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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #659250 > unrolled thread

The Relativity Mafia

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-11-28 21:58 +0000
    Re: The Relativity Mafia bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-11-29 09:42 +0000
      Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-11-29 16:58 +0000
        Re: The Relativity Mafia bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-11-29 18:08 +0000
          Re: The Relativity Mafia Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-11-29 10:50 -0800
            Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-11-29 21:22 +0000
              Re: The Relativity Mafia Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-11-29 13:36 -0800
                Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-11-29 22:30 +0000
                  Re: The Relativity Mafia Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-11-29 15:53 -0800
                    Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-11-30 03:56 +0000
                      Re: The Relativity Mafia Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-11-30 10:23 -0800
                        Re: The Relativity Mafia Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-11-30 11:03 -0800
                          Re: The Relativity Mafia Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-11-30 13:32 -0800
                  Re: The Relativity Mafia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-11-30 20:30 -0800
                    Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-01 21:58 +0000
            Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-01 21:33 +0000
              Re: The Relativity Mafia Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-01 13:49 -0800
                Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-01 22:24 +0000
                Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-20 21:25 +0000
                  Re: The Relativity Mafia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-24 00:22 -0800
          Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-11-29 21:19 +0000
            Re: The Relativity Mafia bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-01 13:45 +0000
              Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-01 22:15 +0000
          Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-11-30 22:27 +0000
            Re: The Relativity Mafia bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-01 13:47 +0000
              Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-01 22:17 +0000
                Re: The Relativity Mafia bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-02 00:21 +0000
                  Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-06 21:09 +0000
                    Re: The Relativity Mafia bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-07 09:21 +0000
                      Re: The Relativity Mafia clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-20 19:54 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#659250 — The Relativity Mafia

Exploding a Myth: Conventional Wisdom or Scientific Truth? 1st Edition
by Jeremy Dunning-Davies (Author)
In this book Jeremy Dunning-Davies deals with the influence that
"conventional wisdom" has on science, scientific research and
development. He sets out to 'explode' the mythical conception that all
scientific topics are open for free discussion and argues that no-one
can openly raise questions about relativity, dispute the 'Big Bang'
theory, or the existence of black holes, which all seem to be accepted
facts of science rather than science fiction.

In today's modern climate with "Britain's radioactive refuse heap
already big enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall" (Edmund Conway,
Economics Editor The Daily Telegraph 28.11.06), it is alarming that
there are potential advances in hadronic mechanics which could
conceivably pave the way for new clean energies and even a safe in-house
method for the disposal of nuclear waste, that have not even been
considered by the present establishment. These examples are from the
field of physics but there can be little doubt that outside factors have
affected the progress of most, if not all, branches of science for many
years. Factors other than purely scientific ones still appear to be
exerting tremendous influences on progress in a wide variety of fields.
Is it too idealistic or naïve to expect that science should remain pure
and stay unaffected by such factors? Dr Dunning-Davies presents a
beautifully written argument that if science is to progress, and be of
any real use, these external factors must be held at bay.

"A long needed addition  to the literature, whose goal is to unmask the
mafia controlled grip on physics and science in general." - Prof.
Bernard Lavenda University degli Studi, Camerina, Italy.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#659252

Physics has to follow Arindam's leadership.

Hopeless without that.

Nonsense, lies, manipulation, suppression, oppression etc. by the rogue
alphas can work only for some careers and their hopeful followers.

Bertietaylor

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

#659258

Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
I don't.

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

#659261

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
> I don't.

You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.

Bertietaylor

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

#659263

On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>
>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
>> I don't.
>
> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>
> Bertietaylor

Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".

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

#659267

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
>>> I don't.
>>
>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>
> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".

If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them from
moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.

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

#659268

On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
>>>> I don't.
>>>
>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>>
>>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
>
> If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them from
> moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.

Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
as radiant the light.

That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
though the theory today has it simplified together,
helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
c =/= infinity.

And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.

The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.

One may notice that waves are not granular.

Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.

"Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).

Of course there's just adding definition underneath
the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".

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

#659269

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:36:18 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
>>>>> I don't.
>>>>
>>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>>>
>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>
>>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
>>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
>>
>> If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them from
>> moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.
>
> Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
> nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
> though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
> as radiant the light.
>
> That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
> about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
> out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
> and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
> then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
> and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
> though the theory today has it simplified together,
> helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
> the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
> mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
> c =/= infinity.
>
> And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
> at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
>
> The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
>
> One may notice that waves are not granular.
>
> Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
> and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
> not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
>
> "Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
>
> Of course there's just adding definition underneath
> the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
> makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".

You're right to place "successful theories" in quotation marks. What
troubles me is how can energy exist without mass? How ca photons be
massless?

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

#659270

On 11/29/2024 02:30 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:36:18 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by
>>>>>> gravity and
>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has
>>>>> proved
>>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>
>>>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
>>>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
>>>
>>> If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them from
>>> moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.
>>
>> Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
>> nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
>> though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
>> as radiant the light.
>>
>> That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
>> about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
>> out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
>> and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
>> then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
>> and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
>> though the theory today has it simplified together,
>> helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
>> the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
>> mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
>> c =/= infinity.
>>
>> And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
>> at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
>>
>> The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
>>
>> One may notice that waves are not granular.
>>
>> Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
>> and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
>> not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
>>
>> "Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
>>
>> Of course there's just adding definition underneath
>> the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
>> makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".
>
> You're right to place "successful theories" in quotation marks. What
> troubles me is how can energy exist without mass? How ca photons be
> massless?

Seems you got one of those "non-zero, yet vanishing"
"mathematical infinitesimal" type things to figure out.

These days the photon is acribed an arbitrarily small
yet non-zero mass, so small that it only effects that
light follow the geodesy, and so small that c = infinity
by definition doesn't make for that m_photon c^2 = infinity,
or, it's an infinitesimal.

Other types of nuclear radiation, where optical light is
considered a type of flux complement of nuclear radiation,
for example X-rays and gamma rays, vis-a-vis alpha and
beta particles, of nuclear radiation, have that optical
light is considered part of nuclear radiation, and that
furthermore that optical light is special in terms of
rays and waves and diffraction and the carriage of an image,
that "information is free, if metered" as it were.

So, SR has nothing to say about that until mathematics
has something to say about infinity and infinitesimals
in real things, much like Einstein's cosmological constant,
which according to the latest, most-expensive, most-cited
experiments like WMAP is "non-zero, yet vanishing".

Sort of like "Little Higgs".

These explorations of the trans-Planckian, the
Planck-plank of electron physics as it were,
make for things like super-string theory,
which are kind of simply understood as twice
as small as atoms, in orders of magnitude,
because "it's a continuum mechanics...".

So, mathematics _owes_ physics more and better
mathematics of mathematical infinities and infinitesimals
with regards to continuum analysis, and furthermore
physics is in dire _need_ of this.

Otherwise you can just point at QM and GR disagreeing
120 orders of magnitude and point out they're both wrong.

And quantum mechanics is never wrong, ...,
and neither is relativity (of motion) theory.

Maybe you're doing it wrong,
but QM after Democritan chemistry
and GR and for FitzGeraldian space-contraction,
need fixing in "mechanics" and furthermore "continuum mechanics".

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

#659271

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 23:53:04 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 11/29/2024 02:30 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:36:18 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by
>>>>>>> gravity and
>>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has
>>>>>> proved
>>>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>>
>>>>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
>>>>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
>>>>
>>>> If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them from
>>>> moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.
>>>
>>> Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
>>> nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
>>> though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
>>> as radiant the light.
>>>
>>> That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
>>> about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
>>> out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
>>> and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
>>> then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
>>> and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
>>> though the theory today has it simplified together,
>>> helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
>>> the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
>>> mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
>>> c =/= infinity.
>>>
>>> And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
>>> at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
>>>
>>> The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
>>>
>>> One may notice that waves are not granular.
>>>
>>> Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
>>> and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
>>> not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
>>>
>>> "Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
>>>
>>> Of course there's just adding definition underneath
>>> the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
>>> makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".
>>
>> You're right to place "successful theories" in quotation marks. What
>> troubles me is how can energy exist without mass? How ca photons be
>> massless?
>
> Seems you got one of those "non-zero, yet vanishing"
> "mathematical infinitesimal" type things to figure out.
>
> These days the photon is acribed an arbitrarily small
> yet non-zero mass, so small that it only effects that
> light follow the geodesy, and so small that c = infinity
> by definition doesn't make for that m_photon c^2 = infinity,
> or, it's an infinitesimal.
>
> Other types of nuclear radiation, where optical light is
> considered a type of flux complement of nuclear radiation,
> for example X-rays and gamma rays, vis-a-vis alpha and
> beta particles, of nuclear radiation, have that optical
> light is considered part of nuclear radiation, and that
> furthermore that optical light is special in terms of
> rays and waves and diffraction and the carriage of an image,
> that "information is free, if metered" as it were.
>
> So, SR has nothing to say about that until mathematics
> has something to say about infinity and infinitesimals
> in real things, much like Einstein's cosmological constant,
> which according to the latest, most-expensive, most-cited
> experiments like WMAP is "non-zero, yet vanishing".
>
> Sort of like "Little Higgs".
>
> These explorations of the trans-Planckian, the
> Planck-plank of electron physics as it were,
> make for things like super-string theory,
> which are kind of simply understood as twice
> as small as atoms, in orders of magnitude,
> because "it's a continuum mechanics...".
>
> So, mathematics _owes_ physics more and better
> mathematics of mathematical infinities and infinitesimals
> with regards to continuum analysis, and furthermore
> physics is in dire _need_ of this.
>
> Otherwise you can just point at QM and GR disagreeing
> 120 orders of magnitude and point out they're both wrong.
>
> And quantum mechanics is never wrong, ...,
> and neither is relativity (of motion) theory.
>
> Maybe you're doing it wrong,
> but QM after Democritan chemistry
> and GR and for FitzGeraldian space-contraction,
> need fixing in "mechanics" and furthermore "continuum mechanics".
Thanks for your thoughts. I suppose that if the mass is so small it does
not become infinite at c then it may not even be affected by gravity.

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

#659273

On 11/29/2024 07:56 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 23:53:04 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2024 02:30 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:36:18 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>>>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by
>>>>>>>> gravity and
>>>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has
>>>>>>> proved
>>>>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
>>>>>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
>>>>>
>>>>> If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them from
>>>>> moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.
>>>>
>>>> Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
>>>> nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
>>>> though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
>>>> as radiant the light.
>>>>
>>>> That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
>>>> about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
>>>> out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
>>>> and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
>>>> then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
>>>> and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
>>>> though the theory today has it simplified together,
>>>> helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
>>>> the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
>>>> mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
>>>> c =/= infinity.
>>>>
>>>> And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
>>>> at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
>>>>
>>>> The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
>>>>
>>>> One may notice that waves are not granular.
>>>>
>>>> Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
>>>> and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
>>>> not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
>>>>
>>>> "Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
>>>>
>>>> Of course there's just adding definition underneath
>>>> the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
>>>> makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".
>>>
>>> You're right to place "successful theories" in quotation marks. What
>>> troubles me is how can energy exist without mass? How ca photons be
>>> massless?
>>
>> Seems you got one of those "non-zero, yet vanishing"
>> "mathematical infinitesimal" type things to figure out.
>>
>> These days the photon is acribed an arbitrarily small
>> yet non-zero mass, so small that it only effects that
>> light follow the geodesy, and so small that c = infinity
>> by definition doesn't make for that m_photon c^2 = infinity,
>> or, it's an infinitesimal.
>>
>> Other types of nuclear radiation, where optical light is
>> considered a type of flux complement of nuclear radiation,
>> for example X-rays and gamma rays, vis-a-vis alpha and
>> beta particles, of nuclear radiation, have that optical
>> light is considered part of nuclear radiation, and that
>> furthermore that optical light is special in terms of
>> rays and waves and diffraction and the carriage of an image,
>> that "information is free, if metered" as it were.
>>
>> So, SR has nothing to say about that until mathematics
>> has something to say about infinity and infinitesimals
>> in real things, much like Einstein's cosmological constant,
>> which according to the latest, most-expensive, most-cited
>> experiments like WMAP is "non-zero, yet vanishing".
>>
>> Sort of like "Little Higgs".
>>
>> These explorations of the trans-Planckian, the
>> Planck-plank of electron physics as it were,
>> make for things like super-string theory,
>> which are kind of simply understood as twice
>> as small as atoms, in orders of magnitude,
>> because "it's a continuum mechanics...".
>>
>> So, mathematics _owes_ physics more and better
>> mathematics of mathematical infinities and infinitesimals
>> with regards to continuum analysis, and furthermore
>> physics is in dire _need_ of this.
>>
>> Otherwise you can just point at QM and GR disagreeing
>> 120 orders of magnitude and point out they're both wrong.
>>
>> And quantum mechanics is never wrong, ...,
>> and neither is relativity (of motion) theory.
>>
>> Maybe you're doing it wrong,
>> but QM after Democritan chemistry
>> and GR and for FitzGeraldian space-contraction,
>> need fixing in "mechanics" and furthermore "continuum mechanics".
> Thanks for your thoughts. I suppose that if the mass is so small it does
> not become infinite at c then it may not even be affected by gravity.

Well, there's an idea that "light orbits", and
another that "light encompasses", with regards
to making an explanation like "large-lens Fresnel"
helping show that things like "Arago spot" indicate
quite readily that "light encompasses" is more
than "light orbits", where as well it doesn't
apply to electromagnetic waves, only light and
about nuclear rays.

Then, that might seem "well that's another tuning
problem and it's already bad enough that the entire
Big Bang cosmology is a lop-sided tuning problem
that every few years gets added a billion years age",
yet the idea is that it's mostly the same as light
with regards to luminous matter and occlusion, and if
relativity the geodesy about the space-contraction
does make a lensing effect or Einstein lensing,
the rest of the effect that's un-accounted for is a
thing, and furthermore, there's Arago spot and other
features of light, not yet included.

I.e., the experiments of relativistic lensing added
about a missing half of the observed "deflection",
of the path, that there yet remains an un-accounted bit.

Saying that light has "a nominal non-zero mass" is
a pretty late addition to the theory, and thus as
it's part of the fragments of the babel of theories,
you won't find it everywhere.

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

#659274

On 11/30/2024 10:23 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 11/29/2024 07:56 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 23:53:04 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2024 02:30 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:36:18 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>>>>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by
>>>>>>>>> gravity and
>>>>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has
>>>>>>>> proved
>>>>>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
>>>>>>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
>>>>> nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
>>>>> though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
>>>>> as radiant the light.
>>>>>
>>>>> That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
>>>>> about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
>>>>> out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
>>>>> and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
>>>>> then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
>>>>> and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
>>>>> though the theory today has it simplified together,
>>>>> helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
>>>>> the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
>>>>> mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
>>>>> c =/= infinity.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
>>>>> at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
>>>>>
>>>>> One may notice that waves are not granular.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
>>>>> and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
>>>>> not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course there's just adding definition underneath
>>>>> the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
>>>>> makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".
>>>>
>>>> You're right to place "successful theories" in quotation marks. What
>>>> troubles me is how can energy exist without mass? How ca photons be
>>>> massless?
>>>
>>> Seems you got one of those "non-zero, yet vanishing"
>>> "mathematical infinitesimal" type things to figure out.
>>>
>>> These days the photon is acribed an arbitrarily small
>>> yet non-zero mass, so small that it only effects that
>>> light follow the geodesy, and so small that c = infinity
>>> by definition doesn't make for that m_photon c^2 = infinity,
>>> or, it's an infinitesimal.
>>>
>>> Other types of nuclear radiation, where optical light is
>>> considered a type of flux complement of nuclear radiation,
>>> for example X-rays and gamma rays, vis-a-vis alpha and
>>> beta particles, of nuclear radiation, have that optical
>>> light is considered part of nuclear radiation, and that
>>> furthermore that optical light is special in terms of
>>> rays and waves and diffraction and the carriage of an image,
>>> that "information is free, if metered" as it were.
>>>
>>> So, SR has nothing to say about that until mathematics
>>> has something to say about infinity and infinitesimals
>>> in real things, much like Einstein's cosmological constant,
>>> which according to the latest, most-expensive, most-cited
>>> experiments like WMAP is "non-zero, yet vanishing".
>>>
>>> Sort of like "Little Higgs".
>>>
>>> These explorations of the trans-Planckian, the
>>> Planck-plank of electron physics as it were,
>>> make for things like super-string theory,
>>> which are kind of simply understood as twice
>>> as small as atoms, in orders of magnitude,
>>> because "it's a continuum mechanics...".
>>>
>>> So, mathematics _owes_ physics more and better
>>> mathematics of mathematical infinities and infinitesimals
>>> with regards to continuum analysis, and furthermore
>>> physics is in dire _need_ of this.
>>>
>>> Otherwise you can just point at QM and GR disagreeing
>>> 120 orders of magnitude and point out they're both wrong.
>>>
>>> And quantum mechanics is never wrong, ...,
>>> and neither is relativity (of motion) theory.
>>>
>>> Maybe you're doing it wrong,
>>> but QM after Democritan chemistry
>>> and GR and for FitzGeraldian space-contraction,
>>> need fixing in "mechanics" and furthermore "continuum mechanics".
>> Thanks for your thoughts. I suppose that if the mass is so small it does
>> not become infinite at c then it may not even be affected by gravity.
>
> Well, there's an idea that "light orbits", and
> another that "light encompasses", with regards
> to making an explanation like "large-lens Fresnel"
> helping show that things like "Arago spot" indicate
> quite readily that "light encompasses" is more
> than "light orbits", where as well it doesn't
> apply to electromagnetic waves, only light and
> about nuclear rays.
>
> Then, that might seem "well that's another tuning
> problem and it's already bad enough that the entire
> Big Bang cosmology is a lop-sided tuning problem
> that every few years gets added a billion years age",
> yet the idea is that it's mostly the same as light
> with regards to luminous matter and occlusion, and if
> relativity the geodesy about the space-contraction
> does make a lensing effect or Einstein lensing,
> the rest of the effect that's un-accounted for is a
> thing, and furthermore, there's Arago spot and other
> features of light, not yet included.
>
> I.e., the experiments of relativistic lensing added
> about a missing half of the observed "deflection",
> of the path, that there yet remains an un-accounted bit.
>
> Saying that light has "a nominal non-zero mass" is
> a pretty late addition to the theory, and thus as
> it's part of the fragments of the babel of theories,
> you won't find it everywhere.
>
>


Here for example a paper talks about "gravitational lensing"
with regards to the cosmological constant, that according
to science's account is, "vanishing, yet non-zero".

https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05183

"A general relativistic aberration relationship is established
as one of its applications. The question of whether or not the
cosmological constant, Λ, contributes to orbits of light and
to related observable quantities is addressed in detail."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_aberration



https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.00956

"Measurements of galaxy clustering are affected by RSD.
Peculiar velocities, gravitational lensing, and other light-cone
projection effects modify the observed redshifts, fluxes,
and sky positions of distant light sources."

"Our results indicate that relativistic RSD, the contribution
from weak gravitational lensing in particular, cannot be
disregarded when modelling 2-point clustering statistics
extracted from the EWSS. "



https://skullsinthestars.com/2008/07/05/what-a-drag-aragos-experiment-1810/

"In fact, one of the earliest hints of special relativity
came from an experiment performed by François Arago
in 1810 on ‘stellar aberration’, nearly 100 years before
Einstein’s landmark 1905 paper! "

"From a historical point of view, Arago’s experiment* is
absolutely fascinating: as we will see, it was a failed experiment,
based on incorrect theories of light propagation, which was
interpreted incorrectly by Fresnel, but this incorrect
interpretation helped lead to the (correct) view that
light has wavelike properties!"


Now, Fresnel knew both corpuscular and wave-like
models of light, and also diffraction, and not merely
reflection, also the "optics", of the optics.

So, the idea that after Fresnel's account are more-and-better
ideas to revisit with regards to light's nature.

(Snell's law, Beer's law, ....)

"Arago, however, came up with a clever idea: according
to Newton’s theory of refraction, the angle of refraction
will be different for light particles moving at different speeds. "

"This frequency can be changed by relative motion of
source and observer, in what is known as a Doppler shift,
but the speed of light is always the same, regardless of
the motion of source and observer: this is in essence one
of the postulates of Einstein’s relativity." [L-principle]

"In 1818 Augustin Jean Fresnel suggested another possibility
to Arago*****: that the aether is partially dragged along
with a material object."

"Fresnel’s approach represents a compromise between
the ‘complete drag’ theories and ‘no drag’ theories. "


That's a pretty good article "What a drag: Arago's Experiment(1810)",
That's a pretty great article, of Greg Gbur, you should read that if
you're actually interested in how light works in nature.


Then, what it indicates is that Fresnel's "large-lens"
bit here as I frame it has ways to arrive at it's a thing.


I reflect some more on the geometric qualities of
lights in some of my podcasts on https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson ,
for example reading from Einstein, descriptive differential
dynamics, and Moment and Motion about wave theory.

Then those recent Arxiv accounts above give some
more idea of the all-over-the-place descriptive account,
of these days.

Most people don't know that gravitational lensing
of the most simple derivation is about, well, "at least"
one might generously say, about half-right.

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

#659275

On 11/30/2024 11:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 11/30/2024 10:23 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 11/29/2024 07:56 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 23:53:04 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2024 02:30 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:36:18 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>>>>>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by
>>>>>>>>>> gravity and
>>>>>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has
>>>>>>>>> proved
>>>>>>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
>>>>>>>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the
>>>>>>>> "mass-less".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
>>>>>> nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
>>>>>> though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
>>>>>> as radiant the light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
>>>>>> about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
>>>>>> out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
>>>>>> and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
>>>>>> then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
>>>>>> and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
>>>>>> though the theory today has it simplified together,
>>>>>> helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
>>>>>> the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
>>>>>> mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
>>>>>> c =/= infinity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
>>>>>> at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One may notice that waves are not granular.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
>>>>>> and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
>>>>>> not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course there's just adding definition underneath
>>>>>> the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
>>>>>> makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".
>>>>>
>>>>> You're right to place "successful theories" in quotation marks. What
>>>>> troubles me is how can energy exist without mass? How ca photons be
>>>>> massless?
>>>>
>>>> Seems you got one of those "non-zero, yet vanishing"
>>>> "mathematical infinitesimal" type things to figure out.
>>>>
>>>> These days the photon is acribed an arbitrarily small
>>>> yet non-zero mass, so small that it only effects that
>>>> light follow the geodesy, and so small that c = infinity
>>>> by definition doesn't make for that m_photon c^2 = infinity,
>>>> or, it's an infinitesimal.
>>>>
>>>> Other types of nuclear radiation, where optical light is
>>>> considered a type of flux complement of nuclear radiation,
>>>> for example X-rays and gamma rays, vis-a-vis alpha and
>>>> beta particles, of nuclear radiation, have that optical
>>>> light is considered part of nuclear radiation, and that
>>>> furthermore that optical light is special in terms of
>>>> rays and waves and diffraction and the carriage of an image,
>>>> that "information is free, if metered" as it were.
>>>>
>>>> So, SR has nothing to say about that until mathematics
>>>> has something to say about infinity and infinitesimals
>>>> in real things, much like Einstein's cosmological constant,
>>>> which according to the latest, most-expensive, most-cited
>>>> experiments like WMAP is "non-zero, yet vanishing".
>>>>
>>>> Sort of like "Little Higgs".
>>>>
>>>> These explorations of the trans-Planckian, the
>>>> Planck-plank of electron physics as it were,
>>>> make for things like super-string theory,
>>>> which are kind of simply understood as twice
>>>> as small as atoms, in orders of magnitude,
>>>> because "it's a continuum mechanics...".
>>>>
>>>> So, mathematics _owes_ physics more and better
>>>> mathematics of mathematical infinities and infinitesimals
>>>> with regards to continuum analysis, and furthermore
>>>> physics is in dire _need_ of this.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise you can just point at QM and GR disagreeing
>>>> 120 orders of magnitude and point out they're both wrong.
>>>>
>>>> And quantum mechanics is never wrong, ...,
>>>> and neither is relativity (of motion) theory.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you're doing it wrong,
>>>> but QM after Democritan chemistry
>>>> and GR and for FitzGeraldian space-contraction,
>>>> need fixing in "mechanics" and furthermore "continuum mechanics".
>>> Thanks for your thoughts. I suppose that if the mass is so small it does
>>> not become infinite at c then it may not even be affected by gravity.
>>
>> Well, there's an idea that "light orbits", and
>> another that "light encompasses", with regards
>> to making an explanation like "large-lens Fresnel"
>> helping show that things like "Arago spot" indicate
>> quite readily that "light encompasses" is more
>> than "light orbits", where as well it doesn't
>> apply to electromagnetic waves, only light and
>> about nuclear rays.
>>
>> Then, that might seem "well that's another tuning
>> problem and it's already bad enough that the entire
>> Big Bang cosmology is a lop-sided tuning problem
>> that every few years gets added a billion years age",
>> yet the idea is that it's mostly the same as light
>> with regards to luminous matter and occlusion, and if
>> relativity the geodesy about the space-contraction
>> does make a lensing effect or Einstein lensing,
>> the rest of the effect that's un-accounted for is a
>> thing, and furthermore, there's Arago spot and other
>> features of light, not yet included.
>>
>> I.e., the experiments of relativistic lensing added
>> about a missing half of the observed "deflection",
>> of the path, that there yet remains an un-accounted bit.
>>
>> Saying that light has "a nominal non-zero mass" is
>> a pretty late addition to the theory, and thus as
>> it's part of the fragments of the babel of theories,
>> you won't find it everywhere.
>>
>>
>
>
> Here for example a paper talks about "gravitational lensing"
> with regards to the cosmological constant, that according
> to science's account is, "vanishing, yet non-zero".
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05183
>
> "A general relativistic aberration relationship is established
> as one of its applications. The question of whether or not the
> cosmological constant, Λ, contributes to orbits of light and
> to related observable quantities is addressed in detail."
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_aberration
>
>
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.00956
>
> "Measurements of galaxy clustering are affected by RSD.
> Peculiar velocities, gravitational lensing, and other light-cone
> projection effects modify the observed redshifts, fluxes,
> and sky positions of distant light sources."
>
> "Our results indicate that relativistic RSD, the contribution
> from weak gravitational lensing in particular, cannot be
> disregarded when modelling 2-point clustering statistics
> extracted from the EWSS. "
>
>
>
> https://skullsinthestars.com/2008/07/05/what-a-drag-aragos-experiment-1810/
>
> "In fact, one of the earliest hints of special relativity
> came from an experiment performed by François Arago
> in 1810 on ‘stellar aberration’, nearly 100 years before
> Einstein’s landmark 1905 paper! "
>
> "From a historical point of view, Arago’s experiment* is
> absolutely fascinating: as we will see, it was a failed experiment,
> based on incorrect theories of light propagation, which was
> interpreted incorrectly by Fresnel, but this incorrect
> interpretation helped lead to the (correct) view that
> light has wavelike properties!"
>
>
> Now, Fresnel knew both corpuscular and wave-like
> models of light, and also diffraction, and not merely
> reflection, also the "optics", of the optics.
>
> So, the idea that after Fresnel's account are more-and-better
> ideas to revisit with regards to light's nature.
>
> (Snell's law, Beer's law, ....)
>
> "Arago, however, came up with a clever idea: according
> to Newton’s theory of refraction, the angle of refraction
> will be different for light particles moving at different speeds. "
>
> "This frequency can be changed by relative motion of
> source and observer, in what is known as a Doppler shift,
> but the speed of light is always the same, regardless of
> the motion of source and observer: this is in essence one
> of the postulates of Einstein’s relativity." [L-principle]
>
> "In 1818 Augustin Jean Fresnel suggested another possibility
> to Arago*****: that the aether is partially dragged along
> with a material object."
>
> "Fresnel’s approach represents a compromise between
> the ‘complete drag’ theories and ‘no drag’ theories. "
>
>
> That's a pretty good article "What a drag: Arago's Experiment(1810)",
> That's a pretty great article, of Greg Gbur, you should read that if
> you're actually interested in how light works in nature.
>
>
> Then, what it indicates is that Fresnel's "large-lens"
> bit here as I frame it has ways to arrive at it's a thing.
>
>
> I reflect some more on the geometric qualities of
> lights in some of my podcasts on https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson ,
> for example reading from Einstein, descriptive differential
> dynamics, and Moment and Motion about wave theory.
>
> Then those recent Arxiv accounts above give some
> more idea of the all-over-the-place descriptive account,
> of these days.
>
> Most people don't know that gravitational lensing
> of the most simple derivation is about, well, "at least"
> one might generously say, about half-right.
>
>
>
>



Optical light of course is "special", in that it's
in constant flux, vis-a-vis in-flux and ex-flux as
it were, and its diffraction after refraction is
not the same as electromagnetic radio waves,
their reflections.

The images, "the films", the propagation of status
according to the L-principle meteredly, the extromissive
for the intromissive, make that the visible light is
special, and the human eye is basically evolved
about the particular concordance what is the
visible spectrum.

That, then, is about "color". The decoherent light
or white light and the "prismatic" differentiation
of light into color, is so very well known and demonstrable
simply, while the "chromatic" effects to reflect that
"color", is more than the usual notion as after a
tri-stimulus color space, or colorspace, that there
is for the prismatic _and_ chromatic, a dual-tri-stimulus
colorspace.

So, the prismatic and chromatic represent a particular
and special making as after duals, that in a deconstructive
account, effect to reflect that the usual model of those
combined, has that they are as yet different, with regards
to emission and transmission and absorption and reflection.

The Brehmsstrahlung, or braking radiation or Cerenkov,
most visibly demonstrates the relation of visible light,
"light" itself per se, and nuclear radiation, and not
(electrical, electromagnetic) radio.

So, visible light is special, and nuclear radiation the rays,
is a particular other side of that, the flux, as with regards
to the flow, the flux.

Then, color, is itself, a particular dynamism, and is to include
both the prismatic and chromatic, the additive and subtraction,
the sources and filters, about the rods, cones, and also pigments.

Light, then, visible light, is special.

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

#659282

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:36:18 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> > On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
> >>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
> >>>>> I don't.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
> >>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bertietaylor
> >>>
> >>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
> >>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
> >>
> >> If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them from
> >> moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.
> >
> > Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
> > nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
> > though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
> > as radiant the light.
> >
> > That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
> > about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
> > out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
> > and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
> > then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
> > and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
> > though the theory today has it simplified together,
> > helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
> > the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
> > mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
> > c =/= infinity.
> >
> > And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
> > at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
> >
> > The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
> >
> > One may notice that waves are not granular.
> >
> > Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
> > and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
> > not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
> >
> > "Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
> >
> > Of course there's just adding definition underneath
> > the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
> > makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".
> 
> You're right to place "successful theories" in quotation marks. What
> troubles me is how can energy exist without mass? How ca photons be
> massless?



Energy existed trillions of years before mass was invented.


The big bang was the invention of...Mass. Why do you think there are
Rocks flying everywhere????


isn't one grain of sand a...rock?


'My Gawd, it's full of rocks!'


everybody wants to get stoned....



hey, you got rocks in your head..



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

#659294

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 4:30:44 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:36:18 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
>>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
>>>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>>
>>>>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
>>>>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
>>>>
>>>> If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them from
>>>> moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.
>>>
>>> Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
>>> nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
>>> though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
>>> as radiant the light.
>>>
>>> That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
>>> about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
>>> out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
>>> and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
>>> then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
>>> and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
>>> though the theory today has it simplified together,
>>> helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
>>> the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
>>> mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
>>> c =/= infinity.
>>>
>>> And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
>>> at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
>>>
>>> The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
>>>
>>> One may notice that waves are not granular.
>>>
>>> Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
>>> and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
>>> not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
>>>
>>> "Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
>>>
>>> Of course there's just adding definition underneath
>>> the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
>>> makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".
>>
>> You're right to place "successful theories" in quotation marks. What
>> troubles me is how can energy exist without mass? How ca photons be
>> massless?
>
>
>
> Energy existed trillions of years before mass was invented.
>
>
> The big bang was the invention of...Mass. Why do you think there are
> Rocks flying everywhere????
>
>
> isn't one grain of sand a...rock?
>
>
> 'My Gawd, it's full of rocks!'
>
>
> everybody wants to get stoned....
>
>
>
> hey, you got rocks in your head..
>
>
I take it the Big Bang has energy before mass so why can't photons be
massless? Whether they have mass or not my conjecture requires they are
not affected by gravity. That is a big exception to the rule but so is
relativity's doubling of the Newtonian.

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

#659292

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
>>> I don't.
>>
>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>
> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
It seems we may be able to have energy without mass.

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

#659293

On 12/01/2024 01:33 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
>>>> I don't.
>>>
>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>>
>>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
> It seems we may be able to have energy without mass.

Well yeah, energy is just whatever is potential,
yet, there's no energy without entelechy.

That said, various derivations like when electromagnetism
arrives at an edge speed higher than c, in meters per second,
got no problems on their own after their own constructivistic
account.


A tetrad of quantities like mass/charge/lifetime/velocity,
about you'll notice four particles like neutron/electron/proton/photon,
about four forces like strong, electrical, weak, electroweak,
and four fields for those four forces,
and often in linear accounts a trio of the free one the fixed,
has that theories like GR have one or two of those, while QM
sort of billiard-balls them all together, then without
having another "element" like "ether", for space,
or a projection of prediction, for time,
have it so that a sort of tetra of quantities is
then arrived at as "energy", everywhere, connected,
"entelechy" everywhere, it's called "continuity law
a stronger than conservation law".


You can emulate the particle physicists and just put
"photons" everywhere doing whatever you say.

It's not considered very conscientious, ....

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

#659297

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 21:49:39 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 12/01/2024 01:33 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
>>>>> I don't.
>>>>
>>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>>>
>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>
>>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
>>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
>> It seems we may be able to have energy without mass.
>
> Well yeah, energy is just whatever is potential,
> yet, there's no energy without entelechy.
>
> That said, various derivations like when electromagnetism
> arrives at an edge speed higher than c, in meters per second,
> got no problems on their own after their own constructivistic
> account.
>
>
> A tetrad of quantities like mass/charge/lifetime/velocity,
> about you'll notice four particles like neutron/electron/proton/photon,
> about four forces like strong, electrical, weak, electroweak,
> and four fields for those four forces,
> and often in linear accounts a trio of the free one the fixed,
> has that theories like GR have one or two of those, while QM
> sort of billiard-balls them all together, then without
> having another "element" like "ether", for space,
> or a projection of prediction, for time,
> have it so that a sort of tetra of quantities is
> then arrived at as "energy", everywhere, connected,
> "entelechy" everywhere, it's called "continuity law
> a stronger than conservation law".
>
>
> You can emulate the particle physicists and just put
> "photons" everywhere doing whatever you say.
>
> It's not considered very conscientious, ....
That does seem a little free-wheeling. Some consider gravity to provide
the functionality of an ether for light.

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

#659702

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 21:49:39 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 12/01/2024 01:33 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
>>>>> I don't.
>>>>
>>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>>>
>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>
>>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
>>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
>> It seems we may be able to have energy without mass.
>
> Well yeah, energy is just whatever is potential,
> yet, there's no energy without entelechy.
>
> That said, various derivations like when electromagnetism
> arrives at an edge speed higher than c, in meters per second,
> got no problems on their own after their own constructivistic
> account.
>
>
> A tetrad of quantities like mass/charge/lifetime/velocity,
> about you'll notice four particles like neutron/electron/proton/photon,
> about four forces like strong, electrical, weak, electroweak,
> and four fields for those four forces,
> and often in linear accounts a trio of the free one the fixed,
> has that theories like GR have one or two of those, while QM
> sort of billiard-balls them all together, then without
> having another "element" like "ether", for space,
> or a projection of prediction, for time,
> have it so that a sort of tetra of quantities is
> then arrived at as "energy", everywhere, connected,
> "entelechy" everywhere, it's called "continuity law
> a stronger than conservation law".
>
>
> You can emulate the particle physicists and just put
> "photons" everywhere doing whatever you say.
>
> It's not considered very conscientious, ....
Since water is potentially solid, liquid, or gas, but actually only one
of these at a time, couldn't energy exist without matter?

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

#659803

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 21:49:39 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> > On 12/01/2024 01:33 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
> >>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
> >>>>> I don't.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
> >>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bertietaylor
> >>>
> >>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
> >>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
> >> It seems we may be able to have energy without mass.
> >
> > Well yeah, energy is just whatever is potential,
> > yet, there's no energy without entelechy.
> >
> > That said, various derivations like when electromagnetism
> > arrives at an edge speed higher than c, in meters per second,
> > got no problems on their own after their own constructivistic
> > account.
> >
> >
> > A tetrad of quantities like mass/charge/lifetime/velocity,
> > about you'll notice four particles like neutron/electron/proton/photon,
> > about four forces like strong, electrical, weak, electroweak,
> > and four fields for those four forces,
> > and often in linear accounts a trio of the free one the fixed,
> > has that theories like GR have one or two of those, while QM
> > sort of billiard-balls them all together, then without
> > having another "element" like "ether", for space,
> > or a projection of prediction, for time,
> > have it so that a sort of tetra of quantities is
> > then arrived at as "energy", everywhere, connected,
> > "entelechy" everywhere, it's called "continuity law
> > a stronger than conservation law".
> >
> >
> > You can emulate the particle physicists and just put
> > "photons" everywhere doing whatever you say.
> >
> > It's not considered very conscientious, ....
> Since water is potentially solid, liquid, or gas, but actually only one
> of these at a time, couldn't energy exist without matter?


Prof. Bernard Lavenda University degli Studi, Camerina, Italy of course
he is obssessed with anything...Mafia. bada bing, bada boom.

Prof. Bernard Lavenda University degli Studi, Camerina, Italy said,
"Leave the gun, take the cannoli."


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web