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

Groups > sci.physics > #892809 > unrolled thread

Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-20 23:19 +0000
    Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century x <x@x.org> - 2025-05-20 21:48 -0700
      Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-05-21 15:33 +1000
        Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-21 21:54 +0000
      Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-21 12:45 +0000
        Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century x <x@x.org> - 2025-05-21 12:14 -0700
          Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-21 21:58 +0000
        Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century x <x@x.org> - 2025-05-21 13:17 -0700
          Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-22 02:23 +0000
        Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-05-22 09:41 +0200
          Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-05-22 07:47 +0000
      Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> - 2025-05-21 22:59 -0600
        Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-05-22 15:54 +1000
          Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-22 06:08 +0000
        Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-22 06:05 +0000
    Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2025-05-21 08:05 +0200
      Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-05-21 16:34 +1000
        Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2025-05-21 09:18 +0000
          Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-21 22:53 +0000
      Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-05-21 08:35 +0000
        Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2025-05-21 11:11 +0200
          Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-21 21:46 +0000
    Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-05-21 10:20 +0200
      Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-05-22 07:54 +0000
        Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-05-23 09:59 +0200
          Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-23 10:30 +0000
            Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-05-23 10:34 -0700
              Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 14:32 -0500
              Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-24 00:59 +0000
          Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-05-23 10:29 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#892809 — Re: Call to Repeal the Physical Theories of the 20th Century

On Tue, 20 May 2025 6:15:59 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Montag000019, 19.05.2025 um 13:54 schrieb rhertz:
>> On Mon, 19 May 2025 3:42:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>>> "We often hear the argument that the justness of application of
>>> quantum mechanics lies in the great accuracy of its math calculations.
>>> But in fact, the quantum mechanics so as was the Ptolemay epicycles
>>> is a procedure for finding of mathematical construction to the existing
>>> experimental data which this mathematics has to arrive at. We can
>>> always find the mathematical relationships that describe experimental
>>> data or, if not, we can construct a new mathematics to describe the
>>> experimental data. But finding such mathematical constructions
>>> (theories) do not confirm the veracity of the basic physical principles
>>> (models) upon which these construction are based."
>>
>> Like SR and Lorentz applied to particle accelerators. It's A FACT that
>> SR has been "validated" in linear and circular CHARGED particle
>> accelerators, but ONLY to speeds lower than 0.3 c. From this limit up to
>> near c, the calculations are made BASED ON THE DETECTED ENERGY OF
>> CHARGED PARTICLES.
>>
>> Physics DENY the fact that are dealing with CHARGED PARTICLES, and that
>> the energy transfer between accelerators and particles could be limited
>> JUST by the speed at which the EM electric fields can accelerate
>> particles. It's highly possible that such action IS NOT RELATED TO SR,
>> but to limits at which accelerating energy can be transferred to
>> particles, in a way that formulae ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FROM SR.
>>
>> To mention the above possibility is considered heretic in the physics
>> community, which is married to relativity like devote socialists or
>> communists are married to the concepts of POPULISM. Every thing else is
>> just FAR RIGHT. That's the way the world has been functioning for the
>> last 140 years (politics and economy).
>
> I have the same impression because tons of people called me 'Nazi'
> because I dared to question certain assumptions.

What has Nazism to do with physics? Nazism is about nationalism and
socialism.
>
> E.g. had long the impression, that electric current flows mainly on or
> outside the wire, because the electrons inside are way to slow to
> explain electricity.

What flows outside are electric fields moving at light speed pushing
electrons all the way. The speed of electrons has nothing to do with the
speed of the current. The current is a wave while electrons are charged
mass particles.

Interesting outcome of your thought put
 in some Hindi film - the heroine is strapped to a chair with wires
around her and the villain has pulled the switch to electrocute her from
a far away point. The hero mounts his horse and gallops off to save her.
The current charges as you have it move along the wire! The horse
gallops even faster! At the last moment the hero manages to chop off the
wire to save the heroine and the current slowly falls to the ground.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor
>
> Or: I regard 'Growing Earth' as valid or 'abiogenic oil'.
>
> All of these and a lot more are regarded as heresies.
>
> BUT: I'm not a member of the 'Church of physics' and do not know, what
> is  heretic and why.
>
> Sorry, but how could I possibly care about what is a secret?
>
>
> TH

--

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#892818

On 5/20/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2025 6:15:59 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> Am Montag000019, 19.05.2025 um 13:54 schrieb rhertz:
>>> On Mon, 19 May 2025 3:42:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>
>>>> "We often hear the argument that the justness of application of
>>>> quantum mechanics lies in the great accuracy of its math calculations.
>>>> But in fact, the quantum mechanics so as was the Ptolemay epicycles
>>>> is a procedure for finding of mathematical construction to the existing
>>>> experimental data which this mathematics has to arrive at. We can
>>>> always find the mathematical relationships that describe experimental
>>>> data or, if not, we can construct a new mathematics to describe the
>>>> experimental data. But finding such mathematical constructions
>>>> (theories) do not confirm the veracity of the basic physical principles
>>>> (models) upon which these construction are based."
>>>
>>> Like SR and Lorentz applied to particle accelerators. It's A FACT that
>>> SR has been "validated" in linear and circular CHARGED particle
>>> accelerators, but ONLY to speeds lower than 0.3 c. From this limit up to
>>> near c, the calculations are made BASED ON THE DETECTED ENERGY OF
>>> CHARGED PARTICLES.
>>>
>>> Physics DENY the fact that are dealing with CHARGED PARTICLES, and that
>>> the energy transfer between accelerators and particles could be limited
>>> JUST by the speed at which the EM electric fields can accelerate
>>> particles. It's highly possible that such action IS NOT RELATED TO SR,
>>> but to limits at which accelerating energy can be transferred to
>>> particles, in a way that formulae ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FROM SR.
>>>
>>> To mention the above possibility is considered heretic in the physics
>>> community, which is married to relativity like devote socialists or
>>> communists are married to the concepts of POPULISM. Every thing else is
>>> just FAR RIGHT. That's the way the world has been functioning for the
>>> last 140 years (politics and economy).
>>
>> I have the same impression because tons of people called me 'Nazi'
>> because I dared to question certain assumptions.
> 
> What has Nazism to do with physics? Nazism is about nationalism and
> socialism.

I guess that is Godwin's Law.  Everybody on usenet is Hitler.

If both Hitler and Jesus were raised from the dead then everybody
would call Jesus Hitler,

Then what would Hitler say about that?  (I would have to think
about the joke to insert there.)

>> E.g. had long the impression, that electric current flows mainly on or
>> outside the wire, because the electrons inside are way to slow to
>> explain electricity.
> 
> What flows outside are electric fields moving at light speed pushing
> electrons all the way. The speed of electrons has nothing to do with the
> speed of the current. The current is a wave while electrons are charged
> mass particles.

I am thinking that metal is also shiny because its ability to conduct
electricity makes it re-emit light like an antenna when light interacts
with the metal surface.

There is a lot about 19th century electro-magnetism that does predict
what happens with light quite well.

> Interesting outcome of your thought put
> in some Hindi film - the heroine is strapped to a chair with wires
> around her and the villain has pulled the switch to electrocute her from
> a far away point. The hero mounts his horse and gallops off to save her.
> The current charges as you have it move along the wire! The horse
> gallops even faster! At the last moment the hero manages to chop off the
> wire to save the heroine and the current slowly falls to the ground.
> 
> WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
>>
>> Or: I regard 'Growing Earth' as valid or 'abiogenic oil'.
>>
>> All of these and a lot more are regarded as heresies.
>>
>> BUT: I'm not a member of the 'Church of physics' and do not know, what
>> is  heretic and why.
>>
>> Sorry, but how could I possibly care about what is a secret?
>>
>>
>> TH
> 
> -- 

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

#892820

>>> E.g. had long the impression, that electric current flows mainly
>>> on or outside the wire, because the electrons inside are way to
>>> slow to explain electricity.

???

You don't need any gobbledegook to explain skin effect. The
interdependence of electric current and magnetism is a well-understood
phenomenon. Any undergraduate who has studied electromagnetism ought to
be able to do the calculation.

-- 
Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

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

#892833

On Wed, 21 May 2025 5:33:30 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:

>>>> E.g. had long the impression, that electric current flows mainly
>>>> on or outside the wire, because the electrons inside are way to
>>>> slow to explain electricity.
>
> ???
>
> You don't need any gobbledegook to explain skin effect. The
> interdependence of electric current and magnetism is a well-understood
> phenomenon. Any undergraduate who has studied electromagnetism ought to
> be able to do the calculation.

Moylan has no clue about electromagnetism. He is an ignorant and
presumptuous poseur like all Einsteinians. Well there are millions of
them everywhere and that only shows how stunningly wrong they are.

Well radiation is the most difficult subject in all engineering. Magic.
How to make full metal sing! And Arindam is the greatest in that having
designed radiators and their associated microwave  components. From that
to his new design rail guns.


Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

Bertietaylor

--

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

#892827

On Wed, 21 May 2025 4:48:02 +0000, x wrote:

> On 5/20/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2025 6:15:59 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am Montag000019, 19.05.2025 um 13:54 schrieb rhertz:
>>>> On Mon, 19 May 2025 3:42:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "We often hear the argument that the justness of application of
>>>>> quantum mechanics lies in the great accuracy of its math calculations.
>>>>> But in fact, the quantum mechanics so as was the Ptolemay epicycles
>>>>> is a procedure for finding of mathematical construction to the existing
>>>>> experimental data which this mathematics has to arrive at. We can
>>>>> always find the mathematical relationships that describe experimental
>>>>> data or, if not, we can construct a new mathematics to describe the
>>>>> experimental data. But finding such mathematical constructions
>>>>> (theories) do not confirm the veracity of the basic physical principles
>>>>> (models) upon which these construction are based."
>>>>
>>>> Like SR and Lorentz applied to particle accelerators. It's A FACT that
>>>> SR has been "validated" in linear and circular CHARGED particle
>>>> accelerators, but ONLY to speeds lower than 0.3 c. From this limit up to
>>>> near c, the calculations are made BASED ON THE DETECTED ENERGY OF
>>>> CHARGED PARTICLES.
>>>>
>>>> Physics DENY the fact that are dealing with CHARGED PARTICLES, and that
>>>> the energy transfer between accelerators and particles could be limited
>>>> JUST by the speed at which the EM electric fields can accelerate
>>>> particles. It's highly possible that such action IS NOT RELATED TO SR,
>>>> but to limits at which accelerating energy can be transferred to
>>>> particles, in a way that formulae ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FROM SR.
>>>>
>>>> To mention the above possibility is considered heretic in the physics
>>>> community, which is married to relativity like devote socialists or
>>>> communists are married to the concepts of POPULISM. Every thing else is
>>>> just FAR RIGHT. That's the way the world has been functioning for the
>>>> last 140 years (politics and economy).
>>>
>>> I have the same impression because tons of people called me 'Nazi'
>>> because I dared to question certain assumptions.
>>
>> What has Nazism to do with physics? Nazism is about nationalism and
>> socialism.
>
> I guess that is Godwin's Law.  Everybody on usenet is Hitler.

Given populations in Usenet and other media, looks like that is okay.
For one usenetter ten million media fed sheep.
>
> If both Hitler and Jesus were raised from the dead then everybody
> would call Jesus Hitler,

No, Jesus would be called crazy. Hitler never recommended turning the
other cheek.
>
> Then what would Hitler say about that?  (I would have to think
> about the joke to insert there.)

Ich bin ein Jesuit.


>
>>> E.g. had long the impression, that electric current flows mainly on or
>>> outside the wire, because the electrons inside are way to slow to
>>> explain electricity.
>>
>> What flows outside are electric fields moving at light speed pushing
>> electrons all the way. The speed of electrons has nothing to do with the
>> speed of the current. The current is a wave while electrons are charged
>> mass particles.
>
> I am thinking that metal is also shiny because its ability to conduct
> electricity makes it re-emit light like an antenna when light interacts
> with the metal surface.

:)

>
> There is a lot about 19th century electro-magnetism that does predict
> what happens with light quite well.

Those were the days before the relativity-depravity quantum-bunkum
frauds took over.
>
>> Interesting outcome of your thought put
>> in some Hindi film - the heroine is strapped to a chair with wires
>> around her and the villain has pulled the switch to electrocute her from
>> a far away point. The hero mounts his horse and gallops off to save her.
>> The current charges as you have it move along the wire! The horse
>> gallops even faster! At the last moment the hero manages to chop off the
>> wire to save the heroine and the current slowly falls to the ground.
>>
>> WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>>
>>> Or: I regard 'Growing Earth' as valid or 'abiogenic oil'.
>>>
>>> All of these and a lot more are regarded as heresies.
>>>
>>> BUT: I'm not a member of the 'Church of physics' and do not know, what
>>> is  heretic and why.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but how could I possibly care about what is a secret?
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> --

--

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

#892828

On 5/21/25 05:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2025 4:48:02 +0000, x wrote:
> 
>> On 5/20/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 May 2025 6:15:59 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am Montag000019, 19.05.2025 um 13:54 schrieb rhertz:
>>>>> On Mon, 19 May 2025 3:42:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "We often hear the argument that the justness of application of
>>>>>> quantum mechanics lies in the great accuracy of its math 
>>>>>> calculations.
>>>>>> But in fact, the quantum mechanics so as was the Ptolemay epicycles
>>>>>> is a procedure for finding of mathematical construction to the 
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> experimental data which this mathematics has to arrive at. We can
>>>>>> always find the mathematical relationships that describe experimental
>>>>>> data or, if not, we can construct a new mathematics to describe the
>>>>>> experimental data. But finding such mathematical constructions
>>>>>> (theories) do not confirm the veracity of the basic physical 
>>>>>> principles
>>>>>> (models) upon which these construction are based."
>>>>>
>>>>> Like SR and Lorentz applied to particle accelerators. It's A FACT that
>>>>> SR has been "validated" in linear and circular CHARGED particle
>>>>> accelerators, but ONLY to speeds lower than 0.3 c. From this limit 
>>>>> up to
>>>>> near c, the calculations are made BASED ON THE DETECTED ENERGY OF
>>>>> CHARGED PARTICLES.
>>>>>
>>>>> Physics DENY the fact that are dealing with CHARGED PARTICLES, and 
>>>>> that
>>>>> the energy transfer between accelerators and particles could be 
>>>>> limited
>>>>> JUST by the speed at which the EM electric fields can accelerate
>>>>> particles. It's highly possible that such action IS NOT RELATED TO SR,
>>>>> but to limits at which accelerating energy can be transferred to
>>>>> particles, in a way that formulae ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FROM SR.
>>>>>
>>>>> To mention the above possibility is considered heretic in the physics
>>>>> community, which is married to relativity like devote socialists or
>>>>> communists are married to the concepts of POPULISM. Every thing 
>>>>> else is
>>>>> just FAR RIGHT. That's the way the world has been functioning for the
>>>>> last 140 years (politics and economy).
>>>>
>>>> I have the same impression because tons of people called me 'Nazi'
>>>> because I dared to question certain assumptions.
>>>
>>> What has Nazism to do with physics? Nazism is about nationalism and
>>> socialism.
>>
>> I guess that is Godwin's Law.  Everybody on usenet is Hitler.
> 
> Given populations in Usenet and other media, looks like that is okay.
> For one usenetter ten million media fed sheep.
>>
>> If both Hitler and Jesus were raised from the dead then everybody
>> would call Jesus Hitler,
> 
> No, Jesus would be called crazy. Hitler never recommended turning the
> other cheek.
>>
>> Then what would Hitler say about that?  (I would have to think
>> about the joke to insert there.)
> 
> Ich bin ein Jesuit.
> 
> 
>>
>>>> E.g. had long the impression, that electric current flows mainly on or
>>>> outside the wire, because the electrons inside are way to slow to
>>>> explain electricity.
>>>
>>> What flows outside are electric fields moving at light speed pushing
>>> electrons all the way. The speed of electrons has nothing to do with the
>>> speed of the current. The current is a wave while electrons are charged
>>> mass particles.
>>
>> I am thinking that metal is also shiny because its ability to conduct
>> electricity makes it re-emit light like an antenna when light interacts
>> with the metal surface.
> 
> :)
> 
>>
>> There is a lot about 19th century electro-magnetism that does predict
>> what happens with light quite well.
> 
> Those were the days before the relativity-depravity quantum-bunkum
> frauds took over.

Some things about 'orbitals' or 'chemistry' are described rather
well by certain quantized 'jumps' that the 'orbital' might take
or be observed with 'spectroscopy'.

Light has a 'constant' speed?  There is something called radio
detecting and ranging (RADAR).

>>> Interesting outcome of your thought put
>>> in some Hindi film - the heroine is strapped to a chair with wires
>>> around her and the villain has pulled the switch to electrocute her from
>>> a far away point. The hero mounts his horse and gallops off to save her.
>>> The current charges as you have it move along the wire! The horse
>>> gallops even faster! At the last moment the hero manages to chop off the
>>> wire to save the heroine and the current slowly falls to the ground.
>>>
>>> WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
>>>
>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>
>>>> Or: I regard 'Growing Earth' as valid or 'abiogenic oil'.
>>>>
>>>> All of these and a lot more are regarded as heresies.
>>>>
>>>> BUT: I'm not a member of the 'Church of physics' and do not know, what
>>>> is  heretic and why.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but how could I possibly care about what is a secret?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> -- 
> 
> -- 

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

#892834

On Wed, 21 May 2025 19:14:46 +0000, x wrote:

> On 5/21/25 05:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 May 2025 4:48:02 +0000, x wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/20/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2025 6:15:59 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am Montag000019, 19.05.2025 um 13:54 schrieb rhertz:
>>>>>> On Mon, 19 May 2025 3:42:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "We often hear the argument that the justness of application of
>>>>>>> quantum mechanics lies in the great accuracy of its math
>>>>>>> calculations.
>>>>>>> But in fact, the quantum mechanics so as was the Ptolemay epicycles
>>>>>>> is a procedure for finding of mathematical construction to the
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>> experimental data which this mathematics has to arrive at. We can
>>>>>>> always find the mathematical relationships that describe experimental
>>>>>>> data or, if not, we can construct a new mathematics to describe the
>>>>>>> experimental data. But finding such mathematical constructions
>>>>>>> (theories) do not confirm the veracity of the basic physical
>>>>>>> principles
>>>>>>> (models) upon which these construction are based."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like SR and Lorentz applied to particle accelerators. It's A FACT that
>>>>>> SR has been "validated" in linear and circular CHARGED particle
>>>>>> accelerators, but ONLY to speeds lower than 0.3 c. From this limit
>>>>>> up to
>>>>>> near c, the calculations are made BASED ON THE DETECTED ENERGY OF
>>>>>> CHARGED PARTICLES.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Physics DENY the fact that are dealing with CHARGED PARTICLES, and
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the energy transfer between accelerators and particles could be
>>>>>> limited
>>>>>> JUST by the speed at which the EM electric fields can accelerate
>>>>>> particles. It's highly possible that such action IS NOT RELATED TO SR,
>>>>>> but to limits at which accelerating energy can be transferred to
>>>>>> particles, in a way that formulae ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FROM SR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To mention the above possibility is considered heretic in the physics
>>>>>> community, which is married to relativity like devote socialists or
>>>>>> communists are married to the concepts of POPULISM. Every thing
>>>>>> else is
>>>>>> just FAR RIGHT. That's the way the world has been functioning for the
>>>>>> last 140 years (politics and economy).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the same impression because tons of people called me 'Nazi'
>>>>> because I dared to question certain assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> What has Nazism to do with physics? Nazism is about nationalism and
>>>> socialism.
>>>
>>> I guess that is Godwin's Law.  Everybody on usenet is Hitler.
>>
>> Given populations in Usenet and other media, looks like that is okay.
>> For one usenetter ten million media fed sheep.
>>>
>>> If both Hitler and Jesus were raised from the dead then everybody
>>> would call Jesus Hitler,
>>
>> No, Jesus would be called crazy. Hitler never recommended turning the
>> other cheek.
>>>
>>> Then what would Hitler say about that?  (I would have to think
>>> about the joke to insert there.)
>>
>> Ich bin ein Jesuit.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> E.g. had long the impression, that electric current flows mainly on or
>>>>> outside the wire, because the electrons inside are way to slow to
>>>>> explain electricity.
>>>>
>>>> What flows outside are electric fields moving at light speed pushing
>>>> electrons all the way. The speed of electrons has nothing to do with the
>>>> speed of the current. The current is a wave while electrons are charged
>>>> mass particles.
>>>
>>> I am thinking that metal is also shiny because its ability to conduct
>>> electricity makes it re-emit light like an antenna when light interacts
>>> with the metal surface.
>>
>> :)
>>
>>>
>>> There is a lot about 19th century electro-magnetism that does predict
>>> what happens with light quite well.
>>
>> Those were the days before the relativity-depravity quantum-bunkum
>> frauds took over.
>
> Some things about 'orbitals' or 'chemistry' are described rather
> well by certain quantized 'jumps' that the 'orbital' might take
> or be observed with 'spectroscopy'.

Antenna theory explains much better. Read Arindam's essays.
>
> Light has a 'constant' speed?  There is something called radio
> detecting and ranging (RADAR).

Yes Arindam worked on radar design for 12 years in India's largest
electronics company.

Light speed varies with the medium of propagation. A photon is an
electromagnetic wave pulse in aether.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>
>>>> Interesting outcome of your thought put
>>>> in some Hindi film - the heroine is strapped to a chair with wires
>>>> around her and the villain has pulled the switch to electrocute her from
>>>> a far away point. The hero mounts his horse and gallops off to save her.
>>>> The current charges as you have it move along the wire! The horse
>>>> gallops even faster! At the last moment the hero manages to chop off the
>>>> wire to save the heroine and the current slowly falls to the ground.
>>>>
>>>> WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
>>>>
>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>>
>>>>> Or: I regard 'Growing Earth' as valid or 'abiogenic oil'.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of these and a lot more are regarded as heresies.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT: I'm not a member of the 'Church of physics' and do not know, what
>>>>> is  heretic and why.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but how could I possibly care about what is a secret?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>> --
>>
>> --

--

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

#892831

On 5/21/25 05:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2025 4:48:02 +0000, x wrote:
> 
>> On 5/20/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 May 2025 6:15:59 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am Montag000019, 19.05.2025 um 13:54 schrieb rhertz:
>>>>> On Mon, 19 May 2025 3:42:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "We often hear the argument that the justness of application of
>>>>>> quantum mechanics lies in the great accuracy of its math 
>>>>>> calculations.
>>>>>> But in fact, the quantum mechanics so as was the Ptolemay epicycles
>>>>>> is a procedure for finding of mathematical construction to the 
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> experimental data which this mathematics has to arrive at. We can
>>>>>> always find the mathematical relationships that describe experimental
>>>>>> data or, if not, we can construct a new mathematics to describe the
>>>>>> experimental data. But finding such mathematical constructions
>>>>>> (theories) do not confirm the veracity of the basic physical 
>>>>>> principles
>>>>>> (models) upon which these construction are based."
>>>>>
>>>>> Like SR and Lorentz applied to particle accelerators. It's A FACT that
>>>>> SR has been "validated" in linear and circular CHARGED particle
>>>>> accelerators, but ONLY to speeds lower than 0.3 c. From this limit 
>>>>> up to
>>>>> near c, the calculations are made BASED ON THE DETECTED ENERGY OF
>>>>> CHARGED PARTICLES.
>>>>>
>>>>> Physics DENY the fact that are dealing with CHARGED PARTICLES, and 
>>>>> that
>>>>> the energy transfer between accelerators and particles could be 
>>>>> limited
>>>>> JUST by the speed at which the EM electric fields can accelerate
>>>>> particles. It's highly possible that such action IS NOT RELATED TO SR,
>>>>> but to limits at which accelerating energy can be transferred to
>>>>> particles, in a way that formulae ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FROM SR.
>>>>>
>>>>> To mention the above possibility is considered heretic in the physics
>>>>> community, which is married to relativity like devote socialists or
>>>>> communists are married to the concepts of POPULISM. Every thing 
>>>>> else is
>>>>> just FAR RIGHT. That's the way the world has been functioning for the
>>>>> last 140 years (politics and economy).
>>>>
>>>> I have the same impression because tons of people called me 'Nazi'
>>>> because I dared to question certain assumptions.
>>>
>>> What has Nazism to do with physics? Nazism is about nationalism and
>>> socialism.
>>
>> I guess that is Godwin's Law.  Everybody on usenet is Hitler.
> 
> Given populations in Usenet and other media, looks like that is okay.
> For one usenetter ten million media fed sheep.
>>
>> If both Hitler and Jesus were raised from the dead then everybody
>> would call Jesus Hitler,
> 
> No, Jesus would be called crazy. Hitler never recommended turning the
> other cheek.

Well you know there are different levels of 'Ahimsa' in
different religions or philosophies.

There are also different views about 'minds' and 'ideas'
and what generates them and how they are formed.

There are some systems of ideas that consider 'religions'
to be 'disconnected from reality' or 'crazy' if they
claim that people can be raised from the dead without
evidence, like Dawkins wrote 'The God Delusion' implying
that all religions people are 'crazy'.

I am thinking that the word 'madness' derived from something
like 'anger', and emotion back during the time of Hobbes
and the English Civil War ('Leviathan' and other writings)
(some of the writings also used the words 'summum malum'
rather than 'summum bonum') but if some people are violent
they can also be thought in the modern sense as 'crazy' as
well as those that are non-violent.

In that sense the concept might tend more toward being
thought of as 'mindless' or doing things 'without reason',
or even at random rather than 'angry' or 'not-angry'.
These tend to involve however theories about 'minds'
or 'ideas' or even 'souls'.  There is also something called
'philosophic idealism' versus 'philosophic materialism'.  So there
are a lot of theories about that also.  In general modern
'psychology' is a religion that tends to appeal to people who
think they are 'atheists'.  This is based upon the idea that
'science is true and religion is false', but also
'I can close my mind and pretend that I am not closing
my mind because I have 'faith' based upon 'science'
('which is true') and not 'religion'('which is false').
(What is 'faith' or 'belief'?)  There are different
sets of subtlety in using 'crazy' as a generic
pejorative rather than 'Hitler' as a generic
pejorative.

>>
>> Then what would Hitler say about that?  (I would have to think
>> about the joke to insert there.)
> 
> Ich bin ein Jesuit.
> 
> 
>>
>>>> E.g. had long the impression, that electric current flows mainly on or
>>>> outside the wire, because the electrons inside are way to slow to
>>>> explain electricity.
>>>
>>> What flows outside are electric fields moving at light speed pushing
>>> electrons all the way. The speed of electrons has nothing to do with the
>>> speed of the current. The current is a wave while electrons are charged
>>> mass particles.
>>
>> I am thinking that metal is also shiny because its ability to conduct
>> electricity makes it re-emit light like an antenna when light interacts
>> with the metal surface.
> 
> :)
> 
>>
>> There is a lot about 19th century electro-magnetism that does predict
>> what happens with light quite well.
> 
> Those were the days before the relativity-depravity quantum-bunkum
> frauds took over.
>>
>>> Interesting outcome of your thought put
>>> in some Hindi film - the heroine is strapped to a chair with wires
>>> around her and the villain has pulled the switch to electrocute her from
>>> a far away point. The hero mounts his horse and gallops off to save her.
>>> The current charges as you have it move along the wire! The horse
>>> gallops even faster! At the last moment the hero manages to chop off the
>>> wire to save the heroine and the current slowly falls to the ground.
>>>
>>> WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
>>>
>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>
>>>> Or: I regard 'Growing Earth' as valid or 'abiogenic oil'.
>>>>
>>>> All of these and a lot more are regarded as heresies.
>>>>
>>>> BUT: I'm not a member of the 'Church of physics' and do not know, what
>>>> is  heretic and why.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but how could I possibly care about what is a secret?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> -- 
> 
> -- 

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

#892837

On Wed, 21 May 2025 20:17:20 +0000, x wrote:

> On 5/21/25 05:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 May 2025 4:48:02 +0000, x wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/20/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2025 6:15:59 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am Montag000019, 19.05.2025 um 13:54 schrieb rhertz:
>>>>>> On Mon, 19 May 2025 3:42:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "We often hear the argument that the justness of application of
>>>>>>> quantum mechanics lies in the great accuracy of its math
>>>>>>> calculations.
>>>>>>> But in fact, the quantum mechanics so as was the Ptolemay epicycles
>>>>>>> is a procedure for finding of mathematical construction to the
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>> experimental data which this mathematics has to arrive at. We can
>>>>>>> always find the mathematical relationships that describe experimental
>>>>>>> data or, if not, we can construct a new mathematics to describe the
>>>>>>> experimental data. But finding such mathematical constructions
>>>>>>> (theories) do not confirm the veracity of the basic physical
>>>>>>> principles
>>>>>>> (models) upon which these construction are based."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like SR and Lorentz applied to particle accelerators. It's A FACT that
>>>>>> SR has been "validated" in linear and circular CHARGED particle
>>>>>> accelerators, but ONLY to speeds lower than 0.3 c. From this limit
>>>>>> up to
>>>>>> near c, the calculations are made BASED ON THE DETECTED ENERGY OF
>>>>>> CHARGED PARTICLES.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Physics DENY the fact that are dealing with CHARGED PARTICLES, and
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the energy transfer between accelerators and particles could be
>>>>>> limited
>>>>>> JUST by the speed at which the EM electric fields can accelerate
>>>>>> particles. It's highly possible that such action IS NOT RELATED TO SR,
>>>>>> but to limits at which accelerating energy can be transferred to
>>>>>> particles, in a way that formulae ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FROM SR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To mention the above possibility is considered heretic in the physics
>>>>>> community, which is married to relativity like devote socialists or
>>>>>> communists are married to the concepts of POPULISM. Every thing
>>>>>> else is
>>>>>> just FAR RIGHT. That's the way the world has been functioning for the
>>>>>> last 140 years (politics and economy).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the same impression because tons of people called me 'Nazi'
>>>>> because I dared to question certain assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> What has Nazism to do with physics? Nazism is about nationalism and
>>>> socialism.
>>>
>>> I guess that is Godwin's Law.  Everybody on usenet is Hitler.
>>
>> Given populations in Usenet and other media, looks like that is okay.
>> For one usenetter ten million media fed sheep.
>>>
>>> If both Hitler and Jesus were raised from the dead then everybody
>>> would call Jesus Hitler,
>>
>> No, Jesus would be called crazy. Hitler never recommended turning the
>> other cheek.
>
> Well you know there are different levels of 'Ahimsa' in
> different religions or philosophies.

Well we heard Hitler was vegetarian.
>
> There are also different views about 'minds' and 'ideas'
> and what generates them and how they are formed.

Spiritual basis, immersion in the supreme, tapping the collective
consciousness from education and experience, etc.
>
> There are some systems of ideas that consider 'religions'
> to be 'disconnected from reality' or 'crazy' if they
> claim that people can be raised from the dead without
> evidence, like Dawkins wrote 'The God Delusion' implying
> that all religions people are 'crazy'.

There are stupid and wrong views relating to religion. Other religions
or even the same one are not outed from stupid wrong views from a given
subset.  Finding what works from region is the individual's goal. At
least such is so for Arindam.
>
> I am thinking that the word 'madness' derived from something
> like 'anger', and emotion back during the time of Hobbes
> and the English Civil War ('Leviathan' and other writings)
> (some of the writings also used the words 'summum malum'
> rather than 'summum bonum') but if some people are violent
> they can also be thought in the modern sense as 'crazy' as
> well as those that are non-violent.

Arindam's works on physics and metaphysics should set things straight
for future generations. Yes wrong ideas have their day but they do not
last forever. Reform happens.
>
> In that sense the concept might tend more toward being
> thought of as 'mindless' or doing things 'without reason',
> or even at random rather than 'angry' or 'not-angry'.
> These tend to involve however theories about 'minds'
> or 'ideas' or even 'souls'.  There is also something called
> 'philosophic idealism' versus 'philosophic materialism'.  So there
> are a lot of theories about that also.  In general modern
> 'psychology' is a religion that tends to appeal to people who
> think they are 'atheists'.



Yes, Oprah rules in US with her coast to coast wide backside serving as
the backdrop for bullshits_allsorts.

Frazier is a glorious example of atheistic irrelevance - a joke at best.

 This is based upon the idea that
> 'science is true and religion is false', but also


Science is provisional so never absolutely true while religion is what
it is. A way for human improvement involving higher magical powers.

There are no scientists these days. Just ripe arse careerists chanting
e=mcc.


> 'I can close my mind and pretend that I am not closing
> my mind because I have 'faith' based upon 'science'
> ('which is true') and not 'religion'('which is false').

Bad Einsteinian pseudophysics is even worse than intolerant Abrahamic
religions. The former creates global stupidity on an institutional
scale. The latter is fractured so manageable.

> (What is 'faith' or 'belief'?)

Should be from personal experience uncontested.

 There are different
> sets of subtlety in using 'crazy' as a generic
> pejorative rather than 'Hitler' as a generic
> pejorative.

There seem no fans of Hitler these days.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor
>
>>>
>>> Then what would Hitler say about that?  (I would have to think
>>> about the joke to insert there.)
>>
>> Ich bin ein Jesuit.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> E.g. had long the impression, that electric current flows mainly on or
>>>>> outside the wire, because the electrons inside are way to slow to
>>>>> explain electricity.
>>>>
>>>> What flows outside are electric fields moving at light speed pushing
>>>> electrons all the way. The speed of electrons has nothing to do with the
>>>> speed of the current. The current is a wave while electrons are charged
>>>> mass particles.
>>>
>>> I am thinking that metal is also shiny because its ability to conduct
>>> electricity makes it re-emit light like an antenna when light interacts
>>> with the metal surface.
>>
>> :)
>>
>>>
>>> There is a lot about 19th century electro-magnetism that does predict
>>> what happens with light quite well.
>>
>> Those were the days before the relativity-depravity quantum-bunkum
>> frauds took over.
>>>
>>>> Interesting outcome of your thought put
>>>> in some Hindi film - the heroine is strapped to a chair with wires
>>>> around her and the villain has pulled the switch to electrocute her from
>>>> a far away point. The hero mounts his horse and gallops off to save her.
>>>> The current charges as you have it move along the wire! The horse
>>>> gallops even faster! At the last moment the hero manages to chop off the
>>>> wire to save the heroine and the current slowly falls to the ground.
>>>>
>>>> WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
>>>>
>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>>
>>>>> Or: I regard 'Growing Earth' as valid or 'abiogenic oil'.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of these and a lot more are regarded as heresies.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT: I'm not a member of the 'Church of physics' and do not know, what
>>>>> is  heretic and why.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but how could I possibly care about what is a secret?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>> --
>>
>> --

--

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

#892843

Am Mittwoch000021, 21.05.2025 um 14:45 schrieb Bertitaylor:
> On Wed, 21 May 2025 4:48:02 +0000, x wrote:
> 
>> On 5/20/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 May 2025 6:15:59 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am Montag000019, 19.05.2025 um 13:54 schrieb rhertz:
>>>>> On Mon, 19 May 2025 3:42:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "We often hear the argument that the justness of application of
>>>>>> quantum mechanics lies in the great accuracy of its math 
>>>>>> calculations.
>>>>>> But in fact, the quantum mechanics so as was the Ptolemay epicycles
>>>>>> is a procedure for finding of mathematical construction to the 
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> experimental data which this mathematics has to arrive at. We can
>>>>>> always find the mathematical relationships that describe experimental
>>>>>> data or, if not, we can construct a new mathematics to describe the
>>>>>> experimental data. But finding such mathematical constructions
>>>>>> (theories) do not confirm the veracity of the basic physical 
>>>>>> principles
>>>>>> (models) upon which these construction are based."
>>>>>
>>>>> Like SR and Lorentz applied to particle accelerators. It's A FACT that
>>>>> SR has been "validated" in linear and circular CHARGED particle
>>>>> accelerators, but ONLY to speeds lower than 0.3 c. From this limit 
>>>>> up to
>>>>> near c, the calculations are made BASED ON THE DETECTED ENERGY OF
>>>>> CHARGED PARTICLES.
>>>>>
>>>>> Physics DENY the fact that are dealing with CHARGED PARTICLES, and 
>>>>> that
>>>>> the energy transfer between accelerators and particles could be 
>>>>> limited
>>>>> JUST by the speed at which the EM electric fields can accelerate
>>>>> particles. It's highly possible that such action IS NOT RELATED TO SR,
>>>>> but to limits at which accelerating energy can be transferred to
>>>>> particles, in a way that formulae ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FROM SR.
>>>>>
>>>>> To mention the above possibility is considered heretic in the physics
>>>>> community, which is married to relativity like devote socialists or
>>>>> communists are married to the concepts of POPULISM. Every thing 
>>>>> else is
>>>>> just FAR RIGHT. That's the way the world has been functioning for the
>>>>> last 140 years (politics and economy).
>>>>
>>>> I have the same impression because tons of people called me 'Nazi'
>>>> because I dared to question certain assumptions.
>>>
>>> What has Nazism to do with physics? Nazism is about nationalism and
>>> socialism.
>>
>> I guess that is Godwin's Law.  Everybody on usenet is Hitler.
> 
> Given populations in Usenet and other media, looks like that is okay.
> For one usenetter ten million media fed sheep.
>>
>> If both Hitler and Jesus were raised from the dead then everybody
>> would call Jesus Hitler,
> 
> No, Jesus would be called crazy. Hitler never recommended turning the
> other cheek.

'Jesus' was actually the Roman name for a mythical person, which the 
Greek called 'IESOS'.

As far as this is known, that person had really lived, but not under the 
name 'Iesos' or 'Jesus'.

That person had no known name, but a title in Aramaic, which was 'mahmed'.

In the semitic languages they leave out the vocals and wrote 'MHMD' in 
Aramaic letters, (which I cannot write).

The Umayyadic califs inserted a few extra vocals and made 'Mohammed' out 
of 'MHMD'. They also added a few years (and also Arabic mysticism) and 
changed the location.

The Romans took that same person and fused 'Zaroastrism' (in Roman terms 
'Mithraism') into the story and added the cross and the miracles of 
Mithras (and changed also place and time).

That's why Islam and Christianity deal with the exact same person, which 
was actually a Jew, who belonged to the sect called 'Essenes' and who 
lived in Qumran.


...


TH

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

#892844

Why did Christian churches, sects, wars etc. happen long before the
prophet Mohammed was born?

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#892838

On 2025-05-20 22:48, x wrote:
> On 5/20/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2025 6:15:59 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am Montag000019, 19.05.2025 um 13:54 schrieb rhertz:
>>>> On Mon, 19 May 2025 3:42:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "We often hear the argument that the justness of application of
>>>>> quantum mechanics lies in the great accuracy of its math calculations.
>>>>> But in fact, the quantum mechanics so as was the Ptolemay epicycles
>>>>> is a procedure for finding of mathematical construction to the 
>>>>> existing
>>>>> experimental data which this mathematics has to arrive at. We can
>>>>> always find the mathematical relationships that describe experimental
>>>>> data or, if not, we can construct a new mathematics to describe the
>>>>> experimental data. But finding such mathematical constructions
>>>>> (theories) do not confirm the veracity of the basic physical 
>>>>> principles
>>>>> (models) upon which these construction are based."
>>>>
>>>> Like SR and Lorentz applied to particle accelerators. It's A FACT that
>>>> SR has been "validated" in linear and circular CHARGED particle
>>>> accelerators, but ONLY to speeds lower than 0.3 c. From this limit 
>>>> up to
>>>> near c, the calculations are made BASED ON THE DETECTED ENERGY OF
>>>> CHARGED PARTICLES.
>>>>
>>>> Physics DENY the fact that are dealing with CHARGED PARTICLES, and that
>>>> the energy transfer between accelerators and particles could be limited
>>>> JUST by the speed at which the EM electric fields can accelerate
>>>> particles. It's highly possible that such action IS NOT RELATED TO SR,
>>>> but to limits at which accelerating energy can be transferred to
>>>> particles, in a way that formulae ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FROM SR.
>>>>
>>>> To mention the above possibility is considered heretic in the physics
>>>> community, which is married to relativity like devote socialists or
>>>> communists are married to the concepts of POPULISM. Every thing else is
>>>> just FAR RIGHT. That's the way the world has been functioning for the
>>>> last 140 years (politics and economy).
>>>
>>> I have the same impression because tons of people called me 'Nazi'
>>> because I dared to question certain assumptions.
>>
>> What has Nazism to do with physics? Nazism is about nationalism and
>> socialism.
> 
> I guess that is Godwin's Law.  Everybody on usenet is Hitler.
> 
> If both Hitler and Jesus were raised from the dead then everybody
> would call Jesus Hitler,
> 
> Then what would Hitler say about that?  (I would have to think
> about the joke to insert there.)
> 
>>> E.g. had long the impression, that electric current flows mainly on or
>>> outside the wire, because the electrons inside are way to slow to
>>> explain electricity.
>>
>> What flows outside are electric fields moving at light speed pushing
>> electrons all the way. The speed of electrons has nothing to do with the
>> speed of the current. The current is a wave while electrons are charged
>> mass particles.
> 
> I am thinking that metal is also shiny because its ability to conduct
> electricity makes it re-emit light like an antenna when light interacts
> with the metal surface.
> 
> There is a lot about 19th century electro-magnetism that does predict
> what happens with light quite well.
> 
>> Interesting outcome of your thought put
>> in some Hindi film - the heroine is strapped to a chair with wires
>> around her and the villain has pulled the switch to electrocute her from
>> a far away point. The hero mounts his horse and gallops off to save her.
>> The current charges as you have it move along the wire! The horse
>> gallops even faster! At the last moment the hero manages to chop off the
>> wire to save the heroine and the current slowly falls to the ground.
>>
>> WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>>
>>> Or: I regard 'Growing Earth' as valid or 'abiogenic oil'.
>>>
>>> All of these and a lot more are regarded as heresies.
>>>
>>> BUT: I'm not a member of the 'Church of physics' and do not know, what
>>> is  heretic and why.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but how could I possibly care about what is a secret?

<sigh> Yet another thread to deep six. People can't seem to ignore the 
bertie buffoon.

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

#892839

On 22/05/25 14:59, lar3ryca wrote:
>
> <sigh> Yet another thread to deep six. People can't seem to ignore
> the bertie buffoon.

I see you're using Thunderbird, which has a number of filtering options.
For example, "Newsgroups contains comma" will get rid of anything
crossposted to two or more groups. Or "Newsgroups contains sci.physics"
will block the place where many cranks hang out.

-- 
Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

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

#892841

Flatulent cowards lurking in academia are amusing in a way.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#892840

Bertie is adored by the good.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#892821

On 21/05/2025 01:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
> Interesting outcome of your thought put
> in some Hindi film - the heroine is strapped to a chair with wires
> around her and the villain has pulled the switch to electrocute her from
> a far away point. The hero mounts his horse and gallops off to save her.
> The current charges as you have it move along the wire! The horse
> gallops even faster! At the last moment the hero manages to chop off the
> wire to save the heroine and the current slowly falls to the ground.


And therein lies the proof of Arindam's Theory of Everything.

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

#892822

On 21/05/25 16:05, occam wrote:
> On 21/05/2025 01:19, Bertitaylor wrote:

>> Interesting outcome of your thought put in some Hindi film - the
>> heroine is strapped to a chair with wires around her and the
>> villain has pulled the switch to electrocute her from a far away
>> point. The hero mounts his horse and gallops off to save her. The
>> current charges as you have it move along the wire! The horse
>> gallops even faster! At the last moment the hero manages to chop
>> off the wire to save the heroine and the current slowly falls to
>> the ground.
>
> And therein lies the proof of Arindam's Theory of Everything.

Still, it suggests a student exercise I would use if I were still
teaching. Clearly it would take an exceptional horse to beat the
electromagnetic wave. But can a horse go faster than the electrons?
Right now I don't have an envelope to write on the back of, but my gut
feeling is that any old nag would do.

-- 
Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

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

#892826

On Wed, 21 May 2025 6:34:02 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:

> Still, it suggests a student exercise I would use if I were still
> teaching. Clearly it would take an exceptional horse to beat the
> electromagnetic wave. But can a horse go faster than the electrons?
> Right now I don't have an envelope to write on the back of, but my gut
> feeling is that any old nag would do.

A racing snail would do.

Checking Wikipedia, the drift velocity v_d of electrons is given by:
v_d = I/(nAq)
where I is current in amperes, n is the number of charge carriers per
unit volume (electrons/m^3), A is the cross-sectional area of the wire
(in m^2), and q is the charge per electron (1.602e-19 C)

A 12 gauge copper wire is about 2 mm diameter. If we assume 1 free
electron per atom of copper wire, I get n = 8.5e28 electrons/m^3
If 1 amp is flowing through the wire, then I get v_d = 0.23 mm/s

Now that I'm reminded of racing snails, maybe I'll dig up my copy of
The Neverending Story to re-read. The movie was decent, but the book
is an absolute classic, even for adults.

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

#892835

Point is, the electric field of the wire held in free space would hurtle
down the wire with light speed and all the way move electrons at snail
speed.

Another point, the Abrahamic Einsteinian in their desire to out pagan
aether believe in photons and not fields so they come up with crazy
nonsenses to explain electricity.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof

--

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

#892824

On Wed, 21 May 2025 6:05:44 +0000, occam wrote:

> On 21/05/2025 01:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> Interesting outcome of your thought put
>> in some Hindi film - the heroine is strapped to a chair with wires
>> around her and the villain has pulled the switch to electrocute her from
>> a far away point. The hero mounts his horse and gallops off to save her.
>> The current charges as you have it move along the wire! The horse
>> gallops even faster! At the last moment the hero manages to chop off the
>> wire to save the heroine and the current slowly falls to the ground.
>
>
> And therein lies the proof of Arindam's Theory of Everything.

Dull apes, this occam entity. Still it responds, does not killfile us as
does Athel, Lord Bow-Wow Chappie, so not totally useless.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web