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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #667854 > unrolled thread

Re: Rest frame of a photon

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: Rest frame of a photon Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:14 -0600
    Re: Rest frame of a photon JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 21:45 -0500
      Re: Rest frame of a photon Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 09:54 -0600
        Re: Rest frame of a photon JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 11:53 -0500
        Re: Rest frame of a photon Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-16 20:24 +0100
          Re: Rest frame of a photon Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 14:56 -0800
            Re: Rest frame of a photon Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-17 04:57 +0100
              Re: Rest frame of a photon Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 22:26 -0800
                Re: Rest frame of a photon Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 22:31 -0800
                Re: Rest frame of a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-17 09:01 +0100
                  Re: Rest frame of a photon Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 08:03 -0800
          Re: Rest frame of a photon Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 17:30 -0600
            Re: Rest frame of a photon Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-17 05:26 +0100
              Re: Rest frame of a photon jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-12-18 14:16 +0000
                Re: Rest frame of a photon Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-20 06:10 +0100
                  Re: Rest frame of a photon jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-12-20 14:11 +0000
                    Studying Physics (was: Rest frame of a photon) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-20 20:55 +0100
                      Re: Studying Physics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 15:12 -0800
                        Re: Studying Physics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-13 07:43 -0800
                      Re: Studying Physics (was: Rest frame of a photon) Deandre Fernandes <rr@nreed.pt> - 2025-12-20 23:18 +0000
                      Re: Studying Physics jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-12-21 16:35 +0000
                        Re: Studying Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-21 19:47 +0100
                          Re: Studying Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-21 11:09 -0800
                            Everything You Wanted To Know About Cross-Posting But Were Afraid To Ask The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-21 11:11 -0800
                              Re: Everything You Wanted To Know About Cross-Posting But Were Afraid To Ask Serafin Marchukov <va@akshr.ru> - 2025-12-21 19:24 +0000
                                Re: Everything You Wanted To Know About Cross-Posting But Were Afraid To Ask Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-21 21:53 +0100
                                  Re: Everything You Wanted To Know About Cross-Posting But Were Afraid To Ask Rodrigo Demarchis <iid@smrh.gr> - 2025-12-21 20:58 +0000
                                    Re: Everything You Wanted To Know About Cross-Posting But Were Afraid To Ask Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-22 04:00 +0100
                                      Re: Everything You Wanted To Know About Cross-Posting But Were Afraid To Ask Hale Karnoupakis <arp@ulsol.gr> - 2025-12-22 19:23 +0000
                                      Re: Everything You Wanted To Know About Cross-Posting But Were Afraid To Ask Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-22 12:25 -0800
                                        Usenet standards and (N)etiqutte (was: Everything You Wanted To Know About Cross-Posting But Were Afraid To Ask) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-23 01:26 +0100
                                          Re: Usenet standards and (N)etiqutte Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 00:17 -0800
                                            Re: Usenet standards and (N)etiqutte Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-28 09:48 -0800
                              Re: Everything You Wanted To Know About Cross-Posting But Were Afraid To Ask The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-22 23:05 -0800
                                Re: Everything You Wanted To Know About Cross-Posting But Were Afraid To Ask Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 00:11 -0800
                                Re: Everything You Wanted To Know About Cross-Posting But Were Afraid To Ask The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-24 12:11 -0800
                        Re: Studying Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-21 11:22 -0800
                    Re: Rest frame of a photon Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 19:56 -0600
                  Re: Rest frame of a photon Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 19:58 -0600
                    Re: Rest frame of a photon Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 18:51 -0800
                      Re: Rest frame of a photon Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-21 15:45 +0100
                        Re: Rest frame of a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-12-21 16:11 +0100
                        Re: Rest frame of a photon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-21 09:56 -0800
                        Re: Rest frame of a photon Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-21 11:48 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#667854 — Re: Rest frame of a photon

On 12/14/2025 7:13 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> [Supersedes to set F'up2 sci.physics.relativity (again)]
> 
> JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups and 2 top-level hierarchies
> *without* Followup-To:
> 
>> On 12/14/25 9:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> JTEM amok-crossposted across 5 newsgroups
>>
>> You did. You crossposted to 5 newsgroups.
> 
> Because *you* did before.  But I *also* set Followup-To
> sci.physics.relativity to contain the crosspost, which you probably
> *deliberately* ignored.  That is anti-social behavior on *your* part.
> 
> (If the header of your posting is not forged, you are using Mozilla
> Thunderbird the same as I do.  This software observes RFC 5537 "Netnews
> Architecture and Protocols", § 3.4.3 "Followups", which means that if you
> push the "Followup" button, the default for the target newsgroups is *only*
> those found in the "Followup-To" header field of the posting you post a
> followup to.  The Followup-To header field of my posting was "Followup-To:
> sci.physics.relativity" which you can verify by expanding the header pane
> or pressing Ctrl+U.)
> 
>> As a typical mental case you're in some narcissistic "Do as I say, not as I do"
>> mode...
> 
> No, you simply either have no clue how newsgroups work; or you do, and you
> are trolling, and you are the mental, narcissistic case here.  Which one is it?
> 
>>> Which part of "a photon has no inertial rest frame" did you not understand?
>>
>> Omg! You're HILARIOUS!
>>
>> The photon is everywhere is can potentially be!
> 
> *If* it *had* an inertial rest frame which it *cannot* have.
> 
>> But to the photon itself that's it -- the one and only frame!
> 
> Such an *inertial* frame of reference does not exist as the speed of a
> photon *cannot* be zero.  That would mean that its linear momentum p would
> be zero, and by E = p c it would not exist:
> 
> The energy--momentum relation for a free particle in Minkowski space is
> 
>    E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2.
> 
> For a particle to move at the speed c in all inertial reference frames, it
> is required that its mass is zero.  Proof: Let us assume that its mass is
> not zero, then
> 
>                E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2
>                    = m^2 c^4 + gamma^2 m^2 v^2 c^2
>                    = gamma^2 m^2 c^4 (1/gamma^2 + v^2/c^2)
>                    = gamma^2 m^2 c^4 (1 - v^2/c^2 + v^2/c^2)
>                    = gamma^2 m^2 c^4
>            gamma^2 = E^2/(m^2 c^4)
>    1/(1 - v^2/c^2) = E^2/(m^2 c^4)
>       1 - v^2/c^2  = m^2 c^4/E^2
>           v^2/c^2  = 1 - m^2 c^4/E^2 ==> (v = c ==> m = 0).
> 
> But then its total energy squared is
> 
>    E^2 = 0^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 = p^2 c^2,
> 
> so its total energy is (only) given by
> 
>      E = p c.
> 
> 
> Equivalently, by E = p c = h f, its frequency f would be zero which makes no
> sense (or you could say, with frequency zero there is no oscillation of
> electric and magnetic fields, so there cannot be photon which is an
> excitation state of the electromagnetic field):
> 
> For a photon, P = hbar K ==> p = |P| = hbar k, so
> 
>    E = p c = hbar k c = h/(2pi) 2pi/lambda c = h/lambda c = h f.
> 
>    [Planck--Einstein relation]
> 
> 
> Another, more robust, way to show that there is no such frame is to show
> that there is no Lorentz transformation to such a frame:
> 
> The original Lorentz transformation (as derived by Einstein) for motion of a
> "primed" frame in the x-direction of an "unprimed" frame at the velocity v
> relative to the latter frame is
> 
>    t' = gamma(v) [t - v/c^2 x]
>    x' = gamma(v) [x - v t]
>    y' = y
>    z' = z.
> 
> But
> 
>    gamma(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
> 
> where v is the speed of the unprimed frame relative to the primed frame (and
> vice-versa, and gamma(v) --> inf as v --> c.
> 
> Equivalently, the Lorentz transformation above can be performed conveniently
> by multiplication of a four-vector (c t, x, y, z)^T on the left by the matrix
> 
>              [ cosh(w)   -sinh(w)  0  0]
>    Lambda := [-sinh(w)    cosh(w)  0  0],
>              [       0          0  1  0]
>              [       0          0  0  1]
> 
> where w = artanh(v/c) is defined as rapidity.  However, if v = c, then
> v/c = 1, and artanh(1) is not well-defined: artanh(x) --> inf as x --> 1.
> 
> So we can calculate the elapsed proper time along a lightlike geodesic; it
> is zero.  In Minkowski space (where this is simple), it is (via the
> Minkowski metric and the definition of proper time)
> 
>    ds^2 = c^2 (d tau^2) = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
>                         = c^2 dt^2 (1 - v^2/c^2)
>               (d tau)^2 = dt^2 sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>    ==> (v = c ==> d tau = 0 ==> Delta tau = int_W d tau = 0).
> 
> But that does not mean that we can make any scientifically solid statements
> about what "a photon experiences".  In fact, not only does the existence of
> such an inertial frame contradict special relativity and quantum theories;
> but also, if special relativity and quantum theories are correct theories
> (and there is strong indication that they are), we will never be able to
> *falsify* any statements about this because *according to the theory*
> material objects *cannot* move at c through space (as their mass is not
> zero).  But hypotheses that cannot be falsified are not scientific.
> 
>    [The situation is very different if that frame is non-inertial in
>     the Newtonian sense.  Is there such a frame?  Absolutely: The relative
>     speed of a photon propagating radially outwards from the event horizon
>     of a Schwarzschild black hole is zero.  But notice that I said
>     "propagating": it is still moving, but space is falling in as fast, so
>     its position does not change (this river model is one way to understand
>     it).  This is just its *coordinate* speed, NOT its local speed.  And
>     the geometry of our universe is NOT the Schwarzschild geometry.]
> 

Wow, amazing!!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#667856

On 12/15/25 10:14 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:

> Wow, amazing!!

Photons never move. Not from the perspective of a photon.

They can't.

To claim otherwise is to insists that photons do experience
time.

You can't have it any other way.

You either take the position that photons experience time,
or they never move. There is only one moment EVER for a
photon, one place... which is everywhere (it can potentially
be).





-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/

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

#667860

On 12/15/2025 8:45 PM, JTEM wrote:
> On 12/15/25 10:14 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
> 
>> Wow, amazing!!
> 
> Photons never move. Not from the perspective of a photon.
> 
> They can't.
> 
> To claim otherwise is to insists that photons do experience
> time.
> 
> You can't have it any other way.
> 
> You either take the position that photons experience time,
> or they never move. There is only one moment EVER for a
> photon, one place... which is everywhere (it can potentially
> be).
> 

Get Mom her fenestrated wooden discipline paddle; there's still time for 
a Christmas delivery!!

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

#667861

On 12/16/25 10:54 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:

> Get 

You really can't grasp this, can you?

Without time there is no "place" or "space." It's everywhere all
at once. There's only one "Place," one moment.




-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/

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

#667864

Dawn Flood wrote:
> On 12/15/2025 8:45 PM, JTEM wrote:
>> On 12/15/25 10:14 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
>>> Wow, amazing!!
>>
>> Photons never move. Not from the perspective of a photon.

There is no "perspective of a photon" in the first place.

>> They can't.

But the second postulate of the special principle of relativity (which is
sometimes called the "principle of light speed constancy"), on which the
Lorentz transformation and thus this (zero distance, no time) argument is
based, states that light propagates at the same speed in *every* inertial
reference frame:

,-<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/andp.19053221004>
|
| 2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im „ruhenden“ Koordinatensystem mit
|    der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhängig davon, ob dieser
|    Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Korper emittiert ist.

Translation (my native language happens to be German as well, and I am
fluent in English, too):

  ‘2. Any light ray moves in the “stationary” coordinate system with
      the specific speed V, independent of whether this light ray is
      emitted by a stationary or a moving body.’

  [Einstein, A. (1905): „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“
   (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”).  Annalen der Physik,
   Vol. 322, Issue 10.

   Einstein initially used „V“ for the speed of light in vacuum before
   he switched to „c“.]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The only statement in this regard that is mathematically and physically
sound is that zero proper time elapses along lightlike worldlines (those
turn out to be spacetime geodesics), because that is Lorentz-invariant.

So even though there is no Lorentz transformation to/from a frame moving at
c relative to all other frames, and therefore this frame is cannot be an
*inertial* frame (in the Newtonian sense, not the GR sense), we can
confidently make the previous statement because for that we do not have to
do a Lorentz transformation.

>> To claim otherwise is to insists that photons do experience time.

Ex falso quodlibet.

>> You can't have it any other way.

You *can*.  If a photon has no (Newtonian-)inertial rest frame -- and it
hasn't -- *no* statement about its state of motion in that frame is possible.

>> You either take the position that photons experience time,
>> or they never move. There is only one moment EVER for a
>> photon, one place... which is everywhere (it can potentially
>> be).
> 
> Get Mom her fenestrated wooden discipline paddle; there's still time for 
> a Christmas delivery!!

As a Christmas gift I recommend this course on special relativity instead:

<https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-y0009-understanding-einstein-special-theory-relativity>

   [I took and passed it a few years ago (before I started to formally study
    Physics, and it became a major incentive for me to do just that).]

It should clear up some of those misconceptions.


BTW, please stop this amok-crossposting.  F'up2 sci.physics.relativity set.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#667866

On 12/16/2025 11:24 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Dawn Flood wrote:
>> On 12/15/2025 8:45 PM, JTEM wrote:
>>> On 12/15/25 10:14 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>> Wow, amazing!!
>>>
>>> Photons never move. Not from the perspective of a photon.
>
> There is no "perspective of a photon" in the first place.
>
>>> They can't.
>
> But the second postulate of the special principle of relativity (which is
> sometimes called the "principle of light speed constancy"), on which the
> Lorentz transformation and thus this (zero distance, no time) argument is
> based, states that light propagates at the same speed in *every* inertial
> reference frame:
>
> ,-<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/andp.19053221004>
> |
> | 2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im „ruhenden“ Koordinatensystem mit
> |    der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhängig davon, ob dieser
> |    Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Korper emittiert ist.
>
> Translation (my native language happens to be German as well, and I am
> fluent in English, too):
>
>    ‘2. Any light ray moves in the “stationary” coordinate system with
>        the specific speed V, independent of whether this light ray is
>        emitted by a stationary or a moving body.’
>
>    [Einstein, A. (1905): „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“
>     (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”).  Annalen der Physik,
>     Vol. 322, Issue 10.
>
>     Einstein initially used „V“ for the speed of light in vacuum before
>     he switched to „c“.]
>
> You can't have your cake and eat it too.
>
> The only statement in this regard that is mathematically and physically
> sound is that zero proper time elapses along lightlike worldlines (those
> turn out to be spacetime geodesics), because that is Lorentz-invariant.
>
> So even though there is no Lorentz transformation to/from a frame moving at
> c relative to all other frames, and therefore this frame is cannot be an
> *inertial* frame (in the Newtonian sense, not the GR sense), we can
> confidently make the previous statement because for that we do not have to
> do a Lorentz transformation.
>
>>> To claim otherwise is to insists that photons do experience time.
>
> Ex falso quodlibet.
>
>>> You can't have it any other way.
>
> You *can*.  If a photon has no (Newtonian-)inertial rest frame -- and it
> hasn't -- *no* statement about its state of motion in that frame is possible.
>
>>> You either take the position that photons experience time,
>>> or they never move. There is only one moment EVER for a
>>> photon, one place... which is everywhere (it can potentially
>>> be).
>>
>> Get Mom her fenestrated wooden discipline paddle; there's still time for
>> a Christmas delivery!!
>
> As a Christmas gift I recommend this course on special relativity instead:
>
> <https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-y0009-understanding-einstein-special-theory-relativity>
>
>     [I took and passed it a few years ago (before I started to formally study
>      Physics, and it became a major incentive for me to do just that).]
>
> It should clear up some of those misconceptions.
>
>
> BTW, please stop this amok-crossposting.  F'up2 sci.physics.relativity set.
>


The notion of the electron as a charge/mass ratio and
whether it's ever really at rest at all, with regards
to the charge/mass ratio of the electron, and how
it's arrived at in accounts like Richardson's since
the 1920's and before, about electrostatics and electrodynamics,
the charge/mass ratio as a point-particle at a degenerate-duration
or as with regards to its space and time extents, some have
that as well that the mass component oscillates, for example
about the "Little Higgs" type theories, or here as with regards
to force carriers and various notions of kinetics and kinematics
with regards to electromotive potential and power or the
dunamis and dynamis in the energy and entelechy, make for
that an electron ever being at "rest" is arguable,
while though potentials may be latent.

Photons are fundamentally flux themselves, the usual sorts
of notions of wavepackets and waves and rays and images
in intensity, while though "virtual photons" are a capricious
sort of non-entity that theories like QED entertain since
otherwise they'd have no means to model what would be
real wave behavior about wave/particle duality and
wave/resonance dichotomy.

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

#667868

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 12/16/2025 11:24 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> [full quote of something about _photons_]
> 
> [pseudo-scientific rambling about electrons] 

Hopeless case.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#667870

On 12/16/2025 07:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 12/16/2025 11:24 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> [full quote of something about _photons_]
>>
>> [pseudo-scientific rambling about electrons]
>
> Hopeless case.
>

It's not hopeless - instead it's a great opportunity,
since great theorists since Faraday and for FitzGerald
then about Heaviside and at least three different ways
of looking at things that got combined in Maxwell's
equations E x B or D x H, which are also at least two
ways of looking at things, then for Faraday and Helmholtz
about that electrical fields the movements within them
are as spirals while they are as waves, then after
Young and Millikan and e/m the charge/mass ratio,
there's Richardson with the electron theory of matter,
establishing at least three constants 'c', all that is
100-200 years old, thus at least over-ripe for revisiting.



These days all these particles also have their "-inos",
to get helping to explain for Aspect/Bell type experiments
which has essentially superluminal flux, or at least
reverse flux, that such researches have earned Nobel
prizes even in the last 20-30 years.


Fresnel's the guy for light, while though there's
Finlay-Freundlich about "tired light", since "Dark Energy"
has falsified either or both of the standard cosmology
or relativity theory, about each these kinds "F-Lorentzians"
for "E-energy", then also to include Fatio for gravity.


It may begin with the adiabatic and nonadiabatic,
to progress from oscillation to general motion.


Then, since as still in the "Orbits..." thread it's
ongoing there are 1/2/3 falsifications of today's premier
theories, then there are Aspect/Bell type experiments
which very much make for de Broglie and the great Bohm.

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

#667871

On 12/16/2025 10:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 12/16/2025 07:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2025 11:24 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> [full quote of something about _photons_]
>>>
>>> [pseudo-scientific rambling about electrons]
>>
>> Hopeless case.
>>
>
> It's not hopeless - instead it's a great opportunity,
> since great theorists since Faraday and for FitzGerald
> then about Heaviside and at least three different ways
> of looking at things that got combined in Maxwell's
> equations E x B or D x H, which are also at least two
> ways of looking at things, then for Faraday and Helmholtz
> about that electrical fields the movements within them
> are as spirals while they are as waves, then after
> Young and Millikan and e/m the charge/mass ratio,
> there's Richardson with the electron theory of matter,
> establishing at least three constants 'c', all that is
> 100-200 years old, thus at least over-ripe for revisiting.
>
>
>
> These days all these particles also have their "-inos",
> to get helping to explain for Aspect/Bell type experiments
> which has essentially superluminal flux, or at least
> reverse flux, that such researches have earned Nobel
> prizes even in the last 20-30 years.
>
>
> Fresnel's the guy for light, while though there's
> Finlay-Freundlich about "tired light", since "Dark Energy"
> has falsified either or both of the standard cosmology
> or relativity theory, about each these kinds "F-Lorentzians"
> for "E-energy", then also to include Fatio for gravity.
>
>
> It may begin with the adiabatic and nonadiabatic,
> to progress from oscillation to general motion.
>
>
> Then, since as still in the "Orbits..." thread it's
> ongoing there are 1/2/3 falsifications of today's premier
> theories, then there are Aspect/Bell type experiments
> which very much make for de Broglie and the great Bohm.
>
>

Of course Dirac is pretty great, ...,
then about Fritz London, since as Einstein
avers in "Out of My Later Years" the formally
everywhere centrally-symmetric the "un-linear"
is real in effect and practically when the
perfectly linear inelastic exchanges are
impractical ideals: and more than simply that
Dirac makes for everyone's first non-standard function
with real analytical character, that also his notions
as reflected in Richardson's introductory exposition
on electrostatics and electrodynamics, makes for that
adiabatic Lienard-Wiechert isn't unique for potentialistic
theories.


Even the usual conflation of visible light as among
electromagnetic radiation, about the differences betwen
wave velocity and constant velocity while arriving at
the stoichiometric ratios as they are of models of
particles their corpusculate energy as wiggly waves,
the severe abstraction that's been so successful now
is yet but rigid and about the oak and the reed.

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

#667873

Am Mittwoch000017, 17.12.2025 um 07:26 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> On 12/16/2025 07:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2025 11:24 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> [full quote of something about _photons_]
>>>
>>> [pseudo-scientific rambling about electrons]
>>
>> Hopeless case.
>>
> 
> It's not hopeless - instead it's a great opportunity,
> since great theorists since Faraday and for FitzGerald
> then about Heaviside and at least three different ways
> of looking at things that got combined in Maxwell's
> equations E x B or D x H, which are also at least two
> ways of looking at things, then for Faraday and Helmholtz
> about that electrical fields the movements within them
> are as spirals while they are as waves, then after
> Young and Millikan and e/m the charge/mass ratio,
> there's Richardson with the electron theory of matter,
> establishing at least three constants 'c', all that is
> 100-200 years old, thus at least over-ripe for revisiting.
> 
> 
> 
> These days all these particles also have their "-inos",
> to get helping to explain for Aspect/Bell type experiments
> which has essentially superluminal flux, or at least
> reverse flux, that such researches have earned Nobel
> prizes even in the last 20-30 years.
> 
> 

My idea about the electron:

'electron' is only an aspect of a standing wave.

That aspect denotes the outer edge of a standing rotation wave, while 
the inner turnig point is commonly called 'proton'.

So, electrons are not seperate entities but kind of parts of a united 
structure.

The minus of the electron's charge denotes 'invards', while the plus of 
the proton 'outwards'.

The most simple atom is hydrogen and that is just one single standing 
wave, where the outer edge is called 'electron' and the inner turning 
point 'proton'.

The wave itself is actually a little tricky and called 'standing 
rotation wave' for some reasons, which I have described in my 'book', 
that can be found here:


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


The idea is called 'structured spacetime' and 'timelike stable patterns' 
are, what we call 'matter'.

But 'not timelike stable' is also possible for material object. In that 
case we call them 'radiation'.

IOW: a stationary electron is part of an atom, while a non stationary 
electron is what we call 'photon'.


TH

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

#667876

On 12/17/2025 12:01 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Mittwoch000017, 17.12.2025 um 07:26 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>> On 12/16/2025 07:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2025 11:24 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> [full quote of something about _photons_]
>>>>
>>>> [pseudo-scientific rambling about electrons]
>>>
>>> Hopeless case.
>>>
>>
>> It's not hopeless - instead it's a great opportunity,
>> since great theorists since Faraday and for FitzGerald
>> then about Heaviside and at least three different ways
>> of looking at things that got combined in Maxwell's
>> equations E x B or D x H, which are also at least two
>> ways of looking at things, then for Faraday and Helmholtz
>> about that electrical fields the movements within them
>> are as spirals while they are as waves, then after
>> Young and Millikan and e/m the charge/mass ratio,
>> there's Richardson with the electron theory of matter,
>> establishing at least three constants 'c', all that is
>> 100-200 years old, thus at least over-ripe for revisiting.
>>
>>
>>
>> These days all these particles also have their "-inos",
>> to get helping to explain for Aspect/Bell type experiments
>> which has essentially superluminal flux, or at least
>> reverse flux, that such researches have earned Nobel
>> prizes even in the last 20-30 years.
>>
>>
>
> My idea about the electron:
>
> 'electron' is only an aspect of a standing wave.
>
> That aspect denotes the outer edge of a standing rotation wave, while
> the inner turnig point is commonly called 'proton'.
>
> So, electrons are not seperate entities but kind of parts of a united
> structure.
>
> The minus of the electron's charge denotes 'invards', while the plus of
> the proton 'outwards'.
>
> The most simple atom is hydrogen and that is just one single standing
> wave, where the outer edge is called 'electron' and the inner turning
> point 'proton'.
>
> The wave itself is actually a little tricky and called 'standing
> rotation wave' for some reasons, which I have described in my 'book',
> that can be found here:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> The idea is called 'structured spacetime' and 'timelike stable patterns'
> are, what we call 'matter'.
>
> But 'not timelike stable' is also possible for material object. In that
> case we call them 'radiation'.
>
> IOW: a stationary electron is part of an atom, while a non stationary
> electron is what we call 'photon'.
>
>
> TH

There are lots of models "the atom", which is funny since
"atomos" means "un-cuttable", though most are familiar
with not-Dalton and not-Rutherford about the orbitals.

For example, the theory that the atom's nucleus is hadrons and
quarks, and the theory that the atom's nucleus is instead nucleons
in the nucleus, is two different theories.

Then a wave model as "model of exchange in an open system",
is plenty sensible, while though most have a notion of
classical billiard-ball atoms.

Then "standing waves" is then as about resonance theory
and oscillation/restitution and attenuation/dissipation
are pretty usual things.


The photon is in "not the rest frame" of everything around it,
or rather, everything about which it is around.

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

#667867

On 12/16/2025 1:24 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Dawn Flood wrote:
>> On 12/15/2025 8:45 PM, JTEM wrote:
>>> On 12/15/25 10:14 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>> Wow, amazing!!
>>>
>>> Photons never move. Not from the perspective of a photon.
> 
> There is no "perspective of a photon" in the first place.
> 
>>> They can't.
> 
> But the second postulate of the special principle of relativity (which is
> sometimes called the "principle of light speed constancy"), on which the
> Lorentz transformation and thus this (zero distance, no time) argument is
> based, states that light propagates at the same speed in *every* inertial
> reference frame:
> 
> ,-<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/andp.19053221004>
> |
> | 2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im „ruhenden“ Koordinatensystem mit
> |    der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhängig davon, ob dieser
> |    Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Korper emittiert ist.
> 
> Translation (my native language happens to be German as well, and I am
> fluent in English, too):
> 
>    ‘2. Any light ray moves in the “stationary” coordinate system with
>        the specific speed V, independent of whether this light ray is
>        emitted by a stationary or a moving body.’
> 
>    [Einstein, A. (1905): „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“
>     (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”).  Annalen der Physik,
>     Vol. 322, Issue 10.
> 
>     Einstein initially used „V“ for the speed of light in vacuum before
>     he switched to „c“.]
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> The only statement in this regard that is mathematically and physically
> sound is that zero proper time elapses along lightlike worldlines (those
> turn out to be spacetime geodesics), because that is Lorentz-invariant.
> 
> So even though there is no Lorentz transformation to/from a frame moving at
> c relative to all other frames, and therefore this frame is cannot be an
> *inertial* frame (in the Newtonian sense, not the GR sense), we can
> confidently make the previous statement because for that we do not have to
> do a Lorentz transformation.
> 
>>> To claim otherwise is to insists that photons do experience time.
> 
> Ex falso quodlibet.
> 
>>> You can't have it any other way.
> 
> You *can*.  If a photon has no (Newtonian-)inertial rest frame -- and it
> hasn't -- *no* statement about its state of motion in that frame is possible.
> 
>>> You either take the position that photons experience time,
>>> or they never move. There is only one moment EVER for a
>>> photon, one place... which is everywhere (it can potentially
>>> be).
>>
>> Get Mom her fenestrated wooden discipline paddle; there's still time for
>> a Christmas delivery!!
> 
> As a Christmas gift I recommend this course on special relativity instead:
> 
> <https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-y0009-understanding-einstein-special-theory-relativity>
> 
>     [I took and passed it a few years ago (before I started to formally study
>      Physics, and it became a major incentive for me to do just that).]
> 
> It should clear up some of those misconceptions.
> 
> 
> BTW, please stop this amok-crossposting.  F'up2 sci.physics.relativity set.
> 

Wow, yet another amazing post!!  I only read & post in alt.atheism, 
which is why I am including that in my replies.  (If you leave 
alt.atheism off your replies, then I will never read them.)  The 
Stanford courses are amazing!  Professor Leonard Susskind is an 
astonishing teacher, although, I wish that he would not snack while 
lecturing!

Dawn

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

#667869

Dawn Flood wrote:
> On 12/16/2025 1:24 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> [...]
> 
> Wow, yet another amazing post!!

Thank you 8-)  But that does not mean that you have to full-quote it :->

> I only read & post in alt.atheism, which is why I am including that in my
> replies.  (If you leave alt.atheism off your replies, then I will never read them.)

Newsgroups have those names for a reason.  This is *off-topic* in
alt.atheism.  It is inappropriate to bother the rest of the world with
off-topic postings just because you restrict your Usenet existence to
certain newsgroups.  F'up2 sci.physics.relativity set again.

> The Stanford courses are amazing!

They are indeed 8-)

> Professor Leonard Susskind is an astonishing teacher,

Indeed, Susskind also gives very good Physics lectures (including on Special
Relativity, see my YouTube playlist [1]).

But the online course that I recommend(ed) is given by Larry Lagerstrom (who
is also very good, but explains this at a lower level, with more history of
the theory).  (By contrast to just watching lectures on YouTube, if you wish
and pay *a little*, you can do graded exercises and a final exam, and
receive a certificate, too. [2])

> although, I wish that he would not snack while lecturing!

He is standing there for almost 2 hours while being recorded, and they make
those recordings available for free -- so let the man have a snack once in a
while at least ;-)

_____
[1] <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDgD6PeMro6NdNFNcR3A6pK>
[2] <https://coursera.org/share/9489c7c5bf627691b58689e7619e7635>
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#667893

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Dawn Flood wrote:
>> On 12/16/2025 1:24 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Wow, yet another amazing post!!
> 
> Thank you 8-)  But that does not mean that you have to full-quote it :->
> 
>> I only read & post in alt.atheism, which is why I am including that in my
>> replies.  (If you leave alt.atheism off your replies, then I will never read them.)
> 
> Newsgroups have those names for a reason.  This is *off-topic* in
> alt.atheism.  It is inappropriate to bother the rest of the world with
> off-topic postings just because you restrict your Usenet existence to
> certain newsgroups.  F'up2 sci.physics.relativity set again.
> 
>> The Stanford courses are amazing!
> 
> They are indeed 8-)
> 
>> Professor Leonard Susskind is an astonishing teacher,
> 
> Indeed, Susskind also gives very good Physics lectures (including on Special
> Relativity, see my YouTube playlist [1]).
> 
> But the online course that I recommend(ed) is given by Larry Lagerstrom (who
> is also very good, but explains this at a lower level, with more history of
> the theory).  (By contrast to just watching lectures on YouTube, if you wish
> and pay *a little*, you can do graded exercises and a final exam, and
> receive a certificate, too. [2])
> 
>> although, I wish that he would not snack while lecturing!
> 
> He is standing there for almost 2 hours while being recorded, and they make
> those recordings available for free -- so let the man have a snack once in a
> while at least ;-)
> 
> _____
> [1] <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDgD6PeMro6NdNFNcR3A6pK>
> [2] <https://coursera.org/share/9489c7c5bf627691b58689e7619e7635>
> 

thomas, i dont think you and dawn will be able to collaborate. 
dawn is also getting a phd.

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

#667899

jojo wrote:
> [full quote]
> 
> thomas, i dont think you and dawn will be able to collaborate. 

That is a stupid remark to my posting, especially given the senseless full
quote.

> dawn is also getting a phd.

Not in Physics, apparently.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#667900

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> jojo wrote:
>> [full quote]
>>
>> thomas, i dont think you and dawn will be able to collaborate.
> 
> That is a stupid remark to my posting, especially given the senseless full
> quote.
> 
>> dawn is also getting a phd.
> 
> Not in Physics, apparently.
> 

thomas, may i call you thomaa, that's short for thomas.

dawn is into physics, she is getting there one eigenvalue at a 
time. people ave their own pace of getting to the truth.

some are compelled to take extended paths, others make things 
difficult for themselves along the way.

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

#667901 — Studying Physics (was: Rest frame of a photon)

jojo wrote in <news:sci.physics.relativity> and <news:alt.atheism>:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> jojo wrote:
>>> [full quote]
>>>
>>> thomas, i dont think you and dawn will be able to collaborate.
>>
>> That is a stupid remark to my posting, especially given the senseless full
>> quote.
>>
>>> dawn is also getting a phd.
>>
>> Not in Physics, apparently.
> 
> thomas,

My first name is Thomas, with a _capital_ T.

> may i call you thomaa,

No; you should write properly, including my name.

> that's short for thomas.

In which language?

> dawn is into physics, she is getting there one eigenvalue at a 
> time.

Interesting wording 8-)  Maybe so, but if they had a PhD in Physics, or
would be a graduate or PhD student, they would already know what I explained
to them.

> people ave their own pace of getting to the truth.

Sure; non sequitur.

> some are compelled to take extended paths, others make things 
> difficult for themselves along the way.

JFTR: Physics is also not my first field of study; I already have a B Sc in
Computer Science.  And I am not alone with such a curved study path among my
fellow students.  That's OK 8-)

F'up2 sci.physics

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#667902 — Re: Studying Physics

On 12/20/2025 11:55 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> jojo wrote in <news:sci.physics.relativity> and <news:alt.atheism>:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> jojo wrote:
>>>> [full quote]
>>>>
>>>> thomas, i dont think you and dawn will be able to collaborate.
>>>
>>> That is a stupid remark to my posting, especially given the senseless full
>>> quote.
>>>
>>>> dawn is also getting a phd.
>>>
>>> Not in Physics, apparently.
>>
>> thomas,
>
> My first name is Thomas, with a _capital_ T.
>
>> may i call you thomaa,
>
> No; you should write properly, including my name.
>
>> that's short for thomas.
>
> In which language?
>
>> dawn is into physics, she is getting there one eigenvalue at a
>> time.
>
> Interesting wording 8-)  Maybe so, but if they had a PhD in Physics, or
> would be a graduate or PhD student, they would already know what I explained
> to them.
>
>> people ave their own pace of getting to the truth.
>
> Sure; non sequitur.
>
>> some are compelled to take extended paths, others make things
>> difficult for themselves along the way.
>
> JFTR: Physics is also not my first field of study; I already have a B Sc in
> Computer Science.  And I am not alone with such a curved study path among my
> fellow students.  That's OK 8-)
>
> F'up2 sci.physics
>

If you're going to learn physics,
you should probably know mathematics.


"Foundations" then is the usual idea of
"theory of everything theoretical, reason's account thereof".

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

#668167 — Re: Studying Physics

>
> If you're going to learn physics,
> you should probably know mathematics.
>
>
> "Foundations" then is the usual idea of
> "theory of everything theoretical, reason's account thereof".
>
>

Yeah, a pretty nice summary.

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

#667903 — Re: Studying Physics (was: Rest frame of a photon)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> jojo wrote in <news:sci.physics.relativity> and <news:alt.atheism>:
>>>> dawn is also getting a phd.
>>>
>>> Not in Physics, apparently.
>> 
>> thomas,
> 
> My first name is Thomas, with a _capital_ T.

you bag of dog shit in no way can be a capital

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web