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

Note that it states ELECTRONS here...

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

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

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

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

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

Nope. Molecules have excited states which aren't due to their
individual atoms. There is a certain microwave frequency which
corresponds to the energy transition of an ammonia molecule
transitioning between two states, the first with the nitrogen on one
side and 3H on the other <--> the second with nitrogen on the other side
and the hydrogens on the first side. This is used in ammonia masers.
>
>>> And, since silver atoms absorb and emit photons with many different
>>> variations in energy content, that makes the rest of your comment
>>> CRAZY, too.
>> The CRAZY part here is your insistence that silver atoms absorb
>> visible-light photons. THEY DO NOT. That is NOT how mirrors work.
>
> See the Bernard Schultz quotation above.
> Or watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE6I52Th9DE

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

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

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

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

I learned similar science in university.

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

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

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 4:52:26 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 6/17/2022 10:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 4:56:34 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 6/16/22 9:36 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> I should have known better than to get into another argument here
> >>> over WORDS.
> >> This is not about words. You got the very basic physics COMPLETELY
> >> WRONG. And you repeat your errors in the post to which I am replying.
> >>
> >>> [...] the energy can be instantly released as another photon, which
> >>> is what happens when a photon hits a silver atom in a mirror.
> >> This is just plain not true. For visible light reflecting from a mirror,
> >> the atoms of the mirror DO NOT absorb the photons, for the simple reason
> >> that the atoms and molecules of the reflecting surface have no
> >> absorption bands or lines in the visible region. Instead, the incoming
> >> photons interact with all the charged particles of the mirror [#], and
> >> the resulting interference results in reflection with the usual Snell's law.
> >
> > I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons. Here
> > are a couple:
> >
> > “What actually happens on a microscopic level is that the incoming photon
> > is absorbed by the electrons
> Note that it states ELECTRONS here...
> > of the mirror, which are set into oscillation by
> > the photon’s oscillating electric field. The result is, for some materials
> > (shiny ones), that the electrons’ oscillation creates a new photon that moves
> > away from the mirror in the opposite direction. The incoming and outgoing
> > photons are free and move at speed c, but they are not the same photon…”
> This largely jibes what I learned in a semiconductor course I took on
> the way to an EE degree. Metals can be modeled as positive ions
> embedded in a "sea" of electrons. Each metal ion by itself has a
> specific energy holding its outermost electron(s), but when you glom a
> whole bunch of them together the outermost electrons are no longer
> associated with a particular metal atom/ion. They are free to roam.
> Because electrons, as fermions, cannot be in the same state, and all
> electrons in the "sea" are essentially all the same, they no longer can
> be at the exact same energy. What happens is that they are all at very
> slightly different energies, and there are also empty (no electron)
> energy levels at almost the exact same energy.
>
> The prof went into some detail about what happens when light impinges on
> the metal (with less energy than needed to expel an electron or promote
> it to a very high energy level, which also exist) and the electrons in
> the "sea" as a group interact with the light photon. I don't remember
> the details, which weren't much, as this was a lead in to why metals
> conduct, but one thing stressed was it was the sea and the nearly
> infinitely close energy levels is what was important. The positive ions
> (atoms minus their "sea" electron(s) don't participate except to keep
> the whole thing electrically neutral.
>
> I also got the same description in a chemistry class, as why most metals
> are shiny, gray, conductive and specular.
> >> [#] Only electrons in a metallic conduction band contribute
> >> significantly, which is why mirrors are invariably made of
> >> polished metal surfaces.
> >
> > Silver atoms are the best reflectors. Aluminum atoms also work well.
> > Other metals require constant polishing and don't work very well at all..
> >
> >>> tjrob137 wrote: "An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it
> >>> absorbs a photon that matches the energy difference between its
> >>> ground and excited states."
> >>>
> >>> That implies that you believe an atom is the same as a molecule.
> >>> That's CRAZY!
> >> The CRAZY part is you attempting to put words into my mouth. I NEVER
> >> said or implied any such thing.
> >>
> >> Both atoms and molecules have excited states that can absorb photons of
> >> the right energy. That is what I was talking about.
> >
> > You did it again!! A molecule is MADE FROM ATOMS. It is the ATOMS that
> > matter, not the molecules.
> Nope. Molecules have excited states which aren't due to their
> individual atoms. There is a certain microwave frequency which
> corresponds to the energy transition of an ammonia molecule
> transitioning between two states, the first with the nitrogen on one
> side and 3H on the other <--> the second with nitrogen on the other side
> and the hydrogens on the first side. This is used in ammonia masers.
> >
> >>> And, since silver atoms absorb and emit photons with many different
> >>> variations in energy content, that makes the rest of your comment
> >>> CRAZY, too.
> >> The CRAZY part here is your insistence that silver atoms absorb
> >> visible-light photons. THEY DO NOT. That is NOT how mirrors work.
> >
> > See the Bernard Schultz quotation above.
> > Or watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE6I52Th9DE
> The electron "sea" in metals interact with (light frequency) photons as
> a whole.
> >
> >>> The difference between an atom's ground and excited states is not
> >>> fixed, it depends upon the energy of the photon that is absorbed.
> >> You REALLY do not understand this. Just making stuff up is HOPELESS.
> >
> > I use REFERENCES, which means I'm not making anything up.
> >
> >>
> >> The structure of an atom's energy levels is UNAFFECTED by incoming
> >> photons, it is FIXED by the atomic structure (# protons and electrons,
> >> etc.). The atom can only absorb photons with energies that match
> >> the energy difference between atomic levels [@]. Most such levels are
> >> sharp, leading to absorption lines; some atoms, and most molecules, have
> >> absorption bands, usually due to rotational degrees of freedom that are
> >> very closely spaced in energy....
> >
> > Did you just make that up??? Or is it about some other topic?
> That's standard physics and chemistry as taught in every university with
> physics and chemistry courses.
> > I uses source that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.
> I learned similar science in university.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 7:41:19 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Einstein stated as: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
> c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." But a survey of
> college physics textbooks will show that nearly every textbook author creates HIS OWN
> version of that postulate, a version that fits with his BELIEFS about how light works.
> Here are just TEN of them:

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

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

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

On 6/18/2022 10:41 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 4:52:26 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/17/2022 10:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 4:56:34 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 6/16/22 9:36 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> I should have known better than to get into another argument here
>>>>> over WORDS.
>>>> This is not about words. You got the very basic physics COMPLETELY
>>>> WRONG. And you repeat your errors in the post to which I am replying.
>>>>
>>>>> [...] the energy can be instantly released as another photon, which
>>>>> is what happens when a photon hits a silver atom in a mirror.
>>>> This is just plain not true. For visible light reflecting from a mirror,
>>>> the atoms of the mirror DO NOT absorb the photons, for the simple reason
>>>> that the atoms and molecules of the reflecting surface have no
>>>> absorption bands or lines in the visible region. Instead, the incoming
>>>> photons interact with all the charged particles of the mirror [#], and
>>>> the resulting interference results in reflection with the usual Snell's law.
>>>
>>> I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb photons. Here
>>> are a couple:
>>>
>>> “What actually happens on a microscopic level is that the incoming photon
>>> is absorbed by the electrons
>> Note that it states ELECTRONS here...
>>> of the mirror, which are set into oscillation by
>>> the photon’s oscillating electric field. The result is, for some materials
>>> (shiny ones), that the electrons’ oscillation creates a new photon that moves
>>> away from the mirror in the opposite direction. The incoming and outgoing
>>> photons are free and move at speed c, but they are not the same photon…”
>> This largely jibes what I learned in a semiconductor course I took on
>> the way to an EE degree. Metals can be modeled as positive ions
>> embedded in a "sea" of electrons. Each metal ion by itself has a
>> specific energy holding its outermost electron(s), but when you glom a
>> whole bunch of them together the outermost electrons are no longer
>> associated with a particular metal atom/ion. They are free to roam.
>> Because electrons, as fermions, cannot be in the same state, and all
>> electrons in the "sea" are essentially all the same, they no longer can
>> be at the exact same energy. What happens is that they are all at very
>> slightly different energies, and there are also empty (no electron)
>> energy levels at almost the exact same energy.
>>
>> The prof went into some detail about what happens when light impinges on
>> the metal (with less energy than needed to expel an electron or promote
>> it to a very high energy level, which also exist) and the electrons in
>> the "sea" as a group interact with the light photon. I don't remember
>> the details, which weren't much, as this was a lead in to why metals
>> conduct, but one thing stressed was it was the sea and the nearly
>> infinitely close energy levels is what was important. The positive ions
>> (atoms minus their "sea" electron(s) don't participate except to keep
>> the whole thing electrically neutral.
>>
>> I also got the same description in a chemistry class, as why most metals
>> are shiny, gray, conductive and specular.
>>>> [#] Only electrons in a metallic conduction band contribute
>>>> significantly, which is why mirrors are invariably made of
>>>> polished metal surfaces.
>>>
>>> Silver atoms are the best reflectors. Aluminum atoms also work well.
>>> Other metals require constant polishing and don't work very well at all.
>>>
>>>>> tjrob137 wrote: "An atom (molecule) can also become excited when it
>>>>> absorbs a photon that matches the energy difference between its
>>>>> ground and excited states."
>>>>>
>>>>> That implies that you believe an atom is the same as a molecule.
>>>>> That's CRAZY!
>>>> The CRAZY part is you attempting to put words into my mouth. I NEVER
>>>> said or implied any such thing.
>>>>
>>>> Both atoms and molecules have excited states that can absorb photons of
>>>> the right energy. That is what I was talking about.
>>>
>>> You did it again!! A molecule is MADE FROM ATOMS. It is the ATOMS that
>>> matter, not the molecules.
>> Nope. Molecules have excited states which aren't due to their
>> individual atoms. There is a certain microwave frequency which
>> corresponds to the energy transition of an ammonia molecule
>> transitioning between two states, the first with the nitrogen on one
>> side and 3H on the other <--> the second with nitrogen on the other side
>> and the hydrogens on the first side. This is used in ammonia masers.
>>>
>>>>> And, since silver atoms absorb and emit photons with many different
>>>>> variations in energy content, that makes the rest of your comment
>>>>> CRAZY, too.
>>>> The CRAZY part here is your insistence that silver atoms absorb
>>>> visible-light photons. THEY DO NOT. That is NOT how mirrors work.
>>>
>>> See the Bernard Schultz quotation above.
>>> Or watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE6I52Th9DE
>> The electron "sea" in metals interact with (light frequency) photons as
>> a whole.
>>>
>>>>> The difference between an atom's ground and excited states is not
>>>>> fixed, it depends upon the energy of the photon that is absorbed.
>>>> You REALLY do not understand this. Just making stuff up is HOPELESS.
>>>
>>> I use REFERENCES, which means I'm not making anything up.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The structure of an atom's energy levels is UNAFFECTED by incoming
>>>> photons, it is FIXED by the atomic structure (# protons and electrons,
>>>> etc.). The atom can only absorb photons with energies that match
>>>> the energy difference between atomic levels [@]. Most such levels are
>>>> sharp, leading to absorption lines; some atoms, and most molecules, have
>>>> absorption bands, usually due to rotational degrees of freedom that are
>>>> very closely spaced in energy....
>>>
>>> Did you just make that up??? Or is it about some other topic?
>> That's standard physics and chemistry as taught in every university with
>> physics and chemistry courses.
>>> I uses source that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.
>> I learned similar science in university.
>
> Yeah, that's the problem. You learned "similar science." What I'm discovering
> is that it appears that every author of a physics textbook writes HIS or HER
> understanding of physics.

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

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

However, the understandings of actual physicists agree on the speed of
light.
>
> Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE.
> Text book authors NEVER seem to address that problem. Instead, they just
> explain physics the best way they can.
>

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

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

There is no disagreement among actual physicists. YOU have a
disagreement with them, that's all.
>
> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>
> But a survey of college physics textbooks will show that nearly every textbook
> author creates HIS OWN version of that postulate, a version that fits with his
> BELIEFS about how light works. Here are just TEN of them:
>
> 1. All observers will always view the speed of light at the same rate.
>
> 2. Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
>
> 3. The speed of light is the same to all inertial observers.
>
> 4. The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value, c = 2.997 924 58 x 108 m/s, in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.
>
> 5. The speed of light in free space has the same value for all observers, regardless of their state of motion.
>
> 6. The speed of light, is constant, the same in all inertial reference frames, independent of any relative motion of the source and of the observer.
>
> 7. Regardless of the motion of its source, light always moves through empty space with the same constant speed.
>
> 8. In any given inertial frame, the velocity of light c is the same whether the light be emitted by a body at rest or by a body in uniform motion.
>
> 9. There exists an inertial frame in which light signals in vacuum always travel rectilinearly at constant speed c, in all directions, independently of the motion of the source.
>
> 10. Light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation are propagated in empty space with a constant velocity c which is independent of the motion of the observer or the emitting body.

On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 10:11:32 AM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 7:41:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Einstein stated as: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
> > c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." But a survey of
> > college physics textbooks will show that nearly every textbook author creates HIS OWN
> > version of that postulate, a version that fits with his BELIEFS about how light works.
> > Here are just TEN of them:
> You have blatantly misrepresented your sources, because each of the sources that you quote approvingly as just positing independence of the speed of the source go on to deduce (by combining that proposition with the principle of relativity) that the speed of light is the same independent of the speed of the receiving reference system as well.

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

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

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

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

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

Ed

Color by number pictures are educational worksheets that require your child to concentrate and follow directions. There are different difficulty levels with these worksheets, and you can choose from easy or difficult pictures for different skill levels. There are also different pictures in which students must identify the primary color for each object. They will have fun and exercise their mental skills while completing <a href="https://brighterly.com/worksheets/color-by-number-worksheets-for-kindergarten/">color by number worksheets for kindergarten</a>. If you're looking for an educational worksheet for your child, try these printable color by number pictures!

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

(snip)
> >> That's standard physics and chemistry as taught in every university with
> >> physics and chemistry courses.
> >>> I use sources that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.
> >> I learned similar science in university.
> >
> > Yeah, that's the problem. You learned "similar science." What I'm discovering
> > is that it appears that every author of a physics textbook writes HIS or HER
> > understanding of physics.
> And you write here your own understanding of physics. Your understanding
> is just your own opinion, and since you apparently don't have a good
> physics education, your opinion isn't exactly worth much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ed

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

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

> Einstein EXPLAINS...

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

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

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

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

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

> Radar guns work because...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> Relativist physicists agree. Quantum Mechanics physicists generally disagree.

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

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

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

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

Well, yes, as I said it is the holy grail of physics to come up with a
single theory that predicts both QM/QED/QCD effects and SR/GR effects.
>
>>> One KEY point of disagreement seems to be Einstein's Second Postulate, which
>>> Einstein stated as:
>> There is no disagreement among actual physicists. YOU have a
>> disagreement with them, that's all.
>
> If Einstein writes his Second Postulate one way, and physicists write it another
> way, then there is a DISAGREEMENT. It has nothing to do with me.

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

The second postulate states there is no such thing as light moving at
c+v or c-v. Why mention such a thing in the context of the second postulate?
>
>>>
>>> If versions #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #10 were true, radar guns could not possibly work.
>> Doppler radar uses the Doppler effect (what a coincidence, right?) and
>> at the comparatively low speeds of automobile traffic, relativity isn't
>> even needed. Your opinion that it is, is irrelevant, especially since
>> it conflicts with the science the scientists and engineers who actually
>> designed radar guns used. They used Newtonian physics and standard emag
>> theory.
>
> If Relativity was just about Time Dilation, then you'd be right. Radar Guns do
> NOT use Time Dilation. And they do NOT use the "Doppler Effect."

It's called Doppler Radar for a reason.

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

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

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

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

Depending on the situation, light can also be modeled as individual
packets of energy/photons, but this applies to things like the
photoelectric effect which isn't relevant to Doppler radar.
>
> I've studied the PATENTS of the scientists who developed radar guns. To avoid
> the particle-wave duality problem, they write about radar guns emitting "radiations"
> and "Doppler signals."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polish wanger Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> On Saturday, 18 June 2022 at 19:26:58 UTC+2, Al Coe wrote:
>
>> You're mixing up separate issues. Remember, you claimed that the texts disagree with each other about whether the speed of light (in vacuum) has the same speed c in terms of every standard inertial reference system. Your claim is false, as anyone can check for themselves by actually reading the texts that you dishonestly quoted. Every one of them, without exception, including Einstein's 1905, agrees that the speed of light is c in terms of every standard inertial reference system. Note that this is all independent of whether these texts are right or wrong (or, as someone scoring high on the Baez index would say, WRONG!!!!!"). The point is that you aren't just disagreeing with some people, you are disagreeing with everyone in the world
>
> No. The point is - you're imagining that you and your
> brainwashed fellow idiots are the whole world. As
> expected from a fanatic moron.
>
>> Time dilation, by itself, it far too small to reconcile the speed of light being c in terms of both of two inertial reference systems moving relative to each other with speed v. In fact, it is even in the wrong direction for approaching cases. The way special relativity reconciles the invariance of c for all inertial reference systems is by a combination of time dilation, length contraction, and (most importantly) the skew of simultaneity. These are the three essential ingredients that make special relativity possible, as explained in Einstein's 1905 and all subsequent texts.
>
> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> by your insane religion GPS and TAI keep measuring
> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

yeah, sure. Goodbye.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Roberts

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 1:22:15 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/17/22 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:41:07 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 6/17/22 9:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb
> >>> photons.
> >> They are WRONG. I cannot help it if idiots and know-nothings
> >> outnumber knowledgeable people on the internet. Or that authors
> >> often LIE about details unrelated to their main topic, in order to
> >> avoid long-winded and complicated discussions peripheral to their
> >> topic.
> >
> > So, textbooks lie? What sources do you use then? Stuff you make
> > up?
> Of course not! I use BETTER TEXTBOOKS. So for discussions of QED I use
> textbooks about QED, not gravitation. But for discussions of light
> reflecting from a mirror, one needs a textbook on solid-state physics,
> in which the band structure of metals is discussed.
>
> Hint: there is a reason why good mirrors are polished
> metallic surfaces. The same analysis explains why polished
> glass and still water can form poor, partial mirrors.
> > Ah! Quantum Mechanics! You should have mentioned that you are a
> > Quantum Mechanics mathematician. That answers everything! It
> > explains why you DISAGREE WITH TEXTBOOKS that explain science and
> > Relativity.
> You are crazy. Everything I have said around here is 100% consistent
> with modern physics. But YOU are too ignorant to realize when textbooks
> on subject A take shortcuts with unrelated subject B. And worse, you
> clearly do not understand the meanings of technical words, so you just
> make stuff up to conform to your pre-conceived notions -- HOPELESS.
> > No, we've found out why you and I can never agree. You are a
> > Quantum Mechanics mathematician,
> No, I am a PHYSICIST. Your use of "mathematician" as a pejorative term
> merely shows how shallow and ignorant you are.
> > I'm a Relativist and a follower of Albert Einstein.
> Then why do you repeatedly mis-state various principles and conclusions
> of relativity, grossly mis-quote Einstein, and interpret his words in
> radically INCORRECT ways? For instance:
> > Einstein's Second Postulate, which Einstein stated as: "light is
> > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
> That is NOT the second postulate of his 1905 paper, it is merely a
> descriptive statement FROM HIS INTRODUCTION. Here is the second
> postulate he actually uses in his discussion, from section I.2:
> 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
> co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the
> ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
> Note his ACTUAL postulate is much more rigorous than his introductory
> statement, which is necessary because his paper MATHEMATICALLY deduces
> the equations of SR. Note also that his "stationary system of
> coordinates" is described earlier to be what we today call an arbitrary
> inertial frame.
>
> Hint: the page of text before section I is an INTRODUCTION.
> Why do you think he started numbering sections with I?
>
> Here's another of your misunderstandings that you just made up to
> conform to your pre-conceived notions:
> > [...] the length of a second changes with velocity [...]
> It doesn't. The length of a second is ALWAYS 9,192,631,770 cycles of the
> hyperfine transition of the ground state of Cs-133. Of course the clock
> implementing that definition must be co-moving and co-located with the
> measurement (i.e. measure time intervals, not signals).
>
> Another example of things you just made up:
> > c atop a mountain is different from c at the bottom of a mountain due
> > to gravity also changing the length of a second.
> This is just plain not true. But you CLEARLY do not understand what
> "local" means in the context of GR. The duration of a second at the top
> is 9,192,631,770 cycles, and the duration of a second at the bottom is
> 9,192,631,770 cycles. There is a reason those two numbers are identical,
> and you CLEARLY do not understand it. How sad.
>
> You REALLY need to learn something about the subject before attempting
> to write about it.
>
> Tom Roberts

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

Mitchell Raemsch

On 6/18/2022 5:33 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 18 June 2022 at 21:38:19 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/18/2022 1:24 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 11:02:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>>>> That's standard physics and chemistry as taught in every university with
>>>>>> physics and chemistry courses.
>>>>>>> I use sources that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.
>>>>>> I learned similar science in university.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that's the problem. You learned "similar science." What I'm discovering
>>>>> is that it appears that every author of a physics textbook writes HIS or HER
>>>>> understanding of physics.
>>>> And you write here your own understanding of physics. Your understanding
>>>> is just your own opinion, and since you apparently don't have a good
>>>> physics education, your opinion isn't exactly worth much.
>>>
>>> I don't give opinions. I cite EXPERIMENTS which CONFIRM what I say.
>> No, you cite experiments which, in your opinion, confirm what you say.
>> Scientists disagree with those opinions.
>>> Quantum Mechanics mathematicians IGNORE EXPERIMENTS and just
>>> believe in math as if it is holy gospel and cannot be challenged. That's
>>> not an opinion. It's an observation.
>> No, like all true science, experimental data is used to support or
>> refute theories.
>
> Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsensical
> lie, stupid Mike.

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

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

It's a pity that you're so wrong about that. All the precise timekeeping
systems are based on or synchronized with TAI time, which is based on
multiple cesium clocks and their defined second of 9,192,631,770 cycles
of a certain Cs frequency.
>
>
>> Variable length seconds make as little sense as
>> variable length meters or variable mass kilograms.
>
> And that's why the "second" of your scientist is
> ignored, stupid Mike.

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

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 15:38:31 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 6/18/2022 5:33 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 18 June 2022 at 21:38:19 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >> On 6/18/2022 1:24 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 11:02:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >>>
> >>> (snip)
> >>>>>> That's standard physics and chemistry as taught in every university with
> >>>>>> physics and chemistry courses.
> >>>>>>> I use sources that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.
> >>>>>> I learned similar science in university.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah, that's the problem. You learned "similar science." What I'm discovering
> >>>>> is that it appears that every author of a physics textbook writes HIS or HER
> >>>>> understanding of physics.
> >>>> And you write here your own understanding of physics. Your understanding
> >>>> is just your own opinion, and since you apparently don't have a good
> >>>> physics education, your opinion isn't exactly worth much.
> >>>
> >>> I don't give opinions. I cite EXPERIMENTS which CONFIRM what I say.
> >> No, you cite experiments which, in your opinion, confirm what you say.
> >> Scientists disagree with those opinions.
> >>> Quantum Mechanics mathematicians IGNORE EXPERIMENTS and just
> >>> believe in math as if it is holy gospel and cannot be challenged. That's
> >>> not an opinion. It's an observation.
> >> No, like all true science, experimental data is used to support or
> >> refute theories.
> >
> > Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsensical
> > lie, stupid Mike.
> Sorry, but that's part of the scientific method. You have a hypothesis,
> you perform experiments which support or refute the hypothesis.
>
> If you don't even understand what science is, why are you even here?
> >
> >>>>> And it is rare to find two understandings that totally
> >
> >>>>> agree.
> >>>> However, the understandings of actual physicists agree on the speed of
> >>>> light.
> >>>
> >>> NONSENSE! They all agree that the speed of light is c, but they do not all
> >>> agree that c is VARIABLE because the LENGTH OF A SECOND is variable.
> >> It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
> >> scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
> >> frequency of a Cs atom.
> >
> > A pity that all serious timekeeping systems are ignoring this
> > ideological nonsense; isn't it, stupid Mike?
> It's a pity that you're so wrong about that. All the precise timekeeping
> systems are based on or synchronized with TAI time, which is based on
> multiple cesium clocks and their defined second of 9,192,631,770 cycles
> of a certain Cs frequency.

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

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

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

Demented Crank, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 15:38:31 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/18/2022 5:33 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 18 June 2022 at 21:38:19 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/2022 1:24 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 11:02:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>>> That's standard physics and chemistry as taught in every university with
>>>>>>>> physics and chemistry courses.
>>>>>>>>> I use sources that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.
>>>>>>>> I learned similar science in university.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, that's the problem. You learned "similar science." What I'm discovering
>>>>>>> is that it appears that every author of a physics textbook writes HIS or HER
>>>>>>> understanding of physics.
>>>>>> And you write here your own understanding of physics. Your understanding
>>>>>> is just your own opinion, and since you apparently don't have a good
>>>>>> physics education, your opinion isn't exactly worth much.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't give opinions. I cite EXPERIMENTS which CONFIRM what I say.
>>>> No, you cite experiments which, in your opinion, confirm what you say.
>>>> Scientists disagree with those opinions.
>>>>> Quantum Mechanics mathematicians IGNORE EXPERIMENTS and just
>>>>> believe in math as if it is holy gospel and cannot be challenged. That's
>>>>> not an opinion. It's an observation.
>>>> No, like all true science, experimental data is used to support or
>>>> refute theories.
>>>
>>> Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsensical
>>> lie, stupid Mike.
>> Sorry, but that's part of the scientific method. You have a hypothesis,
>> you perform experiments which support or refute the hypothesis.
>>
>> If you don't even understand what science is, why are you even here?
>>>
>>>>>>> And it is rare to find two understandings that totally
>>>
>>>>>>> agree.
>>>>>> However, the understandings of actual physicists agree on the speed of
>>>>>> light.
>>>>>
>>>>> NONSENSE! They all agree that the speed of light is c, but they do not all
>>>>> agree that c is VARIABLE because the LENGTH OF A SECOND is variable.
>>>> It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
>>>> scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
>>>> frequency of a Cs atom.
>>>
>>> A pity that all serious timekeeping systems are ignoring this
>>> ideological nonsense; isn't it, stupid Mike?
>> It's a pity that you're so wrong about that. All the precise timekeeping
>> systems are based on or synchronized with TAI time, which is based on
>> multiple cesium clocks and their defined second of 9,192,631,770 cycles
>> of a certain Cs frequency.
>
> Sorry, stupid Mike. TAI second is an average; you know what an
> average is, don't you? For some of these clocks a TAI second is
> longer, while for some other shorter than 9,192,631,770 periods.
>
>>> And that's why the "second" of your scientist is
>>> ignored, stupid Mike.
>> You must be talking to Ed Lake and his variable seconds. The official
>> second is defined by a certain Cs radiation frequency, which never changes.
>
> Sorry, stupid Mike; anyone can check GPS satellite, this frequency
> is 9,192,631,774 there. On Earth the differences are smaller, but -
> as told - for some TAI clocks the frequency is lower than 9,192,631,770
> while for others it is higher.

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

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 16:16:32 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Demented Crank, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 15:38:31 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >> On 6/18/2022 5:33 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 18 June 2022 at 21:38:19 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 6/18/2022 1:24 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 11:02:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (snip)
> >>>>>>>> That's standard physics and chemistry as taught in every university with
> >>>>>>>> physics and chemistry courses.
> >>>>>>>>> I use sources that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.
> >>>>>>>> I learned similar science in university.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yeah, that's the problem. You learned "similar science." What I'm discovering
> >>>>>>> is that it appears that every author of a physics textbook writes HIS or HER
> >>>>>>> understanding of physics.
> >>>>>> And you write here your own understanding of physics. Your understanding
> >>>>>> is just your own opinion, and since you apparently don't have a good
> >>>>>> physics education, your opinion isn't exactly worth much.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't give opinions. I cite EXPERIMENTS which CONFIRM what I say.
> >>>> No, you cite experiments which, in your opinion, confirm what you say.
> >>>> Scientists disagree with those opinions.
> >>>>> Quantum Mechanics mathematicians IGNORE EXPERIMENTS and just
> >>>>> believe in math as if it is holy gospel and cannot be challenged. That's
> >>>>> not an opinion. It's an observation.
> >>>> No, like all true science, experimental data is used to support or
> >>>> refute theories.
> >>>
> >>> Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsensical
> >>> lie, stupid Mike.
> >> Sorry, but that's part of the scientific method. You have a hypothesis,
> >> you perform experiments which support or refute the hypothesis.
> >>
> >> If you don't even understand what science is, why are you even here?
> >>>
> >>>>>>> And it is rare to find two understandings that totally
> >>>
> >>>>>>> agree.
> >>>>>> However, the understandings of actual physicists agree on the speed of
> >>>>>> light.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> NONSENSE! They all agree that the speed of light is c, but they do not all
> >>>>> agree that c is VARIABLE because the LENGTH OF A SECOND is variable.
> >>>> It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
> >>>> scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
> >>>> frequency of a Cs atom.
> >>>
> >>> A pity that all serious timekeeping systems are ignoring this
> >>> ideological nonsense; isn't it, stupid Mike?
> >> It's a pity that you're so wrong about that. All the precise timekeeping
> >> systems are based on or synchronized with TAI time, which is based on
> >> multiple cesium clocks and their defined second of 9,192,631,770 cycles
> >> of a certain Cs frequency.
> >
> > Sorry, stupid Mike. TAI second is an average; you know what an
> > average is, don't you? For some of these clocks a TAI second is
> > longer, while for some other shorter than 9,192,631,770 periods.
> >
> >>> And that's why the "second" of your scientist is
> >>> ignored, stupid Mike.
> >> You must be talking to Ed Lake and his variable seconds. The official
> >> second is defined by a certain Cs radiation frequency, which never changes.
> >
> > Sorry, stupid Mike; anyone can check GPS satellite, this frequency
> > is 9,192,631,774 there. On Earth the differences are smaller, but -
> > as told - for some TAI clocks the frequency is lower than 9,192,631,770
> > while for others it is higher.
> Maciej, would you bet your life on what an instrument measuring
> frequency in the close vicity of a GPS clock, at rest wrt to it,
> will measure?

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

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:22:15 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/17/22 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:41:07 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 6/17/22 9:28 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> I have SOURCES which say that atoms in a mirror DO absorb
> >>> photons.
> >> They are WRONG. I cannot help it if idiots and know-nothings
> >> outnumber knowledgeable people on the internet. Or that authors
> >> often LIE about details unrelated to their main topic, in order to
> >> avoid long-winded and complicated discussions peripheral to their
> >> topic.
> >
> > So, textbooks lie? What sources do you use then? Stuff you make
> > up?
> Of course not! I use BETTER TEXTBOOKS. So for discussions of QED I use
> textbooks about QED, not gravitation. But for discussions of light
> reflecting from a mirror, one needs a textbook on solid-state physics,
> in which the band structure of metals is discussed.
>
> Hint: there is a reason why good mirrors are polished
> metallic surfaces. The same analysis explains why polished
> glass and still water can form poor, partial mirrors.
> > Ah! Quantum Mechanics! You should have mentioned that you are a
> > Quantum Mechanics mathematician. That answers everything! It
> > explains why you DISAGREE WITH TEXTBOOKS that explain science and
> > Relativity.
> You are crazy. Everything I have said around here is 100% consistent
> with modern physics. But YOU are too ignorant to realize when textbooks
> on subject A take shortcuts with unrelated subject B. And worse, you
> clearly do not understand the meanings of technical words, so you just
> make stuff up to conform to your pre-conceived notions -- HOPELESS.
> > No, we've found out why you and I can never agree. You are a
> > Quantum Mechanics mathematician,
> No, I am a PHYSICIST. Your use of "mathematician" as a pejorative term
> merely shows how shallow and ignorant you are.
> > I'm a Relativist and a follower of Albert Einstein.
> Then why do you repeatedly mis-state various principles and conclusions
> of relativity, grossly mis-quote Einstein, and interpret his words in
> radically INCORRECT ways? For instance:
> > Einstein's Second Postulate, which Einstein stated as: "light is
> > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
> That is NOT the second postulate of his 1905 paper, it is merely a
> descriptive statement FROM HIS INTRODUCTION.

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

--------- start quote ---------
as has
already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the
equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport
of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status
of a POSTULATE, and also introduce ANOTHER POSTULATE, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body. These two POSTULATES suffice for the attainment of a simple and
consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s
theory for stationary bodies.
------- end quote ------------

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

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

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

Before writing those words Einstein wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's another one of YOUR misunderstandings. While the length of a SECOND
is ALWAYS 9,192,631,770 cycles of the hyperfine transition of the ground
state of Cs-133, the length of a second is atop a mountain is SHORTER than
the length of a second at the bottom of a mountain. Why? Because the clock's
"9,192,631,770 cycles of the hyperfine transition of the ground state of Cs-133"
occur in a SHORTER amount of time at the top of the mountain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ed

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

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

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

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

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

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 16:16:32 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Demented Crank, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 15:38:31 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/2022 5:33 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 18 June 2022 at 21:38:19 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/18/2022 1:24 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 11:02:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>>>>> That's standard physics and chemistry as taught in every university with
>>>>>>>>>> physics and chemistry courses.
>>>>>>>>>>> I use sources that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.
>>>>>>>>>> I learned similar science in university.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that's the problem. You learned "similar science." What I'm discovering
>>>>>>>>> is that it appears that every author of a physics textbook writes HIS or HER
>>>>>>>>> understanding of physics.
>>>>>>>> And you write here your own understanding of physics. Your understanding
>>>>>>>> is just your own opinion, and since you apparently don't have a good
>>>>>>>> physics education, your opinion isn't exactly worth much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't give opinions. I cite EXPERIMENTS which CONFIRM what I say.
>>>>>> No, you cite experiments which, in your opinion, confirm what you say.
>>>>>> Scientists disagree with those opinions.
>>>>>>> Quantum Mechanics mathematicians IGNORE EXPERIMENTS and just
>>>>>>> believe in math as if it is holy gospel and cannot be challenged. That's
>>>>>>> not an opinion. It's an observation.
>>>>>> No, like all true science, experimental data is used to support or
>>>>>> refute theories.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsensical
>>>>> lie, stupid Mike.
>>>> Sorry, but that's part of the scientific method. You have a hypothesis,
>>>> you perform experiments which support or refute the hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't even understand what science is, why are you even here?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And it is rare to find two understandings that totally
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> agree.
>>>>>>>> However, the understandings of actual physicists agree on the speed of
>>>>>>>> light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NONSENSE! They all agree that the speed of light is c, but they do not all
>>>>>>> agree that c is VARIABLE because the LENGTH OF A SECOND is variable.
>>>>>> It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
>>>>>> scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
>>>>>> frequency of a Cs atom.
>>>>>
>>>>> A pity that all serious timekeeping systems are ignoring this
>>>>> ideological nonsense; isn't it, stupid Mike?
>>>> It's a pity that you're so wrong about that. All the precise timekeeping
>>>> systems are based on or synchronized with TAI time, which is based on
>>>> multiple cesium clocks and their defined second of 9,192,631,770 cycles
>>>> of a certain Cs frequency.
>>>
>>> Sorry, stupid Mike. TAI second is an average; you know what an
>>> average is, don't you? For some of these clocks a TAI second is
>>> longer, while for some other shorter than 9,192,631,770 periods.
>>>
>>>>> And that's why the "second" of your scientist is
>>>>> ignored, stupid Mike.
>>>> You must be talking to Ed Lake and his variable seconds. The official
>>>> second is defined by a certain Cs radiation frequency, which never changes.
>>>
>>> Sorry, stupid Mike; anyone can check GPS satellite, this frequency
>>> is 9,192,631,774 there. On Earth the differences are smaller, but -
>>> as told - for some TAI clocks the frequency is lower than 9,192,631,770
>>> while for others it is higher.
>> Maciej, would you bet your life on what an instrument measuring
>> frequency in the close vicity of a GPS clock, at rest wrt to it,
>> will measure?
>
> Well, [nothing]

Yes or No, Maciej?

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 11:15:45 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El martes, 21 de junio de 2022 a las 11:48:54 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:22:15 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> > The noun "postulate" is defined as "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the
> > basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief."
> >
> > In the introduction Einstein states those TWO POSTULATES which are to be assumed
> > to be true for the discussion in the rest of the paper. He never again uses the word
> > "postulate."
> > > Here is the second
> > > postulate he actually uses in his discussion, from section I.2:
> > > 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
> > > co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the
> > > ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
> > Before writing those words Einstein wrote:
> >
> > "The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
> > principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
> > as follows"
> >
> The word "reflexions" there refers to the whole mathematical derivations of sections 3 to 10 of the paper. Those mathematical derivations ARE based on the two principles which are precisely DEFINED, in section 2, "as follows:".
> > So, what you FALSELY CLAIM to be his second postulate is merely a
> > "reflexion" or "principle" he creates for purposes of explaining some DETAILS
> > about his theory.
> You do not understand English!!! The word "reflexions" has nothing to do with the word "principle". Note also that in the introduction Einstein explicitly wrote: "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)", clearly stating the in the rest of the paper he will use the word "principle" instead of "postulate".

You CLEARLY do not understand English.

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

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

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

Ed

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

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

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

> Einstein STATES that it is his second postulate. Here is what Einstein wrote:
>
> --------- start quote ---------
> as has
> already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
> electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference
> for which the
> equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the

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

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

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

> apparently
> irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated
> in empty
> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of
> motion of the
> emitting body. These two POSTULATES suffice for the attainment of a simple and
> consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s
> theory for stationary bodies.
> ------- end quote ------------

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

Mikko

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

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

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

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

> You CLEARLY do not understand English.

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

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

"1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body."

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

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

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

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