Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674030 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 301 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 17:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:36 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 16:01 +0000
Re: Job interview Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 10:02 -0700
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 19:22 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 21:09 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 06:32 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 10:27 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-02 11:21 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:27 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:41 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:53 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:57 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:14 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:17 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:27 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:35 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 15:39 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 13:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:19 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:25 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:41 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:07 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:28 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:32 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 18:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 15:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 13:43 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:09 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:15 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:30 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:33 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:49 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:51 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 19:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:54 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 11:19 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 16:12 +0200
Re: Job interview nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-02 14:09 +0200
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-02 23:47 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 06:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:04 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:46 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:56 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 13:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 11:11 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:51 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 19:48 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:57 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:21 +0000
Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:18 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 12:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:07 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-07 23:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:32 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:46 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 16:34 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 10:18 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 06:42 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 10:24 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 14:36 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 18:31 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 17:52 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 17:58 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 20:10 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:05 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 23:30 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Randell Frukalov <rada@ovled.ru> - 2026-10-13 22:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-13 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 14:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:53 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 22:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 07:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 09:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 11:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:23 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:27 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:40 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:54 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:01 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:01 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:06 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:11 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:21 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:17 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:39 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:09 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:12 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:22 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:28 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:39 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:42 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:54 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:15 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:25 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:36 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:40 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:45 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:58 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:59 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:08 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:13 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:14 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:28 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:48 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:50 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Faith Lihobaba <tbla@oiia.ru> - 2026-10-15 18:11 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 17:09 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 18:44 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-04 22:07 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 12:23 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-07 07:13 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:25 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 21:11 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-10 18:42 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-11 20:18 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 18:34 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:16 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:35 +0000
Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 07:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Voil Babloev <ivolbe@lba.ru> - 2026-10-06 16:38 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 09:50 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 10:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Terence Holopov <vne@llr.ru> - 2026-10-06 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 11:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:13 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 21:54 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 07:45 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 10:50 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 09:51 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 16:38 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:34 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 02:12 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:28 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:31 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Manish Babadjanov <baam@ahbo.ru> - 2026-10-19 22:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-20 01:20 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 21:14 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-20 12:39 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:00 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:18 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 03:26 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 02:23 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 21:24 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 22:23 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:47 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:21 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-24 16:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 11:15 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:29 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-31 21:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:35 +0000
Electrons and photons (was: Newton and the speed of light) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 07:57 +0100
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:27 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:42 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:28 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:42 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:53 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 11:13 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 14:47 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:54 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:55 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 21:20 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:10 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Cletus Rustamov <ltr@meatcelu.ru> - 2026-11-01 18:18 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-01 14:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 15:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:54 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:57 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:09 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:26 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 05:02 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 08:19 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 10:14 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 05:23 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:56 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 00:29 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 00:34 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 20:43 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 12:44 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-02 22:15 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:47 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 22:27 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:13 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:48 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 05:29 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:09 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:52 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 06:22 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 00:26 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 20:35 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-02 20:48 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Orwhin Vadeev <neo@rnhve.ru> - 2026-11-02 20:26 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 13:03 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Kishore Bakurov <aak@oueru.ru> - 2026-11-02 22:01 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:10 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:12 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 13:43 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 13:42 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 08:40 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 09:46 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:56 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:00 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:46 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:26 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:57 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:14 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Broderick Balarev <brdob@rdar.ru> - 2026-10-14 18:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 01:33 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:37 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:46 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-25 16:15 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 10:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:16 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:10 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 03:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:27 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 22:15 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 06:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 10:58 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 13:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 08:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:09 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 13:12 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 17:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:05 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:06 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 08:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200
Page 13 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 05:23 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c938q$27jp$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #675438 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:19:41 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:16:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of >>>> spacetime, >>>> not gravitation. >>> . >>> ...and the 'curvature of spacetime' just happens to be a consequence of >>> the deflection of light by gravity. >> >> No. The curvature of spacetime corresponds to the energy-momentum >> density of spacetime, as expressed with the Einstein Field Equations: >> >> <mid:11c5vvh$32600$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? >> title=Einstein_field_equations&oldid=1374672993> >> >> While light has non-zero energy, and thus contributes to the >> energy-momentum density of spacetime, therefore to the curvature of >> spacetime, its contribution is usually comparably small because the >> energy of a photon is given by E = ℎ f, where ℎ is the Planck constant >> and f is the frequency of the light, and ℎ is very small and f is >> usually small. >> >> However, the hypothesis has been made, first by John A. Wheeler in 1955 >> in his paper titled "Geons", that a black hole could be formed by >> concentrating enough electromagnetic energy in a region of space, which >> he called a "kugelblitz" (not to be confused with the atmospheric >> phenomenon of the same name): > > Great story...rediculously complicated and totally unnecessary. *facepalm* I corrected your misconception about current physics. Are you such a megalomaniac that you do not even realize /that/? >>> Jeez! I wish I was smart like you! >> You just need to make the effort of, and stop preventing yourself from, >> learning. > > I am to busy writing the truth for future physicists to learn. You are busy wasting precious lifetime on writing pseudoscientific word salad. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 17:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c8qkj$2g83t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675434 |
On 10/31/2026 10:02 PM, HenryWilson wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:16:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 10/31/2026 2:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 10/31/2026 1:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no (proper) physics to that. >>>>> >>>>> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an >>>>> n- >>>>> ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... >>>> >>>> The light is also influenced by the gravitational field. Basically, >>>> the light is beholden to it. Take a strong black hole. >>> >>> Afaict, the gravitational field is everywhere all at once. >> >> In Newtonian mechanics. In general relativity it does not exist as such >> as gravitation is not understood as the consequence of a gravitational >> force. >> >> The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, >> not gravitation. > . > ...and the 'curvature of spacetime' just happens to be a consequence of > the deflection of light by gravity. Jeez! I wish I was smart like you! > Spacetime can be warped by gravity, indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 00:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c9hlk$2mc1i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675473 |
On 11/1/2026 5:56 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/31/2026 10:02 PM, HenryWilson wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:16:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> >>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 10/31/2026 2:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 10/31/2026 1:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no (proper) physics to that. >>>>>> >>>>>> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an >>>>>> n- >>>>>> ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... >>>>> >>>>> The light is also influenced by the gravitational field. Basically, >>>>> the light is beholden to it. Take a strong black hole. >>>> >>>> Afaict, the gravitational field is everywhere all at once. >>> >>> In Newtonian mechanics. In general relativity it does not exist as such >>> as gravitation is not understood as the consequence of a gravitational >>> force. >>> >>> The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, >>> not gravitation. >> . >> ...and the 'curvature of spacetime' just happens to be a consequence of >> the deflection of light by gravity. Jeez! I wish I was smart like you! >> > > Spacetime can be warped by gravity, indeed. Fwiw, here is a 2-ary one with arrows showing flow I made as an experiment: https://youtu.be/1_HnXFEAh0E
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 00:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c9hu0$2mfs3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675473 |
On 11/1/2026 5:56 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/31/2026 10:02 PM, HenryWilson wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:16:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> >>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 10/31/2026 2:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 10/31/2026 1:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no (proper) physics to that. >>>>>> >>>>>> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an >>>>>> n- >>>>>> ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... >>>>> >>>>> The light is also influenced by the gravitational field. Basically, >>>>> the light is beholden to it. Take a strong black hole. >>>> >>>> Afaict, the gravitational field is everywhere all at once. >>> >>> In Newtonian mechanics. In general relativity it does not exist as such >>> as gravitation is not understood as the consequence of a gravitational >>> force. >>> >>> The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, >>> not gravitation. >> . >> ...and the 'curvature of spacetime' just happens to be a consequence of >> the deflection of light by gravity. Jeez! I wish I was smart like you! >> > > Spacetime can be warped by gravity, indeed. Here is another one showing a 3-ary field with a "spider" basically just an emitter cluster that is attracted to the red sphere. The red sphere has positive mass therefore the cluster is attracted to it. The "spider" legs are just the field lines cast out for a finite number of integration steps. Notice what happens in this simple test? https://youtu.be/hlHmOKvQVT4 Also, another one that shows several clusters attracted to some moving objects (spheres) with positive mass. Btw, I made the music for this as well in some of my old midi code: https://youtu.be/HwIkk9zENcg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 20:43 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11cap4a$7q1m$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #675473 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/31/2026 10:02 PM, HenryWilson wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:16:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, >>> not gravitation. >> . >> ...and the 'curvature of spacetime' just happens to be a consequence of >> the deflection of light by gravity. Jeez! I wish I was smart like you! > > Spacetime can be warped by gravity, indeed. A common misconception (which you would have known if you had watched the videos I referred you to). Instead, in general relativity, gravitation is understood as /a/ _consequence_ of the _curvature_ of spacetime. The deflection of light is _another_ consequence (that, as I just said, has nothing to do with gravitation): light paths are null geodesics of spacetime (geodesics along which the spacetime interval, or equivalently the elapsed proper time, is zero) which are curved if spacetime is curved. Yet another consequence is the possibility of a difference of elapsed proper time between different locations, as I have explained before. And there is more. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 12:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11casni$3776v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675536 |
On 11/2/2026 11:43 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 10/31/2026 10:02 PM, HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:16:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, >>>> not gravitation. >>> . >>> ...and the 'curvature of spacetime' just happens to be a consequence of >>> the deflection of light by gravity. Jeez! I wish I was smart like you! >> >> Spacetime can be warped by gravity, indeed. > > A common misconception (which you would have known if you had watched > the videos I referred you to). I should have time to watch the whole thing tonight. > Instead, in general relativity, > gravitation is understood as /a/ _consequence_ of the _curvature_ of > spacetime. Oh. Well, I think, say a black hole, can warp spacetime itself due to its huge mass. So once the spacetime is warped then we can notice "gravity" in action, so to speak. > The deflection of light is _another_ consequence (that, as I just said, > has nothing to do with gravitation): light paths are null geodesics of > spacetime (geodesics along which the spacetime interval, or equivalently > the elapsed proper time, is zero) which are curved if spacetime is curved. Right. The geodesics are what my field lines are flowing down. Putting arrows on them really helps to see the flow. I call this the "gravitational field"... So, when a bunch of field lines go into spirals, or converge on certain points in the n-ary vector field, I can say that is an attractor. It really fun when I "seed" my field. Say a couple of attractors, some repulsors, and render the little shit, well, there can be _other_ places where the field lines converge or tend to. These are zones of attraction that I did not add! But, during lengthy line integration I can detect them. So, I find all of the attractors I added, and then there are others that show up that I did not add, but can detect. Or other time, I seed it with only repulsors, yet there are attractors that I can detect but never added to the initial seed state. Sorry for the FB link, but here is an example: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1843028490189474&set=a.110008616824812 If you can even see that image, notice the tight spirals in there? See, those are attractors that I did not add. So that's fun to me. In my field an attracting zone has positive mass. The repulsors, well, they have negative mass. A "white hole", if you will... Ouch. > Yet another consequence is the possibility of a difference of elapsed > proper time between different locations, as I have explained before. > > And there is more. On my free time I tend to like to program my own personal work. But, I will watch the video. Thanks Thomas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 22:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18e456f3bccc848a$26126$2370417$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #675536 |
On 11/2/2026 8:43 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 10/31/2026 10:02 PM, HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:16:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, >>>> not gravitation. >>> . >>> ...and the 'curvature of spacetime' just happens to be a consequence of >>> the deflection of light by gravity. Jeez! I wish I was smart like you! >> >> Spacetime can be warped by gravity, indeed. > > A common misconception (which you would have known if you had watched > the videos I referred you to). Instead, in general relativity, > gravitation is understood as /a/ _consequence_ of the _curvature_ of > spacetime. > > The deflection of light is _another_ consequence (that, as I just said, > has nothing to do with gravitation): light paths are null geodesics of > spacetime (geodesics along which the spacetime interval, or equivalently > the elapsed proper time, is zero) which are curved if spacetime is curved. > > Yet another consequence is the possibility of a difference of elapsed > proper time between different locations, as I have explained before. > > And there is more. > Sure, sure, the insane mumble of your idiot guru is driving the whole Universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 17:47 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c8q3s$2g0fp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675419 |
On 10/31/2026 5:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 10/31/2026 2:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 10/31/2026 1:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>> >>>>> There is no (proper) physics to that. >>>> >>>> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an n- >>>> ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... >>> >>> The light is also influenced by the gravitational field. Basically, the >>> light is beholden to it. Take a strong black hole. >> >> Afaict, the gravitational field is everywhere all at once. > > In Newtonian mechanics. In general relativity it does not exist as such > as gravitation is not understood as the consequence of a gravitational > force. > > The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, > not gravitation. > Can gravity alter spacetime?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 22:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11cburq$3gu0m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675470 |
On 11/1/2026 5:47 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/31/2026 5:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 10/31/2026 2:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 10/31/2026 1:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no (proper) physics to that. >>>>> >>>>> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an n- >>>>> ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... >>>> >>>> The light is also influenced by the gravitational field. Basically, the >>>> light is beholden to it. Take a strong black hole. >>> >>> Afaict, the gravitational field is everywhere all at once. >> >> In Newtonian mechanics. In general relativity it does not exist as such >> as gravitation is not understood as the consequence of a gravitational >> force. >> >> The deflection of light is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, >> not gravitation. >> > > Can gravity alter spacetime? Or mass alters the spacetime, and gravity is the end result?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 01:13 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c607q$326d3$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #675413 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/31/2026 1:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Veritasium: "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Gravity" >>> <https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=iKu3kTMxJ1k0vTaP> Have you watched that yet? >>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>> >>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>> >>> There is no (proper) physics to that. >> >> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an n- >> ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... > > The light is also influenced by the gravitational field. Not really as there is no gravitational field, as you can learn in the video referred above. > Basically, the light is beholden to it. *facepalm* > Take a strong black hole. The notion of "strong" cannot be applied to black holes. In fact, the Newtonian gravitational field, when carried over to general relativity insofar as that is meaningful, is particularly _weak_ (value not very different from zero) outside black holes that have a large mass. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 17:48 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c8q5a$2g0fp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675418 |
On 10/31/2026 5:13 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 10/31/2026 1:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Veritasium: "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Gravity" >>>> <https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=iKu3kTMxJ1k0vTaP> > > Have you watched that yet? > >>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>> >>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>> >>>> There is no (proper) physics to that. >>> >>> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an n- >>> ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... >> >> The light is also influenced by the gravitational field. > > Not really as there is no gravitational field, as you can learn in the > video referred above. Are you sure about that? You are trying to tell me that there is no gravitational field? > >> Basically, the light is beholden to it. > > *facepalm* > >> Take a strong black hole. > > The notion of "strong" cannot be applied to black holes. In fact, the > Newtonian gravitational field, when carried over to general relativity > insofar as that is meaningful, is particularly _weak_ (value not very > different from zero) outside black holes that have a large mass. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 05:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c93ik$27jp$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #675471 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/31/2026 5:13 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 10/31/2026 1:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> Veritasium: "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Gravity" >>>>> <https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=iKu3kTMxJ1k0vTaP> >> >> Have you watched that yet? >> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>> >>>>> There is no (proper) physics to that. >>>> >>>> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an n- >>>> ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... >>> >>> The light is also influenced by the gravitational field. >> >> Not really as there is no gravitational field, as you can learn in the >> video referred above. > > Are you sure about that? That is a stupid question. > You are trying to tell me that there is no gravitational field? That is another stupid question. Watch the f***ing video. And trim your quotes. *facepalm* -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 01:09 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c5vvh$32600$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #675407 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> Plotting field lines is fun. >> >> In order to make a correct plot, one needs to know what one is talking >> about, which you clearly are not. See also: > > Have you ever plotting field lines for an n-ary field before? I do not know that term. Google AI claims that "An n-ary field is not a standard, universally defined concept in abstract algebra, unlike a traditional field (which is a binary algebraic structure with addition and multiplication)." So what do you mean by that? >> Veritasium: "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Gravity" >> <https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=iKu3kTMxJ1k0vTaP> >> >>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>> >>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >> >> There is no (proper) physics to that. > > A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an > n-ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... I cannot be sure about things that are unclear to begin with. The gravitational field in general relativity, insofar as that concept can be carried over from Newtonian mechanics, is the 1+3-dimensional rank-2 Einstein tensor field, with indexed components G_ab, or the rank-2 metric tensor field with indexed components g_ab. The Einstein Field Equations are in natural units G_ab + Λ g_ab = R_ab − 1∕2 R g_ab + Λ g_ab = 8π G T_ab, with R_ab the corresponding component of the Ricci curvature tensor (field), R the Ricci curvature scalar, Λ is the cosmological constant, and T_ab is the corresponding component of the (stress-)energy-momentum tensor (field), respectively. The g_ab and thus the G_ab (which are based on the former through R_ab and R) describe the curvature of spacetime. Light paths are (classically) always null geodesics of spacetime, not of any of those tensor fields. The geodesic equation to be satisfied is 0 = d²xᵃ∕dλ² + Γᵃ_bc dxᵇ∕dλ dx^c∕dλ, where the xᵃ are the components of the (1+3-dimensional) 4-position, and λ an affine parameter for the path (for timelike paths we can use the proper time τ, but that is equal to 0 along lightlike paths, so the 4-velocity is not defined then). It is questionable whether that applies to a photon, too, as that is a /quantum/ object, and general relativity is a /classical/ field theory. According to quantum mechanics, a photon does not have a position or a particular trajectory before there is an interaction with it. According to Feynman's path integral formulation of QED even, a photon takes all paths; it is just that the probability amplitudes for most paths cancel each other or the result of adding them is not very different from zero. It is even more questionable whether there is a physical meaning, or a meaning at all, to the question "A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an n-ary field?". -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 21:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <3wednecH09I6I3v3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675417 |
On 10/31/2026 05:09 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> Plotting field lines is fun. >>> >>> In order to make a correct plot, one needs to know what one is talking >>> about, which you clearly are not. See also: >> >> Have you ever plotting field lines for an n-ary field before? > > I do not know that term. Google AI claims that "An n-ary field is not a > standard, universally defined concept in abstract algebra, unlike a > traditional field (which is a binary algebraic structure with addition > and multiplication)." > > So what do you mean by that? > >>> Veritasium: "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Gravity" >>> <https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=iKu3kTMxJ1k0vTaP> >>> >>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>> >>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>> >>> There is no (proper) physics to that. >> >> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an >> n-ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... > I cannot be sure about things that are unclear to begin with. > > The gravitational field in general relativity, insofar as that concept > can be carried over from Newtonian mechanics, is the 1+3-dimensional > rank-2 Einstein tensor field, with indexed components G_ab, or the > rank-2 metric tensor field with indexed components g_ab. The Einstein > Field Equations are in natural units > > G_ab + Λ g_ab = R_ab − 1∕2 R g_ab + Λ g_ab = 8π G T_ab, > > with R_ab the corresponding component of the Ricci curvature tensor > (field), R the Ricci curvature scalar, Λ is the cosmological constant, > and T_ab is the corresponding component of the (stress-)energy-momentum > tensor (field), respectively. > > The g_ab and thus the G_ab (which are based on the former through R_ab > and R) describe the curvature of spacetime. > > Light paths are (classically) always null geodesics of spacetime, not of > any of those tensor fields. The geodesic equation to be satisfied is > > 0 = d²xᵃ∕dλ² + Γᵃ_bc dxᵇ∕dλ dx^c∕dλ, > > where the xᵃ are the components of the (1+3-dimensional) 4-position, and > λ an affine parameter for the path (for timelike paths we can use the > proper time τ, but that is equal to 0 along lightlike paths, so the > 4-velocity is not defined then). > > It is questionable whether that applies to a photon, too, as that is a > /quantum/ object, and general relativity is a /classical/ field theory. > According to quantum mechanics, a photon does not have a position or a > particular trajectory before there is an interaction with it. According > to Feynman's path integral formulation of QED even, a photon takes all > paths; it is just that the probability amplitudes for most paths cancel > each other or the result of adding them is not very different from zero. > > It is even more questionable whether there is a physical meaning, or a > meaning at all, to the question "A photon cannot travel down the > geodesics, or the field lines of an n-ary field?". > Feynman's "Quantum Electrodynamics" is not "quantum mechanics", per se, and Feynman's "virtual photons" have never been observed and are a convenient consideration in formalism since they're mass-less and charge-less, that otherwise the account of the S-Matrix and the scattering and tunneling, like for Tinkham et alia, and for the path integral after Schwinger and Tomonaga, makes for accounts of potentials vis-a-vis the classical (mostly classical) line integral that's the path integral, "sum-of-histories", vis-a-vis, "sum-of-potentials", its inverse and (more complete) "complement". Ricci you'll notice is a straight line in effect, preserving tensorial products as preserving vectorial products. So, for "sum-of-potentials" beyond and after "sum-of-histories", and potential theory or potentialistic theory or the theory of potentials, including the classical in the middle as just a trace of potentials, where the potential fields are the real fields (that physics' fields are vector fields while mathematics' are rational fields), has it so that "virtual photons" are not observables.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 17:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c8qdt$2g6tm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675417 |
On 10/31/2026 5:09 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> Plotting field lines is fun. >>> >>> In order to make a correct plot, one needs to know what one is talking >>> about, which you clearly are not. See also: >> >> Have you ever plotting field lines for an n-ary field before? > > I do not know that term. Google AI claims that "An n-ary field is not a > standard, universally defined concept in abstract algebra, unlike a > traditional field (which is a binary algebraic structure with addition > and multiplication)." > > So what do you mean by that? > >>> Veritasium: "What Everyone Gets Wrong About Gravity" >>> <https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=iKu3kTMxJ1k0vTaP> >>> >>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>> >>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>> >>> There is no (proper) physics to that. >> >> A photon cannot travel down the geodesics, or the field lines of an >> n-ary field? Are you 100% sure about that? Humm... > I cannot be sure about things that are unclear to begin with. > > The gravitational field in general relativity, insofar as that concept > can be carried over from Newtonian mechanics, is the 1+3-dimensional > rank-2 Einstein tensor field, with indexed components G_ab, or the > rank-2 metric tensor field with indexed components g_ab. The Einstein > Field Equations are in natural units > > G_ab + Λ g_ab = R_ab − 1∕2 R g_ab + Λ g_ab = 8π G T_ab, > > with R_ab the corresponding component of the Ricci curvature tensor > (field), R the Ricci curvature scalar, Λ is the cosmological constant, > and T_ab is the corresponding component of the (stress-)energy-momentum > tensor (field), respectively. > > The g_ab and thus the G_ab (which are based on the former through R_ab > and R) describe the curvature of spacetime. > > Light paths are (classically) always null geodesics of spacetime, not of > any of those tensor fields. The geodesic equation to be satisfied is > > 0 = d²xᵃ∕dλ² + Γᵃ_bc dxᵇ∕dλ dx^c∕dλ, > > where the xᵃ are the components of the (1+3-dimensional) 4-position, and > λ an affine parameter for the path (for timelike paths we can use the > proper time τ, but that is equal to 0 along lightlike paths, so the > 4-velocity is not defined then). > > It is questionable whether that applies to a photon, too, as that is a > /quantum/ object, and general relativity is a /classical/ field theory. > According to quantum mechanics, a photon does not have a position or a > particular trajectory before there is an interaction with it. According > to Feynman's path integral formulation of QED even, a photon takes all > paths; it is just that the probability amplitudes for most paths cancel > each other or the result of adding them is not very different from zero. > > It is even more questionable whether there is a physical meaning, or a > meaning at all, to the question "A photon cannot travel down the > geodesics, or the field lines of an n-ary field?". > n-ary means the field can exist in all dimensions. a 3-ary field is a 3d field. A 4-ary is a 4d field. Now, a 4d field is scary because I can place points in it, say a non-zero w component of a (x, y, z, w) vector, BUT! I cannot plot the damn thing. I can only see what happens to the field lines. Integrating a field line allows one to actually plot it. But, I cannot plot a 4d-point! For instance, when I got the cover of the 2025 AMS calendar, the field is 4d. But, we can only see the 3d parts of it being plotted. I cannot plot a true 4d point in our 3d realm. The, afaict, the best I can do it see how this 4d point alters the lines I can see and only plot their (x, y, z) parts, or whatever scheme. How would you plot point say, (0, 0, 0, 1)? Its off our axis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 06:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c96n9$2bn4$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #675472 |
Trim your quotes.
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/31/2026 5:09 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> Plotting field lines is fun.
>>>> In order to make a correct plot, one needs to know what one is talking
>>>> about, which you clearly are not. See also:
>>> Have you ever plotting field lines for an n-ary field before?
>>
>> I do not know that term. Google AI claims that "An n-ary field is not a
>> standard, universally defined concept in abstract algebra, unlike a
>> traditional field (which is a binary algebraic structure with addition
>> and multiplication)."
>>
>> So what do you mean by that?
>> [...]
>> Light paths are (classically) always null geodesics of spacetime, not of
>> any of those tensor fields. The geodesic equation to be satisfied is
>>
>> 0 = d²xᵃ∕dλ² + Γᵃ_bc dxᵇ∕dλ dx^c∕dλ,
>>
>> where the xᵃ are the components of the (1+3-dimensional) 4-position, and
>> λ an affine parameter for the path (for timelike paths we can use the
>> proper time τ, but that is equal to 0 along lightlike paths, so the
>> 4-velocity is not defined then).
>> [...]
>> It is even more questionable whether there is a physical meaning, or a
>> meaning at all, to the question "A photon cannot travel down the
>> geodesics, or the field lines of an n-ary field?".
>
> n-ary means the field can exist in all dimensions. a 3-ary field is a 3d
> field.
A field where its quantity has 3 components?
> A 4-ary is a 4d field.
A field where its quantity has 4 components?
> Now, a 4d field is scary because I can place points in it,
No, you cannot.
> say a non-zero w component of a (x, y, z, w) vector,
A vector can represent a point (w is NOT a point then), but points do
_not_ exist /in/ a field: a field (value) exists _at_ a point instead.
> BUT! I cannot plot the damn thing. I can only see what happens to the
> field lines. Integrating a field line allows one to actually plot it.
You cannot integrate a field line: it is a geometric object, not an
algebraic one. You may be able to integrate _over_ a field line.
> But, I cannot plot a 4d-point! For instance, when I got the cover of
> the 2025 AMS calendar, the field is 4d. But, we can only see the 3d
> parts of it being plotted. I cannot plot a true 4d point in our 3d
> realm. The, afaict, the best I can do it see how this 4d point alters
> the lines I can see and only plot their (x, y, z) parts, or whatever
> scheme. How would you plot point say, (0, 0, 0, 1)? Its off our axis.
You keep rambling incoherently.
None of this has to do with actual physics, let alone general relativity.
And AFAIK, geodesics are a feature of a manifold (the locally shortest
path between two of its points), not of a field. You appear to be
confusing fields with manifolds.
In mathematics, a field is an algebraic structure defined by operations
on it that are called "addition" (+) and "multiplication" (⋅). For
example, the set of real numbers ℝ endowed with those operations is a
one-dimensional field; and the set of complex numbers ℂ endowed with
those operations is a two-dimensional field, isomorphic to ℝ² endowed
with equivalent operations, the two-dimensional vector space of real
numbers.
In physics, a field is a mathematical object where a physical quantity
has a value for every point of a manifold. The manifold is usually 2-
or 3-dimensional space, or spacetime. For example, one can define all
the temperatures in a room as a scalar field over the space of that
room. In standard general relativity, the metric tensor field g is a
field over a 1+3-dimensional spacetime; each component is given by
g_ab(x), where x is a 4-vector representing a point of that spacetime
(an event); it cab be represented by a 4 × 4 matrix:
[g₀₀(x) g₀₁(x) g₀₂(x) g₀₃(x)]
[g]_ab(x) ≔ [g₁₀(x) g₁₁(x) g₁₂(x) g₁₃(x)].
[g₂₀(x) g₂₁(x) g₂₂(x) g₂₃(x)]
[g₃₀(x) g₃₁(x) g₃₂(x) g₃₃(x)]
See also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field#Science,_technology,_and_mathematics>
The Science Asylum: "What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?!".
"What is a Field?" (2:11)
<https://youtu.be/zS2vI_2faII?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDB2GGhVEb6lQ6ayYAsntEX&t=131>
(from my "Quantum Physics" public playlist)
The Royal Institution: "The secrets of Einstein's unknown equation –
with Sean Carroll"
<https://youtu.be/BRudidBcfXk?si=jzzcyx9wk3Gh8-EX>
(from my "General Relativity" playlist)
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 00:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c9hgk$2mba5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #675476 |
On 11/1/2026 9:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Trim your quotes. > > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 10/31/2026 5:09 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> Plotting field lines is fun. >>>>> In order to make a correct plot, one needs to know what one is talking >>>>> about, which you clearly are not. See also: >>>> Have you ever plotting field lines for an n-ary field before? >>> >>> I do not know that term. Google AI claims that "An n-ary field is not a >>> standard, universally defined concept in abstract algebra, unlike a >>> traditional field (which is a binary algebraic structure with addition >>> and multiplication)." >>> >>> So what do you mean by that? >>> [...] >>> Light paths are (classically) always null geodesics of spacetime, not of >>> any of those tensor fields. The geodesic equation to be satisfied is >>> >>> 0 = d²xᵃ∕dλ² + Γᵃ_bc dxᵇ∕dλ dx^c∕dλ, >>> >>> where the xᵃ are the components of the (1+3-dimensional) 4-position, and >>> λ an affine parameter for the path (for timelike paths we can use the >>> proper time τ, but that is equal to 0 along lightlike paths, so the >>> 4-velocity is not defined then). >>> [...] >>> It is even more questionable whether there is a physical meaning, or a >>> meaning at all, to the question "A photon cannot travel down the >>> geodesics, or the field lines of an n-ary field?". >> >> n-ary means the field can exist in all dimensions. a 3-ary field is a 3d >> field. > > A field where its quantity has 3 components? > >> A 4-ary is a 4d field. > > A field where its quantity has 4 components? > >> Now, a 4d field is scary because I can place points in it, > > No, you cannot. Yes I can. (0, 0, 0, -1) is a point in a 4d space. >> say a non-zero w component of a (x, y, z, w) vector, > > A vector can represent a point (w is NOT a point then), but points do > _not_ exist /in/ a field: a field (value) exists _at_ a point instead. Points do exist in a field. In fact ANY point in the field has a unique vector. This is continuous and infinite. >> BUT! I cannot plot the damn thing. I can only see what happens to the >> field lines. Integrating a field line allows one to actually plot it. > You cannot integrate a field line: it is a geometric object, not an > algebraic one. You may be able to integrate _over_ a field line. > >> But, I cannot plot a 4d-point! For instance, when I got the cover of >> the 2025 AMS calendar, the field is 4d. But, we can only see the 3d >> parts of it being plotted. I cannot plot a true 4d point in our 3d >> realm. The, afaict, the best I can do it see how this 4d point alters >> the lines I can see and only plot their (x, y, z) parts, or whatever >> scheme. How would you plot point say, (0, 0, 0, 1)? Its off our axis. > You keep rambling incoherently. > > None of this has to do with actual physics, let alone general relativity. > > And AFAIK, geodesics are a feature of a manifold (the locally shortest > path between two of its points), not of a field. You appear to be > confusing fields with manifolds. Its an n-ary vector field. It seems like you never made them before? That's fine. But they a fun. > In mathematics, a field is an algebraic structure defined by operations > on it that are called "addition" (+) and "multiplication" (⋅). For > example, the set of real numbers ℝ endowed with those operations is a > one-dimensional field; and the set of complex numbers ℂ endowed with > those operations is a two-dimensional field, isomorphic to ℝ² endowed > with equivalent operations, the two-dimensional vector space of real > numbers. Think of a 4-ary field, (x, y, z, w). Any point in the field has a unique vector. We can plot the field lines of this field by integrating. Now, the way I am calculating the vector of _any_ point in the field is, well, I don't want to give my personal secret sauce away. However, I can say part of it is a sum that makes the vector of any point. Now, for a quick plot, we can pick any point A, calc and normalize the vector and move a tiny bit down it, say eps. this makes a new point B. We can draw a line from A to B. Set A to B and repeat. This creates a field line we can see. I won't get into my whole setup, but it can be used to model various things. Also, it works in n-ary dimensions. > In physics, a field is a mathematical object where a physical quantity > has a value for every point of a manifold. The manifold is usually 2- > or 3-dimensional space, or spacetime. For example, one can define all > the temperatures in a room as a scalar field over the space of that > room. In standard general relativity, the metric tensor field g is a > field over a 1+3-dimensional spacetime; each component is given by > g_ab(x), where x is a 4-vector representing a point of that spacetime > (an event); it cab be represented by a 4 × 4 matrix: > > [g₀₀(x) g₀₁(x) g₀₂(x) g₀₃(x)] > [g]_ab(x) ≔ [g₁₀(x) g₁₁(x) g₁₂(x) g₁₃(x)]. > [g₂₀(x) g₂₁(x) g₂₂(x) g₂₃(x)] > [g₃₀(x) g₃₁(x) g₃₂(x) g₃₃(x)] It depends on how we calculate the vector for any given point. There are many different ways. Euler, or RK, etc. > > See also: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field#Science,_technology,_and_mathematics> > > The Science Asylum: "What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?!". > "What is a Field?" (2:11) > <https://youtu.be/zS2vI_2faII?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDB2GGhVEb6lQ6ayYAsntEX&t=131> > > (from my "Quantum Physics" public playlist) > > The Royal Institution: "The secrets of Einstein's unknown equation – > with Sean Carroll" > <https://youtu.be/BRudidBcfXk?si=jzzcyx9wk3Gh8-EX> > > (from my "General Relativity" playlist) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 20:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11caomp$7pju$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #675480 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 11/1/2026 9:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Trim your quotes. Sigh. [psf 10.1] >> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 10/31/2026 5:09 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> On 10/29/2026 7:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> Plotting field lines is fun. >>>>>> In order to make a correct plot, one needs to know what one is talking >>>>>> about, which you clearly are not. See also: >>>>> Have you ever plotting field lines for an n-ary field before? >>>> >>>> I do not know that term. Google AI claims that "An n-ary field is not a >>>> standard, universally defined concept in abstract algebra, unlike a >>>> traditional field (which is a binary algebraic structure with addition >>>> and multiplication)." >>>> >>>> So what do you mean by that? >>>> [...] >>>> Light paths are (classically) always null geodesics of spacetime, not of >>>> any of those tensor fields. The geodesic equation to be satisfied is >>>> >>>> 0 = d²xᵃ∕dλ² + Γᵃ_bc dxᵇ∕dλ dx^c∕dλ, >>>> >>>> where the xᵃ are the components of the (1+3-dimensional) 4-position, and >>>> λ an affine parameter for the path (for timelike paths we can use the >>>> proper time τ, but that is equal to 0 along lightlike paths, so the >>>> 4-velocity is not defined then). >>>> [...] >>>> It is even more questionable whether there is a physical meaning, or a >>>> meaning at all, to the question "A photon cannot travel down the >>>> geodesics, or the field lines of an n-ary field?". >>> >>> n-ary means the field can exist in all dimensions. a 3-ary field is a 3d >>> field. >> >> A field where its quantity has 3 components? >> >>> A 4-ary is a 4d field. >> >> A field where its quantity has 4 components? >> >>> Now, a 4d field is scary because I can place points in it, >> >> No, you cannot. > > Yes I can. (0, 0, 0, -1) is a point in a 4d space. But you cannot place that in a field. >>> say a non-zero w component of a (x, y, z, w) vector, >> >> A vector can represent a point (w is NOT a point then), but points do >> _not_ exist /in/ a field: a field (value) exists _at_ a point instead. > > Points do exist in a field. No. > In fact ANY point in the field has a unique vector. No, you have it backwards: the field has a value at all points of a manifold. In this case the value is a vector. Therefore it is a *vector field*. > This is continuous and infinite. You are still confusing fields and manifolds. >>> BUT! I cannot plot the damn thing. I can only see what happens to the >>> field lines. Integrating a field line allows one to actually plot it. >> You cannot integrate a field line: it is a geometric object, not an >> algebraic one. You may be able to integrate _over_ a field line. >> >>> But, I cannot plot a 4d-point! For instance, when I got the cover of >>> the 2025 AMS calendar, the field is 4d. But, we can only see the 3d >>> parts of it being plotted. I cannot plot a true 4d point in our 3d >>> realm. The, afaict, the best I can do it see how this 4d point alters >>> the lines I can see and only plot their (x, y, z) parts, or whatever >>> scheme. How would you plot point say, (0, 0, 0, 1)? Its off our axis. >> You keep rambling incoherently. >> >> None of this has to do with actual physics, let alone general relativity. >> >> And AFAIK, geodesics are a feature of a manifold (the locally shortest >> path between two of its points), not of a field. You appear to be >> confusing fields with manifolds. > > Its an n-ary vector field. A geodesic is not a field, and AFAIK it is unrelated to fields. [I have studied general relativity at university.] >> In mathematics, a field is an algebraic structure defined by operations >> on it that are called "addition" (+) and "multiplication" (⋅). For >> example, the set of real numbers ℝ endowed with those operations is a >> one-dimensional field; and the set of complex numbers ℂ endowed with >> those operations is a two-dimensional field, isomorphic to ℝ² endowed >> with equivalent operations, the two-dimensional vector space of real >> numbers. > > Think of a 4-ary field, (x, y, z, w). That is not a field; it is a _tuple_ that may be interpreted as a _vector_. > Any point in the field has a unique vector. No, any point of a manifold has assigned to it a vector (of that kind). > We can plot the field lines of this field by integrating. Integrating what over what? > Now, the way I am calculating the vector of _any_ point in the field is, > well, I don't want to give my personal secret sauce away. :-D >> In physics, a field is a mathematical object where a physical quantity >> has a value for every point of a manifold. The manifold is usually 2- >> or 3-dimensional space, or spacetime. For example, one can define all >> the temperatures in a room as a scalar field over the space of that >> room. In standard general relativity, the metric tensor field g is a >> field over a 1+3-dimensional spacetime; each component is given by >> g_ab(x), where x is a 4-vector representing a point of that spacetime >> (an event); it cab be represented by a 4 × 4 matrix: >> >> [g₀₀(x) g₀₁(x) g₀₂(x) g₀₃(x)] >> [g]_ab(x) ≔ [g₁₀(x) g₁₁(x) g₁₂(x) g₁₃(x)]. >> [g₂₀(x) g₂₁(x) g₂₂(x) g₂₃(x)] >> [g₃₀(x) g₃₁(x) g₃₂(x) g₃₃(x)] > > It depends on how we calculate the vector for any given point. There are > many different ways. Euler, or RK, etc. You appear to be very confused about the basic concepts. >> See also: >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field#Science,_technology,_and_mathematics> >> >> The Science Asylum: "What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?!". >> "What is a Field?" (2:11) >> <https://youtu.be/zS2vI_2faII?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDB2GGhVEb6lQ6ayYAsntEX&t=131> >> >> (from my "Quantum Physics" public playlist) >> >> The Royal Institution: "The secrets of Einstein's unknown equation – >> with Sean Carroll" >> <https://youtu.be/BRudidBcfXk?si=jzzcyx9wk3Gh8-EX> >> >> (from my "General Relativity" playlist) Have you watched this? If not, why have you quoted it? Which part of "trim your quotes" did you not understand? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 20:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11capef$7qd9$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #675535 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 11/1/2026 9:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> And AFAIK, geodesics are a feature of a manifold (the locally shortest >>> path between two of its points), not of a field. You appear to be >>> confusing fields with manifolds. >> >> Its an n-ary vector field. > > A geodesic is not a field, and AFAIK it is unrelated to fields. > > [I have studied general relativity at university.] OK, if you want to be pedantic about it, a geodesic is a vector field on the one-dimensional manifold given by an affine parameter λ, x^μ(λ) 8-) -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Orwhin Vadeev <neo@rnhve.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 20:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11carln$295l3$1@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #675537 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Its an n-ary vector field. >> >> A geodesic is not a field, and AFAIK it is unrelated to fields. >> >> [I have studied general relativity at university.] > > OK, if you want to be pedantic about it, a geodesic is a vector field on > the one-dimensional manifold given by an affine parameter λ, x^μ(λ) 8-) imbecile, a geodesic is a path, aka a line path, not a field; fucking cretin, inbreed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web