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

Groups > sci.physics > #892953 > unrolled thread

What is a photon

Started bybertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor)
First post2025-06-01 10:03 +0000
Last post2026-05-12 10:06 +0000
Articles 20 on this page of 203 — 23 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11  Next page →

#893442

From"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Date2025-06-20 14:54 +0200
Message-ID<1033l92$1ccl$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#893427
Den 20.06.2025 01:00, skrev Bertitaylor:
> 
> WOOF woof-woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> -- 

Any particular reason for why you haven't responded to this post?


>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> "The Structure of Heavenly Bodies":
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
>>>
>>> Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
>>>   "F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
>>>    Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case
>>>    when the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure
>>>    is force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is
>>>    also zero."
>>>
>>> Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at
>>> the centre of the Earth is zero?

>>> Den 17.06.2025 01:35, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>> Yes

>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for a clear answer.
>>> You, like Arindam believe that the pressure within the Earth
>>> is highest right below the surface and is diminishing with depth.
>>>
>>> The equation F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3 is the gravitational force
>>> on a mass m when it is a distance R from the centre of the Earth.

> Den 18.06.2025 03:29, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>
>> Wrong. See if you can find where you are wrong.
>>
>> As your knowledge of basic physics is far lower than that of any Indian
>> kid in middle school in the 1960s no point in continuing.

Den 19.06.2025 20:01, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
> 
> You are making a fool of yourself again.
> 
> This equation is taken from Arindam's paper quoted above.
> Arindam:
> " F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
>   Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case
>   when the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0."
> 
> This is correct!
> 
> F is the gravitational force on a body with mass m a distance
> R from the centre of the Earth.
> 
> A more common variant of the equation is:
>  g = dF/dm = G*D*pi*4*R/3
> 
> The force on a mass m is F = g*m
> 
> Arindam's knowledge of basic physics is far lower than that
> of any Indian kid in middle school in the 1960s so he believes
> that when the gravitational force on a small mass is zero, then
> the pressure must be zero, which is absolutely ridiculous!
> 

>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> The gravitational force on the mass m at the surface is:
>>>   F = m⋅9.91953 N (we ignore the rotation of the Earth)
>>>
>>> Let's consider the following scenario:
>>> We have a 1000 m deep cylindrical hole in the surface of the Earth.
>>>
>>> The gravitational force on you standing at the bottom of the hole is:
>>>   F = m⋅9.91790 N
>>>
>>> If your mass is 80 kg, your weight will be 0.1244 N less at
>>> the bottom of the hole than on the surface.
>>>
>>> So the gravitational force diminish with depth.
>>>
>>> Now we fill the hole with water.
>>> The pressure at the surface is 1 atm = 1013.25 hPa
>>> The pressure on you is now 10020 kPa or ca 100 atm.
>>>
>>> The pressure increases with depth, as any scuba diver would tell you.
>>>
>>> How can you, like Arindam, fail to know this?
>>>
>>> If we fill the hole with stone with density 5563 kg/m³
>>> (the average density of the Earth),
>>> the pressure at the bottom of the hole becomes:
>>>   55275 kPa or 556 atm

Den 19.06.2025 20:01, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
> 
> Consider this scenario:
> There is a cylindrical tunnel right through the Earth.
> The cross area of the tunnel is 10 m².
> You jump into the tunnel, and end up weightless at
> the centre of the Earth. No gravitational forces are
> acting on you, as correctly claimed by Arindam.
> 
> Now we fill the tunnel with 710e9 kg (710 Tg) of stone.
> 
> So on each side of you there is a 335 Tg pile of rock,
> and every gram of the rock is gravitationally pulled towards you.
> Sure, you are still weightless, but the piles of rock on ether side
> of you are not.
> 
> The pressure at the centre of the Earth is 360 GPa = 3.5 million atm.
> 
> Do you still not understand how idiotic Arindam is when he
> claim that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#893450

FromAdolf Göbel <adolfgoebel@aol.com>
Date2025-06-20 21:13 +0200
Message-ID<1ri5o4aoghkp2.wopuoow22t9l.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to#893442
On 20 Jun 2025 15:30:04 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:

> "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
>>Any particular reason for why you haven't responded to this post?
> 
>   I know you are not talking to me, but I saw this subject "Re: What
>   is a photon" pop up here, and I feel like I have to chime in, since
>   this actually does have something to do with the English language!
> 
>   The question "What is a photon?" might sound to some like 
>   it is about nature, but really, it is about language.
> 
>   "Photon" is an English word, and /people/ decide what words
>   mean. So this is kind of a cultural thing: "How did people
>   settle on what 'photon' means?"
> 
>   And the answer is, it depends on the theory you are using! 
>   (Honestly, it can even depend on the specific paper or book.)
> 
>   Right now, quantum field theory (QFT) - and especially quantum
>   electrodynamics - is the main theory here. It gives some crazy
>   accurate predictions that have been checked in experiments, so
>   it definitely tells us something about nature, but at the end of
>   the day, it is a model, just like anything people come up with.
> 
>   QFT is not the whole story, since it does not deal with gravity.
>   There could be a bigger theory "TOE" someday where "photon"
>   gets defined differently than in QFT. In a lot of areas, we
>   could swap out QFT for TOE, and the meaning of "photon" would
>   kind of shift. But nature itself would not change.
> 
>   The photon is part of our culture, not part of nature.

good argument, thank you. But I'm not sure if I can agree, I hva to think
some more

Greeting
Adi

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

#893452

FromJulio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name>
Date2025-06-20 21:19 +0200
Message-ID<1034c7o$5i2a$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#893442
On 20/06/2025 17:30, Stefan Ram wrote:
> "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
>> Any particular reason for why you haven't responded to this post?
> 
>    I know you are not talking to me, but I saw this subject "Re: What
>    is a photon" pop up here, and I feel like I have to chime in, since
>    this actually does have something to do with the English language!
> 
>    The question "What is a photon?" might sound to some like
>    it is about nature, but really, it is about language.
> 
>    "Photon" is an English word, and /people/ decide what words
>    mean. So this is kind of a cultural thing: "How did people
>    settle on what 'photon' means?"
> 
>    And the answer is, it depends on the theory you are using!
>    (Honestly, it can even depend on the specific paper or book.)
> 
>    Right now, quantum field theory (QFT) - and especially quantum
>    electrodynamics - is the main theory here. It gives some crazy
>    accurate predictions that have been checked in experiments, so
>    it definitely tells us something about nature, but at the end of
>    the day, it is a model, just like anything people come up with.
> 
>    QFT is not the whole story, since it does not deal with gravity.
>    There could be a bigger theory "TOE" someday where "photon"
>    gets defined differently than in QFT. In a lot of areas, we
>    could swap out QFT for TOE, and the meaning of "photon" would
>    kind of shift. But nature itself would not change.
> 
>    The photon is part of our culture, not part of nature.

I too feel compelled to chime in: besides that by that token
nothing is part of nature, but also language is conventional,
not arbitrary: so, overall, and as usual, you at best have
no clue what you are talking about.

-Julio

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

#893457

Frombertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor)
Date2025-06-20 22:38 +0000
Message-ID<4510902cd464f14291d5b55c57c2c787@www.novabbs.org>
In reply to#893442
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 12:54:36 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 20.06.2025 01:00, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>
>> WOOF woof-woof woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> --
>
> Any particular reason for why you haven't responded to this post?
>
>
>>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "The Structure of Heavenly Bodies":
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
>>>>
>>>> Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
>>>>   "F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
???

>>>>    Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case
>>>>    when the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure
>>>>    is force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is
>>>>    also zero."

Yes, the net force is zero as the mass at the centre of Earth, Sun etc.
is pulled equally in all directions. Opposites cancel leaving no
pressure.

Similarly we are not crushed by air pressure when it acts equally in all
directions.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor
>>>>
>>>> Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at
>>>> the centre of the Earth is zero?
>
>>>> Den 17.06.2025 01:35, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>> Yes
>
>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for a clear answer.
>>>> You, like Arindam believe that the pressure within the Earth
>>>> is highest right below the surface and is diminishing with depth.
>>>>
>>>> The equation F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3 is the gravitational force
>>>> on a mass m when it is a distance R from the centre of the Earth.
>
>> Den 18.06.2025 03:29, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>
>>> Wrong. See if you can find where you are wrong.
>>>
>>> As your knowledge of basic physics is far lower than that of any Indian
>>> kid in middle school in the 1960s no point in continuing.
>
> Den 19.06.2025 20:01, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
>>
>> You are making a fool of yourself again.
>>
>> This equation is taken from Arindam's paper quoted above.
>> Arindam:
>> " F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
>>   Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case
>>   when the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0."
>>
>> This is correct!
>>
>> F is the gravitational force on a body with mass m a distance
>> R from the centre of the Earth.
>>
>> A more common variant of the equation is:
>>  g = dF/dm = G*D*pi*4*R/3
>>
>> The force on a mass m is F = g*m
>>
>> Arindam's knowledge of basic physics is far lower than that
>> of any Indian kid in middle school in the 1960s so he believes
>> that when the gravitational force on a small mass is zero, then
>> the pressure must be zero, which is absolutely ridiculous!
>>
>
>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The gravitational force on the mass m at the surface is:
>>>>   F = m⋅9.91953 N (we ignore the rotation of the Earth)
>>>>
>>>> Let's consider the following scenario:
>>>> We have a 1000 m deep cylindrical hole in the surface of the Earth.
>>>>
>>>> The gravitational force on you standing at the bottom of the hole is:
>>>>   F = m⋅9.91790 N
>>>>
>>>> If your mass is 80 kg, your weight will be 0.1244 N less at
>>>> the bottom of the hole than on the surface.
>>>>
>>>> So the gravitational force diminish with depth.
>>>>
>>>> Now we fill the hole with water.
>>>> The pressure at the surface is 1 atm = 1013.25 hPa
>>>> The pressure on you is now 10020 kPa or ca 100 atm.
>>>>
>>>> The pressure increases with depth, as any scuba diver would tell you.
>>>>
>>>> How can you, like Arindam, fail to know this?
>>>>
>>>> If we fill the hole with stone with density 5563 kg/m³
>>>> (the average density of the Earth),
>>>> the pressure at the bottom of the hole becomes:
>>>>   55275 kPa or 556 atm
>
> Den 19.06.2025 20:01, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
>>
>> Consider this scenario:
>> There is a cylindrical tunnel right through the Earth.
>> The cross area of the tunnel is 10 m².
>> You jump into the tunnel, and end up weightless at
>> the centre of the Earth. No gravitational forces are
>> acting on you, as correctly claimed by Arindam.
>>
>> Now we fill the tunnel with 710e9 kg (710 Tg) of stone.
>>
>> So on each side of you there is a 335 Tg pile of rock,
>> and every gram of the rock is gravitationally pulled towards you.
>> Sure, you are still weightless, but the piles of rock on ether side
>> of you are not.
>>
>> The pressure at the centre of the Earth is 360 GPa = 3.5 million atm.
>>
>> Do you still not understand how idiotic Arindam is when he
>> claim that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero?

--

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

#893520

Frombertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor)
Date2025-06-22 22:56 +0000
Message-ID<4765f1f73b8f4a00ac48f82ef712fd7a@www.novabbs.org>
In reply to#893457
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 19:14:15 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

>
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Structure of Heavenly Bodies": Arindam Banerjee, HTN Research Pty
>>>>>> Ltd. Melbourne
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
>>>>>>   "F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
>>>>>>    Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case
>>>>>>    when the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure
>>>>>>    is force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is
>>>>>>    also zero."
>
> Taken literally, this is of course nonsense.
> Arindam says:
> "When the radius of the Earth is zero, the pressure at the centre of
> the Earth is zero." No Earth, no pressure! :-D
>
> However, the equation is correct, because:
>
> The gravitational force F on a mass m at the position R from the centre
> of the Earth is:
>    F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3  (1)
> Where:
>    G is the gravitational constant
>    D is the average density of the Earth

Good, so when R=0 at centre of Earth then F=0 and pressure=0 and
temp=0degK and with that lots of current from superconducting conditions
creating the magnetic field.

Exactly as Arindam said decades ago.

So the centres of the Earth, Sun stars are very very cold.
>
> Den 21.06.2025 00:38, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>
>> Yes, the net force is zero as the mass at the centre of Earth, Sun etc.
>> is pulled equally in all directions. Opposites cancel leaving no
>> pressure.
>>
>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>
> Let us take it from the start:
>
> Equation (1) can be written:
>   F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R  [N]         (1)
> where
>   G = 6.6743e-11 N⋅m²/kg²
>   D = 5563 kg/m³ average density of the Earth, mass/volume
>
>   We are considering the density to be constant, which make
>   the calculation simpler.
>   This is however a gross simplification, the density
>   varies very much with depth. Near the surface it can be as
>   low as 1000 kg/m³ (ocean), and in the inner core as high as
>   ~8000 kg/m³ (Nickel/iron).
>   This means that our calculations below can not be expected
>   to be very precise, but they will give a good indication
>   of the order of magnitude of the pressure at the centre of
>   the Earth.

Ok
>
> Consider a cylindrical hole with cross area A = 1 m²
> from the surface and down to the centre of the Earth.
> Let R₀ = 6.378e6 m be the radius of the Earth.
> Let your mass be m = 80 kg.

Ok
>
> Standing on the ground, the gravitational force acting on you is:
>   F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R₀ = 793.5 N

Ok
>
> Standing at the bottom of the hole,the gravitational force on you is:
>   F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅0 = 0 N, you are weightless!

Ok
>
> Now we fill the hole with stone with density D = 5563 kg/m³.
> Every gram of that pile of stone is gravitationally pulled
> towards the centre of the Earth, so you has to be as ignorant
> of basic physics as Arindam to fail to understand that the pressure
> at the centre of the Earth must be formidable.

Point is, that the stones just above me  will be weightless as me so
will not cause any pressure upon me.

And the stones that are higher up will press sideways as any arch does.
Not down. Surely you don't expect bridges and domes to fall upon you
when you go under them?

Bit of lateral thinking helps, what? Not all need be as dense as Moylan
and Co., the blackholewallah bigbangers.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor (heavenhounds barking for the divine Arindam, for the
elevation of antagonistic apes to worthy bipeds)
>
> Let us calculate what it will be.
> Equation (1) above is for a (small) mass at a specific depth.
> But the mass of the pile of stone is distributed all the way
> from the surface to the centre, so we can't use equation (1)
> as it is, so we write it like this:
>
> dF/dm = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R [N/kg]      (2)
>
> We have: dm = D⋅A⋅dR [kg]  (the mass in the hole)
>
> dF = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅A⋅R⋅dR [N]
>
> The pressure P is F/A
>
> dP = dF/A = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅R⋅dR [N/m²]
>
> P = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅∫(from 0 to R₀)R⋅dR = (2π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅R₀²  [N/m²]
> P = 176e9 N/m² = 176 GN/m² = 176 GPa
>
> If you look up on the net, you will see that the pressure
> at the centre is thought to be ~360 GPa.
> Our number is about half by reasons explained above.
>
> ------------------
>
> Bertitaylor, if you have elementary knowledge of physics and math,
> you will have no problem with understanding my calculations above,
> and why the pressure at the centre of the Earth is formidable.
>
> Right?

--

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

#893542

Frombertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor)
Date2025-06-24 02:08 +0000
Message-ID<42b4709c77c39062e540e9890a92e167@www.novabbs.com>
In reply to#893520
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 18:46:51 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 23.06.2025 00:56, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Structure of Heavenly Bodies": Arindam Banerjee, HTN
>>>>> Research Pty
>>>>> Ltd. Melbourne
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
>>>>>
>>>>> Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
>>>>>   "F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
>>>>>    Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case
>>>>>    when the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure
>>>>>    is force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is
>>>>>    also zero."
>
>>  On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 19:14:15 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>> Taken literally, this is of course nonsense.
>>> Arindam says:
>>> "When the radius of the Earth is zero, the pressure at the centre of
>>> the Earth is zero." No Earth, no pressure! :-D
>>>
>>> However, the equation is correct, because:
>>>
>>> The gravitational force F on a mass m at the position R from the centre
>>> of the Earth is:
>>>    F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3  (1)
>>> Where:
>>>    G is the gravitational constant
>>>    D is the average density of the Earth
>>>
>
>>> Den 21.06.2025 00:38, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the net force is zero as the mass at the centre of Earth, Sun etc.
>>>> is pulled equally in all directions. Opposites cancel leaving no
>>>> pressure.
>>>>
>>>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>
>>  On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 19:14:15 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> Let us take it from the start:
>>>
>>> Equation (1) can be written:
>>>   F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R  [N]         (1)
>>> where
>>>   G = 6.6743e-11 N⋅m²/kg²
>>>   D = 5563 kg/m³ average density of the Earth, mass/volume
>>>
>>>   We are considering the density to be constant, which make
>>>   the calculation simpler.
>>>   This is however a gross simplification, the density
>>>   varies very much with depth. Near the surface it can be as
>>>   low as 1000 kg/m³ (ocean), and in the inner core as high as
>>>   ~8000 kg/m³ (Nickel/iron).
>>>   This means that our calculations below can not be expected
>>>   to be very precise, but they will give a good indication
>>>   of the order of magnitude of the pressure at the centre of
>>>   the Earth.
>>>
>>> Consider a cylindrical hole with cross area A = 1 m²
>>> from the surface and down to the centre of the Earth.
>>> Let R₀ = 6.378e6 m be the radius of the Earth.
>>> Let your mass be m = 80 kg.
>>>
>>> Standing on the ground, the gravitational force acting on you is:
>>>   F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R₀ = 793.5 N
>>>
>>> Standing at the bottom of the hole,the gravitational force on you is:
>>>   F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅0 = 0 N, you are weightless!
>>>
>>> Now we fill the hole with stone with density D = 5563 kg/m³.
>>> Every gram of that pile of stone is gravitationally pulled
>>> towards the centre of the Earth, so you has to be as ignorant
>>> of basic physics as Arindam to fail to understand that the pressure
>>> at the centre of the Earth must be formidable.
>
>>
>> Point is, that the stones just above me  will be weightless as me so
>> will not cause any pressure upon me.
>>
>> And the stones that are higher up will press sideways as any arch does.
>> Not down. Surely you don't expect bridges and domes to fall upon you
>> when you go under them?
>
> Consider this scenario:

Highly irrelevant.

> We have a swimming pool which is h = 10 m deep.
> We also have a 10 m long tube with cross area A = 1 m².
> The walls of the tube are very thin and flexible.
> We place the tube vertically in the pool.
>
> Given the constants:
> The air pressure is P₀ = 1 atm = 101,325 N/m²
> The density of water is D = 1000 kg/m²
> The gravitationally acceleration is g = 9.8 m/s²,
> and we can consider it constant over 10 meter.
>
>
> The weight of the water in the tube is:
> W₁₀ = g⋅D⋅A⋅h = 98,000 N
> The pressure at the bottom of the pool is:
>   P₁₀ = P₀ + W₁₀/A = 199,525 N/m² = 1.97 atm.
>
> At any point in the pool the pressure is isotropic,
> the same in all direction. So the water in the pool
> will indeed press sideways on the tube.
>
> Will you therefore say:
> "The water that is higher up will press sideways on
>   the tube, as any arc does. Not down.

No, at the top the water surface is pressed down. It presses against the
sides. Within it is pressed in all directions. Because of gravity, it is
pulled down and without disturbance stays nicely in layers, pressed from
above so the water pressure varies with depth, increasing till it meets
the bottom.

>   So the pressure on the bottom of the tube will be zero.

No, it will increase to a maximum depending upon the depth.
However this scenario does not apply as a model for the Earth.
Under the Earth's rust, the pressure from above crushed against the huge
mass below will create high temperature, melting the rocks.
The molten rocks are lava, and come out with volcanic eruption.

However this scenario does not last for ever. At some depth below the
surface the pressure which peaks decreases for the g value decreases.
Less mass below, thus, to for the rocks and lava to crush against each
other. (This is not the same as what happens to the oceans, where
pressure is very high at the bottom. For there is say 13000-5 Km of
Earth radius left for pushback. On Earth the lava layers may go down
some 4000 Km, say, leaving 9000 Km of rock that will insulate the core
keeping it cold, while most of the heat from the magma layers will be
radiated into outer space.)


Also, the moving fluid unlike the solid masses above that have melted by
the solid masses above. cannot exert that much force against the rock
below that thus remain not melted.



>   Surely you don't expect bridges and domes to fall upon you
>   when you go under them?"

Bit of a problem for you, water is liquid and not solid.
So we do not build bridges made of water.
Well, an ice bridge in Antarctica or similar, would work but ice is
solid.

Below the magma layers (now, it is not all magma, there could be many
rocks not melted in the magma layers that cause lateral support), there
is solid rock which press against each other like domes and bridges.

So these solid rocks get increasinly cold with lower and lower values of
g, and to repeat, they also insulate the metallic superconducting
current carrying core  which provides the magnetic field we all can
experience.

Terrific design, what! Gotta hand it to God, the terrific, wonderful
designer. How wonderful the greatness and glory of the Divine! How
pathetic the whines of the idiot-intellectuals in academics!

Woof woof woof woof woof

Bertietaylor




>
>
>>
>> Bit of lateral thinking helps, what?
>
> Why are you pretending to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam?
>
> I don't think you are.
> I think you don't allow yourself to think because you have
> a religious belief in your Messiah Arindam, and think his Gospel
> is a divine revelation.
>
> So please, allow yourself to think, and read the rest.
> If you find an error in it, please point out exactly
> where and what the error is.
>
> <snip idiotic barking>
>
>>>
>>> Let us calculate what it will be.
>>> Equation (1) above is for a (small) mass at a specific depth.
>>> But the mass of the pile of stone is distributed all the way
>>> from the surface to the centre, so we can't use equation (1)
>>> as it is, so we write it like this:
>>>
>>> dF/dm = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R [N/kg]      (2)
>>>
>>> We have: dm = D⋅A⋅dR [kg]  (the mass in the hole)
>>>
>>> dF = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅A⋅R⋅dR [N]
>>>
>>> The pressure P is F/A
>>>
>>> dP = dF/A = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅R⋅dR [N/m²]
>>>
>>> P = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅∫(from 0 to R₀)R⋅dR = (2π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅R₀²  [N/m²]
>>> P = 176e9 N/m² = 176 GN/m² = 176 GPa
>
> The weight of the pile of stone is 176 GN
>
>>>
>>> If you look up on the net, you will see that the pressure
>>> at the centre is thought to be ~360 GPa.
>>> Our number is about half by reasons explained above.
>>>
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> Bertitaylor, if you have elementary knowledge of physics and math,
>>> you will have no problem with understanding my calculations above,
>>> and why the pressure at the centre of the Earth is formidable.
>>>
>>> Right?
>
> Still not right?

--

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

#893594

Frombertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor)
Date2025-06-27 04:01 +0000
Message-ID<ff9227d87a55fcbb0dfd5f52f5675366@www.novabbs.org>
In reply to#893542
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:51:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
>> You are an ass, Paul.
>> Now, fuck off.
>>
>
> So this is your response to this:


>
> Paul.b.Andersen wrote:
> | Consider this scenario:
> |
> | We have a swimming pool which is h = 10 m deep.
> | We also have a 10 m long tube with cross area A = 1 m².
> | The walls of the tube are very thin and flexible.
> | We place the tube vertically in the pool.
> |
> | Given the constants:
> | The air pressure is P₀ = 1 atm = 101,325 N/m²
> | The density of water is D = 1000 kg/m²
> | The gravitationally acceleration is g = 9.8 m/s²,
> | and we can consider it constant over 10 meter.
> |
>
> | The weight of the water in the tube is:
> | W₁₀ = g⋅D⋅A⋅h = 98,000 N
> | The pressure at the bottom of the pool is:
> |  P₁₀ = P₀ + W₁₀/A = 199,525 N/m² = 1.97 atm.
> |
>
> Bertitaylor responded:
>> Because of gravity, it [the water] is
>> pulled down and without disturbance stays nicely in layers, pressed from
>> above so the water pressure varies with depth, increasing till it meets
>> the bottom.
>
> So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.

We don't.

Upto a few say 2-3 thousand kilometres below the surface of the Earth it
does when rocks melt to magna. Below that from say 3000 to 13000 on km
the pressure starts to fall and at the centre becomes zero.


>
> According to Arindam, the pressure will diminish with depth

After peaking some 1000 to 3000Km or so below the surface.

Can you grasp this?


> and will be 101324.997 N/m² at the bottom of the pool,

No. It won't. It will be zero unless your pool is on say Jupiter.

Do you understand there needs be lotsa mass below your pool for pressure
to exist there?




> which is 0.0028 N/m² less than the pressure on the surface
> of the pool.
>
> That's why I wrote:
>> Congratulations, you have now demonstrated that you are
>> able to think for yourself and understand that Arindam is wrong.

We told you to fuck off as you keep proving you are an ass.
>
> I can understand that you now feel like a traitor, having
> betrayed your Messiah Arindam.

No we have not. We have realised you are an ass best off chanting e=mcc
and so believing in black holes and big bangs. Our advice to you, to
fuck off, was delivered out of kindness.

Not that we expect any imbecile to grasp anything beyond its
brainwashing but we persevere out of regard for Arindam's concern for
future generations. They need correct physics.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor
>
> But why do you blame me? :-D

--

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

#893639

From"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Date2025-06-28 19:14 +0200
Message-ID<103p7t5$vbv4$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#893594
Den 27.06.2025 06:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:51:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
>> Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>> You are an ass, Paul.
>>> Now, fuck off.
>>>

>>
>> So this is your response to this:
>>
>> So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.

> 
> We don't.
> 
> Upto a few say 2-3 thousand kilometres below the surface of the Earth it
> does when rocks melt to magna. Below that from say 3000 to 13000 on km
> the pressure starts to fall and at the centre becomes zero.
> Give it up.

You have to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam to believe
that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero,
and the temperature is near zero.

The pressure at the centre of the Earth is ~ 350 GPa,
and the temperature is ~ 5700⁰ K.

You are an idiot, Bertitaylor,
Now, shut up.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#893648

FromThomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date2025-06-29 06:09 +0200
Message-ID<mcbsevF1d3oU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#893639
Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> Den 27.06.2025 06:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:51:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>> You are an ass, Paul.
>>>> Now, fuck off.
>>>>
> 
>>>
>>> So this is your response to this:
>>>
>>> So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.
> 
>>
>> We don't.
>>
>> Upto a few say 2-3 thousand kilometres below the surface of the Earth it
>> does when rocks melt to magna. Below that from say 3000 to 13000 on km
>> the pressure starts to fall and at the centre becomes zero.
>> Give it up.
> 
> You have to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam to believe
> that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero,
> and the temperature is near zero.
> 
> The pressure at the centre of the Earth is ~ 350 GPa,
> and the temperature is ~ 5700⁰ K.
> 
> You are an idiot, Bertitaylor,
> Now, shut up.
> 

Well, possibly, but mainly because there is no '13000 km below', because 
the Earth radius is slightly smaller (6378 km).


TH

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

#893653

Frombertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor)
Date2025-06-29 04:28 +0000
Message-ID<91596ae0aa4793a78067d49e3a53e12b@www.novabbs.org>
In reply to#893648
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 4:09:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>> Den 27.06.2025 06:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:51:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>> You are an ass, Paul.
>>>>> Now, fuck off.
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> So this is your response to this:
>>>>
>>>> So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.
>>
>>>
>>> We don't.
>>>
>>> Upto a few say 2-3 thousand kilometres below the surface of the Earth it
>>> does when rocks melt to magna. Below that from say 3000 to 13000 on km
>>> the pressure starts to fall and at the centre becomes zero.
>>> Give it up.
>>
>> You have to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam to believe
>> that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero,
>> and the temperature is near zero.
>>
>> The pressure at the centre of the Earth is ~ 350 GPa,
>> and the temperature is ~ 5700⁰ K.
>>
>> You are an idiot, Bertitaylor,
>> Now, shut up.
>>
>
> Well, possibly, but mainly because there is no '13000 km below', because
> the Earth radius is slightly smaller (6378 km).

Right. Sorry for our mistake, we are only dead doggies never much food
in arithmetic.

Anyway say after 1000-2000 Km down the magma seas causing tectonic
plates shifts solidify as they cannot rush the below rocks any more.
That leaves 5378-4378 Km of solid depth which insulates the core and
distributes the forces from above as arches and domes do.

So when we agree that the cores of heavenly bodies are cold then out
goes fusion, neutron stars, black holes, big bang etc.

Out with thermodynamics, relativity, quantum as horribly bad, wrong
notions hanging on by fraud and bad habits.

WOOF woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor
>
>
> TH

--

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

#893656

Frombertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor)
Date2025-06-29 10:20 +0000
Message-ID<15fbf40e306e8ffdedd4a610289a907e@www.novabbs.org>
In reply to#893653
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 4:28:37 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 4:09:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>> Den 27.06.2025 06:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:51:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>>> You are an ass, Paul.
>>>>>> Now, fuck off.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So this is your response to this:
>>>>>
>>>>> So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We don't.
>>>>
>>>> Upto a few say 2-3 thousand kilometres below the surface of the Earth it
>>>> does when rocks melt to magna. Below that from say 3000 to 13000 on km
>>>> the pressure starts to fall and at the centre becomes zero.
>>>> Give it up.
>>>
>>> You have to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam to believe
>>> that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero,
>>> and the temperature is near zero.
>>>
>>> The pressure at the centre of the Earth is ~ 350 GPa,
>>> and the temperature is ~ 5700⁰ K.
>>>
>>> You are an idiot, Bertitaylor,
>>> Now, shut up.
>>>
>>
>> Well, possibly, but mainly because there is no '13000 km below', because
>> the Earth radius is slightly smaller (6378 km).
>
> Right. Sorry for our mistake, we are only dead doggies never much food

Good. Sorry, we dogs are prey to autocorrect.

> in arithmetic.
>
> Anyway say after 1000-2000 Km down the magma seas causing tectonic
> plates shifts solidify as they cannot rush

Crush, sorry yet again.

the below rocks any more.
> That leaves 5378-4378 Km of solid depth which insulates the core and
> distributes the forces from above as arches and domes do.
>
> So when we agree that the cores of heavenly bodies are cold then out
> goes fusion, neutron stars, black holes, big bang etc.
>
> Out with thermodynamics, relativity, quantum as horribly bad, wrong
> notions hanging on by fraud and bad habits.
>
> WOOF woof woof woof-woof
>
> Bertietaylor
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> --

--

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

#893698

FromThomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date2025-06-30 14:12 +0200
Message-ID<mcfd43Fje1cU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#893653
Am Sonntag000029, 29.06.2025 um 06:28 schrieb Bertitaylor:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 4:09:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>> Den 27.06.2025 06:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:51:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>>> You are an ass, Paul.
>>>>>> Now, fuck off.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So this is your response to this:
>>>>>
>>>>> So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We don't.
>>>>
>>>> Upto a few say 2-3 thousand kilometres below the surface of the 
>>>> Earth it
>>>> does when rocks melt to magna. Below that from say 3000 to 13000 on km
>>>> the pressure starts to fall and at the centre becomes zero.
>>>> Give it up.
>>>
>>> You have to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam to believe
>>> that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero,
>>> and the temperature is near zero.
>>>
>>> The pressure at the centre of the Earth is ~ 350 GPa,
>>> and the temperature is ~ 5700⁰ K.
>>>
>>> You are an idiot, Bertitaylor,
>>> Now, shut up.
>>>
>>
>> Well, possibly, but mainly because there is no '13000 km below', because
>> the Earth radius is slightly smaller (6378 km).
> 
> Right. Sorry for our mistake, we are only dead doggies never much food
> in arithmetic.
> 
> Anyway say after 1000-2000 Km down the magma seas causing tectonic
> plates shifts solidify as they cannot rush the below rocks any more.
> That leaves 5378-4378 Km of solid depth which insulates the core and
> distributes the forces from above as arches and domes do.
> 
> So when we agree that the cores of heavenly bodies are cold then out
> goes fusion, neutron stars, black holes, big bang etc.
> 
> Out with thermodynamics, relativity, quantum as horribly bad, wrong
> notions hanging on by fraud and bad habits.
> 


Platetectonics isn't entirely wrong.

But we should think more about the inside of planet Earth and about how 
the temperature changes with depth.

Since any movement of plates upon the underground would require so kind 
of liquid between the plate and the underground, we have not much choice:

we need either 'growing Earth' or materials in sub-surface layers 
beneath such plates, which are in a liquid state.

Since stone mealts at temperatures above say 1600 °C, we need higher 
temperatur, which allows molten stone.

(otherwise plates cannot float).

since the upper mantle is only 300°C hot, we would need a lot of extra 
space, in which the interior of the Earth gets hot enough to melt stone.

That could be the case below the upper mantle.

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


"Temperatures range from approximately 500 K (227 °C; 440 °F) at the 
upper boundary with the crust to approximately 4,200 K (3,930 °C; 7,100 
°F) at the core-mantle boundary.[12] The highest temperature of the 
upper mantle is 1,200 K (930 °C; 1,700 °F).[13] Although the high 
temperature far exceeds the melting points of the mantle rocks at the 
surface, the mantle is almost exclusively solid.[14]"

Don't know, when exactly rock gets molten, but it seems to be well below 
the continental crust.

If so: how could plates move at all (supposed plate tectonics would be 
correct)?



TH

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

#893703

Frombertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor)
Date2025-06-30 14:02 +0000
Message-ID<cf490f55905525b03a9b53742e77adc4@www.novabbs.org>
In reply to#893698
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 12:12:15 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Sonntag000029, 29.06.2025 um 06:28 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 4:09:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
>>>> Den 27.06.2025 06:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:51:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>>>> You are an ass, Paul.
>>>>>>> Now, fuck off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So this is your response to this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Upto a few say 2-3 thousand kilometres below the surface of the
>>>>> Earth it
>>>>> does when rocks melt to magna. Below that from say 3000 to 13000 on km
>>>>> the pressure starts to fall and at the centre becomes zero.
>>>>> Give it up.
>>>>
>>>> You have to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam to believe
>>>> that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero,
>>>> and the temperature is near zero.
>>>>
>>>> The pressure at the centre of the Earth is ~ 350 GPa,
>>>> and the temperature is ~ 5700⁰ K.
>>>>
>>>> You are an idiot, Bertitaylor,
>>>> Now, shut up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, possibly, but mainly because there is no '13000 km below', because
>>> the Earth radius is slightly smaller (6378 km).
>>
>> Right. Sorry for our mistake, we are only dead doggies never much food
>> in arithmetic.
>>
>> Anyway say after 1000-2000 Km down the magma seas causing tectonic
>> plates shifts solidify as they cannot rush the below rocks any more.
>> That leaves 5378-4378 Km of solid depth which insulates the core and
>> distributes the forces from above as arches and domes do.
>>
>> So when we agree that the cores of heavenly bodies are cold then out
>> goes fusion, neutron stars, black holes, big bang etc.
>>
>> Out with thermodynamics, relativity, quantum as horribly bad, wrong
>> notions hanging on by fraud and bad habits.
>>
>
>
> Platetectonics isn't entirely wrong.
>
> But we should think more about the inside of planet Earth and about how
> the temperature changes with depth.
>
> Since any movement of plates upon the underground would require so kind
> of liquid between the plate and the underground, we have not much
> choice:
>
> we need either 'growing Earth' or materials in sub-surface layers
> beneath such plates, which are in a liquid state.
>
> Since stone mealts at temperatures above say 1600 °C, we need higher
> temperatur, which allows molten stone.
>
> (otherwise plates cannot float).
>
> since the upper mantle is only 300°C hot, we would need a lot of extra
> space, in which the interior of the Earth gets hot enough to melt stone.
>
> That could be the case below the upper mantle.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_mantle
>
>
> "Temperatures range from approximately 500 K (227 °C; 440 °F) at the
> upper boundary with the crust to approximately 4,200 K (3,930 °C; 7,100
> °F) at the core-mantle boundary.[12] The highest temperature of the
> upper mantle is 1,200 K (930 °C; 1,700 °F).[13] Although the high
> temperature far exceeds the melting points of the mantle rocks at the
> surface, the mantle is almost exclusively solid.[14]"
>
> Don't know, when exactly rock gets molten, but it seems to be well below
> the continental crust.
>
> If so: how could plates move at all (supposed plate tectonics would be
> correct)?


Consider ice floes in the Arctic. They do move around. A great deal more
than tectonic plates but then they are not packed that tightly.
>
>
>
> TH

--

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

#893641

Frombertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor)
Date2025-06-28 23:15 +0000
Message-ID<660a8f908d7b07b03f1175060ced6ef0@www.novabbs.org>
In reply to#892953
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:03:22 +0000, bertitaylor 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
>
> --

When a nascent hydrogen ion or proton meets an electron coming at or
near it, one of three things must happen.

The electron can go past it if the speed or angle was too much.

The electron can orbit the proton forming a hydrogen atom.

The electron and proton can meet in tight union and form a neutron.

WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#893642

FromJim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
Date2025-06-28 17:54 -0700
Message-ID<jff6jl-9pmv.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
In reply to#893641
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:03:22 +0000, bertitaylor 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
>>
>> --
> 
> When a nascent hydrogen ion or proton meets an electron coming at or
> near it, one of three things must happen.

How would the proton be nascent?

What difference would it make if the proton were 5 billion years old
versus 5 nanoseconds old?

> 
> The electron can go past it if the speed or angle was too much.

Yes.

> 
> The electron can orbit the proton forming a hydrogen atom.

Yes.

> The electron and proton can meet in tight union and form a neutron.

Nope, free protons are stable and don't turn into neutrons. Beta plus
decay is a type of radioactive decay where a proton in a NUCLEUS is
converted into a neutron, a positron and a neutrino.

> 
> WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> --

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#893654

Frombertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor)
Date2025-06-29 04:37 +0000
Message-ID<ebf6321570ea0c824351d8d4c63a23b2@www.novabbs.org>
In reply to#893642
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 0:54:45 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:03:22 +0000, bertitaylor 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
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> When a nascent hydrogen ion or proton meets an electron coming at or
>> near it, one of three things must happen.
>
> How would the proton be nascent?
>
> What difference would it make if the proton were 5 billion years old
> versus 5 nanoseconds old?
>
>>
>> The electron can go past it if the speed or angle was too much.
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> The electron can orbit the proton forming a hydrogen atom.
>
> Yes.
>
>> The electron and proton can meet in tight union and form a neutron.
>
> Nope, free protons are stable and don't turn into neutrons. Beta plus
> decay is a type of radioactive decay where a proton in a NUCLEUS is
> converted into a neutron, a positron and a neutrino.

Rubbish, beta ray is electron coming out from a radioactive nucleus.


Neutrinos and positrons are lies too. Made up to protect the evil and
wrong law of conservation of energy.

(Checked the above about beta ray from a textbook on nuclear physics)

What liars these Einsteinian rogues be!

Woof woof

Bertietaylor
>
>>
>> WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> --

--

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

#893660

FromJim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
Date2025-06-29 07:18 -0700
Message-ID<0iu7jl-m3h11.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
In reply to#893654
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 0:54:45 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:03:22 +0000, bertitaylor 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
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> When a nascent hydrogen ion or proton meets an electron coming at or
>>> near it, one of three things must happen.
>>
>> How would the proton be nascent?
>>
>> What difference would it make if the proton were 5 billion years old
>> versus 5 nanoseconds old?
>>
>>>
>>> The electron can go past it if the speed or angle was too much.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> The electron can orbit the proton forming a hydrogen atom.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> The electron and proton can meet in tight union and form a neutron.
>>
>> Nope, free protons are stable and don't turn into neutrons. Beta plus
>> decay is a type of radioactive decay where a proton in a NUCLEUS is
>> converted into a neutron, a positron and a neutrino.
> 
> Rubbish, beta ray is electron coming out from a radioactive nucleus.

True, but beta plus decay is a process, not a partical, crackpot.

https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsbeta-decay

> Neutrinos and positrons are lies too. Made up to protect the evil and
> wrong law of conservation of energy.

Yet everyone on the planet that has studied such with real experiments
has observed them for a long time, crackpot.

Positrons, for example, were first observed by Carl Anderson in 1932.

> 
> (Checked the above about beta ray from a textbook on nuclear physics)

Do you understand that "beta ray" refers to a partical and that "beta
decay" refers to a process, crackpot?

> 
> What liars these Einsteinian rogues be!

What an ignorant, delusional crackpot Arindam is!

> 
> Woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#893666

FromWilliam Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
Date2025-06-29 15:45 -0400
Message-ID<103s55m$1mj4p$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#893642
Jim Pennino wrote:
> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:03:22 +0000, bertitaylor 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
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> When a nascent hydrogen ion or proton meets an electron coming at or
>> near it, one of three things must happen.
> 
> How would the proton be nascent?
> 
> What difference would it make if the proton were 5 billion years old
> versus 5 nanoseconds old?
> 
>>
>> The electron can go past it if the speed or angle was too much.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>
>> The electron can orbit the proton forming a hydrogen atom.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> The electron and proton can meet in tight union and form a neutron.
> 
> Nope, free protons are stable and don't turn into neutrons. Beta plus
> decay is a type of radioactive decay where a proton in a NUCLEUS is
> converted into a neutron, a positron and a neutrino.

I admit that for a second I wondered if a neutron could not be formed 
that way.

But, of course, to turn a proton into a neutron an up quark must be 
changed to a down quark, and  that involves the strong nuclear force, 
which the electron does not have at all.

Hence the fact that this can only occur in a nucleus, where the strong 
force is present.

I actually learned something in sci.physics!  That takes me back ...


William Hyde

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

#893673

FromWilliam Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
Date2025-06-29 18:51 -0400
Message-ID<103sg2s$1oqci$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#893666
Stefan Ram wrote:
> William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
>> But, of course, to turn a proton into a neutron an up quark must be
>> changed to a down quark, and  that involves the strong nuclear force,
>> which the electron does not have at all.
> 
>    This quark flavor change is actually a beta decay, a consequence of
>    the /weak force/.

Oops, you are correct.
> 
>> Hence the fact that this can only occur in a nucleus, where the strong
>> force is present.
> 
>    The mass of a proton is slightly less than that of a neutron, so a
>    free proton cannot change into a neutron when no energy is supplied.

True, but one would think that a very fast electron could supply the energy.

Still, I've been unable to find any observations of free protons 
becoming neutrons + anti-neutrino on collision with a fast electron.

I've also been unable to find an authority that rules out such 
transitions, and alas my library is very weak as far as particle physics 
is concerned.

Today I learned something, then I unlearned it.

Even more typical!

William Hyde

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

#893677

Frombertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor)
Date2025-06-29 23:40 +0000
Message-ID<e96af868a080db302093418cdbeb15c5@www.novabbs.org>
In reply to#893666
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 19:45:47 +0000, William Hyde wrote:

> Jim Pennino wrote:
>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:03:22 +0000, bertitaylor 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
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> When a nascent hydrogen ion or proton meets an electron coming at or
>>> near it, one of three things must happen.
>>
>> How would the proton be nascent?
>>
>> What difference would it make if the proton were 5 billion years old
>> versus 5 nanoseconds old?
>>
>>>
>>> The electron can go past it if the speed or angle was too much.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> The electron can orbit the proton forming a hydrogen atom.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> The electron and proton can meet in tight union and form a neutron.
>>
>> Nope, free protons are stable and don't turn into neutrons. Beta plus
>> decay is a type of radioactive decay where a proton in a NUCLEUS is
>> converted into a neutron, a positron and a neutrino.

No in beta decay an electron is emitted just as in alpha decay a helium
nucleus is emitted.
>
> I admit that for a second I wondered if a neutron could not be formed
> that way.

A neutron is an electron-proton pair, very very tight. The electron
there can attract other protons making it a deuterium nucleus.
>
> But, of course, to turn a proton into a neutron an up quark must be
> changed to a down quark,

Quack-quack. At some stage imagination becomes reality following
Einsteinian paradigms.

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

and  that involves the strong nuclear force,
> which the electron does not have at all.
>
> Hence the fact that this can only occur in a nucleus, where the strong
> force is present.
>
> I actually learned something in sci.physics!  That takes me back ...
>
>
> William Hyde

--

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

Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web