Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672953 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-09-07 16:06 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-09-10 23:58 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 16:06 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-07 16:12 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 16:30 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-09 12:12 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:35 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-10 11:18 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 17:52 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 12:09 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 00:11 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 19:20 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 21:02 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 16:11 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-12 00:44 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-11 11:26 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-11 11:02 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 07:37 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 21:05 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-12 13:05 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 07:41 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 07:48 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 08:25 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 23:12 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 18:16 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 18:35 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 16:01 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:21 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 17:14 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:24 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 00:03 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 17:22 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 05:21 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-14 11:43 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 08:52 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:25 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:45 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-12 12:59 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-12 13:04 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 23:28 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-14 11:41 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 16:05 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:24 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 17:18 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:29 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:53 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:49 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:48 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-15 12:07 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 23:25 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-16 10:48 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-14 11:43 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 16:14 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-13 10:18 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 07:30 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 09:45 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-11 22:10 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 16:13 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-12 00:46 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-29 10:56 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-29 15:12 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-02 20:46 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-30 09:43 +0000
Speed of light (was: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-09 04:03 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-09 12:06 +0300
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:39 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-09 16:44 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-09 17:12 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 18:19 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-11 08:45 -0700
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-09 11:31 +0200
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:43 +0000
Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-10 23:58 +0200
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 08:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0vicnTl9NPJi8zj3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673165 |
On 09/12/2026 07:48 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/12/2026 07:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 09/12/2026 03:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 12/09/2026 00:05, HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:26:37 +0300, Mikko wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/09/2026 20:52, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 11:18:43 +0300, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/09/2026 02:35, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:12:25 +0300, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> They say that the speed of light is independent of its source (if >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> is any, they don't say that light always has a source). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > That would have conflicted with Aether theories so Maxwell >>>>>>> would> >>>>>>> have been rather mystified. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fortunately nothing that was known at that time conflicts with >>>>>>> aether >>>>>>> theory >>>>>> >>>>>> That is probably correct. The whole of physics was based on its >>>>>> existence. >>>>>> That's why Einstein's theory was snapped up after the MMX proved >>>>>> there >>>>>> was no Aether. >>>>> >>>>> Michelson-Morley experiment did not prove that there is no aether. It >>>>> only proved that something was not understood. Lorentz and other could >>>>> explain the result assuming that there is an ether. But Poincaré and >>>>> Einstein observed that the the same can be explained with alnost the >>>>> same explanation without any aether. >>>> >>>> Yes, it is called magic. >>> >>> It usually isn't, though sometimes moving a body without touching it >>> (as can be dome with an electromagnetic field) has been called "magic". >>> >>>>>> Einstein's mathematical skullduggery saved a lot of damaged >>>>>> reputations. >>>>> >>>>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the >>>>> presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical >>>>> theories. >>> >>>> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical situations...but >>>> goes terribly wrong in others. >>> >>> Special relativity does not work in situations where gravity matters. >>> General relativity does. There is no observation that shows that >>> general relativity is wrong. There are problems with quantum gravity >>> but there are no observations about situations where quantum gravity >>> woutld really make a difference. >>> >> >> Actually since one way of defining "quantum gravity" is a fall gravity >> where the atom is the real graviton, then among super-symmetric accounts >> of Higgs and Little Higgs as gravitons, then the fall gravity >> is the same force as the strong nuclear force, anyways Higgs-ians >> and the hadron-physics are not the only game in town, and a usual >> account of a theory of gravity that's not constantly violating >> conservation of energy everywhere has it that "gravity, the force" >> isn't present in either GR or QM since without it being a fall gravity >> and unified with the strong nuclear force it's a constant violation >> of the conservation of energy everywhere. >> >> GR and QM disagree about 120 orders of decimal magnitude, for >> example the "function freedom" accounts, then that the account >> of "asymptotic freedom" then makes for unifying the fall-gravity >> and the strong nuclear force and where the atom is the real graviton. >> >> >> > > Einstein's way of saying that GR doesn't intend to constantly violate > conservation of energy everywhere is calling it an "inertial-system", > which is a good idea since then the massy bodies being inert aren't > constantly violating conservation of energy everywhere, then though > his account of the geodesy as "follow-gravity" after Newton's > "pull-gravity" does not have an account of the mechanism of what makes the > geodesy, only that it's always straight-down and always instantaneously > evaluated everywhere, and is Newtonian in the limit, that accounts of > gravity that aren't a "fall-gravity" a bit un-like Fatio/LeSage's > account of "push-gravity" are constantly violating conservation of > energy everywhere. > > The "fall gravity" is not dissimilar to accounts of "shadow gravity" also known as "umbral gravity", and it sometimes is under accounts of "super-gravity", though that's overloaded since accounts like "fifth force" and so on, not to be confused with "super-force". Anyways a true "fall-gravity" is about the only way for the Mach-ian and so on, that the usual account of Lagrange that the classical and potential forces simply sum to equate to zero and calling that conservation of energy doesn't explain what makes those in the first place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-13 23:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d5044d8f41be22$18938$1943410$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673166 |
On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:25:09 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/12/2026 07:48 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>> >>> GR and QM disagree about 120 orders of decimal magnitude, for example >>> the "function freedom" accounts, then that the account of "asymptotic >>> freedom" then makes for unifying the fall-gravity and the strong >>> nuclear force and where the atom is the real graviton. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Einstein's way of saying that GR doesn't intend to constantly violate >> conservation of energy everywhere is calling it an "inertial-system", >> which is a good idea since then the massy bodies being inert aren't >> constantly violating conservation of energy everywhere, then though his >> account of the geodesy as "follow-gravity" after Newton's >> "pull-gravity" does not have an account of the mechanism of what makes >> the geodesy, only that it's always straight-down and always >> instantaneously evaluated everywhere, and is Newtonian in the limit, >> that accounts of gravity that aren't a "fall-gravity" a bit un-like >> Fatio/LeSage's account of "push-gravity" are constantly violating >> conservation of energy everywhere. >> >> >> > The "fall gravity" is not dissimilar to accounts of "shadow gravity" > also known as "umbral gravity", and it sometimes is under accounts of > "super-gravity", though that's overloaded since accounts like "fifth > force" and so on, not to be confused with "super-force". > > > Anyways a true "fall-gravity" is about the only way for the Mach-ian and > so on, that the usual account of Lagrange that the classical and > potential forces simply sum to equate to zero and calling that > conservation of energy doesn't explain what makes those in the first > place. How does Einstein's GR explain the huge pull-force that exists between two Neodymium bar magnets? His whole 'constant c spacetime' concept is just a nonsensical way of redefining the problem. It is ridiculously complicated, achieves nothing..and ends up with an error of 2. Physics is still in its infancy...and Einstein has delayed its advancement. It has no idea how any force is derived.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-13 18:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8CednZ2p3sjO1jr3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673233 |
On 09/13/2026 04:12 PM, HenryWilson wrote: > On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:25:09 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On 09/12/2026 07:48 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >>>> >>>> GR and QM disagree about 120 orders of decimal magnitude, for example >>>> the "function freedom" accounts, then that the account of "asymptotic >>>> freedom" then makes for unifying the fall-gravity and the strong >>>> nuclear force and where the atom is the real graviton. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Einstein's way of saying that GR doesn't intend to constantly violate >>> conservation of energy everywhere is calling it an "inertial-system", >>> which is a good idea since then the massy bodies being inert aren't >>> constantly violating conservation of energy everywhere, then though his >>> account of the geodesy as "follow-gravity" after Newton's >>> "pull-gravity" does not have an account of the mechanism of what makes >>> the geodesy, only that it's always straight-down and always >>> instantaneously evaluated everywhere, and is Newtonian in the limit, >>> that accounts of gravity that aren't a "fall-gravity" a bit un-like >>> Fatio/LeSage's account of "push-gravity" are constantly violating >>> conservation of energy everywhere. >>> >>> >>> >> The "fall gravity" is not dissimilar to accounts of "shadow gravity" >> also known as "umbral gravity", and it sometimes is under accounts of >> "super-gravity", though that's overloaded since accounts like "fifth >> force" and so on, not to be confused with "super-force". >> >> >> Anyways a true "fall-gravity" is about the only way for the Mach-ian and >> so on, that the usual account of Lagrange that the classical and >> potential forces simply sum to equate to zero and calling that >> conservation of energy doesn't explain what makes those in the first >> place. > > How does Einstein's GR explain the huge pull-force that exists between two > Neodymium bar magnets? > His whole 'constant c spacetime' concept is just a nonsensical way of > redefining the problem. It is ridiculously complicated, achieves > nothing..and ends up with an error of 2. > Physics is still in its infancy...and Einstein has delayed its > advancement. It has no idea how any force is derived. > Permament magnets are usually due being put in a magnetic field when in liquid form then solidified as magnetized. Then, the magnetic configuration is just an extension of their physical configuration. Melt the magnet and it goes away. The neodymium just has particular properties that makes it strong with small magnets, about actinides and lanthanides and usually enough just the theory of magnetic moments. Whether "magnetic monopoles don't exist" or "magnetic monopoles exist" about skyrmions & spintronics has that skyrmions are theoretical particles in theories still being developed today and spintronics are active effects being actively developed today. Then, about metals and conductors and magnets, you can find various accounts about the behavior of constituent matter in metals like "one big atom" and so on. Then, look to things like Sandia's Z-Pinch if you want to know some more about it, or for example Bayliss' Electrodynamics a geometric algebra approach, anyways permanent magnets are simply due materials the conditions their configuration. Anyways, here for "gravity" to not be "constant violation of conservation of energy" everywhere all the time, it's a fall-gravity, then for that to be an "inertial-system" not a "perpetual-motion-machine".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-13 18:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <boCcnR2MC8cf0jr3nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673240 |
On 09/13/2026 06:16 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/13/2026 04:12 PM, HenryWilson wrote: >> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:25:09 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >>> On 09/12/2026 07:48 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> GR and QM disagree about 120 orders of decimal magnitude, for example >>>>> the "function freedom" accounts, then that the account of "asymptotic >>>>> freedom" then makes for unifying the fall-gravity and the strong >>>>> nuclear force and where the atom is the real graviton. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Einstein's way of saying that GR doesn't intend to constantly violate >>>> conservation of energy everywhere is calling it an "inertial-system", >>>> which is a good idea since then the massy bodies being inert aren't >>>> constantly violating conservation of energy everywhere, then though his >>>> account of the geodesy as "follow-gravity" after Newton's >>>> "pull-gravity" does not have an account of the mechanism of what makes >>>> the geodesy, only that it's always straight-down and always >>>> instantaneously evaluated everywhere, and is Newtonian in the limit, >>>> that accounts of gravity that aren't a "fall-gravity" a bit un-like >>>> Fatio/LeSage's account of "push-gravity" are constantly violating >>>> conservation of energy everywhere. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> The "fall gravity" is not dissimilar to accounts of "shadow gravity" >>> also known as "umbral gravity", and it sometimes is under accounts of >>> "super-gravity", though that's overloaded since accounts like "fifth >>> force" and so on, not to be confused with "super-force". >>> >>> >>> Anyways a true "fall-gravity" is about the only way for the Mach-ian and >>> so on, that the usual account of Lagrange that the classical and >>> potential forces simply sum to equate to zero and calling that >>> conservation of energy doesn't explain what makes those in the first >>> place. >> >> How does Einstein's GR explain the huge pull-force that exists between >> two >> Neodymium bar magnets? >> His whole 'constant c spacetime' concept is just a nonsensical way of >> redefining the problem. It is ridiculously complicated, achieves >> nothing..and ends up with an error of 2. >> Physics is still in its infancy...and Einstein has delayed its >> advancement. It has no idea how any force is derived. >> > > Permament magnets are usually due being put in a magnetic field > when in liquid form then solidified as magnetized. > > Then, the magnetic configuration is just an extension of their > physical configuration. Melt the magnet and it goes away. > > The neodymium just has particular properties that makes it strong > with small magnets, about actinides and lanthanides and usually > enough just the theory of magnetic moments. > > Whether "magnetic monopoles don't exist" or "magnetic monopoles > exist" about skyrmions & spintronics has that skyrmions are theoretical > particles in theories still being developed today and spintronics are > active effects being actively developed today. > > > Then, about metals and conductors and magnets, you can find various > accounts about the behavior of constituent matter in metals like > "one big atom" and so on. > > Then, look to things like Sandia's Z-Pinch if you want to know some > more about it, or for example Bayliss' Electrodynamics a geometric > algebra approach, anyways permanent magnets are simply due materials > the conditions their configuration. > > > > Anyways, here for "gravity" to not be "constant violation of > conservation of energy" everywhere all the time, it's a fall-gravity, > then for that to be an "inertial-system" not a "perpetual-motion-machine". > > If you've heard of nucleonics as an entirely different account of nuclear theory than today's often promoted Higgsian hadron theory, it has its own sort of chart of the elements. Then, about Maxwell laws and "the" lettered electrical and magnetic fields variously whether those are E x B or D x H, most people only having heard of one of those then sometimes a third letter when in the derivations the field-lines of the vector-fields their crossings run out, since the nineteenth century there's a whole alphabet of lettered fields of electromagnetism, about ferro- and ferro- and para- and dia- and the anti-'s of each of those, magnetism, most of which are "potential" fields vis-a-vis "classical" fields, which in "potentialistic" theories are the "real" fields. These then are matters of materials in configuration, where, for example, "permanent" magnets can be de-magnetized by melting them or hitting them with a hammer or otherwise adjusting their material configuration. Maxwell one can note says that actually either of E x B or D x H is in effect, though one has to be called "virtual" or "fictitious" the other, that much like Lagrange for the "energy" and "potential energy" or the "centripetal" and "centrifugal", the "fictitious forces" are plenty real.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-14 16:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d53b5cc8e9aafe$11657$1766332$4026de73@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673241 |
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 18:35:40 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/13/2026 06:16 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 09/13/2026 04:12 PM, HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:25:09 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> >>>> On 09/12/2026 07:48 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> GR and QM disagree about 120 orders of decimal magnitude, for >>>>>> example the "function freedom" accounts, then that the account of >>>>>> "asymptotic freedom" then makes for unifying the fall-gravity and >>>>>> the strong nuclear force and where the atom is the real graviton. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Einstein's way of saying that GR doesn't intend to constantly >>>>> violate conservation of energy everywhere is calling it an >>>>> "inertial-system", which is a good idea since then the massy bodies >>>>> being inert aren't constantly violating conservation of energy >>>>> everywhere, then though his account of the geodesy as >>>>> "follow-gravity" after Newton's "pull-gravity" does not have an >>>>> account of the mechanism of what makes the geodesy, only that it's >>>>> always straight-down and always instantaneously evaluated >>>>> everywhere, and is Newtonian in the limit, that accounts of gravity >>>>> that aren't a "fall-gravity" a bit un-like Fatio/LeSage's account of >>>>> "push-gravity" are constantly violating conservation of energy >>>>> everywhere. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The "fall gravity" is not dissimilar to accounts of "shadow gravity" >>>> also known as "umbral gravity", and it sometimes is under accounts of >>>> "super-gravity", though that's overloaded since accounts like "fifth >>>> force" and so on, not to be confused with "super-force". >>>> >>>> >>>> Anyways a true "fall-gravity" is about the only way for the Mach-ian >>>> and so on, that the usual account of Lagrange that the classical and >>>> potential forces simply sum to equate to zero and calling that >>>> conservation of energy doesn't explain what makes those in the first >>>> place. >>> >>> How does Einstein's GR explain the huge pull-force that exists between >>> two Neodymium bar magnets? >>> His whole 'constant c spacetime' concept is just a nonsensical way of >>> redefining the problem. It is ridiculously complicated, achieves >>> nothing..and ends up with an error of 2. >>> Physics is still in its infancy...and Einstein has delayed its >>> advancement. It has no idea how any force is derived. >>> >>> >> Permament magnets are usually due being put in a magnetic field when in >> liquid form then solidified as magnetized. >> >> Then, the magnetic configuration is just an extension of their physical >> configuration. Melt the magnet and it goes away. >> >> The neodymium just has particular properties that makes it strong with >> small magnets, about actinides and lanthanides and usually enough just >> the theory of magnetic moments. >> >> Whether "magnetic monopoles don't exist" or "magnetic monopoles exist" >> about skyrmions & spintronics has that skyrmions are theoretical >> particles in theories still being developed today and spintronics are >> active effects being actively developed today. >> >> >> Then, about metals and conductors and magnets, you can find various >> accounts about the behavior of constituent matter in metals like "one >> big atom" and so on. >> >> Then, look to things like Sandia's Z-Pinch if you want to know some >> more about it, or for example Bayliss' Electrodynamics a geometric >> algebra approach, anyways permanent magnets are simply due materials >> the conditions their configuration. >> >> >> >> Anyways, here for "gravity" to not be "constant violation of >> conservation of energy" everywhere all the time, it's a fall-gravity, >> then for that to be an "inertial-system" not a >> "perpetual-motion-machine". >> >> >> > If you've heard of nucleonics as an entirely different account of > nuclear theory than today's often promoted Higgsian hadron theory, > it has its own sort of chart of the elements. > > Then, about Maxwell laws and "the" lettered electrical and magnetic > fields variously whether those are E x B or D x H, most people only > having heard of one of those then sometimes a third letter when in the > derivations the field-lines of the vector-fields their crossings run > out, since the nineteenth century there's a whole alphabet of lettered > fields of electromagnetism, about ferro- and ferro- and para- > and dia- and the anti-'s of each of those, magnetism, most of which are > "potential" fields vis-a-vis "classical" fields, which in > "potentialistic" theories are the "real" fields. > > These then are matters of materials in configuration, where, for > example, "permanent" magnets can be de-magnetized by melting them or > hitting them with a hammer or otherwise adjusting their material > configuration. > > > Maxwell one can note says that actually either of E x B or D x H is in > effect, though one has to be called "virtual" or "fictitious" the other, > that much like Lagrange for the "energy" and "potential energy" > or the "centripetal" and "centrifugal", the "fictitious forces" are > plenty real. You just typed 398 words, 2496 characters including spaces just to show that you cannot answer the question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-14 09:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f_adnRVdMpWUgjX3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673261 |
On 09/14/2026 09:01 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 18:35:40 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On 09/13/2026 06:16 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 09/13/2026 04:12 PM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:25:09 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 09/12/2026 07:48 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> GR and QM disagree about 120 orders of decimal magnitude, for >>>>>>> example the "function freedom" accounts, then that the account of >>>>>>> "asymptotic freedom" then makes for unifying the fall-gravity and >>>>>>> the strong nuclear force and where the atom is the real graviton. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Einstein's way of saying that GR doesn't intend to constantly >>>>>> violate conservation of energy everywhere is calling it an >>>>>> "inertial-system", which is a good idea since then the massy bodies >>>>>> being inert aren't constantly violating conservation of energy >>>>>> everywhere, then though his account of the geodesy as >>>>>> "follow-gravity" after Newton's "pull-gravity" does not have an >>>>>> account of the mechanism of what makes the geodesy, only that it's >>>>>> always straight-down and always instantaneously evaluated >>>>>> everywhere, and is Newtonian in the limit, that accounts of gravity >>>>>> that aren't a "fall-gravity" a bit un-like Fatio/LeSage's account of >>>>>> "push-gravity" are constantly violating conservation of energy >>>>>> everywhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The "fall gravity" is not dissimilar to accounts of "shadow gravity" >>>>> also known as "umbral gravity", and it sometimes is under accounts of >>>>> "super-gravity", though that's overloaded since accounts like "fifth >>>>> force" and so on, not to be confused with "super-force". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anyways a true "fall-gravity" is about the only way for the Mach-ian >>>>> and so on, that the usual account of Lagrange that the classical and >>>>> potential forces simply sum to equate to zero and calling that >>>>> conservation of energy doesn't explain what makes those in the first >>>>> place. >>>> >>>> How does Einstein's GR explain the huge pull-force that exists between >>>> two Neodymium bar magnets? >>>> His whole 'constant c spacetime' concept is just a nonsensical way of >>>> redefining the problem. It is ridiculously complicated, achieves >>>> nothing..and ends up with an error of 2. >>>> Physics is still in its infancy...and Einstein has delayed its >>>> advancement. It has no idea how any force is derived. >>>> >>>> >>> Permament magnets are usually due being put in a magnetic field when in >>> liquid form then solidified as magnetized. >>> >>> Then, the magnetic configuration is just an extension of their physical >>> configuration. Melt the magnet and it goes away. >>> >>> The neodymium just has particular properties that makes it strong with >>> small magnets, about actinides and lanthanides and usually enough just >>> the theory of magnetic moments. >>> >>> Whether "magnetic monopoles don't exist" or "magnetic monopoles exist" >>> about skyrmions & spintronics has that skyrmions are theoretical >>> particles in theories still being developed today and spintronics are >>> active effects being actively developed today. >>> >>> >>> Then, about metals and conductors and magnets, you can find various >>> accounts about the behavior of constituent matter in metals like "one >>> big atom" and so on. >>> >>> Then, look to things like Sandia's Z-Pinch if you want to know some >>> more about it, or for example Bayliss' Electrodynamics a geometric >>> algebra approach, anyways permanent magnets are simply due materials >>> the conditions their configuration. >>> >>> >>> >>> Anyways, here for "gravity" to not be "constant violation of >>> conservation of energy" everywhere all the time, it's a fall-gravity, >>> then for that to be an "inertial-system" not a >>> "perpetual-motion-machine". >>> >>> >>> >> If you've heard of nucleonics as an entirely different account of >> nuclear theory than today's often promoted Higgsian hadron theory, >> it has its own sort of chart of the elements. >> >> Then, about Maxwell laws and "the" lettered electrical and magnetic >> fields variously whether those are E x B or D x H, most people only >> having heard of one of those then sometimes a third letter when in the >> derivations the field-lines of the vector-fields their crossings run >> out, since the nineteenth century there's a whole alphabet of lettered >> fields of electromagnetism, about ferro- and ferro- and para- >> and dia- and the anti-'s of each of those, magnetism, most of which are >> "potential" fields vis-a-vis "classical" fields, which in >> "potentialistic" theories are the "real" fields. >> >> These then are matters of materials in configuration, where, for >> example, "permanent" magnets can be de-magnetized by melting them or >> hitting them with a hammer or otherwise adjusting their material >> configuration. >> >> >> Maxwell one can note says that actually either of E x B or D x H is in >> effect, though one has to be called "virtual" or "fictitious" the other, >> that much like Lagrange for the "energy" and "potential energy" >> or the "centripetal" and "centrifugal", the "fictitious forces" are >> plenty real. > > You just typed 398 words, 2496 characters including spaces just to show > that you cannot answer the question. > Well, you have to remember again that since O.W. Richardson put it "there are at least three constants 'c': light's, electrostatic's, and electrodynamics'", then as with regards to Coulomb giving the inverse-square attraction/repulsion of unlike/like charge, then that magnetism is always involved with the kinetic and kinematic and configurations of matter according to Einstein's "material points and rigid rods", then that accounts of the strengths of various materials their magnetic fields according to configuration are due structural chemistry and material science, and resonance theory, about wave/particle duality, that that's how the question's answerable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-14 17:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d53f5150a01bf6$11663$1766332$4026de73@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673264 |
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:21:06 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/14/2026 09:01 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 18:35:40 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >> You just typed 398 words, 2496 characters including spaces just to show >> that you cannot answer the question. >> >> > Well, you have to remember again that since O.W. Richardson put it > "there are at least three constants 'c': light's, electrostatic's, > and electrodynamics'", then as with regards to Coulomb giving the > inverse-square attraction/repulsion of unlike/like charge, then that > magnetism is always involved with the kinetic and kinematic and > configurations of matter according to Einstein's "material points and > rigid rods", then that accounts of the strengths of various materials > their magnetic fields according to configuration are due structural > chemistry and material science, and resonance theory, > about wave/particle duality, that that's how the question's answerable. More words saying nothing. WHAT FORCE CONTINUALLY PUSHES TWO NEODYMIUM BAR MAGNETS TOGETHER? Why don't you simply say, "we don't know"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-14 10:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <I2ednTFBnfpwsDX3nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673273 |
On 09/14/2026 10:14 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:21:06 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On 09/14/2026 09:01 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 18:35:40 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>> >>> You just typed 398 words, 2496 characters including spaces just to show >>> that you cannot answer the question. >>> >>> >> Well, you have to remember again that since O.W. Richardson put it >> "there are at least three constants 'c': light's, electrostatic's, >> and electrodynamics'", then as with regards to Coulomb giving the >> inverse-square attraction/repulsion of unlike/like charge, then that >> magnetism is always involved with the kinetic and kinematic and >> configurations of matter according to Einstein's "material points and >> rigid rods", then that accounts of the strengths of various materials >> their magnetic fields according to configuration are due structural >> chemistry and material science, and resonance theory, >> about wave/particle duality, that that's how the question's answerable. > > More words saying nothing. WHAT FORCE CONTINUALLY PUSHES TWO NEODYMIUM BAR > MAGNETS TOGETHER? > > Why don't you simply say, "we don't know"? > Don't you even know what "science" is? "Science" never "knows" something, only "isn't invalidated", just like "statistics". You can know theories, subject to limitations of definition and implicits, about the deconstructive accounts of what the real sorts of relations in the entire universe of mathematical objects and space of language are, and estimate success of scientific theories by how they're not falsified and moreso how thoroughly they're not falsified under configurations of energy & experiment in the entelechy the empirical, you can "know" "facts", those are beliefs. Usually an account is that potentials make sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials then that potentials make least-action least-gradient then that equilibrium is always both at equilibrium and seeking equilibrium. Hm, have you ever heard of Leinard-Wiechert? (Or Lienerd or Lienard if I've mis-spelled it.) That's usually given as the utterly fundamental explanation of what makes laws of electrical current in RLC circuits, while there are others, for example alternative derivations of Leinard-Wiechert or about Fermi-holes instead of electron-holes about test-charges in solid-state physics, which are basically governed by their own fields and units their theories, among empirical configurations of energy & experiment in the space the entelechy the configuration space of all the energy or otherwise the putative quantity of things, has that since LaGrange everybody "knows" that it's overall a potentialistic setting that causality governs. So, in a _potentialistic_ setting instead of a _pull/push_ setting, magnets _fall_ together, naturally, since the potential fields are the real fields.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-15 00:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d555af6b635563$19790$1943410$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673275 |
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 10:24:18 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/14/2026 10:14 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:21:06 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >>> On 09/14/2026 09:01 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 18:35:40 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >> >>>> You just typed 398 words, 2496 characters including spaces just to >>>> show that you cannot answer the question. >>>> >>>> >>> Well, you have to remember again that since O.W. Richardson put it >>> "there are at least three constants 'c': light's, electrostatic's, >>> and electrodynamics'", then as with regards to Coulomb giving the >>> inverse-square attraction/repulsion of unlike/like charge, then that >>> magnetism is always involved with the kinetic and kinematic and >>> configurations of matter according to Einstein's "material points and >>> rigid rods", then that accounts of the strengths of various materials >>> their magnetic fields according to configuration are due structural >>> chemistry and material science, and resonance theory, >>> about wave/particle duality, that that's how the question's >>> answerable. >> >> More words saying nothing. WHAT FORCE CONTINUALLY PUSHES TWO NEODYMIUM >> BAR MAGNETS TOGETHER? >> >> Why don't you simply say, "we don't know"? >> >> > Don't you even know what "science" is? > > "Science" never "knows" something, only "isn't invalidated", > just like "statistics". Ah! The same old opinion of the philosopher who could never do the maths. Science KNOWS that LIGHTNING in made of ELECTRICITY. Until recently, Philosophers thought the gods Thor and ZEUS were responsible. > You can know theories, subject to limitations of definition and > implicits, about the deconstructive accounts of what the real sorts of > relations in the entire universe of mathematical objects and space of > language are, and estimate success of scientific theories by how they're > not falsified and moreso how thoroughly they're not falsified under > configurations of energy & experiment in the entelechy the empirical, > you can "know" "facts", those are beliefs. > > Usually an account is that potentials make sum-of-histories > sum-of-potentials then that potentials make least-action least-gradient > then that equilibrium is always both at equilibrium and seeking > equilibrium. > > > Hm, have you ever heard of Leinard-Wiechert? (Or Lienerd or Lienard if > I've mis-spelled it.) That's usually given as the utterly fundamental > explanation of what makes laws of electrical current in RLC circuits, > while there are others, for example alternative derivations of > Leinard-Wiechert or about Fermi-holes instead of electron-holes about > test-charges in solid-state physics, > which are basically governed by their own fields and units their > theories, among empirical configurations of energy & experiment in the > space the entelechy the configuration space of all the energy or > otherwise the putative quantity of things, has that since LaGrange > everybody "knows" that it's overall a potentialistic setting that > causality governs. > > > So, in a _potentialistic_ setting instead of a _pull/push_ setting, > magnets _fall_ together, naturally, since the potential fields are the > real fields. Words, words...meaningful to some, I suppose...and beautifully presented. My interpretation is that you are resorting to Murphy's second law to describe causality, "If something can happen, it will!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-14 17:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <Y62cnSIb7bxJEjX3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673292 |
On 09/14/2026 05:03 PM, HenryWilson wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 10:24:18 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On 09/14/2026 10:14 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:21:06 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> >>>> On 09/14/2026 09:01 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 18:35:40 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> You just typed 398 words, 2496 characters including spaces just to >>>>> show that you cannot answer the question. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Well, you have to remember again that since O.W. Richardson put it >>>> "there are at least three constants 'c': light's, electrostatic's, >>>> and electrodynamics'", then as with regards to Coulomb giving the >>>> inverse-square attraction/repulsion of unlike/like charge, then that >>>> magnetism is always involved with the kinetic and kinematic and >>>> configurations of matter according to Einstein's "material points and >>>> rigid rods", then that accounts of the strengths of various materials >>>> their magnetic fields according to configuration are due structural >>>> chemistry and material science, and resonance theory, >>>> about wave/particle duality, that that's how the question's >>>> answerable. >>> >>> More words saying nothing. WHAT FORCE CONTINUALLY PUSHES TWO NEODYMIUM >>> BAR MAGNETS TOGETHER? >>> >>> Why don't you simply say, "we don't know"? >>> >>> >> Don't you even know what "science" is? >> >> "Science" never "knows" something, only "isn't invalidated", >> just like "statistics". > > Ah! The same old opinion of the philosopher who could never do the maths. > Science KNOWS that LIGHTNING in made of ELECTRICITY. Until recently, > Philosophers thought the gods Thor and ZEUS were responsible. > >> You can know theories, subject to limitations of definition and >> implicits, about the deconstructive accounts of what the real sorts of >> relations in the entire universe of mathematical objects and space of >> language are, and estimate success of scientific theories by how they're >> not falsified and moreso how thoroughly they're not falsified under >> configurations of energy & experiment in the entelechy the empirical, >> you can "know" "facts", those are beliefs. >> >> Usually an account is that potentials make sum-of-histories >> sum-of-potentials then that potentials make least-action least-gradient >> then that equilibrium is always both at equilibrium and seeking >> equilibrium. >> >> >> Hm, have you ever heard of Leinard-Wiechert? (Or Lienerd or Lienard if >> I've mis-spelled it.) That's usually given as the utterly fundamental >> explanation of what makes laws of electrical current in RLC circuits, >> while there are others, for example alternative derivations of >> Leinard-Wiechert or about Fermi-holes instead of electron-holes about >> test-charges in solid-state physics, >> which are basically governed by their own fields and units their >> theories, among empirical configurations of energy & experiment in the >> space the entelechy the configuration space of all the energy or >> otherwise the putative quantity of things, has that since LaGrange >> everybody "knows" that it's overall a potentialistic setting that >> causality governs. >> >> >> So, in a _potentialistic_ setting instead of a _pull/push_ setting, >> magnets _fall_ together, naturally, since the potential fields are the >> real fields. > > Words, words...meaningful to some, I suppose...and beautifully presented. > My interpretation is that you are resorting to Murphy's second law to > describe causality, "If something can happen, it will!" > No, the past is history and what's done is done, the future is not yet written. Accounts of free will make for the mental lever what can change macroscopic events. Then, Murphy's law properly stated is "over time: what _can_ go wrong, odds are, _will_ go wrong". Now, that's usually a long time, yet, when mechanizing a system that runs over unboundedly many inputs in a brief time, it will go wrong. s = f(ds)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-15 05:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d5670534cb196b$19795$1943410$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673294 |
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 17:22:22 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/14/2026 05:03 PM, HenryWilson wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 10:24:18 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >>> On 09/14/2026 10:14 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:21:06 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 09/14/2026 09:01 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 18:35:40 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> You just typed 398 words, 2496 characters including spaces just to >>>>>> show that you cannot answer the question. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Well, you have to remember again that since O.W. Richardson put it >>>>> "there are at least three constants 'c': light's, electrostatic's, >>>>> and electrodynamics'", then as with regards to Coulomb giving the >>>>> inverse-square attraction/repulsion of unlike/like charge, then that >>>>> magnetism is always involved with the kinetic and kinematic and >>>>> configurations of matter according to Einstein's "material points >>>>> and rigid rods", then that accounts of the strengths of various >>>>> materials their magnetic fields according to configuration are due >>>>> structural chemistry and material science, and resonance theory, >>>>> about wave/particle duality, that that's how the question's >>>>> answerable. >>>> >>>> More words saying nothing. WHAT FORCE CONTINUALLY PUSHES TWO >>>> NEODYMIUM BAR MAGNETS TOGETHER? >>>> >>>> Why don't you simply say, "we don't know"? >>>> >>>> >>> Don't you even know what "science" is? >>> >>> "Science" never "knows" something, only "isn't invalidated", >>> just like "statistics". >> >> Ah! The same old opinion of the philosopher who could never do the >> maths. >> Science KNOWS that LIGHTNING in made of ELECTRICITY. Until recently, >> Philosophers thought the gods Thor and ZEUS were responsible. >> >>> You can know theories, subject to limitations of definition and >>> implicits, about the deconstructive accounts of what the real sorts of >>> relations in the entire universe of mathematical objects and space of >>> language are, and estimate success of scientific theories by how >>> they're not falsified and moreso how thoroughly they're not falsified >>> under configurations of energy & experiment in the entelechy the >>> empirical, you can "know" "facts", those are beliefs. >>> >>> Usually an account is that potentials make sum-of-histories >>> sum-of-potentials then that potentials make least-action >>> least-gradient then that equilibrium is always both at equilibrium and >>> seeking equilibrium. >>> >>> >>> Hm, have you ever heard of Leinard-Wiechert? (Or Lienerd or Lienard if >>> I've mis-spelled it.) That's usually given as the utterly fundamental >>> explanation of what makes laws of electrical current in RLC circuits, >>> while there are others, for example alternative derivations of >>> Leinard-Wiechert or about Fermi-holes instead of electron-holes about >>> test-charges in solid-state physics, >>> which are basically governed by their own fields and units their >>> theories, among empirical configurations of energy & experiment in the >>> space the entelechy the configuration space of all the energy or >>> otherwise the putative quantity of things, has that since LaGrange >>> everybody "knows" that it's overall a potentialistic setting that >>> causality governs. >>> >>> >>> So, in a _potentialistic_ setting instead of a _pull/push_ setting, >>> magnets _fall_ together, naturally, since the potential fields are the >>> real fields. >> >> Words, words...meaningful to some, I suppose...and beautifully >> presented. >> My interpretation is that you are resorting to Murphy's second law to >> describe causality, "If something can happen, it will!" >> >> > No, the past is history and what's done is done, > the future is not yet written. But Murphy's 2nd law explains why there is life throughout the universe. DNA evolved here for the simple reason that it was possible. .so eventualy it did. It must do the same elsewhere wherever similar conditions prevail. In fact there must be planets out there supporting life that is millions of years ahead of ours. According to Einstein we will never know. According to Newton, when E=mc*2 is turned into projetile energy, we can get to Andromeda at speeds many times greater than c. Remember how Einstein's methodology proved that nothing can travel faster than carrier pigeons. > Accounts of free will make for the mental lever what can change > macroscopic events. That is the interesting point. > Then, Murphy's law properly stated is "over time: > what _can_ go wrong, odds are, _will_ go wrong". Now, that's usually a > long time, yet, when mechanizing a system that runs over unboundedly > many inputs in a brief time, > it will go wrong. i should know. Murphy has been following me around since I was born. > s = f(ds) That could apply to a multitude of things...but I guess you mean the future is determined by variations in the present.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-14 11:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s1f9kb.1qcsjmbp97saoN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #673233 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:25:09 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > On 09/12/2026 07:48 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > >>> > >>> GR and QM disagree about 120 orders of decimal magnitude, for example > >>> the "function freedom" accounts, then that the account of "asymptotic > >>> freedom" then makes for unifying the fall-gravity and the strong > >>> nuclear force and where the atom is the real graviton. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Einstein's way of saying that GR doesn't intend to constantly violate > >> conservation of energy everywhere is calling it an "inertial-system", > >> which is a good idea since then the massy bodies being inert aren't > >> constantly violating conservation of energy everywhere, then though his > >> account of the geodesy as "follow-gravity" after Newton's > >> "pull-gravity" does not have an account of the mechanism of what makes > >> the geodesy, only that it's always straight-down and always > >> instantaneously evaluated everywhere, and is Newtonian in the limit, > >> that accounts of gravity that aren't a "fall-gravity" a bit un-like > >> Fatio/LeSage's account of "push-gravity" are constantly violating > >> conservation of energy everywhere. > >> > >> > >> > > The "fall gravity" is not dissimilar to accounts of "shadow gravity" > > also known as "umbral gravity", and it sometimes is under accounts of > > "super-gravity", though that's overloaded since accounts like "fifth > > force" and so on, not to be confused with "super-force". > > > > > > Anyways a true "fall-gravity" is about the only way for the Mach-ian and > > so on, that the usual account of Lagrange that the classical and > > potential forces simply sum to equate to zero and calling that > > conservation of energy doesn't explain what makes those in the first > > place. > > How does Einstein's GR explain the huge pull-force that exists between two > Neodymium bar magnets? It doesn't, as you should know. You need electromagnetism and a lot of solid state physics for that. > His whole 'constant c spacetime' concept is just a nonsensical way of > redefining the problem. It is ridiculously complicated, achieves > nothing..and ends up with an error of 2. Ah, at last, a verifiable claim. Please enlighten us further, how is this factor of 2 derived, in which particular experiment is this factor of 2 measured? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-14 15:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d53aabff00008f$11656$1766332$4026de73@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673244 |
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:43:53 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >> > >> > Anyways a true "fall-gravity" is about the only way for the Mach-ian >> > and so on, that the usual account of Lagrange that the classical and >> > potential forces simply sum to equate to zero and calling that >> > conservation of energy doesn't explain what makes those in the first >> > place. >> >> How does Einstein's GR explain the huge pull-force that exists between >> two Neodymium bar magnets? > > It doesn't, as you should know. > You need electromagnetism and a lot of solid state physics for that. ...and all it does is explain the MATHS of what forces do. It does not explain their existence. >> His whole 'constant c spacetime' concept is just a nonsensical way of >> redefining the problem. It is ridiculously complicated, achieves >> nothing..and ends up with an error of 2. > > Ah, at last, a verifiable claim. > Please enlighten us further, how is this factor of 2 derived, > in which particular experiment is this factor of 2 measured? Bending of light by the sun...surely you have heard of that. > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-14 08:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) |
| Message-ID | <BwudnTa27Y6rhTX3nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673244 |
On 09/14/2026 02:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:25:09 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >>> On 09/12/2026 07:48 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> GR and QM disagree about 120 orders of decimal magnitude, for example >>>>> the "function freedom" accounts, then that the account of "asymptotic >>>>> freedom" then makes for unifying the fall-gravity and the strong >>>>> nuclear force and where the atom is the real graviton. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Einstein's way of saying that GR doesn't intend to constantly violate >>>> conservation of energy everywhere is calling it an "inertial-system", >>>> which is a good idea since then the massy bodies being inert aren't >>>> constantly violating conservation of energy everywhere, then though his >>>> account of the geodesy as "follow-gravity" after Newton's >>>> "pull-gravity" does not have an account of the mechanism of what makes >>>> the geodesy, only that it's always straight-down and always >>>> instantaneously evaluated everywhere, and is Newtonian in the limit, >>>> that accounts of gravity that aren't a "fall-gravity" a bit un-like >>>> Fatio/LeSage's account of "push-gravity" are constantly violating >>>> conservation of energy everywhere. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> The "fall gravity" is not dissimilar to accounts of "shadow gravity" >>> also known as "umbral gravity", and it sometimes is under accounts of >>> "super-gravity", though that's overloaded since accounts like "fifth >>> force" and so on, not to be confused with "super-force". >>> >>> >>> Anyways a true "fall-gravity" is about the only way for the Mach-ian and >>> so on, that the usual account of Lagrange that the classical and >>> potential forces simply sum to equate to zero and calling that >>> conservation of energy doesn't explain what makes those in the first >>> place. >> >> How does Einstein's GR explain the huge pull-force that exists between two >> Neodymium bar magnets? > > It doesn't, as you should know. > You need electromagnetism and a lot of solid state physics for that. > >> His whole 'constant c spacetime' concept is just a nonsensical way of >> redefining the problem. It is ridiculously complicated, achieves >> nothing..and ends up with an error of 2. > > Ah, at last, a verifiable claim. > Please enlighten us further, how is this factor of 2 derived, > in which particular experiment is this factor of 2 measured? > > Jan > > Euh, "spurious" factors of two abound throughout the stack of derivations that's always given, usually in the a-diabatic and accounts like spring-mass systems. For examples, Hooke's law, Clausius, Arrhenius, and the usual formalisms of Kelvin and Planck, have these scattered about, about factors of 2 (or 1/2) and about pi and pi/2 and 2pi in the case of Planck. These are given since otherwise they don't add up, while usually enough they're considered negligeable, since then what results is the integration over those terms the collection of their infinitude into finite numbers of physics. So, you must've heard of Zeno, about the archer and what's resulting the geometric series which for original accounts of methods of exhaustion gives sums of infinite series, then most people have never heard of "Zeno's moving rows", which give an account of segments in series an infinite sum that adds up to _twice_ the naive account. Then, Vitali the geometer and mathematician is usually given as the reason why there are "non-measurable sets", yet what he does is split the unit magnitude into infinitesimal bits and sum them back to 2 (or, strictly between 1 and 3, in a reductio exactly 2, in 1-dimension). Then Hausdorff after Vitali makes the first account of Vitali-Hausdorff the equi-decomposability of the 3-dimensional ball, that later was taken up by Banach-Tarski in a set-theoretic algebraic approach invoking non-measurable sets to make the more publicized construction of Banach-Tarski, that Vitali-Hausdorff already have one and it's geometrical. The von Neumann account then in the 2-dimensional gives a number of accounts of how these things come and go, about what happens when you split a finite magnitude into infinitely-many like-size pieces then attempt to re-assemble them, So, the "doubling spaces" and "doubling measures" and "halving spaces" and "halving measures" are accounts of non-standard analysis that have been around since Zeno, and patches or "the spurious" about them are present in derivations quite universally. Then, the "pi-ratio" also shows up directly in accounts like Planck's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-14 09:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) |
| Message-ID | <7HqdnWubUs-RvTX3nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673260 |
On 09/14/2026 08:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/14/2026 02:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:25:09 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> >>>> On 09/12/2026 07:48 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> GR and QM disagree about 120 orders of decimal magnitude, for example >>>>>> the "function freedom" accounts, then that the account of "asymptotic >>>>>> freedom" then makes for unifying the fall-gravity and the strong >>>>>> nuclear force and where the atom is the real graviton. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Einstein's way of saying that GR doesn't intend to constantly violate >>>>> conservation of energy everywhere is calling it an "inertial-system", >>>>> which is a good idea since then the massy bodies being inert aren't >>>>> constantly violating conservation of energy everywhere, then though >>>>> his >>>>> account of the geodesy as "follow-gravity" after Newton's >>>>> "pull-gravity" does not have an account of the mechanism of what makes >>>>> the geodesy, only that it's always straight-down and always >>>>> instantaneously evaluated everywhere, and is Newtonian in the limit, >>>>> that accounts of gravity that aren't a "fall-gravity" a bit un-like >>>>> Fatio/LeSage's account of "push-gravity" are constantly violating >>>>> conservation of energy everywhere. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The "fall gravity" is not dissimilar to accounts of "shadow gravity" >>>> also known as "umbral gravity", and it sometimes is under accounts of >>>> "super-gravity", though that's overloaded since accounts like "fifth >>>> force" and so on, not to be confused with "super-force". >>>> >>>> >>>> Anyways a true "fall-gravity" is about the only way for the Mach-ian >>>> and >>>> so on, that the usual account of Lagrange that the classical and >>>> potential forces simply sum to equate to zero and calling that >>>> conservation of energy doesn't explain what makes those in the first >>>> place. >>> >>> How does Einstein's GR explain the huge pull-force that exists >>> between two >>> Neodymium bar magnets? >> >> It doesn't, as you should know. >> You need electromagnetism and a lot of solid state physics for that. >> >>> His whole 'constant c spacetime' concept is just a nonsensical way of >>> redefining the problem. It is ridiculously complicated, achieves >>> nothing..and ends up with an error of 2. >> >> Ah, at last, a verifiable claim. >> Please enlighten us further, how is this factor of 2 derived, >> in which particular experiment is this factor of 2 measured? >> >> Jan >> >> > > > Euh, "spurious" factors of two abound throughout the stack of > derivations that's always given, usually in the a-diabatic > and accounts like spring-mass systems. > > For examples, Hooke's law, Clausius, Arrhenius, and the usual > formalisms of Kelvin and Planck, have these scattered about, > about factors of 2 (or 1/2) and about pi and pi/2 and 2pi in > the case of Planck. > > These are given since otherwise they don't add up, while usually > enough they're considered negligeable, since then what results > is the integration over those terms the collection of their > infinitude into finite numbers of physics. > > So, you must've heard of Zeno, about the archer and what's > resulting the geometric series which for original accounts > of methods of exhaustion gives sums of infinite series, > then most people have never heard of "Zeno's moving rows", > which give an account of segments in series an infinite sum > that adds up to _twice_ the naive account. > > Then, Vitali the geometer and mathematician is usually given > as the reason why there are "non-measurable sets", yet what > he does is split the unit magnitude into infinitesimal bits > and sum them back to 2 (or, strictly between 1 and 3, in > a reductio exactly 2, in 1-dimension). > > Then Hausdorff after Vitali makes the first account of > Vitali-Hausdorff the equi-decomposability of the 3-dimensional > ball, that later was taken up by Banach-Tarski in a set-theoretic > algebraic approach invoking non-measurable sets to make the > more publicized construction of Banach-Tarski, that Vitali-Hausdorff > already have one and it's geometrical. > > The von Neumann account then in the 2-dimensional gives a number > of accounts of how these things come and go, about what happens > when you split a finite magnitude into infinitely-many like-size > pieces then attempt to re-assemble them, > > So, the "doubling spaces" and "doubling measures" and "halving > spaces" and "halving measures" are accounts of non-standard > analysis that have been around since Zeno, and patches or > "the spurious" about them are present in derivations quite > universally. > > > Then, the "pi-ratio" also shows up directly in accounts like Planck's. > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson "Finlaysonian"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-14 10:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) |
| Message-ID | <iw6dnV95lIyDrjX3nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673266 |
On 09/14/2026 09:25 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 09/14/2026 08:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 09/14/2026 02:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:25:09 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 09/12/2026 07:48 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GR and QM disagree about 120 orders of decimal magnitude, for >>>>>>> example >>>>>>> the "function freedom" accounts, then that the account of >>>>>>> "asymptotic >>>>>>> freedom" then makes for unifying the fall-gravity and the strong >>>>>>> nuclear force and where the atom is the real graviton. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Einstein's way of saying that GR doesn't intend to constantly violate >>>>>> conservation of energy everywhere is calling it an "inertial-system", >>>>>> which is a good idea since then the massy bodies being inert aren't >>>>>> constantly violating conservation of energy everywhere, then though >>>>>> his >>>>>> account of the geodesy as "follow-gravity" after Newton's >>>>>> "pull-gravity" does not have an account of the mechanism of what >>>>>> makes >>>>>> the geodesy, only that it's always straight-down and always >>>>>> instantaneously evaluated everywhere, and is Newtonian in the limit, >>>>>> that accounts of gravity that aren't a "fall-gravity" a bit un-like >>>>>> Fatio/LeSage's account of "push-gravity" are constantly violating >>>>>> conservation of energy everywhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The "fall gravity" is not dissimilar to accounts of "shadow gravity" >>>>> also known as "umbral gravity", and it sometimes is under accounts of >>>>> "super-gravity", though that's overloaded since accounts like "fifth >>>>> force" and so on, not to be confused with "super-force". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anyways a true "fall-gravity" is about the only way for the Mach-ian >>>>> and >>>>> so on, that the usual account of Lagrange that the classical and >>>>> potential forces simply sum to equate to zero and calling that >>>>> conservation of energy doesn't explain what makes those in the first >>>>> place. >>>> >>>> How does Einstein's GR explain the huge pull-force that exists >>>> between two >>>> Neodymium bar magnets? >>> >>> It doesn't, as you should know. >>> You need electromagnetism and a lot of solid state physics for that. >>> >>>> His whole 'constant c spacetime' concept is just a nonsensical way of >>>> redefining the problem. It is ridiculously complicated, achieves >>>> nothing..and ends up with an error of 2. >>> >>> Ah, at last, a verifiable claim. >>> Please enlighten us further, how is this factor of 2 derived, >>> in which particular experiment is this factor of 2 measured? >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> >> >> >> Euh, "spurious" factors of two abound throughout the stack of >> derivations that's always given, usually in the a-diabatic >> and accounts like spring-mass systems. >> >> For examples, Hooke's law, Clausius, Arrhenius, and the usual >> formalisms of Kelvin and Planck, have these scattered about, >> about factors of 2 (or 1/2) and about pi and pi/2 and 2pi in >> the case of Planck. >> >> These are given since otherwise they don't add up, while usually >> enough they're considered negligeable, since then what results >> is the integration over those terms the collection of their >> infinitude into finite numbers of physics. >> >> So, you must've heard of Zeno, about the archer and what's >> resulting the geometric series which for original accounts >> of methods of exhaustion gives sums of infinite series, >> then most people have never heard of "Zeno's moving rows", >> which give an account of segments in series an infinite sum >> that adds up to _twice_ the naive account. >> >> Then, Vitali the geometer and mathematician is usually given >> as the reason why there are "non-measurable sets", yet what >> he does is split the unit magnitude into infinitesimal bits >> and sum them back to 2 (or, strictly between 1 and 3, in >> a reductio exactly 2, in 1-dimension). >> >> Then Hausdorff after Vitali makes the first account of >> Vitali-Hausdorff the equi-decomposability of the 3-dimensional >> ball, that later was taken up by Banach-Tarski in a set-theoretic >> algebraic approach invoking non-measurable sets to make the >> more publicized construction of Banach-Tarski, that Vitali-Hausdorff >> already have one and it's geometrical. >> >> The von Neumann account then in the 2-dimensional gives a number >> of accounts of how these things come and go, about what happens >> when you split a finite magnitude into infinitely-many like-size >> pieces then attempt to re-assemble them, >> >> So, the "doubling spaces" and "doubling measures" and "halving >> spaces" and "halving measures" are accounts of non-standard >> analysis that have been around since Zeno, and patches or >> "the spurious" about them are present in derivations quite >> universally. >> >> >> Then, the "pi-ratio" also shows up directly in accounts like Planck's. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson > > "Finlaysonian" > > How about "Cesaro-summability" and Fejer sums in Fourier-style analysis. The Fourier-style analysis is usually given its own status as a super-classical result in infinitary reasoning. Then accounts like Heine/Cantor in systems-of-inequalities of expressions in arithmetic/geometric/harmonic means have distinctness results besides uniqueness results if one goes looking. Also there are accounts of the path integral since Schwinger and Tomonaga. Factors of two abound, ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 12:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s1bn76.b1msrk13aw3g7N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #673143 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:26:37 +0300, Mikko wrote: > > > On 10/09/2026 20:52, HenryWilson wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 11:18:43 +0300, Mikko wrote: > >> > >>> On 10/09/2026 02:35, HenryWilson wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:12:25 +0300, Mikko wrote: > >> > > >>> They say that the speed of light is independent of its source (if they > >>> is any, they don't say that light always has a source). > >>> > >>> > That would have conflicted with Aether theories so Maxwell would> > >>> have been rather mystified. > >>> > >>> Fortunately nothing that was known at that time conflicts with aether > >>> theory > >> > >> That is probably correct. The whole of physics was based on its > >> existence. > >> That's why Einstein's theory was snapped up after the MMX proved there > >> was no Aether. > > > > Michelson-Morley experiment did not prove that there is no aether. It > > only proved that something was not understood. Lorentz and other could > > explain the result assuming that there is an ether. But Poincaré and > > Einstein observed that the the same can be explained with alnost the > > same explanation without any aether. > > Yes, it is called magic. > > >> Einstein's mathematical skullduggery saved a lot of damaged > >> reputations. > > > > EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the > > presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical theories. > It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical situations...but > goes terribly wrong in others. There you go again. Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'. So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity, Jan (crickets)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 13:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d48e0372ff5c28$49080$900885$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #673160 |
On 9/12/2026 12:59 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:26:37 +0300, Mikko wrote: >> >>> On 10/09/2026 20:52, HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 11:18:43 +0300, Mikko wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/09/2026 02:35, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:12:25 +0300, Mikko wrote: >>>> >> >>>>> They say that the speed of light is independent of its source (if they >>>>> is any, they don't say that light always has a source). >>>>> >>>>> > That would have conflicted with Aether theories so Maxwell would> >>>>> have been rather mystified. >>>>> >>>>> Fortunately nothing that was known at that time conflicts with aether >>>>> theory >>>> >>>> That is probably correct. The whole of physics was based on its >>>> existence. >>>> That's why Einstein's theory was snapped up after the MMX proved there >>>> was no Aether. >>> >>> Michelson-Morley experiment did not prove that there is no aether. It >>> only proved that something was not understood. Lorentz and other could >>> explain the result assuming that there is an ether. But Poincaré and >>> Einstein observed that the the same can be explained with alnost the >>> same explanation without any aether. >> >> Yes, it is called magic. >> >>>> Einstein's mathematical skullduggery saved a lot of damaged >>>> reputations. >>> >>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the >>> presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical theories. >> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical situations...but >> goes terribly wrong in others. > > There you go again. > Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'. > So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity, The mumble of your divine idiot was not even consistent, and., of course, anyone can check GPS, the clocks keep indicating t'=t just like they always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-13 23:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d50526c3748804$18960$1943410$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673160 |
On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:26:37 +0300, Mikko wrote: >> >> > On 10/09/2026 20:52, HenryWilson wrote: >> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 11:18:43 +0300, Mikko wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 10/09/2026 02:35, HenryWilson wrote: >> >>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:12:25 +0300, Mikko wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> They say that the speed of light is independent of its source (if >> >>> they is any, they don't say that light always has a source). >> >>> >> >>> > That would have conflicted with Aether theories so Maxwell >> >>> > would> >> >>> have been rather mystified. >> >>> >> >>> Fortunately nothing that was known at that time conflicts with >> >>> aether theory >> >> >> >> That is probably correct. The whole of physics was based on its >> >> existence. >> >> That's why Einstein's theory was snapped up after the MMX proved >> >> there was no Aether. >> > >> > Michelson-Morley experiment did not prove that there is no aether. It >> > only proved that something was not understood. Lorentz and other >> > could explain the result assuming that there is an ether. But >> > Poincaré and Einstein observed that the the same can be explained >> > with alnost the same explanation without any aether. >> >> Yes, it is called magic. >> >> >> Einstein's mathematical skullduggery saved a lot of damaged >> >> reputations. >> > >> > EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the >> > presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical >> > theories. >> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical situations...but >> goes terribly wrong in others. > > There you go again. > Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'. > So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity, You will have to read my book to learn about those. However I will point out that it is essentially the interpretation of SR that is largely to blame rather than the theory itself. Contrary to what is generally believed, SR does not claim that light's speed in space is invariant. It is merely a mathematical trick that makes MEASURED LIGHT SPEED always appear to equal c, in a particular observer's frame. Hence Einstein cannot really be blamed for the fact that the whole of Astronomy is wrong. It has assumed constant light speed for 3000 years. > Jan (crickets)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-14 11:41 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1188bvg$1bquf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #673234 |
On 14/09/2026 02:28, HenryWilson wrote: > On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:26:37 +0300, Mikko wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/09/2026 20:52, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 11:18:43 +0300, Mikko wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/09/2026 02:35, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:12:25 +0300, Mikko wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> They say that the speed of light is independent of its source (if >>>>>> they is any, they don't say that light always has a source). >>>>>> >>>>>> > That would have conflicted with Aether theories so Maxwell >>>>>> > would> >>>>>> have been rather mystified. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fortunately nothing that was known at that time conflicts with >>>>>> aether theory >>>>> >>>>> That is probably correct. The whole of physics was based on its >>>>> existence. >>>>> That's why Einstein's theory was snapped up after the MMX proved >>>>> there was no Aether. >>>> >>>> Michelson-Morley experiment did not prove that there is no aether. It >>>> only proved that something was not understood. Lorentz and other >>>> could explain the result assuming that there is an ether. But >>>> Poincaré and Einstein observed that the the same can be explained >>>> with alnost the same explanation without any aether. >>> >>> Yes, it is called magic. >>> >>>>> Einstein's mathematical skullduggery saved a lot of damaged >>>>> reputations. >>>> >>>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the >>>> presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical >>>> theories. >>> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical situations...but >>> goes terribly wrong in others. >> >> There you go again. >> Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'. >> So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity, > > You will have to read my book to learn about those. The only thing one can learn from a book written by a stupid ignorant author is stupidity. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web