Discussion:
" A MEDIUM NECESSARY"
(too old to reply)
Keith Stein
2018-09-25 19:53:53 UTC
Permalink
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".

In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.

It is certainly not the same value in all frames of reference,
as suggested by Einstein, but certainly NOT by Maxwell's Theory,
as is sometimes claimed eh!


keith stein
Gary Harnagel
2018-09-25 21:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".
Who the heck is "R. Maxwell"?
Post by Keith Stein
In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.
In more than a century, a LOT more has been learned about light.
Post by Keith Stein
It is certainly not the same value in all frames of reference,
as suggested by Einstein, but certainly NOT by Maxwell's Theory,
as is sometimes claimed eh!
keith stein
All valid experimental evidence DEMANDS (not "suggests") that the
speed of light is indeed the same in all inertial frames. To "suggest"
otherwise is crackpot lunacy. Sorry, old bean, read 'em and weep.
Keith Stein
2018-09-26 08:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Keith Stein
In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.
In more than a century, a LOT more has been learned about light.
And yet you have not yet learned that light travels at a
speed appropriate to and relative to the medium eh!
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Keith Stein
It is certainly not the same value in all frames of reference,
as suggested by Einstein, but certainly NOT by Maxwell's Theory,
as is somyetimes claimed eh!
All valid experimental evidence DEMANDS (not "suggests") that the
speed of light is indeed the same in all inertial frames. To "suggest"
otherwise is crackpot lunacy. Sorry, old bean, read 'em and weep.
You are wrong Gary, old bean. The constancy of the speed of light
is not an experimental fact. Rather the speed of light is defined
to be constant in all inertial frames and then space and time are
wrapped as necessary to make this crackpot lunacy possible eh!
Libor Striz
2018-09-26 09:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Keith Stein
In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.
In more than a century, a LOT more has been learned about light.
And yet you have not yet learned that light travels at a
speed appropriate to and relative to the medium eh!
.. to an inertial frame, wrt which eventually present medium may
or may not be in the rest.
--
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
m***@wp.pl
2018-09-26 09:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
You are wrong Gary, old bean. The constancy of the speed of light
is not an experimental fact. Rather the speed of light is defined
to be constant in all inertial frames and then space and time are
wrapped as necessary to make this crackpot lunacy possible eh!
But, of course, as this crackpot lunacy is no way
possible, even Great Guru was forced to reject it
for his GR shit.
Gary Harnagel
2018-09-26 20:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Keith Stein
In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.
In more than a century, a LOT more has been learned about light.
And yet you have not yet learned that light travels at a
speed appropriate to and relative to the medium eh!
Why would I learn bullshit? I learned just the opposite by observing
REAL, SOLID experimental evidence: NASA determines the distance
between earth and its spacecraft by timing two-way em pulses and
assuming the speed of light is independent of the speed of either
the earth or the spacecraft, and ignoring the solar wind which amounts
to several hundred km/second. That observation blows your whole
pile of crap higher than Pluto.
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Keith Stein
It is certainly not the same value in all frames of reference,
as suggested by Einstein, but certainly NOT by Maxwell's Theory,
as is somyetimes claimed eh!
All valid experimental evidence DEMANDS (not "suggests") that the
speed of light is indeed the same in all inertial frames. To "suggest"
otherwise is crackpot lunacy. Sorry, old bean, read 'em and weep.
You are wrong Gary, old bean. The constancy of the speed of light
is not an experimental fact.
Yes, it is, bullshit spewer.
Post by Keith Stein
Rather the speed of light is defined to be constant in all inertial
frames
Yes, it is NOW. That's because experiment shows it to be, dishonest
weasel.
Post by Keith Stein
and then space and time are wrapped as necessary to make this crackpot
lunacy possible eh!
Even YOU can't make any sense out of that idiotic assertion.
Keith Stein
2018-09-27 09:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Keith Stein
In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.
In more than a century, a LOT more has been learned about light.
And yet you have not yet learned that light travels at a
speed appropriate to and relative to the medium eh!
Why would I learn bullshit? I learned just the opposite by observing
REAL, SOLID experimental evidence: NASA determines the distance
between earth and its spacecraft by timing two-way em pulses and
assuming the speed of light is independent of the speed of either
the earth or the spacecraft,
Let a signal leave Earth at time tA and arrive at the spacecraft
at time tB.Let the distance between the Earth and spacecraft at the
time the signal leaves Earth be x meters. Then in the frame of reference
of the spacecraft the speed of light is x/(tB-tA)

Let the distance between the Earth and spacecraft at the time
the signal arrives at the spacecraft be x' meters. (Note that
if the spacecraft is moving away from the Earth x' > x )
Also note that in the frame of reference of the Earth the
signal has traveled x' meters, not x meters eh! Therefore
in the frame of reference of the Earth the speed of light
is x'/(tB=tA)

Thus the speed of light relative to the Earth is not, indeed
cannot possibly be, the same as the speed of light relative
to the spacecraft, unless the spacecraft is stationary relative
to the Earth eh!
Post by Gary Harnagel
and ignoring the solar wind which amounts
to several hundred km/second. That observation blows your whole
pile of crap higher than Pluto.
Note that there are indeed anomalies in the ranging of spacecraft
(many references on "Pioneer Anomaly"), but you are not going to
understand that if you can't see the difference between the speed
of light relative to the Earth, and speed of light relative to
the spacecraft, i think.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Keith Stein
It is certainly not the same value in all frames of reference,
as suggested by Einstein, but certainly NOT by Maxwell's Theory,
as is somyetimes claimed eh!
All valid experimental evidence DEMANDS (not "suggests") that the
speed of light is indeed the same in all inertial frames. To "suggest"
otherwise is crackpot lunacy. Sorry, old bean, read 'em and weep.
You are wrong Gary, old bean. The constancy of the speed of light
is not an experimental fact.
Yes, it is, bullshit spewer.
You are still wrong Gary, old bean.

Every determination of the one way speed of light shows that the
speed of light is frame dependent, because the time for light's
journey is NOT frame dependent, while the distance traveled IS
frame dependent


keith stein
Paparios
2018-09-27 11:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Gary Harnagel
Why would I learn bullshit? I learned just the opposite by observing
REAL, SOLID experimental evidence: NASA determines the distance
between earth and its spacecraft by timing two-way em pulses and
assuming the speed of light is independent of the speed of either
the earth or the spacecraft,
Let a signal leave Earth at time tA and arrive at the spacecraft
at time tB.Let the distance between the Earth and spacecraft at the
time the signal leaves Earth be x meters. Then in the frame of reference
of the spacecraft the speed of light is x/(tB-tA)
Nonsense. tA is the time as measured in the launching pod. tB is the time
as measured at the spacecraft. Then tB-tA is just a number since the clocks
are not synchronized.

You do not know what you are talking about!!!
m***@wp.pl
2018-09-27 12:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paparios
Nonsense. tA is the time as measured in the launching pod. tB is the time
as measured at the spacecraft. Then tB-tA is just a number since the clocks
are not synchronized.
In your moronic relativistic delusions. Not
in the real GPS, poor halfbrain.
Keith Stein
2018-09-27 12:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paparios
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Gary Harnagel
Why would I learn bullshit? I learned just the opposite by observing
REAL, SOLID experimental evidence: NASA determines the distance
between earth and its spacecraft by timing two-way em pulses and
assuming the speed of light is independent of the speed of either
the earth or the spacecraft,
Let a signal leave Earth at time tA and arrive at the spacecraft
at time tB.Let the distance between the Earth and spacecraft at the
time the signal leaves Earth be x meters. Then in the frame of reference
of the spacecraft the speed of light is x/(tB-tA)
Nonsense. tA is the time as measured in the launching pod. tB is the time
as measured at the spacecraft. Then tB-tA is just a number since the clocks
are not synchronized.
You do not know what you are talking about!!!
I know exactly what i am talking about thank you
Mr. Paparios, and i do understand how Einstein
assumes the speed of light is constant and then
adjusts synchronization to make the impossible possible.

However Mr.Harnagel claimed that the speed of light
was found to be constant experimentally, not by definition.

If you believe that clocks which are synchronized go
out of synchronization when you walk towards them then
indeed you can prove the speed of light is constant,
but if you believe that juggling with clock syncronization
proves experimentally that the speed of light is constant,
then you don't understand what experimentally means eh!

keith stein
Paparios
2018-09-27 13:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Paparios
Nonsense. tA is the time as measured in the launching pod. tB is the time
as measured at the spacecraft. Then tB-tA is just a number since the clocks
are not synchronized.
You do not know what you are talking about!!!
I know exactly what i am talking about thank you
Mr. Paparios, and i do understand how Einstein
assumes the speed of light is constant and then
adjusts synchronization to make the impossible possible.
Nonsense. There is no assumption as the speed of light
has been, is being and will be measured to be constant.

You are talking nonsense. Find another hobby!
Post by Keith Stein
However Mr.Harnagel claimed that the speed of light
was found to be constant experimentally, not by definition.
It has been and it is found experimentally to be constant by
all experiments performed since over 200 years!!!
Post by Keith Stein
If you believe that clocks which are synchronized go
out of synchronization when you walk towards them then
indeed you can prove the speed of light is constant,
but if you believe that juggling with clock syncronization
proves experimentally that the speed of light is constant,
then you don't understand what experimentally means eh!
keith stein
You know nothing about this, that is clear!
m***@wp.pl
2018-09-27 13:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paparios
Nonsense. There is no assumption as the speed of light
has been, is being and will be measured to be constant.
Even the wildest linguistic tricks of your idiot
guru were unable to defend this nonsense for long,
so his GR shit had to reject it. Though, of course,
it's easy to believe it will be the result of
measurements as long as fanatic idiots like you
are responsible for these measurement.
Post by Paparios
It has been and it is found experimentally to be constant by
all experiments performed since over 200 years!!!
A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.
Keith Stein
2018-09-27 14:48:06 UTC
Permalink
S
Post by Paparios
Post by Keith Stein
I know exactly what i am talking about thank you
Mr. Paparios, and i do understand how Einstein
assumes the speed of light is constant and then
adjusts synchronization to make the impossible possible.
Nonsense. There is no assumption as the speed of light
has been, is being and will be measured to be constant.
You are talking nonsense. Find another hobby!
Post by Keith Stein
However Mr.Harnagel claimed that the speed of light
was found to be constant experimentally, not by definition.
It has been and it is found experimentally to be constant by
all experiments performed since over 200 years!!!
You are wrong Mr.Paparios.

Consider
any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.

A B
light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
tA tB

Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s

Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B

Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v
Post by Paparios
Post by Keith Stein
If you believe that clocks which are synchronized go
out of synchronization when you walk towards them then
indeed you can prove the speed of light is constant,
but if you believe that juggling with clock syncronization
proves experimentally that the speed of light is constant,
then you don't understand what experimentally means eh!
keith stein
Gary Harnagel
2018-09-27 17:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
Consider
any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
A B
light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
tA tB
Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v
Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them.
YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance L,
it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA). c = d/(tB - tA).

got any more stupid mind tricks?
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Keith Stein
If you believe that clocks which are synchronized go
out of synchronization when you walk towards them then
indeed you can prove the speed of light is constant,
but if you believe that juggling with clock syncronization
proves experimentally that the speed of light is constant,
then you don't understand what experimentally means eh!
keith stein
You can consider yourself stationary and the target moving away at v.
Do a roundtrip for the light. Then d is the distance from source to
target when the target when the light reaches the target. It's a
basic premise of Galileo, Newton and Einstein that the inertial
observer can always consider himself to be at rest. You are only
fooling yourself with inappropriate thought experiments, but not
anyone else.
Keith Stein
2018-09-27 18:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Keith Stein
Consider
any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
A B
light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
tA tB
Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v
Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them.
YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance L,
it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
Excellent Gary that is correct.

Now Speed = Distance / Time
= L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
= L/(tB-tA) + v
= c + v

Note that we are using c as the speed of light
relative to the laboratory = L / (tB - tA), so
you should not also use it as the speed of light
Post by Gary Harnagel
c = d/(tB - tA).
but other than that minor slip you nearly there eh!
Certainly that is the correct expression for the speed
of light relative to 'YOU', (as illustrated in diagram).

No argument with the rest of your post either.
Well Done Gary!

keith stein
Paparios
2018-09-28 12:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
You are wrong Mr.Paparios.
Consider
any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
A B
light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
tA tB
Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
First, to do that you need two Einstein synchronized clocks.
Post by Keith Stein
Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
Point A is also moving.
Post by Keith Stein
Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v
That is not the speed of light!!. It is the CLOSING SPEED between the light
front and the moving observer!!!

You know nothing of this!!!

Find another hobby!!!
Keith Stein
2018-09-28 15:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paparios
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Paparios
You do not know what you are talking about!!!
I know exactly what i am talking about thank you
Mr. Paparios, and i do understand how Einstein
assumes the speed of light is constant and then
adjusts synchronization to make the impossible possible.
Nonsense. There is no assumption as the speed of light
has been, is being and will be measured to be constant.
You are talking nonsense. Find another hobby!
Post by Keith Stein
However Mr.Harnagel claimed that the speed of light
was found to be constant experimentally, not by definition.
It has been and it is found experimentally to be constant by
all experiments performed since over 200 years!!!
Post by Keith Stein
If you believe that clocks which are synchronized go
out of synchronization when you walk towards them then
indeed you can prove the speed of light is constant,
but if you believe that juggling with clock syncronization
proves experimentally that the speed of light is constant,
then you don't understand what experimentally means eh!
keith stein
Consider
any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
A B
light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
tA tB
Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
First, to do that you need two Einstein synchronized clocks.
If you synchronize clocks with Einstein's method then you are
going to assume the speed of light is constant in all frames
of reference, and then use this to prove that the speed of light
is constant in all frames of reference, as i said before eh!
For myself i assume that clocks which are synchronized by
whatever method will remain synchronized when i walk towards
them.
Post by Paparios
Post by Keith Stein
Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
Point A is also moving.
Point A is also moving, although what your point is is unclear.
Post by Paparios
Post by Keith Stein
Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v
That is not the speed of light!!.
It is the speed of light in the inertial frame in which YOU are
stationary.
Post by Paparios
It is the CLOSING SPEED between the light
front and the moving observer!!!
The "moving observer" can consider themselves as stationary,
as indeed Mr. Harnagel himself said in his last posting .

However if relativists are now giving up on the nonsense
of light having the same speed 'c' with respect to ALL
inertial frames, then i am delighted to hear it, 'cos it
always was a damn fool idea eh!
keith stein
Paparios
2018-09-28 15:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Paparios
First, to do that you need two Einstein synchronized clocks.
If you synchronize clocks with Einstein's method then you are
going to assume the speed of light is constant in all frames
of reference, and then use this to prove that the speed of light
is constant in all frames of reference, as i said before eh!
For myself i assume that clocks which are synchronized by
whatever method will remain synchronized when i walk towards
them.
You do not know if they will remain synchronized, since you are not close
to any of those clocks!!

You do not know anything of this!!
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Paparios
Post by Keith Stein
Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
Point A is also moving.
Point A is also moving, although what your point is is unclear.
Post by Paparios
Post by Keith Stein
Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v
That is not the speed of light!!.
It is the speed of light in the inertial frame in which YOU are
stationary.
NO it is not the speed of anything. Like when you are in a car at a highway,
moving at c=100 km/hr to the right and you see a car, which is also moving at
v=100 km/hr to the left. It is obvious that c+v=200 km/hr is not the speed
of your car nor the speed of the approaching car. c+v is THE CLOSING SPEED
between your car and the approaching car.

You are completely ignorant about all this. Find another hobby.
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Paparios
It is the CLOSING SPEED between the light
front and the moving observer!!!
The "moving observer" can consider themselves as stationary,
as indeed Mr. Harnagel himself said in his last posting .
Nonsense.
Post by Keith Stein
However if relativists are now giving up on the nonsense
of light having the same speed 'c' with respect to ALL
inertial frames, then i am delighted to hear it, 'cos it
always was a damn fool idea eh!
keith stein
You are nuts, that is clear enough!!
Keith Stein
2018-09-28 16:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paparios
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Paparios
You do not know what you are talking about!!!
I know exactly what i am talking about thank you
Mr. Paparios, and i do understand how Einstein
assumes the speed of light is constant and then
adjusts synchronization to make the impossible possible.
Nonsense. There is no assumption as the speed of light
has been, is being and will be measured to be constant.
You are talking nonsense. Find another hobby!
Post by Keith Stein
However Mr.Harnagel claimed that the speed of light
was found to be constant experimentally, not by definition.
It has been and it is found experimentally to be constant by
all experiments performed since over 200 years!!!
Post by Keith Stein
If you believe that clocks which are synchronized go
out of synchronization when you walk towards them then
indeed you can prove the speed of light is constant,
but if you believe that juggling with clock syncronization
proves experimentally that the speed of light is constant,
then you don't understand what experimentally means eh!
keith stein
Post by Paparios
First, to do that you need two Einstein synchronized clocks.
You do not know if they will remain synchronized, since you are not close
to any of those clocks!!
Which is why i would assume that if they were synchronized they
will remain synchronized, because as you say i am not close to
any of those clocks eh!
Post by Paparios
You do not know anything of this!!
Post by Keith Stein
If you synchronize clocks with Einstein's method then you are
going to assume the speed of light is constant in all frames
of reference, and then use this to prove that the speed of light
is constant in all frames of reference, as i said before eh!
Post by Paparios
Post by Keith Stein
Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v
That is not the speed of light!!.
It is the speed of light in the inertial frame in which YOU are
stationary.
NO it is not the speed of anything. Like when you are in a car at a highway,
moving at c=100 km/hr to the right and you see a car, which is also moving at
v=100 km/hr to the left. It is obvious that c+v=200 km/hr is not the speed
of your car nor the speed of the approaching car.
c+v, in your example, is the speed of the other car relative to my car.
Equally it is the speed of the other car in the frame of reference in
which my car is stationary.
Post by Paparios
c+v is THE CLOSING SPEED
That too eh!
Post by Paparios
Post by Keith Stein
The "moving observer" can consider themselves as stationary,
as indeed Mr. Harnagel himself said in his last posting .
Nonsense.
Gary Harnagel wrote:
" It's a basic premise of Galileo, Newton and Einstein that the
inertial observer can always consider himself to be at rest."

I love it when relativists fall out :)

But it does seem to me that it is Mr.Harnagel who writes good sense
here, Mr.Paparious, and indeed it you who write "nonsense" eh!

keith stein
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-09-28 17:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Paparios
Post by Keith Stein
Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
First, to do that you need two Einstein synchronized clocks.
If you synchronize clocks with Einstein's method then you are
going to assume the speed of light is constant in all frames
of reference,
Which is why the one-way speed of light cannot be measured (this simply).

The assumption on which your way of measurement is based is that
synchronized clocks, when separated, remain synchronous when, which
is not /a priori/ true.

Moreover, this assumption is demonstrated every nanosecond to be false with
the most precise and motion-resistant clocks that humans have constructed so
far (atomic clocks). By the GPS receiver in your smartphone or tablet
probably too. This also confirms that the speed of light is isotropic – it
does not depend on direction or relative motion.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Gary Harnagel
2018-09-27 13:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Keith Stein
And yet you have not yet learned that light travels at a
speed appropriate to and relative to the medium eh!
Why would I learn bullshit? I learned just the opposite by observing
REAL, SOLID experimental evidence: NASA determines the distance
between earth and its spacecraft by timing two-way em pulses and
assuming the speed of light is independent of the speed of either
the earth or the spacecraft,
Let a signal leave Earth at time tA and arrive at the spacecraft
at time tB.Let the distance between the Earth and spacecraft at the
time the signal leaves Earth be x meters. Then in the frame of reference
of the spacecraft the speed of light is x/(tB-tA)
How do you know what the time, tB, is? You DON'T.

NASA knows the ROUNDTRIP time and calculates the distance (at the
time of arrival of the pulse at the spacecraft) as d = c*tRT/2.
If the speed of light weren't c, but c + v going out and c - v coming
back (where v is the velocity of the solar wind), they would get a
different answer for d. They don't.
Post by Keith Stein
Let the distance between the Earth and spacecraft at the time
the signal arrives at the spacecraft be x' meters. (Note that
if the spacecraft is moving away from the Earth x' > x )
Also note that in the frame of reference of the Earth the
signal has traveled x' meters, not x meters eh! Therefore
in the frame of reference of the Earth the speed of light
is x'/(tB=tA)
Thus the speed of light relative to the Earth is not, indeed
cannot possibly be, the same as the speed of light relative
to the spacecraft, unless the spacecraft is stationary relative
to the Earth eh!
So now you're forgetting about the medium and embracing ballistic theory?
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Gary Harnagel
and ignoring the solar wind which amounts to several hundred
km/second. That observation blows your whole pile of crap higher
than Pluto.
Note that there are indeed anomalies in the ranging of spacecraft
(many references on "Pioneer Anomaly"),
That's a completely different phenomenon which didn't become apparent
until the Pioneers were FAR beyond Saturn.
Post by Keith Stein
but you are not going to understand that if you can't see the difference
between the speed of light relative to the Earth, and speed of light
relative to the spacecraft, i think.
The roundtrip calculations don't involve "the speed of light relative
to the spacecraft." You are just yammering bullshit.
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by Keith Stein
You are wrong Gary, old bean. The constancy of the speed of light
is not an experimental fact.
Yes, it is, bullshit spewer.
You are still wrong Gary, old bean.
Every determination of the one way speed of light shows that the
speed of light is frame dependent, because the time for light's
journey is NOT frame dependent, while the distance traveled IS
frame dependent
keith stein
You are spewing a delusional assertion contrary to experimental evidence.
Repeating bullshit doesn't make it smell any better.
m***@wp.pl
2018-09-27 10:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
Why would I learn bullshit? I learned just the opposite by observing
It's only REAL and SOLID for some fanatic idiots like you.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Yes, it is NOW. That's because experiment shows it to be, dishonest
weasel.
And if the clocks don't want to really indicate your
idiocies you delete them from the reality. Right,
poor halfbrain?
m***@gmail.com
2018-09-26 01:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".
In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.
It is certainly not the same value in all frames of reference,
as suggested by Einstein, but certainly NOT by Maxwell's Theory,
as is sometimes claimed eh!
keith stein
Medium: Immaterial to immaterial
Aether to Aether

Mitchell Raemsch
Libor Striz
2018-09-26 03:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".
You must mean James Clerk Maxwell.

Many things the famous scientists once said are already obsolete.

This is just one of them.
--
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Keith Stein
2018-09-26 12:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Libor Striz
Post by Keith Stein
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".
You must mean James Clerk Maxwell.
Indeed i do, silly me, getting my media mixed eh!
Post by Libor Striz
Many things the famous scientists once said are already obsolete.
Never truer or more relevant this:

"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".

In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.
Michael Moroney
2018-09-26 12:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Libor Striz
Post by Keith Stein
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".
Many things the famous scientists once said are already obsolete.
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" wrote R.Maxwell, in the final chapter
of his famous "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism".
That's true, that's one of the obsolete ones. Or rather, it is a useful
shortcut, treat a macroscopically homogeneous medium such as the
dielectric of a capacitor as homogeneous rather than dealing with every
single atom, electron etc. individually.

Of course, what we know as "Maxwell's Equations" have been heavily
modified by Heaviside and others.
Post by Keith Stein
In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.
Maxwell knew of, or should have known of, Fizeau's work showing the speed
of light is not relative to the medium for small values of (n-1) with n
being the index of refraction. Instead it approaches c as a limit for n
near 1.
Keith Stein
2018-09-26 15:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Keith Stein
In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.
Maxwell knew of, or should have known of, Fizeau's work showing the speed
of light is not relative to the medium for small values of (n-1) with n
being the index of refraction. Instead it approaches c as a limit for n
near 1.
I'm sure Maxwell would have known of Fizeau's claimed confirmation
of Fresnel's "partial drag" nonsense. He would also have known that
a wave traveling trough a medium at speed c will be traveling at c=v
(vector addition) in a frame of reference in which the medium is
traveling at v m/s.

Fizeau's Bullshit would never have persuaded Maxwell to give up
Galilean Transformations.

keith stein
Michael Moroney
2018-09-26 15:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Stein
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Keith Stein
In Maxwell's Theory, as written by Maxwell, the velocity
of light is appropriate to, and relative to, the medium.
Maxwell knew of, or should have known of, Fizeau's work showing the speed
of light is not relative to the medium for small values of (n-1) with n
being the index of refraction. Instead it approaches c as a limit for n
near 1.
I'm sure Maxwell would have known of Fizeau's claimed confirmation
of Fresnel's "partial drag" nonsense.
The "partial drag" stuff was what people believed at the time.
Fizeau's results were correct (verified many times since then), but
the aether partial drag explanation isn't.
Post by Keith Stein
He would also have known that a wave traveling trough a medium at speed
c will be traveling at c=v (vector addition) in a frame of reference in
which the medium is traveling at v m/s.
If he knew of Fizeau's experiment, he would have known that that "obvious"
"common sense" explanation (c'=c/n+v) was actually incorrect. The speed of
light in moving water in Fizeau's experiment was modified by the speed of
the water, but only at 43% of what would be expected if c+v added
vectorally. We now know the speeds c/n and v add according to the SR speed
combination formula, not simple vector addition.
Post by Keith Stein
Fizeau's Bullshit would never have persuaded Maxwell to give up
Galilean Transformations.
How can actual experimental results be "bullshit"? The interpretation of
them may be BS (aether partial drag), but the truth is the truth.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

-Richard P. Feynman
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-09-26 11:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity = Medium

(((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) * (1 second)) / (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = 8.98755179e+16 m^2 / s

((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) * (1 second)) = Friedmann energy density

(3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = Friedmann mass density

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

((1.50122737e+23 / (2 * pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879


http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%281.50122737e%2B23+%2F+%282+*+pi%29%29+%2F+%28%284+*+%28pi%5E2%29%29+*+%28%28%282%5E6%29+*+%283+*+%28pi%5E2%29%29+*+%28%28%28pi%5Ee%29+%2F+%28e%5E%28e+-+1%29%29%29%5E%285+%2F+2%29%29%29%5E3%29%29%29%5E%281+%2F+3%29+


#BoltzmannConstant & the #Electron

1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K

(c / (((2.4263263e-12 m) / c) / ((2.4263263e-12 m)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394325 m^2 / s

(c / (electron Compton period ) / ((electron Compton length)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394325 m^2 / s = Kinematic viscosity

(c / (((planck length * 1.50122737E+23) / c) / ((planck length * 1.50122737E+23)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394316 m^2 / s

(c / ((planck length / c) / (planck length^3)))^0.5 = 4.84533077e-27 m^2 / s

(((c / ((planck length / c) / (planck length^3)))^0.5) / (((0.5 kg) * G) / (c^2))) / 2 = 6.5248935 m / s



(((6.5248935 / (2pi)) * 1.70377849e53 kg * G) / (13.8880509 billion light year))^0.5 = 299792458 m / s

((0.5 Planck Time) / ((0.5 Planck Length)^3)) / 299792458 = 1.70377849e+53 s / m^3

1.70377849e+53 kg = mass of visible universe

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14dGOjOuRXXIBSg-0N-vBovhwDCnrMbBioONasYH9FG0



Programming Planck units from a virtual electron; a Simulation Hypothesis
Malcolm J. Macleod

https://philpapers.org/archive/MACAMU.pdf

(1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * 137.035999172 * (2.0071199557^5))^3)) = 1.00000000136

((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^0.5 = 2.00713495432



((1.50122737e+23 / (2 * pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879198

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant


https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime
Keith Stein
2018-09-28 11:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime
Very impressive Mr.Fuller.
I was particularly impressed by the "Acknowledgements" eh!

One difficulty with trying to model space-time as a gas would
seem to me to be in the very different variation of energy density
with temperature.

We know that for electromagnetic radiation:
Energy Density proportional to T^4

Whereas for a gas:
Energy Density proportional to T^1


How could one explain that with a gas model?

keith stein
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-09-28 18:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Keith Stein escrito
Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime
Very impressive Mr.Fuller.
I was particularly impressed by the "Acknowledgements" eh!

One difficulty with trying to model space-time as a gas would
seem to me to be in the very different variation of energy density
with temperature.

We know that for electromagnetic radiation:
Energy Density proportional to T^4

Whereas for a gas:
Energy Density proportional to T^1


How could one explain that with a gas model?

keith stein

T^4 = (N*x)^4 = 1.50122737e+23^4

1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K

((((((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / ((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals)) / (1.50122737e+23^4)) * ((hbar / c) / kg)) / 4) / 2.4263263e-12 = 0.990797488 meters

Pretty close over the span of the entire universe & Planck Pressure
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-09-28 18:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Keith Stein escrito
Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime
Very impressive Mr.Fuller.
I was particularly impressed by the "Acknowledgements" eh!

One difficulty with trying to model space-time as a gas would
seem to me to be in the very different variation of energy density
with temperature.

We know that for electromagnetic radiation:
Energy Density proportional to T^4

Whereas for a gas:
Energy Density proportional to T^1


How could one explain that with a gas model?

keith stein

T^4 = (N*x)^4 = 1.50122737e+23^4

1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K

((((((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / ((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals)) / (1.50122737e+23^4)) * ((hbar / c) / kg)) / 4) / 2.4263263e-12 = 0.990797488 meters

Pretty close over the span of the entire universe & Planck Pressure

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ljusv5jFVIiNWHzOEejwQJyrToKbJkoq68XLLuOnEkk

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17W_L19_YvxkKXv1vNya0YekR0vb8K31XTq4_4-CssSM
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-09-28 18:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Keith Stein escrito
Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime
Very impressive Mr.Fuller.
I was particularly impressed by the "Acknowledgements" eh!

One difficulty with trying to model space-time as a gas would
seem to me to be in the very different variation of energy density
with temperature.

We know that for electromagnetic radiation:
Energy Density proportional to T^4

Whereas for a gas:
Energy Density proportional to T^1


How could one explain that with a gas model?

keith stein

T^4 = (N*x)^4 = 1.50122737e+23^4

1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K

((((((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / ((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals)) / (1.50122737e+23^4)) * ((hbar / c) / kg)) / 4) / 2.4263263e-12 = 0.990797488 meters

Pretty close over the span of the entire universe & Planck Pressure

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ljusv5jFVIiNWHzOEejwQJyrToKbJkoq68XLLuOnEkk

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17W_L19_YvxkKXv1vNya0YekR0vb8K31XTq4_4-CssSM

The Mainstream Physics community does not seem to have any problem with proclaiming an "Aether-less space time" with a necessary energy density of (10^113 joules per cubic meter)

The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales. Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy of free space has been estimated to be 10^−9 joules (10^−2 ergs) per cubic meter.

However, in both quantum electrodynamics (QED) and stochastic electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck constant suggest a much larger value of 10^113 joules per cubic meter.

This huge discrepancy is known as the cosmological constant problem.

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

an ("Ideal Fluid Solution" under pressure) seems entirely more Fitting and Logical

(9.270391e+111 joules/m^3) / c^5 *(Planck length)^2 = 1

((9.270391e+111 (joules / (m^3))) / (299792458^5)) * ((Planck length / m)^2) = 1 pascals

((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / ((c^5) / (Planck length^2)) = 49.9790376 kg s^3 / m^4

(((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / ((c^5) / (Planck length^2))) * (G * c) = 1

((Planck Pressure) / ((c^5) / (Planck length^2))) * (G * c) = 1

Decagon Dodecahedral Penrose Fractal = c^5

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17W_L19_YvxkKXv1vNya0YekR0vb8K31XTq4_4-CssSM/
Loading...