• #### Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn

From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Aug 19 22:00:04 2023
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 4:50:32 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
Let's establish at least some point of agreement. Do you agree
that material particles behave the way that grown-ups tell you they
behave, e.g., do you agree that after you throw a basketball toward a
hoop, you cannot affect the trajectory of the ball in flight simply by accelerating yourself? And do you accept that the same is true for
a bullet after you fire it from a gun? In other words, material objects follow trajectories that may be affected by air resistance or gravity
or bumping into things, but they're not affected by accelerations of whatever object ejected them after they are in flight? Agree?

[Pulses of light do not propagate like material particles.]

Again, the purpose of the questions was to attempt to establish some
points of agreement about basic physics that could serve as common ground
on which a rational discussion of electromagnetic radiation could take
place. At present we're clearly talking in completely different conceptual contexts... I am talking in a Newtonian/Galilean context of inertial frames, etc., and you are (as it seems to me) spouting infantile nonsense with
no coherent conceptual framework at all, so it would really help to
establish at least one point of agreement about something.

From your non-response I infer that you concede that, in a Galilean/Newtonian context, all material entities not subject to any external force move at constant
speed in a straight line in terms of inertial coordinate systems, but NOT in terms of accelerating coordinate systems (Newton's first law of motion).
If you disagree, please say so.

Furthermore, you agree that the rate of change of momentum of a material
entity is proportional to any applied force (Newton's second law of motion). Lastly, you agree that if one material entity exerts a force on another, the latter entity exerts an equal and opposite force on the former (Newton's third law of motion). Together, these laws of motion ensure that momentum is conserved. If you disagree, please say so.

Now, assuming you agree with the above, we can turn to the propagation
of a pulse of light: Do you agree that a pulse of light has momentum?
For example, if an object emits a pulse of light, does the object experience
a recoil? And when the pulse is absorbed by a receiver, does it impart momentum to the receiver?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Aug 22 15:40:35 2023
On 8/19/2023 7:50 AM, Lou wrote:

Anyways, I understand your problem. To discredit emission theory you
need an imaginary force to make light slow down, speed up,and wobble
in the source frame.

That's the disproof of the emission theory. If emission theory was true,
light from different source frames would arrive at the destination with different speeds (c+v, variable v) and would bunch up and smear and observations would be a total mess. But that doesn't happen. Because all
light travels at c, we see the stars orbiting just as they did X light
years ago.

But where did you get this force from? Star Wars?
But that came out in 1976.!? Decades after deSitters 1913 fantasy novel.
Then I did a bit checking and found out where he got his magic force: ‘Edgar Rice Burroughs Princess of Mars’ had just been published in 1912! ( You know. The imaginary force that transported John Carter to Mars)

Where is your evidence deSitter got anything from Burroughs' books?

So please Im still interested. What imaginary force are you invoking to
make light travel at variable speeds and in wobbly paths in the source
frame to make light pile up when it arrives at the observer?

Emission theory.

You face an uphill battle because all available observations show that
light does NOT pile up as it leaves the source. This is confirmed by
MMX ,binary stars, lunar ranging x, Sagnac, pioneer, voyager etc.
And in fact all astronomical sources do not show ANY piling up of light
when observed here on earth.

Which disproves emission theory.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Aug 22 22:58:45 2023
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 8/19/2023 7:50 AM, Lou wrote:

Anyways, I understand your problem. To discredit emission theory you
need an imaginary force to make light slow down, speed up,and wobble
in the source frame.

That's the disproof of the emission theory. If emission theory was true, light from different source frames would arrive at the destination with different speeds (c+v, variable v) and would bunch up and smear and observations would be a total mess. But that doesn't happen. Because all light travels at c, we see the stars orbiting just as they did X light
years ago.

But where did you get this force from? Star Wars?
But that came out in 1976.!? Decades after deSitters 1913 fantasy novel. Then I did a bit checking and found out where he got his magic force: 'Edgar Rice Burroughs Princess of Mars' had just been published in 1912!
( You know. The imaginary force that transported John Carter to Mars)

Where is your evidence deSitter got anything from Burroughs' books?

Now that would have been unlikely indeed.
De Sitter was a full profesor in astronomy in Leyden at the time.
He would not have known about silly serials
in cheap American pulp magazines.
(Princes of Mars wasn't published in book form until several years
later, and even the books would not have been available in the
Netherlands)

This 'Lou' is getting crazier al the time,

Jan

BTW, Leyden, with Lorentz, Ehrenfest, and De Sitter was a hotspot
of gravity research in those years.
They were joined in 1916 by Nordvedt,
but by then Einstein had taken it all.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)