On 3/29/2022 5:08 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:23:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>>> Here is what Robert Pound and Glen Rebka Jr. wrote in their Nov. 1, 1959
>>>>> paper where they described the experiment they were going to perform:
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------- start quote --------------------
>>>>> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that
>>>>> the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the
>>>>> gravitational potential at the position of the EMITTING SYSTEM. The
>>>>> several theories of relativity predict the frequency to be proportional
>>>>> to the gravitational potential.
>>>>> ---------------------- end quote -------------------
>>>> The above is an example of where you are likely to misconstrue. You read it
>>>> as testing that it ONLY depends on the position of the emitting system.
>>>> Physicists know already that what matters is the DIFFERENCE in the
>>>> gravitational potential between the emitting AND the receiving system. And
>>>> so physicists will correctly read that as “keeping the position of the
>>>> receiving system the same, check experimentally that the frequencies will
>>>> be shown to vary by changing the position of the emitting system, which is
>>>> effectively changing the DIFFERENCE in the gravitational potential.”
>>>
>>> You simply don't understand. The issue is NOT about measuring the difference.
>>> Obviously you must MEASURE the difference to KNOW there IS a difference.
>>> The real and only issue is WHAT CAUSES the difference.
>>>
>>> The CAUSE of the difference is that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate at the top
>>> of a building than at the bottom of that same building.
>> No, and this is what I’m talking about. You have a preconceived idea of
>> what the cause is, and then you go mining papers for snippets that you
>> think support YOUR idea, rather than asking what it is they had in mind. In
>> this case p, you keyed on the word EMISSION and said, “See? The authors
>> agree with me that there is something different about the emission process
>> at higher and lower elevations.” But in fact, that’s not what they were
>> saying at all. What they stated was that by varying the height at which the
>> emission occurred, thus varying the difference between emission and
>> receiving points, they could experimentally validate the change in
>> frequency from emission to reception.
>
> But WHY? Do you really believe that Pound and Rebka DIDN'T CARE WHY
> "they could experimentally validate the change in frequency from emission to reception"?
>
> The paper they wrote after the experiment says,
>
> ------- start quote ----
> As we proposed a few months ago, we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized
> by Einstein, of GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL on the apparent frequency of electromagnetic
> radiation by using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids,
> as discovered by Mossbauer.
> ------- end quote -------

You emphasized the wrong words. Look at this:

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

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

>
> They were measuring THE EFFECT OF GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL

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

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

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

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

Difference in potential. You should have emphasized the word "difference".
>
> (snip)
>>> Pound and Rebka demonstrated that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate atop a
>>> building than at the bottom of a building.

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

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

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

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

Einstein would say the potential DIFFERENCE causes the frequency shift.

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

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

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

> All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say a new photon oscillates

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

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

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

> and the photon will continue to oscillate at that frequency

Photons don't oscillate.

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:17:09 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > > The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ...
> > >
> > > Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the
> > > speed is c?
> > The emitter is the only "observer."
> OK. However, to those who can read English, those who can understand what is written (or the intention thereof),
> the above not only means that the 'observer' is the emitter, but that the observer can be any (inertial) observer.

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

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

No, of course not.

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

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

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

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

What someone else is doing is not relevant.

Ed

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:24:00 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:23:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> (snip)
> >>>
> >>>>> Here is what Robert Pound and Glen Rebka Jr. wrote in their Nov. 1, 1959
> >>>>> paper where they described the experiment they were going to perform:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -------------------- start quote --------------------
> >>>>> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that
> >>>>> the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the
> >>>>> gravitational potential at the position of the EMITTING SYSTEM. The
> >>>>> several theories of relativity predict the frequency to be proportional
> >>>>> to the gravitational potential.
> >>>>> ---------------------- end quote -------------------
> >>>> The above is an example of where you are likely to misconstrue. You read it
> >>>> as testing that it ONLY depends on the position of the emitting system.
> >>>> Physicists know already that what matters is the DIFFERENCE in the
> >>>> gravitational potential between the emitting AND the receiving system. And
> >>>> so physicists will correctly read that as “keeping the position of the
> >>>> receiving system the same, check experimentally that the frequencies will
> >>>> be shown to vary by changing the position of the emitting system, which is
> >>>> effectively changing the DIFFERENCE in the gravitational potential.”
> >>>
> >>> You simply don't understand. The issue is NOT about measuring the difference.
> >>> Obviously you must MEASURE the difference to KNOW there IS a difference.
> >>> The real and only issue is WHAT CAUSES the difference.
> >>>
> >>> The CAUSE of the difference is that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate at the top
> >>> of a building than at the bottom of that same building.
> >> No, and this is what I’m talking about. You have a preconceived idea of
> >> what the cause is, and then you go mining papers for snippets that you
> >> think support YOUR idea, rather than asking what it is they had in mind. In
> >> this case p, you keyed on the word EMISSION and said, “See? The authors
> >> agree with me that there is something different about the emission process
> >> at higher and lower elevations.” But in fact, that’s not what they were
> >> saying at all. What they stated was that by varying the height at which the
> >> emission occurred, thus varying the difference between emission and
> >> receiving points, they could experimentally validate the change in
> >> frequency from emission to reception.
> >
> > But WHY? Do you really believe that Pound and Rebka DIDN'T CARE WHY
> > "they could experimentally validate the change in frequency from emission to reception"?

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

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

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

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

Ed

(snip)

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

(snip)

> >>> Obviously you must MEASURE the difference to KNOW there IS a difference.
> >>> The real and only issue is WHAT CAUSES the difference.
> >>>
> >>> The CAUSE of the difference is that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate at the top
> >>> of a building than at the bottom of that same building.
> >> No, and this is what I’m talking about. You have a preconceived idea of
> >> what the cause is, and then you go mining papers for snippets that you
> >> think support YOUR idea, rather than asking what it is they had in mind. In
> >> this case p, you keyed on the word EMISSION and said, “See? The authors
> >> agree with me that there is something different about the emission process
> >> at higher and lower elevations.” But in fact, that’s not what they were
> >> saying at all. What they stated was that by varying the height at which the
> >> emission occurred, thus varying the difference between emission and
> >> receiving points, they could experimentally validate the change in
> >> frequency from emission to reception.
> >
> > But WHY? Do you really believe that Pound and Rebka DIDN'T CARE WHY
> > "they could experimentally validate the change in frequency from emission to reception"?
> >
> > The paper they wrote after the experiment says,
> >
> > ------- start quote ----
> > As we proposed a few months ago, we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized
> > by Einstein, of GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL on the apparent frequency of electromagnetic
> > radiation by using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids,
> > as discovered by Mossbauer.
> > ------- end quote -------
> You emphasized the wrong words. Look at this:
> > ------- start quote ----
> > As we proposed a few months ago, we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized
> > by Einstein, of gravitational potential on the APPARENT FREQUENCY of electromagnetic
> > radiation by using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids,
> > as discovered by Mossbauer.
> > ------- end quote -------
> APPARENT frequency. That is the light is received at a certain
> frequency so it was APPARENTLY emitted at that frequency.

Okay.

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

Okay.

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

In your mistaken opinion.

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

Right.

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

Okay.

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

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

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

Incorrectly "perceived."

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

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

Ed

El miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:12:37 UTC-3, det...@outlook..com escribió:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> > He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
> > That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.
> No, that is how MATHEMATICIANS twist things to make Einstein's words
> fit their beliefs.
>
> If I am moving through space and emit a photon, that photon will travel at c
> as c is defined at MY location. I.e., the photon will travel at 299,792,458 meters
> PER SECOND as a second is measured at MY location. That is all that
> Einstein's Second Postulate says. What some OTHER observer might see
> or measure when he sees the photon I emitted has NOTHING to do with
> the Second Postulate.
>
> The point Einstein is making is that c will be different depending upon how
> fast I am moving. It will ALWAYS be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND,
> but the LENGTH OF A SECOND at my location will vary depending upon
> the speed at which I am traveling.
>
> What someone else is doing is not relevant.
>
> Ed

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

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and
"Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".

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

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:24:00 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:23:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is what Robert Pound and Glen Rebka Jr. wrote in their Nov. 1, 1959
>>>>>>> paper where they described the experiment they were going to perform:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------------------- start quote --------------------
>>>>>>> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that
>>>>>>> the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the
>>>>>>> gravitational potential at the position of the EMITTING SYSTEM. The
>>>>>>> several theories of relativity predict the frequency to be proportional
>>>>>>> to the gravitational potential.
>>>>>>> ---------------------- end quote -------------------
>>>>>> The above is an example of where you are likely to misconstrue. You read it
>>>>>> as testing that it ONLY depends on the position of the emitting system.
>>>>>> Physicists know already that what matters is the DIFFERENCE in the
>>>>>> gravitational potential between the emitting AND the receiving system. And
>>>>>> so physicists will correctly read that as “keeping the position of the
>>>>>> receiving system the same, check experimentally that the frequencies will
>>>>>> be shown to vary by changing the position of the emitting system, which is
>>>>>> effectively changing the DIFFERENCE in the gravitational potential.”
>>>>>
>>>>> You simply don't understand. The issue is NOT about measuring the difference.
>>>>> Obviously you must MEASURE the difference to KNOW there IS a difference.
>>>>> The real and only issue is WHAT CAUSES the difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> The CAUSE of the difference is that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate at the top
>>>>> of a building than at the bottom of that same building.
>>>> No, and this is what I’m talking about. You have a preconceived idea of
>>>> what the cause is, and then you go mining papers for snippets that you
>>>> think support YOUR idea, rather than asking what it is they had in mind. In
>>>> this case p, you keyed on the word EMISSION and said, “See? The authors
>>>> agree with me that there is something different about the emission process
>>>> at higher and lower elevations.” But in fact, that’s not what they were
>>>> saying at all. What they stated was that by varying the height at which the
>>>> emission occurred, thus varying the difference between emission and
>>>> receiving points, they could experimentally validate the change in
>>>> frequency from emission to reception.
>>>
>>> But WHY? Do you really believe that Pound and Rebka DIDN'T CARE WHY
>>> "they could experimentally validate the change in frequency from emission to reception"?
>
>> Of course they cared why. They just didn’t state the cause as explicitly as
>> you’d like. Nor did they have to, because the intended audience of this
>> paper already understood the putative cause without needing to have it
>> stated in the paper. This is where you lack context that physicists have.
>
> But we have textbooks which CORRECTLY say that the CAUSE is time dilation,
> and we have textbooks which nonsensically say that the CAUSE is "falling"
> from one height to a lower location and accelerating while falling.

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

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

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

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 6:22:33 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 3/29/2022 5:08 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:23:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>>>> Obviously you must MEASURE the difference to KNOW there IS a difference.
>>>>> The real and only issue is WHAT CAUSES the difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> The CAUSE of the difference is that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate at the top
>>>>> of a building than at the bottom of that same building.
>>>> No, and this is what I’m talking about. You have a preconceived idea of
>>>> what the cause is, and then you go mining papers for snippets that you
>>>> think support YOUR idea, rather than asking what it is they had in mind. In
>>>> this case p, you keyed on the word EMISSION and said, “See? The authors
>>>> agree with me that there is something different about the emission process
>>>> at higher and lower elevations.” But in fact, that’s not what they were
>>>> saying at all. What they stated was that by varying the height at which the
>>>> emission occurred, thus varying the difference between emission and
>>>> receiving points, they could experimentally validate the change in
>>>> frequency from emission to reception.
>>>
>>> But WHY? Do you really believe that Pound and Rebka DIDN'T CARE WHY
>>> "they could experimentally validate the change in frequency from emission to reception"?
>>>
>>> The paper they wrote after the experiment says,
>>>
>>> ------- start quote ----
>>> As we proposed a few months ago, we have now measured the effect,
>>> originally hypothesized
>>> by Einstein, of GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL on
>>> the apparent frequency of electromagnetic
>>> radiation by using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free y rays
>>> emitted and absorbed in solids,
>>> as discovered by Mossbauer.
>>> ------- end quote -------
>> You emphasized the wrong words. Look at this:
>>> ------- start quote ----
>>> As we proposed a few months ago, we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized
>>> by Einstein, of gravitational potential on the APPARENT FREQUENCY of electromagnetic
>>> radiation by using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free y rays
>>> emitted and absorbed in solids,
>>> as discovered by Mossbauer.
>>> ------- end quote -------
>> APPARENT frequency. That is the light is received at a certain
>> frequency so it was APPARENTLY emitted at that frequency.
>
> Okay.
>
>>>
>>> They were measuring THE EFFECT OF GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL
>> You mean the effect of a gravitational potential DIFFERENCE, as Einstein
>> predicted.
>>> at two
>>> different locations on the frequency of electromagnetic radiation emitted
>>> at those two different locations.
>> Two difference locations at different gravitational potentials, in order
>> to measure the effect of a potential DIFFERENCE.
>
> Okay.
>
>>> They were NOT measuring the effect
>>> of photons FALLING from one location to another. They were measuring
>>> the difference in GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL at two different locations.
>> Difference in potential. You should have emphasized the word "difference".
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>>> Pound and Rebka demonstrated that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate atop a
>>>>> building than at the bottom of a building.
>> That is YOUR (mis)interpretation. Not that of Pound or Rebka.
>
> In your mistaken opinion.

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

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

>
>>>>> That means that a billion times per
>>>>> second at the top of a building is FASTER than a billion times per second at the
>>>>> bottom of the same building.
>>>> No, that is not what they claimed to have proven. That is YOUR
>>>> INTERPRETATION, and it’s based on the inclusion of a SINGLE WORD: emission.
>>>> They did NOT say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at faster
>>>> rate at higher elevations, but that’s what you wanted to see, because it’s
>>>> what you believe is going on.
>>>
>>> Yes, they DID say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at a faster rate
>>> at higher locations. They just used the term "gravitational potential" to refer
>>> to different locations at different altitudes.
>> Which is a DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential.
>
> Right.
>
>>>
>>> And they said. "Thus it is absolutely necessary to measure a change in the relative
>>> frequency that is produced by the perturbation being studied."
>>>
>>> "Perturbation" is defined as "a deviation of a system, moving object, or process from
>>> its regular or normal state or path, caused by an outside influence." The "outside
>>> influence" is putting the emitter and receiver at different altitudes.
>> Producing a DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential. That is the perturbation.
>
> Okay.
>
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>>>>> “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
>>>>>>> “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
>>>>>>> That is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> YES, it is wrong because a wave or photon DOES NOT CHANGE FREQUENCY as it
>>>>> FALLS.
>>>> This is your opinion. It’s also not what physicists think.
>>>
>>> It is what INTELLIGENT physicists have thought since experiments showed that
>>> Einstein was right.
>> Einstein would say the potential DIFFERENCE causes the frequency shift.
>>
>> Clocks actually ticking faster due to altitude would violate the first
>> postulate. Einstein would have pointed that out.
>
> Einstein DID point out that it is "ONLY APPARENTLY IRRECONCILABLE" with
> the first postulate. Once you understand time dilation, you will see it does NOT
> violate the first postulate. The two postulates fit together beautifully.
>
>>> There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that a photon changes
>>> frequency as it falls.
>> It is a perceived change. Just like a change due to Doppler Effect or
>> SR time dilation causes a perceived frequency change.
>
> Incorrectly "perceived."
>
>>> All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say a new photon oscillates
>> All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say photons don't oscillate.
>>> at a
>>> frequency that is determined by the type of atom that created that new photon and
>>> the location of that atom,
>> as long as there is no effect due to the Doppler Effect, SR time
>> dilation or GR gravity potential difference.
>>> and the photon will continue to oscillate at that frequency
>> Photons don't oscillate.
>
> If photons don't oscillate then they cannot have a frequency nor
> a wavelength. The FACT that photons have a frequency is PROOF
> that photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency.
>
> Ed
>

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

On 3/30/2022 11:43 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 6:22:33 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 3/29/2022 5:08 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:23:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>>>> Obviously you must MEASURE the difference to KNOW there IS a difference.
>>>>> The real and only issue is WHAT CAUSES the difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> The CAUSE of the difference is that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate at the top
>>>>> of a building than at the bottom of that same building.
>>>> No, and this is what I’m talking about. You have a preconceived idea of
>>>> what the cause is, and then you go mining papers for snippets that you
>>>> think support YOUR idea, rather than asking what it is they had in mind. In
>>>> this case p, you keyed on the word EMISSION and said, “See? The authors
>>>> agree with me that there is something different about the emission process
>>>> at higher and lower elevations.” But in fact, that’s not what they were
>>>> saying at all. What they stated was that by varying the height at which the
>>>> emission occurred, thus varying the difference between emission and
>>>> receiving points, they could experimentally validate the change in
>>>> frequency from emission to reception.
>>>
>>> But WHY? Do you really believe that Pound and Rebka DIDN'T CARE WHY
>>> "they could experimentally validate the change in frequency from emission to reception"?
>>>
>>> The paper they wrote after the experiment says,
>>>
>>> ------- start quote ----
>>> As we proposed a few months ago, we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized
>>> by Einstein, of GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL on the apparent frequency of electromagnetic
>>> radiation by using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids,
>>> as discovered by Mossbauer.
>>> ------- end quote -------
>> You emphasized the wrong words. Look at this:
>>> ------- start quote ----
>>> As we proposed a few months ago, we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized
>>> by Einstein, of gravitational potential on the APPARENT FREQUENCY of electromagnetic
>>> radiation by using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids,
>>> as discovered by Mossbauer.
>>> ------- end quote -------
>> APPARENT frequency. That is the light is received at a certain
>> frequency so it was APPARENTLY emitted at that frequency.
>
> Okay.
>
>>>
>>> They were measuring THE EFFECT OF GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL
>> You mean the effect of a gravitational potential DIFFERENCE, as Einstein
>> predicted.
>>> at two
>>> different locations on the frequency of electromagnetic radiation emitted
>>> at those two different locations.
>> Two difference locations at different gravitational potentials, in order
>> to measure the effect of a potential DIFFERENCE.
>
> Okay.
>
>>> They were NOT measuring the effect
>>> of photons FALLING from one location to another. They were measuring
>>> the difference in GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL at two different locations.
>> Difference in potential. You should have emphasized the word "difference".
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>>> Pound and Rebka demonstrated that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate atop a
>>>>> building than at the bottom of a building.
>> That is YOUR (mis)interpretation. Not that of Pound or Rebka.
>
> In your mistaken opinion.

The Pound/Rebka paper never stated the clocks actually ran faster.
>
>>>>> That means that a billion times per
>>>>> second at the top of a building is FASTER than a billion times per second at the
>>>>> bottom of the same building.
>>>> No, that is not what they claimed to have proven. That is YOUR
>>>> INTERPRETATION, and it’s based on the inclusion of a SINGLE WORD: emission.
>>>> They did NOT say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at faster
>>>> rate at higher elevations, but that’s what you wanted to see, because it’s
>>>> what you believe is going on.
>>>
>>> Yes, they DID say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at a faster rate
>>> at higher locations. They just used the term "gravitational potential" to refer
>>> to different locations at different altitudes.
>> Which is a DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential.
>
> Right.
>
>>>
>>> And they said. "Thus it is absolutely necessary to measure a change in the relative
>>> frequency that is produced by the perturbation being studied."
>>>
>>> "Perturbation" is defined as "a deviation of a system, moving object, or process from
>>> its regular or normal state or path, caused by an outside influence." The "outside
>>> influence" is putting the emitter and receiver at different altitudes.
>> Producing a DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential. That is the perturbation.
>
> Okay.
>
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>>>>> “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
>>>>>>> “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
>>>>>>> That is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> YES, it is wrong because a wave or photon DOES NOT CHANGE FREQUENCY as it
>>>>> FALLS.
>>>> This is your opinion. It’s also not what physicists think.
>>>
>>> It is what INTELLIGENT physicists have thought since experiments showed that
>>> Einstein was right.
>> Einstein would say the potential DIFFERENCE causes the frequency shift.
>>
>> Clocks actually ticking faster due to altitude would violate the first
>> postulate. Einstein would have pointed that out.
>
> Einstein DID point out that it is "ONLY APPARENTLY IRRECONCILABLE" with
> the first postulate. Once you understand time dilation, you will see it does NOT
> violate the first postulate. The two postulates fit together beautifully.

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

Pound-Rebka is a GR problem, which should be obvious!
>
>>> There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that a photon changes
>>> frequency as it falls.
>> It is a perceived change. Just like a change due to Doppler Effect or
>> SR time dilation causes a perceived frequency change.
>
> Incorrectly "perceived."

How so? You mean that, for example, a train horn from an approaching
train really is observed at a higher frequency? And similarly for light
subject to similar Doppler/SR/GR effects? The train horn is also a
perceived change, meaning that it is PERCEIVED that the train horn is
sounding at a higher frequency than it actually is.
>
>>> All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say a new photon oscillates
>> All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say photons don't oscillate.
>>> at a
>>> frequency that is determined by the type of atom that created that new photon and
>>> the location of that atom,
>> as long as there is no effect due to the Doppler Effect, SR time
>> dilation or GR gravity potential difference.
>>> and the photon will continue to oscillate at that frequency
>> Photons don't oscillate.
>
> If photons don't oscillate then they cannot have a frequency nor
> a wavelength.

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

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

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

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

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:38:52 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:12:37 UTC-3, escribió:
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
> > > That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.
> > No, that is how MATHEMATICIANS twist things to make Einstein's words
> > fit their beliefs.
> >
> > If I am moving through space and emit a photon, that photon will travel at c
> > as c is defined at MY location. I.e., the photon will travel at 299,792,458 meters
> > PER SECOND as a second is measured at MY location. That is all that
> > Einstein's Second Postulate says. What some OTHER observer might see
> > or measure when he sees the photon I emitted has NOTHING to do with
> > the Second Postulate.
> >
> > The point Einstein is making is that c will be different depending upon how
> > fast I am moving. It will ALWAYS be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND,
> > but the LENGTH OF A SECOND at my location will vary depending upon
> > the speed at which I am traveling.
> >
> > What someone else is doing is not relevant.
> >
> > Ed
> Nonsense. First, the expressions Einstein used in his paper are:
>
> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and
> "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsense. Velocity Time dilation is about Time ticking at different
rates at different locations moving at different speeds. Einstein even
says that a clock "at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
under otherwise identical conditions." That is true whether there is
an "observer" or not.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

El miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2022 a las 14:16:25 UTC-3, det...@outlook..com escribió:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:38:52 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:12:37 UTC-3, escribió:
> > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> >
> > > > He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
> > > > That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.
> > > No, that is how MATHEMATICIANS twist things to make Einstein's words
> > > fit their beliefs.
> > >
> > > If I am moving through space and emit a photon, that photon will travel at c
> > > as c is defined at MY location. I.e., the photon will travel at 299,792,458 meters
> > > PER SECOND as a second is measured at MY location. That is all that
> > > Einstein's Second Postulate says. What some OTHER observer might see
> > > or measure when he sees the photon I emitted has NOTHING to do with
> > > the Second Postulate.
> > >
> > > The point Einstein is making is that c will be different depending upon how
> > > fast I am moving. It will ALWAYS be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND,
> > > but the LENGTH OF A SECOND at my location will vary depending upon
> > > the speed at which I am traveling.
> > >
> > > What someone else is doing is not relevant.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > Nonsense. First, the expressions Einstein used in his paper are:
> >
> > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and
> > "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> Nonsense. Velocity Time dilation is about Time ticking at different
> rates at different locations moving at different speeds. Einstein even
> says that a clock "at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
> amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
> under otherwise identical conditions." That is true whether there is
> an "observer" or not.
>

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

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

Throughout the paper Einstein does NOT assume that only the emitter is
the observer. Your claim makes no sense.
>
>>> The emitter emits photons at c and
>>> c is the speed PER SECOND at the location of the emitter.
>> He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
>> That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.
>
> No, that is how MATHEMATICIANS twist things to make Einstein's words
> fit their beliefs.

You need to get help regarding these "mathematician" boogeymen you see
everywhere. This is all physics, no mathematicians to be seen anywhere.
>
> If I am moving through space and emit a photon, that photon will travel at c
> as c is defined at MY location. I.e., the photon will travel at 299,792,458 meters
> PER SECOND as a second is measured at MY location. That is all that
> Einstein's Second Postulate says.

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

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

Why would he even have made it? Nowhere does he use the emitter
measuring the light as c. The whole first section involves observers
measuring light as c.
>
> The point Einstein is making is that c will be different depending upon how
> fast I am moving. It will ALWAYS be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND,
> but the LENGTH OF A SECOND at my location will vary depending upon
> the speed at which I am traveling.

Nowhere is that a postulate of the SR paper. You just made that up, to
justify your mistaken beliefs.
>
> What someone else is doing is not relevant.
>
????? The substantial part of the paper involves what others observe!

On Wednesday, March 30, Paparios wrote:
> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and
> "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".

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

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

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

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

--
Rich

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, Paparios wrote:
>> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
>> which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and
>> "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
>> the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
>> by a moving body".
>
>> It is clear that if the emitting body is stationary, the ray of light
>> will propagate at speed c.
>> Also, if the emitting body is moving, the ray of light will propagate at speed c.
>
> In a pond, if a boat is stationary, the waves from the motor's propeller
> will propagate at speed d.
> Also, if the boat is moving, the waves will propagate at speed d.

With respect to the medium.

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

With light, however, no.

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

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

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

> On 2022-03-28 15:59:48 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> > "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> > "Those who donâ•˙t know physics do physics teaching.
> > "Those who donâ•˙t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
> >
> > That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
> > physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England.
>
> It's much older than that. At least, I heard a very similar proposition
> in the 1970s.

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

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

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

Jan

[1] My prefered third line is

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

On 3/30/2022 1:56 PM, RichD wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, Paparios wrote:
>> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and
>> "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".
>
>> It is clear that if the emitting body is stationary, the ray of light will propagate at speed c.
>> Also, if the emitting body is moving, the ray of light will propagate at speed c.
>
> In a pond, if a boat is stationary, the waves from the motor's propeller will propagate at speed d.
> Also, if the boat is moving, the waves will propagate at speed d.
>
>> Furthermore, from the above, it is easy to conclude (from the symmetry of the situation) that
>> a stationary or a moving receiver will receive that incoming light at speed c.
>
> Furthermore, it is easy to conclude that a stationary or moving canoe in the pond,
> will receive the incoming waves at speed d.
> (from the symmetry of the situation)

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

On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 18:58:36 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:24:00 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:23:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (snip)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here is what Robert Pound and Glen Rebka Jr. wrote in their Nov. 1, 1959
> >>>>>>> paper where they described the experiment they were going to perform:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -------------------- start quote --------------------
> >>>>>>> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that
> >>>>>>> the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the
> >>>>>>> gravitational potential at the position of the EMITTING SYSTEM. The
> >>>>>>> several theories of relativity predict the frequency to be proportional
> >>>>>>> to the gravitational potential.
> >>>>>>> ---------------------- end quote -------------------
> >>>>>> The above is an example of where you are likely to misconstrue. You read it
> >>>>>> as testing that it ONLY depends on the position of the emitting system.
> >>>>>> Physicists know already that what matters is the DIFFERENCE in the
> >>>>>> gravitational potential between the emitting AND the receiving system. And
> >>>>>> so physicists will correctly read that as “keeping the position of the
> >>>>>> receiving system the same, check experimentally that the frequencies will
> >>>>>> be shown to vary by changing the position of the emitting system, which is
> >>>>>> effectively changing the DIFFERENCE in the gravitational potential..”
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You simply don't understand. The issue is NOT about measuring the difference.
> >>>>> Obviously you must MEASURE the difference to KNOW there IS a difference.
> >>>>> The real and only issue is WHAT CAUSES the difference.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The CAUSE of the difference is that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate at the top
> >>>>> of a building than at the bottom of that same building.
> >>>> No, and this is what I’m talking about. You have a preconceived idea of
> >>>> what the cause is, and then you go mining papers for snippets that you
> >>>> think support YOUR idea, rather than asking what it is they had in mind. In
> >>>> this case p, you keyed on the word EMISSION and said, “See? The authors
> >>>> agree with me that there is something different about the emission process
> >>>> at higher and lower elevations.” But in fact, that’s not what they were
> >>>> saying at all. What they stated was that by varying the height at which the
> >>>> emission occurred, thus varying the difference between emission and
> >>>> receiving points, they could experimentally validate the change in
> >>>> frequency from emission to reception.
> >>>
> >>> But WHY? Do you really believe that Pound and Rebka DIDN'T CARE WHY
> >>> "they could experimentally validate the change in frequency from emission to reception"?
> >
> >> Of course they cared why. They just didn’t state the cause as explicitly as
> >> you’d like. Nor did they have to, because the intended audience of this
> >> paper already understood the putative cause without needing to have it
> >> stated in the paper. This is where you lack context that physicists have.
> >
> > But we have textbooks which CORRECTLY say that the CAUSE is time dilation,
> > and we have textbooks which nonsensically say that the CAUSE is "falling"
> > from one height to a lower location and accelerating while falling.
> That change while falling IS time dilation, according to Einstein and
> according to physicists.

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

On March 30, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and
>>> "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".
>>> It is clear that if the emitting body is stationary, the ray of light will propagate at speed c.
>>> Also, if the emitting body is moving, the ray of light will propagate at speed c.
>
>> In a pond, if a boat is stationary, the waves from the motor's propeller will propagate at speed d.
>> Also, if the boat is moving, the waves will propagate at speed d.
>
>>> Furthermore, from the above, it is easy to conclude (from the symmetry of the situation) that
>>> a stationary or a moving receiver will receive that incoming light at speed c.
>
>> Furthermore, it is easy to conclude that a stationary or moving canoe in the pond,
>> will receive the incoming waves at speed d.
>> (from the symmetry of the situation)
>
> There is no theorem of the constancy of the speed of water waves in all
> frames to all observers. Light is different.

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

--
Rich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 3/30/2022 1:38 PM, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2022 a las 14:16:25 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:38:52 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>>> El miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:12:37 UTC-3, escribió:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>>>
>>>>> He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
>>>>> That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.
>>>> No, that is how MATHEMATICIANS twist things to make Einstein's words
>>>> fit their beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> If I am moving through space and emit a photon, that photon will travel at c
>>>> as c is defined at MY location. I.e., the photon will travel at 299,792,458 meters
>>>> PER SECOND as a second is measured at MY location. That is all that
>>>> Einstein's Second Postulate says. What some OTHER observer might see
>>>> or measure when he sees the photon I emitted has NOTHING to do with
>>>> the Second Postulate.
>>>>
>>>> The point Einstein is making is that c will be different depending upon how
>>>> fast I am moving. It will ALWAYS be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND,
>>>> but the LENGTH OF A SECOND at my location will vary depending upon
>>>> the speed at which I am traveling.
>>>>
>>>> What someone else is doing is not relevant.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>> Nonsense. First, the expressions Einstein used in his paper are:
>>>
>>> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and
>>> "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".
>
>> You are talking about two different statements in two different parts of the paper
>> referring to two different situations.
>>
>
> They both refer to the same situation (as the name of the paper says "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"), where one body is moving (at constant speed v) relative to another body. Both statements are known as the principle of constancy of the speed of light.
>
>> Quote #1 is not about any system of coordinates. It's about light being emitted in empty space.
>
> For sure it is. The system of coordinates is attached to the emitting body!!!
>
>> Quote #2 is about a ray of light moving in a "stationary" system of coordinates.
>
> Sure and that system of coordinates is attached to the emitting body!!!

I disagree. The system of coordinates is the "stationary" system, and he
states the speed of light is c in the stationary system, regardless of
whether the emitter is stationary or moving in the "stationary" system.
Since this part is the actual principle of constancy of the speed of
light and second postulate, this is the one which matters.
>
>>> It is clear that if the emitting body is stationary, the ray of light will propagate at speed c. Also, if the emitting body is moving, the ray of light will also propagate at speed c.
>>> Furthermore, from the above, it is easy to conclude (from the symmetry of the situation) that a stationary or a moving receiver will receive that incoming light at speed c.
>
>> Nonsense. Neither statement mentions any "observer" RECEIVING
>> light. Both are just about how a photon moves once it is EMITTED.

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

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

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
>
> >
> > If photons don't oscillate then they cannot have a frequency nor
> > a wavelength. The FACT that photons have a frequency is PROOF
> > that photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> No, this is not true, and again this is where a lack of background hurts
> you.
>
> In your common experience, things only are assigned a frequency if they
> oscillate or rotate. There are, however, other physics contexts (which are
> unknown to you) where frequency is also used. There is a physical property
> called phase, for example, which again is something you can’t learn the
> meaning of from a dictionary, which is associated with a frequency even
> though there is nothing orbiting or spinning or moving back and forth in
> space. In the case of photons, this phase is an important property.
> Frequency is also connected to energy and momentum carried by the photon,
> and since photons clearly carry energy and momentum, they also have
> frequency, even though they do not turn or wiggle.
>
> It’s not wise to try to get physics jargon to fit into everyday
> definitions. Jargon has to be learned as part of the basics. I know you
> have no appetite for the basics, but without them, you’re going to
> flounder.

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

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

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

Ed

On 3/30/2022 3:01 PM, RichD wrote:
> On March 30, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and
>>>> "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".
>>>> It is clear that if the emitting body is stationary, the ray of light will propagate at speed c.
>>>> Also, if the emitting body is moving, the ray of light will propagate at speed c.
>>
>>> In a pond, if a boat is stationary, the waves from the motor's propeller will propagate at speed d.
>>> Also, if the boat is moving, the waves will propagate at speed d.
>>
>>>> Furthermore, from the above, it is easy to conclude (from the symmetry of the situation) that
>>>> a stationary or a moving receiver will receive that incoming light at speed c.
>>
>>> Furthermore, it is easy to conclude that a stationary or moving canoe in the pond,
>>> will receive the incoming waves at speed d.
>>> (from the symmetry of the situation)
>>
>> There is no theorem of the constancy of the speed of water waves in all
>> frames to all observers. Light is different.
>
> It has to be postulated, axiomatically.
> The point is, the 'symmetry' argument - relating transmitter frame to
> receiver frame - fails.

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

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:38:43 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2022 a las 14:16:25 UTC-3, escribió:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:38:52 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > El miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:12:37 UTC-3, escribió:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> > >
> > > > > He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
> > > > > That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.
> > > > No, that is how MATHEMATICIANS twist things to make Einstein's words
> > > > fit their beliefs.
> > > >
> > > > If I am moving through space and emit a photon, that photon will travel at c
> > > > as c is defined at MY location. I.e., the photon will travel at 299,792,458 meters
> > > > PER SECOND as a second is measured at MY location. That is all that
> > > > Einstein's Second Postulate says. What some OTHER observer might see
> > > > or measure when he sees the photon I emitted has NOTHING to do with
> > > > the Second Postulate.
> > > >
> > > > The point Einstein is making is that c will be different depending upon how
> > > > fast I am moving. It will ALWAYS be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND,
> > > > but the LENGTH OF A SECOND at my location will vary depending upon
> > > > the speed at which I am traveling.
> > > >
> > > > What someone else is doing is not relevant.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > Nonsense. First, the expressions Einstein used in his paper are:
> > >
> > > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and
> > > "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".
>
> > You are talking about two different statements in two different parts of the paper
> > referring to two different situations.
> >
> They both refer to the same situation (as the name of the paper says "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"), where one body is moving (at constant speed v) relative to another body. Both statements are known as the principle of constancy of the speed of light.

There is no second body in the first quote. All it says is that "light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
of the state of motion of the emitting body." NO SECOND BODY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If photons don't oscillate then they cannot have a frequency nor
>>> a wavelength. The FACT that photons have a frequency is PROOF
>>> that photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>> No, this is not true, and again this is where a lack of background hurts
>> you.
>>
>> In your common experience, things only are assigned a frequency if they
>> oscillate or rotate. There are, however, other physics contexts (which are
>> unknown to you) where frequency is also used. There is a physical property
>> called phase, for example, which again is something you can’t learn the
>> meaning of from a dictionary, which is associated with a frequency even
>> though there is nothing orbiting or spinning or moving back and forth in
>> space. In the case of photons, this phase is an important property.
>> Frequency is also connected to energy and momentum carried by the photon,
>> and since photons clearly carry energy and momentum, they also have
>> frequency, even though they do not turn or wiggle.
>>
>> It’s not wise to try to get physics jargon to fit into everyday
>> definitions. Jargon has to be learned as part of the basics. I know you
>> have no appetite for the basics, but without them, you’re going to
>> flounder.
>
> In other words, you cannot describe or explain what "phase" means, but
> you firmly BELIEVE there is such a thing.

No, it does not mean that.

What it does mean is:

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

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

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

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