On May 15, 6:22*pm, PD wrote:
On May 15, 9:19*pm, wrote:





On May 15, 4:33*pm, "OG" wrote:

wrote in message

....

Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%. Light itself will travel
only 1% further in space in any given interval.

Who is doing the measurements?

'we' can't make any measurements about the light because it is always ahead
of us.

It can't be measured either way. I know I am right.

Show me where I am wrong.

This is the bait of the troll. The troll considers this discussion
group to be a verbal wrestling match, where the objective is to get
someone else to say, "Oh, gee, you were right and I was wrong, and you
made me both see that and admit it." To the troll, victory (such as it
is) is had by simply refusing to be convinced.





Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can move behind light. So what is its speed through absolute
space?

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On May 15, 9:57*pm, wrote:
On May 15, 6:20*pm, PD wrote:



On May 15, 5:42*pm, wrote:

On May 15, 2:24*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 4:47*pm, wrote:

On May 15, 12:43*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 3:07*pm, wrote:

On May 15, 1:13*am, PD wrote:

On May 14, 11:22*pm, wrote:

On May 14, 5:08*pm, PD wrote:

On May 14, 7:53*pm, wrote:

On May 14, 4:39*pm, PD wrote:

On May 14, 5:07*pm, wrote:

On May 14, 2:13*am, PD wrote: On May 13, 10:04*pm, wrote:

Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%. Light itself will travel
only 1% further in space in any given interval..

That statement is inconsistent with experiment.

*Please elaborate.

Nope, it doesn't.

As I see it it is pretty simple. Light will only move through space a
little bit above matter's 99% motion behind it.

Well, you see, Mitch, it doesn't have anything to do with what you
find sensible or how you see it. Physicists don't check the validity
of what they come up with by *thinking* or judging whether it makes
sense. They check it against experiment.
Fortunately, nature is interesting and we see plenty of stuff that
doesn't make sense at all -- at first. Part of the fun is finding out
enough about what's going on -- through further experiment -- to be
able to piece it together and have it make sense. But when it's pieced
together, it looks a whole lot different than what made sense before.
What made sense before gets *replaced* by a new understanding that is
driven by surprising experimental results that are actually seen in
nature.

So what's surprising here is the *experimental* observation that if
you have something traveling at 99% of c, light *still* takes off at c

I agree it takes of at 100% of the speed of light through space while
behind light you are going at 99% through space.

Nope, you're not getting it.
Someone holds a flashlight and shines light toward Cincinnati. It will
be going at c away from you.
Now you accelerate, chasing after the light, until you are going 99%
of the speed of light with respect the guy with the flashlight.
Now if you measure the speed of the light going toward Cincinnati,
you'll find that it is still going at c with respect to you, not 1% c.

I know this seems weird and counterintuitive, but that is what is seen
*experimentally*. Trying to make sense of that takes more work that
you've put into it so far.

This leaves a 1%
difference through space. Addition of velocities keeps things below
light speed.

from that something, whether you are watching the something go by or
whether you are riding all on the something.

Now there is the trick of figuring out how to make that make sense,
because it sure doesn't make sense at first blush.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you can follow light at 99% then light only goes 1% more into the
distance.
See that?

Of course it's logical. It's also wrong. It doesn't match experiment.

What experiment?

Time of flight of photons from decaying pi-zeros with nonzero
momentum. That's one. There are at least a half dozen others. Do you
know how to look this experiment up in the library?

From my point of view this is just word salad. There is no proof here.

Proof doesn't come here. It comes in experimental evidence.

What is the evidence?

You don't say what that is and I am not going on a wild goose chase
when you need to show it.

No, I don't need to show it.

If you cannot show it yourself I don't think you *even know it.

Show me where I am wrong.

Now the more delicate trolling has descended to 3rd-grade double-dog-
dare-style baiting. Sorry, Mike, that isn't really motivational to
grown-ups.


I am pointing you to it. I have no
obligation to force-feed you anything until you cry "uncle". Either
you're interested in finding out about it or you're not. If you are,
you'll take my pointer and go investigate. If you're not, then I'd be
wasting my time trying to convince you.

PD

Fess up or shut up.
Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote:

On May 15, 4:33 pm, "OG" wrote:

wrote in message

...


Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%. Light itself will travel
only 1% further in space in any given interval.

Who is doing the measurements?

'we' can't make any measurements about the light because it is always ahead
of us.


It can't be measured either way. I know I am right.

Show me where I am wrong.

It is, using your own rules for discussion, sufficient
that I say you are. You're not king of the universe,
no matter how much you protest.

On May 15, 6:59*pm, Sanforized wrote:
wrote:
On May 15, 4:33 pm, "OG" wrote:

wrote in message

...

Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%. Light itself will travel
only 1% further in space in any given interval.

Who is doing the measurements?

'we' can't make any measurements about the light because it is always ahead
of us.

It can't be measured either way. I know I am right.

Show me where I am wrong.

It is, using your own rules for discussion, sufficient
that I say you are. You're not king of the universe,
no matter how much you protest.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you move behind light light's motion through absolute space is
still c. But only a small distance is being displaced between the
matter behind light.


MItch Raemsch; Acceleration decelerates time

In sci.physics.particle Uncle Al wrote:

: 1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
: skill.
: 2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
: others.
: 3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
: inadequacy.
:
: Look in the mirror Uncle Alice

: ...**** you, too.

Does this mean that your latest iteration of your Eotvos experiment was
an unqualified success despite the warnings that you didn't understand
what it was that you were looking for? When should we expect the publication
of these Nobel-worthy results? (Around the time that you'll be selling
kg-sized diamonds, I assume.)

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

[note how this article uses the ancient concept of "editing"]

In sci.physics.particle PD wrote:

: What experiment?
:
: Time of flight of photons from decaying pi-zeros with nonzero
: momentum. That's one. There are at least a half dozen others. Do you
: know how to look this experiment up in the library?
:
: From my point of view this is just word salad. There is no proof here.
:
: Proof doesn't come here. It comes in experimental evidence.
:
: What is the evidence?
:
: You don't say what that is and I am not going on a wild goose chase
: when you need to show it.
:
: No, I don't need to show it. I am pointing you to it.

While you may not have "shown" it, you certainly did say exactly what it is.
That our dual Nobelist does not know what "time of flight" is, what "photons"
are, what "pi-zeros" are, or what "momentum" is does not alter your having
told him precisely what your evidence for the validity of special relativity
is (inter alia; as you point out, there are other examples).

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

On May 18, 12:55*am, (Richard Schultz) wrote:
[note how this article uses the ancient concept of "editing"]

In sci.physics.particle PD wrote:

: What experiment?
:
: Time of flight of photons from decaying pi-zeros with nonzero
: momentum. That's one. There are at least a half dozen others. Do you
: know how to look this experiment up in the library?
:
: From my point of view this is just word salad. There is no proof here.
:
: Proof doesn't come here. It comes in experimental evidence.
:
: What is the evidence?
:
: You don't say what that is and I am not going on a wild goose chase
: when you need to show it.
:
: No, I don't need to show it. I am pointing you to it.

While you may not have "shown" it, you certainly did say exactly what it is.
That our dual Nobelist does not know what "time of flight" is, what "photons"
are, what "pi-zeros" are, or what "momentum" is does not alter your having
told him precisely what your evidence for the validity of special relativity
is (inter alia; as you point out, there are other examples).

-----
Richard Schultz * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
*"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

You can move behind light at 99%. Light moves ahead through space at
1%
Space isn't a relative.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

wrote:

On May 18, 12:55 am, (Richard Schultz) wrote:

[note how this article uses the ancient concept of "editing"]

In sci.physics.particle PD wrote:

: What experiment?
:
: Time of flight of photons from decaying pi-zeros with nonzero
: momentum. That's one. There are at least a half dozen others. Do you
: know how to look this experiment up in the library?
:
: From my point of view this is just word salad. There is no proof here.
:
: Proof doesn't come here. It comes in experimental evidence.
:
: What is the evidence?
:
: You don't say what that is and I am not going on a wild goose chase
: when you need to show it.
:
: No, I don't need to show it. I am pointing you to it.

While you may not have "shown" it, you certainly did say exactly what it is.
That our dual Nobelist does not know what "time of flight" is, what "photons"
are, what "pi-zeros" are, or what "momentum" is does not alter your having
told him precisely what your evidence for the validity of special relativity
is (inter alia; as you point out, there are other examples).

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"


You can move behind light at 99%. Light moves ahead through space at
1%
Space isn't a relative.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

So you're an aetherist.

On May 18, 2:13*pm, Sanforized wrote:
wrote:
On May 18, 12:55 am, (Richard Schultz) wrote:

[note how this article uses the ancient concept of "editing"]

In sci.physics.particle PD wrote:

: What experiment?
:
: Time of flight of photons from decaying pi-zeros with nonzero
: momentum. That's one. There are at least a half dozen others. Do you
: know how to look this experiment up in the library?
:
: From my point of view this is just word salad. There is no proof here.
:
: Proof doesn't come here. It comes in experimental evidence.
:
: What is the evidence?
:
: You don't say what that is and I am not going on a wild goose chase
: when you need to show it.
:
: No, I don't need to show it. I am pointing you to it.

While you may not have "shown" it, you certainly did say exactly what it is.
That our dual Nobelist does not know what "time of flight" is, what "photons"
are, what "pi-zeros" are, or what "momentum" is does not alter your having
told him precisely what your evidence for the validity of special relativity
is (inter alia; as you point out, there are other examples).

-----
Richard Schultz * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

You can move behind light at 99%. Light moves ahead through space at
1%
Space isn't a relative.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

So you're an aetherist.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is only one quantity for the AU.

On May 15, 7:19*pm, wrote:
On May 15, 4:33*pm, "OG" wrote:
wrote in messag
...
Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%. Light itself will travel
only 1% further in space in any given interval.

Who is doing the measurements?

'we' can't make any measurements about the light because it is always ahead
of us.

It can't be measured either way. I know I am right.

Show me where I am wrong.

There's usually flak in the beam's way. Now look up proper time or
shut up.