Re: Einstein's logic
From: Harry (harald.vanlintel_at_epfl.ch)
Date: 07/02/04
- Next message: Harry: "Re: Einstein's logic"
- Previous message: John C. Polasek: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Einstein's logic"
- Next in thread: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Einstein's logic"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 21:19:54 +0200
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:PvbFc.75128$sj4.64839@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
SNIP
> > Bill, you obviously misunderstand his argument. Any theory can be made
up
> > without a physical model that can be pictured, and no doubt that's what
he
> > meant. Like John, the only physical models for propagation that I know
of
> > are waves and ballistic emission. Water waves serve as good visual
models
> > for waves, and bullets for ballistic emission. I know of no such model
for
> > physical wave propagation that does not require a medium for it to
> function
> > as a wave. If you do, please refer to it and explain how it can work, it
> > will be very helpful!
>
> Maxwell's equations as a model for how EM fields behave do not require a
> medium.
Indeed, and neither do the Doppler equations. You did not understand me, and
adding more words won't help. Never mind.
Thanks.
Harald
- Next message: Harry: "Re: Einstein's logic"
- Previous message: John C. Polasek: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Einstein's logic"
- Next in thread: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Einstein's logic"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|