Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #892953 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-06-01 10:03 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-05-12 10:06 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 203 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-06-01 10:03 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-01 12:46 +0200
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-01 12:51 +0200
Re: What is a photon "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-01 14:08 +0200
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-01 14:35 +0200
Re: What is a photon Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-01 13:29 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-06-02 03:16 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-01 20:45 -0700
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-02 06:39 +0200
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-02 06:43 +0200
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-02 06:52 +0200
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-03 13:22 +0200
Re: What is a photon hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-06-03 11:48 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-04 15:10 +0200
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-04 15:37 +0200
Re: What is a photon hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-06-04 15:45 +0000
Re: What is a photon x <x@x.org> - 2025-06-04 12:22 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-05 23:29 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-06-06 05:33 +0000
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-06 08:20 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-06 07:29 +0000
Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-06 10:36 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-06 09:22 +0000
Re: What is a photon Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-06 11:31 +0200
Re: What is a photon Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-06 11:37 +0200
Re: What is a photon Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-06-12 21:58 -0700
Re: What is a photon Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-13 13:43 +0200
Re: What is a photon Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-13 14:23 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-13 11:49 +0000
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-03 14:52 +0200
Re: What is a photon Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-03 15:31 +0200
Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-03 21:22 +0200
Re: What is a photon Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-03 22:11 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-04 08:39 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-04 14:32 +0200
Re: What is a photon x <x@x.org> - 2025-06-04 11:50 -0700
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-04 12:12 -0700
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-04 21:18 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-11 13:41 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-13 19:50 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 09:47 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-14 13:21 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 22:12 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-14 15:27 -0700
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-15 12:36 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-06-05 11:51 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-05 23:24 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-06 12:40 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-06 22:51 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-12 12:42 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-12 21:21 +0000
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-09 06:46 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-09 05:33 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-09 07:50 +0000
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-11 07:30 +0200
Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-11 11:35 +0200
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-12 06:12 +0200
Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-12 13:18 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-12 14:22 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-12 21:38 +0200
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-13 09:55 +0200
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-14 11:33 +0200
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-15 10:35 +0200
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-15 14:56 +0200
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-15 15:14 +0200
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-17 07:32 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-30 03:11 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-30 06:44 -0700
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-12 21:11 +0200
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-13 10:13 +0200
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-13 20:27 +0200
Re: What is a photon Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-06-13 18:52 +0000
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-14 09:07 +0200
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-14 11:09 +0200
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-15 10:14 +0200
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-15 15:13 +0200
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-13 13:25 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-12 02:01 +0000
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-12 06:29 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-12 11:05 +0000
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-13 09:45 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-15 03:19 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-10 20:59 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-10 22:11 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-10 15:45 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-11 04:27 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-11 20:50 +0200
Re: What is a photon "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-11 21:43 +0200
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-12 00:04 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2025-06-23 05:53 +0000
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-11 13:20 +0200
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-05 11:24 +0200
Re: What is a photon Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-06-05 12:08 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 14:20 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-07 21:33 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-05 12:41 +0000
Re: What is a photon Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 12:54 -0500
Re: What is a photon x <x@x.org> - 2025-06-05 13:23 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-05 22:19 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-05 15:36 -0700
Re: What is a photon Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 12:50 -0500
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-10 22:06 +0000
Re: What is a photon Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-11 14:16 +0200
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-11 14:13 -0700
Re: What is a photon Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-06-01 13:22 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-06-02 03:08 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-01 20:47 -0700
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-18 01:21 -0700
Re: What is a photon Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-06-01 16:25 -0500
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-02 00:28 +0000
Re: What is a photon Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-02 10:31 +0100
Re: What is a photon Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-06-02 17:01 -0500
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-02 23:19 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-11 00:57 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 22:33 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-16 23:14 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-16 23:35 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-18 01:29 +0000
Re: What is a photon Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-06-01 13:20 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-06-01 13:49 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-01 08:07 -0700
Re: What is a photon Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-01 17:18 +0200
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-01 08:45 -0700
Re: What is a photon Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-06-02 12:47 +0000
Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-02 15:55 +0200
Re: What is a photon Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-06-02 17:10 -0500
Re: What is a photon Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-06-03 10:45 +0000
Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-03 14:30 +0200
Re: What is a photon Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-06-04 05:23 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-03 04:27 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-06-03 10:45 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-03 11:39 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-01 13:07 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-02 00:44 +0000
Re: What is a photon hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-06-02 01:07 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-06-02 03:14 +0000
Re: What is a photon hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-06-02 10:52 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-06-02 14:09 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-02 23:16 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-02 14:36 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-03 00:18 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-02 17:38 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-11 03:29 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-11 05:24 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-11 13:35 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-11 07:30 -0700
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-03 11:55 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-05 01:16 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 11:28 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-08 22:31 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-11 12:09 -0700
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-11 13:51 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-12 02:26 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-13 13:25 -0700
Re: What is a photon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-15 16:49 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-12 01:54 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-15 01:31 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-15 03:12 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-30 01:12 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-29 19:31 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-30 04:58 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-30 06:52 -0700
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-02 19:03 +0200
Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-02 20:21 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 22:23 +0000
Re: What is a photon x <x@x.org> - 2025-06-02 04:50 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-03 03:28 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 22:17 +0000
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-15 10:56 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-15 09:52 +0000
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-17 07:16 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-17 06:01 +0000
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-18 10:15 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-18 08:24 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-11 07:39 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 23:20 +0000
Re: What is a photon nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-15 14:36 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-15 22:56 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-17 02:38 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-19 23:00 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-20 14:54 +0200
Re: What is a photon Adolf Göbel <adolfgoebel@aol.com> - 2025-06-20 21:13 +0200
Re: What is a photon Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-20 21:19 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-20 22:38 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-22 22:56 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2025-06-24 02:08 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-27 04:01 +0000
Re: What is a photon "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-28 19:14 +0200
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-29 06:09 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-29 04:28 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-29 10:20 +0000
Re: What is a photon Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-30 14:12 +0200
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-30 14:02 +0000
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-28 23:15 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-28 17:54 -0700
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-29 04:37 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-29 07:18 -0700
Re: What is a photon William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2025-06-29 15:45 -0400
Re: What is a photon William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2025-06-29 18:51 -0400
Re: What is a photon bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-29 23:40 +0000
Re: What is a photon Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-29 17:36 -0700
Re: What is a photon William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2025-08-31 15:54 -0400
Re: What is a photon ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-05-12 10:06 +0000
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-30 04:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dcb91084f058b4a94c7bdb38e0c781c6@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #893692 |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 2:31:11 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and >>>>> Planck: >>>>> >>>>> A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is: >>>>> >>>>> - Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of >>>>> light itself. >> >> How ridiculous as a point particle being a point cannot diminish with >> distance as per the inverse square law which is logical, real and >> evident to all those blessed with sanity. > > A single photon doesn't diminish with distance, a GROUP of photons > disperses with distance, Arindam. Since a group of photons is constituted of individual photons, diminishment if the group applies to the individuals if sanity means anything in physics. > > <snip remaining insane babble> --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-30 06:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9dhajl-hu551.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #893695 |
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 2:31:11 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > >> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and >>>>>> Planck: >>>>>> >>>>>> A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of >>>>>> light itself. >>> >>> How ridiculous as a point particle being a point cannot diminish with >>> distance as per the inverse square law which is logical, real and >>> evident to all those blessed with sanity. >> >> A single photon doesn't diminish with distance, a GROUP of photons >> disperses with distance, Arindam. > > Since a group of photons is constituted of individual photons, > diminishment if the group applies to the individuals if sanity means > anything in physics. Incoherent. The inverse square law applies to a group of photons and says the power density, that is the power over an area, decreases with distance. This is because photons can not be perfectly collimated and thus have a dispersion angle. From this, high school geometry leads to the inverse square law. -- penninojim@yahoo.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-02 19:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ma63mfFt1qeU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #892966 |
Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 22:07 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 6/1/2025 3:03 AM, bertitaylor wrote: >> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed >> in the medium of aether. > > Think of a laser. Emitting photons, or radiation. All with the same spin? > My own idea about photons: a photon is kind of 'wave-packet'. It has a certain helical form and is like an electron, but in motion. Actually if you would stop a photon, by e.g. a metal plate, you would get an electron. Or you could make an electron 'roll away' and it will become a photon. This could be done by 'smashing' the electron against an obstacle, which would free that electron from its position. The idea behind this explanation stems from my 'book' about 'structured spacetime': https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing In this electrons and protons are not real particles, but certain 'timelike stable patterns'. The electron and the proton are essentially 'one piece' (commonly called 'atom') and denote certain aspects of a 'standing rotation wave', where the electron is the outer turning point and the proton the inner. If you 'kick' this structure, it would 'roll away', hence would make photons out of electrons. But the opposite is also possible, which is known as 'photo-electric-effect'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-02 20:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1rdbbag.18xfoge1xwu8yuN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #892966 |
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/1/2025 3:03 AM, bertitaylor wrote: > > A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed > > in the medium of aether. > > Think of a laser. Emitting photons, or radiation. All with the same spin? Depends on the polarisation state. So whatever you want, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-14 22:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fe043ccbc731cbac090b20f17b1679d5@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #892966 |
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 20:07:48 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 6/1/2025 3:03 AM, bertitaylor wrote: >> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed >> in the medium of aether. > > Think of a laser. Emitting photons, or radiation. All with the same > spin? A laser is like a huge microwave antenna, say 1 km long at 1 GHz giving an extremely sharp beam. Only much smaller as the frequency of light is much higher, or wavelength much smaller. When talking about radiation, think of antenna phased array. In phase polarised light from laser is like the huge in phase microwave antenna emitting electromagnetic waves. WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof Bertietaylor > > >> >> Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from >> external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric >> field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a >> electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on, >> infinitely infinitely. >> >> Woof woof woof woof, great is the design of the universe and wonderful >> its workings, when seen in correct detail. >> >> Bertietaylor >> >> -- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | x <x@x.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-02 04:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <101k367$393ju$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #892953 |
On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote: > A photon is A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties of light called the 'photoelectric effect'. It can have some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it can have meaning that varies between people. It is not obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer to that specific theory concerning light or not. > a brief electromagnetic Yes some properties of light have been related to electricity and magnetism. Those are other theories of light developed some in the 1800s. > wave pulse travelling a > light speed Then there are other theories about light having a constant speed with respect to an observer or different speeds with respect to both light emission and light observation. > in the medium of aether. Still other theories about light jumbled together. > Following antenna ? > theory, What you have here is a bunch of sci-fi sounding terms thrown together with no clear real meaning assigned to them. They sound like they may refer to something superficially referring to an array of different theories about light, but in reality they could have an array of different meanings that you might assign to them later. For you they are a generative pejorative to nay-say, but in reality they have been assigned no clear meaning, they only indirectly sound like an array of different theories of light in the past. > of asymmetry in the electron orbit Yes there is something called 'orbitals' that have been related to something called 'quantum mechanics', and that has been related to something called 'chemistry' and not just 'nuclear physics'. > from > external excitation causing vibration to aether. Yup. Jumping between theories tends to point again to a generic pejorative called 'science' but in reality terms assigned no clear meaning. > A change in Yup. No clear meaning. Gibberish. Yup. > ... > Woof woof woof woof Yup. Dogs are non-sentient animals. Yup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-03 03:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <88fdd7b29b43d99c11373952a4b404d1@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #892989 |
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:50:31 +0000, x wrote: > On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote: >> A photon is > > A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties > of light called the 'photoelectric effect'. It can have > some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it > can have meaning that varies between people. It is not > obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer > to that specific theory concerning light or not. > >> a brief electromagnetic > > Yes some properties of light have been related to electricity > and magnetism. Those are other theories of light developed > some in the 1800s. > >> wave pulse travelling a >> light speed > > Then there are other theories about light having a constant > speed with respect to an observer or different speeds with > respect to both light emission and light observation. Light speed is variant and that is not theory. The MMX proves it so. > >> in the medium of aether. > > Still other theories about light jumbled together. No mumbling or jumbling from us. Any wave needs a medium. Light is a wave with its medium being aether. > >> Following antenna > > ? > >> theory, > > What you have here is a bunch of sci-fi sounding > terms thrown together with no clear real meaning assigned No, we are very clear. And totally scientific for we are following Arindam who is second only to Sir Isaac Newton. He beats all for focus, clarity and brevity. Denials by howling apes and wannabe killers and sundry small people emphasize his greatness. > to them. They sound like they may refer to something > superficially referring to an array of different theories > about light, but in reality they could have an array of > different meanings that you might assign to them later. Blah. Unlike the Einsteinian thugs Arindam makes his new ideas very clear. No ambiguity, no schizophrenia, in his clean and clear theory and simple repeatable experiments. > > For you they are a generative pejorative to nay-say, > but in reality they have been assigned no clear meaning, > they only indirectly sound like an array of different > theories of light in the past. What rubbish. Arindam clearly states that light as photon is a brief single electromagnetic pulse propagating as a travelling wave in aether medium. What could be more clear. He does follow Huyghens in that wave nature of light and also Newton for the say atomic nature of the photon. This way Arindam reconciles the approaches of these two great scientists. No mean job. WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof Bertietaylor > >> of asymmetry in the electron orbit > > Yes there is something called 'orbitals' that > have been related to something called 'quantum > mechanics', and that has been related to something > called 'chemistry' and not just 'nuclear physics'. > >> from >> external excitation causing vibration to aether. > > Yup. Jumping between theories tends to point again > to a generic pejorative called 'science' but in > reality terms assigned no clear meaning. > >> A change in > > Yup. > > No clear meaning. > > Gibberish. > > Yup. > > > ... > > > Woof woof woof woof > > Yup. Dogs are non-sentient animals. > > Yup. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-14 22:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c390293d2af59772deb0b38dd75dbcc5@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #892989 |
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:50:31 +0000, x wrote: > On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote: >> A photon is > > A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties > of light called the 'photoelectric effect'. It can have > some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it > can have meaning that varies between people. It is not > obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer > to that specific theory concerning light or not. The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory. Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as his theories on relativity. > >> a brief electromagnetic > > Yes some properties of light have been related to electricity > and magnetism. Those are other theories of light developed > some in the 1800s. > >> wave pulse travelling a >> light speed > > Then there are other theories about light having a constant > speed with respect to an observer or different speeds with > respect to both light emission and light observation. > >> in the medium of aether. > > Still other theories about light jumbled together. > >> Following antenna > > ? > >> theory, > > What you have here is a bunch of sci-fi sounding > terms thrown together with no clear real meaning assigned > to them. They sound like they may refer to something > superficially referring to an array of different theories > about light, but in reality they could have an array of > different meanings that you might assign to them later. > > For you they are a generative pejorative to nay-say, > but in reality they have been assigned no clear meaning, > they only indirectly sound like an array of different > theories of light in the past. > >> of asymmetry in the electron orbit > > Yes there is something called 'orbitals' that > have been related to something called 'quantum > mechanics', and that has been related to something > called 'chemistry' and not just 'nuclear physics'. > >> from >> external excitation causing vibration to aether. > > Yup. Jumping between theories tends to point again > to a generic pejorative called 'science' but in > reality terms assigned no clear meaning. > >> A change in > > Yup. > > No clear meaning. > > Gibberish. > > Yup. > > > ... > > > Woof woof woof woof > > Yup. Dogs are non-sentient animals. > > Yup. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-15 10:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mb7g2hFq27kU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #893277 |
Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 00:17 schrieb Bertitaylor: > On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:50:31 +0000, x wrote: > >> On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote: >>> A photon is >> >> A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties >> of light called the 'photoelectric effect'. It can have >> some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it >> can have meaning that varies between people. It is not >> obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer >> to that specific theory concerning light or not. > > The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory. > Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as > his theories on relativity. My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named 'structured spacetime'. In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is actually a standing wave. That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'. My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of 'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions. These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations. The equation is simple: q' = p* q* p^-1 Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'. The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and the inner turning point the core of that 'atom'. Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but certain points of a single structure. If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly 'roll away'. This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call 'photon'. If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps into some structure, which blocks its movement. Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity is charging up the plate. My concept does sound certainly quite foolish. BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions. As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other. And GE can be proven! ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-15 09:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7587bdf00f621e8c93801f0a2ed3a4fc@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #893301 |
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 8:56:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 00:17 schrieb Bertitaylor: >> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:50:31 +0000, x wrote: >> >>> On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote: >>>> A photon is >>> >>> A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties >>> of light called the 'photoelectric effect'. It can have >>> some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it >>> can have meaning that varies between people. It is not >>> obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer >>> to that specific theory concerning light or not. >> >> The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory. >> Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as >> his theories on relativity. > > > My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named > 'structured spacetime'. > > In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is actually > a standing wave. > > That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'. > > My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of > 'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions. > > These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike > elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations. > > The equation is simple: > > q' = p* q* p^-1 > > Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing > rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'. > > The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and the > inner turning point the core of that 'atom'. > > Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but > certain points of a single structure. > > If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly > 'roll away'. > > This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call > 'photon'. > > If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps into > some structure, which blocks its movement. > > Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity > is charging up the plate. > > My concept does sound certainly quite foolish. > > BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions. > > As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE > and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other. > > And GE can be proven! > .... > > > TH Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal universe? If you can believe in dinosaurs and thus go against JCI metaphysics who not believe in aether? WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof Bertietaylor --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-17 07:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mbcbsjFk6clU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #893302 |
Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Bertitaylor: > On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 8:56:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 00:17 schrieb Bertitaylor: >>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:50:31 +0000, x wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote: >>>>> A photon is >>>> >>>> A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties >>>> of light called the 'photoelectric effect'. It can have >>>> some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it >>>> can have meaning that varies between people. It is not >>>> obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer >>>> to that specific theory concerning light or not. >>> >>> The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory. >>> Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as >>> his theories on relativity. >> >> >> My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named >> 'structured spacetime'. >> >> In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is actually >> a standing wave. >> >> That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'. >> >> My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of >> 'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions. >> >> These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike >> elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations. >> >> The equation is simple: >> >> q' = p* q* p^-1 >> >> Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing >> rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'. >> >> The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and the >> inner turning point the core of that 'atom'. >> >> Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but >> certain points of a single structure. >> >> If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly >> 'roll away'. >> >> This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call >> 'photon'. >> >> If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps into >> some structure, which blocks its movement. >> >> Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity >> is charging up the plate. >> >> My concept does sound certainly quite foolish. >> >> BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions. >> >> As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE >> and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other. >> >> And GE can be proven! >> .... >> >> >> TH > > Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as > the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal > universe? This has a reason, but a little complicated one: 'aether' is assumed as fine fluidlike substance, fills all of space. But this aether isn't 'relative'. I mean: if you want to fill all space with aether, you would need space and aether in the first place. But I wanted something else and somthing compatible with 'big-bang theory'. I think, that big-bang theory is actauylly wrong, but not entirely. Instead of one single timeline as in in bb-theory, I wanted multiple timelines, which could run into different direction and which denote local time. So: any point in the universe is placed upon a timeline, which points to a remote big bang. But these big-bangs are all different and the axes of time point into different directions. So, 'space' had to be 'relative', too, and also matter. This would actually make 'aether' impossible, because aether had to be there, before that stuff could fill all of space. My own concept is based on a different idea. The best discription could be found in the book 'From Zero to Infinity' by Prof. Peter Rowland. Unfortunately this book is not easy to read and also very expensive. But my own 'book' is much easier to read and actually free: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing TH > If you can believe in dinosaurs and thus go against JCI metaphysics who > not believe in aether? > > WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof > > Bertietaylor > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-17 06:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0c7f43eef103db2b74d5d41c13be1071@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #893351 |
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 5:16:13 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Bertitaylor: >> On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 8:56:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >>> Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 00:17 schrieb Bertitaylor: >>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:50:31 +0000, x wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote: >>>>>> A photon is >>>>> >>>>> A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties >>>>> of light called the 'photoelectric effect'. It can have >>>>> some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it >>>>> can have meaning that varies between people. It is not >>>>> obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer >>>>> to that specific theory concerning light or not. >>>> >>>> The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory. >>>> Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as >>>> his theories on relativity. >>> >>> >>> My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named >>> 'structured spacetime'. >>> >>> In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is actually >>> a standing wave. >>> >>> That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'. >>> >>> My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of >>> 'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions. >>> >>> These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike >>> elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations. >>> >>> The equation is simple: >>> >>> q' = p* q* p^-1 >>> >>> Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing >>> rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'. >>> >>> The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and the >>> inner turning point the core of that 'atom'. >>> >>> Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but >>> certain points of a single structure. >>> >>> If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly >>> 'roll away'. >>> >>> This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call >>> 'photon'. >>> >>> If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps into >>> some structure, which blocks its movement. >>> >>> Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity >>> is charging up the plate. >>> >>> My concept does sound certainly quite foolish. >>> >>> BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions. >>> >>> As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE >>> and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other. >>> >>> And GE can be proven! >>> .... >>> >>> >>> TH >> >> Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as >> the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal >> universe? > > This has a reason, but a little complicated one: > > 'aether' is assumed as fine fluidlike substance, fills all of space. Wrong. Aether is infinitely fine and infinitely elastic SOLID which means that all its elements stay fixed relative to each other UNLIKE a fluid. Get your basics straight and do not lie. Arindam quoted from a textbook which described aether as above in his 2005 paper exposing the MMX bungle. Aetheric components are so fine that all charges go through them without resistance. Woof woof Bertietaylor > > But this aether isn't 'relative'. > > I mean: > > if you want to fill all space with aether, you would need space and > aether in the first place. > > But I wanted something else and somthing compatible with 'big-bang > theory'. > > I think, that big-bang theory is actauylly wrong, but not entirely. > > Instead of one single timeline as in in bb-theory, I wanted multiple > timelines, which could run into different direction and which denote > local time. > > So: any point in the universe is placed upon a timeline, which points to > a remote big bang. > > But these big-bangs are all different and the axes of time point into > different directions. > > So, 'space' had to be 'relative', too, and also matter. > > This would actually make 'aether' impossible, because aether had to be > there, before that stuff could fill all of space. > > My own concept is based on a different idea. The best discription could > be found in the book 'From Zero to Infinity' by Prof. Peter Rowland. > > Unfortunately this book is not easy to read and also very expensive. > > But my own 'book' is much easier to read and actually free: > > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > > TH > > >> If you can believe in dinosaurs and thus go against JCI metaphysics who >> not believe in aether? >> >> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof >> >> Bertietaylor >> >> -- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-18 10:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mbfaohF4kotU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #893356 |
Am Dienstag000017, 17.06.2025 um 08:01 schrieb Bertitaylor: >>>> My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named >>>> 'structured spacetime'. >>>> >>>> In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is >>>> actually >>>> a standing wave. >>>> >>>> That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'. >>>> >>>> My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of >>>> 'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions. >>>> >>>> These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike >>>> elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations. >>>> >>>> The equation is simple: >>>> >>>> q' = p* q* p^-1 >>>> >>>> Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing >>>> rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'. >>>> >>>> The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and >>>> the >>>> inner turning point the core of that 'atom'. >>>> >>>> Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but >>>> certain points of a single structure. >>>> >>>> If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly >>>> 'roll away'. >>>> >>>> This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call >>>> 'photon'. >>>> >>>> If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps >>>> into >>>> some structure, which blocks its movement. >>>> >>>> Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity >>>> is charging up the plate. >>>> >>>> My concept does sound certainly quite foolish. >>>> >>>> BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions. >>>> >>>> As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE >>>> and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other. >>>> >>>> And GE can be proven! >>>> .... >>>> >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as >>> the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal >>> universe? >> >> This has a reason, but a little complicated one: >> >> 'aether' is assumed as fine fluidlike substance, fills all of space. > > Wrong. Aether is infinitely fine and infinitely elastic SOLID which > means that all its elements stay fixed relative to each other UNLIKE a > fluid. > > Get your basics straight and do not lie. Actually I had already written, that I think that 'aether' is wrong. So: 'solid' wouldn't rescue the aether concept. The aether is actually meant as 'stuff' (whether fluid or solid), while I wanted to make stuff out of spacetime. My concept is related, but not equal to the 'aether concept' (which I think is wrong). It is close, however. TH ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-18 08:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <70c85115dd56ec712ec4b86a32d62e13@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #893375 |
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 8:15:24 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Dienstag000017, 17.06.2025 um 08:01 schrieb Bertitaylor: > >>>>> My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named >>>>> 'structured spacetime'. >>>>> >>>>> In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is >>>>> actually >>>>> a standing wave. >>>>> >>>>> That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'. >>>>> >>>>> My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of >>>>> 'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions. >>>>> >>>>> These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike >>>>> elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations. >>>>> >>>>> The equation is simple: >>>>> >>>>> q' = p* q* p^-1 >>>>> >>>>> Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing >>>>> rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'. >>>>> >>>>> The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and >>>>> the >>>>> inner turning point the core of that 'atom'. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but >>>>> certain points of a single structure. >>>>> >>>>> If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly >>>>> 'roll away'. >>>>> >>>>> This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call >>>>> 'photon'. >>>>> >>>>> If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps >>>>> into >>>>> some structure, which blocks its movement. >>>>> >>>>> Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity >>>>> is charging up the plate. >>>>> >>>>> My concept does sound certainly quite foolish. >>>>> >>>>> BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions. >>>>> >>>>> As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE >>>>> and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other. >>>>> >>>>> And GE can be proven! >>>>> .... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TH >>>> >>>> Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as >>>> the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal >>>> universe? >>> >>> This has a reason, but a little complicated one: >>> >>> 'aether' is assumed as fine fluidlike substance, fills all of space. >> >> Wrong. Aether is infinitely fine and infinitely elastic SOLID which >> means that all its elements stay fixed relative to each other UNLIKE a >> fluid. >> >> Get your basics straight and do not lie. > > Actually I had already written, that I think that 'aether' is wrong. It is not fluid. If we are talking of aether as a concept let us get that straight. Nothing original here from us. That is what 19th century philosophers considered. Based upon the reality of em waves and the fact that all waves needed a medium for propagation that was logical. > > So: 'solid' wouldn't rescue the aether concept. Einsteinians certainly want to out aether but they should have the minimum honesty of noting that aether was considered not a fluid but a solid by 19th century theoreticians. And a reality given the fact of electromagnetic waves. Which was first shown by Shri J C Bose. WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof > > The aether is actually meant as 'stuff' (whether fluid or solid), while > I wanted to make stuff out of spacetime. > > My concept is related, but not equal to the 'aether concept' (which I > think is wrong). > > It is close, however. > > > TH > .... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-11 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1hohl-7mit.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #892953 |
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
> in the medium of aether.
>
> Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from
> external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric
> field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a
> electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on,
> infinitely infinitely.
>
> Woof woof woof woof, great is the design of the universe and wonderful
> its workings, when seen in correct detail.
>
> Bertietaylor
>
> --
AI evaluation of your post:
Scientific Accuracy:
Inaccurate Concept of Aether:
The text refers to a photon traveling in the "medium of aether."
This is an outdated concept. The aether hypothesis was discarded
after the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) and the development
of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which showed that light
does not require a medium.
Mischaracterization of Photons:
A photon is not best described as a "brief electromagnetic wave pulse"
in classical terms. In modern physics, a photon is a quantum particle
of light, which exhibits both wave and particle properties
(wave-particle duality). While wave packets can model photons in
quantum electrodynamics, calling it a “brief wave pulse” oversimplifies
and potentially misleads.
Electromagnetic Field Propagation:
The text says: “A change in electric field causes a change in the
magnetic field... infinitely infinitely.” This loosely references
Maxwell’s equations, where changing electric and magnetic fields
sustain each other in a propagating wave. However, "infinitely
infinitely" is meaningless here—fields don’t oscillate infinitely
without damping or interference in practical systems.
Antenna Theory Reference:
The idea that an external excitation causes electron motion and
radiation is broadly consistent with antenna theory, but the
phrasing is vague and imprecise. There’s no clear link to how
this explains photon generation or behavior.
Clarity and Coherence:
The text starts with a speculative and obsolete idea (aether) and
shifts toward poetic exclamations (“woof woof woof...”), creating
a jarring mix of pseudoscience and expressive prose.
The narrative lacks a clear logical flow or rigorous definitions,
mixing metaphors with partial scientific terminology.
Tone and Style:
The last sentence (“Woof woof...”) appears metaphorical or playful,
which undermines the scientific tone. This could be viewed as either
charming or confusing, depending on context.
It attempts to evoke wonder, but the shift in register feels abrupt
and ungrounded.
Summary Evaluation:
Scientific Rigor: ★☆☆☆☆ (1/5)
Clarity: ★★☆☆☆ (2/5)
Literary/Artistic Flair: ★★★☆☆ (3/5)
Final Verdict:
The text reflects a mix of outdated science, vague technical references,
and poetic mysticism. For a meaningful discussion of photons or
electromagnetic theory, it would need significant revision to align
with modern physics and clear communication.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-14 23:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a61a1c6c126f7307e40515386e331d9a@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #893166 |
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 14:39:29 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed >> in the medium of aether. >> >> Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from >> external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric >> field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a >> electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on, >> infinitely infinitely. >> >> Woof woof woof woof, great is the design of the universe and wonderful >> its workings, when seen in correct detail. >> >> Bertietaylor >> >> -- > > AI evaluation of your post: > > Scientific Accuracy: > > Inaccurate Concept of Aether: > The text refers to a photon traveling in the "medium of aether." > This is an outdated concept. But not disptoven The aether hypothesis was discarded > after the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) and the development > of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which showed that light > does not require a medium. It jolly well does as it is a wave. The MMX was showed light speed variance as Arindam showed in 2005. Which of course puts Einsteinian theories of relativity into the garbage bins. Woof woof woof-woof woof woof > > Mischaracterization of Photons: > A photon is not best described as a "brief electromagnetic wave > pulse" > in classical terms. In modern physics, a photon is a quantum > particle > of light, which exhibits both wave and particle properties > (wave-particle duality). While wave packets can model photons in > quantum electrodynamics, calling it a “brief wave pulse” > oversimplifies > and potentially misleads. > > Electromagnetic Field Propagation: > The text says: “A change in electric field causes a change in the > magnetic field... infinitely infinitely.” This loosely references > Maxwell’s equations, where changing electric and magnetic fields > sustain each other in a propagating wave. However, "infinitely > infinitely" is meaningless here—fields don’t oscillate infinitely > without damping or interference in practical systems. > > Antenna Theory Reference: > The idea that an external excitation causes electron motion and > radiation is broadly consistent with antenna theory, but the > phrasing is vague and imprecise. There’s no clear link to how > this explains photon generation or behavior. > > Clarity and Coherence: > > The text starts with a speculative and obsolete idea (aether) and > shifts toward poetic exclamations (“woof woof woof...”), creating > a jarring mix of pseudoscience and expressive prose. > > The narrative lacks a clear logical flow or rigorous definitions, > mixing metaphors with partial scientific terminology. > > Tone and Style: > > The last sentence (“Woof woof...”) appears metaphorical or playful, > which undermines the scientific tone. This could be viewed as either > charming or confusing, depending on context. > > It attempts to evoke wonder, but the shift in register feels abrupt > and ungrounded. > > Summary Evaluation: > > Scientific Rigor: ★☆☆☆☆ (1/5) > > Clarity: ★★☆☆☆ (2/5) > > Literary/Artistic Flair: ★★★☆☆ (3/5) > > Final Verdict: > > The text reflects a mix of outdated science, vague technical references, > and poetic mysticism. For a meaningful discussion of photons or > electromagnetic theory, it would need significant revision to align > with modern physics and clear communication. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-15 14:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1rdyyse.m8tytj1b6jbddN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #892953 |
bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed > in the medium of aether. For the kiddies: this is wrong. A photon is (by definition) a momentum eigenstate of the EM field, hence also an energy eigenstate. This implies both wave and particle aspects. Hence it has infinite extent. It is not a brief flash. You can make brief flashes of light of course, as linear superpositions of (infinitely many) eigenstates. But then but its localisation and its frequency/energy are spread out. (typical example: coherent states) Jan [snip more nonsense]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-15 22:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e1396eef8568f61406698999df760fc2@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #893304 |
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 12:36:51 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote: > bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > >> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed >> in the medium of aether. > > For the kiddies: this is wrong. No, it is consistent with reality. > A photon is (by definition) a momentum eigenstate of the EM field, Nice bullshit but no kid will swallow that. For one thing a field has no mass so no momentum for momentum is mass times velocity. And eigenstate is a complex math term which is well beyond the scope of kids. In this context it makes no sense except to bamboozle the pullulating gullible. Typical Einsteinian garbage designed to confuse. Anti Science! So what is happening? What is happening is aetheric vibrations travelling at speed of light to and from all the infinite charges in the universe. They are caused and created by impacts upon and corresponding rectifications the atomic structures that cause or rectify distortions to the electronic structure. Looks like this will be well within the scope of kiddies, like most of Arindam's physics. That is, all not dealing with his new rail gun design theory which is a bit difficult for kids. WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof Bertietaylor > hence also an energy eigenstate. > This implies both wave and particle aspects. > > Hence it has infinite extent. It is not a brief flash. > You can make brief flashes of light of course, > as linear superpositions of (infinitely many) eigenstates. > But then but its localisation and its frequency/energy are spread out. > (typical example: coherent states) > > Jan > > > [snip more nonsense] --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-17 02:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ccc2ae813708e921eafa4ccec706d7dd@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #893318 |
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 22:56:11 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 12:36:51 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed >>> in the medium of aether. >> >> For the kiddies: this is wrong. > > No, it is consistent with reality. > >> A photon is (by definition) a momentum eigenstate of the EM field, > > Nice bullshit but no kid will swallow that. > For one thing a field has no mass so no momentum for momentum is mass > times velocity. > And eigenstate is a complex math term which is well beyond the scope of > kids. In this context it makes no sense except to bamboozle the > pullulating gullible. > Typical Einsteinian garbage designed to confuse. Anti Science! > > So what is happening? > What is happening is aetheric vibrations travelling at speed of light to > and from all the infinite charges in the universe. > > They are caused and created by impacts upon and corresponding > rectifications the atomic structures that cause or rectify distortions > to the electronic structure. > > Looks like this will be well within the scope of kiddies, like most of > Arindam's physics. That is, all not dealing with his new rail gun design > theory which is a bit difficult for kids. > > WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof > > Bertietaylor > >> hence also an energy eigenstate. Energy is a scalar showing how much work can be done by whatever containing energy. An eigenstate represents with the application of a delta function for instantaneous depiction the set of fluctuating eigenvectors that are derived from the solution of the characteristic n degree differential equation indicative of the stability of a complex system. To think of simple energy - so simple that even bunnyahs understand it all too well - which is work or force times distance as any sort of eigenstate is ridiculous. What is complex is the distortion characteristic of the electron structure caused by internal forces such as radioactivity or external such as particle impact of radiation in meaning aetheric vibrations. These distortions create force absorption and the remedial process creates the varying electric field which is the brief electromagnetic pulse called photon. >> This implies both wave and particle aspects. Both relate to force. Force is for physicists. Energy is for bunnyahs and their attendant lords. The term energy should be minimised as far as possible in physics texts. >> >> Hence it has infinite extent. It is not a brief flash. >> You can make brief flashes of light of course, >> as linear superpositions of (infinitely many) eigenstates. Blah WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof Bertietaylor >> But then but its localisation and its frequency/energy are spread out. >> (typical example: coherent states) >> >> Jan >> >> >> [snip more nonsense] > > -- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-19 23:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <23b1468ceee97f126bc9b77127df85bf@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #893318 |
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:33:59 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > Den 17.06.2025 01:02, skrev Bertitaylor: >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at the centre >>> of the Earth is zero and the temperature is near 0 K.? >> >> Yes. >> Woof woof woof woof-woof woof in dog lingo as well. >> > > And the IQ of a dog? Far surpasses that of stupid Einsteinian apes. WOOF woof-woof woof Bertietaylor --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web