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

#638705

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> I see. The problem isn't just with your understanding of physics.
> Your command of the English language is inadequate,

you are staring in a mirror.

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

#638722

Omee Szatmári <emzoae@tt.hu> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > I see. The problem isn't just with your understanding of physics.
> > Your command of the English language is inadequate,
> 
> you are staring in a mirror.

My my, so Hungary has been added to the troll clan,

Jan

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

#638724

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Omee Szatmári <emzoae@tt.hu> wrote:
>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > I see. The problem isn't just with your understanding of physics.
>> > Your command of the English language is inadequate,
>> you are staring in a mirror.
> 
> My my, so Hungary has been added to the troll clan,

the entire europe can see you fail in physics, and never had your ass
inside a laboratory. I doubt you have laboratories in gay polakia. Btw, 
that region, a lot of pretenders 'mathematicians' without diplomas and 
university education, you blathering troll.

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

#638666

Thomas Heger wrote:

> I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are of
> equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a different
> world. And all observers observe necessarily from their own position.

no, that's called 'objectivism'

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

#638670

Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 00:19 schrieb Laurence Vassilikos:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are of
>> equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a different
>> world. And all observers observe necessarily from their own position.
> 
> no, that's called 'objectivism'

No, because I had called that schema 'subjectivism'.

(whether you do or anybody else, that is not my concern)

The idea behind this name is my aim, to make possible, that all 
observers are of equal rights.

Since there exist billions of observers of our own species alone, we had 
to allow an enormous amount of different views upon the world.

But, on the other hand, that's not at all bad, because we usually see 
the world like this.

This is actually exactly how we see the world, because
'to see' requires the use of our own eyes and our own brain.

These things (eyes and brain) are inevitably 'subjective', because one's 
brain and eyes belong to that person.

'Objectivism', on the other hand, would require, what isn't possible:

kind of 'collective' brain and eyes.

Therefore I had regarded subjectivism as system we actually use, because 
we have no other means.

But 'subjectivism' gives a satisfying explanation, why we see things 
like we see them:

because we are always somewhere and can only see the world from there.


TH

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

#638674

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 00:19 schrieb Laurence Vassilikos:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 
>>> I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are
>>> of equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a
>>> different world. And all observers observe necessarily from their own
>>> position.
>> 
>> no, that's called 'objectivism'
> 
> No, because I had called that schema 'subjectivism'.

you cant call shit as you want; that's already defined by consent.

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

#638681

Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 15:33 schrieb Afif Lew:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 00:19 schrieb Laurence Vassilikos:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are
>>>> of equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a
>>>> different world. And all observers observe necessarily from their own
>>>> position.
>>>
>>> no, that's called 'objectivism'
>>
>> No, because I had called that schema 'subjectivism'.
> 
> you cant call shit as you want; that's already defined by consent.

I used the word 'subjectivism' for the rule, that all observers see the 
world 'subjective' (meaning: with their own eyes only).

To match observation and models about the world, it would be necessary 
to use this subjective model.

This is not really obvious, but true.

E.g. if I would create a model about something, but based on your 
visions from your environment, than my model would be necessarily incorrect.

That's because we need a consistency between model of the observations 
and the observations themselves.

Otherwise the model could not possibly match the observations.


TH



The

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

#638684

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 15:33 schrieb Afif Lew:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 00:19 schrieb Laurence Vassilikos:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are
>>>>> of equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a
>>>>> different world. And all observers observe necessarily from their
>>>>> own position.
>>>> no, that's called 'objectivism'
>>> No, because I had called that schema 'subjectivism'.
>> 
>> you cant call shit as you want; that's already defined by consent.
> 
> I used the word 'subjectivism' for the rule, that all observers see the
> world 'subjective' (meaning: with their own eyes only).

you never know nor prove that; you are making shit as you go.

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

#638693

Am Freitag000013, 13.06.2025 um 15:21 schrieb Ladd Hudoleev:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 15:33 schrieb Afif Lew:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 00:19 schrieb Laurence Vassilikos:
>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are
>>>>>> of equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a
>>>>>> different world. And all observers observe necessarily from their
>>>>>> own position.
>>>>> no, that's called 'objectivism'
>>>> No, because I had called that schema 'subjectivism'.
>>>
>>> you cant call shit as you want; that's already defined by consent.
>>
>> I used the word 'subjectivism' for the rule, that all observers see the
>> world 'subjective' (meaning: with their own eyes only).
> 
> you never know nor prove that; you are making shit as you go.

That's actually quite rude.

But, anyhow: you can only see with your own eyes!

That's why I thought, that 'subjectivism' would be a good thing, because 
it matches the way we see the world.

This would include the concept of relativity and local time.

But not only this, this would also allow matter itself to be 'relative'.

This in turn would allow a astonishingly simple connection between 
relativity and QM.

About this idea I have written kind of 'book':

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

Its benefit is mainly, that this 'triality universe' requires only very 
few basic assumptions.

The disadvantage is mainly, that the concept is quite counter-intuitive.

Especially the role of matter is different to standard concepts, as it 
is not based on lasting  particles.


TH

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

#638699

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Freitag000013, 13.06.2025 um 15:21 schrieb Ladd Hudoleev:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> I used the word 'subjectivism' for the rule, that all observers see
>>> the world 'subjective' (meaning: with their own eyes only).
>> 
>> you never know nor prove that; you are making shit as you go.
> 
> That's actually quite rude.
> 
> But, anyhow: you can only see with your own eyes!
> 
> That's why I thought, that 'subjectivism' would be a good thing, because
> it matches the way we see the world.
> 
> This would include the concept of relativity and local time.

that's why it's called objectivism, my man. You must be from Glucksburg.

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

#638717

Am Freitag000013, 13.06.2025 um 15:21 schrieb Ladd Hudoleev:

>>>>>> I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are
>>>>>> of equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a
>>>>>> different world. And all observers observe necessarily from their
>>>>>> own position.
>>>>> no, that's called 'objectivism'
>>>> No, because I had called that schema 'subjectivism'.
>>>
>>> you cant call shit as you want; that's already defined by consent.
>>
>> I used the word 'subjectivism' for the rule, that all observers see the
>> world 'subjective' (meaning: with their own eyes only).
> 
> you never know nor prove that; you are making shit as you go.


???

How would you like to see with other eyes than with your own?


TH

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

#638725

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Freitag000013, 13.06.2025 um 15:21 schrieb Ladd Hudoleev:
> 
>>>>>>> I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers
>>>>>>> are of equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a
>>>>>>> different world. And all observers observe necessarily from their
>>>>>>> own position.
>>>>>> no, that's called 'objectivism'
>>>>> No, because I had called that schema 'subjectivism'.
>>>>
>>>> you cant call shit as you want; that's already defined by consent.
>>>
>>> I used the word 'subjectivism' for the rule, that all observers see
>>> the world 'subjective' (meaning: with their own eyes only).
>> 
>> you never know nor prove that; you are making shit as you go.
> 
> ???
> How would you like to see with other eyes than with your own?

you said that you can, as subjective, and can prove. You dont undrestand 
what you write..

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

#638668

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 5:30:00 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Montag000009, 09.06.2025 um 07:33 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 4:46:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am Donnerstag000005, 05.06.2025 um 13:51 schrieb bertitaylor:
>>>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...]
>>>>>>>>>> How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light is a
>>>>>>>> wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
>>>>> that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
>>>>> not confused? :-D
>>>>
>>>> Why should we be? Are you thick? We have following Arindam said clearly
>>>> that as the Earth moves, light speed has to be variant as the nulls in
>>>> MMX could not happen otherwise. The foolish or sinister physicists have
>>>> either not thought of or ignored the fact that the Earth's movement
>>>> would cause light to move more or less between any two points on the
>>>> moving Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the
>>>>>>> Universe.
>>>>>>> And in 1543 Copernicus  knew nothing about the speed of light.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may have
>>>>>> heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do
>>>>>> NOT go
>>>>>> around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are supposedly
>>>>>> light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the crystal
>>>>>> spheres.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D
>>>>
>>>> Light speed would be invariant as per MMX if the Earth did not move in
>>>> space as the Aristotle model has it.
>>>>
>>>> We have following Arindam said clearly that as the Earth moves, light
>>>> speed has to be variant as the nulls in MMX could not happen otherwise.
>>>> The foolish or sinister physicists have either not thought of or ignored
>>>> the fact that the Earth's movement would cause light to move more or
>>>> less between any two points on the moving Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question
>>>>>>> if the speed of light is invariant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
>>>>>>> A few of them:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
>>>>>>> the speed of light is invariant.
>>>>
>>>> However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the light
>>>> speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a
>>>> greater or lesser distance between two points on the moving Earth is
>>>> ignored, the experiments will start off with a false basis.  So nothing
>>>> true will come from such an horrendous bungle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I ask you again:
>>>>>>> How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
>>>>
>>>> It is never invariant. It is always variant for all objects in the
>>>> universe move with respect to the common static medium, that is aum or
>>>> aether.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
>>>>>>> where the aether is stationary?
>>>>
>>>> The speed of light will always APPEAR to be invariant in an experiment
>>>> like MMX whereas it is variant. Making APPEARANCE reality, on the
>>>> unscientific subjective basis, is the constitution of Einsteinian
>>>> pseudo-physics.
>>>>
>>>> That light speed is variant is clearly shown from the Doppler effect,
>>>> like radar or redshift and blueshift in the stars as the go away or come
>>>> near.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
>>>>>>> where the aether is moving with the speed v?
>>>>
>>>> Aether does not move. The speed of light from a plane flying at speed v
>>>> to a radar on the ground is c+v.
>>>>>
>>>>> No answer, Bertietaylor?
>>>>
>>>> Well, we cannot answer to all as promptly as we might wish. Lots of
>>>> other things to do, what.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the question:
>>>>> "How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"
>>>>
>>>> It cannot be invariant, it will always be variant. However on Earth we
>>>> may measure the speed as c following the usual methods. Also, Maxwell's
>>>> equations provide a value for c, which match experimental values.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
>>>>
>>>> Invariant means that the speed does not depend upon the speed of the
>>>> emitter, in this case.
>>>
>>> Actually 'invarinat speed of light' means, that light travels always
>>> with the same speed through vacuum.
>>
>> As measured from the moving Earth, yes. It also matches the value found
>> from Maxwell's equations and the values of permittivity and
>> permeability, triumphantly showing the wave nature of light. However
>> with respect to static solid aether filling the universe it's speed
>> depends upon the velocity of its emitter.
>
>
> ALL velocities are 'observer dependent', if you attatch the frame of
> reference to the observer.

Quite so a moving observer sees higher velocities or lower velocities
from any source.
>
> That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world.

Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our
conclusions wrong.

So we may observe nulls in the MMX and analyse it as showing light speed
I variance and conclude that SR is correct.

It takes the greatest genius Arindam to point out the analytical flaw
and the horrendously wrong conclusions.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor
>
> I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are of
> equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a different
> world. And all observers observe necessarily from their own position.
>
> Now this contaions a part, which is against certain assumptions about
> the world, but despite of this is true:
>
> we don't see the same world!
>
> This is easy to prove:
>
> we see the others, but not ourself, while others do the same, but with
> somebody else as 'I'.
>
> So: if all observers are of equal rights, we cannot assume, that they
> all see the same world.
>
> Instead we need to assume, that everybody see the world from the own
> perspective (->'subjectivism').
>
> Now the coordinate system of each and every observer is  a different
> one, because every observer uses the own position (naturally) as 'zero
> spot' and the local 'up' as z-axis, right as x and ahead as y-axis.
>
> That spot carries also a local time, hence time is also 'relative'.
>
> Now we usually ignore this and think, that we all live in the same
> world, hence see the same things.
>
> But that is, of course, only an illusion.
>
>
>
>>> This does, of course, include independence from the speed of the
>>> emitter.
>>
>> Which is wrong as the MMX and Doppler prove both on Earth and from the
>> stars.
>
> A 'very sticky' misconception is hidden in the term 'the stars'.
>
> What we actually see in the night sky is not real, but a picture, which
> we receive from the past.
>
> This picture is organised in 'cyrstall spheres' (of equal distance), the
> further away the longer ago.
>
> Since everything moves, we cannot use the stars as reference points,
> because we would need to create a consistent picture of stars at their
> present positions at the same time first, before we could use star
> positions as reference.
>
> Unfortunately this is VERY (!!) difficult, hence not done.
>
> Cosmology swept this problem 'under the rug', because it is almost
> impossible to solve.
>
> ....
>
>
> TH

--

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

#638671

Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 04:01 schrieb Bertitaylor:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 5:30:00 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> Am Montag000009, 09.06.2025 um 07:33 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 4:46:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am Donnerstag000005, 05.06.2025 um 13:51 schrieb bertitaylor:
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...]
>>>>>>>>>>> How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light 
>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>> wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
>>>>>> that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
>>>>>> not confused? :-D
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should we be? Are you thick? We have following Arindam said 
>>>>> clearly
>>>>> that as the Earth moves, light speed has to be variant as the nulls in
>>>>> MMX could not happen otherwise. The foolish or sinister physicists 
>>>>> have
>>>>> either not thought of or ignored the fact that the Earth's movement
>>>>> would cause light to move more or less between any two points on the
>>>>> moving Earth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the
>>>>>>>> Universe.
>>>>>>>> And in 1543 Copernicus  knew nothing about the speed of light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may have
>>>>>>> heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do
>>>>>>> NOT go
>>>>>>> around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are supposedly
>>>>>>> light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the crystal
>>>>>>> spheres.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D
>>>>>
>>>>> Light speed would be invariant as per MMX if the Earth did not move in
>>>>> space as the Aristotle model has it.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have following Arindam said clearly that as the Earth moves, light
>>>>> speed has to be variant as the nulls in MMX could not happen 
>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>> The foolish or sinister physicists have either not thought of or 
>>>>> ignored
>>>>> the fact that the Earth's movement would cause light to move more or
>>>>> less between any two points on the moving Earth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question
>>>>>>>> if the speed of light is invariant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
>>>>>>>> A few of them:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
>>>>>>>> the speed of light is invariant.
>>>>>
>>>>> However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the 
>>>>> light
>>>>> speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a
>>>>> greater or lesser distance between two points on the moving Earth is
>>>>> ignored, the experiments will start off with a false basis.  So 
>>>>> nothing
>>>>> true will come from such an horrendous bungle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I ask you again:
>>>>>>>> How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is never invariant. It is always variant for all objects in the
>>>>> universe move with respect to the common static medium, that is aum or
>>>>> aether.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
>>>>>>>> where the aether is stationary?
>>>>>
>>>>> The speed of light will always APPEAR to be invariant in an experiment
>>>>> like MMX whereas it is variant. Making APPEARANCE reality, on the
>>>>> unscientific subjective basis, is the constitution of Einsteinian
>>>>> pseudo-physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> That light speed is variant is clearly shown from the Doppler effect,
>>>>> like radar or redshift and blueshift in the stars as the go away or 
>>>>> come
>>>>> near.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
>>>>>>>> where the aether is moving with the speed v?
>>>>>
>>>>> Aether does not move. The speed of light from a plane flying at 
>>>>> speed v
>>>>> to a radar on the ground is c+v.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No answer, Bertietaylor?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, we cannot answer to all as promptly as we might wish. Lots of
>>>>> other things to do, what.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the question:
>>>>>> "How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"
>>>>>
>>>>> It cannot be invariant, it will always be variant. However on Earth we
>>>>> may measure the speed as c following the usual methods. Also, 
>>>>> Maxwell's
>>>>> equations provide a value for c, which match experimental values.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
>>>>>
>>>>> Invariant means that the speed does not depend upon the speed of the
>>>>> emitter, in this case.
>>>>
>>>> Actually 'invarinat speed of light' means, that light travels always
>>>> with the same speed through vacuum.
>>>
>>> As measured from the moving Earth, yes. It also matches the value found
>>> from Maxwell's equations and the values of permittivity and
>>> permeability, triumphantly showing the wave nature of light. However
>>> with respect to static solid aether filling the universe it's speed
>>> depends upon the velocity of its emitter.
>>
>>
>> ALL velocities are 'observer dependent', if you attatch the frame of
>> reference to the observer.
> 
> Quite so a moving observer sees higher velocities or lower velocities
> from any source.

subjectivism would require to 'halt' the observer, because observers do 
not move in respect to themselves.


>>
>> That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world.
> 
> Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our
> conclusions wrong.
???

Don't understand

...

TH

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

#638672

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 4:29:18 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 04:01 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 5:30:00 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am Montag000009, 09.06.2025 um 07:33 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>>>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 4:46:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am Donnerstag000005, 05.06.2025 um 13:51 schrieb bertitaylor:
>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light
>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>> wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
>>>>>>> that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
>>>>>>> not confused? :-D
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should we be? Are you thick? We have following Arindam said
>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>> that as the Earth moves, light speed has to be variant as the nulls in
>>>>>> MMX could not happen otherwise. The foolish or sinister physicists
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> either not thought of or ignored the fact that the Earth's movement
>>>>>> would cause light to move more or less between any two points on the
>>>>>> moving Earth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the
>>>>>>>>> Universe.
>>>>>>>>> And in 1543 Copernicus  knew nothing about the speed of light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may have
>>>>>>>> heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do
>>>>>>>> NOT go
>>>>>>>> around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are supposedly
>>>>>>>> light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the crystal
>>>>>>>> spheres.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Light speed would be invariant as per MMX if the Earth did not move in
>>>>>> space as the Aristotle model has it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have following Arindam said clearly that as the Earth moves, light
>>>>>> speed has to be variant as the nulls in MMX could not happen
>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>> The foolish or sinister physicists have either not thought of or
>>>>>> ignored
>>>>>> the fact that the Earth's movement would cause light to move more or
>>>>>> less between any two points on the moving Earth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question
>>>>>>>>> if the speed of light is invariant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
>>>>>>>>> A few of them:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
>>>>>>>>> the speed of light is invariant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the
>>>>>> light
>>>>>> speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a
>>>>>> greater or lesser distance between two points on the moving Earth is
>>>>>> ignored, the experiments will start off with a false basis.  So
>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>> true will come from such an horrendous bungle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I ask you again:
>>>>>>>>> How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is never invariant. It is always variant for all objects in the
>>>>>> universe move with respect to the common static medium, that is aum or
>>>>>> aether.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
>>>>>>>>> where the aether is stationary?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The speed of light will always APPEAR to be invariant in an experiment
>>>>>> like MMX whereas it is variant. Making APPEARANCE reality, on the
>>>>>> unscientific subjective basis, is the constitution of Einsteinian
>>>>>> pseudo-physics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That light speed is variant is clearly shown from the Doppler effect,
>>>>>> like radar or redshift and blueshift in the stars as the go away or
>>>>>> come
>>>>>> near.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
>>>>>>>>> where the aether is moving with the speed v?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aether does not move. The speed of light from a plane flying at
>>>>>> speed v
>>>>>> to a radar on the ground is c+v.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No answer, Bertietaylor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, we cannot answer to all as promptly as we might wish. Lots of
>>>>>> other things to do, what.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the question:
>>>>>>> "How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It cannot be invariant, it will always be variant. However on Earth we
>>>>>> may measure the speed as c following the usual methods. Also,
>>>>>> Maxwell's
>>>>>> equations provide a value for c, which match experimental values.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Invariant means that the speed does not depend upon the speed of the
>>>>>> emitter, in this case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually 'invarinat speed of light' means, that light travels always
>>>>> with the same speed through vacuum.
>>>>
>>>> As measured from the moving Earth, yes. It also matches the value found
>>>> from Maxwell's equations and the values of permittivity and
>>>> permeability, triumphantly showing the wave nature of light. However
>>>> with respect to static solid aether filling the universe it's speed
>>>> depends upon the velocity of its emitter.
>>>
>>>
>>> ALL velocities are 'observer dependent', if you attatch the frame of
>>> reference to the observer.
>>
>> Quite so a moving observer sees higher velocities or lower velocities
>> from any source.
>
> subjectivism would require to 'halt' the observer, because observers do
> not move in respect to themselves.
>
>
>>>
>>> That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world.
>>
>> Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our
>> conclusions wrong.
> ???
>
> Don't understand

Doesn't look like you want to.
>
> ....
>
> TH

--

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

#638680

Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 13:05 schrieb Bertitaylor:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 4:29:18 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 04:01 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 5:30:00 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am Montag000009, 09.06.2025 um 07:33 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 4:46:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000005, 05.06.2025 um 13:51 schrieb bertitaylor:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light
>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>> wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is 
>>>>>>>>>>> aether.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
>>>>>>>> that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
>>>>>>>> not confused? :-D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why should we be? Are you thick? We have following Arindam said
>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>> that as the Earth moves, light speed has to be variant as the 
>>>>>>> nulls in
>>>>>>> MMX could not happen otherwise. The foolish or sinister physicists
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> either not thought of or ignored the fact that the Earth's movement
>>>>>>> would cause light to move more or less between any two points on the
>>>>>>> moving Earth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the
>>>>>>>>>> Universe.
>>>>>>>>>> And in 1543 Copernicus  knew nothing about the speed of light.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may 
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do
>>>>>>>>> NOT go
>>>>>>>>> around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are 
>>>>>>>>> supposedly
>>>>>>>>> light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the 
>>>>>>>>> crystal
>>>>>>>>> spheres.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Light speed would be invariant as per MMX if the Earth did not 
>>>>>>> move in
>>>>>>> space as the Aristotle model has it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have following Arindam said clearly that as the Earth moves, 
>>>>>>> light
>>>>>>> speed has to be variant as the nulls in MMX could not happen
>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>> The foolish or sinister physicists have either not thought of or
>>>>>>> ignored
>>>>>>> the fact that the Earth's movement would cause light to move more or
>>>>>>> less between any two points on the moving Earth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question
>>>>>>>>>> if the speed of light is invariant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>> A few of them:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
>>>>>>>>>> the speed of light is invariant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the
>>>>>>> light
>>>>>>> speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a
>>>>>>> greater or lesser distance between two points on the moving Earth is
>>>>>>> ignored, the experiments will start off with a false basis.  So
>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>> true will come from such an horrendous bungle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I ask you again:
>>>>>>>>>> How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is never invariant. It is always variant for all objects in the
>>>>>>> universe move with respect to the common static medium, that is 
>>>>>>> aum or
>>>>>>> aether.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
>>>>>>>>>> where the aether is stationary?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The speed of light will always APPEAR to be invariant in an 
>>>>>>> experiment
>>>>>>> like MMX whereas it is variant. Making APPEARANCE reality, on the
>>>>>>> unscientific subjective basis, is the constitution of Einsteinian
>>>>>>> pseudo-physics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That light speed is variant is clearly shown from the Doppler 
>>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>>> like radar or redshift and blueshift in the stars as the go away or
>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>> near.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
>>>>>>>>>> where the aether is moving with the speed v?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aether does not move. The speed of light from a plane flying at
>>>>>>> speed v
>>>>>>> to a radar on the ground is c+v.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No answer, Bertietaylor?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, we cannot answer to all as promptly as we might wish. Lots of
>>>>>>> other things to do, what.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the 
>>>>>>>> question:
>>>>>>>> "How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It cannot be invariant, it will always be variant. However on 
>>>>>>> Earth we
>>>>>>> may measure the speed as c following the usual methods. Also,
>>>>>>> Maxwell's
>>>>>>> equations provide a value for c, which match experimental values.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Invariant means that the speed does not depend upon the speed of the
>>>>>>> emitter, in this case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually 'invarinat speed of light' means, that light travels always
>>>>>> with the same speed through vacuum.
>>>>>
>>>>> As measured from the moving Earth, yes. It also matches the value 
>>>>> found
>>>>> from Maxwell's equations and the values of permittivity and
>>>>> permeability, triumphantly showing the wave nature of light. However
>>>>> with respect to static solid aether filling the universe it's speed
>>>>> depends upon the velocity of its emitter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ALL velocities are 'observer dependent', if you attatch the frame of
>>>> reference to the observer.
>>>
>>> Quite so a moving observer sees higher velocities or lower velocities
>>> from any source.
>>
>> subjectivism would require to 'halt' the observer, because observers do
>> not move in respect to themselves.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world.
>>>
>>> Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our
>>> conclusions wrong.
>> ???
>>
>> Don't understand
> 
> Doesn't look like you want to.
>>

you had written this:


"Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our 
conclusions wrong."

as a reply to may statement:

" subjectivism would require to 'halt' the observer, because observers 
do not move in respect to themselves.

That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world."

My statement had nothing to do with 'conclusions' (whether wrong or 
not), but with 'observations'

Our observations are, of course, all 'incorrect', because they are 
necessarily subjective.

(That's why I named this 'subjectivism'.)

Objective correct observations are actually im impossible, because we 
cannot see the world with other eyes than with our own.


TH

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

#638716

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 7:45:02 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 13:05 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 4:29:18 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 04:01 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 5:30:00 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am Montag000009, 09.06.2025 um 07:33 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 4:46:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000005, 05.06.2025 um 13:51 schrieb bertitaylor:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is
>>>>>>>>>>>> aether.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
>>>>>>>>> that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
>>>>>>>>> not confused? :-D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why should we be? Are you thick? We have following Arindam said
>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>> that as the Earth moves, light speed has to be variant as the
>>>>>>>> nulls in
>>>>>>>> MMX could not happen otherwise. The foolish or sinister physicists
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> either not thought of or ignored the fact that the Earth's movement
>>>>>>>> would cause light to move more or less between any two points on the
>>>>>>>> moving Earth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the
>>>>>>>>>>> Universe.
>>>>>>>>>>> And in 1543 Copernicus  knew nothing about the speed of light.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do
>>>>>>>>>> NOT go
>>>>>>>>>> around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are
>>>>>>>>>> supposedly
>>>>>>>>>> light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the
>>>>>>>>>> crystal
>>>>>>>>>> spheres.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Light speed would be invariant as per MMX if the Earth did not
>>>>>>>> move in
>>>>>>>> space as the Aristotle model has it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have following Arindam said clearly that as the Earth moves,
>>>>>>>> light
>>>>>>>> speed has to be variant as the nulls in MMX could not happen
>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>> The foolish or sinister physicists have either not thought of or
>>>>>>>> ignored
>>>>>>>> the fact that the Earth's movement would cause light to move more or
>>>>>>>> less between any two points on the moving Earth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question
>>>>>>>>>>> if the speed of light is invariant.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>>> A few of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
>>>>>>>>>>> the speed of light is invariant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the
>>>>>>>> light
>>>>>>>> speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a
>>>>>>>> greater or lesser distance between two points on the moving Earth is
>>>>>>>> ignored, the experiments will start off with a false basis.  So
>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>> true will come from such an horrendous bungle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So I ask you again:
>>>>>>>>>>> How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is never invariant. It is always variant for all objects in the
>>>>>>>> universe move with respect to the common static medium, that is
>>>>>>>> aum or
>>>>>>>> aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
>>>>>>>>>>> where the aether is stationary?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The speed of light will always APPEAR to be invariant in an
>>>>>>>> experiment
>>>>>>>> like MMX whereas it is variant. Making APPEARANCE reality, on the
>>>>>>>> unscientific subjective basis, is the constitution of Einsteinian
>>>>>>>> pseudo-physics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That light speed is variant is clearly shown from the Doppler
>>>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>>>> like radar or redshift and blueshift in the stars as the go away or
>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>> near.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
>>>>>>>>>>> where the aether is moving with the speed v?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aether does not move. The speed of light from a plane flying at
>>>>>>>> speed v
>>>>>>>> to a radar on the ground is c+v.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No answer, Bertietaylor?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, we cannot answer to all as promptly as we might wish. Lots of
>>>>>>>> other things to do, what.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the
>>>>>>>>> question:
>>>>>>>>> "How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It cannot be invariant, it will always be variant. However on
>>>>>>>> Earth we
>>>>>>>> may measure the speed as c following the usual methods. Also,
>>>>>>>> Maxwell's
>>>>>>>> equations provide a value for c, which match experimental values.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Invariant means that the speed does not depend upon the speed of the
>>>>>>>> emitter, in this case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually 'invarinat speed of light' means, that light travels always
>>>>>>> with the same speed through vacuum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As measured from the moving Earth, yes. It also matches the value
>>>>>> found
>>>>>> from Maxwell's equations and the values of permittivity and
>>>>>> permeability, triumphantly showing the wave nature of light. However
>>>>>> with respect to static solid aether filling the universe it's speed
>>>>>> depends upon the velocity of its emitter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ALL velocities are 'observer dependent', if you attatch the frame of
>>>>> reference to the observer.
>>>>
>>>> Quite so a moving observer sees higher velocities or lower velocities
>>>> from any source.
>>>
>>> subjectivism would require to 'halt' the observer, because observers do
>>> not move in respect to themselves.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world.
>>>>
>>>> Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our
>>>> conclusions wrong.
>>> ???
>>>
>>> Don't understand
>>
>> Doesn't look like you want to.
>>>
>
> you had written this:
>
>
> "Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our
> conclusions wrong."
>
> as a reply to may statement:
>
> " subjectivism would require to 'halt' the observer, because observers
> do not move in respect to themselves.

Point is whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not, they
are actually really really moving in the universe.
>
> That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world."

And that may not give the correct scientific conclusion on the objective
basis.
>
> My statement had nothing to do with 'conclusions' (whether wrong or
> not), but with 'observations'

Conclusions based on subjective observations are not scientific.
>
> Our observations are, of course, all 'incorrect', because they are
> necessarily subjective.

Yes and so are conclusions like the wrong conclusion of light speed
invariance. Subjective observations ignoring observer speed with respect
to aether, wrong analysis, wrong conclusion.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof
>
> (That's why I named this 'subjectivism'.)
>
> Objective correct observations are actually im impossible, because we
> cannot see the world with other eyes than with our own.
>
>
> TH

--

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

#638676

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> Except for the speed of light.
> 
> There is no 'except'!
> 
> Velocity IS frame-dependent!
> 
> This is inevitable and also the case for light.

no, because that's not a speed, but a delay in resonance.

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

#638678

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> The field might look like this volumetric field around a large super
> cluster, there are a shit load of black holes in here:
> 
> https://i.ibb.co/V0TMS5Hz/image.png
> 
> The photons are riding field lines. Well, in real life the field is 100%
> continuous. The field line approach is to get a visualization of the
> field. Each photon riding a field line has a direction, and its moving
> at the speed of light.

not true, in blackhole conditions light runs back into the atom, creating 
an electric potential and an electric current threshold. No light needed.

You mean they can’t even beat the Houthis and now they want to go for 
Iran….LMAOL!
https://www.r%74.com/news/619032-israel-looming-iran-attack/

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

#638679

On 6/12/2025 4:04 PM, Cash Matzuev wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> The field might look like this volumetric field around a large super
>> cluster, there are a shit load of black holes in here:
>>
>> https://i.ibb.co/V0TMS5Hz/image.png
>>
>> The photons are riding field lines. Well, in real life the field is 100%
>> continuous. The field line approach is to get a visualization of the
>> field. Each photon riding a field line has a direction, and its moving
>> at the speed of light.
> 
> not true, in blackhole conditions light runs back into the atom, creating
> an electric potential and an electric current threshold. No light needed.
> 
> You mean they can’t even beat the Houthis and now they want to go for
> Iran….LMAOL!
> https://www.r%74.com/news/619032-israel-looming-iran-attack/

I think a photon riding a field line always goes at the speed of light, 
right?

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web