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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670853 > unrolled thread

Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson)

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-04-29 13:53 -0700
    Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-29 14:31 -0700
      Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-04-29 14:45 -0700
        Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-29 20:29 -0700
        Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 08:54 -0700
          Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 09:59 -0700
      Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 08:55 -0700
        Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-30 11:42 -0700
          Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-30 15:32 -0700
            Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 20:03 -0700
          Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-01 08:33 -0700
            Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 09:05 -0700

#670853 — Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson)

Note:

This appears like a rather long set of posts to me.

Anyway.  i would like to posit the idea that the words 'particle'
and 'wave' are generally undefined terms because they look and sound
like 'point' and 'curve' in mathematics.  This allows 'particle'
and 'wave' to not have clear meanings.

I think that 'light' IS electromagnetic radiation BUT PHOTONS
are NOT PARTICLES.

This is because MORE THAN ONE PHOTON can exist in a wafeform.

Thus FERMI-DIRAC statistics (Fermions) ARE PARTICLES and Bose-Einstein
statistics (Bosons) ARE NOT PARTICLES.  This MEANS - you have to
think about the question - WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PARTICLE' mean?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#670854

x3 wrote:
> 
> Note:
> 
> This appears like a rather long set of posts to me.
> 
> Anyway.  i would like to posit the idea that the words 'particle'
> and 'wave' are generally undefined terms because they look and sound
> like 'point' and 'curve' in mathematics.  This allows 'particle'
> and 'wave' to not have clear meanings.
> 
> I think that 'light' IS electromagnetic radiation BUT PHOTONS
> are NOT PARTICLES.
> 
> This is because MORE THAN ONE PHOTON can exist in a wafeform.
> 
> Thus FERMI-DIRAC statistics (Fermions) ARE PARTICLES and Bose-Einstein
> statistics (Bosons) ARE NOT PARTICLES.  This MEANS - you have to
> think about the question - WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PARTICLE' mean?

"Particle" is a fish.

There are no lightwaves..they are particles in a school fish.

An ant doesn't travel in a straight line..it travels in wavy lines.

Nature does not have any ...straight lines.

The bark of a tree does not have any straight lines...

a girl has wavy lines..

A wave is just some sort of communication devise to keep the fish moving
in a certain direction.


"Particle" is a fish.


Gravity is a particle, not a wave.


A gravitional wave is a school of fishes.




-- 
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]

#670855

On 4/29/26 14:31, The Starmaker wrote:
> x3 wrote:
>>
>> Note:
>>
>> This appears like a rather long set of posts to me.
>>
>> Anyway.  i would like to posit the idea that the words 'particle'
>> and 'wave' are generally undefined terms because they look and sound
>> like 'point' and 'curve' in mathematics.  This allows 'particle'
>> and 'wave' to not have clear meanings.
>>
>> I think that 'light' IS electromagnetic radiation BUT PHOTONS
>> are NOT PARTICLES.
>>
>> This is because MORE THAN ONE PHOTON can exist in a wafeform.
>>
>> Thus FERMI-DIRAC statistics (Fermions) ARE PARTICLES and Bose-Einstein
>> statistics (Bosons) ARE NOT PARTICLES.  This MEANS - you have to
>> think about the question - WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PARTICLE' mean?
> 
> "Particle" is a fish.
> 
> There are no lightwaves..they are particles in a school fish.
> 
> An ant doesn't travel in a straight line..it travels in wavy lines.
> 
> Nature does not have any ...straight lines.
> 
> The bark of a tree does not have any straight lines...
> 
> a girl has wavy lines..
> 
> A wave is just some sort of communication devise to keep the fish moving
> in a certain direction.
> 
> 
> "Particle" is a fish.
> 
> 
> Gravity is a particle, not a wave.
> 
> 
> A gravitional wave is a school of fishes.

There are increments of energy or momentum
transfer that do happen in steps when energy
or momentum is transferred to 'orbitals' in
chemical reactions involving atoms or
molecules.

Consider the term 'ionizing radiation'.

If you are talking electromagnetic radiation,
that is something shorter in wavelength than
the color 'violet' (ultraviolet, x-rays,
and gamma rays).  In essence, UV and shorter
wavelength (higher energy) does cause cancer,
IR (or microwave ovens) does not cause cancer.

That is because the 'steps' of energy transfer,
are great enough for UV to break carbon-carbon
single bonds (like in DNA).

In visible light the energy steps are only
great enough to break one of two bonds
in a carbon-carbon double bond, but not
both of them.  This allows rotation for
a molecule called 'rhodopsin' allowing
light to be 'sensed' in the visual range.
These 'steps' of transfer are real phenomena,
although I think the 'photon theory of light'
very poorly describes it.
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

#670860

x3 wrote:
> 
> On 4/29/26 14:31, The Starmaker wrote:
> > x3 wrote:
> >>
> >> Note:
> >>
> >> This appears like a rather long set of posts to me.
> >>
> >> Anyway.  i would like to posit the idea that the words 'particle'
> >> and 'wave' are generally undefined terms because they look and sound
> >> like 'point' and 'curve' in mathematics.  This allows 'particle'
> >> and 'wave' to not have clear meanings.
> >>
> >> I think that 'light' IS electromagnetic radiation BUT PHOTONS
> >> are NOT PARTICLES.
> >>
> >> This is because MORE THAN ONE PHOTON can exist in a wafeform.
> >>
> >> Thus FERMI-DIRAC statistics (Fermions) ARE PARTICLES and Bose-Einstein
> >> statistics (Bosons) ARE NOT PARTICLES.  This MEANS - you have to
> >> think about the question - WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PARTICLE' mean?
> >
> > "Particle" is a fish.
> >
> > There are no lightwaves..they are particles in a school fish.
> >
> > An ant doesn't travel in a straight line..it travels in wavy lines.
> >
> > Nature does not have any ...straight lines.
> >
> > The bark of a tree does not have any straight lines...
> >
> > a girl has wavy lines..
> >
> > A wave is just some sort of communication devise to keep the fish moving
> > in a certain direction.
> >
> >
> > "Particle" is a fish.
> >
> >
> > Gravity is a particle, not a wave.
> >
> >
> > A gravitional wave is a school of fishes.
> 
> There are increments of energy or momentum
> transfer that do happen in steps when energy
> or momentum is transferred to 'orbitals' in
> chemical reactions involving atoms or
> molecules.
> 
> Consider the term 'ionizing radiation'.
> 
> If you are talking electromagnetic radiation,
> that is something shorter in wavelength than
> the color 'violet' (ultraviolet, x-rays,
> and gamma rays).  In essence, UV and shorter
> wavelength (higher energy) does cause cancer,
> IR (or microwave ovens) does not cause cancer.
> 
> That is because the 'steps' of energy transfer,
> are great enough for UV to break carbon-carbon
> single bonds (like in DNA).
> 
> In visible light the energy steps are only
> great enough to break one of two bonds
> in a carbon-carbon double bond, but not
> both of them.  This allows rotation for
> a molecule called 'rhodopsin' allowing
> light to be 'sensed' in the visual range.
> These 'steps' of transfer are real phenomena,
> although I think the 'photon theory of light'
> very poorly describes it.


I can describe the 'photon theory of light'...
but i thought i already did..

the fish travels like a wave..a wave of school fishes.

if the fish gets hungry he goes the other way and eats another fish..
dats how the fish gets energy.


E = hf



-- 
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]

#670865

On 04/29/2026 02:45 PM, x3 wrote:
> On 4/29/26 14:31, The Starmaker wrote:
>> x3 wrote:
>>>
>>> Note:
>>>
>>> This appears like a rather long set of posts to me.
>>>
>>> Anyway.  i would like to posit the idea that the words 'particle'
>>> and 'wave' are generally undefined terms because they look and sound
>>> like 'point' and 'curve' in mathematics.  This allows 'particle'
>>> and 'wave' to not have clear meanings.
>>>
>>> I think that 'light' IS electromagnetic radiation BUT PHOTONS
>>> are NOT PARTICLES.
>>>
>>> This is because MORE THAN ONE PHOTON can exist in a wafeform.
>>>
>>> Thus FERMI-DIRAC statistics (Fermions) ARE PARTICLES and Bose-Einstein
>>> statistics (Bosons) ARE NOT PARTICLES.  This MEANS - you have to
>>> think about the question - WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PARTICLE' mean?
>>
>> "Particle" is a fish.
>>
>> There are no lightwaves..they are particles in a school fish.
>>
>> An ant doesn't travel in a straight line..it travels in wavy lines.
>>
>> Nature does not have any ...straight lines.
>>
>> The bark of a tree does not have any straight lines...
>>
>> a girl has wavy lines..
>>
>> A wave is just some sort of communication devise to keep the fish moving
>> in a certain direction.
>>
>>
>> "Particle" is a fish.
>>
>>
>> Gravity is a particle, not a wave.
>>
>>
>> A gravitional wave is a school of fishes.
>
> There are increments of energy or momentum
> transfer that do happen in steps when energy
> or momentum is transferred to 'orbitals' in
> chemical reactions involving atoms or
> molecules.
>
> Consider the term 'ionizing radiation'.
>
> If you are talking electromagnetic radiation,
> that is something shorter in wavelength than
> the color 'violet' (ultraviolet, x-rays,
> and gamma rays).  In essence, UV and shorter
> wavelength (higher energy) does cause cancer,
> IR (or microwave ovens) does not cause cancer.
>
> That is because the 'steps' of energy transfer,
> are great enough for UV to break carbon-carbon
> single bonds (like in DNA).
>
> In visible light the energy steps are only
> great enough to break one of two bonds
> in a carbon-carbon double bond, but not
> both of them.  This allows rotation for
> a molecule called 'rhodopsin' allowing
> light to be 'sensed' in the visual range.
> These 'steps' of transfer are real phenomena,
> although I think the 'photon theory of light'
> very poorly describes it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

So, you've learned particle theries, and you've heard that a
scattering, tunneling electron microscope actually "sees" at
the atomic scale and atomic tweezers actually "pick" atoms.

Yet, the idea that particles are "real", not all agree.


So, after "building with blocks", which are arbitrarily "un-cuttables",
atomos, besides that anybody around "Legos" long enough will
break one, then is to be figured an account of "flow" and "flux",
usually enough by playing at the beach (or in the snow).

So, the beach is an area of the coast, the beach has sand and
the coast has ocean, the ocean's made of water and the beach
is made of sand, it's all one ocean and all one beach, then
that the ocean's made of water and the beach is made of sand,
and water makes drops and sprays while sand makes sprays
and piles, pouring water and pouring sand. Water is essentially
irreducible to a smallest amount, while sand has a smallest amount
called a grain, a grain of sand, the beach grainy and the ocean is not.

So anyways, thusly "flow" is usual for both ocean and beach.
Sand has flow and water has flow. Sand as solid has that its
flow is only granular, water as liquid has that it's never granular.

Then, the ocean also is constantly moving, the waves of the ocean,
so, waves are constantly breaking and crashing on the coast-line,
and one can walk into the coast-line between the high and low
water mark of the waves, since waves at a given time are about
the same size and advance and cover the beach and recede and
reveal the beach.

Then, standing on the sand when the wave arrives, the "flow" of
water covers the feet, then, as the wave recedes, there's another
effect: the "flux" of the sand under the feet, what was solid now
is not solid, and the ground under the feet gives way, as the
water of the wave rushing back to the ocean carries some of
the sand from around the feet and the sand under the feet
flattens out, and standing in the wave on the beach thusly
observes a "flow" of water, that induces a "flux"of sand.

So, thusly, the _symmetries_ about the flows, have now made
an example of a _super-symmetry_ between them.

So, there's "super-symmetry" of "flow and flux", in this classical
account, of life-size particles and waves, why it's so.

Then, when eventually the foot may even get buried in the sand,
since sand in water also covers the foot, eventually to withdraw
the foot from the sand involves not just lifting the sand, yet
overcoming the combined placement of water and sand together,
so, it's _another_ super-symmetry, there are at least two super-symmetries
of these particles and waves.

It's similar enough in accounts of snow instead of water when
there's a sufficient wind of dry or unpackable snow that the
wind is air and will flow while the snow will flux, and similarly
for the accounts of at least two super-symmetries, besides the
usual account of there being none.

So, if you've ever been to the beach or in a blizzard, your mental
model is familiar with at least experiential accounts of super-symmetry:
under-tow, and the stick-in-the-mud, or the mire.

These usually enough are directly associable with "shifting sands"
or "slippery slope", accounts in logic that express the in-tractable,
yet here, they're examples of physical models for mathematical
models, of the sensible for the fungible then the tractable.

So, "super-symmetry" naturally follows from "flow and flux"
among the domains of the continuous and discrete.

Then, flow and flux are usually considered one and the same,
here the idea is that there are:

particles as state
waves as change

then that the "exchange" involves super-symmetric accounts
of flow and flux, initially classical, and later when the accounts
are the quantum which are "non-classical" yet just equipped
with accounts "as if" they were classical, that thusly the
super-symmetry of flow and flux is always present,
and even classical.

Then, the idea that thusly the account of flow and flux
for super-symmetry are of an overall potentialistic setting,
since there's an entire and ocean and beach for the sprays
of water and sand, makes that also it's so quantum physics,
the accounts.


Then, radiation as for example for accounts like mine,
has the electromagnetic on one side and the nuclear on
the other, light's in the middle, then about these notions
of the wave and particle models, besides the particle/wave
duality where the whole Heisenberg (particle-picture) and
Schroedinger (wave-picture) are central, that there are
resonances and wavelets for waves (spiral-waves, waves
always having vorticial components), and for particles
that there are "supersymmetric virtual partner" particles,
and anti-particles, for example a match in a snowstorm
that turns a snowflake into nothing while extinguishing
the match.


So, these are also the usual accounts about supersymmetry
and supersymmetric flow and flux and the accounts of the
partner particles (like neutrinos, or for example, about
Higgs and little Higgs, accounts of various supersymmetries,
and about the graviton as for example the atom or in whatever
supersymmetry the matching partner).



So, light here is special, since one of its own anti-particles,
charge-less and mass-less, is at the end of its track,
the "fish-eye fish-hook", helping explain why light has
"pure diffraction" in its account of free motion then that
it's distinguished from radio or nuclear radiation about
the constancy of coherency that makes of it information
in image.

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

#670868

On 04/30/2026 08:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/29/2026 02:45 PM, x3 wrote:
>> On 4/29/26 14:31, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> x3 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Note:
>>>>
>>>> This appears like a rather long set of posts to me.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway.  i would like to posit the idea that the words 'particle'
>>>> and 'wave' are generally undefined terms because they look and sound
>>>> like 'point' and 'curve' in mathematics.  This allows 'particle'
>>>> and 'wave' to not have clear meanings.
>>>>
>>>> I think that 'light' IS electromagnetic radiation BUT PHOTONS
>>>> are NOT PARTICLES.
>>>>
>>>> This is because MORE THAN ONE PHOTON can exist in a wafeform.
>>>>
>>>> Thus FERMI-DIRAC statistics (Fermions) ARE PARTICLES and Bose-Einstein
>>>> statistics (Bosons) ARE NOT PARTICLES.  This MEANS - you have to
>>>> think about the question - WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PARTICLE' mean?
>>>
>>> "Particle" is a fish.
>>>
>>> There are no lightwaves..they are particles in a school fish.
>>>
>>> An ant doesn't travel in a straight line..it travels in wavy lines.
>>>
>>> Nature does not have any ...straight lines.
>>>
>>> The bark of a tree does not have any straight lines...
>>>
>>> a girl has wavy lines..
>>>
>>> A wave is just some sort of communication devise to keep the fish moving
>>> in a certain direction.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Particle" is a fish.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gravity is a particle, not a wave.
>>>
>>>
>>> A gravitional wave is a school of fishes.
>>
>> There are increments of energy or momentum
>> transfer that do happen in steps when energy
>> or momentum is transferred to 'orbitals' in
>> chemical reactions involving atoms or
>> molecules.
>>
>> Consider the term 'ionizing radiation'.
>>
>> If you are talking electromagnetic radiation,
>> that is something shorter in wavelength than
>> the color 'violet' (ultraviolet, x-rays,
>> and gamma rays).  In essence, UV and shorter
>> wavelength (higher energy) does cause cancer,
>> IR (or microwave ovens) does not cause cancer.
>>
>> That is because the 'steps' of energy transfer,
>> are great enough for UV to break carbon-carbon
>> single bonds (like in DNA).
>>
>> In visible light the energy steps are only
>> great enough to break one of two bonds
>> in a carbon-carbon double bond, but not
>> both of them.  This allows rotation for
>> a molecule called 'rhodopsin' allowing
>> light to be 'sensed' in the visual range.
>> These 'steps' of transfer are real phenomena,
>> although I think the 'photon theory of light'
>> very poorly describes it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> So, you've learned particle theries, and you've heard that a
> scattering, tunneling electron microscope actually "sees" at
> the atomic scale and atomic tweezers actually "pick" atoms.
>
> Yet, the idea that particles are "real", not all agree.
>
>
> So, after "building with blocks", which are arbitrarily "un-cuttables",
> atomos, besides that anybody around "Legos" long enough will
> break one, then is to be figured an account of "flow" and "flux",
> usually enough by playing at the beach (or in the snow).
>
> So, the beach is an area of the coast, the beach has sand and
> the coast has ocean, the ocean's made of water and the beach
> is made of sand, it's all one ocean and all one beach, then
> that the ocean's made of water and the beach is made of sand,
> and water makes drops and sprays while sand makes sprays
> and piles, pouring water and pouring sand. Water is essentially
> irreducible to a smallest amount, while sand has a smallest amount
> called a grain, a grain of sand, the beach grainy and the ocean is not.
>
> So anyways, thusly "flow" is usual for both ocean and beach.
> Sand has flow and water has flow. Sand as solid has that its
> flow is only granular, water as liquid has that it's never granular.
>
> Then, the ocean also is constantly moving, the waves of the ocean,
> so, waves are constantly breaking and crashing on the coast-line,
> and one can walk into the coast-line between the high and low
> water mark of the waves, since waves at a given time are about
> the same size and advance and cover the beach and recede and
> reveal the beach.
>
> Then, standing on the sand when the wave arrives, the "flow" of
> water covers the feet, then, as the wave recedes, there's another
> effect: the "flux" of the sand under the feet, what was solid now
> is not solid, and the ground under the feet gives way, as the
> water of the wave rushing back to the ocean carries some of
> the sand from around the feet and the sand under the feet
> flattens out, and standing in the wave on the beach thusly
> observes a "flow" of water, that induces a "flux"of sand.
>
> So, thusly, the _symmetries_ about the flows, have now made
> an example of a _super-symmetry_ between them.
>
> So, there's "super-symmetry" of "flow and flux", in this classical
> account, of life-size particles and waves, why it's so.
>
> Then, when eventually the foot may even get buried in the sand,
> since sand in water also covers the foot, eventually to withdraw
> the foot from the sand involves not just lifting the sand, yet
> overcoming the combined placement of water and sand together,
> so, it's _another_ super-symmetry, there are at least two super-symmetries
> of these particles and waves.
>
> It's similar enough in accounts of snow instead of water when
> there's a sufficient wind of dry or unpackable snow that the
> wind is air and will flow while the snow will flux, and similarly
> for the accounts of at least two super-symmetries, besides the
> usual account of there being none.
>
> So, if you've ever been to the beach or in a blizzard, your mental
> model is familiar with at least experiential accounts of super-symmetry:
> under-tow, and the stick-in-the-mud, or the mire.
>
> These usually enough are directly associable with "shifting sands"
> or "slippery slope", accounts in logic that express the in-tractable,
> yet here, they're examples of physical models for mathematical
> models, of the sensible for the fungible then the tractable.
>
> So, "super-symmetry" naturally follows from "flow and flux"
> among the domains of the continuous and discrete.
>
> Then, flow and flux are usually considered one and the same,
> here the idea is that there are:
>
> particles as state
> waves as change
>
> then that the "exchange" involves super-symmetric accounts
> of flow and flux, initially classical, and later when the accounts
> are the quantum which are "non-classical" yet just equipped
> with accounts "as if" they were classical, that thusly the
> super-symmetry of flow and flux is always present,
> and even classical.
>
> Then, the idea that thusly the account of flow and flux
> for super-symmetry are of an overall potentialistic setting,
> since there's an entire and ocean and beach for the sprays
> of water and sand, makes that also it's so quantum physics,
> the accounts.
>
>
> Then, radiation as for example for accounts like mine,
> has the electromagnetic on one side and the nuclear on
> the other, light's in the middle, then about these notions
> of the wave and particle models, besides the particle/wave
> duality where the whole Heisenberg (particle-picture) and
> Schroedinger (wave-picture) are central, that there are
> resonances and wavelets for waves (spiral-waves, waves
> always having vorticial components), and for particles
> that there are "supersymmetric virtual partner" particles,
> and anti-particles, for example a match in a snowstorm
> that turns a snowflake into nothing while extinguishing
> the match.
>
>
> So, these are also the usual accounts about supersymmetry
> and supersymmetric flow and flux and the accounts of the
> partner particles (like neutrinos, or for example, about
> Higgs and little Higgs, accounts of various supersymmetries,
> and about the graviton as for example the atom or in whatever
> supersymmetry the matching partner).
>
>
>
> So, light here is special, since one of its own anti-particles,
> charge-less and mass-less, is at the end of its track,
> the "fish-eye fish-hook", helping explain why light has
> "pure diffraction" in its account of free motion then that
> it's distinguished from radio or nuclear radiation about
> the constancy of coherency that makes of it information
> in image.
>
>
>

This account in "Reading Foundations: double relativity",
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T0RQ-62zKc , makes accounts
for both relativity theory and particle theory about the
continuum mechanics, what to make of it these days.

"Doubly-objective relativity theory: relative motion and space,
not to be confused with doubly-special relativity theory,
which is rather merely doubly-restricted relativity theory".
Or: "DORT: not DRRT".

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

#670866

On 04/29/2026 02:31 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> x3 wrote:
>>
>> Note:
>>
>> This appears like a rather long set of posts to me.
>>
>> Anyway.  i would like to posit the idea that the words 'particle'
>> and 'wave' are generally undefined terms because they look and sound
>> like 'point' and 'curve' in mathematics.  This allows 'particle'
>> and 'wave' to not have clear meanings.
>>
>> I think that 'light' IS electromagnetic radiation BUT PHOTONS
>> are NOT PARTICLES.
>>
>> This is because MORE THAN ONE PHOTON can exist in a wafeform.
>>
>> Thus FERMI-DIRAC statistics (Fermions) ARE PARTICLES and Bose-Einstein
>> statistics (Bosons) ARE NOT PARTICLES.  This MEANS - you have to
>> think about the question - WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PARTICLE' mean?
>
> "Particle" is a fish.
>
> There are no lightwaves..they are particles in a school fish.
>
> An ant doesn't travel in a straight line..it travels in wavy lines.
>
> Nature does not have any ...straight lines.
>
> The bark of a tree does not have any straight lines...
>
> a girl has wavy lines..
>
> A wave is just some sort of communication devise to keep the fish moving
> in a certain direction.
>
>
> "Particle" is a fish.
>
>
> Gravity is a particle, not a wave.
>
>
> A gravitional wave is a school of fishes.
>
>
>
>

Ah, a usual known troll's non-sensical account does not belong.

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

#670869

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On 04/29/2026 02:31 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > x3 wrote:
> >>
> >> Note:
> >>
> >> This appears like a rather long set of posts to me.
> >>
> >> Anyway.  i would like to posit the idea that the words 'particle'
> >> and 'wave' are generally undefined terms because they look and sound
> >> like 'point' and 'curve' in mathematics.  This allows 'particle'
> >> and 'wave' to not have clear meanings.
> >>
> >> I think that 'light' IS electromagnetic radiation BUT PHOTONS
> >> are NOT PARTICLES.
> >>
> >> This is because MORE THAN ONE PHOTON can exist in a wafeform.
> >>
> >> Thus FERMI-DIRAC statistics (Fermions) ARE PARTICLES and Bose-Einstein
> >> statistics (Bosons) ARE NOT PARTICLES.  This MEANS - you have to
> >> think about the question - WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PARTICLE' mean?
> >
> > "Particle" is a fish.
> >
> > There are no lightwaves..they are particles in a school fish.
> >
> > An ant doesn't travel in a straight line..it travels in wavy lines.
> >
> > Nature does not have any ...straight lines.
> >
> > The bark of a tree does not have any straight lines...
> >
> > a girl has wavy lines..
> >
> > A wave is just some sort of communication devise to keep the fish moving
> > in a certain direction.
> >
> >
> > "Particle" is a fish.
> >
> >
> > Gravity is a particle, not a wave.
> >
> >
> > A gravitional wave is a school of fishes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Ah, a usual known troll's non-sensical account does not belong.

First I like to point out to you that there is NO hyphen, the correct
speling is "nonsensical". But I understand
English is your third language..so, I'll let that go...for now.


Can you point 'which part' seems non-sensical to you???? (thats' if you
have the ability to find which part)

Saying 'all of it' doesn't count and would be a cop-out on your part.
You need to 'point' to the part which is
non-sensical to you. Maybe you can get help from GG...God knows you need
it.




-- 
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]

#670870

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > On 04/29/2026 02:31 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > x3 wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Note:
> > >>
> > >> This appears like a rather long set of posts to me.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway.  i would like to posit the idea that the words 'particle'
> > >> and 'wave' are generally undefined terms because they look and sound
> > >> like 'point' and 'curve' in mathematics.  This allows 'particle'
> > >> and 'wave' to not have clear meanings.
> > >>
> > >> I think that 'light' IS electromagnetic radiation BUT PHOTONS
> > >> are NOT PARTICLES.
> > >>
> > >> This is because MORE THAN ONE PHOTON can exist in a wafeform.
> > >>
> > >> Thus FERMI-DIRAC statistics (Fermions) ARE PARTICLES and Bose-Einstein
> > >> statistics (Bosons) ARE NOT PARTICLES.  This MEANS - you have to
> > >> think about the question - WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PARTICLE' mean?
> > >
> > > "Particle" is a fish.
> > >
> > > There are no lightwaves..they are particles in a school fish.
> > >
> > > An ant doesn't travel in a straight line..it travels in wavy lines.
> > >
> > > Nature does not have any ...straight lines.
> > >
> > > The bark of a tree does not have any straight lines...
> > >
> > > a girl has wavy lines..
> > >
> > > A wave is just some sort of communication devise to keep the fish moving
> > > in a certain direction.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Particle" is a fish.
> > >
> > >
> > > Gravity is a particle, not a wave.
> > >
> > >
> > > A gravitional wave is a school of fishes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Ah, a usual known troll's non-sensical account does not belong.
> 
> First I like to point out to you that there is NO hyphen, the correct
> speling is "nonsensical". But I understand
> English is your third language..so, I'll let that go...for now.
> 
> Can you point 'which part' seems non-sensical to you???? (thats' if you
> have the ability to find which part)
> 
> Saying 'all of it' doesn't count and would be a cop-out on your part.
> You need to 'point' to the part which is
> non-sensical to you. Maybe you can get help from GG...God knows you need
> it.

RF is screaming..."HELP, HELP, GG!!!!"

GG says: "I'm not wearing any panties."




-- 
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]

#670874

On 04/30/2026 03:32 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/29/2026 02:31 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> x3 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Note:
>>>>>
>>>>> This appears like a rather long set of posts to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway.  i would like to posit the idea that the words 'particle'
>>>>> and 'wave' are generally undefined terms because they look and sound
>>>>> like 'point' and 'curve' in mathematics.  This allows 'particle'
>>>>> and 'wave' to not have clear meanings.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that 'light' IS electromagnetic radiation BUT PHOTONS
>>>>> are NOT PARTICLES.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is because MORE THAN ONE PHOTON can exist in a wafeform.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus FERMI-DIRAC statistics (Fermions) ARE PARTICLES and Bose-Einstein
>>>>> statistics (Bosons) ARE NOT PARTICLES.  This MEANS - you have to
>>>>> think about the question - WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PARTICLE' mean?
>>>>
>>>> "Particle" is a fish.
>>>>
>>>> There are no lightwaves..they are particles in a school fish.
>>>>
>>>> An ant doesn't travel in a straight line..it travels in wavy lines.
>>>>
>>>> Nature does not have any ...straight lines.
>>>>
>>>> The bark of a tree does not have any straight lines...
>>>>
>>>> a girl has wavy lines..
>>>>
>>>> A wave is just some sort of communication devise to keep the fish moving
>>>> in a certain direction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Particle" is a fish.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gravity is a particle, not a wave.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A gravitional wave is a school of fishes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, a usual known troll's non-sensical account does not belong.
>>
>> First I like to point out to you that there is NO hyphen, the correct
>> speling is "nonsensical". But I understand
>> English is your third language..so, I'll let that go...for now.
>>
>> Can you point 'which part' seems non-sensical to you???? (thats' if you
>> have the ability to find which part)
>>
>> Saying 'all of it' doesn't count and would be a cop-out on your part.
>> You need to 'point' to the part which is
>> non-sensical to you. Maybe you can get help from GG...God knows you need
>> it.
>
> RF is screaming..."HELP, HELP, GG!!!!"
>
> GG says: "I'm not wearing any panties."
>
>
>
>

Me neither. No, that's just wrong. The Starmaker's seeming attachment
to suggesting camaraderie by mutual lechery I'm not interested in either
being ashamed of him, nor ashamed with him.

Furthermore I'm not a jealous type yet intimacy is personal and private.
These accounts aren't private, while my personal life is.

Such pathos may have a place, it's not here.

Anyways these sorts panel discussions are as of contemplations and
deliberations of accounts on an account: a sort of accountancy.

Then, one is free to paste these accounts of "theatheory" into
reasoning systems, they can find ready concordance that a panel
of arbitrarily "large" reasoners come to terms with its conclusions.

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

#670878

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > On 04/29/2026 02:31 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > x3 wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Note:
> > >>
> > >> This appears like a rather long set of posts to me.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway.  i would like to posit the idea that the words 'particle'
> > >> and 'wave' are generally undefined terms because they look and sound
> > >> like 'point' and 'curve' in mathematics.  This allows 'particle'
> > >> and 'wave' to not have clear meanings.
> > >>
> > >> I think that 'light' IS electromagnetic radiation BUT PHOTONS
> > >> are NOT PARTICLES.
> > >>
> > >> This is because MORE THAN ONE PHOTON can exist in a wafeform.
> > >>
> > >> Thus FERMI-DIRAC statistics (Fermions) ARE PARTICLES and Bose-Einstein
> > >> statistics (Bosons) ARE NOT PARTICLES.  This MEANS - you have to
> > >> think about the question - WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PARTICLE' mean?
> > >
> > > "Particle" is a fish.
> > >
> > > There are no lightwaves..they are particles in a school fish.
> > >
> > > An ant doesn't travel in a straight line..it travels in wavy lines.
> > >
> > > Nature does not have any ...straight lines.
> > >
> > > The bark of a tree does not have any straight lines...
> > >
> > > a girl has wavy lines..
> > >
> > > A wave is just some sort of communication devise to keep the fish moving
> > > in a certain direction.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Particle" is a fish.
> > >
> > >
> > > Gravity is a particle, not a wave.
> > >
> > >
> > > A gravitional wave is a school of fishes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Ah, a usual known troll's non-sensical account does not belong.
> 
> First I like to point out to you that there is NO hyphen, the correct
> speling is "nonsensical". But I understand
> English is your third language..so, I'll let that go...for now.
> 
> Can you point 'which part' seems non-sensical to you???? (thats' if you
> have the ability to find which part)
> 
> Saying 'all of it' doesn't count and would be a cop-out on your part.
> You need to 'point' to the part which is
> non-sensical to you. Maybe you can get help from GG...God knows you need
> it.

Now you notice Ross Finlayson wasn't able to point out exactly what is
"non-sensical" in my post.

I have no idea what is "non-sensical", so I have to assume it...


Is it because I wrote: "Gravity is a particle..."????

What is a 'graviton' then?


a fish!


Simple english!


How to teach Relativity to a Dog.



I speak dog.


I ask a dog "What's on top of a building?

roof, roof!


You know, there are people who name their dogs...Einstein.





-- 
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]

#670880

On 05/01/2026 08:33 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/29/2026 02:31 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> x3 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Note:
>>>>>
>>>>> This appears like a rather long set of posts to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway.  i would like to posit the idea that the words 'particle'
>>>>> and 'wave' are generally undefined terms because they look and sound
>>>>> like 'point' and 'curve' in mathematics.  This allows 'particle'
>>>>> and 'wave' to not have clear meanings.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that 'light' IS electromagnetic radiation BUT PHOTONS
>>>>> are NOT PARTICLES.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is because MORE THAN ONE PHOTON can exist in a wafeform.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus FERMI-DIRAC statistics (Fermions) ARE PARTICLES and Bose-Einstein
>>>>> statistics (Bosons) ARE NOT PARTICLES.  This MEANS - you have to
>>>>> think about the question - WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PARTICLE' mean?
>>>>
>>>> "Particle" is a fish.
>>>>
>>>> There are no lightwaves..they are particles in a school fish.
>>>>
>>>> An ant doesn't travel in a straight line..it travels in wavy lines.
>>>>
>>>> Nature does not have any ...straight lines.
>>>>
>>>> The bark of a tree does not have any straight lines...
>>>>
>>>> a girl has wavy lines..
>>>>
>>>> A wave is just some sort of communication devise to keep the fish moving
>>>> in a certain direction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Particle" is a fish.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gravity is a particle, not a wave.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A gravitional wave is a school of fishes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, a usual known troll's non-sensical account does not belong.
>>
>> First I like to point out to you that there is NO hyphen, the correct
>> speling is "nonsensical". But I understand
>> English is your third language..so, I'll let that go...for now.
>>
>> Can you point 'which part' seems non-sensical to you???? (thats' if you
>> have the ability to find which part)
>>
>> Saying 'all of it' doesn't count and would be a cop-out on your part.
>> You need to 'point' to the part which is
>> non-sensical to you. Maybe you can get help from GG...God knows you need
>> it.
>
> Now you notice Ross Finlayson wasn't able to point out exactly what is
> "non-sensical" in my post.
>
> I have no idea what is "non-sensical", so I have to assume it...
>
>
> Is it because I wrote: "Gravity is a particle..."????
>
> What is a 'graviton' then?
>
>
> a fish!
>
>
> Simple english!
>
>
> How to teach Relativity to a Dog.
>
>
>
> I speak dog.
>
>
> I ask a dog "What's on top of a building?
>
> roof, roof!
>
>
> You know, there are people who name their dogs...Einstein.
>
>
>
>
>

A graviton is at least three different things according to
there being at least three considerations of supersymmetry.

One of them's the atom itself, in motion,
and that's also the usual one. The other
accounts are as of "reductions" to "unifying energies"
which really mean "so high can't tell the difference"
what are often enough in the electrical reduction after
the mechanical reduction and about lifetime and velocity,
about then that there's not gravitational equivalence to
otherwise acceleration, instead wider concerns.

The Higgs field is not a classical field not a potential field.

Newton's law of universal gravitation that's after Newton's
law of acceleration is Einstein's gravitational principle
is at least two different things, and "force is a function
of time", not just a quantity or vector, and gravity won't
be doing infinite work perpetually for free, since it's
really just always equilibriating in gravity's field.


So, what you assumed already has implicits you never already forgot.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web