When I try to find scientific experiments that confirm Einstein's hypothesis of the speed of light, I only can find experiments that "affirm the consequent" which in logic class we learn that they cannot be used to affirm a hypothesis. Why haven't (or have they) done a simple experiment that verifies Einstein's speed of light hypothesis?
A very simple experiment is to have two sources traveling pass each other with a relative velocity. As they pass each other, each source sends out an electromagnetic signal, say to the Mars explorer. If each pulse is received simultaneously by the Mars explorer than that confirms Einstein's hypothesis. If the two pulses aren't received simultaneously, then the speed of light hypothesis is invalid.
Have scientists done this simple experiment?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 9:21:08 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> When I try to find scientific experiments that confirm Einstein's hypothesis of the speed of light, I only can find experiments that "affirm the consequent" which in logic class we learn that they cannot be used to affirm a hypothesis. Why haven't (or have they) done a simple experiment that verifies Einstein's speed of light hypothesis?
> A very simple experiment is to have two sources traveling pass each other with a relative velocity. As they pass each other, each source sends out an electromagnetic signal, say to the Mars explorer. If each pulse is received simultaneously by the Mars explorer than that confirms Einstein's hypothesis. If the two pulses aren't received simultaneously, then the speed of light hypothesis is invalid.
> Have scientists done this simple experiment?
> David Seppala
> Bastrop TX

You don't realise how vast and interconnected physics is.

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 9:21:08 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > When I try to find scientific experiments that confirm Einstein's hypothesis of the speed of light, I only can find experiments that "affirm the consequent" which in logic class we learn that they cannot be used to affirm a hypothesis. Why haven't (or have they) done a simple experiment that verifies Einstein's speed of light hypothesis?
> > A very simple experiment is to have two sources traveling pass each other with a relative velocity. As they pass each other, each source sends out an electromagnetic signal, say to the Mars explorer. If each pulse is received simultaneously by the Mars explorer than that confirms Einstein's hypothesis. If the two pulses aren't received simultaneously, then the speed of light hypothesis is invalid.
> > Have scientists done this simple experiment?
> > David Seppala
> > Bastrop TX
>
> You don't realise how vast and interconnected physics is.
>
> --
> Jan

How is it possible to be vast (boundless) and interconnected (linked)?

boundless and linked???? dat no make no no sensey

How do you link dat which is boundless?

dat no make no sensey

but, dats a pattern wit you...you seem to be the only one in the world dat understands you.

your mirror looks confused when you talk.

have you notice your friends suffer from rolling eyes everytime you talkie?

"oh, oh, jan is at it again..."

"What did jan say now?"
"I DON'T KNOW WAT DA FUCK JAN IS TALKING ABOUT!!!!"
"What did jan say?"
"I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WAT DA FUCK JAN IS TALKING ABOUT!!!!"!!!!"

You don't realise how vast and interconnected physics is.

"WHAT DOES THAT MEAN???

"I DON'T KNOW WAT DA FUCK JAN IS TALKING ABOUT!!!!"

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

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 10:43:41 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 9:21:08 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > When I try to find scientific experiments that confirm Einstein's hypothesis of the speed of light, I only can find experiments that "affirm the consequent" which in logic class we learn that they cannot be used to affirm a hypothesis. Why haven't (or have they) done a simple experiment that verifies Einstein's speed of light hypothesis?
> > A very simple experiment is to have two sources traveling pass each other with a relative velocity. As they pass each other, each source sends out an electromagnetic signal, say to the Mars explorer. If each pulse is received simultaneously by the Mars explorer than that confirms Einstein's hypothesis. If the two pulses aren't received simultaneously, then the speed of light hypothesis is invalid.
> > Have scientists done this simple experiment?
> > David Seppala
> > Bastrop TX
> You don't realise how vast and interconnected physics is.
>
> --
> Jan

You are a delusional woman jan...
Where has science completed?
It looks like only your ego has.
Tell us about it...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 9:21:08 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Have they done a simple experiment that verifies Einstein's speed of light hypothesis?

Sure, the fact that light propagates in vacuum at the fixed speed c in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates has been demonstrated and observed many times, both in terrestrial lab experiments and in astronomical observations. For example, the coordinates arrival of light from the components of binary star systems (in the x-ray range if you insist to rule out extinction) show this clearly, and in terrestrial labs there are demonstrations like those of Alvager, demonstrating that light from a given location arrives at the receiver at the same time, whether emitted by pions moving toward or away from the receiver. (The Ives-Stillwell apparatus accomplishes similar by examining direct and reflected light from rapidly moving sources.)

More fundamentally, experiments have shown that applying a constant force to a material particle doesn't accelerate its speed indefinitely, it asymptotically approaches the speed c, and that all energy E has inertia of E/c^2, which shows that c is not just related to electromagnetic radiation, it determines the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems... which of course preserve c.

On 10/25/22 11:21 AM, sepp623@yahoo.com wrote:
> When I try to find scientific experiments that confirm Einstein's
> hypothesis of the speed of light, I only can find experiments that
> "affirm the consequent" which in logic class we learn that they
> cannot be used to affirm a hypothesis.

Clearly you do not know how to look. Look here:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests

> Why haven't (or have they) done a simple experiment that verifies
> Einstein's speed of light hypothesis?

There are LOTS of them. YOU just don't know how to find them.

> A very simple experiment [...]

Hopeless -- your "simple experiment" is just a fantasy, a toy, as it is
not possible to reduce systematic errors enough to yield a useful
result. But look at the reference above for "Observations of Supernovae"
-- sources of light are traveling in all directions away from the
supernova, with speeds an appreciable fraction of c, yet their light
arrives at earth simultaneously.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 7:15:22 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/25/22 11:21 AM, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > When I try to find scientific experiments that confirm Einstein's
> > hypothesis of the speed of light, I only can find experiments that
> > "affirm the consequent" which in logic class we learn that they
> > cannot be used to affirm a hypothesis.
> Clearly you do not know how to look. Look here:
> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests
> > Why haven't (or have they) done a simple experiment that verifies
> > Einstein's speed of light hypothesis?
> There are LOTS of them. YOU just don't know how to find them.
>
> > A very simple experiment [...]
>
> Hopeless -- your "simple experiment" is just a fantasy, a toy, as it is
> not possible to reduce systematic errors enough to yield a useful
> result. But look at the reference above for "Observations of Supernovae"
> -- sources of light are traveling in all directions away from the
> supernova, with speeds an appreciable fraction of c, yet their light
> arrives at earth simultaneously.
>
> Tom Roberts

Besides, one would properly ask "why hasn't Einstein's hypothesis not
been experimentally falsified".

On Wednesday, 26 October 2022 at 04:25:38 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 7:15:22 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 10/25/22 11:21 AM, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > When I try to find scientific experiments that confirm Einstein's
> > > hypothesis of the speed of light, I only can find experiments that
> > > "affirm the consequent" which in logic class we learn that they
> > > cannot be used to affirm a hypothesis.
> > Clearly you do not know how to look. Look here:
> > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests
> > > Why haven't (or have they) done a simple experiment that verifies
> > > Einstein's speed of light hypothesis?
> > There are LOTS of them. YOU just don't know how to find them.
> >
> > > A very simple experiment [...]
> >
> > Hopeless -- your "simple experiment" is just a fantasy, a toy, as it is
> > not possible to reduce systematic errors enough to yield a useful
> > result. But look at the reference above for "Observations of Supernovae"
> > -- sources of light are traveling in all directions away from the
> > supernova, with speeds an appreciable fraction of c, yet their light
> > arrives at earth simultaneously.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> Besides, one would properly ask "why hasn't Einstein's hypothesis not
> been experimentally falsified".

Because your falsification nonsense never worked.
See: in the real world real clocks measure t'=t, but
that bothers no way you or any other relativistic
moron.

On October 25, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> When I try to find scientific experiments that confirm Einstein's
>> hypothesis of the speed of light, I only can find experiments that
>> "affirm the consequent" which in logic class we learn that they
>> cannot be used to affirm a hypothesis.
>
> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests
>
> -- your "simple experiment" is just a fantasy, a toy, as it is
> not possible to reduce systematic errors enough to yield a useful
> result.

Let's see... we wish to test the hypothesis that light speed = c + kv,
from a moving source. Assume k = 1, simplest.

Two jets pass in opposite directions, at relative speed v = Mach 3,
1000 m/sec. They emit pulses at the moment they intersect.
Then v/c ~ 1/(10^6), which would be the fractional time difference,
at the Mars receiver.

Timing instruments can measure with such resolution. Such an
experiment might be worthwhile... how much does it cost to lease
a supersonic jet?

> But look at the reference above for "Observations of Supernovae"
> -- sources of light are traveling in all directions away from the
> supernova, with speeds an appreciable fraction of c, yet their light
> arrives at earth simultaneously.

"speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of spectral lines)"

Doppler effect analysis proceeds on the assumption that light speed
is independent of the source.

It's remarkable how often professional scientists commit
this fallacy of petitio principii.

--
Rich

On 10/26/22 1:14 PM, RichD wrote:
> On October 25, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> your "simple experiment" is just a fantasy, a toy, as it is
>> not possible to reduce systematic errors enough to yield a useful
>> result.
>
> Let's see... [...]

You imagine a receiver on Mars???!!! The cost of renting two jets is
completely negligible compared to that. Moreover, doing the experiment
in air means that optical extinction will make any result useless.

You're just making stuff up, without considering how to actually
implement it, and without knowing all of the relevant physics.

>> But look at the reference above for "Observations of Supernovae"
>> -- sources of light are traveling in all directions away from the
>> supernova, with speeds an appreciable fraction of c, yet their light
>> arrives at earth simultaneously.
>
> "speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of spectral lines)"
>
> Doppler effect analysis proceeds on the assumption that light speed
> is independent of the source.

Who said anything about "Doppler effect analysis"? -- only YOU did. The
rest of us know how Doppler works from the many EXPERIMENTS that have
been performed.

Hint: such experimental measurements require no assumption
about the speed of light.

The speed of supernova debris is also known from direct observation of
nearby supernovae.

> It's remarkable how often professional scientists commit
> this fallacy of petitio principii.

No. It's remarkable how silly you are when you just make stuff up
without knowing the underlying physics.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 7:23:43 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/26/22 1:14 PM, RichD wrote:
> > On October 25, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> your "simple experiment" is just a fantasy, a toy, as it is
> >> not possible to reduce systematic errors enough to yield a useful
> >> result.
> >
> > Let's see... [...]
>
> You imagine a receiver on Mars???!!! The cost of renting two jets is
> completely negligible compared to that. Moreover, doing the experiment
> in air means that optical extinction will make any result useless.
>
> You're just making stuff up, without considering how to actually
> implement it, and without knowing all of the relevant physics.
> >> But look at the reference above for "Observations of Supernovae"
> >> -- sources of light are traveling in all directions away from the
> >> supernova, with speeds an appreciable fraction of c, yet their light
> >> arrives at earth simultaneously.
> >
> > "speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of spectral lines)"
> >
> > Doppler effect analysis proceeds on the assumption that light speed
> > is independent of the source.
> Who said anything about "Doppler effect analysis"? -- only YOU did. The
> rest of us know how Doppler works from the many EXPERIMENTS that have
> been performed.
>
> Hint: such experimental measurements require no assumption
> about the speed of light.
>
> The speed of supernova debris is also known from direct observation of
> nearby supernovae.
> > It's remarkable how often professional scientists commit
> > this fallacy of petitio principii.
> No. It's remarkable how silly you are when you just make stuff up
> without knowing the underlying physics.
>
> Tom Roberts

Would you tell us some more about optical extinction?

Also can you explain, "peripheral parallax"?

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 7:23:43 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 10/26/22 1:14 PM, RichD wrote:
> > > On October 25, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >> your "simple experiment" is just a fantasy, a toy, as it is
> > >> not possible to reduce systematic errors enough to yield a useful
> > >> result.
> > >
> > > Let's see... [...]
> >
> > You imagine a receiver on Mars???!!! The cost of renting two jets is
> > completely negligible compared to that. Moreover, doing the experiment
> > in air means that optical extinction will make any result useless.
> >
> > You're just making stuff up, without considering how to actually
> > implement it, and without knowing all of the relevant physics.
> > >> But look at the reference above for "Observations of Supernovae"
> > >> -- sources of light are traveling in all directions away from the
> > >> supernova, with speeds an appreciable fraction of c, yet their light
> > >> arrives at earth simultaneously.
> > >
> > > "speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of
> > > spectral lines)"
> > >
> > > Doppler effect analysis proceeds on the assumption that light speed
> > > is independent of the source.
> > Who said anything about "Doppler effect analysis"? -- only YOU did. The
> > rest of us know how Doppler works from the many EXPERIMENTS that have
> > been performed.
> >
> > Hint: such experimental measurements require no assumption
> > about the speed of light.
> >
> > The speed of supernova debris is also known from direct observation of
> > nearby supernovae.
> > > It's remarkable how often professional scientists commit
> > > this fallacy of petitio principii.
> > No. It's remarkable how silly you are when you just make stuff up
> > without knowing the underlying physics.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
>
> Would you tell us some more about optical extinction?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald–Oseen_extinction_theorem>

Jan

On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 8:55:35 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 7:23:43 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 10/26/22 1:14 PM, RichD wrote:
> > > > On October 25, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > >> your "simple experiment" is just a fantasy, a toy, as it is
> > > >> not possible to reduce systematic errors enough to yield a useful
> > > >> result.
> > > >
> > > > Let's see... [...]
> > >
> > > You imagine a receiver on Mars???!!! The cost of renting two jets is
> > > completely negligible compared to that. Moreover, doing the experiment
> > > in air means that optical extinction will make any result useless.
> > >
> > > You're just making stuff up, without considering how to actually
> > > implement it, and without knowing all of the relevant physics.
> > > >> But look at the reference above for "Observations of Supernovae"
> > > >> -- sources of light are traveling in all directions away from the
> > > >> supernova, with speeds an appreciable fraction of c, yet their light
> > > >> arrives at earth simultaneously.
> > > >
> > > > "speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of
> > > > spectral lines)"
> > > >
> > > > Doppler effect analysis proceeds on the assumption that light speed
> > > > is independent of the source.
> > > Who said anything about "Doppler effect analysis"? -- only YOU did. The
> > > rest of us know how Doppler works from the many EXPERIMENTS that have
> > > been performed.
> > >
> > > Hint: such experimental measurements require no assumption
> > > about the speed of light.
> > >
> > > The speed of supernova debris is also known from direct observation of
> > > nearby supernovae.
> > > > It's remarkable how often professional scientists commit
> > > > this fallacy of petitio principii.
> > > No. It's remarkable how silly you are when you just make stuff up
> > > without knowing the underlying physics.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> >
> > Would you tell us some more about optical extinction?
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald–Oseen_extinction_theorem>
>
> Jan

If your universe dies jan? Does your multiverse?

Mitchell Raemsch

On October 26, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> your "simple experiment" is just a fantasy, a toy, as it is
>>> not possible to reduce systematic errors enough to yield a useful
>>> result.
>
> > Let's see... [...]
>
> You imagine a receiver on Mars???!!!

NASA sends a probe to Mars every 5 years, with multiple communication
channels. It would be easy to multitask one of them for this experiment.

> Moreover, doing the experiment
> in air means that optical extinction will make any result useless.

That's a problem.

There are thousands of satellites in orbit. How hard would it be, to
program a pair to send synchronized pulses into space? Their antennas
are optimized for earth transmission, so maybe expensive to add another.
>>> But look at the reference above for "Observations of Supernovae"
>>> -- sources of light are traveling in all directions away from the
>>> supernova, with speeds an appreciable fraction of c, yet their light
> >> arrives at earth simultaneously.
>
>> "speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of spectral lines)"
>> Doppler effect analysis proceeds on the assumption that light speed
>> is independent of the source.
>
> Who said anything about "Doppler effect analysis"? -- only YOU did. The
> rest of us know how Doppler works from the many EXPERIMENTS that have
> been performed.
> Hint: such experimental measurements require no assumption
> about the speed of light.

You misunderstand the scientific method. Experiments are
experiments, data is data, those are never wrong. The question,
always, is how to interpret the data.

We start with a model, which proposes assumptions, conditions,
and mathematical relationships among measurable variables.
If its predictions are accurate, we say the model is consistent with results.

If the assumptions cannot be independently verified, we qualify
our inferences accordingly, and cannot draw any conclusions
regarding those assumptions.

The Doppler model ASSUMES that light speed is independent of
emitter. It then relates emitter velocities and observed spectra,
which are measured... LIGHT SPEED IS NOT MEASURED! Nor can
any definite statement be made. Any such attempt constitutes circular
reasoning. We can only say that constant c is consistent with observations.

Your invocation of shifted spectra of supernova debris, as evidence
that c is independent of source, is such an example.

Note how circular this is: we know(?) the source velocities because
we observe the Doppler spread, which depends on the assumption of
constant c... which then tells us that c is constant.

(one wonders if "Doppler broadening", above, is likewise circular)

>> It's remarkable how often professional scientists commit
>> this fallacy of petitio principii.
>
> No. It's remarkable how silly you are when you just make stuff up
> without knowing the underlying physics.

It's remarkable how often professional scientists commit petitio
principii, and continue to do so, after it's pointed out.

--
Rich

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 2:09:48 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 9:21:08 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Have they done a simple experiment that verifies Einstein's speed of light hypothesis?
>
> Sure, the fact that light propagates in vacuum at the fixed speed c in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates has been demonstrated and observed many times, both in terrestrial lab experiments and in astronomical observations. For example, the coordinates arrival of light from the components of binary star systems (in the x-ray range if you insist to rule out extinction) show this clearly, and in terrestrial labs there are demonstrations like those of Alvager, demonstrating that light from a given location arrives at the receiver at the same time, whether emitted by pions moving toward or away from the receiver. (The Ives-Stillwell apparatus accomplishes similar by examining direct and reflected light from rapidly moving sources.)

Observations of distant binary stars include an implicit hypothesis that light pulses traveling through space have no effect on light pulses that they pass. For example, if the binary stars emitted particles, and the particles were observed here on earth to be traveling at the same speed, physicists would say as each particle passed a slower particle gravity would cause the slower particle to speed up and the faster particle to slow down. After traveling a very long distance it would be difficult to determine the particles initial speed when it was emitted. How have physicists shown that light pulses have zero effect on other light pulses?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX
>
> More fundamentally, experiments have shown that applying a constant force to a material particle doesn't accelerate its speed indefinitely, it asymptotically approaches the speed c, and that all energy E has inertia of E/c^2, which shows that c is not just related to electromagnetic radiation, it determines the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems... which of course preserve c.

On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 8:25:29 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Have they done a simple experiment that verifies Einstein's speed of light hypothesis?
> >
> > For example, the coordinated arrival of light from the components of binary star systems
> > (in the x-ray range if you insist to rule out extinction) show this clearly...
>
> How have physicists shown that light pulses have zero effect on other light pulses?

Well, classical electromagnetism (fantastically successful empirically) is entirely linear, in the sense that superimposing one pulse of electromagnetic radiation on top of another doesn't upset either of them, we simply have the sum of the two individual streams. This sort of thing has been examined very closely, to see if passing one pulse of light through another has any effect, and it doesn't. That is why electromagnetic waves can be so accurately modeled by Maxwell's equations, which are linear. Now, in quantum electrodynamics the situation is more complicated, but the light propagating through space from distant stars is not in the regime where quantum effects would apply. Of course, what you are describing is a variant on the usual "extinction" argument, by which the light would quickly reach speed c relative to the interstellar gas, but each of those objections (extinction and quantum effects) can be made arbitrarily small by observing in the x-ray range of the spectrum.

Also, in terrestrial labs there are demonstrations like those of Alvager, demonstrating that light from a given location arrives at the receiver at the same time, whether emitted by pions moving toward or away from the receiver. The Ives-Stillwell apparatus similarly examined this using reflection to compare arrival times from sources moving toward or away.

More fundamentally, experiments have shown that applying a constant force to a material particle doesn't result in constant acceleration, the object asymptotically approaches the speed c, and that all energy E has inertia of E/c^2, which shows that c is not just related to electromagnetic radiation, it determines the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems... which of course preserve c.

On 10/26/22 10:00 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Would you tell us some more about optical extinction?

When a light ray transitions from one optical medium to another, the
index of refraction changes abruptly at the boundary. But it takes a
finite distance before the light is traveling relative to the medium
with the speed appropriate for the new index. In the Ewald-Oseen
extinction theorem [#] this is modeled as a new wave replacing the
original (incident) wave over a distance from the boundary called the
"extinction length". The extinction length depends strongly on the
optical properties of the material, and on the wavelength of the light.
For visible light in air at STP the extinction length is about 1 mm; for
visible light in glass it is less than a micron; for visible light in
the interstellar medium is is several lightyears; for X-rays in the
intergalactic medium it is millions of lightyears.

Note: astronomers discuss an unrelated type of optical extinction: the
absorption and scattering of light in the atmosphere, which makes images
of astronomical objects be dimmer at sea level than at high altitude.

[#] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald%E2%80%93Oseen_extinction_theorem

Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Note: astronomers discuss an unrelated type of optical extinction: the
^ also
> absorption and scattering of light in the atmosphere, which makes images
> of astronomical objects be dimmer at sea level than at high altitude.
>
> [#] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald%E2%80%93Oseen_extinction_theorem

Not only that; astronomical extinction e.g. by interstellar gas is
fundamental to astronomical distance measurement and thereby cosmology.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(astronomy)>

PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:19:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > Note: astronomers discuss an unrelated type of optical extinction: the
> ^ also
> > absorption and scattering of light in the atmosphere, which makes images
> > of astronomical objects be dimmer at sea level than at high altitude.
> >
> > [#] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald%E2%80%93Oseen_extinction_theorem
> Not only that; astronomical extinction e.g. by interstellar gas is
> fundamental to astronomical distance measurement and thereby cosmology.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(astronomy)>
>
>
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
> A: To a prism.
>
> (from: WolframAlpha)

Hmm... (strokes stubble).

I just read Walter Sullivan's "We are not alone", and Freeman Dyson's
"Infinite in all Directions", Sullivan goes to a lot of effort to explain
what kinds of signal optically might be expected to traverse stellar distances.

Here though I'm still wondering about the Batavia-Baikal neutrinophone.
(Also where I can find round monitors, ....) ... That it picks up immediately.

Here this "peripheral parallax" notion is probably for a usual crossing beams
setup and the interferometer, where the one signal is split and the other reflected.
But, it is underdefined and doesn't much detail "ultraviolet catastrophe".
Pretty much though it means "peripheral parallax".

The attenuation and dissipation is really quite a thing, to the noise flor
as it were,

Spectrometry and the ultraviolet catasrophe, I think it's well understood
that spectrometry enabled pretty much all modern astronomy, still though
after laser and the monochromatic, is for pump and rays.

Or ..., what are beams, again?

I'm thinking of that gapping you describe as mostly like "virtual particles'
continuous space's rays", wondering the real interpretation, and, why it
would in effect describe a, "restless", universe.

Thank you

On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:35:07 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:19:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > Note: astronomers discuss an unrelated type of optical extinction: the
> > ^ also
> > > absorption and scattering of light in the atmosphere, which makes images
> > > of astronomical objects be dimmer at sea level than at high altitude.
> > >
> > > [#] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald%E2%80%93Oseen_extinction_theorem
> > Not only that; astronomical extinction e.g. by interstellar gas is
> > fundamental to astronomical distance measurement and thereby cosmology.
> >
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(astronomy)>
> >
> >
> > PointedEars
> > --
> > Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
> > A: To a prism.
> >
> > (from: WolframAlpha)
> Hmm... (strokes stubble).
>
> I just read Walter Sullivan's "We are not alone", and Freeman Dyson's
> "Infinite in all Directions", Sullivan goes to a lot of effort to explain
> what kinds of signal optically might be expected to traverse stellar distances.
>
> Here though I'm still wondering about the Batavia-Baikal neutrinophone.
> (Also where I can find round monitors, ....) ... That it picks up immediately.
>
> Here this "peripheral parallax" notion is probably for a usual crossing beams
> setup and the interferometer, where the one signal is split and the other reflected.
> But, it is underdefined and doesn't much detail "ultraviolet catastrophe".
> Pretty much though it means "peripheral parallax".
>
> The attenuation and dissipation is really quite a thing, to the noise flor
> as it were,
>
> Spectrometry and the ultraviolet catasrophe, I think it's well understood
> that spectrometry enabled pretty much all modern astronomy, still though
> after laser and the monochromatic, is for pump and rays.
>
> Or ..., what are beams, again?
>
> I'm thinking of that gapping you describe as mostly like "virtual particles'
> continuous space's rays", wondering the real interpretation, and, why it
> would in effect describe a, "restless", universe.
>
> Thank you

(Euh, what are beams again?)

Dr. Roberts introduced an under-defined term "beam", with respect
to descriptively, what results wavepackets and photons what with
respect to both, the optical in electromagnetic radiation, and, as rays,
and, in terms of plasma.

So I'm not sure how he'd care to describe or define them, here that
Dr. Roberts I'm interested your opinion.

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 9:50:33 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:35:07 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 5:19:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > > Note: astronomers discuss an unrelated type of optical extinction: the
> > > ^ also
> > > > absorption and scattering of light in the atmosphere, which makes images
> > > > of astronomical objects be dimmer at sea level than at high altitude.
> > > >
> > > > [#] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald%E2%80%93Oseen_extinction_theorem
> > > Not only that; astronomical extinction e.g. by interstellar gas is
> > > fundamental to astronomical distance measurement and thereby cosmology.
> > >
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(astronomy)>
> > >
> > >
> > > PointedEars
> > > --
> > > Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
> > > A: To a prism.
> > >
> > > (from: WolframAlpha)
> > Hmm... (strokes stubble).
> >
> > I just read Walter Sullivan's "We are not alone", and Freeman Dyson's
> > "Infinite in all Directions", Sullivan goes to a lot of effort to explain
> > what kinds of signal optically might be expected to traverse stellar distances.
> >
> > Here though I'm still wondering about the Batavia-Baikal neutrinophone.
> > (Also where I can find round monitors, ....) ... That it picks up immediately.
> >
> > Here this "peripheral parallax" notion is probably for a usual crossing beams
> > setup and the interferometer, where the one signal is split and the other reflected.
> > But, it is underdefined and doesn't much detail "ultraviolet catastrophe".
> > Pretty much though it means "peripheral parallax".
> >
> > The attenuation and dissipation is really quite a thing, to the noise flor
> > as it were,
> >
> > Spectrometry and the ultraviolet catasrophe, I think it's well understood
> > that spectrometry enabled pretty much all modern astronomy, still though
> > after laser and the monochromatic, is for pump and rays.
> >
> > Or ..., what are beams, again?
> >
> > I'm thinking of that gapping you describe as mostly like "virtual particles'
> > continuous space's rays", wondering the real interpretation, and, why it
> > would in effect describe a, "restless", universe.
> >
> > Thank you
> (Euh, what are beams again?)
>
> Dr. Roberts introduced an under-defined term "beam", with respect
> to descriptively, what results wavepackets and photons what with
> respect to both, the optical in electromagnetic radiation, and, as rays,
> and, in terms of plasma.
>
> So I'm not sure how he'd care to describe or define them, here that
> Dr. Roberts I'm interested your opinion.

Beams have polarity?
Beams have polarity and phase?

Please describe:
phase inverter
Maugins' monomode process
Maugin's continuum mechanics

Gyroscopes are a really important factor in resistance to angular rotation,
these days I wonder what it's so simple that MEMS block gyroscope can
basically make a Weeble, that, always lands on its feet.

One of the earliest uses of video (or stop-frame animation) was to
determine how a falling cat, lands on its feet. That and the travel of horses.