Light is stored in the atom sharing its speed there what is its mass?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

The atom has mass by moving below light speed.
Light is stored in the moving atom. Does light
take on mass like the atom by that slower than c
movement? Mass less is only from c movement.

Mitchell Raemsch

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Light where stored inside of an atom shares below C motion.
Does that give light there mass? If anything below c does have mass?

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ed Lake]

An atom has mass because it is made of particles which have mass.
Light is NOT stored in an atom. When energy in the form of HEAT is applied
to an atom, that heat causes the electrons in the atom to gain energy they
cannot hold. The "excited" electrons then cause the atom to EMIT photons
to get rid of that excess energy.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:55:33 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 1:29:37 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The atom has mass by moving below light speed.
> > > Light is stored in the moving atom. Does light
> > > take on mass like the atom by that slower than c
> > > movement? Mass less is only from c movement.
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > Light where stored inside of an atom shares below C motion.
> > Does that give light there mass? If anything below c does have mass?
> An atom has mass because it is made of particles which have mass.

It has mass because it moves below C. So if light is stored in it
light moves below C so does light then get mass like the atom it is in?

> Light is NOT stored in an atom.

What happens after it is absorbed?
You are a nut. Heat is higher EM light energy and it waits to come out
after absorbed.

?When energy in the form of HEAT is applied

> to an atom, that heat causes the electrons in the atom to gain energy they
> cannot hold. The "excited" electrons then cause the atom to EMIT photons
> to get rid of that excess energy.

Your heat is getting stored in the atom.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 12:48:16 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:

<snip>

> > Light is NOT stored in an atom.

> What happens after it is absorbed?
> You are a nut. Heat is higher EM light energy and it waits to come out after absorbed.

Are you really a retired physicist with a PhD, Mitch?

HEAT is generated in two flavors. Even by Newton's time that was known.

1) Radiant Heat: That's the heat carried by EM waves. Kirchoff posted a challenge in 1859, and Planck provided the final stroke in 1900.

2) Kinetic Heat: The other flavor, when you lit a fire. Gas molecules become more and more agitated, and it generates Convective Heat.
Maxwell solved the puzzle in 1860, with his statistical distribution of gas vs. speed. Wien and Planck used this model for 1)

A derivation of 2) is Conductive Heat, which happens along the body of metals.

Excess energy of atoms is delivered as HEAT under BOTH FORMS, depending on temperature. Light emission appears when Heat 2)
cross a threshold of temperature, and atoms (besides colliding or vibrating) get rid of energy excess by emitting Radiant Heat (EM waves).

Basic Thermodynamics by the end of XIX Century.

> ?When energy in the form of HEAT is applied
> > to an atom, that heat causes the electrons in the atom to gain energy they
> > cannot hold. The "excited" electrons then cause the atom to EMIT photons
> > to get rid of that excess energy.
> Your heat is getting stored in the atom.

Depend on the kind of heat and the type of substance, Mitch. If Heat is Type 2), your assertion is incorrect. It's provided by KE.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 10:48:16 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

When heat is applied to an atom, the atom does NOT "store" that heat.
It CANNOT STORE the heat, so it MUST IMMEDIATELY get rid of it. Instantly.

When you plug in a lightbulb, electricity applies heat to the tungsten atoms
in the lightbulb filament. That heat is then immediately gotten rid of by the
tungsten atoms turning the heat into photons. The light bulb emits photons
which light up the room.

When you turn off the electricity, the lightbulb instantly goes dark. Atoms in
other parts of the lightbulb will more slowly cool down by emitting heat.
And gradually everything gets back to normal temperature.

[Ed Lake]

It looks like this is going to turn into another argument over word definitions.

From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/store
Definition of "store":

transitive verb
1 : lay away, accumulate store vegetables for winter use an organism that absorbs and stores DDT
2 : furnish, supply especially : to stock against a future time store a ship with provisions
3 : to place or leave in a location (such as a warehouse, library, or computer memory) for preservation or later use or disposal
4 : to provide storage room for : hold elevators for storing surplus wheat

Light is NOT "stored" by an atom. An atom ABSORBS heat which it cannot hold,
so it immediately gets rid of it by emitting a photon.

Does "absorb" mean "to store"? Sometimes.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absorb

But it also means:
"to transform (radiant energy) into a different form especially with a resulting rise in temperature"

An atom TRANSFORMS heat into photons. When you go through that process
step by step, "transform" becomes two steps: (1) "absorb" and (2) "emit".
But an atom NEVER "stores" heat.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 10:29:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 12:48:16 AM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Light is NOT stored in an atom.
>
> > What happens after it is absorbed?
> > You are a nut. Heat is higher EM light energy and it waits to come out after absorbed.
> Are you really a retired physicist with a PhD, Mitch?
>

Heat is outside the atom moving and inside the atom moving with it.

Mitchell Raemsch

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Your problem is with a word?
Prove that the word store is the problem.
When absorbed light can be stored for some time.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 12:24:51 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

NO! Light CANNOT be "stored for some time." Heat is INSTANTANEOUSLY
transformed into a photon inside an atom, and that photon is
INSTANTANEOUSLY emitted by the atom. There is no "storage" time,
and the transformation time is too small to measure.

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/15/22 2:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Light CANNOT be "stored for some time."

Not true. Light can easily be stored for nanoseconds to milliseconds in
media with large indices of refraction; there are reports of
Bose-Einstein Condensates storing light for a few seconds. And of
course, light can be converted to energy that can be stored for very
much longer times.

When an atom absorbs a photon, it stores energy for a while before
releasing it as an emitted photon (if it emits one; there are other ways
the energy can be released). The delay can be femtoseconds to hours,
depending on the details.

> Heat is INSTANTANEOUSLY transformed into a photon inside an atom,
> and that photon is INSTANTANEOUSLY emitted by the atom.

This is just plain not so -- you REALLY don't understand this at all.

Heat in a material is manifested as atomic motions (entire atoms moving
around). Those motions can cause atoms to collide and interact, and it
can happen that an atom becomes excited to a state above its ground
state. When that happens, the atom usually then emits a photon to relax
back to its ground state -- this happens after a delay related to the
lifetime of the excited state, which can be femtoseconds to hours. For
some materials, molecular excitations and collective actions can be more
important than individual atomic excitations.

So heat can cause atoms to become excited, and then emit photons related
to the excited states involved. Higher temperatures mean the collisions
and interactions are more energetic and can reach excited states with
higher energies, so the atoms can then emit photons of higher energies
-- when heating metals above 400C or so the perceived color is related
to the temperature (below ~400C the emission is infrared and humans
cannot see it).

An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it absorbs a photon that
matches the energy difference between its ground and excited states.
Then, after a delay, it can emit a photon, or perhaps multiple photons,
relaxing back to its ground state. Depending on the details of the
atomic (molecular) structure involved, the delay can be femtoseconds to
hours.

Haven't you ever seen phosphorescent toys that absorb light and then
glow in the dark for hours (usually blue-green)? Don't you ever think
about what you write, and relate it to your experience of the world?

> There is no "storage" time, and the transformation time is too small
> to measure.

Nonsense. You're just making stuff up out of ignorance.

You CLEARLY do not understand this, and should stop attempting to write
about it until you learn something about the subject.

Tom Roberts

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Tj? Turn off the light bulb and where does all the light go to in the room?
Its a lot of stored light...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ed Lake]

Okay. I should have known better than to get into another argument here
over WORDS.

The original erroneous statement was: "Light is stored in the moving atom."

Light is NOT stored. ENERGY is stored. But, a photon is just energy being
transferred from one atom to another. Depending upon the type of atom that
is hit by the photon, the ENERGY can be absorbed and slowly released in
some other form, such as heat or florescence. OR the energy can be instantly
released as another photon, which is what happens when a photon hits a silver
atom in a mirror.

tjrob137 wrote: "An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it absorbs a

photon that matches the energy difference between its ground and excited states."

That implies that you believe an atom is the same as a molecule. That's CRAZY!

And, since silver atoms absorb and emit photons with many different variations
in energy content, that makes the rest of your comment CRAZY, too. The difference
between an atom's ground and excited states is not fixed, it depends upon the
energy of the photon that is absorbed. The higher the energy in the absorbed photon,
the higher the "excited state" of the atom will be.

But, I don't want to get into another argument over words. I'm done here. Bye bye.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Light is energy...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 12:44:50 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

But energy is not always light. Heat is energy. Gamma rays are energy.
Radio signals are energy.

"Light" is defined as "something that makes vision possible." "Visible light"
is a very small part of the energy spectrum.

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/16/22 9:36 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> I should have known better than to get into another argument here
> over WORDS.

This is not about words. You got the very basic physics COMPLETELY
WRONG. And you repeat your errors in the post to which I am replying.

> [...] the energy can be instantly released as another photon, which

> is what happens when a photon hits a silver atom in a mirror.

This is just plain not true. For visible light reflecting from a mirror,
the atoms of the mirror DO NOT absorb the photons, for the simple reason
that the atoms and molecules of the reflecting surface have no
absorption bands or lines in the visible region. Instead, the incoming
photons interact with all the charged particles of the mirror [#], and
the resulting interference results in reflection with the usual Snell's law.

[#] Only electrons in a metallic conduction band contribute
significantly, which is why mirrors are invariably made of
polished metal surfaces.

> tjrob137 wrote: "An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it
> absorbs a photon that matches the energy difference between its
> ground and excited states."
>
> That implies that you believe an atom is the same as a molecule.
> That's CRAZY!

The CRAZY part is you attempting to put words into my mouth. I NEVER
said or implied any such thing.

Both atoms and molecules have excited states that can absorb photons of
the right energy. That is what I was talking about.

> And, since silver atoms absorb and emit photons with many different
> variations in energy content, that makes the rest of your comment
> CRAZY, too.

The CRAZY part here is your insistence that silver atoms absorb
visible-light photons. THEY DO NOT. That is NOT how mirrors work.

> The difference between an atom's ground and excited states is not
> fixed, it depends upon the energy of the photon that is absorbed.

You REALLY do not understand this. Just making stuff up is HOPELESS.

The structure of an atom's energy levels is UNAFFECTED by incoming
photons, it is FIXED by the atomic structure (# protons and electrons,
etc.). The atom can only absorb photons with energies that match
the energy difference between atomic levels [@]. Most such levels are
sharp, leading to absorption lines; some atoms, and most molecules, have
absorption bands, usually due to rotational degrees of freedom that are
very closely spaced in energy....

[@] Usually starting from the ground state. Note there
are additional selection rules.

> But, I don't want to get into another argument over words.

This is not about words. It is about your abysmal lack of understanding
of very basic physics.

> I'm done here. Bye bye.

You always run away, apparently because you cannot stand for your
preconceived notions to be shown incorrect.

Tom Roberts

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

But light is always energy.

Heat is energy. Gamma rays are energy.
> Radio signals are energy.

Light is EM wave energy just like all of your other EM wave examples.

>
> "Light" is defined as "something that makes vision possible." "Visible light"
> is a very small part of the energy spectrum.

The whole spectrum is energy you moron.

Mitchell Raemsch

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

The only other thing than EM that is energy is a particle...

[Paul Alsing]

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 7:36:08 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> But, I don't want to get into another argument over words. I'm done here. Bye bye.

It's about time, Ed.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out...

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 4:56:34 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/16/22 9:36 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I should have known better than to get into another argument here
> > over WORDS.
> This is not about words. You got the very basic physics COMPLETELY
> WRONG. And you repeat your errors in the post to which I am replying.
>
> > [...] the energy can be instantly released as another photon, which
> > is what happens when a photon hits a silver atom in a mirror.
> This is just plain not true. For visible light reflecting from a mirror,
> the atoms of the mirror DO NOT absorb the photons, for the simple reason
> that the atoms and molecules of the reflecting surface have no
> absorption bands or lines in the visible region. Instead, the incoming
> photons interact with all the charged particles of the mirror [#], and
> the resulting interference results in reflection with the usual Snell's law.

I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons. Here
are a couple:

“What actually happens on a microscopic level is that the incoming photon
is absorbed by the electrons of the mirror, which are set into oscillation by
the photon’s oscillating electric field. The result is, for some materials
(shiny ones), that the electrons’ oscillation creates a new photon that moves
away from the mirror in the opposite direction. The incoming and outgoing
photons are free and move at speed c, but they are not the same photon…”

Source: Bernard Schultz, Gravity from the Ground Up, Cambridge University Press, page 196 (2003)

"How does the mirror reflect light? The silver atoms behind the glass absorb the
photons of incoming light energy and become excited. But that makes them
unstable, so they try to become stable again by getting rid of the extra energy—
and they do that by giving off some more photons."

Source: https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howmirrorswork.html

>
> [#] Only electrons in a metallic conduction band contribute
> significantly, which is why mirrors are invariably made of
> polished metal surfaces.

Silver atoms are the best reflectors. Aluminum atoms also work well.
Other metals require constant polishing and don't work very well at all.

> > tjrob137 wrote: "An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it
> > absorbs a photon that matches the energy difference between its
> > ground and excited states."
> >
> > That implies that you believe an atom is the same as a molecule.
> > That's CRAZY!
> The CRAZY part is you attempting to put words into my mouth. I NEVER
> said or implied any such thing.
>
> Both atoms and molecules have excited states that can absorb photons of
> the right energy. That is what I was talking about.

You did it again!! A molecule is MADE FROM ATOMS. It is the ATOMS that
matter, not the molecules.

> > And, since silver atoms absorb and emit photons with many different
> > variations in energy content, that makes the rest of your comment
> > CRAZY, too.
> The CRAZY part here is your insistence that silver atoms absorb
> visible-light photons. THEY DO NOT. That is NOT how mirrors work.

See the Bernard Schultz quotation above.
Or watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE6I52Th9DE

> > The difference between an atom's ground and excited states is not
> > fixed, it depends upon the energy of the photon that is absorbed.
> You REALLY do not understand this. Just making stuff up is HOPELESS.

I use REFERENCES, which means I'm not making anything up.

>
> The structure of an atom's energy levels is UNAFFECTED by incoming
> photons, it is FIXED by the atomic structure (# protons and electrons,
> etc.). The atom can only absorb photons with energies that match
> the energy difference between atomic levels [@]. Most such levels are
> sharp, leading to absorption lines; some atoms, and most molecules, have
> absorption bands, usually due to rotational degrees of freedom that are
> very closely spaced in energy....

Did you just make that up??? Or is it about some other topic?

>
> [@] Usually starting from the ground state. Note there
> are additional selection rules.
> > But, I don't want to get into another argument over words.
> This is not about words. It is about your abysmal lack of understanding
> of very basic physics.

I uses source that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

> I use sources that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.
>
> Ed

I just found a college textbook that has an interesting section about how
photons interact with atoms. The textbook is "College Physics – A Strategic
Approach" (3rd edition) by Randall D. Knight, Brian Jones and Stuart Field.
Section 29.3 is titled "Bohr's Model of Atomic Quantization." It says this on
page 947:

"1. The electrons in an atom can exist in only certain allowed orbits. A particular
arrangement of electrons in these orbits is called a stationary state."

"3. An atom can undergo a transition or quantum jump from one stationary state
to another by emitting or absorbing a photon whose energy is exactly equal to the
energy difference between the two stationary states."

I can see that that last part can be interpreted to mean that an atom can ONLY
absorb a photon of a particular energy, OR it can be interpreted to mean that
when an atom absorbs a photon, the energy of the PHOTON is "exactly equal
to the energy difference between the two energy states." Since silver atoms
reflect light photons with energy of countless different states, the second
interpretation is clear the correct interpretation.

It is just the second textbook I checked. The first just referred to light as "rays"
and said nothing about rays interacting with atoms. I assume that any textbook
that explains how photons interact with atoms will say basically the same thing.

Ed

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/17/22 9:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons.

They are WRONG.

I cannot help it if idiots and know-nothings outnumber knowledgeable
people on the internet. Or that authors often LIE about details
unrelated to their main topic, in order to avoid long-winded and
complicated discussions peripheral to their topic.

>> Both atoms and molecules have excited states that can absorb
>> photons of the right energy. That is what I was talking about.
>
> You did it again!! A molecule is MADE FROM ATOMS. It is the ATOMS
> that matter, not the molecules.

Not true. You just display your personal ignorance. Molecules usually
have absorption bands and lines that are unrelated to those of the atoms
of which they are made. They are related to inter-atomic motions and
vibrations within the molecule, or to overall rotational modes of the
molecule, etc.

>> The structure of an atom's energy levels is UNAFFECTED by incoming
>> photons, it is FIXED by the atomic structure (# protons and
>> electrons, etc.). The atom can only absorb photons with energies
>> that match the energy difference between atomic levels [@]. Most
>> such levels are sharp, leading to absorption lines; some atoms,
>> and most molecules, have absorption bands, usually due to
>> rotational degrees of freedom that are very closely spaced in
>> energy....
>
> Did you just make that up??? Or is it about some other topic?

It is just basic quantum mechanics, of which you appear to be completely
ignorant. It is DIRECTLY relevant here and shows how wrong your claims are.

> I uses source that you can check.

Too bad you are unable to understand them well enough to see that they
are wrong. Elementary books often LIE about advanced topics, to avoid
long and detailed discussions unrelated to their topic.

> I just found a college textbook that has an interesting section
> about how photons interact with atoms. The textbook is "College
> Physics – A Strategic Approach" (3rd edition) by Randall D. Knight,
> Brian Jones and Stuart Field. Section 29.3 is titled "Bohr's Model of
> Atomic Quantization."

But what you don't understand is that Bohr's model has been COMPLETELY
SUPERSEDED by quantum mechanics. Some aspects remain, including the
requirement that for a photon to be absorbed by an atom its energy must
exactly match the energy difference between atomic states.

> Since silver atoms reflect light photons with energy of countless

> different states, [...]

This is still wrong, and the "interpretation" you espouse is YOURS AND
YOURS ALONE [#] -- everyone else knows that the energy levels of an atom
are determined by the atomic structure, not by any incoming photon flux.
It is the electrons in the conduction band that implement the mirror,
not the atoms absorbing photons -- the reflection is an inherently QED
effect related to the phases of interactions with the myriad electrons
located throughout the mirror.

[#] You are prolific in making stuff up to fill in gaps
that you don't understand. You are invariably wrong.

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 19:41:07 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/17/22 9:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons.
> They are WRONG.
>
> I cannot help it if idiots and know-nothings outnumber knowledgeable
> people on the internet.

Of course you can help. You can leave and it will be
one idiot less.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 10:41:07 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/17/22 9:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons.
> They are WRONG.

You are wrong tj. mirror atoms absorb light and emit it back in direction.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:41:07 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/17/22 9:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons.
> They are WRONG.
>
> I cannot help it if idiots and know-nothings outnumber knowledgeable
> people on the internet. Or that authors often LIE about details
> unrelated to their main topic, in order to avoid long-winded and
> complicated discussions peripheral to their topic.

So, textbooks lie? What sources do you use then? Stuff you make up?

> >> Both atoms and molecules have excited states that can absorb
> >> photons of the right energy. That is what I was talking about.
> >
> > You did it again!! A molecule is MADE FROM ATOMS. It is the ATOMS
> > that matter, not the molecules.
> Not true. You just display your personal ignorance. Molecules usually
> have absorption bands and lines that are unrelated to those of the atoms
> of which they are made. They are related to inter-atomic motions and
> vibrations within the molecule, or to overall rotational modes of the
> molecule, etc.
> >> The structure of an atom's energy levels is UNAFFECTED by incoming
> >> photons, it is FIXED by the atomic structure (# protons and
> >> electrons, etc.). The atom can only absorb photons with energies
> >> that match the energy difference between atomic levels [@]. Most
> >> such levels are sharp, leading to absorption lines; some atoms,
> >> and most molecules, have absorption bands, usually due to
> >> rotational degrees of freedom that are very closely spaced in
> >> energy....
> >
> > Did you just make that up??? Or is it about some other topic?
> It is just basic quantum mechanics, of which you appear to be completely
> ignorant. It is DIRECTLY relevant here and shows how wrong your claims are.

Ah! Quantum Mechanics! You should have mentioned that you are a
Quantum Mechanics mathematician. That answers everything! It explains
why you DISAGREE WITH TEXTBOOKS that explain science and Relativity.

> > I uses source that you can check.
> Too bad you are unable to understand them well enough to see that they
> are wrong. Elementary books often LIE about advanced topics, to avoid
> long and detailed discussions unrelated to their topic.

Really? How come no one points out their "lies" except YOU?

> > I just found a college textbook that has an interesting section
> > about how photons interact with atoms. The textbook is "College
> > Physics – A Strategic Approach" (3rd edition) by Randall D. Knight,
> > Brian Jones and Stuart Field. Section 29.3 is titled "Bohr's Model of
> > Atomic Quantization."
> But what you don't understand is that Bohr's model has been COMPLETELY
> SUPERSEDED by quantum mechanics. Some aspects remain, including the
> requirement that for a photon to be absorbed by an atom its energy must
> exactly match the energy difference between atomic states.

You are a Quantum Mechanics mathematician, which explains your
NONSENSICAL BELIEFS. It means you ONLY understand mathematics,
and you have NO INTEREST IN SCIENCE OR REALITY.

> > Since silver atoms reflect light photons with energy of countless
> > different states, [...]
>
> This is still wrong, and the "interpretation" you espouse is YOURS AND
> YOURS ALONE [#] -- everyone else knows that the energy levels of an atom
> are determined by the atomic structure, not by any incoming photon flux.
> It is the electrons in the conduction band that implement the mirror,
> not the atoms absorbing photons -- the reflection is an inherently QED
> effect related to the phases of interactions with the myriad electrons
> located throughout the mirror.
>
> [#] You are prolific in making stuff up to fill in gaps
> that you don't understand. You are invariably wrong.
>
> Tom Roberts

No, we've found out why you and I can never agree. You are a Quantum
Mechanics mathematician, and Quantum Mechanics mathematicians
have been trying to push aside Relativity FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS
in order to foster they own BELIEFS.

I'm a Relativist and a follower of Albert Einstein. The books I cite accurately
represent Relativity. Quantum Mechanics is an INCOMPLETE THEORY.
Quantum Mechanics cannot cope with the universe around us. It is only
useful when examining the the world of atoms and sub-atomic particles.
And even then it is incomplete, since it just works with math and does
not care about FACTS and EXPERIMENTS.

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

If you had just said you were a Quantum Mechanics mathematician at the
very beginning, we could have saved a lot of time. To me, that means there
is NO POSSIBILITY of agreement between us on any scientific topic.

Ed

[Volney]

On 6/17/2022 10:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 4:56:34 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 6/16/22 9:36 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> I should have known better than to get into another argument here
>>> over WORDS.
>> This is not about words. You got the very basic physics COMPLETELY
>> WRONG. And you repeat your errors in the post to which I am replying.
>>
>>> [...] the energy can be instantly released as another photon, which
>>> is what happens when a photon hits a silver atom in a mirror.
>> This is just plain not true. For visible light reflecting from a mirror,
>> the atoms of the mirror DO NOT absorb the photons, for the simple reason
>> that the atoms and molecules of the reflecting surface have no
>> absorption bands or lines in the visible region. Instead, the incoming
>> photons interact with all the charged particles of the mirror [#], and
>> the resulting interference results in reflection with the usual Snell's law.
>
> I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons. Here
> are a couple:
>
> “What actually happens on a microscopic level is that the incoming photon
> is absorbed by the electrons

Note that it states ELECTRONS here...

> of the mirror, which are set into oscillation by
> the photon’s oscillating electric field. The result is, for some materials
> (shiny ones), that the electrons’ oscillation creates a new photon that moves
> away from the mirror in the opposite direction. The incoming and outgoing
> photons are free and move at speed c, but they are not the same photon…”

This largely jibes what I learned in a semiconductor course I took on
the way to an EE degree. Metals can be modeled as positive ions
embedded in a "sea" of electrons. Each metal ion by itself has a
specific energy holding its outermost electron(s), but when you glom a
whole bunch of them together the outermost electrons are no longer
associated with a particular metal atom/ion. They are free to roam.
Because electrons, as fermions, cannot be in the same state, and all
electrons in the "sea" are essentially all the same, they no longer can
be at the exact same energy. What happens is that they are all at very
slightly different energies, and there are also empty (no electron)
energy levels at almost the exact same energy.

The prof went into some detail about what happens when light impinges on
the metal (with less energy than needed to expel an electron or promote
it to a very high energy level, which also exist) and the electrons in
the "sea" as a group interact with the light photon. I don't remember
the details, which weren't much, as this was a lead in to why metals
conduct, but one thing stressed was it was the sea and the nearly
infinitely close energy levels is what was important. The positive ions
(atoms minus their "sea" electron(s) don't participate except to keep
the whole thing electrically neutral.

I also got the same description in a chemistry class, as why most metals
are shiny, gray, conductive and specular.

>> [#] Only electrons in a metallic conduction band contribute
>> significantly, which is why mirrors are invariably made of
>> polished metal surfaces.
>
> Silver atoms are the best reflectors. Aluminum atoms also work well.
> Other metals require constant polishing and don't work very well at all.
>
>>> tjrob137 wrote: "An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it
>>> absorbs a photon that matches the energy difference between its
>>> ground and excited states."
>>>
>>> That implies that you believe an atom is the same as a molecule.
>>> That's CRAZY!
>> The CRAZY part is you attempting to put words into my mouth. I NEVER
>> said or implied any such thing.
>>
>> Both atoms and molecules have excited states that can absorb photons of
>> the right energy. That is what I was talking about.
>
> You did it again!! A molecule is MADE FROM ATOMS. It is the ATOMS that
> matter, not the molecules.

Nope. Molecules have excited states which aren't due to their
individual atoms. There is a certain microwave frequency which
corresponds to the energy transition of an ammonia molecule
transitioning between two states, the first with the nitrogen on one
side and 3H on the other <--> the second with nitrogen on the other side
and the hydrogens on the first side. This is used in ammonia masers.

>
>>> And, since silver atoms absorb and emit photons with many different
>>> variations in energy content, that makes the rest of your comment
>>> CRAZY, too.
>> The CRAZY part here is your insistence that silver atoms absorb
>> visible-light photons. THEY DO NOT. That is NOT how mirrors work.
>
> See the Bernard Schultz quotation above.
> Or watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE6I52Th9DE

The electron "sea" in metals interact with (light frequency) photons as
a whole.

>
>>> The difference between an atom's ground and excited states is not
>>> fixed, it depends upon the energy of the photon that is absorbed.
>> You REALLY do not understand this. Just making stuff up is HOPELESS.
>
> I use REFERENCES, which means I'm not making anything up.
>
>>
>> The structure of an atom's energy levels is UNAFFECTED by incoming
>> photons, it is FIXED by the atomic structure (# protons and electrons,
>> etc.). The atom can only absorb photons with energies that match
>> the energy difference between atomic levels [@]. Most such levels are
>> sharp, leading to absorption lines; some atoms, and most molecules, have
>> absorption bands, usually due to rotational degrees of freedom that are
>> very closely spaced in energy....
>
> Did you just make that up??? Or is it about some other topic?

That's standard physics and chemistry as taught in every university with
physics and chemistry courses.

> I uses source that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.

I learned similar science in university.

Individual atoms have (sharp) transitions corresponding to transitions
in energy shells.

Molecules have additional modes, including energy levels of interatomic
bonds as well as vibrational and rotational modes of the molecule. Your
opinion that only individual atoms can participate is irrelevant and
conflicts with what actual chemists know.
>
> Ed

[Ed Lake]

Yeah, that's the problem. You learned "similar science." What I'm discovering
is that it appears that every author of a physics textbook writes HIS or HER
understanding of physics. And it is rare to find two understandings that totally
agree.

Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE.
Text book authors NEVER seem to address that problem. Instead, they just
explain physics the best way they can.

One KEY point of disagreement seems to be Einstein's Second Postulate, which
Einstein stated as:

"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 a survey of college physics textbooks will show that nearly every textbook
author creates HIS OWN version of that postulate, a version that fits with his
BELIEFS about how light works. Here are just TEN of them:

1. All observers will always view the speed of light at the same rate.

2. Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.

3. The speed of light is the same to all inertial observers.

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

5. The speed of light in free space has the same value for all observers, regardless of their state of motion.

6. The speed of light, is constant, the same in all inertial reference frames, independent of any relative motion of the source and of the observer.

7. Regardless of the motion of its source, light always moves through empty space with the same constant speed.

8. In any given inertial frame, the velocity of light c is the same whether the light be emitted by a body at rest or by a body in uniform motion.

9. There exists an inertial frame in which light signals in vacuum always travel rectilinearly at constant speed c, in all directions, independently of the motion of the source.

10. Light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation are propagated in empty space with a constant velocity c which is independent of the motion of the observer or the emitting body.

If versions #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #10 were true, radar guns could not possibly work.

Ed

[Al Coe]

On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 7:41:19 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Einstein stated as: "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 a survey of
> college physics textbooks will show that nearly every textbook author creates HIS OWN
> version of that postulate, a version that fits with his BELIEFS about how light works.
> Here are just TEN of them:

You have blatantly misrepresented your sources, because each of the sources that you quote approvingly as just positing independence of the speed of the source go on to deduce (by combining that proposition with the principle of relativity) that the speed of light is the same independent of the speed of the receiving reference system as well. See, for example, Einstein's 1905 paper. You dishonestly omit this from your reporting, to make it appear that the texts disagree with each other. Fortunately, by doing this, you only deceive yourself, since everyone else understands the situation accurately.

> If versions #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #10 were true, radar guns could not possibly work.

Not true. All your texts agree that the speed of light (in vacuum) is the same in terms of every standard inertial reference system, and this correctly accounts for the operation of radar speed guns (and everything else).

[Volney]

And you write here your own understanding of physics. Your understanding
is just your own opinion, and since you apparently don't have a good
physics education, your opinion isn't exactly worth much.

> And it is rare to find two understandings that totally
> agree.

However, the understandings of actual physicists agree on the speed of
light.

>
> Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE.
> Text book authors NEVER seem to address that problem. Instead, they just
> explain physics the best way they can.
>

They don't have the same domains, so they don't conflict. Some day, we
hope, there will be a new theory which covers both domains and resolves
the apparent conflicts.

> One KEY point of disagreement seems to be Einstein's Second Postulate, which
> Einstein stated as:

There is no disagreement among actual physicists. YOU have a
disagreement with them, that's all.

>
> "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 a survey of college physics textbooks will show that nearly every textbook
> author creates HIS OWN version of that postulate, a version that fits with his
> BELIEFS about how light works. Here are just TEN of them:
>
> 1. All observers will always view the speed of light at the same rate.
>
> 2. Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
>
> 3. The speed of light is the same to all inertial observers.
>
> 4. The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value, c = 2.997 924 58 x 108 m/s, in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.
>
> 5. The speed of light in free space has the same value for all observers, regardless of their state of motion.
>
> 6. The speed of light, is constant, the same in all inertial reference frames, independent of any relative motion of the source and of the observer.
>
> 7. Regardless of the motion of its source, light always moves through empty space with the same constant speed.
>
> 8. In any given inertial frame, the velocity of light c is the same whether the light be emitted by a body at rest or by a body in uniform motion.
>
> 9. There exists an inertial frame in which light signals in vacuum always travel rectilinearly at constant speed c, in all directions, independently of the motion of the source.
>
> 10. Light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation are propagated in empty space with a constant velocity c which is independent of the motion of the observer or the emitting body.

These all say the same thing, some better than others. Some don't
mention the observer's frame since the observer being stationary in the
frame of the observer is a tautology.

>
> If versions #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #10 were true, radar guns could not possibly work.

Doppler radar uses the Doppler effect (what a coincidence, right?) and
at the comparatively low speeds of automobile traffic, relativity isn't
even needed. Your opinion that it is, is irrelevant, especially since
it conflicts with the science the scientists and engineers who actually
designed radar guns used. They used Newtonian physics and standard emag
theory.

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 10:11:32 AM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:

> On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 7:41:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Einstein stated as: "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 a survey of
> > college physics textbooks will show that nearly every textbook author creates HIS OWN
> > version of that postulate, a version that fits with his BELIEFS about how light works.
> > Here are just TEN of them:
> You have blatantly misrepresented your sources, because each of the sources that you quote approvingly as just positing independence of the speed of the source go on to deduce (by combining that proposition with the principle of relativity) that the speed of light is the same independent of the speed of the receiving reference system as well.

That DEDUCTION IS WRONG!!!! Einstein EXPLAINS that his Second Postulate is
"is only apparently irreconcilable with" his First Postulate. When you understand
his theory, you see that they are reconciled by TIME DILATION. The speed c is
the 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. If the length of a second changes with
velocity, then c when stationary is different from c when traveling at a high speed.
And c atop a mountain is different from c at the bottom of a mountain due
to gravity also changing the length of a second.

> See, for example, Einstein's 1905 paper. You dishonestly omit this from your reporting, to make it appear that the texts disagree with each other. Fortunately, by doing this, you only deceive yourself, since everyone else understands the situation accurately.

If you think that you can reconcile the First and Second Postulates by simply
DISTORTING or REPHRASING the Second Postulate, then you do NOT understand

the situation accurately.

> > If versions #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #10 were true, radar guns could not possibly work.
> Not true. All your texts agree that the speed of light (in vacuum) is the same in terms of every standard inertial reference system, and this correctly accounts for the operation of radar speed guns (and everything else).

Radar guns work because photons emitted from a gun at c hit an oncoming target at c+v.
And photons emitted at c hit a receding target at c-v. MANY EXPERIMENTS CONFIRM THIS!
There's a list of them at this link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 11:02:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

(snip)

> >> That's standard physics and chemistry as taught in every university with
> >> physics and chemistry courses.

> >>> I use sources that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.

> >> I learned similar science in university.
> >
> > Yeah, that's the problem. You learned "similar science." What I'm discovering
> > is that it appears that every author of a physics textbook writes HIS or HER
> > understanding of physics.
> And you write here your own understanding of physics. Your understanding
> is just your own opinion, and since you apparently don't have a good
> physics education, your opinion isn't exactly worth much.

I don't give opinions. I cite EXPERIMENTS which CONFIRM what I say.
Quantum Mechanics mathematicians IGNORE EXPERIMENTS and just
believe in math as if it is holy gospel and cannot be challenged. That's
not an opinion. It's an observation.

> > And it is rare to find two understandings that totally
> > agree.
> However, the understandings of actual physicists agree on the speed of
> light.

NONSENSE! They all agree that the speed of light is c, but they do not all
agree that c is VARIABLE because the LENGTH OF A SECOND is variable.
Relativist physicists agree. Quantum Mechanics physicists generally disagree.

> >
> > Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE.
> > Text book authors NEVER seem to address that problem. Instead, they just
> > explain physics the best way they can.
> >
> They don't have the same domains, so they don't conflict. Some day, we
> hope, there will be a new theory which covers both domains and resolves
> the apparent conflicts.

If by that you mean that the Quantum Mechanics "domain" is the world of
atoms and sub-atomic particles, and the "domain" of Relativity is the universe
around us, then YOU ARE WRONG. Relativity's Time dilation involves atoms.
And Quantum Mechanics mathematicians are trying to develop a theory that
combines Relativity with QM.

> > One KEY point of disagreement seems to be Einstein's Second Postulate, which
> > Einstein stated as:
> There is no disagreement among actual physicists. YOU have a
> disagreement with them, that's all.

If Einstein writes his Second Postulate one way, and physicists write it another
way, then there is a DISAGREEMENT. It has nothing to do with me.

> >
> > "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 a survey of college physics textbooks will show that nearly every textbook
> > author creates HIS OWN version of that postulate, a version that fits with his
> > BELIEFS about how light works. Here are just TEN of them:
> >
> > 1. All observers will always view the speed of light at the same rate.
> >
> > 2. Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
> >
> > 3. The speed of light is the same to all inertial observers.
> >
> > 4. The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value, c = 2.997 924 58 x 108 m/s, in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.
> >
> > 5. The speed of light in free space has the same value for all observers, regardless of their state of motion.
> >
> > 6. The speed of light, is constant, the same in all inertial reference frames, independent of any relative motion of the source and of the observer.
> >
> > 7. Regardless of the motion of its source, light always moves through empty space with the same constant speed.
> >
> > 8. In any given inertial frame, the velocity of light c is the same whether the light be emitted by a body at rest or by a body in uniform motion.
> >
> > 9. There exists an inertial frame in which light signals in vacuum always travel rectilinearly at constant speed c, in all directions, independently of the motion of the source.
> >
> > 10. Light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation are propagated in empty space with a constant velocity c which is independent of the motion of the observer or the emitting body.
> These all say the same thing, some better than others. Some don't
> mention the observer's frame since the observer being stationary in the
> frame of the observer is a tautology.

It's NOT the same thing just using different words if the moving observer
who is pretending to be stationary receives light from an outside source
at c+v or c-v.

> >
> > If versions #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #10 were true, radar guns could not possibly work.
> Doppler radar uses the Doppler effect (what a coincidence, right?) and
> at the comparatively low speeds of automobile traffic, relativity isn't
> even needed. Your opinion that it is, is irrelevant, especially since
> it conflicts with the science the scientists and engineers who actually
> designed radar guns used. They used Newtonian physics and standard emag
> theory.

If Relativity was just about Time Dilation, then you'd be right. Radar Guns do
NOT use Time Dilation. And they do NOT use the "Doppler Effect." The "Doppler
Effect" has to do with SOUND WAVES traveling through AIR. Radar guns emit
and receive PHOTONS. Radar guns measure the difference in the ENERGY of the
INDIVIDUAL photons the gun emits and the ENERGY of the INDIVIDUAL photons
the gun receives back.

I've studied the PATENTS of the scientists who developed radar guns. To avoid
the particle-wave duality problem, they write about radar guns emitting "radiations"
and "Doppler signals." To avoid other problems, they do not use the word "photon,"
since that word will be interpreted differently by different scientists.

Ed

[Al Coe]

On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 9:40:19 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > You have blatantly misrepresented your sources, because each of the sources that you quote approvingly as just positing independence of the speed of the source go on to deduce (by combining that proposition with the principle of relativity) that the speed of light is the same independent of the speed of the receiving reference system as well.
>
> That DEDUCTION IS WRONG!!!!

You're mixing up separate issues. Remember, you claimed that the texts disagree with each other about whether the speed of light (in vacuum) has the same speed c in terms of every standard inertial reference system. Your claim is false, as anyone can check for themselves by actually reading the texts that you dishonestly quoted. Every one of them, without exception, including Einstein's 1905, agrees that the speed of light is c in terms of every standard inertial reference system. Note that this is all independent of whether these texts are right or wrong (or, as someone scoring high on the Baez index would say, WRONG!!!!!"). The point is that you aren't just disagreeing with some people, you are disagreeing with everyone in the world, and you are dishonestly mis-representing their views to claim that they disagree with each other.

> Einstein EXPLAINS...

Again, Einstein's 1905 paper clearly explains that the speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of every standard inertial reference system.

> they are reconciled by TIME DILATION... the length of a second changes with velocity

Time dilation, by itself, it far too small to reconcile the speed of light being c in terms of both of two inertial reference systems moving relative to each other with speed v. In fact, it is even in the wrong direction for approaching cases. The way special relativity reconciles the invariance of c for all inertial reference systems is by a combination of time dilation, length contraction, and (most importantly) the skew of simultaneity. These are the three essential ingredients that make special relativity possible, as explained in Einstein's 1905 and all subsequent texts.

> And c atop a mountain is different from c at the bottom of a mountain...

That's general relativity, not special relativity, and it is true that the speed of light in terms of the essentially unique stationary coordinate systems given by (for example) Schwarzschild coordinates near a large spherical mass is different at different elevations, and it is even different in different directions at the same location. However, as Einstein emphasized, it remains true that the speed of light is c in terms of every *local* standard inertial reference system (which cannot be stationary in a gravitational field). That's the principle of equivalence.

> Radar guns work because...

Radar guns just exploit the first-order Doppler effect to measure the rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target. It would work the same in Galilean relativity as it does in special relativity, because the first-order Doppler effect is the same, regardless of whether you use a classical ballistic theory, or an ether theory, or special relativity. The onlyway to distinguish the effects of special relativity is by second-order effects, which requires highly sensitive interferometers.

> ...photons emitted at c hit a receding target at c-v.

That's an ambiguous statement. Photons propagate (long range) in vacuum at speed c in terms of every standard inertial reference system, including the one in which the gun is at rest, and the one in which the target is at rest. See Einstein's discussion of the object moving away from the Sun, explaining why you are wrong to think that the light propagates at c-v in terms of the inertial reference system of the receding object.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 18 June 2022 at 19:26:58 UTC+2, Al Coe wrote:

> You're mixing up separate issues. Remember, you claimed that the texts disagree with each other about whether the speed of light (in vacuum) has the same speed c in terms of every standard inertial reference system. Your claim is false, as anyone can check for themselves by actually reading the texts that you dishonestly quoted. Every one of them, without exception, including Einstein's 1905, agrees that the speed of light is c in terms of every standard inertial reference system. Note that this is all independent of whether these texts are right or wrong (or, as someone scoring high on the Baez index would say, WRONG!!!!!"). The point is that you aren't just disagreeing with some people, you are disagreeing with everyone in the world

No. The point is - you're imagining that you and your
brainwashed fellow idiots are the whole world. As
expected from a fanatic moron.

> Time dilation, by itself, it far too small to reconcile the speed of light being c in terms of both of two inertial reference systems moving relative to each other with speed v. In fact, it is even in the wrong direction for approaching cases. The way special relativity reconciles the invariance of c for all inertial reference systems is by a combination of time dilation, length contraction, and (most importantly) the skew of simultaneity. These are the three essential ingredients that make special relativity possible, as explained in Einstein's 1905 and all subsequent texts.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your insane religion GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

[Volney]

On 6/18/2022 1:24 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 11:02:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>
> (snip)
>>>> That's standard physics and chemistry as taught in every university with
>>>> physics and chemistry courses.
>>>>> I use sources that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.
>>>> I learned similar science in university.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's the problem. You learned "similar science." What I'm discovering
>>> is that it appears that every author of a physics textbook writes HIS or HER
>>> understanding of physics.
>> And you write here your own understanding of physics. Your understanding
>> is just your own opinion, and since you apparently don't have a good
>> physics education, your opinion isn't exactly worth much.
>
> I don't give opinions. I cite EXPERIMENTS which CONFIRM what I say.

No, you cite experiments which, in your opinion, confirm what you say.
Scientists disagree with those opinions.

> Quantum Mechanics mathematicians IGNORE EXPERIMENTS and just
> believe in math as if it is holy gospel and cannot be challenged. That's
> not an opinion. It's an observation.

No, like all true science, experimental data is used to support or
refute theories.

>>> And it is rare to find two understandings that totally
>>> agree.
>> However, the understandings of actual physicists agree on the speed of
>> light.
>
> NONSENSE! They all agree that the speed of light is c, but they do not all
> agree that c is VARIABLE because the LENGTH OF A SECOND is variable.

It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
frequency of a Cs atom. Variable length seconds make as little sense as
variable length meters or variable mass kilograms.

> Relativist physicists agree. Quantum Mechanics physicists generally disagree.

???

>
>>>
>>> Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE.
>>> Text book authors NEVER seem to address that problem. Instead, they just
>>> explain physics the best way they can.
>>>
>> They don't have the same domains, so they don't conflict. Some day, we
>> hope, there will be a new theory which covers both domains and resolves
>> the apparent conflicts.
>
> If by that you mean that the Quantum Mechanics "domain" is the world of
> atoms and sub-atomic particles, and the "domain" of Relativity is the universe
> around us, then YOU ARE WRONG.

It is that in the opposing domain, the effects of QM or relativity are
so small they are absolutely unmeasurable. What is the QM wavelength of
a 100 mph pitched fastball? Or of the earth as it orbits the sun?

What is the gravitational attraction of a proton and an electron in a
hydrogen atom? Compare that to the electromagnetic interaction of them?

> Relativity's Time dilation involves atoms.
> And Quantum Mechanics mathematicians are trying to develop a theory that
> combines Relativity with QM.

Well, yes, as I said it is the holy grail of physics to come up with a
single theory that predicts both QM/QED/QCD effects and SR/GR effects.

>
>>> One KEY point of disagreement seems to be Einstein's Second Postulate, which
>>> Einstein stated as:
>> There is no disagreement among actual physicists. YOU have a
>> disagreement with them, that's all.
>
> If Einstein writes his Second Postulate one way, and physicists write it another
> way, then there is a DISAGREEMENT. It has nothing to do with me.

It's not a disagreement if both mean the same thing even if they say it
differently. It's also possible for different books to be wrong, but
such a book wouldn't be used or regarded well in the field.

>
>>>
>>> "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 a survey of college physics textbooks will show that nearly every textbook
>>> author creates HIS OWN version of that postulate, a version that fits with his
>>> BELIEFS about how light works. Here are just TEN of them:
>>>
>>> 1. All observers will always view the speed of light at the same rate.
>>>
>>> 2. Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
>>>
>>> 3. The speed of light is the same to all inertial observers.
>>>
>>> 4. The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value, c = 2.997 924 58 x 108 m/s, in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.
>>>
>>> 5. The speed of light in free space has the same value for all observers, regardless of their state of motion.
>>>
>>> 6. The speed of light, is constant, the same in all inertial reference frames, independent of any relative motion of the source and of the observer.
>>>
>>> 7. Regardless of the motion of its source, light always moves through empty space with the same constant speed.
>>>
>>> 8. In any given inertial frame, the velocity of light c is the same whether the light be emitted by a body at rest or by a body in uniform motion.
>>>
>>> 9. There exists an inertial frame in which light signals in vacuum always travel rectilinearly at constant speed c, in all directions, independently of the motion of the source.
>>>
>>> 10. Light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation are propagated in empty space with a constant velocity c which is independent of the motion of the observer or the emitting body.
>> These all say the same thing, some better than others. Some don't
>> mention the observer's frame since the observer being stationary in the
>> frame of the observer is a tautology.
>
> It's NOT the same thing just using different words if the moving observer
> who is pretending to be stationary receives light from an outside source
> at c+v or c-v.

The second postulate states there is no such thing as light moving at
c+v or c-v. Why mention such a thing in the context of the second postulate?

>
>>>
>>> If versions #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #10 were true, radar guns could not possibly work.
>> Doppler radar uses the Doppler effect (what a coincidence, right?) and
>> at the comparatively low speeds of automobile traffic, relativity isn't
>> even needed. Your opinion that it is, is irrelevant, especially since
>> it conflicts with the science the scientists and engineers who actually
>> designed radar guns used. They used Newtonian physics and standard emag
>> theory.
>
> If Relativity was just about Time Dilation, then you'd be right. Radar Guns do
> NOT use Time Dilation. And they do NOT use the "Doppler Effect."

It's called Doppler Radar for a reason.

> The "Doppler
> Effect" has to do with SOUND WAVES traveling through AIR.

It has to do with ANY wave. Sound, light, water, etc.

> Radar guns emit
> and receive PHOTONS. Radar guns measure the difference in the ENERGY of the
> INDIVIDUAL photons the gun emits and the ENERGY of the INDIVIDUAL photons
> the gun receives back.

That may be your opinion on how they work, but the engineers who
designed them do not share that opinion. They used ordinary emag theory
and the wave theory of light (microwaves) A Doppler radar gun sends a
continuous wave at a target. The target reflects the wave and the
reflected wave is Doppler shifted depending on its motion relative to
the gun. The gun receives this Doppler shifted wave, and compares its
frequency to the original frequency. The bigger the difference, the
faster the speeder. (Military radars which measure distance work
differently, they transmit "pings" like a sub's sonar and time the
echoed "ping".)

Depending on the situation, light can also be modeled as individual
packets of energy/photons, but this applies to things like the
photoelectric effect which isn't relevant to Doppler radar.

>
> I've studied the PATENTS of the scientists who developed radar guns. To avoid
> the particle-wave duality problem, they write about radar guns emitting "radiations"
> and "Doppler signals."

Yes, they use the wave model of microwaves. "Doppler signals" only work
for waves. That phrase doesn't sound right, they should say "Doppler
shifted signal" or something.

> To avoid other problems, they do not use the word "photon,"
> since that word will be interpreted differently by different scientists.

Photons have one meaning. It's just that photons aren't very useful in
describing Doppler radar. Why mention a model you're not even using.

[Al Coe]

On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 12:38:19 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual

> scientists...

Be careful... Remember that the "length of a second" is variable in the sense that one second of proper time along a given path occurs in different amounts of coordinate time in terms of standard inertial reference systems with respect to which it is moving.

> Well, yes, as I said it is the holy grail of physics to come up with a
> single theory that predicts both QM/QED/QCD effects and SR/GR effects.

Be careful... Modern quantum field theory is explicitly Lorentz invariant, so it is perfectly in accord with special relativity. Indeed the origin of quantum field theory was Dirac's work to make quantum mechanics consistent with special relativity, so modern quantum field theory owes its very existence to the insight provided by special relativity. The unanswered question involves gravitation, since the non-linearity of general relativity is incompatible with linearity of quantum field theory.

> These all say the same thing, some better than others.

Be careful... those 10 quotes do *not* all say the same thing. Some adopt the two-step approach taken in Einstein's 1905 presentation, and others adopt the more economical one-step approach... but the important point is that all of those references (if you read them in their entirety) arrive at the conclusion that the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of every standard inertial reference system. Some just take two steps to get there.

> > The "Doppler Effect" has to do with SOUND WAVES traveling through AIR.
>
> It has to do with ANY wave. Sound, light, water, etc.

Be careful... Yes, the Doppler effect applies to any wave, but it does 't just apply to waves. For example, if a fighter aircraft is approaching you at 500 mph and firing bullets at 5 bullets per second, they will hit you at a higher rate, in perfect accord with the Doppler effect, even though bullets are not waves.

> the engineers who designed [radar speed guns] used ordinary emag theory
> and the wave theory of light (microwaves).

Most of them, yes, but it's perfectly possible (and just as easy) to work with QED and photons as well.

> (Military radars which measure distance work differently, they transmit
> "pings" like a sub's sonar and time the echoed "ping".)

Be careful... the inference of the target's speed is still based on the Doppler effect, with each ping like a bullet. That's the way LIDAR guns work as well. All rely on the Doppler effect to infer the rate of change of distance.

[Python]

Polish wanger Maciej Wozniak schwrote:

yeah, sure. Goodbye.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 18 June 2022 at 21:38:19 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 6/18/2022 1:24 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 11:02:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >>>> That's standard physics and chemistry as taught in every university with
> >>>> physics and chemistry courses.
> >>>>> I use sources that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.
> >>>> I learned similar science in university.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, that's the problem. You learned "similar science." What I'm discovering
> >>> is that it appears that every author of a physics textbook writes HIS or HER
> >>> understanding of physics.
> >> And you write here your own understanding of physics. Your understanding
> >> is just your own opinion, and since you apparently don't have a good
> >> physics education, your opinion isn't exactly worth much.
> >
> > I don't give opinions. I cite EXPERIMENTS which CONFIRM what I say.
> No, you cite experiments which, in your opinion, confirm what you say.
> Scientists disagree with those opinions.
> > Quantum Mechanics mathematicians IGNORE EXPERIMENTS and just
> > believe in math as if it is holy gospel and cannot be challenged. That's
> > not an opinion. It's an observation.
> No, like all true science, experimental data is used to support or
> refute theories.

Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsensical
lie, stupid Mike.

> >>> And it is rare to find two understandings that totally

> >>> agree.
> >> However, the understandings of actual physicists agree on the speed of
> >> light.
> >
> > NONSENSE! They all agree that the speed of light is c, but they do not all
> > agree that c is VARIABLE because the LENGTH OF A SECOND is variable.
> It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
> scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
> frequency of a Cs atom.

A pity that all serious timekeeping systems are ignoring this
ideological nonsense; isn't it, stupid Mike?

> Variable length seconds make as little sense as
> variable length meters or variable mass kilograms.

And that's why the "second" of your scientist is
ignored, stupid Mike.

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/17/22 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:41:07 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 6/17/22 9:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb
>>> photons.
>> They are WRONG. I cannot help it if idiots and know-nothings
>> outnumber knowledgeable people on the internet. Or that authors
>> often LIE about details unrelated to their main topic, in order to
>> avoid long-winded and complicated discussions peripheral to their
>> topic.
>
> So, textbooks lie? What sources do you use then? Stuff you make
> up?

Of course not! I use BETTER TEXTBOOKS. So for discussions of QED I use
textbooks about QED, not gravitation. But for discussions of light
reflecting from a mirror, one needs a textbook on solid-state physics,
in which the band structure of metals is discussed.

Hint: there is a reason why good mirrors are polished
metallic surfaces. The same analysis explains why polished
glass and still water can form poor, partial mirrors.

> Ah! Quantum Mechanics! You should have mentioned that you are a
> Quantum Mechanics mathematician. That answers everything! It
> explains why you DISAGREE WITH TEXTBOOKS that explain science and
> Relativity.

You are crazy. Everything I have said around here is 100% consistent
with modern physics. But YOU are too ignorant to realize when textbooks
on subject A take shortcuts with unrelated subject B. And worse, you
clearly do not understand the meanings of technical words, so you just
make stuff up to conform to your pre-conceived notions -- HOPELESS.

> No, we've found out why you and I can never agree. You are a
> Quantum Mechanics mathematician,

No, I am a PHYSICIST. Your use of "mathematician" as a pejorative term
merely shows how shallow and ignorant you are.

> I'm a Relativist and a follower of Albert Einstein.

Then why do you repeatedly mis-state various principles and conclusions
of relativity, grossly mis-quote Einstein, and interpret his words in
radically INCORRECT ways? For instance:
> Einstein's Second Postulate, which Einstein stated as: "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 NOT the second postulate of his 1905 paper, it is merely a
descriptive statement FROM HIS INTRODUCTION. Here is the second
postulate he actually uses in his discussion, from section I.2:
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the
ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
Note his ACTUAL postulate is much more rigorous than his introductory
statement, which is necessary because his paper MATHEMATICALLY deduces
the equations of SR. Note also that his "stationary system of
coordinates" is described earlier to be what we today call an arbitrary
inertial frame.

Hint: the page of text before section I is an INTRODUCTION.
Why do you think he started numbering sections with I?

Here's another of your misunderstandings that you just made up to
conform to your pre-conceived notions:
> [...] the length of a second changes with velocity [...]
It doesn't. The length of a second is ALWAYS 9,192,631,770 cycles of the
hyperfine transition of the ground state of Cs-133. Of course the clock
implementing that definition must be co-moving and co-located with the
measurement (i.e. measure time intervals, not signals).

Another example of things you just made up:

> c atop a mountain is different from c at the bottom of a mountain due
> to gravity also changing the length of a second.

This is just plain not true. But you CLEARLY do not understand what
"local" means in the context of GR. The duration of a second at the top
is 9,192,631,770 cycles, and the duration of a second at the bottom is
9,192,631,770 cycles. There is a reason those two numbers are identical,
and you CLEARLY do not understand it. How sad.

You REALLY need to learn something about the subject before attempting
to write about it.

Tom Roberts

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

If light energy joins to an electron in an atom it takes on the atoms below light speed.
Lights speed has no mass but below light speed energy does. Light energy
where in the atom should have mass by its movement in principle.


Mitchell Raemsch

[Volney]

Sorry, but that's part of the scientific method. You have a hypothesis,
you perform experiments which support or refute the hypothesis.

If you don't even understand what science is, why are you even here?

>
>>>>> And it is rare to find two understandings that totally
>
>>>>> agree.
>>>> However, the understandings of actual physicists agree on the speed of
>>>> light.
>>>
>>> NONSENSE! They all agree that the speed of light is c, but they do not all
>>> agree that c is VARIABLE because the LENGTH OF A SECOND is variable.
>> It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
>> scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
>> frequency of a Cs atom.
>
> A pity that all serious timekeeping systems are ignoring this
> ideological nonsense; isn't it, stupid Mike?

It's a pity that you're so wrong about that. All the precise timekeeping
systems are based on or synchronized with TAI time, which is based on
multiple cesium clocks and their defined second of 9,192,631,770 cycles
of a certain Cs frequency.

>
>
>> Variable length seconds make as little sense as
>> variable length meters or variable mass kilograms.
>
> And that's why the "second" of your scientist is
> ignored, stupid Mike.

You must be talking to Ed Lake and his variable seconds. The official
second is defined by a certain Cs radiation frequency, which never changes.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Sorry, stupid Mike. TAI second is an average; you know what an
average is, don't you? For some of these clocks a TAI second is
longer, while for some other shorter than 9,192,631,770 periods.

> > And that's why the "second" of your scientist is
> > ignored, stupid Mike.
> You must be talking to Ed Lake and his variable seconds. The official
> second is defined by a certain Cs radiation frequency, which never changes.

Sorry, stupid Mike; anyone can check GPS satellite, this frequency
is 9,192,631,774 there. On Earth the differences are smaller, but -
as told - for some TAI clocks the frequency is lower than 9,192,631,770
while for others it is higher.

[Python]

Maciej, would you bet your life on what an instrument measuring
frequency in the close vicity of a GPS clock, at rest wrt to it,
will measure?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Well, isn't the mentioned clock itself an instrument
matching your criteria? And 1s counted by it lasts -
~ 9,192,631,774 periods. What a pity:(
Of course, I understand that an instrumentt made by
a relativistic fanatic would give another value, but
fortunately your bunch of idiots is not permitted to play
with serious measurement equipment.

[Ed Lake]

Einstein STATES that it is his second postulate. Here is what Einstein wrote:

--------- start quote ---------
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.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport
of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status
of a POSTULATE, and also introduce ANOTHER POSTULATE, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, 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. These two POSTULATES suffice for the attainment of a simple and
consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s
theory for stationary bodies.
------- end quote ------------

The noun "postulate" is defined as "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the
basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief."

In the introduction Einstein states those TWO POSTULATES which are to be assumed
to be true for the discussion in the rest of the paper. He never again uses the word
"postulate."

> Here is the second
> postulate he actually uses in his discussion, from section I.2:
> 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
> co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the
> ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

Before writing those words Einstein wrote:

"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
as follows"

So, what you FALSELY CLAIM to be his second postulate is merely a
"reflexion" or "principle" he creates for purposes of explaining some DETAILS
about his theory.

> Note his ACTUAL postulate is much more rigorous than his introductory
> statement, which is necessary because his paper MATHEMATICALLY deduces
> the equations of SR. Note also that his "stationary system of
> coordinates" is described earlier to be what we today call an arbitrary
> inertial frame.

That second "reflexion" or "principle" has to do with a specific detail about
his theory. His "Second Postulate" stated in the introduction is a GENERAL
FACT that covers all the details explained later in the paper.

>
> Hint: the page of text before section I is an INTRODUCTION.
> Why do you think he started numbering sections with I?

An "introduction" summarizes what will follow. The numbered sections
are DETAILS about specific situations that fall into the summary.

>
> Here's another of your misunderstandings that you just made up to
> conform to your pre-conceived notions:
> > [...] the length of a second changes with velocity [...]
> It doesn't. The length of a second is ALWAYS 9,192,631,770 cycles of the
> hyperfine transition of the ground state of Cs-133. Of course the clock
> implementing that definition must be co-moving and co-located with the
> measurement (i.e. measure time intervals, not signals).

That's another one of YOUR misunderstandings. While the length of a SECOND

is ALWAYS 9,192,631,770 cycles of the hyperfine transition of the ground

state of Cs-133, the length of a second is atop a mountain is SHORTER than
the length of a second at the bottom of a mountain. Why? Because the clock's

"9,192,631,770 cycles of the hyperfine transition of the ground state of Cs-133"

occur in a SHORTER amount of time at the top of the mountain.

>
> Another example of things you just made up:
> > c atop a mountain is different from c at the bottom of a mountain due
> > to gravity also changing the length of a second.
> This is just plain not true. But you CLEARLY do not understand what
> "local" means in the context of GR. The duration of a second at the top
> is 9,192,631,770 cycles, and the duration of a second at the bottom is
> 9,192,631,770 cycles. There is a reason those two numbers are identical,
> and you CLEARLY do not understand it. How sad.

The number of cycles is the same, but atop the mountain they occur FASTER
than at the bottom of the mountain. Clearly you cannot comprehend that.

How sad.

>
> You REALLY need to learn something about the subject before attempting
> to write about it.

You REALLY need to learn something about Time Dilation before attempting
to dispute what has been confirmed by MANY EXPERIMENTS. Here are 12 of
those experiments:

1. Hafele-Keating
2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
4. Muon experiments
5. University of Maryland
6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
7. Briatore and Leschiutta
8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
9. Van Baak - 2005
10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
11. Van Baak - 2016
12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020

I describe each of those experiments on my web page at this link:
http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

I also started a thread about them on this forum. Here's that link:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/eWdJrryymiE

Ed

[Paparios]

El martes, 21 de junio de 2022 a las 11:48:54 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:22:15 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:

> The noun "postulate" is defined as "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the
> basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief."
>
> In the introduction Einstein states those TWO POSTULATES which are to be assumed
> to be true for the discussion in the rest of the paper. He never again uses the word
> "postulate."
> > Here is the second
> > postulate he actually uses in his discussion, from section I.2:
> > 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
> > co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the
> > ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
> Before writing those words Einstein wrote:
>
> "The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
> principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
> as follows"
>

The word "reflexions" there refers to the whole mathematical derivations of sections 3 to 10 of the paper. Those mathematical derivations ARE based on the two principles which are precisely DEFINED, in section 2, "as follows:".

> So, what you FALSELY CLAIM to be his second postulate is merely a
> "reflexion" or "principle" he creates for purposes of explaining some DETAILS
> about his theory.

You do not understand English!!! The word "reflexions" has nothing to do with the word "principle". Note also that in the introduction Einstein explicitly wrote: "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)", clearly stating the in the rest of the paper he will use the word "principle" instead of "postulate".

[Python]

> Well, [nothing]

Yes or No, Maciej?

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 11:15:45 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

You CLEARLY do not understand English.

The noun "postulate" is defined as "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the

basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief." He states his two postulates in the
introduction, and in the rest of the paper he explains how they work together.

When Einstein talks about a "principle" he talks about the FIRST postulate. He
then adds a Second POSTULATE, which is assumed to be true EVEN THOUGH
it SEEMS to conflict with his first postulate.

The rest of the paper explains how the two POSTULATES fit together so that
they do NOT conflict. They do not conflict because of TIME DILATION, which
is what his paper is all about.

Ed

[Mikko]

On 2022-06-21 15:48:51 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:22:15 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:

>> That is NOT the second postulate of his 1905 paper, it is merely a>
>> descriptive statement FROM HIS INTRODUCTION.

> Einstein STATES that it is his second postulate. Here is what Einstein wrote:
>
> --------- start quote ---------
> 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.1 We will raise this conjecture (the

Note the word "will" above. It means that the author has not yet raised
the conjecture to the status of a postulate nor is doing it here but is
going to do that later in the article.

> purport
> of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status
> of a POSTULATE, and also introduce ANOTHER POSTULATE, which is only

Note that this is still the same sentence so the word "introduce" must be
intepreted to means "will introduce", i.e., the author is going to introduce
another postulate later in the article.

> apparently
> irreconcilable with the former, namely, 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. These two POSTULATES suffice for the attainment of a simple and
> consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s
> theory for stationary bodies.
> ------- end quote ------------

When finally introduced the two postulates are essentially as presented
above but more rigorously expressed.

Mikko

[Paparios]

El martes, 21 de junio de 2022 a las 12:52:56 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 11:15:45 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > > "The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
> > > principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
> > > as follows"
> > >
> > The word "reflexions" there refers to the whole mathematical derivations of sections 3 to 10 of the paper. Those mathematical derivations ARE based on the two principles which are precisely DEFINED, in section 2, "as follows:".

> > > So, what you FALSELY CLAIM to be his second postulate is merely a
> > > "reflexion" or "principle" he creates for purposes of explaining some DETAILS
> > > about his theory.

> > You do not understand English!!! The word "reflexions" has nothing to do with the word "principle". Note also that in the introduction Einstein explicitly wrote: "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)", clearly stating the in the rest of the paper he will use the word "principle" instead of "postulate".

> You CLEARLY do not understand English.

> The noun "postulate" is defined as "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the
> basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief." He states his two postulates in the
> introduction, and in the rest of the paper he explains how they work together.
>

But it is not so. Proof of that is that the word "postulate" only appears TWO times in the text, both of them in the first page.
In contrast the word "principle" appears 24 times in the text. Einstein DEFINED the two principles as follows:

"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."

> When Einstein talks about a "principle" he talks about the FIRST postulate. He
> then adds a Second POSTULATE, which is assumed to be true EVEN THOUGH
> it SEEMS to conflict with his first postulate.
>

Of course not, as he explicitly writes in the introduction "(the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”).

> The rest of the paper explains how the two POSTULATES fit together so that
> they do NOT conflict. They do not conflict because of TIME DILATION, which
> is what his paper is all about.

That is a total figment of your imagination. The paper does not in any of his sections deals with any imaginary conflict. Its purpose in the first part is to develop the mathematics which relates two systems of coordinates. For sure time dilation is not what this paper is all about. You should read it again.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Well, no surprise that an idiot can't read. Try again.

[Paul Alsing]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 8:48:54 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> You REALLY need to learn something about Time Dilation before attempting
> to dispute what has been confirmed by MANY EXPERIMENTS. Here are 12 of
> those experiments:
>
> 1. Hafele-Keating
> 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> 4. Muon experiments
> 5. University of Maryland
> 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> 9. Van Baak - 2005
> 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> 11. Van Baak - 2016
> 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020

Ed, when you respond to an actual physicist with your drivel, what you *really* need to study is...

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

... because you are the poster-boy for "someone who does not know what he does not know".

Ed, your ignorance of this subject matter is simply colossal.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 12:10:48 PM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-06-21 15:48:51 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:22:15 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> >> That is NOT the second postulate of his 1905 paper, it is merely a>
> >> descriptive statement FROM HIS INTRODUCTION.
>
> > Einstein STATES that it is his second postulate. Here is what Einstein wrote:
> >
> > --------- start quote ---------
> > 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.1 We will raise this conjecture (the
> Note the word "will" above. It means that the author has not yet raised
> the conjecture to the status of a postulate nor is doing it here but is
> going to do that later in the article.
> > purport
> > of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status
> > of a POSTULATE, and also introduce ANOTHER POSTULATE, which is only
> Note that this is still the same sentence so the word "introduce" must be
> intepreted to means "will introduce", i.e., the author is going to introduce
> another postulate later in the article.

Nonsense. He immediately introduces his Second Postulate and then
immediately REFERS TO THEM as "These two postulates." It is all in
that second paragraph.

> > apparently
> > irreconcilable with the former, namely, 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. These two POSTULATES suffice for the attainment of a simple and
> > consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s
> > theory for stationary bodies.
> > ------- end quote ------------
> When finally introduced the two postulates are essentially as presented
> above but more rigorously expressed.

He introduced his two postulates in that second paragraph of the paper
AND he then refers to them as "These two postulates." He never again uses
the word postulate after that second paragraph.

The idea that there is something else somewhere in the paper that is "really"
his Second Postulate but he doesn't identify it as a postulate is ABSURD.
It is just a way of twisting things to make them fit your beliefs.

Ed

[Maciej Wozniak]

Like any other Shit believer, Paul.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 1:28:10 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> El martes, 21 de junio de 2022 a las 12:52:56 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 11:15:45 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > > "The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
> > > > principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
> > > > as follows"
> > > >
> > > The word "reflexions" there refers to the whole mathematical derivations of sections 3 to 10 of the paper. Those mathematical derivations ARE based on the two principles which are precisely DEFINED, in section 2, "as follows:".
>
> > > > So, what you FALSELY CLAIM to be his second postulate is merely a
> > > > "reflexion" or "principle" he creates for purposes of explaining some DETAILS
> > > > about his theory.
>
> > > You do not understand English!!! The word "reflexions" has nothing to do with the word "principle". Note also that in the introduction Einstein explicitly wrote: "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)", clearly stating the in the rest of the paper he will use the word "principle" instead of "postulate".
>
> > You CLEARLY do not understand English.
>
> > The noun "postulate" is defined as "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the
> > basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief." He states his two postulates in the
> > introduction, and in the rest of the paper he explains how they work together.
> >
> But it is not so. Proof of that is that the word "postulate" only appears TWO times in the text, both of them in the first page.
> In contrast the word "principle" appears 24 times in the text.

"Postulate" is defined as "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis

for reasoning, discussion, or belief."

"Principle" is defined as "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the
foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning."

Your BELIEFS are based upon principles. Postulates are things ASSUMED to
be true for purposes of discussion.

Principle: the earth is a globe.
Postulate: Let's assume the earth is flat. We can then use that postulate to
discuss the problems the idea of a flat earth will cause.

> Einstein DEFINED the two principles as follows:
>
> "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."
> > When Einstein talks about a "principle" he talks about the FIRST postulate. He
> > then adds a Second POSTULATE, which is assumed to be true EVEN THOUGH
> > it SEEMS to conflict with his first postulate.
> >
> Of course not, as he explicitly writes in the introduction "(the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”).
> > The rest of the paper explains how the two POSTULATES fit together so that
> > they do NOT conflict. They do not conflict because of TIME DILATION, which
> > is what his paper is all about.
> That is a total figment of your imagination. The paper does not in any of his sections deals with any imaginary conflict. Its purpose in the first part is to develop the mathematics which relates two systems of coordinates. For sure time dilation is not what this paper is all about. You should read it again.

The conflict is described in the second paragraph:

------- start quote ------

We will raise this conjecture (the purport

of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status

of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is ONLY APPARENTLY
IRRECONCILABLE with the former, namely, 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. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and

consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s
theory for stationary bodies.
------- end quote -------

The first postulate is "APPARENTLY IRRECONCILABLE" with the second postulate
because the first postulate says "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will

be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

And the second postulate says "light is always propagated in empty space with a

definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body."

They are APPARENTLY IRRECONCILABLE because the first postulate implies that
if you measure the speed of light in a moving "frame of reference" it will be
different from what you measure in a stationary "frame of reference." The thinking
at the time was that the speed of the emitter adds to the speed of the light that
is emitted. But Einstein is saying that is NOT TRUE. Light is ALWAYS emitted at c
regardless of how fast the emitter is moving.

The purpose of the paper is to introduce time dilation. He concludes Section 4 with
this:

------ start quote ------
If one of two synchronous
clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we
conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very
small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under
otherwise identical conditions.
------ end quote --------

If a clock at the equator "goes more slowly" (i.e., ticks slower) than a clock at
one of the poles, it is because the clock at the equator is MOVING FASTER.

If you have another reason for why the clock at the equator "goes more slowly,"
why don't you share it with everybody?

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 2:18:16 PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 8:48:54 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > You REALLY need to learn something about Time Dilation before attempting
> > to dispute what has been confirmed by MANY EXPERIMENTS. Here are 12 of
> > those experiments:
> >
> > 1. Hafele-Keating
> > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> > 4. Muon experiments
> > 5. University of Maryland
> > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> > 9. Van Baak - 2005
> > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> > 11. Van Baak - 2016
> > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
> Ed, when you respond to an actual physicist with your drivel, what you *really* need to study is...
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I have no cause for "cognitive bias." I'm an analyst. An analyst looks at all
the facts and conflicts in order to figure out what must be the truth.

People here argue that time does NOT dilate. The 12 experiments show
that time DOES dilate. There are NO experiments which show that time
does NOT dilate. That is just a mistaken BELIEF.

If an "actual physicist" disagrees with what EXPERIMENTS SHOW and has
no BASIS for disproving what those experiments show, he is full of CRAP.

Ed

[Paparios]

El martes, 21 de junio de 2022 a las 15:53:40 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 1:28:10 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > > The noun "postulate" is defined as "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the
> > > basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief." He states his two postulates in the
> > > introduction, and in the rest of the paper he explains how they work together.
> > >
> > But it is not so. Proof of that is that the word "postulate" only appears TWO times in the text, both of them in the first page.
> > In contrast the word "principle" appears 24 times in the text.

> "Postulate" is defined as "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis
> for reasoning, discussion, or belief."
> "Principle" is defined as "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the
> foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning."
>

Sure enough, a principle is more strong than a postulate!!!

As nouns the difference between principle and postulate is that principle is a *fundamental assumption* while postulate is *something assumed without proof* as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument.

> Your BELIEFS are based upon principles. Postulates are things ASSUMED to
> be true for purposes of discussion.
>
> Principle: the earth is a globe.
> Postulate: Let's assume the earth is flat. We can then use that postulate to
> discuss the problems the idea of a flat earth will cause.

But Einstein did use *principles* instead of postulates to develop his theory!!!

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.

> > That is a total figment of your imagination. The paper does not in any of his sections deals with any imaginary conflict. Its purpose in the first part is to develop the mathematics which relates two systems of coordinates. For sure time dilation is not what this paper is all about. You should read it again.

> The conflict is described in the second paragraph:
>
> ------- start quote ------
> We will raise this conjecture (the purport
> of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status
> of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is ONLY APPARENTLY
> IRRECONCILABLE with the former, namely, 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. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and
> consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s
> theory for stationary bodies.

Of course you totally disregard the words "ONLY APPARENTLY IRRECONCILABLE" which means in English that there is no a real "conflict".

>
> The purpose of the paper is to introduce time dilation. He concludes Section 4 with
> this:
>

Of course you disregard section 3 "Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in
Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former", where he develops the Lorentz Transformation Equations and the whole body of section 4
"Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks".

The first part of section 4 clearly shows the length contraction property, where he writes :"Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the X dimension appears shortened in the ratio
1/√(1-v²/c²), i.e. the greater the value of v, the greater the shortening".

Then in the second part of section 4 he shows the time dilation property. Therefore the purpose of the paper is not only to introduce time dilation.

Finally, you complete disregard sections 5 to 10 of the paper, which are:

5. The Composition of Velocities
6. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations for Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Forces Occurring in a Magnetic Field During Motion
7. Theory of Doppler’s Principle and of Aberration
8. Transformation of the Energy of Light Rays. Theory of the Pressure of Radiation Exerted on Perfect Reflectors
9. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations when Convection-Currents are Taken into Account
10. Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 3:18:19 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

You just do not understand English. It appears you only understand things
that you've memorized, and some of that you misunderstand. If those same
things are expressed using different words, you cannot comprehend them.

You misunderstand what Einstein wrote, and the only way I can explain or
clarify things is to say the same thing using different words. Since you
cannot cope with that, we have no way to communicate.

Ed

[Paparios]

I does not matter if I understand or not English (which, by the way, I understand quite well, having written books and papers in English). Th problem is that you publish nonsense (and so evident nonsense that anybody can see it as nonsense).

You wrongly assert that Einstein's paper purpose is "to introduce time dilation".
You wrongly assert that there is some "conflict" between the two principles Einstein defined to derive his results.
You wrongly assert that, somehow, a second is enlarged and therefore the speed of light is not constant.

> You misunderstand what Einstein wrote, and the only way I can explain or
> clarify things is to say the same thing using different words. Since you
> cannot cope with that, we have no way to communicate.
>

The only one here misunderstanding Einstein is you. Your nonsense is such that you denied Quantum Mechanics as a mathematical nonsense, but you have no shame in using a photon (which is a quantum object!!!!)

[Paul Alsing]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 1:01:58 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 2:18:16 PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 8:48:54 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >
> > > You REALLY need to learn something about Time Dilation before attempting
> > > to dispute what has been confirmed by MANY EXPERIMENTS. Here are 12 of
> > > those experiments:
> > >
> > > 1. Hafele-Keating
> > > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> > > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> > > 4. Muon experiments
> > > 5. University of Maryland
> > > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> > > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> > > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> > > 9. Van Baak - 2005
> > > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> > > 11. Van Baak - 2016
> > > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
> > Ed, when you respond to an actual physicist with your drivel, what you *really* need to study is...
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

> I have no cause for "cognitive bias." I'm an analyst. An analyst looks at all
> the facts and conflicts in order to figure out what must be the truth.

The problem for you, Ed is that you do not know enough physics to determine just what the facts and conflicts are.

> People here argue that time does NOT dilate.

Indeed, time does not dilate... but it certainly can be *observed* to dilate when the clock, which is ticking away at its normal rate, is measured by a moving observer... and that is what all those experiments show, time is *observed* to dilate. You are very weak in basic physics and cannot be expected to understand without a lot of study, which you are clearly unwilling to do.

> If an "actual physicist" disagrees with what EXPERIMENTS SHOW and has
> no BASIS for disproving what those experiments show, he is full of CRAP.

This statement is exactly what I was talking about, you don't actually know what those experiments are telling you... no basic physic knowledge will bring you down every time... and "actual physicists" have forgotten more science than you or I will ever know. Tom is not infallible because no one is infallible, but when dealing with beginning relativity I'm pretty sure that I would trust Tom every time when he disputes what you are claiming. Every. Time.

I think we can all agree about just who it is here that is full of CRAP!

> Ed

[Python]

> Well, [still no answer]

Yes or No, Maciej?

Chicken out, again, Maciej? No surprise :-)

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Slow time is real paul. And it can accelerate after.

> but it certainly can be *observed* to dilate when the clock, which is ticking away at its normal rate, is measured by a moving observer... and that is what all those experiments show, time is *observed* to dilate. You are very weak in basic physics and cannot be expected to understand without a lot of study, which you are clearly unwilling to do.
> > If an "actual physicist" disagrees with what EXPERIMENTS SHOW and has
> > no BASIS for disproving what those experiments show, he is full of CRAP.
> This statement is exactly what I was talking about, you don't actually know what those experiments are telling you... no basic physic knowledge will bring you down every time... and "actual physicists" have forgotten more science than you or I will ever know. Tom is not infallible because no one is infallible, but when dealing with beginning relativity I'm pretty sure that I would trust Tom every time when he disputes what you are claiming. Every. Time.
>
> I think we can all agree about just who it is here that is full of CRAP!

Take a look at yourself...
>
> > Ed

[Volney]

On 6/21/2022 4:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 3:18:19 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>> El martes, 21 de junio de 2022 a las 15:53:40 UTC-4, escribió:
>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 1:28:10 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>>
>>>>> The noun "postulate" is defined as "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the
>>>>> basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief." He states his two postulates in the
>>>>> introduction, and in the rest of the paper he explains how they work together.
>>>>>
>>>> But it is not so. Proof of that is that the word "postulate" only appears TWO times in the text, both of them in the first page.
>>>> In contrast the word "principle" appears 24 times in the text.
>>
>>> "Postulate" is defined as "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis
>>> for reasoning, discussion, or belief."
>>> "Principle" is defined as "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the
>>> foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning."
>>>
>> Sure enough, a principle is more strong than a postulate!!!
>>

[...]

> You just do not understand English.

Silly guys. Einstein wrote in GERMAN, not English. What you two are
arguing over is what some translator thought in (IIRC) the 1920s.

Einstein did not use the English word "postulate" or the closest German
equivalent, "Postulat" in the abstract, but "Vermutung". Feeding the
original German to Google Translate, it translates it as
"presupposition". Translating the word by itself gives several
possibilities, such as conjecture, assumption, supposition, presumption,
guess, but not postulate.

Einstein does use "Prinzip" in the abstract, where the English
translation uses "principle"

In Section 2 where Einstein defines the "postulates" in detail, he again
uses "Prinzip", the principle of relativity and the principle of the
constant speed of light. The principle of relativity and the principle
of the constant speed of light.

So now you may stop your bickering and argue whether "Prinzip" is
stronger or weaker than "Vermutung".

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.19053221004

[Maciej Wozniak]

You've got your answer 2 times; OK, I will make it shorter and
simpler. I would if I knew the instrument was prepared by a
competent professional (like those of GPS crew). I wouldn't
if I knew it was prepared by a fanatic idiot like you.
Satisfied? No? Well, fuck yourself.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:34:32 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

(snip)

> > You just do not understand English. It appears you only understand things
> > that you've memorized, and some of that you misunderstand. If those same
> > things are expressed using different words, you cannot comprehend them.
> >
> I does not matter if I understand or not English (which, by the way, I understand quite well, having written books and papers in English). Th problem is that you publish nonsense (and so evident nonsense that anybody can see it as nonsense).
>
> You wrongly assert that Einstein's paper purpose is "to introduce time dilation".

The paper introduced the concept of time dilation. If that was not its purpose,
what do you believe WAS the purpose of that paper?

> You wrongly assert that there is some "conflict" between the two principles Einstein defined to derive his results.

I said nothing about any conflict between "principles." The conflict is between
the two POSTULATES. Einstein STATES that the two postulates are "only apparently
irreconcilable" and the rest of the paper shows that TIME DILATION will reconcile
them.

There are TEXTBOOKS which claim that the two postulates ARE IRRECONCILABLE
and therefore Einstein could not have meant what he wrote.

> You wrongly assert that, somehow, a second is enlarged and therefore the speed of light is not constant.

EXPERIMENTS DEMONSTRATE that a second is "enlarged" when an object is
traveling very fast or is very close to a gravitational mass. A second is LONGER
at the bottom of a mountain than at the top. In both places, however, light
is measured to travel at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. Because the
LENGTH OF A SECOND is different in those two locations, the speed of light
MUST ALSO BE DIFFERENT.

> > You misunderstand what Einstein wrote, and the only way I can explain or
> > clarify things is to say the same thing using different words. Since you
> > cannot cope with that, we have no way to communicate.
> >
> The only one here misunderstanding Einstein is you. Your nonsense is such that you denied Quantum Mechanics as a mathematical nonsense, but you have no shame in using a photon (which is a quantum object!!!!)

Quantum Mechanics works very well for explaining the actions and
interactions of most sub-atomic particles. It just does NOT work very well
when trying to explain the universe around us. Quantum Mechanics cannot
cope with a photon that has oscillating electric and magnetic fields, it cannot
cope with an infinite universe, it cannot cope with variable time, and it cannot
cope with the variable speed of light.

Einstein wrote:

"If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which

has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 2 tv2/c2

second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go
more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at
one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

A clock at the equator ticks slower that a clock at one of the poles because
a clock at the equator is traveling FASTER than a clock at one of the poles.

Why don't you try to explain how in the "frame of reference" of the equator
the clock at the North Pole is traveling faster?

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

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:42:19 PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote:

NO experiment shows a moving observer that his clock is ticking slow.
His clock will seem to tick at its normal rate when viewed by a moving
observer traveling with the clock. When Hafele and Keating traveled
around the world TWICE with 4 atomic clocks, they saw the clocks as
ticking normally. It was ONLY when they compared their clocks to the
"stationary" clock at the Naval Observatory that they saw that their
clocks HAD BEEN ticking at a different rate than the stationary clock.

> > If an "actual physicist" disagrees with what EXPERIMENTS SHOW and has
> > no BASIS for disproving what those experiments show, he is full of CRAP.
> This statement is exactly what I was talking about, you don't actually know what those experiments are telling you... no basic physic knowledge will bring you down every time... and "actual physicists" have forgotten more science than you or I will ever know. Tom is not infallible because no one is infallible, but when dealing with beginning relativity I'm pretty sure that I would trust Tom every time when he disputes what you are claiming. Every. Time.

That's very sad. It says you only think about "authority." You have no
desire to challenge authority, even when the "authority" disagrees with
FACTS AND EXPERIMENTS.

What do you do when two "authorities" disagree with each other?
I suspect you find some way to twist their words to make them agree.

>
> I think we can all agree about just who it is here that is full of CRAP!

It sometimes seems that no two people here agree on ANYTHING.

Ed

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 16:47:42 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> That's very sad. It says you only think about "authority." You have no
> desire to challenge authority, even when the "authority" disagrees with
> FACTS AND EXPERIMENTS.

For instance, when forbidden by your insane Shit GPS nd TAI
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.

[Paparios]

El miércoles, 22 de junio de 2022 a las 10:26:39 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:34:32 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> (snip)
> > > You just do not understand English. It appears you only understand things
> > > that you've memorized, and some of that you misunderstand. If those same
> > > things are expressed using different words, you cannot comprehend them.
> > >
> > I does not matter if I understand or not English (which, by the way, I understand quite well, having written books and papers in English). Th problem is that you publish nonsense (and so evident nonsense that anybody can see it as nonsense).
> >
> > You wrongly assert that Einstein's paper purpose is "to introduce time dilation".
> The paper introduced the concept of time dilation. If that was not its purpose,
> what do you believe WAS the purpose of that paper?
> > You wrongly assert that there is some "conflict" between the two principles Einstein defined to derive his results.

> I said nothing about any conflict between "principles." The conflict is between
> the two POSTULATES. Einstein STATES that the two postulates are "only apparently
> irreconcilable" and the rest of the paper shows that TIME DILATION will reconcile
> them.
>

Complete nonsense. First you do not understand the words "only apparently irreconcilable", in particular the word "apparently". You should know that Einstein started by first applying the Newtonian principle: "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". Then in section 2 he defined the same as:

"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".

Then he writes "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". Here he is saying that having a speed which is a constant value and independent of how that speed is measured may appear to look to be contradictory to the Newtonian principle (which in reality it is not).

> There are TEXTBOOKS which claim that the two postulates ARE IRRECONCILABLE
> and therefore Einstein could not have meant what he wrote.
> > You wrongly assert that, somehow, a second is enlarged and therefore the speed of light is not constant.
> EXPERIMENTS DEMONSTRATE that a second is "enlarged" when an object is
> traveling very fast or is very close to a gravitational mass. A second is LONGER
> at the bottom of a mountain than at the top. In both places, however, light
> is measured to travel at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. Because the
> LENGTH OF A SECOND is different in those two locations, the speed of light
> MUST ALSO BE DIFFERENT.

More nonsense. A second has a very real definition, which is: "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." A second is not a variable value. It is as defined at the top of the mountain as it is at sea level.

> > The only one here misunderstanding Einstein is you. Your nonsense is such that you denied Quantum Mechanics as a mathematical nonsense, but you have no shame in using a photon (which is a quantum object!!!!)

> Quantum Mechanics works very well for explaining the actions and
> interactions of most sub-atomic particles. It just does NOT work very well
> when trying to explain the universe around us. Quantum Mechanics cannot
> cope with a photon that has oscillating electric and magnetic fields, it cannot
> cope with an infinite universe, it cannot cope with variable time, and it cannot
> cope with the variable speed of light.

A photon is an elementary particle that is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless, so they always move at the speed of light in vacuum, 299792458 m/s. The photon belongs to the class of bosons.

A photon is a fundamental part of Quantum Mechanics!!!!

> Why don't you try to explain how in the "frame of reference" of the equator
> the clock at the North Pole is traveling faster?
>

You do not understand the words "relative" and "relativity". Neither you understand how a speed is defined. Special relativity deals with movements at constant speeds (the v appearing in all SR equations). If you study the train/embankment experiment (see https://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html). M is an observer on the embankment seeing a passing train where M' is a train observer. The train is moving along the positive x axis. From M point of view M' is moving to the right at a speed v. From M' point of view, M is moving to the left at a speed -v. That is what special relativity is all about.

[Al Coe]

On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 9:40:19 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > You have blatantly misrepresented your sources, because each of the sources that you quote approvingly as just positing independence of the speed of the source go on to deduce (by combining that proposition with the principle of relativity) that the speed of light is the same independent of the speed of the receiving reference system as well.
>
> That DEDUCTION IS WRONG!!!!

You're mixing up separate issues. Remember, you claimed that the texts disagree with each other about whether the speed of light (in vacuum) has the same speed c in terms of every standard inertial reference system. That claim is false, as anyone can check for themselves by actually reading the texts that you dishonestly quoted. Every one of them, without exception, including Einstein's 1905, agrees that the speed of light is c in terms of every standard inertial reference system. Note that this is all independent of whether these texts are right or wrong (or, as someone scoring high on the Baez index would say, WRONG!!!!!). The point is that you aren't just disagreeing with some people, you are disagreeing with every competent person in the world, and you are mis-representing their views to claim that they disagree with each other.

> Einstein EXPLAINS...

Once again, Einstein's 1905 paper clearly explains that the speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of every standard inertial reference system.

> they are reconciled by TIME DILATION... the length of a second changes with velocity

Time dilation, by itself, is far too small to reconcile the speed of light being c in terms of both of two inertial reference systems moving relative to each other with speed v. In fact, it is even in the wrong direction for approaching cases. The way special relativity reconciles the invariance of c for all inertial reference systems is by a combination of time dilation, length contraction, and (most importantly) the skew of simultaneity. These are the three essential ingredients that make special relativity possible, as explained in Einstein's 1905 and all subsequent texts.

> And c atop a mountain is different from c at the bottom of a mountain...

That's general relativity, not special relativity, and it's true that the speed of light in terms of the essentially unique stationary coordinate systems given by (for example) Schwarzschild coordinates near a large spherical mass is different at different elevations, and it is even different in different directions at the same location. However, as Einstein emphasized, it remains true that the speed of light is c in terms of every *local* standard inertial reference system (which cannot be stationary in a gravitational field). That's the principle of equivalence.

> Radar guns work because...

Radar guns just exploit the first-order Doppler effect to measure the rate at which the distance between the gun and the target is changing. It would work the same in Galilean relativity as it does in special relativity, because the first-order Doppler effect is the same, regardless of whether you use a classical ballistic theory, or an ether theory, or special relativity. The only way to distinguish the effects of special relativity is by second-order effects, which requires highly sensitive interferometers.

> ...photons emitted at c hit a receding target at c-v.

That's an ambiguous statement. Yes, there are reference systems in terms of which that speed is c-v. However, photons propagate (long range) in vacuum at speed c in terms of every standard inertial reference system, including the one in which the gun is at rest, and the one in which the target is at rest. See Einstein's discussion of the object moving away from the Sun, explaining why you're wrong to think that the light propagates at c-v in terms of the inertial reference system of the receding object.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 18:30:37 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> More nonsense. A second has a very real definition, which is: "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." A second is not a variable value. It is as defined at the top of the mountain as it is at sea level.

Sorry, poor trash, but as anyone can check at GPS,
people doing real measurement for real, not for
gedankens, are pissing at your ideological idiocy;
their clocks count second as 9192631770 or
as 9192631774.1, their second matches the old
definition of sane people(1/86400 of a day) instead
yours.

[RichD]

On June 15, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Light CANNOT be "stored for some time."
>
> When an atom absorbs a photon, it stores energy for a while before
> releasing it as an emitted photon (if it emits one; there are other ways
> the energy can be released). The delay can be femtoseconds to hours,
> depending on the details.
>
> Heat in a material is manifested as atomic motions (entire atoms moving
> around). Those motions can cause atoms to collide and interact, and it
> can happen that an atom becomes excited to a state above its ground
> state. When that happens, the atom usually then emits a photon to relax
> back to its ground state --
> An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it absorbs a photon that
> matches the energy difference between its ground and excited states.
> Then, after a delay, it can emit a photon, or perhaps multiple photons,
> relaxing back to its ground state. Depending on the details of the
> atomic (molecular) structure involved, the delay can be femtoseconds to
> hours.

This implies a riddle involving the greenhouse gas effect.

We know heat can be stored by CO₂, with temperature rise, as the press
constantly hammers. But how to explain the physics, as described above,
consistent with the laws of thermodynamics?

That is, everything falls to its lowest energy state; the excited molecular
electron orbits are temporary, they emit and fall to the ground state. How
does CO₂ manage to store energy, long term, in this model?

--
Rich

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/22/22 3:53 PM, RichD wrote:
> This implies a riddle involving the greenhouse gas effect.

Not really a riddle, just a misunderstanding.

> We know heat can be stored by CO₂, with temperature rise, as the
> press constantly hammers. But how to explain the physics, as
> described above, consistent with the laws of thermodynamics?
>
> That is, everything falls to its lowest energy state; the excited
> molecular electron orbits are temporary, they emit and fall to the
> ground state. How does CO₂ manage to store energy, long term, in
> this model?

The CO₂ does not itself store the heat (energy), it merely redirects
infrared radiation.

Any object at a temperature typical of earth's surface will emit
infrared radiation (IR), essentially isotropically. When that radiation
hits some other object, heat (energy) is transferred from the first to
the second. But, of course, the second object is also emitting IR, and
some of it will heat the first object. IR emitted downward, for
instance, always hits something else.

[This IR emission primarily comes from the atomic vibrations
characteristic of heat, not atomic transitions. Some
molecules have broad absorption bands in the infrared,
notably CO₂ and other greenhouse gasses.]

IR that is emitted upward can either escape into space or be absorbed
and redirected by the atmosphere. IR that escapes to space cools the
earth because energy is removed. IR that is absorbed and re-emitted by
the atmosphere can itself escape to space, or it can be emitted
downward and hit some object on the surface. This last IR does not cool
the earth, and is on the order of half the energy absorbed and
re-emitted by the atmosphere.

Increasing the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere increases the likelihood
that IR emitted from the surface will not escape into space, so the
overall effect is to heat the earth (and its atmosphere). Ditto for
other greenhouse gases....

This is a simplified description, but it describes the basic idea.

Tom Roberts

[RichD]

On June 23, tjrob137 wrote:
>> We know heat can be stored by CO₂, with temperature rise

>> But how to explain the physics, as
>> described above, consistent with the laws of thermodynamics?
> > That is, everything falls to its lowest energy state; the excited
> > molecular electron orbits are temporary, they emit and fall to the
> > ground state. How does CO₂ manage to store energy, long term, in
> > this model?
>
> The CO₂ does not itself store the heat (energy), it merely redirects
> infrared radiation.
>
> Any object at a temperature typical of earth's surface will emit
> infrared radiation (IR), essentially isotropically. When that radiation
> hits some other object, heat (energy) is transferred from the first to
> the second. But, of course, the second object is also emitting IR, and
> some of it will heat the first object. IR emitted downward, for
> instance, always hits something else.

> IR that is emitted upward can either escape into space or be absorbed
> and redirected by the atmosphere. IR that escapes to space cools the
> earth because energy is removed. IR that is absorbed and re-emitted by
> the atmosphere can itself escape to space, or it can be emitted
> downward and hit some object on the surface. This last IR does not cool
> the earth, and is on the order of half the energy absorbed and
> re-emitted by the atmosphere.
> Increasing the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere increases the likelihood
> that IR emitted from the surface will not escape into space, so the
> overall effect is to heat the earth (and its atmosphere).

So the ground surface and greenhouse gas acts as a cavity resonator,
at IR wavelengths.

Are any tricks available, to break this chain, in principle? Or perhaps the
physics is so fundamental, there's nothing to be done.

--
Rich

[J. J. Lodder]

RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On June 23, tjrob137 wrote:

> >> We know heat can be stored by CO?, with temperature rise

> >> But how to explain the physics, as
> >> described above, consistent with the laws of thermodynamics?
> > > That is, everything falls to its lowest energy state; the excited
> > > molecular electron orbits are temporary, they emit and fall to the

> > > ground state. How does CO? manage to store energy, long term, in
> > > this model?
> >
> > The CO? does not itself store the heat (energy), it merely redirects

> > infrared radiation.
> >
> > Any object at a temperature typical of earth's surface will emit
> > infrared radiation (IR), essentially isotropically. When that radiation
> > hits some other object, heat (energy) is transferred from the first to
> > the second. But, of course, the second object is also emitting IR, and
> > some of it will heat the first object. IR emitted downward, for
> > instance, always hits something else.
> > IR that is emitted upward can either escape into space or be absorbed
> > and redirected by the atmosphere. IR that escapes to space cools the
> > earth because energy is removed. IR that is absorbed and re-emitted by
> > the atmosphere can itself escape to space, or it can be emitted
> > downward and hit some object on the surface. This last IR does not cool
> > the earth, and is on the order of half the energy absorbed and
> > re-emitted by the atmosphere.

> > Increasing the amount of CO? in the atmosphere increases the likelihood

> > that IR emitted from the surface will not escape into space, so the
> > overall effect is to heat the earth (and its atmosphere).
>
> So the ground surface and greenhouse gas acts as a cavity resonator,
> at IR wavelengths.

Not really. You are confusing IR with the Schumann resonances.

> Are any tricks available, to break this chain, in principle? Or perhaps the
> physics is so fundamental, there's nothing to be done.

Nope. And yes, fundamental physics,

Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Light's energy absorbs into the slow moving atom. Energy that moves below the speed of light has mass...
Light energy has mass where in the atom...

Mitchell Raemsch