as arriving at c PLUS v, where v is the speed of
| the earth spinning on it axis.

But when Joe Scientist is stationary on the ground, he is
MOVING at the speed v, where v is the speed of the earth
spinning on it axis.

So a point on the Earth can be both moving and not moving.

> Yes, I am moving along with the earth as it spins on its axis,
> and with the earth as it orbits the sun, etc., so I am ALSO moving,
> but that in NO WAY means that we cannot tell if a car crashed into
> a wall or if the wall crashed into the car.

I see.
In the REAL world everything is both moving and not moving.
But that in NO WAY means that we cannot tell what is moving
and what is not moving.

If Joe Scientist measures the speed of light
from a source on the Moon, he is moving and will
measure the speed c+v where v is the speed of
the Earth spinning on it axis.
But if Joe Scientist measures the speed of light
emitted from an approaching car, he is not moving,
and will measure the speed c.

Is this right?


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 2:04:26 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 12:03:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>


> > Note that his "stationary" system is defined in the
> > first sentence of I.1 as an ARBITRARY inertial frame.
> > So his second postulate is indeed saying that any
> > ray of light moves with the determined velocity c
> > relative to any inertial frame, whether the ray be emitted
> > by a body at rest in the frame or moving relative to it.
>
> NO. You added the word "arbitrary" to twist and distort what
> Einstein wrote. It implies what you believe, but it is NOT
> what Einstein wrote.

Ed, It doesnt matter what he wrote. What matters is what he wrote,
and the jargon at the time. Words have meaning in contexts (epochs, regions, subjects...). Thats how we interpret the *meaning* of what is written.

Note that in E's time (and even today), "arbitrary (inertial) frame" means
ANY frame, means ANY *observer*. Its all synonyms.

In E's days (and even today), when we see the words "the speed is...", this means the speed *as measured by the observer*.

"light is... propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c..."

Just that, MEANS that for ANY observer, he will measure the speed of light to be c. That is what it meant back then, and what it means today.

I concur with tom in that, you have great trouble in understanding the meaning of the words used in physics. But dont feel bad; MANY people in this NG have that "problem".

> Einstein wrote "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will
> be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
> mechanics hold good." That's his FIRST postulate.
>
> Mathematicians TWIST and DISTORT that to say

NO! mathematicians have NOTHING to say about it. They could care less what E meant, or what physicist mean. Mathematicians NEVER interpret anything about physics. They just play around with equations, and never give them a physical sense. in iis SCIENTIST or PHYSICISTS that interpret variables and eqs.

[Ed Lake]

Yes, Lidar requires LOTS of evenly spaced pulses. The point is, however, that those pulses travel at the speed of light. The pulses wouldn't have any value if they didn't travel at a fixed speed. The pulses "bounce off" a moving vehicle and they return at the speed of light, but there is less time between pulses. The difference in time between pulses (the change in FREQUENCY) is the speed of the car.

With a radar gun you ALSO send out multiple evenly timed pulses and measure the FREQUENCY change in the radio waves that return. They sometimes call that the "Doppler shift" because they FALSELY assume that if the frequency changes, the wavelength also changes. That's not true. It's "true" in the wave theory of light, but light consists of PARTICLES, not waves, so the frequency can change without any change of wavelength.

You can measure the DISTANCE to a vehicle with one RADAR pulse, since it would just be a matter of dividing the time between transmission and return by 2 and multiplying the result by the speed of light. However, you need MULTIPLE pulses to determine SPEED. You compare the DISTANCE the first pulse traveled to the DISTANCE the second pulse traveled, and if you know the time between pulses you can compute the SPEED the vehicle traveled toward you between pulses.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIDAR_traffic_enforcement
>
> Pay attention to how it works to see my point.
>
> There could be some pay dirt in red and blue shifted stars with the spectrum thumb print of hydrogen to verify the red shift. Some of them are red shifted to the tune of 10 percent c. 10 percent c should be within the range of measurement. A shuttered speed test of 100 meters of this star light should verify if it is c + v or just c.
>
> I am not aware of this test being done.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but if you think blue shifting or red shifting ALONE will tell you the speed of the star, you're wrong. You do not know the EARTH's speed, which is also a factor in red and blue shifting.

There is no way to measure the speed of light except light that you emit and time in equipment right next to you. There is no way to measure the "one way" speed of light coming from some distant object.

Ed

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:55:32 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> 2:48 PMrotchm

> Communication skills...look into it. Even a pure nutcase can become "scientifically popular" if he knows how to communicate!
>
> Hey Stupid Ass

See? That is bad communication skills. People see that, and start to deem you as an ill-bred crank. Why do you purposely want to portray you and your theory as such?

> This isn't remedial school.

Should not be, but it is, wether you like it or not.

> I am not going to post half of a webpage of physics you are
> already supposed to know.

Indeed, you should not do that.

> It is not my responsibility if your shitty newsreader doesn't
> interface with google properly and snips off pertinent information

But you typically post your stuff w/o any intro or descriptive content.
You just post random formulas & numbers. You wont get an audience that way!

[Ed Lake]

Sorry, but that's just gibberish to me. It says nothing comprehensible, and seems to be just about word definitions. And then you use "get" which you didn't define.

If you had some way to MEASURE the speed of light coming from some other source, it will arrive at c + or - v, where v is your velocity. If you measure the speed of light in your lab it will be c. If you open one end of the equipment and let out the light, it will travel at c, just as you measured it. However, a outside observer who is not stationary relative to you will NOT "get" that the incoming speed of that light is c. It will be c plus or minus his velocity.

Ed

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

rotchm Scribbled

You are Straining the wine for Gnats again.
I dont care & I will drink the Fucking Gnats in the wine if it gets the job done

I do not give a single shit about your DAMNED VAIN SPIT & POLISH.

If I can build a violin from Home Depot 2 x 4's that sounds perfect when played, so be it.

But in the mean time we have to listen to Ed Lake rambling about LIDAR & c + v

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Excreted

Sorry, but that's just gibberish to me. It says nothing comprehensible, and seems to be just about word definitions. And then you use "get" which you didn't define.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Ed Lake]

You and Tom have a KEY MISunderstanding about Einstein's Theories of Relativity.

Einstein's FIRST postulate can be described this way: If you are in your lab on Earth performing experiments, you well get the same results as I get when I do the exact same experiments while I'm in my lab aboard a space ship traveling at 95% of the speed of light toward Alpha Centauri. In other words, "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

Einstein's second postulate is "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body." In other words, even though you are relativity stationary in your lab, the light you create and EMIT will travel a c, and the light I create and EMIT in my lab while I'm traveling at 95% of c will ALSO travel at c. My speed and your lack of speed do not affect the speed of light being EMITTED.

Where the mathematicians go wrong is that they FALSELY argue this means that if you can see what I am doing in my lab, the RESULTS I am getting will be exactly the same RESULTS as what you are getting in your lab. Einstein's Relativity theory says that is WRONG. Because I am traveling at 95% of c, the length of a second will be TEN TIMES LONGER for me than for you. Therefore, although you measured the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND and I measured the speed of light to be 299,792, 458 meters PER SECOND, the light we measured was actually NOT moving at the same speed, because the LENGTH OF A SECOND for me was TEN TIMES LONGER than for you.

If I was traveling at 95 percent of the speed of light, one second for me would be TEN seconds for you. If we could somehow watch each other instantaneously across space, I would appear to you to be moving in slow motion and it would take me 10 times longer to boil a pot of water than it would take for you. But it would SEEM to me to be the same amount of time as always (as long as I had no way to instantaneously see what you were doing.)

Comprendo?

Ed

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 4:26:19 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> rotchm Scribbled

> I do not give a single shit about your DAMNED VAIN SPIT & POLISH.

There you go again! Such replies are not inviting to consider your theory. You wont get an audience that way. Work on your communication skills!

> If I can build a violin from Home Depot 2 x 4's that sounds
> perfect when played, so be it.

Yes, but dont FORCE everyone to listen to it. Do you go inside churches
and scream your gospel (model) to everyone there?

> But in the mean time we have to listen to Ed Lake rambling about
> LIDAR & c + v

No we dont; we just dont read his post. He is not creating new threads ad nauseum. His threads have content (he describes the physical situation he wants to discuss): Just by reading his first paragraph, we know of what consist his topic. He then explains it in a few brief paragraphs. So although he might be very confused about physics and words, he does have communication skills. Perhaps you should adopt his writing style; it would get you a bigger audience for your theory.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 4:47:48 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:10:56 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> You and Tom have a KEY MISunderstanding about Einstein's Theories
>

> Einstein's FIRST postulate can be described this way:

<sniped, since no contention there>

> Einstein's second postulate is "light is always propagated in
> empty space with a definite velocity c

STOP! (*1) Just that, MEANS that any *observer* will measure the

speed of light to be c.

> which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body.

He needed not specify this, since its implied by the (*1).

> " In other words, even though you are relativity stationary in
> your lab,

An observer is ALWAYS stationary wrt himself (hisframe).

> the light you create and EMIT will travel a c,

The "travel at c" MEANS that any observer will measure it as c.

> and the light I create and EMIT in my lab while I'm traveling
> at 95% of c will ALSO travel at c.

"travel at c" MEANS wrt the observer, as measured by the/any observer.

> My speed and your lack of
> speed do not affect the speed of light being EMITTED.

My *measurement* of the SoL is not affected by the light being EMITTED;
I will measure it still at c.

> Where the mathematicians go wrong is that they FALSELY argue
> this means

No, no mathematicians argue that. Mathematicians dont discuss nor argue about physics. (when they do, they are not arguing as mathematicians, but as physicists or philosophers).

[Odd Bodkin]

It is fairly routine to measure the speed of incoming light. I'll give you
two methods.
1. Measure directly the wavelength, and measure directly the frequency. The
product of these two direct measurements is the incoming signal speed.
2. If the light is coming in pulses, then sample (in other words, stop just
a portion of) the pulse in one location, and then sample it again at a
different location. Measure the time lag between the two signals with
synchronized clocks at the two locations. The distance divided by the time
lag is the speed of the incoming signal.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

rotchm

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 4:26:19 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> rotchm Scribbled


> I do not give a single shit about your DAMNED VAIN SPIT & POLISH.

There you go again! Such replies are not inviting to consider your theory. You wont get an audience that way. Work on your communication skills!

Popular with an "Audience" of 53 million views
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dyMXYE_50Ts


But still Stupid And without any redeeming value just like Ed Lake & your "straining the Wine for Gnats" Vain spit and polish.

[Ed Lake]

I probably should have studied that post a bit before hitting POST. I see some typos. PLUS, I failed to mention two important points:

1. In my space ship traveling at 95% of the speed of light, I am not accelerating, so it SEEMS to me that I am "stationary," just as you are. I can play paddle-ball and everything will work for me just as it does for you. However, it cost me 100 billion dollars to buy the space ship and fuel it, and it took a year to get up to 95% of the speed of light, so I know I'm not really stationary.

2. While I measure the speed of light with my equipment to be 299,792,458 meters per second, just as you measure it back on Earth, because a second is ten times longer for me, that means that my ship's speed is not noticed, and I'm really measuring the speed of light to be 29,979,245.8 meters per my very long second. If the light leaves the ship in the direction I'm moving, it will travel at 299,792,458 meters per YOUR second. My speed didn't add to the speed of light I emitted, the light just went at its MAXIMUM speed. The question is: what would you measure the speed of light to be if I emitted it out the BACK end of the ship?

Ed

[John Heath]

It does not matter if the earth is moving away or the star is moving away as we are only interested in c + v vs c or c - v in this case. Who is moving is not important only c + v vs c regardless of who is moving. You are saying it is c + v. A star that is red shifted to 10 percent the speed of light should be within the range of measurement for the 1 way speed of light from that star to earth. The way to test is to shutter the light on and off between two light sensors spaced 100 meters distance.

This type of absolute one way speed of light has not been made to the best of my understanding for red shifted star light where the measurement should be within the range of measurements. c + v is a bold statement . Bold statements require bold proof. Where is the measurement made to support the bold statement that is is c + v not c.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

John Heath

It does not matter if the earth is moving away or the star is moving away as we are only interested in c + v vs c or c - v in this case. Who is moving is not important only c + v vs c regardless of who is moving. You are saying it is c + v. A star that is red shifted to 10 percent the speed of light should be within the range of measurement for the 1 way speed of light from that star to earth. The way to test is to shutter the light on and off between two light sensors spaced 100 meters distance.

This type of absolute one way speed of light has not been made to the best of my understanding for red shifted star light where the measurement should be within the range of measurements. c + v is a bold statement . Bold statements require bold proof. Where is the measurement made to support the bold statement that is is c + v not c.

E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

This says ....
(c+v) is INDISTINGUISHABLE from a (blue shifted c)
&
(c-v) is INDISTINGUISHABLE from a (red shifted c)

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 5:14:45 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> rotchm

> Popular with an "Audience" of 53 million views
> https://youtube.com/watch?v=dyMXYE_50Ts
>
>
> But still Stupid And without any redeeming value

Exactly my point! They know how to communicate to their intended audience, so they get recognition. If you learn to communicate to YOUR audience, you too will get recognition.

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 4:47:48 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:10:56 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>
> > You and Tom have a KEY MISunderstanding about Einstein's Theories
> >
> > Einstein's FIRST postulate can be described this way:
>
> <sniped, since no contention there>
>
> > Einstein's second postulate is "light is always propagated in
> > empty space with a definite velocity c
>
> STOP! (*1) Just that, MEANS that any *observer* will measure the
> speed of light to be c.

NO, IT DOES NOT! Cutting off the key part of the sentence just makes you misunderstand things that way.

>
> > which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body.
>
> He needed not specify this, since its implied by the (*1).

NO, IT IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!! Einstein specifically stated that the speed of light was "independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body" because the speed of light IS NOT independent of the motion of any OTHER body. You may think so, but it is NOT, and that's why Einstein stated that the Second Postulate is "only apparently irreconcilable with" the First Postulate, because it suggests that the emitting body will measure things differently from an outside viewing body. But that's not true. Due to time dilation and Relativity, the emitting body will SEEM to see things happening the same way as an outside body, but he is NOT seeing the same things because time ticks at a different rate for him.

>
> > " In other words, even though you are relativity stationary in
> > your lab,
>
> An observer is ALWAYS stationary wrt himself (hisframe).

Not if he's accelerating. Not if he is in the REAL world where he has trillions of points of reference.

>
>
> > the light you create and EMIT will travel a c,
>
> The "travel at c" MEANS that any observer will measure it as c.
>

No. Light TRAVELS at c, but everyone except the emitter will MEASURE it to be traveling at c plus or minus their own velocity.

>
> > and the light I create and EMIT in my lab while I'm traveling
> > at 95% of c will ALSO travel at c.
>
> "travel at c" MEANS wrt the observer, as measured by the/any observer.
>

No. See above.

>
> > My speed and your lack of
> > speed do not affect the speed of light being EMITTED.
>
> My *measurement* of the SoL is not affected by the light being EMITTED;
> I will measure it still at c.
>
>
> > Where the mathematicians go wrong is that they FALSELY argue
> > this means
>
> No, no mathematicians argue that. Mathematicians dont discuss nor argue about physics. (when they do, they are not arguing as mathematicians, but as physicists or philosophers).

When I refer to "mathematicians," I'm generally referring to Quantum Theorists who do not believe in Time Dilation. And I'm also referring to physicists who believe the nonsense they were taught in school about the speed of light being the same for all observers. They believe it because they would fail if they didn't accept it, and because they are CONVINCED BY DOING MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

This is my last post for today. It's supper time and time to shut down for today.

Ed

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 5:16:57 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:

> 1. In my space ship traveling at 95% of the speed of light, I am
> not accelerating, so it SEEMS to me that I am "stationary,"
> just as you are.

Yeah, ok...

> I can play paddle-ball and everything will work for me just as
> it does for you.

Yup.

> However, it cost me 100 billion dollars to buy the space ship
> and fuel it, and it took a year to get up to 95% of the speed
> of light,

It cost you that because you wanted (you did) accelerate. That was your choice; you chose to charge you 0 speed to 95% speed (wrt the initial iframe); its the acceleration in there that costed you.

> so I know I'm not really stationary.

Maybe you were in a frame that was receding away, & you accelerated to a "stationary" frame ... Its a possibility, no?

And, "really stationary" ?? What does that mean? Whats the difference between that and just "stationary" ? E.g. " I'm really stationary" vs. "I'm stationary" .

> 2. While I measure the speed of light with my equipment to be
> 299,792,458 meters per second, just as you measure it back on
> Earth, because a second is ten times longer for me,

Irrelevant, since You and I have performed the prescribed operational procedure to the letter. We both got 299792458.

> If the light leaves the ship in the direction I'm moving,
> it will travel at 299,792,458 meters per YOUR second.

Yes, that is what is meant by "observer" or "to measure"; it always means wrt the observer and the prescribed measurement procedure (his clocks & rulers).

> The question is: what would you measure the speed of light
> to be if I emitted it out the BACK end of the ship?

Still 299792458 (m/s). This too is empirically verified.

[Ed Lake]

Okay, I'm late for supper and this is definitely my last post for today.

The measurements showing that we measure incoming light as traveling at c + v (or c - v) are cited in my paper about the Second Postulate: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

If you have some qualms about clicking on links, here they are:

Annual Doppler Effect (1887)
Sagnac (1911)
Michelson-Gale (1925)
Lunar Laser Ranging (2009)
Lidar guns (every day)
Pulsars (every day)

Ed

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 5:44:06 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> > > Einstein's second postulate is "light is always propagated in
> > > empty space with a definite velocity c
> >
> > STOP! (*1) Just that, MEANS that any *observer* will measure the
> > speed of light to be c.
>
> NO, IT DOES NOT!

Yes it does.

> > > which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body.
> >
> > He needed not specify this, since its implied by the (*1).
>
> NO, IT IS NOT!!!!!

Yes it is.

> E instein specifically stated that the speed of light

> was "independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body"

He just emphasized that. Saying "speed is c" MEANS its c for everyone. Then He also specified it to be true no matter the source. Thats what it meant back then, and now.

> because the speed of light IS NOT independent of the motion of
> any OTHER body.

And where do you get this "because"? Is that based on your religious beliefs or something? E did not say this "because...", YOU just made that up!


> You may think so,

And you may think what you think... And since E is not around to tell us, ...

> Relativity, the emitting body will SEEM to see things happening

And "seem" here mean & meas "as measured by".

> > An observer is ALWAYS stationary wrt himself (his frame).
>
> Not if he's accelerating.

Yes he is. But if he is (proper) accelerating, then he is not inertial.

> > The "travel at c" MEANS that any observer will measure it as c.
> >
>
> No.

Yes, that the meaning of the expression "travel at c".

> Light TRAVELS at c,

Meaning than if someone attempts to measure its speed (via the prescribed procedure) he will get c.

> but everyone except the emitter

No "except". It applies to EVERYONE, including th eemiter.

> > "travel at c" MEANS wrt the observer, as measured by the/any observer.
>
> No.

Yes. Again, you seem to have your own personal definition of the words used, that do not adhere to their definitions as used in physics.

> When I refer to "mathematicians," I'm generally referring to

> Quantum Theorists... And I'm also referring to physicists

Then dont use the word "mathematician" to mean physicists!!
You mean physicist, then say physicist! Geez...

> who believe the nonsense they were taught in school about the
> speed of light being the same for all observers.

In the parlance here, these ones are called relativists.

> This is my last post for today. It's supper time and time to
> shut down for today.

Ok, L8r.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Excreted

Okay, I'm late for supper and this is definitely my last post for today.

The measurements showing that we measure incoming light as traveling at c + v (or c - v) are cited in my paper about the Second Postulate: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

If you have some qualms about clicking on links, here they are:

Annual Doppler Effect (1887)
Sagnac (1911)
Michelson-Gale (1925)
Lunar Laser Ranging (2009)
Lidar guns (every day)
Pulsars (every day)

Ed

Hey Ed
The link didn't work

Said
"404 file not found"

[Odd Bodkin]

Well, it would cost you a lot of money to build a ship to accelerate away
from the earth, REMOVING the motion you had by virtue of sitting on the
earth. So now you have REMOVED that motion, and what has you expense been
for?

In summary, the money you spend on acceleration only changes your velocity
RELATIVE to what it was before. And there is no physical way to tell
whether you have more motion or less motion as a result.

>
> 2. While I measure the speed of light with my equipment to be
> 299,792,458 meters per second, just as you measure it back on Earth,
> because a second is ten times longer for me, that means that my ship's
> speed is not noticed, and I'm really measuring the speed of light to be
> 29,979,245.8 meters per my very long second. If the light leaves the
> ship in the direction I'm moving, it will travel at 299,792,458 meters
> per YOUR second. My speed didn't add to the speed of light I emitted,
> the light just went at its MAXIMUM speed. The question is: what would
> you measure the speed of light to be if I emitted it out the BACK end of the ship?
>
> Ed
>

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>>
>> No, no mathematicians argue that. Mathematicians dont discuss nor argue
>> about physics. (when they do, they are not arguing as mathematicians,
>> but as physicists or philosophers).
>
> When I refer to "mathematicians," I'm generally referring to Quantum
> Theorists who do not believe in Time Dilation.

And who would those be? Just about every quantum field theorist I'm aware
of fully embraces relativity.

> And I'm also referring to physicists who believe the nonsense they were
> taught in school about the speed of light being the same for all
> observers. They believe it because they would fail if they didn't accept
> it, and because they are CONVINCED BY DOING MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS THAT
> HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

That's the purpose of mathematical equations, to enable test against
reality in observation. What are you smoking?

>
> This is my last post for today. It's supper time and time to shut down for today.

[Ed Lake]

Hmm. Let's see what "rotchm" had to say 18 hours ago.

First "rotchm" argues opinion against opinion. He says Einstein's Second Postulate states that ALL OBSERVERS will measure light traveling at c. I say Einstein didn't say that. Rotchm says he did. I say he didn't. And my quote of what Einstein actually said about the EMITTER got this response from "rotchm":

"He just emphasized that. Saying "speed is c" MEANS its c for everyone. Then He also specified it to be true no matter the source. Thats what it meant back then, and now."

The theory of relativity says that everyone will measure the speed of light to be c in their own "frame of reference." Einstein doesn't specifically state so, but that "frame of reference" should be viewed as a closed lab with no windows. A person in that lab will use standard light measuring equipment and will get a result that light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second.

Meanwhile, another scientist in another CLOSED lab will perform the same experiment and will also get a result that light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second.

Therefore, ALL OBSERVERS will measure the speed of light in their own lab to be 299,792,458 meters per second, whether they are in London or atop a mountain in Denver or on a space ship on its way to Alpha Centauri at 95% of the speed of light. Everyone will measure the speed of light the same way. That is what Einstein's FIRST POSTULATE says.

But, if any of those scientists opens his window and measures light coming from some OUTSIDE source, that light will NOT necessarily arrive at c.

Einstein's SECOND Postulate says that "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Many mathematicians argue that the second postulate is "unnecessary," because it says the same thing as the first postulate. IT DOESN'T. Einstein points that out by saying his Second Postulate is only "apparently irreconcilable with" his First Postulate. The Second Postulate states a very specific EXCEPTION where light will appear to move at a different velocity when viewed by different observers, i.e., the EMITTER versus an OUTSIDE OBSERVER.

Does that violate the First Postulate? No. The First Postulate is about measuring things in a CLOSED ROOM. In a closed room, the emitter will measure things the same way as an emitter in another closed room. It is when they COMPARE results that they find a difference.

Einstein states on page 11 of his 1905 paper that ""a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

In other words, time moves more slowly at the equator than at the North Pole, because the earth is spinning faster around its axis at the equator than at the North Pole. That means that the length of a second is different a the equator than the North Pole. And that means while a closed lab at the equator will APPEAR to get the same results they get in a closed lab at the North Pole, the results will actually be DIFFERENT because the LENGTH OF A SECOND IS DIFFERENT at the equator than at the North Pole.

"Rotchm" also wrote: "Then dont use the word "mathematician" to mean physicists!! You mean physicist, then say physicist! Geez... "

I use the term "mathematician" to distinguish them from physicists and scientists. Physicists and scientists understand "cause and effect," mathematicians do not. Physicists and scientists understand the importance of experiments, mathematicians do not.

Lastly, "relativists" are those who understand that "everything is relative," but mathematicians believe that means that "everything is reciprocal," because their MATHEMATICAL MODELS work that way. Physicists and scientists KNOW that things are NOT reciprocal, because there is such a thing as CAUSE AND EFFECT, and experiments SHOW that Time Dilation and motion are NOT RECIPROCAL. They also know that mathematical models do NOT represent reality.

Ed

[shuba]

a crank wrote:

> Hmm. Let's see what "rotchm" had to say 18 hours ago.

No thanks.


---Tim Shuba---

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Einstein doesn't specifically state so, but that "frame of reference"
should be viewed as a closed lab with no windows.

That is incorrect, nor did he say it, nor does he imply it. Do not take
something used in the context of GR and falsely insert it into SR. You are
as bad as Seto at injecting thoughts that AREN'T THERE into the writing.

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:25:16 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> Hmm. Let's see what "rotchm" had to say 18 hours ago.
>
> First "rotchm" argues opinion against opinion. He says Einstein's Second Postulate states that ALL OBSERVERS will measure light traveling at c. I say Einstein didn't say that. Rotchm says he did. I say he didn't. And my quote of what Einstein actually said about the EMITTER got this response from "rotchm":
>
> "He just emphasized that. Saying "speed is c" MEANS its c for everyone. Then He also specified it to be true no matter the source. Thats what it meant back then, and now."
>
> The theory of relativity says that everyone will measure the speed of light to be c in their own "frame of reference." Einstein doesn't specifically state so, but that "frame of reference" should be viewed as a closed lab with no windows. A person in that lab will use standard light measuring equipment and will get a result that light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second.
>
> Meanwhile, another scientist in another CLOSED lab will perform the same experiment and will also get a result that light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second.
>
> Therefore, ALL OBSERVERS will measure the speed of light in their own lab to be 299,792,458 meters per second, whether they are in London or atop a mountain in Denver or on a space ship on its way to Alpha Centauri at 95% of the speed of light. Everyone will measure the speed of light the same way. That is what Einstein's FIRST POSTULATE says.
>
> But, if any of those scientists opens his window and measures light coming from some OUTSIDE source, that light will NOT necessarily arrive at c.
>
> Einstein's SECOND Postulate says that "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>
> Many mathematicians argue that the second postulate is "unnecessary," because it says the same thing as the first postulate. IT DOESN'T. Einstein points that out by saying his Second Postulate is only "apparently irreconcilable with" his First Postulate. The Second Postulate states a very specific EXCEPTION where light will appear to move at a different velocity when viewed by different observers, i.e., the EMITTER versus an OUTSIDE OBSERVER.
>
> Does that violate the First Postulate? No. The First Postulate is about measuring things in a CLOSED ROOM. In a closed room, the emitter will measure things the same way as an emitter in another closed room. It is when they COMPARE results that they find a difference.
>
> Einstein states on page 11 of his 1905 paper that ""a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
>
> In other words, time moves more slowly at the equator than at the North Pole, because the earth is spinning faster around its axis at the equator than at the North Pole. That means that the length of a second is different a the equator than the North Pole. And that means while a closed lab at the equator will APPEAR to get the same results they get in a closed lab at the North Pole, the results will actually be DIFFERENT because the LENGTH OF A SECOND IS DIFFERENT at the equator than at the North Pole.
>
> "Rotchm" also wrote: "Then dont use the word "mathematician" to mean physicists!! You mean physicist, then say physicist! Geez... "
>
> I use the term "mathematician" to distinguish them from physicists and scientists. Physicists and scientists understand "cause and effect," mathematicians do not. Physicists and scientists understand the importance of experiments, mathematicians do not.
>
> Lastly, "relativists" are those who understand that "everything is relative," but mathematicians believe that means that "everything is reciprocal," because their MATHEMATICAL MODELS work that way. Physicists and scientists KNOW that things are NOT reciprocal, because there is such a thing as CAUSE AND EFFECT, and experiments SHOW that Time Dilation and motion are NOT RECIPROCAL. They also know that mathematical models do NOT represent reality.
>
> Ed

Einstein wrote: " As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

I'm finding more and more scientists who agree with that. The problem is, however, that each one has his own gripe against mathematicians who claim to be physicists. Many gripe about the silliness of String Theory. Others about mulitverses. I'm currently reading "Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists are Gambling Away Their Credibility" by Alexander Unzicker. His biggest gripe is the money wasted on particle physics. His latest book is “The Higgs Fake: How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee.” Lee Smolin reportedly has a lot to say about mathematicians in his book "The Trouble with Physics. I haven't read it yet. His book "Time Reborn," which I read this past week has a lot to say, too. Here are a couple quotes I put on my web page:

-------start quotes ---

Should we simply recognize mathematics for the religious activity it is? Or should we be concerned when the most rational of our thinkers, the mathematicians, speak of what they do as if it were the route to transcendence from the bounds of human life?

---------

Mathematics, then, entered science as an expression of a belief in the timeless perfection of the heavens. Useful as mathematics has turned out to be, the postulation of timeless mathematical laws is never completely innocent, for it always carries a trace of the metaphysical fantasy of transcendence from our earthly world to one of perfect forms.

-------end quotes ----

Religio Mathematica is what I call it sometimes: the religion of mathematics. It is all about beliefs and has little to do with physics or science. There's a book called "Religio Mathematici" by David Eugene Smith that is in my reading queue. I think it talks about Mathematics like it SHOULD BE a religion.

"Absurdities in Modern Physics" by Paul Marmet is one I've read.

I recently finished "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman. I think I have all Feynman's books, but I hadn't read that one before. He makes a point about how mathematicians compute things without having any idea what the reality is like. He shows how easy it is to demonstrate that light is PARTICLES, not waves, even though mathematicians will endlessly argue that light is waves.

It is absolutely fascinating to me. Until a couple years ago, I had no idea that physics was so screwed up.

On this forum, I've argued with a mathematician/physicist who claims that scientists who have demonstrated Time Dilation just don't know what they are doing.

It is really fascinating stuff.

Ed

[rotchm]

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 12:25:16 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 5:08:47 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:



> The theory of relativity says that everyone will measure the
> speed of light to be c in their own "frame of reference."

Exactly.

> Einstein doesn't specifically state so,

So what? Irrelevant.

> Therefore, ALL OBSERVERS will measure the speed of light in their
> own lab to be 299,792,458 meters per second,

Exactly.

>
> But, if any of those scientists opens his window and measures
> light coming from some OUTSIDE source, that light will NOT
> necessarily arrive at c.

ALL exp's show that the speed of such light is also c.

[rotchm]

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 4:09:22 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:


> mathematicians will endlessly argue that light is waves.

Nope. Mathematicians care less what light is. No mathematicians say thats its a particle, and none say that its a wave. Physicist thought,*model* light as a particle or wave, depending on their needs.

[Odd Bodkin]

And actually physicists model light as a quantum field, which is a third
kind of animal, distinct from both the classical senses of particle and
wave. And it turns out actually that every real thing is better modeled as
a quantum field than as a classical wave or a classical particle, but some
creaky-minded folks have a hard time letting go of the latter concepts.
When a particle physicist or a theorist says that light is a particle, they
are connoting the quantum field, not a classical particle. Same goes for
electrons or deuterons or pineapples.

[Odd Bodkin]

But it has to be said that there are science writers and professional
physicists writing popularization who use sloppy and archaic language even
today, talking about "particle-wave duality" and "sometimes light is a wave
and sometimes it's a particle". They do this probably because some barely
acquainted lay person has gushed rapturously about "tell me about that
particle-wave duality stuff" and the physicist is catering to them at that
level.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 21 sierpnia 2017 04:33:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 4:09:22 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> mathematicians will endlessly argue that light is waves.
> >>
> >> Nope. Mathematicians care less what light is. No mathematicians say thats
> >> its a particle, and none say that its a wave. Physicist thought,*model*
> >> light as a particle or wave, depending on their needs.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > And actually physicists model light as a quantum field, which is a third
> > kind of animal, distinct from both the classical senses of particle and
> > wave. And it turns out actually that every real thing is better modeled as
> > a quantum field than as a classical wave or a classical particle, but some
> > creaky-minded folks have a hard time letting go of the latter concepts.
> > When a particle physicist or a theorist says that light is a particle, they
> > are connoting the quantum field, not a classical particle. Same goes for
> > electrons or deuterons or pineapples.
> >
>
> But it has to be said that there are science writers and professional
> physicists writing popularization who use sloppy and archaic language even
> today, talking about "particle-wave duality" and "sometimes light is a wave
> and sometimes it's a particle".

They should stop immediately. Common mortals
don't need any info. All they need to know is that
gurus are incredibly wise and that they demand
obedience and funds.

[Odd Bodkin]

If this is about funds, I vote to put people in office who will be
custodians of public funds, and then scientists compete for those funds. I
don't think there are scientists who demand much of anything, including
obedience or funds.

I take it you have a problem with the public fund scheme. So vote it out.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Yeah, they surely compete. Cat simultaneously
dead and alive, yesyesyes! 20 additional dimensions!
Spacetime curvature, wow! Parallel universes,
no ordinary mortal would ever imagine such thing.

> I
> don't think there are scientists who demand much of anything, including
> obedience or funds.

Of course! The members of our Party are just
humble servants of people. Demeands? nonononono!
we would never dare.

[Ed Lake]

But which is it? Is light a particle or a wave? As long as mathematicians have mathematical models to solve their equations, THEY DON'T CARE. But it should be a TOP QUESTION for any physicist or scientist.

The wave model they teach in schools is JUST PLAIN STUPID. The EVIDENCE says that light is a PARTICLE beyond any doubt. The only real question is: Where do the "wave-like properties" come from? The answer seems to be that a photon (a particle of light) moves in a wave-like pattern. That works fine, except it creates another problem for mathematicians: How can a particle move in a wave-like pattern without some MEDIUM like the aether? The answer won't be found via mathematics, it will only be found with LOGIC and experiment.

Ed

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 21 sierpnia 2017 15:46:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Ed Lake napisał:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 9:13:15 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 4:09:22 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> >
> > > mathematicians will endlessly argue that light is waves.
> >
> > Nope. Mathematicians care less what light is. No mathematicians say thats its a particle, and none say that its a wave. Physicist thought,*model* light as a particle or wave, depending on their needs.
>
> But which is it? Is light a particle or a wave?

How about "neither"?

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 9:13:15 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 4:09:22 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>
>>> mathematicians will endlessly argue that light is waves.
>>
>> Nope. Mathematicians care less what light is. No mathematicians say
>> thats its a particle, and none say that its a wave. Physicist
>> thought,*model* light as a particle or wave, depending on their needs.
>
> But which is it? Is light a particle or a wave?

Neither. Quantum field. Not that new an idea. Been around since about 1930.

> As long as mathematicians have mathematical models to solve their
> equations, THEY DON'T CARE. But it should be a TOP QUESTION for any
> physicist or scientist.
>
> The wave model they teach in schools is JUST PLAIN STUPID. The EVIDENCE
> says that light is a PARTICLE beyond any doubt.

Nope not a particle or a wave.

>The only real question is: Where do the "wave-like properties" come from?
> The answer seems to be that a photon (a particle of light) moves in a
> wave-like pattern. That works fine, except it creates another problem
> for mathematicians: How can a particle move in a wave-like pattern
> without some MEDIUM like the aether? The answer won't be found via
> mathematics, it will only be found with LOGIC and experiment.
>
> Ed
>

[Ed Lake]

Actually, it appears to be BOTH, but not a wave in the sense of waves on the ocean or sound waves.

I have a half-written paper on the subject. It seems clear to me that light particles simply travel in a wave-like pattern. That is a problem for mathematicians and some physicists because they cannot imagine any object that does not move in a straight line - unless there is some outside influence CAUSING it to change directions. It's Newton's first law: An object in motion will move in a straight line unless acted upon by some outside force. Not so with photons. Logically, they must move in a wave-like pattern due to some internal force. It's easy to visualize but difficult to explain.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

NO THEY DON'T. If you believe so, please cite the experiments. Don't just CLAIM they exist.

Earlier in this thread I cited the experiments that demonstrate that the speed of light varies for outside observers. Here they are again:

Annual Doppler Effect (1887)
Sagnac's experiments (1911)

Michelson-Gale (1925)
Lunar Laser Ranging (2009)
Lidar guns (every day)
Pulsars (every day)

The experiments you claim show otherwise DO NOT INCLUDE OUTSIDE OBSERVERS. They just use an incorrect interpretation of the FIRST Postulate and make ASSUMPTIONS about what an outside observer will see.

Ed

[anne]

what's an outside observer?

[Ed Lake]

"Undulate" seems to be to word to use. Definition: "move with a smooth wavelike motion."

A photon moves from its source to your eyeball basically in a straight line, but it UNDULATES as it travels. It goes up and down or side to side. This gives it some wave-like properties.

Understanding how light moves is one of the biggest mysteries in science. It is STUPID to just accept it as a "mystery" and be happy to use particle models in one situation and wave models in another situation. Scientists and physicists are SUPPOSED TO BE FIGURING OUT WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON. To be satisfied with conflicting models is WRONG! It is ANTI-SCIENCE.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Hey, Anne, welcome to the discussion!

An outside observer is someone outside of the lab where you created the light. Or outside of the source where the light was created.

It is you looking at light coming from a star. It is everyone who is not situation right next to the source of the light and moving with the source of the light. To put it another way, it is everyone EXCEPT the EMITTER.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Of course, I should also have said that "an outside observer" is someone in a different "frame of reference." It is you in your "frame of reference" looking out at light that was emitted in another "frame of reference." That makes you an "outside observer" for that other "frame of reference."

Ed

[anne]

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 21-aug-2017 om 16:26 schreef Ed Lake:

> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:19:15 AM UTC-5, anne wrote:
>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 3:09:30 PM UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:

[nonsense]

>>> Ed
>>
>> what's an outside observer?
>
> Hey, Anne, welcome to the discussion!

This is not a discussion.
"Anne" is pulling your leg.

Dirk Vdm

[shuba]

a crank wrote:

> I have a half-written paper on the subject.
> It seems clear to me that light particles simply
> travel in a wave-like pattern.

Undoubtedly this new paper will be just as influential as your other feeble attempts at writing about physics.


---Tim Shuba---

[Ed Lake]

I don't write to be "influential." I write to clarify my thoughts and to see how others react to my thoughts. There's an old saying by E. M. Forster: "How do I know what I think until I see what I say?"

Writing things down helps me see how clearly I am stating things. And it can show me where I am wrong.

So, even if Dirk thinks this thread is "not a discussion," my response to Anne helped me by showing me that I need to refer to "frames of reference" when I mention "outside observers." It wasn't anything that Anne wrote, it was what I wrote that showed that to me.

Sooner or later, of course, I'll get tired of all the personal insults and unsupported opinions that are the usual posts here, and I'll go back to working on my papers. But, for the moment, I enjoy writing things here in order to clarify my thoughts and to see how others react to them.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:50:46 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> I see Pentcho Valev endlessly ranting about "Einsteinians" being wrong. But, nearly every time he is not ranting about what Einstein or Einstein's followers say, he is ranting about what MATHEMATICIANS who DISAGREE with Einstein say. The problem is: the MATHEMATICIANS claim that what they are saying is what Einstein said. It isn't.

Pentcho just posted another very interesting link. It is to a web page created by the University of New South Wales, in Sydney, Australia. Here's the link: http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.

The first sentence of text in the web page is "How weird is the invariance of the speed of light? Is the principle of Special Relativity really counter-intuitive?"

Then there is an excellent animated illustration showing someone in a space ship shining headlights forward as the ship heads toward a STATIONARY observer.

Then there is this text: "It depends on how one expresses it, and to whose intuition one appeals. For example, it does seem counter-intuitive that the speed of light does not depend on the motion of the observer."

WHAT "motion of the observer"???? The observer is STATIONARY!

The text goes on: "In our animation, Zoe turns on the headlights of her space ship. She measures the speed of light from her headlights as c with respect to her. Jasper sees her travelling towards him at (let's say) v. He measures the speed of light from her headlights as c. No, not c+v, but just c. Surely this is counter-intuitive? Maybe even crazy? Surely relative speeds add up?"

Note that although Jasper is STATIONARY, the text above expects light to arrive from the space ship at c+v. Einstein stated that the EMITTER's speed does not change the speed of light that is emitted. The illustration shows exactly that. It shows Zoe's moving space ship emitting light a c, and stationary Jasper viewing the light arriving at c.

But the ARGUMENTS are ALWAYS about the OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD THE SPACE SHIP and STILL seeing the light arrive at c. And the text somehow even implies that Jasper is a MOVING OBSERVER.

At the bottom of the page they show the animated illustration again and ask, "How can Jasper and Zoe's 'speedometers' both get the same value of the speed of light? Just looking at it, I can see that the red dot is approaching Jasper faster than it is leaving Zoe. How do they get the same answer?"

The answer they provide is: "The answer is time dilation. We are looking at this animation from Jasper's frame of reference and, according to Jasper, time runs slowly for Zoe. Zoe's clocks, including the timing mechanism of her 'speedometer', run slowly. So Zoe records the same value for the speed of light."

That's basically what I said earlier in this thread. So, I agree with almost everything on the page, except for the comment about Jasper being a moving observer. That just poses the same question I've been asking: Where do the MATHEMATICIANS get the idea that if JASPER were moving toward Zoe's space ship, Jasper would STILL measure the speed of light to arrive at c?

Ed

[Dono,]

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 1:45:02 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> WHAT "motion of the observer"???? The observer is STATIONARY!
>

"Stationary" with respect to WHAT, imbecile?

[Ed Lake]

Ah! Okay. The illustration shows Jasper standing still. ONLY the space ship is moving. So, perhaps I should have said that Jasper is "standing still" instead of saying he was "stationary."

I can see your argument is the standard mathematician's claim that "all motion is relative," so if the space ship is moving toward Jasper, you fantasize that also means Jasper is moving toward the space ship. The page says nothing about that.

How would you have responded if I had stated that Jasper was "standing still?"

Ed

[Dono,]

Can't fix cretin

[Ed Lake]

So, you have no response? All you can do is call me names?

Can't you see that just convinces me that you do not understand anything and therefore cannot explain anything, and that just indicates to me that I'm probably right.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 11:41:19 AM UTC-5, shuba wrote:
>> a crank wrote:
>>
>>> I have a half-written paper on the subject.
>>> It seems clear to me that light particles simply
>>> travel in a wave-like pattern.
>>
>> Undoubtedly this new paper will be just as influential as your other
>> feeble attempts at writing about physics.
>>
>>
>> ---Tim Shuba---
>
> I don't write to be "influential." I write to clarify my thoughts and to
> see how others react to my thoughts. There's an old saying by E. M.
> Forster: "How do I know what I think until I see what I say?"

Archie Plutonium thinks his thoughts are so valuable that he uses usenet as
a stream of consciousness personal journal. You too?

>
> Writing things down helps me see how clearly I am stating things. And it
> can show me where I am wrong.
>
> So, even if Dirk thinks this thread is "not a discussion," my response to
> Anne helped me by showing me that I need to refer to "frames of
> reference" when I mention "outside observers." It wasn't anything that
> Anne wrote, it was what I wrote that showed that to me.
>
> Sooner or later, of course, I'll get tired of all the personal insults
> and unsupported opinions that are the usual posts here, and I'll go back
> to working on my papers. But, for the moment, I enjoy writing things
> here in order to clarify my thoughts and to see how others react to them.
>
> Ed
>