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

#638708

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.

The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory.
Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as
his theories on relativity.

>
>> 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]

#638721

Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 00:17 schrieb Bertitaylor:
> 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.
> 
> The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory.
> Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as
> his theories on relativity.


My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named 
'structured spacetime'.

In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is actually 
a standing wave.

That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'.

My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of 
'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions.

These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike 
elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations.

The equation is simple:

q' = p* q* p^-1

Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing 
rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'.

The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and the 
inner turning point the core of that 'atom'.

Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but 
certain points of a single structure.

If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly 
'roll away'.

This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call 'photon'.

If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps into 
some structure, which blocks its movement.

Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity 
is charging up the plate.

My concept does sound certainly quite foolish.

BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions.

As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE 
and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other.

And GE can be proven!
...


TH

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

#638723

On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 8:56:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 00:17 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>> 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.
>>
>> The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory.
>> Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as
>> his theories on relativity.
>
>
> My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named
> 'structured spacetime'.
>
> In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is actually
> a standing wave.
>
> That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'.
>
> My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of
> 'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions.
>
> These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike
> elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations.
>
> The equation is simple:
>
> q' = p* q* p^-1
>
> Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing
> rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'.
>
> The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and the
> inner turning point the core of that 'atom'.
>
> Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but
> certain points of a single structure.
>
> If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly
> 'roll away'.
>
> This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call
> 'photon'.
>
> If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps into
> some structure, which blocks its movement.
>
> Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity
> is charging up the plate.
>
> My concept does sound certainly quite foolish.
>
> BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions.
>
> As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE
> and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other.
>
> And GE can be proven!
> ....
>
>
> TH

Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as
the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal
universe?

If you can believe in dinosaurs and thus go against JCI metaphysics who
not believe in aether?

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#638759

Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Bertitaylor:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 8:56:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 00:17 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory.
>>> Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as
>>> his theories on relativity.
>>
>>
>> My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named
>> 'structured spacetime'.
>>
>> In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is actually
>> a standing wave.
>>
>> That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'.
>>
>> My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of
>> 'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions.
>>
>> These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike
>> elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations.
>>
>> The equation is simple:
>>
>> q' = p* q* p^-1
>>
>> Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing
>> rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'.
>>
>> The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and the
>> inner turning point the core of that 'atom'.
>>
>> Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but
>> certain points of a single structure.
>>
>> If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly
>> 'roll away'.
>>
>> This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call
>> 'photon'.
>>
>> If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps into
>> some structure, which blocks its movement.
>>
>> Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity
>> is charging up the plate.
>>
>> My concept does sound certainly quite foolish.
>>
>> BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions.
>>
>> As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE
>> and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other.
>>
>> And GE can be proven!
>> ....
>>
>>
>> TH
> 
> Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as
> the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal
> universe?

This has a reason, but a little complicated one:

'aether' is assumed as fine fluidlike substance, fills all of space.

But this aether isn't 'relative'.

I mean:

if you want to fill all space with aether, you would need space and 
aether in the first place.

But I wanted something else and somthing compatible with 'big-bang theory'.

I think, that big-bang theory is actauylly wrong, but not entirely.

Instead of one single timeline as in in bb-theory, I wanted multiple 
timelines, which could run into different direction and which denote 
local time.

So: any point in the universe is placed upon a timeline, which points to 
a remote big bang.

But these big-bangs are all different and the axes of time point into 
different directions.

So, 'space' had to be 'relative', too, and also matter.

This would actually make 'aether' impossible, because aether had to be 
there, before that stuff could fill all of space.

My own concept is based on a different idea. The best discription could 
be found in the book 'From Zero to Infinity' by Prof. Peter Rowland.

Unfortunately this book is not easy to read and also very expensive.

But my own 'book' is much easier to read and actually free:

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


TH


> If you can believe in dinosaurs and thus go against JCI metaphysics who
> not believe in aether?
> 
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> -- 

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

#638763

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 5:16:13 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 8:56:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 00:17 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory.
>>>> Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as
>>>> his theories on relativity.
>>>
>>>
>>> My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named
>>> 'structured spacetime'.
>>>
>>> In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is actually
>>> a standing wave.
>>>
>>> That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'.
>>>
>>> My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of
>>> 'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions.
>>>
>>> These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike
>>> elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations.
>>>
>>> The equation is simple:
>>>
>>> q' = p* q* p^-1
>>>
>>> Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing
>>> rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'.
>>>
>>> The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and the
>>> inner turning point the core of that 'atom'.
>>>
>>> Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but
>>> certain points of a single structure.
>>>
>>> If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly
>>> 'roll away'.
>>>
>>> This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call
>>> 'photon'.
>>>
>>> If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps into
>>> some structure, which blocks its movement.
>>>
>>> Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity
>>> is charging up the plate.
>>>
>>> My concept does sound certainly quite foolish.
>>>
>>> BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions.
>>>
>>> As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE
>>> and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other.
>>>
>>> And GE can be proven!
>>> ....
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as
>> the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal
>> universe?
>
> This has a reason, but a little complicated one:
>
> 'aether' is assumed as fine fluidlike substance, fills all of space.

Wrong. Aether is infinitely fine and infinitely elastic SOLID which
means that all its elements stay fixed relative to each other UNLIKE a
fluid.

Get your basics straight and do not lie.

Arindam quoted from a textbook which described aether as above in his
2005 paper exposing the MMX bungle.
Aetheric components are so fine that all charges go through them without
resistance.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor
>
> But this aether isn't 'relative'.
>
> I mean:
>
> if you want to fill all space with aether, you would need space and
> aether in the first place.
>
> But I wanted something else and somthing compatible with 'big-bang
> theory'.
>
> I think, that big-bang theory is actauylly wrong, but not entirely.
>
> Instead of one single timeline as in in bb-theory, I wanted multiple
> timelines, which could run into different direction and which denote
> local time.
>
> So: any point in the universe is placed upon a timeline, which points to
> a remote big bang.
>
> But these big-bangs are all different and the axes of time point into
> different directions.
>
> So, 'space' had to be 'relative', too, and also matter.
>
> This would actually make 'aether' impossible, because aether had to be
> there, before that stuff could fill all of space.
>
> My own concept is based on a different idea. The best discription could
> be found in the book 'From Zero to Infinity' by Prof. Peter Rowland.
>
> Unfortunately this book is not easy to read and also very expensive.
>
> But my own 'book' is much easier to read and actually free:
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> TH
>
>
>> If you can believe in dinosaurs and thus go against JCI metaphysics who
>> not believe in aether?
>>
>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> --

--

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

#638780

Am Dienstag000017, 17.06.2025 um 08:01 schrieb Bertitaylor:

>>>> My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named
>>>> 'structured spacetime'.
>>>>
>>>> In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is 
>>>> actually
>>>> a standing wave.
>>>>
>>>> That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'.
>>>>
>>>> My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of
>>>> 'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions.
>>>>
>>>> These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike
>>>> elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations.
>>>>
>>>> The equation is simple:
>>>>
>>>> q' = p* q* p^-1
>>>>
>>>> Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing
>>>> rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'.
>>>>
>>>> The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and 
>>>> the
>>>> inner turning point the core of that 'atom'.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but
>>>> certain points of a single structure.
>>>>
>>>> If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly
>>>> 'roll away'.
>>>>
>>>> This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call
>>>> 'photon'.
>>>>
>>>> If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps 
>>>> into
>>>> some structure, which blocks its movement.
>>>>
>>>> Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity
>>>> is charging up the plate.
>>>>
>>>> My concept does sound certainly quite foolish.
>>>>
>>>> BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions.
>>>>
>>>> As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE
>>>> and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other.
>>>>
>>>> And GE can be proven!
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as
>>> the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal
>>> universe?
>>
>> This has a reason, but a little complicated one:
>>
>> 'aether' is assumed as fine fluidlike substance, fills all of space.
> 
> Wrong. Aether is infinitely fine and infinitely elastic SOLID which
> means that all its elements stay fixed relative to each other UNLIKE a
> fluid.
> 
> Get your basics straight and do not lie.

Actually I had already written, that I think that 'aether' is wrong.

So: 'solid' wouldn't rescue the aether concept.

The aether is actually meant as 'stuff' (whether fluid or solid), while 
I wanted to make stuff out of spacetime.

My concept is related, but not equal to the 'aether concept' (which I 
think is wrong).

It is close, however.


TH
...

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

#638784

On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 8:15:24 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Dienstag000017, 17.06.2025 um 08:01 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>
>>>>> My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named
>>>>> 'structured spacetime'.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is
>>>>> actually
>>>>> a standing wave.
>>>>>
>>>>> That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'.
>>>>>
>>>>> My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of
>>>>> 'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions.
>>>>>
>>>>> These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike
>>>>> elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations.
>>>>>
>>>>> The equation is simple:
>>>>>
>>>>> q' = p* q* p^-1
>>>>>
>>>>> Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing
>>>>> rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'.
>>>>>
>>>>> The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and
>>>>> the
>>>>> inner turning point the core of that 'atom'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but
>>>>> certain points of a single structure.
>>>>>
>>>>> If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly
>>>>> 'roll away'.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call
>>>>> 'photon'.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps
>>>>> into
>>>>> some structure, which blocks its movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity
>>>>> is charging up the plate.
>>>>>
>>>>> My concept does sound certainly quite foolish.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE
>>>>> and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other.
>>>>>
>>>>> And GE can be proven!
>>>>> ....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>> Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as
>>>> the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal
>>>> universe?
>>>
>>> This has a reason, but a little complicated one:
>>>
>>> 'aether' is assumed as fine fluidlike substance, fills all of space.
>>
>> Wrong. Aether is infinitely fine and infinitely elastic SOLID which
>> means that all its elements stay fixed relative to each other UNLIKE a
>> fluid.
>>
>> Get your basics straight and do not lie.
>
> Actually I had already written, that I think that 'aether' is wrong.

It is not fluid. If we are talking of aether as a concept let us get
that straight. Nothing original here from us. That is what 19th century
philosophers considered. Based upon the reality of em waves and the fact
that all waves needed a medium for propagation that was logical.

>
> So: 'solid' wouldn't rescue the aether concept.

Einsteinians certainly want to out aether but they should have the
minimum honesty of noting that aether was considered not a fluid but a
solid by 19th century theoreticians. And a reality given the fact of
electromagnetic waves. Which was first shown by Shri J C Bose.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof


>
> The aether is actually meant as 'stuff' (whether fluid or solid), while
> I wanted to make stuff out of spacetime.
>
> My concept is related, but not equal to the 'aether concept' (which I
> think is wrong).
>
> It is close, however.
>
>
> TH
> ....

--

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

#638661

In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
> in the medium of aether.
> 
> 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
> 
> --

AI evaluation of your post:

 Scientific Accuracy:

    Inaccurate Concept of Aether:
    The text refers to a photon traveling in the "medium of aether."
    This is an outdated concept. The aether hypothesis was discarded
    after the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) and the development
    of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which showed that light
    does not require a medium.

    Mischaracterization of Photons:
    A photon is not best described as a "brief electromagnetic wave pulse"
    in classical terms. In modern physics, a photon is a quantum particle
    of light, which exhibits both wave and particle properties
    (wave-particle duality). While wave packets can model photons in
    quantum electrodynamics, calling it a “brief wave pulse” oversimplifies
    and potentially misleads.

    Electromagnetic Field Propagation:
    The text says: “A change in electric field causes a change in the
    magnetic field... infinitely infinitely.” This loosely references
    Maxwell’s equations, where changing electric and magnetic fields
    sustain each other in a propagating wave. However, "infinitely
    infinitely" is meaningless here—fields don’t oscillate infinitely
    without damping or interference in practical systems.

    Antenna Theory Reference:
    The idea that an external excitation causes electron motion and
    radiation is broadly consistent with antenna theory, but the
    phrasing is vague and imprecise. There’s no clear link to how
    this explains photon generation or behavior.

 Clarity and Coherence:

    The text starts with a speculative and obsolete idea (aether) and
    shifts toward poetic exclamations (“woof woof woof...”), creating
    a jarring mix of pseudoscience and expressive prose.

    The narrative lacks a clear logical flow or rigorous definitions,
    mixing metaphors with partial scientific terminology.

 Tone and Style:

    The last sentence (“Woof woof...”) appears metaphorical or playful,
    which undermines the scientific tone. This could be viewed as either
    charming or confusing, depending on context.

    It attempts to evoke wonder, but the shift in register feels abrupt
    and ungrounded.

 Summary Evaluation:

    Scientific Rigor: ★☆☆☆☆ (1/5)

    Clarity: ★★☆☆☆ (2/5)

    Literary/Artistic Flair: ★★★☆☆ (3/5)

 Final Verdict:

The text reflects a mix of outdated science, vague technical references,
and poetic mysticism. For a meaningful discussion of photons or
electromagnetic theory, it would need significant revision to align
with modern physics and clear communication.

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#638711

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 14:39:29 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
>> in the medium of aether.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> --
>
> AI evaluation of your post:
>
>  Scientific Accuracy:
>
>     Inaccurate Concept of Aether:
>     The text refers to a photon traveling in the "medium of aether."
>     This is an outdated concept.
But not disptoven


The aether hypothesis was discarded
>     after the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) and the development
>     of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which showed that light
>     does not require a medium.

It jolly well does as it is a wave.
The MMX was showed light speed variance as Arindam showed in 2005.
Which of course puts Einsteinian theories of relativity into the garbage
bins.

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof
>
>     Mischaracterization of Photons:
>     A photon is not best described as a "brief electromagnetic wave
> pulse"
>     in classical terms. In modern physics, a photon is a quantum
> particle
>     of light, which exhibits both wave and particle properties
>     (wave-particle duality). While wave packets can model photons in
>     quantum electrodynamics, calling it a “brief wave pulse”
> oversimplifies
>     and potentially misleads.
>
>     Electromagnetic Field Propagation:
>     The text says: “A change in electric field causes a change in the
>     magnetic field... infinitely infinitely.” This loosely references
>     Maxwell’s equations, where changing electric and magnetic fields
>     sustain each other in a propagating wave. However, "infinitely
>     infinitely" is meaningless here—fields don’t oscillate infinitely
>     without damping or interference in practical systems.
>
>     Antenna Theory Reference:
>     The idea that an external excitation causes electron motion and
>     radiation is broadly consistent with antenna theory, but the
>     phrasing is vague and imprecise. There’s no clear link to how
>     this explains photon generation or behavior.
>
>  Clarity and Coherence:
>
>     The text starts with a speculative and obsolete idea (aether) and
>     shifts toward poetic exclamations (“woof woof woof...”), creating
>     a jarring mix of pseudoscience and expressive prose.
>
>     The narrative lacks a clear logical flow or rigorous definitions,
>     mixing metaphors with partial scientific terminology.
>
>  Tone and Style:
>
>     The last sentence (“Woof woof...”) appears metaphorical or playful,
>     which undermines the scientific tone. This could be viewed as either
>     charming or confusing, depending on context.
>
>     It attempts to evoke wonder, but the shift in register feels abrupt
>     and ungrounded.
>
>  Summary Evaluation:
>
>     Scientific Rigor: ★☆☆☆☆ (1/5)
>
>     Clarity: ★★☆☆☆ (2/5)
>
>     Literary/Artistic Flair: ★★★☆☆ (3/5)
>
>  Final Verdict:
>
> The text reflects a mix of outdated science, vague technical references,
> and poetic mysticism. For a meaningful discussion of photons or
> electromagnetic theory, it would need significant revision to align
> with modern physics and clear communication.

--

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

#638727

bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
> in the medium of aether.

For the kiddies: this is wrong.
A photon is (by definition) a momentum eigenstate of the EM field,
hence also an energy eigenstate.
This implies both wave and particle aspects.

Hence it has infinite extent. It is not a brief flash.
You can make brief flashes of light of course,
as linear superpositions of (infinitely many) eigenstates.
But then but its localisation and its frequency/energy are spread out.
(typical example: coherent states)

Jan


[snip more nonsense]

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

#638740

On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 12:36:51 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
>> in the medium of aether.
>
> For the kiddies: this is wrong.

No, it is consistent with reality.

> A photon is (by definition) a momentum eigenstate of the EM field,

Nice bullshit but no kid will swallow that.
For one thing a field has no mass so no momentum for momentum is mass
times velocity.
And eigenstate is a complex math term which is well beyond the scope of
kids. In this context it makes no sense except to bamboozle the
pullulating gullible.
Typical Einsteinian garbage designed to confuse. Anti Science!

So what is happening?
What is happening is aetheric vibrations travelling at speed of light to
and from all the infinite charges in the universe.

They are caused and created by impacts upon and corresponding
rectifications the atomic structures that cause or rectify distortions
to the electronic structure.

Looks like this will be well within the scope of kiddies, like most of
Arindam's physics. That is, all not dealing with his new rail gun design
theory which is a bit difficult for kids.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

> hence also an energy eigenstate.
> This implies both wave and particle aspects.
>
> Hence it has infinite extent. It is not a brief flash.
> You can make brief flashes of light of course,
> as linear superpositions of (infinitely many) eigenstates.
> But then but its localisation and its frequency/energy are spread out.
> (typical example: coherent states)
>
> Jan
>
>
> [snip more nonsense]

--

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

#638754

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
>   "F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
>    Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case when
>    the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure is
>    force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is also
>    zero. Where the pressure is zero, the temperature is also zero,
>    or near zero."
> 
> Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at the centre
> of the Earth is zero and the temperature is near 0 K.?

that equation is not the domain you are using. It appears you guys are 
self taught with no proper education.

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

#638756

On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 21:25:11 +0000, Fag Pope wrote:

> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
>>   "F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
>>    Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case when
>>    the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure is
>>    force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is also
>>    zero. Where the pressure is zero, the temperature is also zero,
>>    or near zero."
>>
>> Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at the centre
>> of the Earth is zero and the temperature is near 0 K.?

Yes yes, oui oui and ja with wohls on, da, zaroor, haaN, etc. in all
languages.

Woof woof woof woof-woof woof in dog lingo as well.


>
> that equation is not the domain you are using. It appears you guys are
> self taught with no proper education.

Proper education is available from the brilliant new physics of the
divine BigDog Arindam. Easily found online. Correct physics will correct
humanity - set it on the path to absolute and objective truth.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

Woof woof-woof woof

--

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

#638826

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 17.06.2025 01:02, skrev Bertitaylor:
>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at the
>>> centre of the Earth is zero and the temperature is near 0 K.?
>> 
>> Yes. Woof woof woof woof-woof woof in dog lingo as well.
>> 
> And the IQ of a dog?

With these folks, every accusation is a confession.
In fact, as soon as an Iranian missile hit the Kirya, Zion Wing, carrying 
Bibi, was spotted flying to Greece, with 2 fighter jet escorts.

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

#638832

> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:33:59 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>> Den 17.06.2025 01:02, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>> Yes.
>>> Woof woof woof woof-woof woof in dog lingo as well.
>>
>> And the IQ of a dog?
> 
> Far surpasses that of stupid Einsteinian apes.
> 
> WOOF woof-woof woof

microsoft hit in pissrael; microsoft in pissrael, are you kidding me, and
you are still using it?? What are you fucking retarded??

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

#638758

On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 22:56:11 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 12:36:51 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
>>> in the medium of aether.
>>
>> For the kiddies: this is wrong.
>
> No, it is consistent with reality.
>
>> A photon is (by definition) a momentum eigenstate of the EM field,
>
> Nice bullshit but no kid will swallow that.
> For one thing a field has no mass so no momentum for momentum is mass
> times velocity.
> And eigenstate is a complex math term which is well beyond the scope of
> kids. In this context it makes no sense except to bamboozle the
> pullulating gullible.
> Typical Einsteinian garbage designed to confuse. Anti Science!
>
> So what is happening?
> What is happening is aetheric vibrations travelling at speed of light to
> and from all the infinite charges in the universe.
>
> They are caused and created by impacts upon and corresponding
> rectifications the atomic structures that cause or rectify distortions
> to the electronic structure.
>
> Looks like this will be well within the scope of kiddies, like most of
> Arindam's physics. That is, all not dealing with his new rail gun design
> theory which is a bit difficult for kids.
>
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
>
> Bertietaylor
>
>> hence also an energy eigenstate.

Energy is a scalar showing how much work can be done by whatever
containing energy.

An eigenstate represents with the application of a delta function for
instantaneous depiction the set of fluctuating eigenvectors that are
derived from the solution of the characteristic n degree differential
equation indicative of the stability of a complex system.

To think of simple energy -  so simple that even bunnyahs understand it
all too well - which is work or force times distance as any sort of
eigenstate is ridiculous. What is complex is the distortion
characteristic of the electron structure caused by internal forces such
as radioactivity or external such as particle impact of radiation in
meaning aetheric vibrations.

These distortions create force absorption and the remedial process
creates the varying electric field which is the brief electromagnetic
pulse called photon.

>> This implies both wave and particle aspects.

Both relate to force.
Force is for physicists.
Energy is for bunnyahs and their attendant lords.
The term energy should be minimised as far as possible in physics texts.

>>
>> Hence it has infinite extent. It is not a brief flash.
>> You can make brief flashes of light of course,
>> as linear superpositions of (infinitely many) eigenstates.

Blah

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor
>> But then but its localisation and its frequency/energy are spread out.
>> (typical example: coherent states)
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>> [snip more nonsense]
>
> --

--

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

#638765

Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> On 6/16/2025 10:35 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 16.06.2025 00:56, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 12:36:51 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> The physics of Arindam Banerjee, employee of a medical research
>> laboratory, is extremely naive, and is, like other fairy tales,
>> well suited for kiddies who know no physics.
> 
> Well, so is the physics of Einstein, which was not even consistent.

you are saying you are a jew, but you are not.

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

#638993

On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:03:22 +0000, bertitaylor wrote:

> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
> in the medium of aether.
>
> 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
>
> --

When a nascent hydrogen ion or proton meets an electron coming at or
near it, one of three things must happen.

The electron can go past it if the speed or angle was too much.

The electron can orbit the proton forming a hydrogen atom.

The electron and proton can meet in tight union and form a neutron.

WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#638994

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:03:22 +0000, bertitaylor wrote:
> 
>> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
>> in the medium of aether.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> --
> 
> When a nascent hydrogen ion or proton meets an electron coming at or
> near it, one of three things must happen.

How would the proton be nascent?

What difference would it make if the proton were 5 billion years old
versus 5 nanoseconds old?

> 
> The electron can go past it if the speed or angle was too much.

Yes.

> 
> The electron can orbit the proton forming a hydrogen atom.

Yes.

> The electron and proton can meet in tight union and form a neutron.

Nope, free protons are stable and don't turn into neutrons. Beta plus
decay is a type of radioactive decay where a proton in a NUCLEUS is
converted into a neutron, a positron and a neutrino.

> 
> WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> --

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#639002

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 0:54:45 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:03:22 +0000, bertitaylor wrote:
>>
>>> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
>>> in the medium of aether.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> When a nascent hydrogen ion or proton meets an electron coming at or
>> near it, one of three things must happen.
>
> How would the proton be nascent?
>
> What difference would it make if the proton were 5 billion years old
> versus 5 nanoseconds old?
>
>>
>> The electron can go past it if the speed or angle was too much.
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> The electron can orbit the proton forming a hydrogen atom.
>
> Yes.
>
>> The electron and proton can meet in tight union and form a neutron.
>
> Nope, free protons are stable and don't turn into neutrons. Beta plus
> decay is a type of radioactive decay where a proton in a NUCLEUS is
> converted into a neutron, a positron and a neutrino.

Rubbish, beta ray is electron coming out from a radioactive nucleus.


Neutrinos and positrons are lies too. Made up to protect the evil and
wrong law of conservation of energy.

(Checked the above about beta ray from a textbook on nuclear physics)

What liars these Einsteinian rogues be!

Woof woof

Bertietaylor
>
>>
>> WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> --

--

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web