Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #638543 > unrolled thread

What is a photon

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-06-01 10:03 +0000
    Re: What is a photon "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-01 12:46 +0200
      Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-01 12:51 +0200
        Re: What is a photon "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-01 14:08 +0200
          Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-01 14:35 +0200
      Re: What is a photon Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-06-01 13:22 +0000
        Re: What is a photon Kamron Maçon Coté <ommma@darnor.fr> - 2025-06-01 13:41 +0000
        Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-06-02 03:08 +0000
          Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-01 20:47 -0700
        Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-18 01:21 -0700
          Re: What is a photon Fausto Tzagunov <azu@ououagnt.ru> - 2025-06-18 11:04 +0000
            Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-21 13:35 -0700
              Re: What is a photon Chadrick Speziale <idc@aii.it> - 2025-06-22 17:30 +0000
                Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-22 12:42 -0700
                  Re: What is a photon Kiefer Tuganaev <eraut@efr.ru> - 2025-06-23 09:56 +0000
                    Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-23 09:48 -0700
                    Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-23 09:50 -0700
                    Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-23 09:52 -0700
                Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-22 13:32 -0700
                Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-23 10:07 -0700
      Re: What is a photon Lowen Makhurov Pan <aokek@hvvohala.ru> - 2025-06-03 17:24 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Limuel Teterichev <mi@lv.ru> - 2025-06-05 21:56 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Webster Vaginov <eoewv@rbgsstv.ru> - 2025-06-05 22:14 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Rudolph Babetov <plpeu@pbhrher.ru> - 2025-06-06 16:54 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Arnulfo Balanovsky <vlnor@aurl.ru> - 2025-06-06 23:34 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Hug Paramoshkin <nkkr@saiokahk.ru> - 2025-06-06 23:43 +0000
        Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-07 22:35 +0000
          Re: What is a photon Michael/Vin Paraschenko Gou <havcc@lariao.ru> - 2025-06-07 23:05 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Rexford Mozharov <xvo@zhef.ru> - 2025-06-07 00:15 +0000
        Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 05:41 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Larkin Bakhmat <mak@aab.ru> - 2025-06-07 22:25 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Riley Baboshin <ihonb@yirrb.ru> - 2025-06-10 21:07 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Jeon Tomanov <ma@nojn.ru> - 2025-06-11 21:52 +0000
        Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-12 13:18 +0200
          Re: What is a photon Chon Won <cnwww@nooochcc.cn> - 2025-06-12 13:35 +0000
            Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-13 10:07 +0200
              Re: What is a photon Harry Jdakaev <haha@rrhavv.ru> - 2025-06-13 13:02 +0000
                Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-14 13:32 +0200
                  Re: What is a photon Mariano Talkov <aon@ovt.ru> - 2025-06-14 12:29 +0000
                    Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-14 22:31 +0200
                      Re: What is a photon Omee Szatmári <emzoae@tt.hu> - 2025-06-14 21:44 +0000
                        Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-15 11:51 +0200
                          Re: What is a photon Rosalino Kalakos <kisa@nall.gr> - 2025-06-15 10:13 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Laurence Vassilikos <elsi@oeo.gr> - 2025-06-11 22:19 +0000
        Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-12 06:26 +0200
          Re: What is a photon Afif Lew <lalf@felf.cn> - 2025-06-12 13:33 +0000
            Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-13 10:03 +0200
              Re: What is a photon Ladd Hudoleev <vdluov@uveuha.ru> - 2025-06-13 13:21 +0000
                Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-14 08:54 +0200
                  Re: What is a photon Nico Baburkin <ibno@iribk.ru> - 2025-06-14 12:34 +0000
                Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-15 09:50 +0200
                  Re: What is a photon Chas Balakhovski <blhhski@khvoabs.ru> - 2025-06-15 10:18 +0000
      Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-12 02:01 +0000
        Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-12 06:29 +0200
          Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-12 11:05 +0000
            Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-13 09:45 +0200
              Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-15 03:19 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Taber Turkestanov <tktvov@erat.ru> - 2025-06-12 13:39 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Cash Matzuev <hsc@emaa.ru> - 2025-06-12 23:04 +0000
        Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-12 19:10 -0700
          Re: What is a photon Jerimya Bereznevich <zaiiijr@re.ru> - 2025-06-13 13:27 +0000
            Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-14 13:18 -0700
              Re: What is a photon Octavio Vassilopulos <vpss@vslcp.gr> - 2025-06-14 21:42 +0000
                Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-15 12:29 -0700
                  Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-15 12:38 -0700
      Re: What is a photon Levi Avanesyan <avaal@ynanan.ru> - 2025-06-13 21:38 +0000
      Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 09:47 +0000
        Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-14 13:21 -0700
          Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 22:12 +0000
            Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-14 15:27 -0700
        Re: What is a photon Benaventura Méndez <nqeveae@vetv.es> - 2025-06-14 21:49 +0000
          Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-15 12:37 -0700
      Re: What is a photon Hewitt Agababov <tgw@iavbt.ru> - 2025-06-15 18:47 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Farris Numerov <ovros@vmvmo.ru> - 2025-06-15 19:01 +0000
      Re: What is a photon August Babkov <sbask@gaobu.ru> - 2025-06-19 18:06 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Harlie Antonakos <hhnh@atliahhi.gr> - 2025-06-19 22:38 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Jestin Manoukarakis <tskoa@eaajsa.gr> - 2025-06-23 11:04 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Teal Sebestyén <lee@asntebtt.hu> - 2025-06-28 16:20 +0000
      Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-30 03:11 +0000
        Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-30 06:44 -0700
    Re: What is a photon Vladimir Csordás Han <vcod@mciliral.hu> - 2025-06-01 12:36 +0000
    Re: What is a photon Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-06-01 13:20 +0000
      Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-06-01 13:49 +0000
        Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-01 08:07 -0700
    Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-01 13:07 -0700
      Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-02 00:44 +0000
      Re: What is a photon hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-06-02 01:07 +0000
        Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-06-02 03:14 +0000
          Re: What is a photon hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-06-02 10:52 +0000
            Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-06-02 14:09 +0000
              Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-02 23:16 +0000
            Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-02 14:36 -0700
              Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-03 00:18 +0000
                Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-02 17:38 -0700
                  Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-11 03:29 +0000
                    Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-11 05:24 -0700
                      Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-11 13:35 +0000
                        Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-11 07:30 -0700
                Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-03 11:55 -0700
                  Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-05 01:16 +0000
                    Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 11:28 -0700
                      Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-08 22:31 +0000
                        Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-11 12:09 -0700
                          Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-11 13:51 -0700
                            Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-12 02:26 +0000
                              Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-13 13:25 -0700
                                Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-15 16:49 -0700
                          Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-12 01:54 +0000
            Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-15 01:31 +0000
              Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-15 03:12 +0000
            Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-30 01:12 +0000
              Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-29 19:31 -0700
                Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-30 04:58 +0000
                  Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-30 06:52 -0700
        Re: What is a photon Jonah Hatagov Balabuev <oago@oj.ru> - 2025-06-02 12:44 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-02 19:03 +0200
      Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-02 20:21 +0200
      Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 22:23 +0000
    Re: What is a photon x <x@x.org> - 2025-06-02 04:50 -0700
      Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-03 03:28 +0000
      Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 22:17 +0000
        Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-15 10:56 +0200
          Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-15 09:52 +0000
            Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-17 07:16 +0200
              Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-17 06:01 +0000
                Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-18 10:15 +0200
                  Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-18 08:24 +0000
    Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-11 07:39 -0700
      Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 23:20 +0000
    Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-15 14:36 +0200
      Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-15 22:56 +0000
        Re: What is a photon Fag Pope <hli@yvidv.ru> - 2025-06-16 21:25 +0000
          Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-16 23:02 +0000
            Re: What is a photon Rowdy Baichorov <boo@whahioidv.ru> - 2025-06-19 20:18 +0000
            Re: What is a photon Adolfo Tzeizik <dz@aatko.ru> - 2025-06-20 08:55 +0000
        Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-17 02:38 +0000
        Re: What is a photon Roger Babintsev <gnr@geibrrgv.ru> - 2025-06-17 10:15 +0000
    Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-28 23:15 +0000
      Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-28 17:54 -0700
        Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-29 04:37 +0000
          Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-29 07:18 -0700

Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

#638634

On 6/4/2025 6:16 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:55:12 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> On 6/2/2025 5:18 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:36:17 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/2/2025 3:52 AM, rhertz wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Afaict, think of a photon traveling along a field line at the speed of
>>>> light in space,
>>>
>>> The photon or brief electromagnetic pulse spreads out as per inverse
>>> square law. Photons in phase are lasers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> that is warped and influenced by the gravitational
>>>> field.
>>>
>>> The gravitational field cannot disturb the photon. Only the change in
>>> the aetheric medium can with change of refractive index which relates to
>>> both frequency and permittivity.
>>
>> The photon rides the field lines... ;^)
> 
> Well of course as a hypothetical atomic bundle of time varying
> electromagnetic fields.

Do they tend to ride the gravitational field?

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638636

On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 18:28:11 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 6/4/2025 6:16 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:55:12 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/2/2025 5:18 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:36:17 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/2/2025 3:52 AM, rhertz wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Afaict, think of a photon traveling along a field line at the speed of
>>>>> light in space,
>>>>
>>>> The photon or brief electromagnetic pulse spreads out as per inverse
>>>> square law. Photons in phase are lasers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> that is warped and influenced by the gravitational
>>>>> field.
>>>>
>>>> The gravitational field cannot disturb the photon. Only the change in
>>>> the aetheric medium can with change of refractive index which relates to
>>>> both frequency and permittivity.
>>>
>>> The photon rides the field lines... ;^)
>>
>> Well of course as a hypothetical atomic bundle of time varying
>> electromagnetic fields.
>
> Do they tend to ride the gravitational field?

They ride through on their aetheric mount.

Woof
>
> [...]

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638662

On 6/8/2025 3:31 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 18:28:11 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> On 6/4/2025 6:16 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:55:12 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/2/2025 5:18 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:36:17 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/2/2025 3:52 AM, rhertz wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Afaict, think of a photon traveling along a field line at the 
>>>>>> speed of
>>>>>> light in space,
>>>>>
>>>>> The photon or brief electromagnetic pulse spreads out as per inverse
>>>>> square law. Photons in phase are lasers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> that is warped and influenced by the gravitational
>>>>>> field.
>>>>>
>>>>> The gravitational field cannot disturb the photon. Only the change in
>>>>> the aetheric medium can with change of refractive index which 
>>>>> relates to
>>>>> both frequency and permittivity.
>>>>
>>>> The photon rides the field lines... ;^)
>>>
>>> Well of course as a hypothetical atomic bundle of time varying
>>> electromagnetic fields.
>>
>> Do they tend to ride the gravitational field?
> 
> They ride through on their aetheric mount.

There are masses out there in space, Earth is just one of them. Big 
ones, say a cluster of galaxies, a large star, ect... A single photon 
riding the rails on its field line, can twist and turn and maybe come 
out on the "other side" depending on its line's specific properties. 
Some photons can angle in and start to orbit a black hole for a while, 
and/or eventually crash into its even horizon. Fair enough? Some photons 
might orbit for a while then get ejected, not doomed... :^)


> 
> Woof
>>
>> [...]
> 
> -- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638664

On 6/11/2025 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> There are masses out there in space, Earth is just one of them. Big 
> ones, say a cluster of galaxies, a large star, ect... A single photon 
> riding the rails on its field line, can twist and turn and maybe come 
> out on the "other side" depending on its line's specific properties. 
> Some photons can angle in and start to orbit a black hole for a while, 
> and/or eventually crash into its even horizon. Fair enough? Some photons 
> might orbit for a while then get ejected, not doomed... :^)

How about a continuous gravitational field is an infinite gravitational 
field with infinite paths for a newly created photon to follow?

Any better?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638669

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 20:51:15 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 6/11/2025 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> There are masses out there in space, Earth is just one of them. Big
>> ones, say a cluster of galaxies, a large star, ect... A single photon
>> riding the rails on its field line, can twist and turn and maybe come
>> out on the "other side" depending on its line's specific properties.

A single photon will radiate omnidirectionally, spread out in all 3
dimensions towards infinity. At some stage it will be part of noise or
CBR constant Background Radiation.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof

>> Some photons can angle in and start to orbit a black hole for a while,
>> and/or eventually crash into its even horizon. Fair enough? Some photons
>> might orbit for a while then get ejected, not doomed... :^)
>
> How about a continuous gravitational field is an infinite gravitational
> field with infinite paths for a newly created photon to follow?
>
> Any better?

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638687

On 6/11/2025 7:26 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 20:51:15 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> On 6/11/2025 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> There are masses out there in space, Earth is just one of them. Big
>>> ones, say a cluster of galaxies, a large star, ect... A single photon
>>> riding the rails on its field line, can twist and turn and maybe come
>>> out on the "other side" depending on its line's specific properties.
> 
> A single photon will radiate omnidirectionally, spread out in all 3
> dimensions towards infinity. At some stage it will be part of noise or
> CBR constant Background Radiation.
> 
> WOOF woof woof-woof woof
> 
>>> Some photons can angle in and start to orbit a black hole for a while,
>>> and/or eventually crash into its even horizon. Fair enough? Some photons
>>> might orbit for a while then get ejected, not doomed... :^)
>>
>> How about a continuous gravitational field is an infinite gravitational
>> field with infinite paths for a newly created photon to follow?
>>
>> Any better?
> 
> -- 

The riders! lol. An older experiment of mine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRkKZj9s3wk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638741

On 6/13/2025 1:25 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/11/2025 7:26 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 20:51:15 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/11/2025 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> There are masses out there in space, Earth is just one of them. Big
>>>> ones, say a cluster of galaxies, a large star, ect... A single photon
>>>> riding the rails on its field line, can twist and turn and maybe come
>>>> out on the "other side" depending on its line's specific properties.
>>
>> A single photon will radiate omnidirectionally, spread out in all 3
>> dimensions towards infinity. At some stage it will be part of noise or
>> CBR constant Background Radiation.
>>
>> WOOF woof woof-woof woof
>>
>>>> Some photons can angle in and start to orbit a black hole for a while,
>>>> and/or eventually crash into its even horizon. Fair enough? Some 
>>>> photons
>>>> might orbit for a while then get ejected, not doomed... :^)
>>>
>>> How about a continuous gravitational field is an infinite gravitational
>>> field with infinite paths for a newly created photon to follow?
>>>
>>> Any better?
>>
>> -- 
> 
> The riders! lol. An older experiment of mine:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRkKZj9s3wk

A song for the field line riders? ROFL!!!

(They're Coming To Take Me Away, Ha​-​Haaa!)
https://youtu.be/eQNI1KfGXBA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638667

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:09:57 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 6/8/2025 3:31 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 18:28:11 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/4/2025 6:16 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:55:12 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/2/2025 5:18 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:36:17 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/2/2025 3:52 AM, rhertz wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Afaict, think of a photon traveling along a field line at the
>>>>>>> speed of
>>>>>>> light in space,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The photon or brief electromagnetic pulse spreads out as per inverse
>>>>>> square law. Photons in phase are lasers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that is warped and influenced by the gravitational
>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The gravitational field cannot disturb the photon. Only the change in
>>>>>> the aetheric medium can with change of refractive index which
>>>>>> relates to
>>>>>> both frequency and permittivity.
>>>>>
>>>>> The photon rides the field lines... ;^)
>>>>
>>>> Well of course as a hypothetical atomic bundle of time varying
>>>> electromagnetic fields.
>>>
>>> Do they tend to ride the gravitational field?
>>
>> They ride through on their aetheric mount.
>
> There are masses out there in space, Earth is just one of them. Big
> ones, say a cluster of galaxies, a large star, ect...


Agreed they are all moving

A single photon
> riding the rails on its field line, can twist and turn and maybe come
> out on the "other side" depending on its line's specific properties.

A photon originates as a brief electromagnetic magnetic pulse. Imagine
as Arindam did back in 1980 a horn antenna radiating. Mechanically block
and unblock it. Provided the reflection is managed it will send out
radiation pulses. Just as radar does electrically. Now consider any atom
as a nucleus with electron shells. A particular frequency will disrupt
their pattern the more violently with the amplitude. The electric fields
in the atom will vary then with time creating varying magnetic fields.
Which in turn will create varying electric fields, and so on. An atom
this acts like any antenna. The idea of energy levels is a simplistic
theoretization which while basically wrong, sort of explains radiation.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor



> Some photons can angle in and start to orbit a black hole for a while,
> and/or eventually crash into its even horizon. Fair enough? Some photons
> might orbit for a while then get ejected, not doomed... :^)
>
>
>>
>> Woof
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> --

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638713

On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>>
>>> This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
>>> Planck:
>>>
>>> A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
>>>
>>>  - Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
>>> light itself.
>>
>> Rubbish. Point particles can not bend nicely in denser medium. They
>> cannot have interference patterns. They cannot be polarized. They cannot
>> get a uniform phase front as in laser or maser. They cannot diffract.
>> There is no way they can create standing wave patterns.
>
>
>
>
> Bertietaylor, YOUR LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL
> ANALYSIS IS APPALLING. YOU NEED TO RESET YOURSELF AND FIND OUT WHAT IS
> WRONG WITH YOUR MIND.

Instead of shouting repeat Arindam's rail gun experiments that update
Newtonian laws, throw out thermodynamics by busting inertia, and totally
chuck out the pure nonsenses of relativity and quantum. They bring back
aether. Make the universe Sanatana that is eternal and infinite.
>
> IT'S NOT THE POINT-LIKE PARTICLE WHICH BENDS OR CREATE INTERFERENCE
> PATTERNS, MAN.

Of course not so energy does not travel in quanta. That is pure nonsense
 Aether travels as electromagnetic waves from any radiation through
aether.
>
> IT'S DUE TO THEIR ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC FIELDS, WHICH ARE
> SELF-GENERATED AND SELF-SUSTAINED FOREVER, ACROSS HUGE DISTANCES OF
> BILLIONS OF LY.

So no point of thinking of them as quanta for they do not go linearly
from one point to the other. Energy is radiated from radiators long and
short depending upon their lengths. Gamma rays are from nuclear sized
distances.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs and his only friends on
Earth)
>
> WHEN TRESPASSING MEDIUMS ON ITS LONG JOURNEY ON SPACE, BOTH FIELDS ADAPT
> TO CORRECT THE SPEED OF SUCH PARTICLE (AKA PHOTON).
>
> ALWAYS, SINCE 1865 AND 1901, BOTH THEORIES WERE THE EXACT REPRESENTATION
> OF A TOP-DOWN APPROACH (MAXWELL) AND A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (PLANCK).
>
> THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IT OR UNDERSTAND IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE NOT A DEEP
> THINKER, AND I PITY YOU FOR IT.
>
> GIVE YOURSELF A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND BOTH MODELS SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND
> YOU'LL FIND THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR A CENTURY, DUE TO
> FUCKING IMBECILES LIKE THE QUANTUM GUYS, WHO PRETENDED (VERY ENCOURAGED)
> TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD IN A WAY MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN WHAT IS NEEDED.
>
> EITHER IN RADIO ENGINEERING OR IN QUANTUM PHYSICS, THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE
> THE SAME. THIS IS WHAT ALLOWED PROGRESS IN PHOTONICS AS WELL AS ANYTHING
> RELATED TO RADIO TELECOM, RANGING, ETC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>  - It's a carrier of energy (Planck) that is emitted/absorbed by
>>> electrons that
>>>    are orbiting atoms, which have different levels of energy.
>>
>> Forget energy. That is trader talk from Jewish physics. It is force that
>> is the keyword. Aether is back thanks to Arindam and all the
>> extraordinary bungling wrapped by math gibberish is out.
>>>
>>>  - It's created as if space of any kind (Maxwell) IGNITES under such
>>> discharge
>>>    causing that the point-like energy oscillates with electric and
>>> magnetic fields
>>>    in quadrature, with speed depending on the refraction index of the
>>> media.
>>
>> Blah
>>
>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>>
>>> - Under classic physics (Maxwell, unaware of Planck discovery) photons
>>> are not
>>>   perceived as a sum of enormous amounts of ray of light (each ray
>>> linked to a
>>>   bounded electron). On the opposite side, under Planck vision, light is
>>> composed
>>>   of a large amount of photons, each one with energy E=hf.
>>>
>>> - The confusion between classic and quantum physics is due to the
>>> interpretation
>>>   of what light is. In Maxwell's world, light is the sum (coherent or
>>> not) of huge
>>>   amounts of ray of light (each one a photon), and is expressed in terms
>>> of energy
>>>   per unit area. In Planck's world, light is the sum (coherent or not)
>>> of huge
>>>   amount of photons, each one carrying energy E=hf.
>>>
>>> - The speed of the photon or the ray of light is defined by Maxwell, in
>>> terms of
>>>   the permittivity and permeability of the medium. The collision of the
>>> emitted
>>>   energy per atom is what ignites the medium, creating the point-like
>>> particle.
>>>
>>> - The classic representation of light as a sinusoidal wave is just an
>>> abstraction
>>>   used for more than a century, representing the behavior of the
>>> electrical field.
>>>
>>> - There is not a dual behavior of light. This "paradox" is caused by the
>>> confusion
>>>   when light is analyzed entirely (Maxwell) or at its least expression
>>> (Planck).
>>>   Top-down versus bottom-up appreciation of light.
>>>
>>> - But the point-like structure (the photon) has always been there since
>>> 1865-
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolute truth has been spoken.
>>
>> --

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638715

On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 1:31:10 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
>>>> Planck:
>>>>
>>>> A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
>>>>
>>>>  - Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
>>>> light itself.
>>>
>>> Rubbish. Point particles can not bend nicely in denser medium. They
>>> cannot have interference patterns. They cannot be polarized. They cannot
>>> get a uniform phase front as in laser or maser. They cannot diffract.
>>> There is no way they can create standing wave patterns.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertietaylor, YOUR LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL
>> ANALYSIS IS APPALLING. YOU NEED TO RESET YOURSELF AND FIND OUT WHAT IS
>> WRONG WITH YOUR MIND.
>
> Instead of shouting repeat Arindam's rail gun experiments that update
> Newtonian laws, throw out thermodynamics by busting inertia, and totally
> chuck out the pure nonsenses of relativity and quantum. They bring back
> aether. Make the universe Sanatana that is eternal and infinite.
>>
>> IT'S NOT THE POINT-LIKE PARTICLE WHICH BENDS OR CREATE INTERFERENCE
>> PATTERNS, MAN.
>
> Of course not so energy does not travel in quanta. That is pure nonsense
>  Aether travels as electromagnetic waves from any radiation through
> aether.
>>
>> IT'S DUE TO THEIR ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC FIELDS, WHICH ARE
>> SELF-GENERATED AND SELF-SUSTAINED FOREVER, ACROSS HUGE DISTANCES OF
>> BILLIONS OF LY.
>
> So no point of thinking of them as quanta for they do not go linearly
> from one point to the other. Energy is radiated from radiators long and
> short depending upon their lengths. Gamma rays are from nuclear sized
> distances.
>
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>
> Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs and his only friends on
> Earth)
>>
>> WHEN TRESPASSING MEDIUMS ON ITS LONG JOURNEY ON SPACE, BOTH FIELDS ADAPT
>> TO CORRECT THE SPEED OF SUCH PARTICLE (AKA PHOTON).

There is no particle called photon. Just an aetheric disturbance caused
by the varying electric field. When the em field hits a conductor it
creates a current causing heat. When it hits a medium like glass it both
refracts and reflects. The latter to the extent the electric field gets
attenuated at the boundary.

>>
>> ALWAYS, SINCE 1865 AND 1901, BOTH THEORIES WERE THE EXACT REPRESENTATION
>> OF A TOP-DOWN APPROACH (MAXWELL) AND A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (PLANCK).

All Planck did rubbish but not as ridiculous as Einsteinian theories.
>>
>> THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IT OR UNDERSTAND IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE NOT A DEEP
>> THINKER, AND I PITY YOU FOR IT.

Arindam sets physics back on the rails. As the greatest genius of all
time that is but the natural thing for him to do.
>>
>> GIVE YOURSELF A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND BOTH MODELS SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND
>> YOU'LL FIND THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR A CENTURY, DUE TO
>> FUCKING IMBECILES LIKE THE QUANTUM GUYS, WHO PRETENDED (VERY ENCOURAGED)
>> TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD IN A WAY MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN WHAT IS NEEDED.

Gosh you are nuts. One moment you curse Arindam for outing the quantum
bunkum then next moment you are outing the quantum bunkum. Stealing
Arindam's credit, huh. Typical.
>>
>> EITHER IN RADIO ENGINEERING OR IN QUANTUM PHYSICS, THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE
>> THE SAME. THIS IS WHAT ALLOWED PROGRESS IN PHOTONICS AS WELL AS ANYTHING
>> RELATED TO RADIO TELECOM, RANGING, ETC.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>  - It's a carrier of energy (Planck) that is emitted/absorbed by
>>>> electrons that
>>>>    are orbiting atoms, which have different levels of energy.
>>>
>>> Forget energy. That is trader talk from Jewish physics. It is force that
>>> is the keyword. Aether is back thanks to Arindam and all the
>>> extraordinary bungling wrapped by math gibberish is out.
>>>>
>>>>  - It's created as if space of any kind (Maxwell) IGNITES under such
>>>> discharge
>>>>    causing that the point-like energy oscillates with electric and
>>>> magnetic fields
>>>>    in quadrature, with speed depending on the refraction index of the
>>>> media.
>>>
>>> Blah
>>>
>>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>>>
>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>
>>>> - Under classic physics (Maxwell, unaware of Planck discovery) photons
>>>> are not
>>>>   perceived as a sum of enormous amounts of ray of light (each ray
>>>> linked to a
>>>>   bounded electron). On the opposite side, under Planck vision, light is
>>>> composed
>>>>   of a large amount of photons, each one with energy E=hf.
>>>>
>>>> - The confusion between classic and quantum physics is due to the
>>>> interpretation
>>>>   of what light is. In Maxwell's world, light is the sum (coherent or
>>>> not) of huge
>>>>   amounts of ray of light (each one a photon), and is expressed in terms
>>>> of energy
>>>>   per unit area. In Planck's world, light is the sum (coherent or not)
>>>> of huge
>>>>   amount of photons, each one carrying energy E=hf.
>>>>
>>>> - The speed of the photon or the ray of light is defined by Maxwell, in
>>>> terms of
>>>>   the permittivity and permeability of the medium. The collision of the
>>>> emitted
>>>>   energy per atom is what ignites the medium, creating the point-like
>>>> particle.
>>>>
>>>> - The classic representation of light as a sinusoidal wave is just an
>>>> abstraction
>>>>   used for more than a century, representing the behavior of the
>>>> electrical field.
>>>>
>>>> - There is not a dual behavior of light. This "paradox" is caused by the
>>>> confusion
>>>>   when light is analyzed entirely (Maxwell) or at its least expression
>>>> (Planck).
>>>>   Top-down versus bottom-up appreciation of light.
>>>>
>>>> - But the point-like structure (the photon) has always been there since
>>>> 1865-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Absolute truth has been spoken.
>>>
>>> --
>
> --

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639016

On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>>
>>> This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
>>> Planck:
>>>
>>> A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
>>>
>>>  - Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
>>> light itself.

How ridiculous as a point particle being a point cannot diminish with
distance as per the inverse square law which is logical, real and
evident to all those blessed with sanity.
>>
>> Rubbish. Point particles can not bend nicely in denser medium. They
>> cannot have interference patterns. They cannot be polarized. They cannot
>> get a uniform phase front as in laser or maser. They cannot diffract.
>> There is no way they can create standing wave patterns.
>
>
>
>
> Bertietaylor, YOUR LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL
> ANALYSIS IS APPALLING.

Your need to shout shows you are some kind of thumper. Nothing
scientific. A waste of time!

YOU NEED TO RESET YOURSELF AND FIND OUT WHAT IS
> WRONG WITH YOUR MIND.

More thumping. What are you, a street corner fundie asking all to
repent?

Never mind!

Woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor
>
> IT'S NOT THE POINT-LIKE PARTICLE WHICH BENDS OR CREATE INTERFERENCE
> PATTERNS, MAN.
>
> IT'S DUE TO THEIR ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC FIELDS, WHICH ARE
> SELF-GENERATED AND SELF-SUSTAINED FOREVER, ACROSS HUGE DISTANCES OF
> BILLIONS OF LY.
>
> WHEN TRESPASSING MEDIUMS ON ITS LONG JOURNEY ON SPACE, BOTH FIELDS ADAPT
> TO CORRECT THE SPEED OF SUCH PARTICLE (AKA PHOTON).
>
> ALWAYS, SINCE 1865 AND 1901, BOTH THEORIES WERE THE EXACT REPRESENTATION
> OF A TOP-DOWN APPROACH (MAXWELL) AND A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (PLANCK).
>
> THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IT OR UNDERSTAND IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE NOT A DEEP
> THINKER, AND I PITY YOU FOR IT.
>
> GIVE YOURSELF A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND BOTH MODELS SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND
> YOU'LL FIND THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR A CENTURY, DUE TO
> FUCKING IMBECILES LIKE THE QUANTUM GUYS, WHO PRETENDED (VERY ENCOURAGED)
> TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD IN A WAY MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN WHAT IS NEEDED.
>
> EITHER IN RADIO ENGINEERING OR IN QUANTUM PHYSICS, THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE
> THE SAME. THIS IS WHAT ALLOWED PROGRESS IN PHOTONICS AS WELL AS ANYTHING
> RELATED TO RADIO TELECOM, RANGING, ETC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>  - It's a carrier of energy (Planck) that is emitted/absorbed by
>>> electrons that
>>>    are orbiting atoms, which have different levels of energy.
>>
>> Forget energy. That is trader talk from Jewish physics. It is force that
>> is the keyword. Aether is back thanks to Arindam and all the
>> extraordinary bungling wrapped by math gibberish is out.
>>>
>>>  - It's created as if space of any kind (Maxwell) IGNITES under such
>>> discharge
>>>    causing that the point-like energy oscillates with electric and
>>> magnetic fields
>>>    in quadrature, with speed depending on the refraction index of the
>>> media.
>>
>> Blah
>>
>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>>
>>> - Under classic physics (Maxwell, unaware of Planck discovery) photons
>>> are not
>>>   perceived as a sum of enormous amounts of ray of light (each ray
>>> linked to a
>>>   bounded electron). On the opposite side, under Planck vision, light is
>>> composed
>>>   of a large amount of photons, each one with energy E=hf.
>>>
>>> - The confusion between classic and quantum physics is due to the
>>> interpretation
>>>   of what light is. In Maxwell's world, light is the sum (coherent or
>>> not) of huge
>>>   amounts of ray of light (each one a photon), and is expressed in terms
>>> of energy
>>>   per unit area. In Planck's world, light is the sum (coherent or not)
>>> of huge
>>>   amount of photons, each one carrying energy E=hf.
>>>
>>> - The speed of the photon or the ray of light is defined by Maxwell, in
>>> terms of
>>>   the permittivity and permeability of the medium. The collision of the
>>> emitted
>>>   energy per atom is what ignites the medium, creating the point-like
>>> particle.
>>>
>>> - The classic representation of light as a sinusoidal wave is just an
>>> abstraction
>>>   used for more than a century, representing the behavior of the
>>> electrical field.
>>>
>>> - There is not a dual behavior of light. This "paradox" is caused by the
>>> confusion
>>>   when light is analyzed entirely (Maxwell) or at its least expression
>>> (Planck).
>>>   Top-down versus bottom-up appreciation of light.
>>>
>>> - But the point-like structure (the photon) has always been there since
>>> 1865-
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolute truth has been spoken.
>>
>> --

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639017

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
>>>> Planck:
>>>>
>>>> A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
>>>>
>>>>  - Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
>>>> light itself.
> 
> How ridiculous as a point particle being a point cannot diminish with
> distance as per the inverse square law which is logical, real and
> evident to all those blessed with sanity.

A single photon doesn't diminish with distance, a GROUP of photons
disperses with distance, Arindam.

<snip remaining insane babble>

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639020

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 2:31:11 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
>>>>> Planck:
>>>>>
>>>>> A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
>>>>>
>>>>>  - Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
>>>>> light itself.
>>
>> How ridiculous as a point particle being a point cannot diminish with
>> distance as per the inverse square law which is logical, real and
>> evident to all those blessed with sanity.
>
> A single photon doesn't diminish with distance, a GROUP of photons
> disperses with distance, Arindam.

Since a group of photons is constituted of individual photons,
diminishment if the group applies to the individuals if sanity means
anything in physics.
>
> <snip remaining insane babble>

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639025

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 2:31:11 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
>>>>>> Planck:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  - Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
>>>>>> light itself.
>>>
>>> How ridiculous as a point particle being a point cannot diminish with
>>> distance as per the inverse square law which is logical, real and
>>> evident to all those blessed with sanity.
>>
>> A single photon doesn't diminish with distance, a GROUP of photons
>> disperses with distance, Arindam.
> 
> Since a group of photons is constituted of individual photons,
> diminishment if the group applies to the individuals if sanity means
> anything in physics.

Incoherent.

The inverse square law applies to a group of photons and says the power
density, that is the power over an area, decreases with distance. This is
because photons can not be perfectly collimated and thus have a
dispersion angle. From this, high school geometry leads to the inverse
square law.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638569

rhertz wrote:

>  - It's a carrier of energy (Planck) that is emitted/absorbed by
> electrons that
>    are orbiting atoms, which have different levels of energy.

that's known as the electron to electron sentiment of love. You may call
it what you want.

‘If it wasn’t for me bad this could have happened in Russia ’ . So these
are the bad things were talking about and that’s why Trump is quiet and
cold like a dead corpse

NEVER SEEN A COUNTRY AS STUPID AS RUSSIA..!!LOL

At-Least 4 Tu-95 Strategic Bombers Likely Destroyed In “Biggest-Ever”
Attack On Russia since the Nazi invasion; Ukraine’s Israeli supplied FPV
Drones Wreak Havoc On RuAF with impunity and lack of response.

Russia’s hidden power: strong-worded letters. Soon to be published on «X.»

«Kiev’s negotiators have met with representatives from Germany, Italy, and
the UK, Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry has said. The sides have “coordinated
positions” ahead of the Istanbul talks»

As long as the Anglo-Zionist cabal exists, the West will ALWAYS try to
break up and destroy Russia and China and completely annihilate and delete
their cultural identity. Remember, they are always planning, scheming,
concocting and stealthily orchestrating ways to destroy Russia and kill
Putin no matter how soothing and smooth their words of peace that come out
their mouth are. They´re liars. Putin and Xi must get it into their heads:
the cabal creatures and their puppets are irredeemable and incorrigible
Evil psychopathic entities from Hell. DON’T BE FOOL!!!!! Act now, before
it’s too late. Take heed of what I’m saying!


https://www.rt.com/russia/618456-second-round-russia-ukraine-talks

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638573

Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 22:07 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> On 6/1/2025 3:03 AM, bertitaylor wrote:
>> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
>> in the medium of aether.
> 
> Think of a laser. Emitting photons, or radiation. All with the same spin?
> 

My own idea about photons:

a photon is kind of 'wave-packet'.

It has a certain helical form and is like an electron, but in motion.

Actually if you would stop a photon, by e.g. a metal plate, you would 
get an electron.

Or you could make an electron 'roll away' and it will become a photon.

This could be done by 'smashing' the electron against an obstacle, which 
would free that electron from its position.

The idea behind this explanation stems from my 'book' about 'structured 
spacetime':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

In this electrons and protons are not real particles, but certain 
'timelike stable patterns'.

The electron and the proton are essentially 'one piece' (commonly called 
'atom') and denote certain aspects of a 'standing rotation wave', where 
the electron is the outer turning point and the proton the inner.

If you 'kick' this structure, it would 'roll away', hence would make 
photons out of electrons.

But the opposite is also possible, which is known as 
'photo-electric-effect'.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638574

Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/1/2025 3:03 AM, bertitaylor wrote:
> > A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
> > in the medium of aether.
> 
> Think of a laser. Emitting photons, or radiation. All with the same spin?

Depends on the polarisation state.
So whatever you want,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638709

On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 20:07:48 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 6/1/2025 3:03 AM, bertitaylor wrote:
>> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
>> in the medium of aether.
>
> Think of a laser. Emitting photons, or radiation. All with the same
> spin?

A laser is like a huge microwave antenna, say 1 km long at 1 GHz giving
an extremely sharp beam. Only much smaller as the frequency of light is
much higher, or wavelength much smaller.

When talking about radiation, think of antenna phased array. In phase
polarised light from laser is like the huge in phase microwave antenna
emitting electromagnetic waves.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor
>
>
>>
>> Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from
>> external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric
>> field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a
>> electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on,
>> infinitely infinitely.
>>
>> Woof woof woof woof, great is the design of the universe and wonderful
>> its workings, when seen in correct detail.
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> --

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638568

On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote:
> A photon is 

A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties
of light called the 'photoelectric effect'.  It can have
some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it
can have meaning that varies between people.  It is not
obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer
to that specific theory concerning light or not.

> a brief electromagnetic 

Yes some properties of light have been related to electricity
and magnetism.  Those are other theories of light developed
some in the 1800s.

> wave pulse travelling a 
> light speed

Then there are other theories about light having a constant
speed with respect to an observer or different speeds with
respect to both light emission and light observation.

> in the medium of aether.

Still other theories about light jumbled together.

> Following antenna 

?

> theory, 

What you have here is a bunch of sci-fi sounding
terms thrown together with no clear real meaning assigned
to them.  They sound like they may refer to something
superficially referring to an array of different theories
about light, but in reality they could have an array of
different meanings that you might assign to them later.

For you they are a generative pejorative to nay-say,
but in reality they have been assigned no clear meaning,
they only indirectly sound like an array of different
theories of light in the past.

> of asymmetry in the electron orbit 

Yes there is something called 'orbitals' that
have been related to something called 'quantum
mechanics', and that has been related to something
called 'chemistry' and not just 'nuclear physics'.

> from
> external excitation causing vibration to aether. 

Yup.  Jumping between theories tends to point again
to a generic pejorative called 'science' but in
reality terms assigned no clear meaning.

> A change in 

Yup.

No clear meaning.

Gibberish.

Yup.

 > ...

 > Woof woof woof woof

Yup.  Dogs are non-sentient animals.

Yup.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638580

On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:50:31 +0000, x wrote:

> On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote:
>> A photon is
>
> A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties
> of light called the 'photoelectric effect'.  It can have
> some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it
> can have meaning that varies between people.  It is not
> obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer
> to that specific theory concerning light or not.
>
>> a brief electromagnetic
>
> Yes some properties of light have been related to electricity
> and magnetism.  Those are other theories of light developed
> some in the 1800s.
>
>> wave pulse travelling a
>> light speed
>
> Then there are other theories about light having a constant
> speed with respect to an observer or different speeds with
> respect to both light emission and light observation.

Light speed is variant and that is not theory. The MMX proves it so.
>
>> in the medium of aether.
>
> Still other theories about light jumbled together.

No mumbling or jumbling from us. Any wave needs a medium. Light is a
wave with its medium being aether.
>
>> Following antenna
>
> ?
>
>> theory,
>
> What you have here is a bunch of sci-fi sounding
> terms thrown together with no clear real meaning assigned

No, we are very clear. And totally scientific for we are following
Arindam who is second only to Sir Isaac Newton. He beats all for focus,
clarity and brevity. Denials by howling apes and wannabe killers and
sundry small people emphasize his greatness.

> to them.  They sound like they may refer to something
> superficially referring to an array of different theories
> about light, but in reality they could have an array of
> different meanings that you might assign to them later.

Blah. Unlike the Einsteinian thugs Arindam makes his new ideas very
clear. No ambiguity, no schizophrenia, in his clean and clear theory and
simple repeatable experiments.
>
> For you they are a generative pejorative to nay-say,
> but in reality they have been assigned no clear meaning,
> they only indirectly sound like an array of different
> theories of light in the past.

What rubbish. Arindam clearly states that light as photon is a brief
single electromagnetic pulse propagating as a travelling wave in aether
medium. What could be more clear. He does follow Huyghens in that wave
nature of light and also Newton for the say atomic nature of the photon.
This way Arindam reconciles the approaches of these two great
scientists. No mean job.


WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor



>
>> of asymmetry in the electron orbit
>
> Yes there is something called 'orbitals' that
> have been related to something called 'quantum
> mechanics', and that has been related to something
> called 'chemistry' and not just 'nuclear physics'.
>
>> from
>> external excitation causing vibration to aether.
>
> Yup.  Jumping between theories tends to point again
> to a generic pejorative called 'science' but in
> reality terms assigned no clear meaning.
>
>> A change in
>
> Yup.
>
> No clear meaning.
>
> Gibberish.
>
> Yup.
>
>  > ...
>
>  > Woof woof woof woof
>
> Yup.  Dogs are non-sentient animals.
>
> Yup.

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web