Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks

[Ed Lake]

"Those who do know physics do physics research.
"Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
"Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."

That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"

This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's that link: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING

It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
>
> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
> physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The key
> article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS
> TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
>
> This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's
> that lin

> : https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
>
> It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to
> agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
>
> Ed
>

Isn’t it fun how easy it is to mine the internet to find quotes that
support a pet peeve?

I mean, I could take anything — that daffodils might cause cancer in dogs,
so that dog-owners should not grow daffodils in their yard — and there will
be something on the internet to support that. Isn’t that amazing?

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

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-03-28 15:59:48 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
>
> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
> physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England.

It's much older than that. At least, I heard a very similar proposition
in the 1970s.

> The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN
> PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
>
> This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's
> that link:
> https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
>
>
> It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to
> agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
>
> Ed

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Ed Lake]

Here's a quote from page 34:

------------- start quote --------------------
1. In research, language and visual tools are used as convincing arguments in promoting
new ideas, but in physics textbooks they are rather a decorative complement of equations.
2. In research, explanations are crafted to be as precise and complete as possible, but in
physics textbooks they are sometimes imprecise and incomplete.
3. In research, illustrative applicative examples of an equation are authentic and relevant,
but in physics textbooks they are sometimes artificial and senseless.
4. In research, numerical values have their clear origin and meaning, but in physics textbooks
they are sometimes invented and it is even impossible for them to occur in the real
world.
5. When used in research, historical episodes are carefully studied through original articles
but in physics textbooks they are mentioned superficially and even wrongly.
It seems that textbook authors, while writing and very likely in teaching, do not practice the
culture of research.
-------------------- end quote -------------------

Someone sent me the link to the book. I've been comparing what textbooks have to say
about certain experiments. I've found textbooks that have totally different explanations
for the Pound-Rebka experiment, for example. My research must have prompted academia.edu
to send me the link to that book about textbook errors.

Ed

[Paparios]

As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that the whole physics community agrees with that quote.

You should also read the articles "RECOGNIZING THE STRUCTURAL ROLE OF MATHEMATICS IN PHYSICS LESSONS" on page 84, "STUDENTS’ VIEWS ON THE USE OF MATHEMATICS IN PHYSICS" on page 91 and "MASTER IDIFO (INNOVAZIONE DIDATTICA IN FISICA E ORIENTAMENTO): A COMMUNITY OF ITALIAN PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCHERS AND TEACHERS AS A MODEL FOR A RESEARCH BASED IN-SERVICE TEACHER DEVELOPMENT IN MODERN
PHYSICS" on page 97, where things related to relativity are considered.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:27:48 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> > "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> > "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> > "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
> >
> > That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
> >
> > This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's that link: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
> >
> > It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
> >
> > Ed
> As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that the whole physics community agrees with that quote.
>
> You should also read the articles "RECOGNIZING THE STRUCTURAL ROLE OF MATHEMATICS IN PHYSICS LESSONS"

Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest
part false, as it didn't want to fit the madness of your
idiot guru.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, escribió:
> > "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> > "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> > "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
> >
> > That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
> >
> > This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's that link: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
> >
> > It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
> >
> > Ed
> As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that the whole physics community agrees with that quote.

I didn't choose that quote because I think "the whole physics community" agrees with it.
I chose that quote because it is about TEACHING physics.

I'm researching physics textbooks. If one physics textbook describes the
Pound-Rebka experiment as being in agreement with Einstein's General
Relativity, and another textbook describes Pound-Rebka as demonstrating
a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity,
then clearly one textbook is correct and the other is incorrect. And other
experiments clearly show which book is correct and which isn't.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>> El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, escribió:
>>> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
>>> "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
>>> "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
>>>
>>> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
>>> physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The
>>> key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS
>>> TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
>>>
>>> This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's
>>> that l

>>> nk: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
>>>
>>>
>>> It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to
>>> agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
>>>
>>> Ed
>> As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that
>> the whole physics community agrees with that quote.
>
> I didn't choose that quote because I think "the whole physics community"
> agrees with it.
> I chose that quote because it is about TEACHING physics.

That happens to synch with your own predilections. So easy to do on the
internet, isn’t it?

>
> I'm researching physics textbooks. If one physics textbook describes the
> Pound-Rebka experiment as being in agreement with Einstein's General
> Relativity, and another textbook describes Pound-Rebka as demonstrating
> a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity,
> then clearly one textbook is correct and the other is incorrect.

That depends on whether you have a decent understanding of general
relativity, doesn’t it? Do the books say they disagree with each other? Or
does one just agree with you (you think) and the other disagrees with you?

> And other
> experiments clearly show which book is correct and which isn't.
>
> Ed
>

[Hewitt Bliss]

Ed Lake wrote:

> I'm researching physics textbooks. If one physics textbook describes
> the Pound-Rebka experiment as being in agreement with Einstein's General
> Relativity, and another textbook describes Pound-Rebka as demonstrating
> a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General
> Relativity, then clearly one textbook is correct and the other is
> incorrect. And other experiments clearly show which book is correct and
> which isn't.

paywall. Give the direct link to that crap, you stupid bag of rocks.

[Hewitt Bliss]

Ed Lake wrote:

> This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's
> that link:

nonsense, the corrupt nato collective western europe, and the deepen
corrupt gringos of america, bombing europe with larger bombs than Hirosima
and Nagasake, for decades now. *_Swine_flu_*, *_chicken_flu_* etc,
destroying the economy of the small countries of europe, willingly
participatory in collective western europe nato, criminal organization.

UK Column News - 28th March 2022 https://rumble.com/embed/vw7esa/

They know their countries are destroyed and say nothing. Deepen corrupt
organizations. *_Traitors_*, that for the sake of liberal capitalist
astronomic wages and privileges, are killing people around them, with no
mercy and regrets whatsoever. They are even blaming Russia, coming along,
proving the *war_crimes* in their faces.

that's why they don't love Russia, but supports the nazi "ukrainian"
criminals.

[Paparios]

El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 13:55:11 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, escribió:
> > > "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> > > "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> > > "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
> > >
> > > That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
> > >
> > > This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's that link: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
> > >
> > > It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that the whole physics community agrees with that quote.
> I didn't choose that quote because I think "the whole physics community" agrees with it.
> I chose that quote because it is about TEACHING physics.
>

And, of course, you agree that the quote shows how physics is done and taught!

> I'm researching physics textbooks. If one physics textbook describes the
> Pound-Rebka experiment as being in agreement with Einstein's General
> Relativity, and another textbook describes Pound-Rebka as demonstrating
> a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity,
> then clearly one textbook is correct and the other is incorrect. And other
> experiments clearly show which book is correct and which isn't.
>
> Ed

All physics experiments are carefully explained by the physicists which performed those experiments. You are a nobody which do not have any qualifications to affirm that textbooks "demonstrate a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity".

This the same nonsense that you write about Einstein postulates or principles, which are completely clear from the moment he wrote them, in his 1905 paper:

"1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
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".

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

The books don’t SAY they disagree with each other. I doubt any textbook is going to SAY that it disagrees with other textbooks about some key issue.
Here is what Robert Pound and Glen Rebka Jr. wrote in their Nov. 1, 1959 paper where they described the experiment they were going to perform:

-------------------- start quote --------------------
It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the gravitational potential at the position of the EMITTING SYSTEM. The several theories of relativity predict the frequency to be proportional to the gravitational potential.
---------------------- end quote -------------------

Link: https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439

When they finished the experiment, they wrote another paper dated April 1, 1960 in which they described the confirmed results of their experiment. The title of the second paper was “Apparent Weight of Photons.”

Link: https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337

Here is a list of the Top 9 physics textbooks: https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/

Here is what it says about the Pound-Rebka experiment on page 718 of the 12th edition of “Conceptual Physics” by Paul G. Hewitt, which is #2 on that list of the top 9 physics textbooks:

------------------ start quote ----------------------
All atoms emit light at specific frequencies characteristic of the vibrational rate of electrons within the atom. Every atom is therefore a “clock,” and a slowing down of atomic vibration indicates the slowing down of such clocks. An atom on the Sun should emit light of a lower frequency (slower vibration) than light emitted by the same element on Earth. Since red light is at the low-frequency end of the visible spectrum, a lowering of frequency shifts the color toward the red. This effect is called the gravitational red shift. The gravitational red shift is observed in light from the Sun, but various disturbing influences prevent accurate measurements of this tiny effect. It wasn’t until 1960 that an entirely new technique, using gamma rays from radioactive atoms, permitted incredibly precise and confirming measurements of THE GRAVITATIONAL SLOWING OF TIME between the top and bottom floors of a laboratory building at Harvard University.1

1In the late 1950s, shortly after Einstein’s death, the German physicist Rudolph Mössbauer discovered an important effect in nuclear physics that provides an extremely accurate method of using atomic nuclei as atomic clocks. The Mössbauer effect, for which its discoverer was awarded the Nobel Prize, has many practical applications. In late 1959, Robert Pound and Glen Rebka at Harvard University conceived an application that was a test for general relativity and performed the confirming experiment.
--------------------- end quote --------------
Link: https://www.amazon.com/Conceptual-Physics-Paul-G-Hewitt-ebook/dp/B00K57XDBG/

And here is what it says about Pound-Rebka on page 488 of the #6 book on that Top 9 list, “Modern Physics” by Kenneth Krane:

----------------- start quote -----------------
The principle of equivalence thus predicts a change in frequency of a light WAVE FALLING in the Earth’s gravity.
In 1959, R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka allowed 14.4-keV photons from the radioactive decay of 57Co to FALL down the Harvard tower, a distance of 22.6 m. The expected fractional change in frequency, ∆f /f = gH/c2, was 2.46 × 10−15; that is, to detect the effect, they had to measure the frequency or energy of the photon at the bottom of the tower to a precision of about 1 part in 1015!
-------------- end quote ------------------
Link: http://27.109.7.67:1111/library/downloads/SS.pdf

------------- analysis --------------
“Conceptual Physics” explains how an atom at a high altitude EMITS a photon that oscillates faster than what an atom EMITS at a lower altitude. And that is what Pound and Rebka said, too.

“Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
That is wrong.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 1:56:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 13:55:11 UTC-3, escribió:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, escribió:
> > > > "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> > > > "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> > > > "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
> > > >
> > > > That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
> > > >
> > > > This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's that link: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
> > > >
> > > > It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that the whole physics community agrees with that quote.
> > I didn't choose that quote because I think "the whole physics community" agrees with it.
> > I chose that quote because it is about TEACHING physics.
> >
> And, of course, you agree that the quote shows how physics is done and taught!
> > I'm researching physics textbooks. If one physics textbook describes the
> > Pound-Rebka experiment as being in agreement with Einstein's General
> > Relativity, and another textbook describes Pound-Rebka as demonstrating
> > a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity,
> > then clearly one textbook is correct and the other is incorrect. And other
> > experiments clearly show which book is correct and which isn't.
> >
> > Ed
> All physics experiments are carefully explained by the physicists which performed those experiments. You are a nobody which do not have any qualifications to affirm that textbooks "demonstrate a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity".

So, all you can do is attack me personally? You cannot actually discuss the topic?

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Then you are literally making something up when you say they do disagree
with each other.
What you CAN say is that you THINK one book agrees with something you
believe and that you THINK another book disagrees with something you
believe. But that’s something entirely different.

> Here is what Robert Pound and Glen Rebka Jr. wrote in their Nov. 1, 1959
> paper where they described the experiment they were going to perform:
>
> -------------------- start quote --------------------
> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that
> the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the
> gravitational potential at the position of the EMITTING SYSTEM. The
> several theories of relativity predict the frequency to be proportional
> to the gravitational potential.
> ---------------------- end quote -------------------

The above is an example of where you are likely to misconstrue. You read it
as testing that it ONLY depends on the position of the emitting system.
Physicists know already that what matters is the DIFFERENCE in the
gravitational potential between the emitting AND the receiving system. And
so physicists will correctly read that as “keeping the position of the
receiving system the same, check experimentally that the frequencies will
be shown to vary by changing the position of the emitting system, which is
effectively changing the DIFFERENCE in the gravitational potential.”

This is also where you are going to ask, “Well, if that’s what they meant,
then why did they not say that?” And the answer is that they DO NOT HAVE TO
be so explicit for their intended audience, which is a group of physicists
who have a grasp of the underlying background concepts. This is a case
where people who are NOT physicists are likely to misconstrue the paper (as
you have done) because you lack the background to be able to parse that
language correctly.

No, and that’s where you’re misconstruing has kicked in, by focusing on the
word “EMISSION” as being the only thing that matters, when in fact is the
DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential that matters, and it is indeed the
fact that the same photon traversed that potential DIFFERENCE that matters.
You just didn’t know enough physics to be able to parse what Pound and
Rebka said correctly.

>
> “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
> “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
> That is wrong.
>
> Ed
>

[Odd Bodkin]

The reason for the personal attack, Ed, is that because of your deep lack
of background in physics, you are prone to misread things that are said in
articles that are over your head. Physicists have context that you lack,
and so when something is ASSUMED TO BE UNDERSTOOD by the audience of those
papers but LEFT UNSAID, you are naturally going to be unequipped to
understand things correctly.

MOST articles that are written for professional physicists are going to be
impossible to be correctly understood by anyone who is lacking six years of
physics education at least. Most textbooks that are written for graduate
students will not be correctly understandable by anyone who is lacking two
or three years of physics education at least. The only textbooks that are
correctly understandable by people without any background in physics are
first-year textbooks and popularizations. And popularizations are going to
represent things poorly because it is not their aim to teach the material
but to gee-whiz people.

[Paparios]

The topic you have started here is "Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks". You are asserting (without any proof) that physics textbooks contain "errors". In fact you are writing a "book" where chapter 11 is entitled "The textbook problem".

One of your old problems is that you do not read the references that you use in your writings. As an example, you insist that Einstein
principle of the constancy of the speed of light is only what he wrote in page 1 of his 1905 paper:

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".

But he defined that principle precisely in page 4 as:

"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".

Everyone knowing a little of English can verify that both paragraphs say the same. The state of motion of the emitting body can be, for sure, either being stationary or being moving.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:23:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

(snip)

> > Here is what Robert Pound and Glen Rebka Jr. wrote in their Nov. 1, 1959
> > paper where they described the experiment they were going to perform:
> >
> > -------------------- start quote --------------------
> > It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that
> > the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the
> > gravitational potential at the position of the EMITTING SYSTEM. The
> > several theories of relativity predict the frequency to be proportional
> > to the gravitational potential.
> > ---------------------- end quote -------------------
> The above is an example of where you are likely to misconstrue. You read it
> as testing that it ONLY depends on the position of the emitting system.
> Physicists know already that what matters is the DIFFERENCE in the
> gravitational potential between the emitting AND the receiving system. And
> so physicists will correctly read that as “keeping the position of the
> receiving system the same, check experimentally that the frequencies will
> be shown to vary by changing the position of the emitting system, which is
> effectively changing the DIFFERENCE in the gravitational potential.”

You simply don't understand. The issue is NOT about measuring the difference.
Obviously you must MEASURE the difference to KNOW there IS a difference.
The real and only issue is WHAT CAUSES the difference.

The CAUSE of the difference is that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate at the top
of a building than at the bottom of that same building.

YES! The DIFFERENCE IS what matters. But more importantly, the CAUSE
of the difference is what truly matters.

Pound and Rebka demonstrated that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate atop a
building than at the bottom of a building. That means that a billion times per
second at the top of a building is FASTER than a billion times per second at the
bottom of the same building.

Therefore the CAUSE of the difference in the photon frequencies is the difference
in TIME at the different altitudes. That is what "Conceptual Physics" says, that is
what Pound and Rebka said, and that is what Einstein said.

> >
> > “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
> > “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
> > That is wrong.

YES, it is wrong because a wave or photon DOES NOT CHANGE FREQUENCY as it
FALLS. The photon was a different frequency WHEN IT WAS CREATED

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:39:21 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

You clearly do not understand ENGLISH, Paparios. Those two paragraphs do NOT say the same.

The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c in empty space.
The second one is just about what happens when that light is viewed in a
"stationary system of co-ordinates."

Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or
decelerating. That is the KEY FACT. How the EMITTED PHOTONS are VIEWED in a
"stationary system of coordinates" is important, too, but it's a different issue.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

No, and this is what I’m talking about. You have a preconceived idea of
what the cause is, and then you go mining papers for snippets that you
think support YOUR idea, rather than asking what it is they had in mind. In
this case p, you keyed on the word EMISSION and said, “See? The authors
agree with me that there is something different about the emission process
at higher and lower elevations.” But in fact, that’s not what they were
saying at all. What they stated was that by varying the height at which the
emission occurred, thus varying the difference between emission and
receiving points, they could experimentally validate the change in
frequency from emission to reception.

But you are so keyed on YOUR PRECONCEIVED IDEA that even single words get
mined out and misinterpreted as supporting your contention.

No, that is not what they claimed to have proven. That is YOUR
INTERPRETATION, and it’s based on the inclusion of a SINGLE WORD: emission.
They did NOT say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at faster
rate at higher elevations, but that’s what you wanted to see, because it’s
what you believe is going on.

So the exercise for you — the most important thing you can do — is to
ABSTAIN from having an opinion about the explanation, until you’ve read a
lot more about the phenomena that you’re interested in. This is not your
habit, but the habit you do have gets you in trouble fast.

>
> Therefore the CAUSE of the difference in the photon frequencies is the difference
> in TIME at the different altitudes. That is what "Conceptual Physics" says, that is
> what Pound and Rebka said, and that is what Einstein said.
>
>>>
>>> “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
>>> “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
>>> That is wrong.
>
> YES, it is wrong because a wave or photon DOES NOT CHANGE FREQUENCY as it
> FALLS.

This is your opinion. It’s also not what physicists think.

> The photon was a different frequency WHEN IT WAS CREATED
>
> Ed
>

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 10:24:56 AM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> You clearly do not understand ENGLISH, Paparios.

I maintain that it is YOU that does not Cleary understand ENGLISH. See below.

> Those two paragraphs do NOT say the same.

Yes they do.

> The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ...

Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the
speed is c?

> Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or
> decelerating.

Again, who is the observer that is noting that the speed is c in those cases?

[Ed Lake]

But WHY? Do you really believe that Pound and Rebka DIDN'T CARE WHY
"they could experimentally validate the change in frequency from emission to reception"?

The paper they wrote after the experiment says,

------- start quote ----
As we proposed a few months ago, we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized
by Einstein, of GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL on the apparent frequency of electromagnetic
radiation by using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids,
as discovered by Mossbauer.
------- end quote -------

They were measuring THE EFFECT OF GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL at two
different locations on the frequency of electromagnetic radiation emitted
at those two different locations. They were NOT measuring the effect
of photons FALLING from one location to another. They were measuring
the difference in GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL at two different locations.

(snip)

> > Pound and Rebka demonstrated that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate atop a
> > building than at the bottom of a building. That means that a billion times per
> > second at the top of a building is FASTER than a billion times per second at the
> > bottom of the same building.
> No, that is not what they claimed to have proven. That is YOUR
> INTERPRETATION, and it’s based on the inclusion of a SINGLE WORD: emission.
> They did NOT say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at faster
> rate at higher elevations, but that’s what you wanted to see, because it’s
> what you believe is going on.

Yes, they DID say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at a faster rate
at higher locations. They just used the term "gravitational potential" to refer
to different locations at different altitudes.

And they said. "Thus it is absolutely necessary to measure a change in the relative
frequency that is produced by the perturbation being studied."

"Perturbation" is defined as "a deviation of a system, moving object, or process from
its regular or normal state or path, caused by an outside influence." The "outside
influence" is putting the emitter and receiver at different altitudes.

(snip)

> >>> “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
> >>> “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
> >>> That is wrong.
> >
> > YES, it is wrong because a wave or photon DOES NOT CHANGE FREQUENCY as it
> > FALLS.
> This is your opinion. It’s also not what physicists think.

It is what INTELLIGENT physicists have thought since experiments showed that
Einstein was right. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that a photon changes
frequency as it falls. All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say a new photon oscillates at a
frequency that is determined by the type of atom that created that new photon and
the location of that atom, and the photon will continue to oscillate at that frequency
until it is absorbed by another atom.

Ed

[Paparios]

Both paragraphs clearly say that the light moves at speed c, independently of the state of motion (stationary or moving) of the emitting body.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 10:24:56 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>
> > You clearly do not understand ENGLISH, Paparios.
> I maintain that it is YOU that does not Cleary understand ENGLISH. See below.
> > Those two paragraphs do NOT say the same.
> Yes they do.
>
> > The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ...
>
> Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the
> speed is c?

The emitter is the only "observer."

> > Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or
> > decelerating.
> Again, who is the observer that is noting that the speed is c in those cases?

The emitter is the only "observer." The emitter emits photons at c and
c is the speed PER SECOND at the location of the emitter.

Ed

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:17:09 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> > > The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ...
> >
> > Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the
> > speed is c?
> The emitter is the only "observer."

OK. However, to those who can read English, those who can understand what is written (or the intention thereof),
the above not only means that the 'observer' is the emitter, but that the observer can be any (inertial) observer.

But yes, some may interpret the above that the only observer is the emitter.
Those people (you?) should investigate more the meaning of that sentence to see if they understood it correctly.

> > > Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or
> > > decelerating.
> > Again, who is the observer that is noting that the speed is c in those cases?
> The emitter is the only "observer."

In the now above, it is much more clear that the author meant that any (inertial) observer is/are the ones
declaring that it is 'c'; that the emitter is NOT 'the' observer. Anyone who understands English, would have understood/interpreted it like that. Do you agree with my comments in this reply?

> The emitter emits photons at c and
> c is the speed PER SECOND at the location of the emitter.

He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.

[Odd Bodkin]

Of course they cared why. They just didn’t state the cause as explicitly as
you’d like. Nor did they have to, because the intended audience of this
paper already understood the putative cause without needing to have it
stated in the paper. This is where you lack context that physicists have.

>
> The paper they wrote after the experiment says,
>
> ------- start quote ----
> As we proposed a few months ago, we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized
> by Einstein, of GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL on the apparent frequency of electromagnetic
> radiation by using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free y rays
> emitted and absorbed in solids,
> as discovered by Mossbauer.
> ------- end quote -------
>
> They were measuring THE EFFECT OF GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL at two
> different locations on the frequency of electromagnetic radiation emitted
> at those two different locations. They were NOT measuring the effect
> of photons FALLING from one location to another. They were measuring
> the difference in GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL at two different locations.

Every physicist (or for that matter, any student who’s had at least a year
of physics) knows that gravitational potential itself means nothing, and
it’s only the travel THROUGH a change in gravitational potential that makes
a difference. This, for a physicist, goes without saying. And I know you
don’t have the benefit of that background knowledge. This is an example of
material that would make it easier for to follow what physicists are
saying, and isn’t really covered in popularizations.

>
> (snip)
>>> Pound and Rebka demonstrated that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate atop a
>>> building than at the bottom of a building. That means that a billion times per
>>> second at the top of a building is FASTER than a billion times per second at the
>>> bottom of the same building.
>> No, that is not what they claimed to have proven. That is YOUR
>> INTERPRETATION, and it’s based on the inclusion of a SINGLE WORD: emission.
>> They did NOT say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at faster
>> rate at higher elevations, but that’s what you wanted to see, because it’s
>> what you believe is going on.
>
> Yes, they DID say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at a faster rate
> at higher locations. They just used the term "gravitational potential" to refer
> to different locations at different altitudes.

No, you are substituting words and changing meaning.

>
> And they said. "Thus it is absolutely necessary to measure a change in the relative
> frequency that is produced by the perturbation being studied."
>
> "Perturbation" is defined as "a deviation of a system, moving object, or process from
> its regular or normal state or path, caused by an outside influence." The "outside
> influence" is putting the emitter and receiver at different altitudes.

The perturbation is the light traveling through that potential difference.

>
> (snip)
>
>>>>> “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
>>>>> “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
>>>>> That is wrong.
>>>
>>> YES, it is wrong because a wave or photon DOES NOT CHANGE FREQUENCY as it
>>> FALLS.
>> This is your opinion. It’s also not what physicists think.
>
> It is what INTELLIGENT physicists have thought

Sorry, no. You are not in a position to judge which physicists are
intelligent and which are not. And it does your reputation no good service
to say that the physicists that agree with your common sense instincts are
the intelligent ones. That’s just self serving propaganda, and it’s seen as
that.

> since experiments showed that
> Einstein was right. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that a photon changes
> frequency as it falls. All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say a new photon oscillates at a
> frequency that is determined by the type of atom that created that new photon and
> the location of that atom, and the photon will continue to oscillate at that frequency
> until it is absorbed by another atom.
>
> Ed
>

[Michael Moroney]

You emphasized the wrong words. Look at this:

> ------- start quote ----
> As we proposed a few months ago, we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized

> by Einstein, of gravitational potential on the APPARENT FREQUENCY of electromagnetic

> radiation by using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids,
> as discovered by Mossbauer.
> ------- end quote -------

APPARENT frequency. That is the light is received at a certain
frequency so it was APPARENTLY emitted at that frequency.

>
> They were measuring THE EFFECT OF GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL

You mean the effect of a gravitational potential DIFFERENCE, as Einstein
predicted.

> at two
> different locations on the frequency of electromagnetic radiation emitted
> at those two different locations.

Two difference locations at different gravitational potentials, in order
to measure the effect of a potential DIFFERENCE.

> They were NOT measuring the effect
> of photons FALLING from one location to another. They were measuring
> the difference in GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL at two different locations.

Difference in potential. You should have emphasized the word "difference".

>
> (snip)
>>> Pound and Rebka demonstrated that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate atop a
>>> building than at the bottom of a building.

That is YOUR (mis)interpretation. Not that of Pound or Rebka.

>>> That means that a billion times per
>>> second at the top of a building is FASTER than a billion times per second at the
>>> bottom of the same building.
>> No, that is not what they claimed to have proven. That is YOUR
>> INTERPRETATION, and it’s based on the inclusion of a SINGLE WORD: emission.
>> They did NOT say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at faster
>> rate at higher elevations, but that’s what you wanted to see, because it’s
>> what you believe is going on.
>
> Yes, they DID say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at a faster rate
> at higher locations. They just used the term "gravitational potential" to refer
> to different locations at different altitudes.

Which is a DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential.

>
> And they said. "Thus it is absolutely necessary to measure a change in the relative
> frequency that is produced by the perturbation being studied."
>
> "Perturbation" is defined as "a deviation of a system, moving object, or process from
> its regular or normal state or path, caused by an outside influence." The "outside
> influence" is putting the emitter and receiver at different altitudes.

Producing a DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential. That is the perturbation.

>
> (snip)
>
>>>>> “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
>>>>> “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
>>>>> That is wrong.
>>>
>>> YES, it is wrong because a wave or photon DOES NOT CHANGE FREQUENCY as it
>>> FALLS.
>> This is your opinion. It’s also not what physicists think.
>
> It is what INTELLIGENT physicists have thought since experiments showed that
> Einstein was right.

Einstein would say the potential DIFFERENCE causes the frequency shift.

Clocks actually ticking faster due to altitude would violate the first
postulate. Einstein would have pointed that out.

> There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that a photon changes
> frequency as it falls.

It is a perceived change. Just like a change due to Doppler Effect or
SR time dilation causes a perceived frequency change.

> All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say a new photon oscillates

All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say photons don't oscillate.

> at a
> frequency that is determined by the type of atom that created that new photon and
> the location of that atom,

as long as there is no effect due to the Doppler Effect, SR time
dilation or GR gravity potential difference.

> and the photon will continue to oscillate at that frequency

Photons don't oscillate.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:17:09 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > > The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ...
> > >
> > > Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the
> > > speed is c?
> > The emitter is the only "observer."
> OK. However, to those who can read English, those who can understand what is written (or the intention thereof),
> the above not only means that the 'observer' is the emitter, but that the observer can be any (inertial) observer.

No, that is what is called "making a false assumption." It is twisting the
statement to make it fit some argument that you want to make.

>
> But yes, some may interpret the above that the only observer is the emitter.
> Those people (you?) should investigate more the meaning of that sentence to see if they understood it correctly.
> > > > Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or
> > > > decelerating.
> > > Again, who is the observer that is noting that the speed is c in those cases?
> > The emitter is the only "observer."
> In the now above, it is much more clear that the author meant that any (inertial) observer is/are the ones
> declaring that it is 'c'; that the emitter is NOT 'the' observer. Anyone who understands English, would have understood/interpreted it like that. Do you agree with my comments in this reply?

No, of course not.

> > The emitter emits photons at c and
> > c is the speed PER SECOND at the location of the emitter.
> He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
> That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.

No, that is how MATHEMATICIANS twist things to make Einstein's words
fit their beliefs.

If I am moving through space and emit a photon, that photon will travel at c
as c is defined at MY location. I.e., the photon will travel at 299,792,458 meters
PER SECOND as a second is measured at MY location. That is all that
Einstein's Second Postulate says. What some OTHER observer might see
or measure when he sees the photon I emitted has NOTHING to do with
the Second Postulate.

The point Einstein is making is that c will be different depending upon how
fast I am moving. It will ALWAYS be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND,
but the LENGTH OF A SECOND at my location will vary depending upon
the speed at which I am traveling.

What someone else is doing is not relevant.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

But we have textbooks which CORRECTLY say that the CAUSE is time dilation,
and we have textbooks which nonsensically say that the CAUSE is "falling"
from one height to a lower location and accelerating while falling.

And it appears that MATHEMATICIANS DO NOT CARE, because their equations
work the same way in both cases. The answer is due to the difference in
altitude. Period. WHY the difference in altitude changes the frequency of the
light is of no concern to MATHEMATICIANS.

SCIENTISTS want to know why. Mathematicians don't care.

Ed

(snip)

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 6:22:33 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 3/29/2022 5:08 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:23:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

(snip)

Okay.

> >
> > They were measuring THE EFFECT OF GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL
> You mean the effect of a gravitational potential DIFFERENCE, as Einstein
> predicted.
> > at two
> > different locations on the frequency of electromagnetic radiation emitted
> > at those two different locations.
> Two difference locations at different gravitational potentials, in order
> to measure the effect of a potential DIFFERENCE.

Okay.

> > They were NOT measuring the effect
> > of photons FALLING from one location to another. They were measuring
> > the difference in GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL at two different locations.
> Difference in potential. You should have emphasized the word "difference".
> >
> > (snip)
> >>> Pound and Rebka demonstrated that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate atop a
> >>> building than at the bottom of a building.
> That is YOUR (mis)interpretation. Not that of Pound or Rebka.

In your mistaken opinion.

> >>> That means that a billion times per
> >>> second at the top of a building is FASTER than a billion times per second at the
> >>> bottom of the same building.
> >> No, that is not what they claimed to have proven. That is YOUR
> >> INTERPRETATION, and it’s based on the inclusion of a SINGLE WORD: emission.
> >> They did NOT say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at faster
> >> rate at higher elevations, but that’s what you wanted to see, because it’s
> >> what you believe is going on.
> >
> > Yes, they DID say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at a faster rate
> > at higher locations. They just used the term "gravitational potential" to refer
> > to different locations at different altitudes.
> Which is a DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential.

Right.

> >
> > And they said. "Thus it is absolutely necessary to measure a change in the relative
> > frequency that is produced by the perturbation being studied."
> >
> > "Perturbation" is defined as "a deviation of a system, moving object, or process from
> > its regular or normal state or path, caused by an outside influence." The "outside
> > influence" is putting the emitter and receiver at different altitudes.
> Producing a DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential. That is the perturbation.

Okay.

> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >>>>> “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
> >>>>> “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
> >>>>> That is wrong.
> >>>
> >>> YES, it is wrong because a wave or photon DOES NOT CHANGE FREQUENCY as it
> >>> FALLS.
> >> This is your opinion. It’s also not what physicists think.
> >
> > It is what INTELLIGENT physicists have thought since experiments showed that
> > Einstein was right.
> Einstein would say the potential DIFFERENCE causes the frequency shift.
>
> Clocks actually ticking faster due to altitude would violate the first
> postulate. Einstein would have pointed that out.

Einstein DID point out that it is "ONLY APPARENTLY IRRECONCILABLE" with
the first postulate. Once you understand time dilation, you will see it does NOT
violate the first postulate. The two postulates fit together beautifully.

> > There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that a photon changes
> > frequency as it falls.
> It is a perceived change. Just like a change due to Doppler Effect or
> SR time dilation causes a perceived frequency change.

Incorrectly "perceived."

> > All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say a new photon oscillates
> All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say photons don't oscillate.
> > at a
> > frequency that is determined by the type of atom that created that new photon and
> > the location of that atom,
> as long as there is no effect due to the Doppler Effect, SR time
> dilation or GR gravity potential difference.
> > and the photon will continue to oscillate at that frequency
> Photons don't oscillate.

If photons don't oscillate then they cannot have a frequency nor
a wavelength. The FACT that photons have a frequency is PROOF
that photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency.

Ed

[Paparios]

Nonsense. First, the expressions Einstein used in his paper are:

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and

"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".

It is clear that if the emitting body is stationary, the ray of light will propagate at speed c. Also, if the emitting body is moving, the ray of light will also propagate at speed c.
Furthermore, from the above, it is easy to conclude (from the symmetry of the situation) that a stationary or a moving receiver will receive that incoming light at speed c.

Time dilation has nothing to do with that. Time dilation refers to an observer (which is at rest relative to himself) which perceives the ticking of a moving clock to be slow. Of course, the moving clock (which is at rest relative to itself) continue to tick at 1 second/second.

[Odd Bodkin]

That change while falling IS time dilation, according to Einstein and
according to physicists. You have a much different idea of this, thinking
that the emission process itself is affected at higher elevations. This is
not what any physicists believe, even the two whose paper you tried to read
but keyed in one word and misunderstood what they said.

You on the other hand, hold a personal and strongly held opinion that the
emission process itself changes at higher elevations, and you say that this
is what intelligent physicists think and that both unintelligent physicists
and mathematicians dispute. That’s just propaganda flinging and does not
reflect well on you.

>
> And it appears that MATHEMATICIANS DO NOT CARE, because their equations
> work the same way in both cases. The answer is due to the difference in
> altitude. Period. WHY the difference in altitude changes the frequency of the
> light is of no concern to MATHEMATICIANS.
>
> SCIENTISTS want to know why. Mathematicians don't care.
>
> Ed
>
> (snip)
>

[Odd Bodkin]

Nope, sorry. As pointed out before, you are not a member of the intended
audience of Pound’s and Rebka’s paper. There are things unspoken in that
paper that are known and understood by physicists that you do not know or
understand. This leads you to misunderstand this paper.

I’ll repeat that professional journal articles cannot be accurately
understood by people who have no physics training or history of structured
study. You can try, but you will fail.

[Michael Moroney]

The Pound/Rebka paper never stated the clocks actually ran faster.

That was in his SR paper, discussing how two relatively moving sources
and observers observe the same light moving at c.

Pound-Rebka is a GR problem, which should be obvious!

>
>>> There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that a photon changes
>>> frequency as it falls.
>> It is a perceived change. Just like a change due to Doppler Effect or
>> SR time dilation causes a perceived frequency change.
>
> Incorrectly "perceived."

How so? You mean that, for example, a train horn from an approaching
train really is observed at a higher frequency? And similarly for light
subject to similar Doppler/SR/GR effects? The train horn is also a
perceived change, meaning that it is PERCEIVED that the train horn is
sounding at a higher frequency than it actually is.

>
>>> All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say a new photon oscillates
>> All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say photons don't oscillate.
>>> at a
>>> frequency that is determined by the type of atom that created that new photon and
>>> the location of that atom,
>> as long as there is no effect due to the Doppler Effect, SR time
>> dilation or GR gravity potential difference.
>>> and the photon will continue to oscillate at that frequency
>> Photons don't oscillate.
>
> If photons don't oscillate then they cannot have a frequency nor
> a wavelength.

That is actually a collective effect of many photons of the same energy.

> The FACT that photons have a frequency is PROOF
> that photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency.

Just like how ocean waves having a certain frequency is proof that
individual water molecules in the sea oscillate at the wave frequency?

Also, WHICH frequency? If I observe the sodium D lines from a certain
(stationary relative to myself) star I will observe the same frequency
as from a local sodium source. However if I observe the same Sodium D
lines from a receding star, it will appear redder, a lower frequency.
What frequency did that star's sodium light photons "oscillate" at?

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:38:52 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> El miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:12:37 UTC-3, escribió:
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
> > > That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.
> > No, that is how MATHEMATICIANS twist things to make Einstein's words
> > fit their beliefs.
> >
> > If I am moving through space and emit a photon, that photon will travel at c
> > as c is defined at MY location. I.e., the photon will travel at 299,792,458 meters
> > PER SECOND as a second is measured at MY location. That is all that
> > Einstein's Second Postulate says. What some OTHER observer might see
> > or measure when he sees the photon I emitted has NOTHING to do with
> > the Second Postulate.
> >
> > The point Einstein is making is that c will be different depending upon how
> > fast I am moving. It will ALWAYS be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND,
> > but the LENGTH OF A SECOND at my location will vary depending upon
> > the speed at which I am traveling.
> >
> > What someone else is doing is not relevant.
> >
> > Ed
> Nonsense. First, the expressions Einstein used in his paper are:
>
> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and
> "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".

You are talking about two different statements in two different parts of the paper
referring to two different situations.

Quote #1 is not about any system of coordinates. It's about light being emitted in empty space.
Quote #2 is about a ray of light moving in a "stationary" system of coordinates.

> It is clear that if the emitting body is stationary, the ray of light will propagate at speed c. Also, if the emitting body is moving, the ray of light will also propagate at speed c.
> Furthermore, from the above, it is easy to conclude (from the symmetry of the situation) that a stationary or a moving receiver will receive that incoming light at speed c.

Nonsense. Neither statement mentions any "observer" RECEIVING
light. Both are just about how a photon moves once it is EMITTED.

>
> Time dilation has nothing to do with that. Time dilation refers to an observer (which is at rest relative to himself) which perceives the ticking of a moving clock to be slow. Of course, the moving clock (which is at rest relative to itself) continue to tick at 1 second/second.

Nonsense. Velocity Time dilation is about Time ticking at different
rates at different locations moving at different speeds. Einstein even
says that a 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." That is true whether there is
an "observer" or not.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

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

>
> If photons don't oscillate then they cannot have a frequency nor
> a wavelength. The FACT that photons have a frequency is PROOF
> that photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency.
>
> Ed
>

No, this is not true, and again this is where a lack of background hurts
you.

In your common experience, things only are assigned a frequency if they
oscillate or rotate. There are, however, other physics contexts (which are
unknown to you) where frequency is also used. There is a physical property
called phase, for example, which again is something you can’t learn the
meaning of from a dictionary, which is associated with a frequency even
though there is nothing orbiting or spinning or moving back and forth in
space. In the case of photons, this phase is an important property.
Frequency is also connected to energy and momentum carried by the photon,
and since photons clearly carry energy and momentum, they also have
frequency, even though they do not turn or wiggle.

It’s not wise to try to get physics jargon to fit into everyday
definitions. Jargon has to be learned as part of the basics. I know you
have no appetite for the basics, but without them, you’re going to
flounder.

[Paparios]

They both refer to the same situation (as the name of the paper says "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"), where one body is moving (at constant speed v) relative to another body. Both statements are known as the principle of constancy of the speed of light.

> Quote #1 is not about any system of coordinates. It's about light being emitted in empty space.

For sure it is. The system of coordinates is attached to the emitting body!!!

> Quote #2 is about a ray of light moving in a "stationary" system of coordinates.

Sure and that system of coordinates is attached to the emitting body!!!

> > It is clear that if the emitting body is stationary, the ray of light will propagate at speed c. Also, if the emitting body is moving, the ray of light will also propagate at speed c.
> > Furthermore, from the above, it is easy to conclude (from the symmetry of the situation) that a stationary or a moving receiver will receive that incoming light at speed c.

> Nonsense. Neither statement mentions any "observer" RECEIVING
> light. Both are just about how a photon moves once it is EMITTED.

Again, by the geometry and symmetry of the situation, a stationary or a moving receiver will also receive that incoming light at speed c. This is verified every day by the astronomical observatories around the world, where we can only receive the light of stars.

> >
> > Time dilation has nothing to do with that. Time dilation refers to an observer (which is at rest relative to himself) which perceives the ticking of a moving clock to be slow. Of course, the moving clock (which is at rest relative to itself) continue to tick at 1 second/second.

> Nonsense. Velocity Time dilation is about Time ticking at different
> rates at different locations moving at different speeds. Einstein even
> says that a 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." That is true whether there is
> an "observer" or not.
>

In physics and relativity, time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by two clocks. It is either due to a relative velocity between them (special relativistic "kinetic" time dilation) or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativistic gravitational time dilation). When unspecified, "time dilation" usually refers to the effect due to velocity.

[Michael Moroney]

On 3/30/2022 11:12 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:17:09 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>>
>>>>> The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ...
>>>>
>>>> Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the
>>>> speed is c?
>>> The emitter is the only "observer."
>> OK. However, to those who can read English, those who can understand what is written (or the intention thereof),
>> the above not only means that the 'observer' is the emitter, but that the observer can be any (inertial) observer.
>
> No, that is what is called "making a false assumption." It is twisting the
> statement to make it fit some argument that you want to make.
>
>>
>> But yes, some may interpret the above that the only observer is the emitter.
>> Those people (you?) should investigate more the meaning of that sentence to see if they understood it correctly.
>>>>> Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or
>>>>> decelerating.
>>>> Again, who is the observer that is noting that the speed is c in those cases?
>>> The emitter is the only "observer."
>> In the now above, it is much more clear that the author meant that any (inertial) observer is/are the ones
>> declaring that it is 'c'; that the emitter is NOT 'the' observer. Anyone who understands English, would have understood/interpreted it like that. Do you agree with my comments in this reply?
>
> No, of course not.

Throughout the paper Einstein does NOT assume that only the emitter is
the observer. Your claim makes no sense.

>
>>> The emitter emits photons at c and
>>> c is the speed PER SECOND at the location of the emitter.
>> He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
>> That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.
>
> No, that is how MATHEMATICIANS twist things to make Einstein's words
> fit their beliefs.

You need to get help regarding these "mathematician" boogeymen you see
everywhere. This is all physics, no mathematicians to be seen anywhere.

>
> If I am moving through space and emit a photon, that photon will travel at c
> as c is defined at MY location. I.e., the photon will travel at 299,792,458 meters
> PER SECOND as a second is measured at MY location. That is all that
> Einstein's Second Postulate says.

Yet Einstein uses other observers (NOT the emitter) seeing the light as c.

> What some OTHER observer might see
> or measure when he sees the photon I emitted has NOTHING to do with
> the Second Postulate.

Why would he even have made it? Nowhere does he use the emitter
measuring the light as c. The whole first section involves observers
measuring light as c.

>
> The point Einstein is making is that c will be different depending upon how
> fast I am moving. It will ALWAYS be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND,
> but the LENGTH OF A SECOND at my location will vary depending upon
> the speed at which I am traveling.

Nowhere is that a postulate of the SR paper. You just made that up, to
justify your mistaken beliefs.

>
> What someone else is doing is not relevant.
>

????? The substantial part of the paper involves what others observe!

[RichD]

On Wednesday, March 30, Paparios wrote:
> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and
> "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".

> It is clear that if the emitting body is stationary, the ray of light will propagate at speed c.

> Also, if the emitting body is moving, the ray of light will propagate at speed c.

In a pond, if a boat is stationary, the waves from the motor's propeller will propagate at speed d.
Also, if the boat is moving, the waves will propagate at speed d.

> Furthermore, from the above, it is easy to conclude (from the symmetry of the situation) that
> a stationary or a moving receiver will receive that incoming light at speed c.

Furthermore, it is easy to conclude that a stationary or moving canoe in the pond,
will receive the incoming waves at speed d.

(from the symmetry of the situation)

--
Rich

[Odd Bodkin]

RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, Paparios wrote:
>> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
>> which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and
>> "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".
>
>> It is clear that if the emitting body is stationary, the ray of light
>> will propagate at speed c.
>> Also, if the emitting body is moving, the ray of light will propagate at speed c.
>
> In a pond, if a boat is stationary, the waves from the motor's propeller
> will propagate at speed d.
> Also, if the boat is moving, the waves will propagate at speed d.

With respect to the medium.

Because, surface wave speed is with respect to the rest frame of the
medium, as inspection of the wave equation will show for this case.

With light, however, no.

>
>> Furthermore, from the above, it is easy to conclude (from the symmetry
>> of the situation) that
>> a stationary or a moving receiver will receive that incoming light at speed c.
>
> Furthermore, it is easy to conclude that a stationary or moving canoe in the pond,
> will receive the incoming waves at speed d.
> (from the symmetry of the situation)
>
>
> --
> Rich
>

[J. J. Lodder]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2022-03-28 15:59:48 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> > "Those who do know physics do physics research.

> > "Those who donâ•˙t know physics do physics teaching.
> > "Those who donâ•˙t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."

> >
> > That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
> > physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England.
>

> It's much older than that. At least, I heard a very similar proposition
> in the 1970s.

Certainly. AFAIk the original, just two lines, was:

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach. [1]

-Much- better than Ed's mongrelised version,
because it doesn't imply that teaching is done by incompetents,

Jan

[1] My prefered third line is

Those who can't teach, tell others how to.

[Michael Moroney]

There is no theorem of the constancy of the speed of water waves in all
frames to all observers. Light is different.

[Maciej Wozniak]

And according to sane people it's just an absolutely
classical clock error, required to be corrected.

[RichD]

It has to be postulated, axiomatically.
The point is, the 'symmetry' argument - relating transmitter frame to
receiver frame - fails.

--
Rich

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:12:37 AM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:


> > the above not only means that the 'observer' is the emitter, but that the observer can be any (inertial) observer.

> No, that is what is called "making a false assumption."

No. It is what is actually meant by that sentence. One does not need to specify every little detail, every little definition. One expects the reader to have a certain ability to deduce and to understand that intended meaning of what is read.

But here our discussion is irrelevant since the author is no longer there for us to ask him what he actually meant.
But reading what he has written for the wrong, it becomes clear what he meant: that all (inertial) observers will measure the speed of light to be C.

> Do you agree with my comments in this reply?
> No, of course not.

> > He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
> > That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.

> No, that is how MATHEMATICIANS twist things to make Einstein's words
> fit their beliefs.

No. It's how every intelligent reader would understand it, mathematician or not. It's a question of understanding the language, not of math nor physics.

If an intelligent reader is unsure of its meaning, that reader will learn the language used and study the subject.

> If I am moving through space and emit a photon, that photon will travel at c
> as c is defined at MY location.

No, 'speeds' are not relative to a location. The concept of **speed** is relative to a given reference frame.
One needs to understand the meaning of 'speed'. Here, you do not seem to understand its meaning.

> I.e., the photon will travel at 299,792,458 meters
> PER SECOND as a second is measured at MY location.

No. That is not at all the concept of 'speed'.

> That is all that
> Einstein's Second Postulate says.

Define postulate invokes the concept of speed point and this concept of speed implicitly contains a (un)specified reference frame.
Just the sentence "The speed of light is C." means that any (inertial) Observer will measure the speed of light to be C.

> What some OTHER observer might see
> or measure when he sees the photon I emitted has NOTHING to do with
> the Second Postulate.

If you are unsure what the intended meaning of the second postulate was, just continue reading Einstein treatise. Therein, he does specify what he meant by it: thought all inertial Observer will measure the speed of light to be C.

> The point Einstein is making is that c will be different depending upon how
> fast I am moving.

No. The point that Einstein was saying, and that he repeated many times, is that any inertial Observer will always measure the speed of light to be the same value as every other inertial Observer.

> It will ALWAYS be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND,

You just claimed that " c will be different...", now just above you said it will always be 299,792,458.
How can it always be 299,792,458 number and be different ??

> but the LENGTH OF A SECOND at my location will vary depending upon
> the speed at which I am traveling.

I hope you see that that is irrelevant to the discussion. Whatever you meant by it, does not change the definition or concept of 'speed'.

[Michael Moroney]

I disagree. The system of coordinates is the "stationary" system, and he
states the speed of light is c in the stationary system, regardless of
whether the emitter is stationary or moving in the "stationary" system.
Since this part is the actual principle of constancy of the speed of
light and second postulate, this is the one which matters.

>
>>> It is clear that if the emitting body is stationary, the ray of light will propagate at speed c. Also, if the emitting body is moving, the ray of light will also propagate at speed c.
>>> Furthermore, from the above, it is easy to conclude (from the symmetry of the situation) that a stationary or a moving receiver will receive that incoming light at speed c.
>
>> Nonsense. Neither statement mentions any "observer" RECEIVING
>> light. Both are just about how a photon moves once it is EMITTED.

The second quote specifically states the speed of light is c in the
stationary system.

>
> Again, by the geometry and symmetry of the situation, a stationary or a moving receiver will also receive that incoming light at speed c. This is verified every day by the astronomical observatories around the world, where we can only receive the light of stars.
>
>>>
>>> Time dilation has nothing to do with that. Time dilation refers to an observer (which is at rest relative to himself) which perceives the ticking of a moving clock to be slow. Of course, the moving clock (which is at rest relative to itself) continue to tick at 1 second/second.
>
>> Nonsense. Velocity Time dilation is about Time ticking at different
>> rates at different locations moving at different speeds.

That's impossible, since when A sees B's clock ticking slower due to
motion, B sees A's clock ticking slower. This is impossible to resolve
from any actual slower ticking by any clock, but in SR it's possible
since it is a geometric effect, and these aren't the same measurements
anyway.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

In other words, you cannot describe or explain what "phase" means, but
you firmly BELIEVE there is such a thing.

And you seem to have a fixed idea of what an oscillation is, that it
must mean some kind of object is wiggling.

I could be talking about "phase" oscillations, when a magnetic field contracts
while an electric field expands.

Ed

[Michael Moroney]

Because there is no "speed of water waves is the same in all frames"
postulate/theory. Water waves are relative to the body of water. The
situations are not symmetric when moving relative to the body of water.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:38:43 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

There is no second body in the first quote. All it says is 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." NO SECOND BODY.

In the second quote, Einstein is talking about "stationary systems," which is NOT
relevant to the first quote. Don't you understand what "independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body" means????

The first quote is a general rule. The second quote is about a specific situation.

> > Quote #1 is not about any system of coordinates. It's about light being emitted in empty space.
> For sure it is. The system of coordinates is attached to the emitting body!!!
> > Quote #2 is about a ray of light moving in a "stationary" system of coordinates.
> Sure and that system of coordinates is attached to the emitting body!!!

There is no system of coordinates mentioned in the first quote.

> > > It is clear that if the emitting body is stationary, the ray of light will propagate at speed c. Also, if the emitting body is moving, the ray of light will also propagate at speed c.
> > > Furthermore, from the above, it is easy to conclude (from the symmetry of the situation) that a stationary or a moving receiver will receive that incoming light at speed c.
>
> > Nonsense. Neither statement mentions any "observer" RECEIVING
> > light. Both are just about how a photon moves once it is EMITTED.
> Again, by the geometry and symmetry of the situation, a stationary or a moving receiver will also receive that incoming light at speed c. This is verified every day by the astronomical observatories around the world, where we can only receive the light of stars.

Nonsense. Light from every star travels at c, but c is the speed of light
PER SECOND, and the length of a second could be different at EVERY STAR.

Additionally, if the earth is moving away from a star, the light will hit the
earth at c-v where v is the speed of the earth away from that star.

> > >
> > > Time dilation has nothing to do with that. Time dilation refers to an observer (which is at rest relative to himself) which perceives the ticking of a moving clock to be slow. Of course, the moving clock (which is at rest relative to itself) continue to tick at 1 second/second.
>
> > Nonsense. Velocity Time dilation is about Time ticking at different
> > rates at different locations moving at different speeds. Einstein even
> > says that a 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." That is true whether there is
> > an "observer" or not.
> >
> In physics and relativity, time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by two clocks. It is either due to a relative velocity between them (special relativistic "kinetic" time dilation) or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativistic gravitational time dilation). When unspecified, "time dilation" usually refers to the effect due to velocity.

Not so. Time dilation primarily refers to the difference in tick rates.
The faster moving clock ticks slower. The slower moving clock ticks faster.
The lower altitude clock ticks slower. The higher altitude clock ticks faster.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:51:19 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 3/30/2022 11:12 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:17:09 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the
> >>>> speed is c?
> >>> The emitter is the only "observer."
> >> OK. However, to those who can read English, those who can understand what is written (or the intention thereof),
> >> the above not only means that the 'observer' is the emitter, but that the observer can be any (inertial) observer.
> >
> > No, that is what is called "making a false assumption." It is twisting the
> > statement to make it fit some argument that you want to make.
> >
> >>
> >> But yes, some may interpret the above that the only observer is the emitter.
> >> Those people (you?) should investigate more the meaning of that sentence to see if they understood it correctly.
> >>>>> Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or
> >>>>> decelerating.
> >>>> Again, who is the observer that is noting that the speed is c in those cases?
> >>> The emitter is the only "observer."
> >> In the now above, it is much more clear that the author meant that any (inertial) observer is/are the ones
> >> declaring that it is 'c'; that the emitter is NOT 'the' observer. Anyone who understands English, would have understood/interpreted it like that. Do you agree with my comments in this reply?
> >
> > No, of course not.
> Throughout the paper Einstein does NOT assume that only the emitter is
> the observer. Your claim makes no sense.

You make no sense. You seem to believe that if Einstein is talking about
one thing on page 1, he must be talking about the same thing all pages.

> >
> >>> The emitter emits photons at c and
> >>> c is the speed PER SECOND at the location of the emitter.
> >> He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
> >> That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.
> >
> > No, that is how MATHEMATICIANS twist things to make Einstein's words
> > fit their beliefs.
> You need to get help regarding these "mathematician" boogeymen you see
> everywhere. This is all physics, no mathematicians to be seen anywhere.

If all you understand is mathematics, you are a MATHEMATICIAN, not a
physicist and NOT a scientist.

> >
> > If I am moving through space and emit a photon, that photon will travel at c
> > as c is defined at MY location. I.e., the photon will travel at 299,792,458 meters
> > PER SECOND as a second is measured at MY location. That is all that
> > Einstein's Second Postulate says.
> Yet Einstein uses other observers (NOT the emitter) seeing the light as c.

When he wants to make a point about other observers, he uses other observers.

> > What some OTHER observer might see
> > or measure when he sees the photon I emitted has NOTHING to do with
> > the Second Postulate.
> Why would he even have made it? Nowhere does he use the emitter
> measuring the light as c. The whole first section involves observers
> measuring light as c.

He is setting up a POSTULATE. A "postulate" is an ASSUMPTION that
something is true in order to develop or propose an IDEA or theory.

The rest of the paper develops and explains that IDEA. The IDEA is that
time varies with velocity.

> >
> > The point Einstein is making is that c will be different depending upon how
> > fast I am moving. It will ALWAYS be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND,
> > but the LENGTH OF A SECOND at my location will vary depending upon
> > the speed at which I am traveling.
> Nowhere is that a postulate of the SR paper. You just made that up, to
> justify your mistaken beliefs.

It is the IDEA that Einstein is proposing in his paper. His postulate sets up
the idea and the paper explains the idea that Time varies with velocity.

> >
> > What someone else is doing is not relevant.
> >
> ????? The substantial part of the paper involves what others observe!

Right. But the Second Postulate is NOT about what others observe.
The rest of the paper may be, but the Second Postulate is NOT.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

No, it does not mean that.

What it does mean is:

1. I do understand what it means, and you don’t, because I have read real
textbooks, starting from the basics, and you have not.

2. I’m not about to indulge laziness on the basis of a “betcha can’t” dare.

>
> And you seem to have a fixed idea of what an oscillation is, that it
> must mean some kind of object is wiggling.
>
> I could be talking about "phase" oscillations, when a magnetic field contracts
> while an electric field expands.
>
> Ed
>

[Paparios]

El miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2022 a las 18:03:11 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:38:43 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> >
> > > You are talking about two different statements in two different parts of the paper
> > > referring to two different situations.
> > >
> > They both refer to the same situation (as the name of the paper says "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"), where one body is moving (at constant speed v) relative to another body. Both statements are known as the principle of constancy of the speed of light.

> There is no second body in the first quote. All it says is 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." NO SECOND BODY.
>

You clearly do not understand what Einstein wrote. When he writes "independent of the state of motion of the emitting body", you have to qualify what that state of motion is. He clearly is talking about either one of two conditions:

a) The emitting body is stationary.
b) The emitting body is moving.

In both cases you need a different body to identify which condition applies. For instance, if the emitting body is fixed on the ground, the emitting body is stationary RELATIVE to the ground (the second body). If the emitting body is on a moving platform (moving at 20 mph RELATIVE to the ground), then the emitting body is moving.

If you do not have a reference, the state of motiom of a body can not be defined.

> In the second quote, Einstein is talking about "stationary systems," which is NOT
> relevant to the first quote. Don't you understand what "independent of the
> state of motion of the emitting body" means????
>

The second quote says exactly the same: "whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body"!!!!

> > > Nonsense. Neither statement mentions any "observer" RECEIVING
> > > light. Both are just about how a photon moves once it is EMITTED.
> > Again, by the geometry and symmetry of the situation, a stationary or a moving receiver will also receive that incoming light at speed c. This is verified every day by the astronomical observatories around the world, where we can only receive the light of stars.

> Nonsense. Light from every star travels at c, but c is the speed of light
> PER SECOND, and the length of a second could be different at EVERY STAR.
>

That is nonsense. The second is defined as:
"The second is equal to the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the hyperfine levels of the unperturbed ground state of the 133Cs atom".

The meter is actually defined as a function of the second:
"The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second".

The light coming from stars arrives at the observatories at speed c, where c=wavelength/frequency.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 30/03/2022 à 22:27, Michael Moroney a écrit :

> That's impossible, since when A sees B's clock ticking slower due to
> motion, B sees A's clock ticking slower. This is impossible to resolve
> from any actual slower ticking by any clock, but in SR it's possible
> since it is a geometric effect, and these aren't the same measurements
> anyway.

That's absolutely correct.

This is called the relativity of chronotropy.

When two watches are moving relative to each other, each considers that
the other has a lower chronotropy.

It works for uniform media, it also works for accelerated media.

The relativity equation of chronotropy is known to everyone.

To=Tr/sqrt(1-vo²/c²)

This well-known and real phenomenon, however, poses a logical problem if
one does not understand what one is saying.

We then speak of "Langevin's paradox" and we say: "If during ALL the
course, each of the watches, both on the way out and on the way back,
really beats faster than the one it observes, there is necessarily an
absurdity finally".

No, there is no absurdity.

The twin remained on earth at really 30 years old, and the other 18 years
old (in the example given) although their reciprocal chronotropy was
exactly the same, each watch considering that the other watch beats
constantly less quickly.

Simply, we forget one thing, and that is the hardest thing for human
beings to swallow, there is not only one phenomenon involved, ie
chronotropy.

Another phenomenon occurs at the same time: anisotropy.

The initial equation relating to chronotropy must then be modified by a
second factor.

And this becomes reciprocally:
To=Tr(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

The anisochronous effect is in the numerator, the chronotropic effect in
the denominator.

Digital Application:
- on the outward journey for land To=27 years Tr=9 years
- Returning for land To=3 years Tr=9 years.

- On the outward journey for the cosmonaut Tr=9 years To=3 years
- On return Tr=9 years To=27 years.

It is a prodigious mathematical evidence.

For the elasticity of distances and lengths, the same equation must be
applied.

If we stupidly apply x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), the whole intellectual
structure collapses.

Again, apply x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)

Thank you for your attention.

R.H.

[Michael Moroney]

If the only thing he talks about in the second postulate is the speed of
light relative to the emitter, but throughout the paper he talks about
the speed of light relative to various observers, why even mention that
unused postulate?

>
>>>
>>>>> The emitter emits photons at c and
>>>>> c is the speed PER SECOND at the location of the emitter.
>>>> He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
>>>> That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.
>>>
>>> No, that is how MATHEMATICIANS twist things to make Einstein's words
>>> fit their beliefs.
>> You need to get help regarding these "mathematician" boogeymen you see
>> everywhere. This is all physics, no mathematicians to be seen anywhere.
>
> If all you understand is mathematics, you are a MATHEMATICIAN, not a
> physicist and NOT a scientist.

I am so-so with math, I understand physics better. Definitely no
mathematician 🧟‍♂️. And I do understand that physics has lots of math,
like it or not. Fortunately my math is good enough for physics.

>
>>>
>>> If I am moving through space and emit a photon, that photon will travel at c
>>> as c is defined at MY location. I.e., the photon will travel at 299,792,458 meters
>>> PER SECOND as a second is measured at MY location. That is all that
>>> Einstein's Second Postulate says.
>> Yet Einstein uses other observers (NOT the emitter) seeing the light as c.
>
> When he wants to make a point about other observers, he uses other observers.

And (your version of) the Second Postulate doesn't apply to them.

>
>>> What some OTHER observer might see
>>> or measure when he sees the photon I emitted has NOTHING to do with
>>> the Second Postulate.
>> Why would he even have made it? Nowhere does he use the emitter
>> measuring the light as c. The whole first section involves observers
>> measuring light as c.
>
> He is setting up a POSTULATE. A "postulate" is an ASSUMPTION that
> something is true in order to develop or propose an IDEA or theory.
>
> The rest of the paper develops and explains that IDEA. The IDEA is that
> time varies with velocity.

But he doesn't even use (your version of) the postulate! Remember, you
said that the postulate ONLY states the speed of light is c relative to
the emitter. Not to any other observer, the emitter ONLY.

>
>>>
>>> The point Einstein is making is that c will be different depending upon how
>>> fast I am moving. It will ALWAYS be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND,
>>> but the LENGTH OF A SECOND at my location will vary depending upon
>>> the speed at which I am traveling.
>> Nowhere is that a postulate of the SR paper. You just made that up, to
>> justify your mistaken beliefs.
>
> It is the IDEA that Einstein is proposing in his paper. His postulate sets up
> the idea and the paper explains the idea that Time varies with velocity.

But he doesn't even use (your version of) the postulate!

>
>>>
>>> What someone else is doing is not relevant.
>>>
>> ????? The substantial part of the paper involves what others observe!
>
> Right. But the Second Postulate is NOT about what others observe.
> The rest of the paper may be, but the Second Postulate is NOT.

So you admit that (your version of) the second Postulate isn't used!
>
> Ed

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 5:03:11 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:38:43 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> There is no second body in the first quote.

Yes there is. See below.

> All it says is 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." NO SECOND BODY.

Consider "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c."
Just that, means that there is someone (something) measuring the speed of light, and that someone is getting the result c.
To declare a velocity, implicitly means there is an "observer".
Do you agree that the above sentence means/imply that? (to this point, it's just a question of English language).

Now, adding to that sentence "which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." does not change the first clause.
In fact, "which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." is redundant, since just
"Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c." means that no matter who measures it, they will get c, be it the emitting body, or some other body (another observer). This is just a matter of the logic of the English language, the meaning of the words used.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 4:55:10 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> El miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2022 a las 18:03:11 UTC-3, escribió:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:38:43 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > You are talking about two different statements in two different parts of the paper
> > > > referring to two different situations.
> > > >
> > > They both refer to the same situation (as the name of the paper says "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"), where one body is moving (at constant speed v) relative to another body. Both statements are known as the principle of constancy of the speed of light.
>
> > There is no second body in the first quote. All it says is 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." NO SECOND BODY.
> >
> You clearly do not understand what Einstein wrote. When he writes "independent of the state of motion of the emitting body", you have to qualify what that state of motion is. He clearly is talking about either one of two conditions:
>
> a) The emitting body is stationary.
> b) The emitting body is moving.
>
> In both cases you need a different body to identify which condition applies. For instance, if the emitting body is fixed on the ground, the emitting body is stationary RELATIVE to the ground (the second body). If the emitting body is on a moving platform (moving at 20 mph RELATIVE to the ground), then the emitting body is moving.
>
> If you do not have a reference, the state of motiom of a body can not be defined.

No, Einstein was NOT talking about either one of those two conditions.
He was stating that light is emitted at c REGARDLESS of whether the
emitter is moving or stationary. In other words: Light is ALWAYS EMITTED AT c.
PERIOD.

> > In the second quote, Einstein is talking about "stationary systems," which is NOT
> > relevant to the first quote. Don't you understand what "independent of the
> > state of motion of the emitting body" means????
> >
> The second quote says exactly the same: "whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body"!!!!

I REPEAT: The second quote is about "stationary systems." The first quote is NOT.

> > > > Nonsense. Neither statement mentions any "observer" RECEIVING
> > > > light. Both are just about how a photon moves once it is EMITTED.
> > > Again, by the geometry and symmetry of the situation, a stationary or a moving receiver will also receive that incoming light at speed c. This is verified every day by the astronomical observatories around the world, where we can only receive the light of stars.
>
> > Nonsense. Light from every star travels at c, but c is the speed of light
> > PER SECOND, and the length of a second could be different at EVERY STAR.
> >
> That is nonsense. The second is defined as:
> "The second is equal to the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the hyperfine levels of the unperturbed ground state of the 133Cs atom".
>
> The meter is actually defined as a function of the second:
> "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second".
>
> The light coming from stars arrives at the observatories at speed c, where c=wavelength/frequency.

Nonsense. Light coming from stars arrives at c+v or c-v depending upon
the earth's motion v. PLUS, c could be different for every star, since every
star has a different mass and moves through space at a different speed.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

> But he doesn't even use (your version of) the postulate! Remember, you
> said that the postulate ONLY states the speed of light is c relative to
> the emitter. Not to any other observer, the emitter ONLY.

> But he doesn't even use (your version of) the postulate!

> So you admit that (your version of) the second Postulate isn't used!

You clearly do not understand what a postulate is. Let me see if I can
summarize for you Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity:

He says, Experiments with magnets and conductors indicate that if we
ASSUME that two things are true, then we get a THEORY that does not
require a luminiferous ether in order to measure motion. Those two
ASSUMPTIONS (also known as "postulates") are: (1) All experiments
work the same way in a closed inertial system, and (2) Light is always
emitted at c regardless of the speed of the emitter. Those two
ASSUMPTIONS may appear to be contradictory, but the THEORY to be
described will show that they are NOT contradictory.

Then Einstein begins describing his theory in TEN different sections.
each describing a part of the THEORY. I'll just mention a few of them.

In the first section he describes "simultaneity" and how things may
sometimes seem simultaneous when in reality they are not. It all
depends upon how you view time.

The second section is about lengths and times. The faster you travel,
the less time it takes to get from point A to point B.

In the fourth section he describes why "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."

It is because time ticks at a slower rate at the faster moving equator.

In the tenth section he describes how an electron gains mass when it
is forced to move. That force slows down time for the electron. And
there isn't enough force in the universe to make the photon travel at
the speed of light.

I could explain the other sections, too, but the point is: a postulate is
an ASSUMPTION used to develop a THEORY. The THEORY is about how
light and time work. There are NO POSTULATES described in the theory,
the theory describes how things work IF the postulates are true.

Ed

[Paparios]

El jueves, 31 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:56:03 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 4:55:10 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > > There is no second body in the first quote. All it says is 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." NO SECOND BODY.
> > >
> > You clearly do not understand what Einstein wrote. When he writes "independent of the state of motion of the emitting body", you have to qualify what that state of motion is. He clearly is talking about either one of two conditions:
> >
> > a) The emitting body is stationary.
> > b) The emitting body is moving.
> >
> > In both cases you need a different body to identify which condition applies. For instance, if the emitting body is fixed on the ground, the emitting body is stationary RELATIVE to the ground (the second body). If the emitting body is on a moving platform (moving at 20 mph RELATIVE to the ground), then the emitting body is moving.
> >
> > If you do not have a reference, the state of motiom of a body can not be defined.

> No, Einstein was NOT talking about either one of those two conditions.
> He was stating that light is emitted at c REGARDLESS of whether the
> emitter is moving or stationary. In other words: Light is ALWAYS EMITTED AT c.
> PERIOD.

You are not making any sense. When he writes "the state of motion of the emitting body" he clearly means (as you write above) "the emitter is moving or stationary". For that to be true you have to know if the emitter is stationary or is moving, which requires a system of coordinates.

Einstein did use frames of reference in the page 1, where he wrote: "They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good".

> > > In the second quote, Einstein is talking about "stationary systems," which is NOT
> > > relevant to the first quote. Don't you understand what "independent of the
> > > state of motion of the emitting body" means????
> > >
> > The second quote says exactly the same: "whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body"!!!!

> I REPEAT: The second quote is about "stationary systems." The first quote is NOT.

This is clearly wrong as "whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body" shows.

> > > Nonsense. Light from every star travels at c, but c is the speed of light
> > > PER SECOND, and the length of a second could be different at EVERY STAR.
> > >
> > That is nonsense. The second is defined as:
> > "The second is equal to the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the hyperfine levels of the unperturbed ground state of the 133Cs atom".
> >
> > The meter is actually defined as a function of the second:
> > "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second".
> >

> > The light coming from stars arrives at the observatories at speed c, where c=wavelength*frequency.

> Nonsense. Light coming from stars arrives at c+v or c-v depending upon
> the earth's motion v. PLUS, c could be different for every star, since every
> star has a different mass and moves through space at a different speed.
>

More nonsense. Light from stars arrive at speed c, where c=fλ

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:03:13 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 5:03:11 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:38:43 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > There is no second body in the first quote.
> Yes there is. See below.
> > All it says is 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." NO SECOND BODY.
> Consider "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c."
> Just that, means that there is someone (something) measuring the speed of light, and that someone is getting the result c.
> To declare a velocity, implicitly means there is an "observer".
> Do you agree that the above sentence means/imply that? (to this point, it's just a question of English language).

We can ASSUME there is an "observer," since without an "observer" we
see and know and observe nothing.

>
> Now, adding to that sentence "which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." does not change the first clause.
> In fact, "which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." is redundant, since just
> "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c." means that no matter who measures it, they will get c, be it the emitting body, or some other body (another observer). This is just a matter of the logic of the English language, the meaning of the words used.

TOTAL NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ONLY THE EMITTER will measure the light to travel at c.
You are twisting things to fit your mistaken beliefs. The quote CLEARLY says
NOTHING about what other observers will see. And we know from experiments that
a moving observer will NOT see oncoming light as traveling at c. The light will arrive
at c+v where v is the speed of the observer. That is the PRINCIPLE BEHIND RADAR GUNS.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Nope, Ed, that’s not what it says.

It says that an observer who is measuring the speed of light will measure
that speed to be c, regardless whether the emitter is stationary relative
to the observer, or whether the emitter is moving relative to the observer.


This also means, as a directly corollary, that if you have a single source
and there two different observers, where one observer is stationary
relative to the emitter and the other observer is moving relative to the
emitter, then both observers will measure the speed of light from that
source to be c.

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 11:39:25 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> El jueves, 31 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:56:03 UTC-3, escribió:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 4:55:10 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > > There is no second body in the first quote. All it says is 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." NO SECOND BODY.
> > > >
> > > You clearly do not understand what Einstein wrote. When he writes "independent of the state of motion of the emitting body", you have to qualify what that state of motion is. He clearly is talking about either one of two conditions:
> > >
> > > a) The emitting body is stationary.
> > > b) The emitting body is moving.
> > >
> > > In both cases you need a different body to identify which condition applies. For instance, if the emitting body is fixed on the ground, the emitting body is stationary RELATIVE to the ground (the second body). If the emitting body is on a moving platform (moving at 20 mph RELATIVE to the ground), then the emitting body is moving.
> > >
> > > If you do not have a reference, the state of motiom of a body can not be defined.
>
> > No, Einstein was NOT talking about either one of those two conditions.
> > He was stating that light is emitted at c REGARDLESS of whether the
> > emitter is moving or stationary. In other words: Light is ALWAYS EMITTED AT c.
> > PERIOD.
> You are not making any sense. When he writes "the state of motion of the emitting body" he clearly means (as you write above) "the emitter is moving or stationary". For that to be true you have to know if the emitter is stationary or is moving, which requires a system of coordinates.

You have to know if the emitter is stationary or moving in order to do the MATH,
but light is always EMITTED at c regardless of whether the emitter is stationary or moving.
That is a FACT that does not involve math.

>
> Einstein did use frames of reference in the page 1, where he wrote: "They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good".

Yes, but he's not "using" a frame of reference. He is DEFINING a frame of reference.

(snip opinions)

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 11:46:24 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

Nope. That is you twisting things to fit your mistaken beliefs.

The ONLY observer in the postulate is the EMITTER. The postulate says
nothing about any other observers. Plus, the postulate does not work
for other observers.

> This also means, as a directly corollary, that if you have a single source
> and there two different observers, where one observer is stationary
> relative to the emitter and the other observer is moving relative to the
> emitter, then both observers will measure the speed of light from that
> source to be c.

FALSE. Radar guns demonstrate that guns EMIT photons at c, but the
target (outside observer) receives the photons at c+v or c-v.

Other experiments show the same thing.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
the words mean.

Here, I’m going to take the easy gamble that you don’t actually know what
“closed system” means and what “inertial system” means. Guessing here would
not be a good idea.

> and (2) Light is always
> emitted at c regardless of the speed of the emitter. Those two
> ASSUMPTIONS may appear to be contradictory, but the THEORY to be
> described will show that they are NOT contradictory.
>
> Then Einstein begins describing his theory in TEN different sections.
> each describing a part of the THEORY. I'll just mention a few of them.
>
> In the first section he describes "simultaneity" and how things may
> sometimes seem simultaneous when in reality they are not. It all
> depends upon how you view time.
>
> The second section is about lengths and times. The faster you travel,
> the less time it takes to get from point A to point B.
>
> In the fourth section he describes why "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."
> It is because time ticks at a slower rate at the faster moving equator.
>
> In the tenth section he describes how an electron gains mass when it
> is forced to move. That force slows down time for the electron. And
> there isn't enough force in the universe to make the photon travel at
> the speed of light.
>
> I could explain the other sections, too, but the point is: a postulate is
> an ASSUMPTION used to develop a THEORY. The THEORY is about how
> light and time work. There are NO POSTULATES described in the theory,
> the theory describes how things work IF the postulates are true.
>
> Ed
>

[Odd Bodkin]

I’m sorry, Ed, but the only one who is twisting things here is you.

Just to put some emphasis on this point, Einstein lived 50 years past the
publication of this article. He therefore had 50 years to assess whether
his peers in the professional physics community were correctly
understanding what he was saying. What it is that I wrote is what
professional physicists, all of Einstein’s peers, understood by the
statements in a paper aimed at that community of peers.

You, on the other hand, are saying that YOU, who are NOT qualified to be a
member of the intended audience of that paper, are the one that is
correctly understanding Einstein and that Einstein’s peers did NOT
understand him correctly. And moreover, you are saying that for 50 years,
Einstein did not detect that his peers (with whom he was in constant
contact and communication) did not understand him correctly.

Now ask yourself, Ed, whether this is a truly viable claim you are making.

>
> The ONLY observer in the postulate is the EMITTER. The postulate says
> nothing about any other observers. Plus, the postulate does not work
> for other observers.
>
>> This also means, as a directly corollary, that if you have a single source
>> and there two different observers, where one observer is stationary
>> relative to the emitter and the other observer is moving relative to the
>> emitter, then both observers will measure the speed of light from that
>> source to be c.
>
> FALSE. Radar guns demonstrate that guns EMIT photons at c, but the
> target (outside observer) receives the photons at c+v or c-v.
>
> Other experiments show the same thing.
>
> Ed
>

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
> the words mean.

To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.

[Odd Bodkin]

Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
language devised by them for purpose. Whether you don’t care for it is
irrelevant. If you don’t want to discuss physics intelligently, then
there’s absolutely no pressure to learn any physics. If you do want to
discuss physics intelligently, though, it’s going to be a requirement.

[Michael Moroney]

On 3/30/2022 7:39 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 30/03/2022 à 22:27, Michael Moroney a écrit :
>
>> That's impossible, since when A sees B's clock ticking slower due to
>> motion, B sees A's clock ticking slower.  This is impossible to
>> resolve from any actual slower ticking by any clock, but in SR it's
>> possible since it is a geometric effect, and these aren't the same
>> measurements anyway.
>
> That's absolutely correct.
>
> This is called the relativity of chronotropy.
>

No, it is not. Skip the made-up words.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
> >> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
> >> the words mean.
> >
> > To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
> >
> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
> language devised by them for purpose.

For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
means they know what the words mean. Sorry.

> Whether you don’t care for it is
> irrelevant. If you don’t want to discuss physics intelligently, then
> there’s absolutely no pressure to learn any physics. If you do want to
> discuss physics intelligently, though, it’s going to be a requirement.

Well, you're an idiot, sure, but I think you're still able to
guess how much I care for your requirements.

[Michael Moroney]

On 3/31/2022 12:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:03:13 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 5:03:11 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:38:43 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>>
>>> There is no second body in the first quote.
>> Yes there is. See below.
>>> All it says is 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." NO SECOND BODY.
>> Consider "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c."
>> Just that, means that there is someone (something) measuring the speed of light, and that someone is getting the result c.
>> To declare a velocity, implicitly means there is an "observer".
>> Do you agree that the above sentence means/imply that? (to this point, it's just a question of English language).
>
> We can ASSUME there is an "observer," since without an "observer" we
> see and know and observe nothing.

And that observer observes "Light is always propagated in empty space
with a definite velocity c." Doesn't "Light is always propagated in
empty space with a definite velocity c." mean light is always observed at c?

>
>>
>> Now, adding to that sentence "which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." does not change the first clause.
>> In fact, "which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." is redundant, since just
>> "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c." means that no matter who measures it, they will get c, be it the emitting body, or some other body (another observer). This is just a matter of the logic of the English language, the meaning of the words used.
>
> TOTAL NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ONLY THE EMITTER will measure the light to travel at c.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

> You are twisting things to fit your mistaken beliefs. The quote CLEARLY says
> NOTHING about what other observers will see.

The quote CLEARLY states "Light is always propagated in empty space with
a definite velocity c." You agreed that there must be an observer to
observe "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c.", correct?

> And we know from experiments that
> a moving observer will NOT see oncoming light as traveling at c.

Nope, we know from experiments that ALL observers observe light moving
at c. Remember, this was known BEFORE Einstein came along. Physicists
puzzled over the constant speed of light, and kept trying to tweak the
ether theories to account for this.

> The light will arrive
> at c+v where v is the speed of the observer.

Nope. The speed of light from stars in the ecliptic plane are unaffected
by earth's orbital motion.

> That is the PRINCIPLE BEHIND RADAR GUNS.
>

Your opinion on how radar guns work is irrelevant.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 21:56:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> And that observer observes "Light is always propagated in empty space
> with a definite velocity c."

Stupid Mike, even your idiot guru was unable to stick to this
nonsense for a long time and his GR shit had to abandon it.

> Nope, we know from experiments that ALL observers observe light moving
> at c.

No, stupid Mike, I don't, for instance.

> Remember, this was known BEFORE Einstein came along.

Remember, only such an idiot can believe such an impudent
lie.

[Odd Bodkin]

Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
>>>> the words mean.
>>>
>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
>>>
>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
>> language devised by them for purpose.
>
> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
> means they know what the words mean. Sorry.

Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
irrelevant to that, and they don’t have to communicate with the physics
community if they don’t want to.

>
>> Whether you don’t care for it is
>> irrelevant. If you don’t want to discuss physics intelligently, then
>> there’s absolutely no pressure to learn any physics. If you do want to
>> discuss physics intelligently, though, it’s going to be a requirement.
>
> Well, you're an idiot, sure, but I think you're still able to
> guess how much I care for your requirements.
>

Well, since you are not part of the physics community, they don’t care what
you think anyway. So that’s fine. You won’t communicate intelligently about
physics because you don’t know physics language and that’s just dandy.

[rotchm]

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 11:56:03 AM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 4:55:10 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > The light coming from stars arrives at the observatories at speed c...

> Nonsense. Light coming from stars arrives at c+v or c-v depending upon
> the earth's motion v.

No, that is not true. The speed of the light from many stars has been measured. In every instance the speed of all those photons, of all that light, always gave the same value of C.

[rotchm]

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 12:41:02 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:03:13 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> > To declare a velocity, implicitly means there is an "observer".
> > Do you agree that the above sentence means/imply that? (to this point, it's just a question of English language).

> We can ASSUME there is an "observer," since without an "observer" we
> see and know and observe nothing.

OK. So you agree that to do physics, to do actual measurements, we need an "observer"...right?
So when we see sentences as " the speed is...", there is implicitly and observer, right?

In other words, we need a reference frame (some may call it a coordinate system).
Are you aware that "observer" and "reference frame" are synonyms (in physics and especially in relativity)?

> > Now, adding to that sentence "which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." does not change the first clause.

Agree or not?

> > In fact, "which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." is redundant, since just
> > "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c." means that no matter who measures it,
> > they will get c, be it the emitting body, or some other body (another observer). This is just a matter of the
> > logic of the English language, the meaning of the words used.

> TOTAL NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, so the problem here is one language. You do not agree or interpret what Einstein wrote as the way we understand or interpret it.
This is why I am trying to take a step back, and use simpler sentences.

> The quote CLEARLY says
> NOTHING about what other observers will see.

It doesn't need to be that specific, since it is obvious to the intended readers but that is what was meant.
And as a proof of that, if you read the rest of Einstein's work, you will see that he does specify that it is independent of The Observers.

> And we know from experiments that
> a moving observer will NOT see oncoming light as traveling at c.

That is untrue. Actual experiments show otherwise. Are you now a reality denier? That you deny the results of peer-reviewed experiments and papers?

[rotchm]

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 12:55:10 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 11:46:24 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:


> > It says that an observer who is measuring the speed of light will measure
> > that speed to be c, regardless whether the emitter is stationary relative
> > to the observer, or whether the emitter is moving relative to the observer.
> Nope. That is you twisting things to fit your mistaken beliefs.

Again, it's your understanding of what Einstein wrote, versus everyone else's common understanding.
Do you agree to this?

If so, ask yourself why do we all agree to a common understanding, and you do not.
And does this imply that we are all wrong and you are right? Or that perhaps we are all right and you are wrong?
And one step further, how can we figure out who is right?


Is it possible that, what someone writes, be ambiguous?
Is it possible not what E wrote, be ambiguous?
And if it is ambiguous, how can one figure out what was the intended meaning?

[RichD]

On March 30, rotchm wrote:
> "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c."
> means that no matter who measures it, they will get c, be it the emitting

> body, or some other body. This is just a matter of the logic of the English language

"A wave is always propagated in calm water with a definite velocity d."
means that no matter who measures it, they will get d, be it the emitting
body, or some other body. This is just a matter of the logic of the English language.



--
Rich

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 4:04:36 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 12:41:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:03:13 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > To declare a velocity, implicitly means there is an "observer".
> > > Do you agree that the above sentence means/imply that? (to this point, it's just a question of English language).
>
> > We can ASSUME there is an "observer," since without an "observer" we
> > see and know and observe nothing.
> OK. So you agree that to do physics, to do actual measurements, we need an "observer"...right?
> So when we see sentences as " the speed is...", there is implicitly and observer, right?

Okay, I think I'm done posting here for awhile. We're just arguing over
words and phrasing.

I never should have said that you need an "observer" to see an event.
There are countless "events" that happen in the universe without any
observer there to SEE them.

Einstein's Second Postulate does NOT involve any observer. All it says 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."

That is true and happens whether there is anyone around to see it happen
or not. When you add an observer to the situation, you have to state where
the observer is located. If the observer is located with the emitter, then the
photon will travel at c away from that observer. If the observer is somewhere
else, then what the observer will see (and measure) depends upon a lot of
factors.

> > And we know from experiments that
> > a moving observer will NOT see oncoming light as traveling at c.
> That is untrue. Actual experiments show otherwise. Are you now a reality denier? That you deny the results of peer-reviewed experiments and papers?

NAME THE EXPERIMENTS!

Here is a list of experiments which say what I just said:
http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 4:04:36 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 12:41:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:03:13 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>>
>>>> To declare a velocity, implicitly means there is an "observer".
>>>> Do you agree that the above sentence means/imply that? (to this point,
>>>> it's just a question of English language).
>>
>>> We can ASSUME there is an "observer," since without an "observer" we
>>> see and know and observe nothing.
>> OK. So you agree that to do physics, to do actual measurements, we need an
>> "observer"...right?
>> So when we see sentences as " the speed is...", there is implicitly and observer, right?
>
> Okay, I think I'm done posting here for awhile. We're just arguing over
> words and phrasing.

Indeed. That’s the point. You don’t know the meaning of the words as used
in the context of physics. Naturally, then, when you read something and
take a different meaning, that’s due to that shortfall. Here’s a reminder:
professional journal papers are not written for audiences outside the
professional community. They are in fact written assuming that only readers
with deep physics background will know enough to parse it correctly. You
have chosen to say, “screw that, I’m interested in the subject, and I will
read the papers and interpret the words in the way any ordinary layman
might interpret them, using nothing more than common sense.” That right
there is a fool’s strategy, and one almost certain to fail.

So OF COURSE the discussion with you is going to involve a lot of arguing

over words and phrasing.

>
> I never should have said that you need an "observer" to see an event.
> There are countless "events" that happen in the universe without any
> observer there to SEE them.
>
> Einstein's Second Postulate does NOT involve any observer. All it says 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."
>
> That is true and happens whether there is anyone around to see it happen
> or not. When you add an observer to the situation, you have to state where
> the observer is located. If the observer is located with the emitter, then the
> photon will travel at c away from that observer. If the observer is somewhere
> else, then what the observer will see (and measure) depends upon a lot of
> factors.
>
>>> And we know from experiments that
>>> a moving observer will NOT see oncoming light as traveling at c.
>> That is untrue. Actual experiments show otherwise. Are you now a reality
>> denier? That you deny the results of peer-reviewed experiments and papers?
>
> NAME THE EXPERIMENTS!
>
> Here is a list of experiments which say what I just said:
> http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
>
> Ed
>

[rotchm]

Correct. In your above paragraph, we clearly understand your context and that "velocity "d"
is relative to the body mass of water.

In the statement "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c.",
We clearly understand the contacts and that this velocity is relative to all (inertial) Observers.
True, it takes brains to understand a sentence with in context.

Like here, your sentence in my sentence are basically logically identical. Yet, they mean totally different things. That is because their context are totally different. We understand the intended meaning of the author.

[rotchm]

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:23:50 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 4:04:36 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> Okay, I think I'm done posting here for awhile. We're just arguing over
> words and phrasing.

That's exactly what I told you. So how can we remedy that? Is it by running away?
Or is it by learning to understand the language?

> I never should have said that you need an "observer" to see an event.
> There are countless "events" that happen in the universe without any
> observer there to SEE them.

And all that is Irrelevant in the context of relativity. Because we know that Observer, event, reference frame, specifying positions or speeds, Etc are all basically synonyms.

> Einstein's Second Postulate does NOT involve any observer.

Didn't you recently agree with me that one implicit observer was the EMITTER ?
That is, Einstein second part of it does involve and observer...?

> All it says 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."
> That is true and happens whether there is anyone around to see it happen
> or not. When you add an observer to the situation, you have to state where
> the observer is located.

The intended meaning of the postulate, the contacts it's clear for us all (you are the only one who disagrees)

> > That is untrue. Actual experiments show otherwise. Are you now a reality denier?
> > That you deny the results of peer-reviewed experiments and papers?
> NAME THE EXPERIMENTS!

Many astronomical events occur. The light from these events Traverse many satellites we have around Earth, and here around other planets. We measure the distance and time difference between these passages from the different satellites. The speed of that light is always C to Within accuracies.

Here on Earth, we send particles at high speed and measure the speed of light emanating from those particles. We always have obtained c.

[Michael Moroney]

[bla bla bla]

> Then Einstein begins describing his theory in TEN different sections.
> each describing a part of the THEORY. I'll just mention a few of them.

[bla bla bla]

> I could explain the other sections, too, but the point is: a postulate is
> an ASSUMPTION used to develop a THEORY. The THEORY is about how
> light and time work. There are NO POSTULATES described in the theory,
> the theory describes how things work IF the postulates are true.

And you ignore my point. In all those 10 sections, Einstein never used
the fact that the speed of light is c relative to the emitter.

Instead he used the REAL second postulate (not your opinion of what it
should be) that the speed of light is c relative to ALL (inertial)
observers.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
> >>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
> >>>> the words mean.
> >>>
> >>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
> >>>
> >> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
> >> language devised by them for purpose.
> >
> > For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
> > of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
> > means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
> irrelevant to that

No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. You're not
calling AH like that when talking to them just because
they do. Or do you, poor halfbrain?

> Well, since you are not part of the physics community, they don’t care what
> you think anyway. So that’s fine. You won’t communicate intelligently about
> physics because you don’t know physics language and that’s just dandy.

It's quite similiar with nazis: if you don't want to call AH like
they do - they won't talk to you. They will just scream of
your vodka, or alike.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 23:54:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 4:04:36 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 12:41:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:03:13 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> >>
> >>>> To declare a velocity, implicitly means there is an "observer".
> >>>> Do you agree that the above sentence means/imply that? (to this point,
> >>>> it's just a question of English language).
> >>
> >>> We can ASSUME there is an "observer," since without an "observer" we
> >>> see and know and observe nothing.
> >> OK. So you agree that to do physics, to do actual measurements, we need an
> >> "observer"...right?
> >> So when we see sentences as " the speed is...", there is implicitly and observer, right?
> >
> > Okay, I think I'm done posting here for awhile. We're just arguing over
> > words and phrasing.
> Indeed. That’s the point. You don’t know the meaning of the words as used
> in the context of physics.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
your moronic physics TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

[Michael Moroney]

On 4/1/2022 1:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. You're not
> calling AH like that when talking to them just because
> they do. Or do you, poor halfbrain?
>
>> Well, since you are not part of the physics community, they don’t care what
>> you think anyway. So that’s fine. You won’t communicate intelligently about
>> physics because you don’t know physics language and that’s just dandy.
>
> It's quite similiar with nazis: if you don't want to call AH like
> they do - they won't talk to you. They will just scream of
> your vodka, or alike.

I call Godwin. Maciej loses.

[Maciej Wozniak]

No, stupid Mike. You're of course too dumb to notice,
but I'm not comparing your fellow idiot Odd to nazis here.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-03-30 18:41:46 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-03-28 15:59:48 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>>
>>> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
>>> "Those who donâ•˙t know physics do physics teaching.
>>> "Those who donâ•˙t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
>>>
>>> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
>>> physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England.
>>
>> It's much older than that. At least, I heard a very similar proposition
>> in the 1970s.
>
> Certainly. AFAIk the original, just two lines, was:
>
> Those who can, do.
> Those who can't, teach.

Yes. That's the version I heard many years ago (plus your third line).
I didn't remember the wording in time to include it in my comment.

> [1]
>
> -Much- better than Ed's mongrelised version,
> because it doesn't imply that teaching is done by incompetents,
>
> Jan
>
> [1] My prefered third line is
>
> Those who can't teach, tell others how to.

Mine too.

When I became a Lecturer at Birmingham in 1970 we were encouraged to
attend a course in the Education Department. I didn't, and I don't know
of anyone who did at that time. A few years later they persuaded the
Biochemistry Department, and doubtless others, to make it compulsory
for new lecturers. A younger colleague who was forced to go told me
afterwards that it was as bad as you or I would expect.

I think that in most universities the most incompetent teachers are to
be found in the Education Department.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[J. J. Lodder]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2022-03-30 18:41:46 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-03-28 15:59:48 +0000, Ed Lake said:
> >>
> >>> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> >>> "Those who donâ•˙t know physics do physics teaching.
> >>> "Those who donâ•˙t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
> >>>
> >>> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
> >>> physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England.
> >>
> >> It's much older than that. At least, I heard a very similar proposition
> >> in the 1970s.
> >
> > Certainly. AFAIk the original, just two lines, was:
> >
> > Those who can, do.
> > Those who can't, teach.
>
> Yes. That's the version I heard many years ago (plus your third line).
> I didn't remember the wording in time to include it in my comment.

The two line original is due to George Bernard Shaw.
(looking, in 1903, Man and Superman)
There are various third lines, apart from the one I invented for myself.
(no doubt others found just the same third line before I did)

> > -Much- better than Ed's mongrelised version,
> > because it doesn't imply that teaching is done by incompetents,
> >

> > [1] My prefered third line is
> >
> > Those who can't teach, tell others how to.
>
> Mine too.
>
> When I became a Lecturer at Birmingham in 1970 we were encouraged to
> attend a course in the Education Department. I didn't, and I don't know
> of anyone who did at that time. A few years later they persuaded the
> Biochemistry Department, and doubtless others, to make it compulsory
> for new lecturers. A younger colleague who was forced to go told me
> afterwards that it was as bad as you or I would expect.
>
> I think that in most universities the most incompetent teachers are to
> be found in the Education Department.

For a long time only attendance at their lectures was required.
(at a place I happen to know about)
So people went there, signed the presence list,
and sat it out, playing chess, or reading newspapers.
Since then didactics departments have grown,
increasng in numbers and power, so that is no longer possible

I really have no idea what kind of exam questions they can ask,

Jan

--
"My attempts at teaching mathematics have been largely in vain,
except for a few happy cases in which they were superfluous"
(some great name prof, long ago)

[Odd Bodkin]

Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
>>>>>> the words mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
>>>>>
>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
>>>> language devised by them for purpose.
>>>
>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
>> irrelevant to that
>
> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant.

No, that’s not an example of jargon.

You can look that word “jargon” up.

It’s no wonder you don’t like jargon, you don’t even know what the word
means.

> You're not
> calling AH like that when talking to them just because
> they do. Or do you, poor halfbrain?
>
>> Well, since you are not part of the physics community, they don’t care what
>> you think anyway. So that’s fine. You won’t communicate intelligently about
>> physics because you don’t know physics language and that’s just dandy.
>
> It's quite similiar with nazis: if you don't want to call AH like
> they do - they won't talk to you. They will just scream of
> your vodka, or alike.
>

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
> >>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
> >>>>>> the words mean.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
> >>>> language devised by them for purpose.
> >>>
> >>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
> >>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
> >>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
> >> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
> >> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
> >> irrelevant to that
> >
> > No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
> > AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant.
> No, that’s not an example of jargon.

Because an idiot woodworker says so? If
"proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious",
poor halfbrain?

> You can look that word “jargon” up.

So you can. No wonder you spread your nonsenses
about jargon, you don’t even know what the word means.

[Odd Bodkin]

Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking
special meanings specific to that community.
On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning special to the
community of physics.
Duh.

As mentioned before, if you don’t know what “jargon” means, you can look
that word up.

>> You can look that word “jargon” up.
>
> So you can. No wonder you spread your nonsenses
> about jargon, you don’t even know what the word means.
>
>

[Maciej Wozniak]

How do you know?

> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning

Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense.
The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great
and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe
that the mad concepts of your insane guru are
proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor
halfbrain.

[Odd Bodkin]

Woz, you are an idiot. Can’t even look up “jargon” in the dictionary.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Speaking about dictionaries, Bod -
https://www.synonyms-thesaurus.com/antonyms-common-sense

And the truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great

[Michael Moroney]

Stop Godwinning yourself, Woz.

You really do need to look up "jargon".

BTW "proper" isn't the word being used as jargon. "Proper time", the
phrase, is the jargon. It describes a particular type of time
measurement, and there was no pre-existing adjective which could be
tacked onto the word "time" to mean what proper time now means, so a
jargon phrase "proper time" evolved.

Complete statements like "communism is the best system" or "AH was a
great leader" are propaganda or beliefs and are complete sentences, not
a word or short phrase. Communist theory jargon might be words like
"proletariat" or "bourgeoisie" which have specific meanings in their theory.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Is it 42, stupid Mike?

> Complete statements like "communism is the best system" or "AH was a
> great leader" are propaganda or beliefs and are complete sentences, not
> a word or short phrase.

If it was "great leader AH" it would be fine.
The logic of stupid Mike and his fellow idiots.

[Odd Bodkin]

Yes, this is correct. Keep in mind that for Woz, jargon is despicable in
itself. Keep in mind that for Woz, the whole deal is “fuck you”. As in
“fuck your physics,” “fuck your jargon”, “fuck your non-common-sense
concepts”, “fuck the ground you walk on”.

He lives in a loop of rage. I don’t know if that’s because of early career
issues, or just interactions on this group. Either way, it’s pathological.
He knows it, doesn’t care, gotta get it out.

> It describes a particular type of time
> measurement, and there was no pre-existing adjective which could be
> tacked onto the word "time" to mean what proper time now means, so a
> jargon phrase "proper time" evolved.
>
> Complete statements like "communism is the best system" or "AH was a
> great leader" are propaganda or beliefs and are complete sentences, not
> a word or short phrase. Communist theory jargon might be words like
> "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie" which have specific meanings in their theory.
>

[carl eto]

The observer is the observer of MX.

[The Starmaker]

Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks is ...Terrifying.



--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[Michael Moroney]

On 3/31/2022 4:13 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 21:56:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> And that observer observes "Light is always propagated in empty space

>> with a definite velocity c."
>

> Stupid Mike, even your idiot guru was unable to stick to this
> nonsense for a long time and his GR shit had to abandon it.
>
>
>> Nope, we know from experiments that ALL observers observe light moving
>> at c.
>
> No, stupid Mike, I don't, for instance.

Observers have to observe, drunken janitor. With your head so far up
your ass the only thing you can observe is scan for colon polyps by
performing a self-colonoscopy.
>
>> Remember, this was known BEFORE Einstein came along.
>
> Remember, only such an idiot can believe such an impudent
> lie.

Nope, it was well known at the time. That's why a constant speed of
light was a postulate (something believed to be and assumed to be true)
for the 1905 paper, not a wild what-if claim.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks is ...Terrifying.
>
>

Everytime you take a physics test, the questions are the same as last year but the answers are different.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks is ...Terrifying.
> >
> >
>
> Everytime you take a physics test, the questions are the same as last year but the answers are different.
>

Go face to face with people you know and ask them.."How many planets are
there in our solar system?"

They probably will grab their phone to look it up...

I would say 99.9 percent of the people on the earth don't know the
answer...(including scientist and astro martianist.)

[Maciej Wozniak]

No, it's not. Keep it in mind that for Bod any nonsense,
any lie is good when it's for The Shit or against its
opponents.

He lives in a loop of rage. I don’t know if that’s because of early career
issues, or just interactions on this group. Either way, it’s pathological.

He's too dumb to know, of course.