/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13926572

2MiB, 3801x4791, portrait-of-albert-einstein-114339176-58b9ce465f9b58af5ca7ee83.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 10:44:07 2021 No.13926572 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13927021 >>13927494 >>13928002 >>13928758

Where is the evidence that the speed of light is constant across frames of reference?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 14:53:48 No.13927005 Report

Quoted By: >>13927033

There is none

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 15:03:30 No.13927021 Report

Quoted By:

>>13926572
Light doesnt prosper / occupy space by speed but by its own size and force.
Everton e knows this shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 15:07:19 No.13927028 Report

Quoted By:

Even if we posted proof you wouldn't believe it so why even ask?
.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 15:07:49 No.13927029 Report

Quoted By: >>13927035

Light dimmer determines light speed

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmer

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 15:08:32 No.13927030 Report

Quoted By:

inb4 someone says michelson-moorly

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 15:09:48 No.13927032 Report

Quoted By:

"God said let there be light, and there was light"

Genesis 1:3

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 15:10:02 No.13927033 Report

Quoted By:

>>13927005
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 15:10:52 No.13927035 Report

Quoted By:

>>13927029
Have a (You)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 15:20:40 No.13927062 Report

Quoted By: >>13927258

$\mu_0 \epsilon_0 c^2 = 1$

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 16:29:25 No.13927258 Report

Quoted By: >>13927479

>>13927062
this is maxwells result in the rest frame. do a derivation with moving frames.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 17:50:25 No.13927479 Report

Quoted By: >>13927497

>>13927258
in the derivation there are no frames involved, the speed calculated is irrelevant of the frame. that's the point

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 17:53:23 No.13927494 Report

Quoted By: >>13927522 >>13928822

>>13926572
we actually have proof of the opposite. It moves slower through glass

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 17:54:28 No.13927497 Report

Quoted By: >>13927920

>>13927479
>in the derivation there are no frames involved
thats what I fucking said. Now do the derivation for moving frames and it'll be relevant to the thread. And, no, in EM velocity is not irrelevant. A stationary charge is a stationary charge, but to a frame moving at constant velocity that static charge is now a current.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 18:03:53 No.13927522 Report

Quoted By: >>13928006

>>13927494
why would the material it's passing through make a difference? good b8 if so

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 20:11:03 No.13927920 Report

Quoted By: >>13927926

>>13927497
> but to a frame moving at constant velocity that static charge is now a current.
completely correct but irrelevant to the argument. the velocity of the EM wave remained unchanged and fixed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 20:13:58 No.13927926 Report

Quoted By:

>>13927920
>the velocity of the EM wave remained unchanged and fixed.
prove it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 20:46:40 No.13928002 Report

Quoted By: >>13928322

>>13926572
Here's some evidence that it's not:
https://vixra.org/abs/2103.0149

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 20:48:10 No.13928006 Report

Quoted By: >>13928032

>>13927522
It's not bait, retard. Look up "refraction".

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 20:58:44 No.13928032 Report

Quoted By: >>13928315 >>13928336

>>13928006
refraction doesn't actually slow the speed of light, it's a macroscopic consequence of internal scattering

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Refraction_photo.png, 208KiB, 800x532

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 22:16:40 No.13928315 Report

Quoted By: >>13928380 >>13928650

>>13928032
From E=hf, we know that the frequency of light is constant at a given energy. So either (a) picrel is violating the conservation of energy or (b) the speed of light is slower in glass. Simple as.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 22:19:02 No.13928322 Report

Quoted By:

>>13928002
surprised it is not tooker

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault (2).jpg, 57KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 22:21:51 No.13928336 Report

Quoted By:

>>13928032
Prof Lene Hau of Harvard was able to stop light cold in its tracks back in the mid 2000's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Nj2uTZc10

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 22:29:38 No.13928380 Report

Quoted By: >>13928401 >>13928407 >>13928512

>>13928315
or it's just taking a longer path. retard.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO PW-2013-08-02-Wogan-BEC.jpg, 39KiB, 700x354

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 22:34:53 No.13928401 Report

Quoted By: >>13928483

>>13928380
You don't know what you're talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 22:35:37 No.13928407 Report

Quoted By: >>13928650 >>13929308

>>13928380
Pray tell me, how does it change directions if its wavelength doesn't change? Remember, E=hf, so the frequency is constant (unless you're claiming that refraction violates the conservation of energy).

QM is BTFO'd by classical optics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 22:52:12 No.13928483 Report

Quoted By: >>13928486

>>13928401
>glass is a bose-einstein condensate

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 22:53:19 No.13928486 Report

Quoted By:

>>13928483
Your ass is glass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 23:00:47 No.13928512 Report

Quoted By:

>>13928380
>epithet
you are emotionally agitated
your emotional state is a result of dissonance created by your idea about the speed being compared to the observed nature of light passing though glass.
if you can invent, imagine or learn a consistent set of rules which agrees both with your ideas about the speed of light and the observed reality of light passing through glass then your emotional irritation will fade away.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Dec 2021 23:34:57 No.13928650 Report

Quoted By: >>13928775

>>13928407
>Remember, E=hf, so the frequency is constant
>>13928315
>From E=hf, we know that the frequency of light is constant at a given energy
in fact, the frequency of light is observed to be variable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:05:32 No.13928758 Report

Quoted By:

>>13926572
It's literally everywhere. You can fucking measure it with a piece of chocolate in your microwave.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:12:29 No.13928775 Report

Quoted By: >>13928803

>>13928650
Interesting. So what mechanism is responsible for this apparent violation of energy conservation then? Where does the energy go when light enters the glass? How is that energy magically regained immediately upon exit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:19:08 No.13928803 Report

Quoted By: >>13928852 >>13928857

>>13928775
I don't have the answer to any of your questions, but the microwave background radiation was once supposedly ultraviolet at the time of the big bang. It's canonized modern physics that as the universe expanded the frequency of the light has diminished.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:23:03 No.13928822 Report

Quoted By: >>13928861

>>13927494
That's because it takes a longer path, not because it slows down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:30:23 No.13928852 Report

Quoted By: >>13928864

>>13928803
Just because it's "canonized" doesn't mean that it's correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:31:13 No.13928857 Report

Quoted By: >>13928864 >>13928875 >>13928887

>>13928803
I need to make a correction here. The microwave background was originally gamma and it now microwave. a citation and link follow.

"Microwave Background Radiation (or Cosmic Background Radiation) is the primordial radiation field that fills the universe, having been created in the form of gamma rays at the time of the big bang."

https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~bds2/ltsn/ljm/JAVA/SPECTRUM/details.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:32:01 No.13928861 Report

Quoted By: >>13928924

>>13928822
If the light were being scattered, it wouldn't remain as a tightly focused beam.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:32:14 No.13928864 Report

Quoted By: >>13928891

>>13928852
>Just because it's "canonized" doesn't mean that it's correct.
so you don't believe modern cosmology? I found a link for you regardless.
here
>>13928857

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:34:40 No.13928875 Report

Quoted By: >>13928893 >>13928895

>>13928857
thats not the cosmic background they say it is, its the heat signature of the dark matter halo which surrounds our galaxy.
cmbr is not cosmic in origin, its local.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:38:08 No.13928887 Report

Quoted By: >>13928907

>>13928857
What you're describing the red and blue shift. The original light from the big bang stretches as it reached us. In fact, we can't see anything before the time when the universe existed as nothing more than a dark cloud except for those microwaves because they are the only thing that can penetrate through it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:38:26 No.13928891 Report

Quoted By: >>13928903 >>13928912

>>13928864
Thanks. No, I don't believe in modern cosmology.

The cosmic background radiation also exists in a preferred "cosmic frame", which contradicts relativity.

It's also far too isotropic to have actually originated from some initial cosmic explosion, as modern cosmology claims. The cosmic background radiation gives every indication of being an ongoing, continuously generated process, originating in interstellar space, which exists in an absolute reference frame (contrary to relativity).

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:39:11 No.13928893 Report

Quoted By: >>13929214

>>13928875
>thats not the cosmic background they say it is, its the heat signature of the dark matter halo which surrounds our galaxy.
>cmbr is not cosmic in origin, its local.
nice word salad. I'd rather stick with my source than a schizo on an anime image board.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:39:25 No.13928895 Report

Quoted By:

>>13928875
uh, no?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:40:49 No.13928903 Report

Quoted By: >>13928920

>>13928891
Why are you like this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:43:03 No.13928907 Report

Quoted By: >>13928914

>>13928887
>What you're describing the red and blue shift.
no. The big bang happened everywhere in space and that is where the radiation came from. So we'd have to be moving relative to space itself for there to be a doppler shift. That sounds ridiculous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:45:39 No.13928912 Report

Quoted By: >>13928925

>>13928891
i'm little confused. which one don't you believe? modern cosmology or relativity or Einstein's photoelectric effect equation? Perhaps all?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:46:15 No.13928914 Report

Quoted By:

>>13928907
The universe initially had radiation of an infinitely small wavelength, but the expansion has "stretched" the radiation out and we now see microwaves. This is a type of redshift. Please feel free to look this up for yourself I guess...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:47:15 No.13928920 Report

Quoted By: >>13928947

>>13928903
No particular reason, I just happen to have a personal vendetta against everyone in the world.

Anyway:
https://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/do-we-have-the-big-bang-theory-all-wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:49:08 No.13928924 Report

Quoted By: >>13928946

>>13928861
Ok, I guess. On curiosity, how do you explain it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:49:15 No.13928925 Report

Quoted By: >>13928977

>>13928912
I don't believe in relativity, so that rules out most of modern cosmology by extension.

I do believe in the photoelectric effect equation (E=hf), that's easily verifiable by experiment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:55:10 No.13928946 Report

Quoted By: >>13928961 >>13929003

>>13928924
Easy, the wavelengths are shortened, which changes the direction of the beam and slows it down.

So, what interaction is causing the beams to shorten? Well, if we look at how light moves around celestial bodies, we see exactly the same effects. Clearly, it's a gravitational interaction in both cases. And this of course means that photons, consistent with our understanding of all classical particles, carry mass. (Incidentally, this is where the "missing" mass goes during fusion reactions as well.)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:55:41 No.13928947 Report

Quoted By:

>>13928920
Can you go be stupid in another thread?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 173849373636.png, 22KiB, 554x554

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:59:40 No.13928961 Report

Quoted By:

>>13928946
they don't carry mass, they carry momentum

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 00:59:42 No.13928962 Report

Quoted By:

Becouse einsteins physics force it to be a constant. You wouldnt notice becouse clocks are ticking with usage of light. Meter and second is determined by light. Somewhere where light speed is different...it still defined as 3e8m/s

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 01:06:13 No.13928977 Report

Quoted By: >>13929000

>>13928925
>E=hf
you do realize that the variability of the frequency of light isn't just a principle of cosmology right? It can be demonstrated in a lab and is a principle of electromagnetism. Do you also refuse to believe Maxwells EM too?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 01:12:10 No.13929000 Report

Quoted By: >>13929006

>>13928977
>Do you also refuse to believe Maxwells EM too?
As a matter of fact, yes. Maxwell's EM predicts that particles in uniform circular motion should radiate energy, which is obviously inconsistent with the observation that electrons maintain stable orbits. The correct formulation is Weber's EM.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 01:12:30 No.13929003 Report

Quoted By: >>13929014

>>13928946
Photons are massless. Gravitational interaction happens via the energy-momentum tensor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 01:13:08 No.13929006 Report

Quoted By: >>13929024

>>13929000
>which is obviously inconsistent with the observation that electrons maintain stable orbits
who ever observed that? how do you explain a cyclotron?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 01:15:11 No.13929014 Report

Quoted By: >>13929057 >>13929184

>>13929003
Photons have mass. Gravitational interaction is instantaneous (which is consistent with celestial mechanics--introducing a light-speed time delay would have a disastrous effect on orbital calculations). General relativity is just plain old refraction; no space-time voodoo required.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 01:19:13 No.13929024 Report

Quoted By: >>13929029

>>13929006
Our own existence supports the conclusion that matter exists.

Radiation is produced the same way all waves are produced; by the compression of particles, which happens when forces are applied.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 01:20:51 No.13929029 Report

Quoted By: >>13929039

>>13929024
>Our own existence supports the conclusion that matter exists.
ok but when did someone see an electron accelerate without radiating?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 01:23:56 No.13929039 Report

Quoted By: >>13929050

>>13929029
>ok but when did someone see an electron accelerate without radiating?
Compton scattering I believe was one of the main experiments that led to the Bohr-Sommerfeld model of the atom.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 01:26:24 No.13929050 Report

Quoted By: >>13929066

>>13929039
>Compton scattering I believe was one of the main experiments that led to the Bohr-Sommerfeld model of the atom.
not even Bohr or Sommerfeld believed their model. They are of some interest academically but could obviously never be correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 01:29:57 No.13929057 Report

Quoted By: >>13929169

>>13929014
>Photons have mass.
Wrong.
>Gravitational interaction is instantaneous
Wrong.
Learn some basic physics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 01:31:48 No.13929066 Report

Quoted By: >>13929220

>>13929050
They're more correct than the current QM model, and they're very salvageable.

Also, to correct myself, it was Rutherford scattering.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:00:44 No.13929169 Report

Quoted By:

>>13929057
>>Photons have mass.
>Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:06:54 No.13929184 Report

Quoted By: >>13929228 >>13929252

>>13929014
what the fuck are you pulling your data from?
>introducing a light-speed time delay would have a disastrous effect on orbital calculations
what the fuck is this cringe shit??? Do you think light speed time delay is like everything was fine then suddenly out of nowhere we introduce a delay so everything gets weird? It has been this way since the beginning, and a delay wouldn't change anything

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:15:14 No.13929206 Report

Quoted By:

"While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson’s experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun."

sophistry

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:17:48 No.13929214 Report

Quoted By: >>13929224

>>13928893
>epithet
you are emotional

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:19:25 No.13929220 Report

Quoted By:

>>13929066
>They're more correct than the current QM model, and they're very salvageable.
all of them are easily falsifiable. My original point remains the frequency of light is not invariant. Even if you don't like my example there are many others.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:20:25 No.13929224 Report

Quoted By:

>>13929214
>you are emotional
thanks

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:20:50 No.13929228 Report

Quoted By: >>13929236

>>13929184
>profanities
you are emotional
please leave the board and come back when you're not in an emotional state and can discuss science rationally

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:23:03 No.13929236 Report

Quoted By: >>13929248 >>13929249

>>13929228
why do you care if people are emotional or not? If you were an absolutely rational person you would just ignore these.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:26:20 No.13929248 Report

Quoted By:

>>13929236
I second that emotion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:26:43 No.13929249 Report

Quoted By: >>13929259

>>13929236
you are now attempting to censor me because you are embarrassed that your irrationality and emotional state were pointed out.
you'd be better off learning to control your emotional outbursts, then you wouldn't have to worry about being embarrassed when your emotional outbursts tip off your irrationality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:27:37 No.13929252 Report

Quoted By: >>13929278

>>13929184
I recommend looking at chapter 9 section 7 of the Feynman lectures vol 1. Then take a look at the code of any actual orbital simulation software.

Or, you could read up on the Poynting-Robertson effect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:28:54 No.13929259 Report

Quoted By: >>13929273 >>13929275

>>13929249
2x=4 ? x=2 :(
2x=4 ? x=2 :)
which is wrong?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:33:09 No.13929273 Report

Quoted By:

>>13929259
i jack off to furry porn

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:34:01 No.13929275 Report

Quoted By:

>>13929259
frowny faces are bad so that one. now stop intimidating me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:35:30 No.13929278 Report

Quoted By: >>13929299 >>13929306

>>13929252
about 25 years ago i worked with a guy who did large scale gravity simulations professionally.
i asked him if he propagated gravity at the speed of light or instantaneously an he said instantaneously because it saved processing overhead and propagating gravity at the speed of light wouldn't substantially affect the outcome of the experiment in question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:43:06 No.13929299 Report

Quoted By:

>>13929278
Hi grandpa. Well he was correct to treat the forces as instantaneous, but didn't understand exactly why it was required. Newton and his contemporaries understood this stuff 400 years ago, btw.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:45:37 No.13929306 Report

Quoted By: >>13929339

>>13929278
Btw, if you add a time delay for force propagation at the speed of light, you end up with the force equation for Weber's electrodynamics. That's all electromagnetism is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:47:48 No.13929308 Report

Quoted By:

>>13928407
Non-resonant interactions

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 02:56:42 No.13929339 Report

Quoted By: >>13929398

>>13929306
right, but are you aware of the increased overhead in processing time that would require?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Dec 2021 03:13:40 No.13929398 Report

Quoted By:

>>13929339
Sure but the processing time isn't the issue, the goal is getting the correct results out of the program.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches