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 11 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 16 Next page →
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 22:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <IPScncyPROf2RX_3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675226 |
On 10/28/2026 09:24 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/28/2026 06:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 02:45:03 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 02:12:27 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 18:03:36 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> A moving wavelike object will INDUCE a frequency at a relatively >>>>>>>>> moving point. >>>>>>>> Which part of "frequencies are not 'induced'" in my previous >>>>>>>> follow-up did you not understand? >>>>>>> It is hard to understand anything you say because it is so >>>>>>> unscientific. >>>>>> It is not. Your babbling is unscientific and actually >>>>>> pseudoscientific instead: Frequencies are NOT "induced". >>>>> >>>>> ...but you give an example below where oscilations ARE induced at a >>>>> point by the traveling wave... >>>> >>>> _Oscillations_, NOT frequencies. An oscillation is a phenomenon, a way >>>> in which a change occurs; a frequency is a quantity, a property of a >>>> physical system. You need to learn to distinguish between the two if >>>> you want to discuss physics seriously. >>> >>> Frequency is the rate at which a defined event repeats. >> >> More precisely, with a wave it is the number of full oscillations >> experienced/measured at a point of space per unit time in a frame of >> reference where that point is at rest. This quantity can be calculated >> as the multiplicative inverse of the period T of the wave, because the >> period is the time that it takes for a point of space to experience one >> full oscillation: >> >> f = 1/T. >> >> <https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/16-2-mathematics-of-waves> >> >> >>> In the case of a travelling wave, nothing is oscillating or repeating >>> IN ITS OWN FRAME. >> >> Irrelevant. All that matters is what is experienced/measured at a point >> of space in a frame of reference where that point is at rest. >> >> Moreover, light in vacuum does not have an "own frame", i.e. a frame of >> reference in which it is at rest. That would contradict the special >> principle of relativity. >> >>>>> with a longitudinal sound >>>>>> wave in e.g. air, one oscillating air molecule interacts with the >>>>>> neighboring one electromagnetically, transferring a part of its >>>>>> kinetic energy to the latter; with electromagnetic waves, i.e. light, >>>>>> the electric (E⃗) and magnetic (B⃗) field that induce each other store >>>>>> energy proportional to their norm squared, so electromagnetic energy >>>>>> is transported this way. >>>>> >>>>> The E nd B wave do NOT reinforce each other for one microsecond, >>>> >>>> Nobody said that they "reinforce" each other. Learn comprehensive >>>> reading. >>> >>> You would not have heard of 'feedback'...+ve or -ve. >> >> You have no idea what I have heard, and "+ve" and "-ve" are terms that >> are only used by school children and people who cannot spell. Figures. >> >>>>> let along for billions of years. >>>> >>> "along"? And how did you get the idea of "for billions of years"? >>> >>> typo dopey... >> >> You mean that you had not taken the medicaments that you should have >> taken while writing this? Or that you were under the influence of >> psychedelic drugs? Either one would explain a lot. >> >>> let alone for billions of years. >> >> You have not answered the second question. >> >>>>> They might not even exist in traveling light. >>>> >>>> You have still not understood that light _is_ an electromagnetic wave; >>>> it _is_ the self-propagating oscillation of those fields as they induce >>>> each others values. >>> >>> I seem to be a step ahead of you in all of this. >> >> Yes, that only seems to be so. You have delusions of grandeur instead. >> >>> Light is assumed to consist of wavelike electric and magnetic fields >>> because it can be produced with those and can reproduce them when >>> intercepted. >> >> No, it _is_ an electromagnetic wave: >> >> <https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-2/pages/16-introduction> >> >> >> Therefore, in modern (astro)physics, we use the term "light" as a >> shorthand for all forms of electromagnetic radiation, not just the >> human-visible form. For example, there is "infrared light" and >> "ultraviolet light" that humans cannot perceive. All forms of >> electromagnetic radiation, including (human-)visible light, make up the >> *electromagnetic spectrum*, where the forms of light are ordered by >> their wavelength or frequency (following Newton's experiments with >> prisms where he produced the apparition which he therefore called by the >> Latin word for that, /spectrum/): >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum> >> >>>> Therefore, light is always "traveling", so the "traveling" in >>>> "traveling >>>> light" is superfluous. >>> >>> Again I am one step ahead of you. >> >> No, you are two steps and now already /four/ centuries (!) _behind_ >> _everyone else_. >> >>> What is travelling might not be 'light'.. >> >> But it _is_ light. That is how we found out that light works. >> >>> just something that produces what we refer to as light. >> >> Nonsense. >> >>>>> The force that is accelerating the car compressed its structure and >>>>> ended up also accelerating me. Can you identify the acceleration that >>>>> caused the force. >>>> >>>> The acceleration of the car produces the force that pushes you into >>>> your >>>> seat (actually, your seat against you, thanks to your inertia) when the >>>> car's acceleration is positive, pulls you forward in the car when the >>>> car's acceleration is negative, i.e. when it is braking (again, due to >>>> your inertia), or pushes you into the sides of the car (actually, the >>>> sides of the car into you) when you turn a (again, due to your >>>> inertia). >>> >>> No silly boy. >> >> _You_ are the silly one here, denying even /Newtonian/ mechanics now :-D >> >>> The force that accelerates the car is transmitted through the car >>> body by compression [...] >> >> No, it is not. Instead, even according to Newtonian mechanics, you have >> mass, therefore inertia, so with a positive acceleration of the car you >> want to remain in place (at rest), but the seat is attached to the rest >> of the car, therefore accelerating into you, and its front side is >> intentionally compressible, so you are making a dent in it. You are >> exerting a force on it because something else accelerates. >> >>>> With that said, the IQ of a person (on any scale) is not an indication >>>> about their intelligence, but how well they mastered an IQ test, as the >>>> designers of IQ tests emphasize themselves. >>> >>> Factor analysis...I know all about it. >> >> Doubtful. You did not even specify the scale at which you falsely >> guessed my IQ to be. >> >>> The idea of a general 'IQ' went out years ago. Still, it is a neat >>> way to tell someone they are an idiot. >> >> It shows more the illiteracy and idiocy of the person misusing it as an >> argument. >> >>>>>>>> (I already showed and explained to you all of this.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the animation, can you not see that the red and blue wave is NOT >>>>>>> oscillating? >>>>>> >>>>>> In the animation, can you not see that the value of the wave at the >>>>>> same point of space _is_ oscillating, i.e. changing in a periodic >>>>>> way, >>>>>> as I have already told you /ad nauseam/? >>> >>> The oscillation at the point is NOT an oscillation in the travelling >>> object itself. >> >> There is no such notion in physics. You are delusional. >> >>> When a magnetic tape goes through a detector,it produces >>> oscillations in that detector. >> >> In a sense, yes. >> >>> NOTHING ON THE TAPE ITSELF OSCILLATES. >> >> A wave is not a tape. It is not even /like/ a tape. >> >>> the same applies to a radio signal or travelling light. >> >> No, it does not. >> >>> It does NOT oscillate in it own frame. >> >> It does not even need to have a frame (in which it is at rest), and >> light _in vacuum_ has none. >> >>> Like the information on the tape, it does NOT possess an intrinsic >>> frequency... >> >> It does. I already told you how that is defined in physics. >> >>> but students of Physics are forced to accept that it does... >> >> No, one defines a quantity and then works with it. It is very useful to >> define frequency the way I told you, and how it is defined in all >> physics textbooks, and it is not useful to define it the way you do. >> That is why nobody else uses or is going to use your definition. You >> are just wasting everybody's precious time with this self-aggrandizing >> nonsense, including your own. >> >>> because the idiots that teach them know no better. >> >> False; they know _far better_ than you, but that is not so difficult to >> do as you are so mindbogglingly ignorant: /Almost everybody/ knows >> better than you, but you are suffering from delusions of grandeur in >> order to feel important; probably because you feel irrelevant the rest >> of the day. >> >>> Maybe I'm the only person in the world who can understand this stuff. >> >> See? /That/ are your delusions of grandeur. You should see a >> psychiatrist to have them treated. >> >>> That's why I had to write a book about all the myths of modern physics. >> >> No, you wrote such a book because you are utterly ignorant of modern and >> even Newtonian physics and mathematics, you have many misconceptions >> about it, you are utterly incompetent in it (as your articles show), and >> you have delusions of grandeur (ditto). So your book will only serve to >> mislead those who already know and have understood even less than you, >> provided that someone would even read it, let alone buy it. >> >>>>> The rred and blue waves are NOT oscillating. >>>> >>>> You have avoided considering and answering the question put to you. >>>> >>>>> The structure is static in its own frame. >>>> >>>> It actually has no (rest) frame of reference, at least not when it is >>>> propagating at c. >>> >>> Another Einsteinian myth >> >> No, a consequence of the mathematics that describes our universe >> correctly. >> >>>>> The moving arrows represent the induced wave at a relatively moving >>>>> point. >>>> >>>> No, they do not. The represent the value of the respective field at a >>>> point at a time. So again, if you consider one fixed point, what do >>>> you >>>> observe about the field values there? >>> >>> They read the instantaneous values of the spatial wave structure as it >>> moves past. >> >> That is what I just said. >> >>> That does not mean the structure is oscillating. That should be obvious. >> >> There is no "structure". A physical wave does not even have to be >> represented by a sine function; it can be any periodic pattern that >> propagates in space (and we even call a pulse in which nothing repeats >> "a wave" because it is described by the same mathematics [1]). >> Fourier's theorem proves that such a pattern can be produced as a >> superposition of sine and cosine functions, as can be seen for example >> here: >> >> <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=sin%28x%29+%2B+sin%282x%29+%2B+sin%283x%29> >> >> >> We use this in signal analysis to extract short-term and long-term >> oscillations in a signal or measurements. >> >> [1] >> >>>>>>> The moving arrows show what will be detected at a passing point. >>>>> Precisely. .and the travelling wave is a fixed structure. >>>> No. >>> >>> You can see that it is fixed in the animation. >> >> It is not; it is moving. Press the Play button on the slider for time >> t. (Disable the additional wave functions at your convenience.) >> >>> It is an unchanging object that moves. >> >> Irrelevant even if true. >> >>>>>> because the wave is NOT changing at all. >>>> >>>> It is propagating through space, that is its way of changing. >>> >>> You are raving. You should be on alt.religion >> >> No; you have another big misconception there. >> >>>> Said the unstudied wannabe physicist-and-teacher to the senior >>>> Astrophysics student and tutor :-D >>> >>> No wonder you want light speed to be constant. For 5000 years, the whole >>> of astronomy has assumes it is. >> >> No, the first time that this was indicated by a measurement was in the >> 17th century, only about 400 years ago. It was not possible to measure >> the speed of light before that because the required technologies and >> techniques had not been invented yet (Galilei famously tried and failed >> using lanterns and watches): >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#First_measurement_attempts> >> > > Heat radiation is not electromagnetic radiation, > and eventually after blackbody radiation emerges > into the infrared. > > Light, unlike radio, doesn't interact with the electrical field. > That's how HERF works. > > Light exhibits pure diffraction, while radio, compounded refraction. > Also signal in light, image, is decoherence, in radio: coherence. > > > Calling light "electromagnetic radiation" is a gross oversimplification, > much like saying mass is charge, when either is energy. That they > radiate, or according to the conservation of energy make for transport > and parallel transport and the teleparallel and the like, > has that "reductionism" is very convenient, not comprehensive. > > > > When the CMBR and other experiments about _microwave_ background > found that the Universe has an _infrared_ background also, > that's heat, not radio. > > Fourier's theorem or Fourier-style analysis has various accounts in its derivation of what are distinctness results besides and not being uniqueness results, then besides that Dirichlet and Fejer and the Dirac delta make for great formalisms, the Dirac delta not being any kind of standard function at all yet admitted everywhere as being a non-standard function with real analytical character, then also the Gibbs phenomenon introduces various accounts of the incompleteness and the unsuitability of many common approaches.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 15:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18e309d5579d1d86$868$583487$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #675227 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 22:23:29 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/28/2026 09:24 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 10/28/2026 06:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 02:45:03 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> >> >> When the CMBR and other experiments about _microwave_ background found >> that the Universe has an _infrared_ background also, >> that's heat, not radio. >> >> >> > > Fourier's theorem or Fourier-style analysis has various accounts in its > derivation of what are distinctness results besides and not being > uniqueness results, then besides that Dirichlet and Fejer and the Dirac > delta make for great formalisms, the Dirac delta not being any kind of > standard function at all yet admitted everywhere as being a non-standard > function with real analytical character, > then also the Gibbs phenomenon introduces various accounts of the > incompleteness and the unsuitability of many common approaches. Ross, if you could type as quickly as your brain operates we would sometimes have less trouble in understanding what the hell you are talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 16:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18e30d180f723dd1$870$583487$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #675224 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 02:23:26 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 02:45:03 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 02:12:27 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> >>>> ...but you give an example below where oscilations ARE induced at a >>>> point by the traveling wave... >>> >>> _Oscillations_, NOT frequencies. An oscillation is a phenomenon, a >>> way in which a change occurs; a frequency is a quantity, a property of >>> a physical system. You need to learn to distinguish between the two >>> if you want to discuss physics seriously. >> >> Frequency is the rate at which a defined event repeats. > > More precisely, with a wave it is the number of full oscillations > experienced/measured at a point of space per unit time in a frame of > reference where that point is at rest. This quantity can be calculated > as the multiplicative inverse of the period T of the wave, because the > period is the time that it takes for a point of space to experience one > full oscillation: > > f = 1/T. > > <https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/16-2- mathematics-of-waves> > >> In the case of a travelling wave, nothing is oscillating or repeating >> IN ITS OWN FRAME. > > Irrelevant. All that matters is what is experienced/measured at a point > of space in a frame of reference where that point is at rest. You are talking about the long overdue expression that I have introduced, namely 'WAR', wave arrival rate at a point, which is speed dependent. > Moreover, light in vacuum does not have an "own frame", i.e. a frame of > reference in which it is at rest. That would contradict the special > principle of relativity. That's the whole idea. >>>> with a longitudinal sound >>>>> wave in e.g. air, one oscillating air molecule interacts with the >>>>> neighboring one electromagnetically, transferring a part of its >>>>> kinetic energy to the latter; with electromagnetic waves, i.e. >>>>> light, >>>>> the electric (E⃗) and magnetic (B⃗) field that induce each other >>>>> store energy proportional to their norm squared, so electromagnetic >>>>> energy is transported this way. >>>> >>>> The E nd B wave do NOT reinforce each other for one microsecond, >>> >>> Nobody said that they "reinforce" each other. Learn comprehensive >>> reading. >> >> You would not have heard of 'feedback'...+ve or -ve. > > You have no idea what I have heard, and "+ve" and "-ve" are terms that > are only used by school children and people who cannot spell. Figures. > >>>> let along for billions of years. >>> >> "along"? And how did you get the idea of "for billions of years"? >> >> typo dopey... > > You mean that you had not taken the medicaments that you should have > taken while writing this? Or that you were under the influence of > psychedelic drugs? Either one would explain a lot. > >> let alone for billions of years. > > You have not answered the second question. > >>>> They might not even exist in traveling light. >>> >>> You have still not understood that light _is_ an electromagnetic wave; >>> it _is_ the self-propagating oscillation of those fields as they >>> induce each others values. >> >> I seem to be a step ahead of you in all of this. > > Yes, that only seems to be so. You have delusions of grandeur instead. > >> Light is assumed to consist of wavelike electric and magnetic fields >> because it can be produced with those and can reproduce them when >> intercepted. > > No, it _is_ an electromagnetic wave: > > <https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-2/pages/16- introduction> > > Therefore, in modern (astro)physics, we use the term "light" as a > shorthand for all forms of electromagnetic radiation, not just the > human-visible form. For example, there is "infrared light" and > "ultraviolet light" that humans cannot perceive. All forms of > electromagnetic radiation, including (human-)visible light, make up the > *electromagnetic spectrum*, where the forms of light are ordered by > their wavelength or frequency (following Newton's experiments with > prisms where he produced the apparition which he therefore called by the > Latin word for that, /spectrum/): > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum> > >>> Therefore, light is always "traveling", so the "traveling" in >>> "traveling light" is superfluous. >> >> Again I am one step ahead of you. > > No, you are two steps and now already /four/ centuries (!) _behind_ > _everyone else_. > >> What is travelling might not be 'light'.. > > But it _is_ light. That is how we found out that light works. > >> just something that produces what we refer to as light. > > Nonsense. > >>>> The force that is accelerating the car compressed its structure and >>>> ended up also accelerating me. Can you identify the acceleration that >>>> caused the force. >>> >>> The acceleration of the car produces the force that pushes you into >>> your seat (actually, your seat against you, thanks to your inertia) >>> when the car's acceleration is positive, pulls you forward in the car >>> when the car's acceleration is negative, i.e. when it is braking >>> (again, due to your inertia), or pushes you into the sides of the car >>> (actually, the sides of the car into you) when you turn a (again, due >>> to your inertia). >> >> No silly boy. > > _You_ are the silly one here, denying even /Newtonian/ mechanics now :-D > >> The force that accelerates the car is transmitted through the car body >> by compression [...] > > No, it is not. Instead, even according to Newtonian mechanics, you have > mass, therefore inertia, so with a positive acceleration of the car you > want to remain in place (at rest), but the seat is attached to the rest > of the car, therefore accelerating into you, and its front side is > intentionally compressible, so you are making a dent in it. You are > exerting a force on it because something else accelerates. Correct...the force accelerating the car is transmitted through its rigid body to you. The seat applies a forward force accelerates you. You exert a equal reactive force on the seat equal to your rate of momentum increase. >>> With that said, the IQ of a person (on any scale) is not an indication >>> about their intelligence, but how well they mastered an IQ test, as >>> the designers of IQ tests emphasize themselves. >> >> Factor analysis...I know all about it. > > Doubtful. You did not even specify the scale at which you falsely > guessed my IQ to be. The Binet tests that were used in the early 1900s produced a 'mental age' which was turned into an Intelligence Quotient' more or less for convenience. The mean in Europe was around 110. It is a bit of a joke nowadays. A person can be brilliant in one area and hopeless in another...like I was at school. I typically came top in maths and bottom in English. In your case, you seem to have learnt maths pretty well but only know of Einstein's corruptied version of Physics. I suppose that is generally the case these days. You probably have never heard of Newton. >> The idea of a general 'IQ' went out years ago. Still, it is a neat way >> to tell someone they are an idiot. > > It shows more the illiteracy and idiocy of the person misusing it as an > argument. No. IQ is definitely a useful term even if basically a joke. For instance I might inoffensively say, "your IQ is only be slightly more than your age". What would Marcel say. >>>>>>> (I already showed and explained to you all of this.) >>>>>> >>>>>> In the animation, can you not see that the red and blue wave is NOT >>>>>> oscillating? >>>>> >>>>> In the animation, can you not see that the value of the wave at the >>>>> same point of space _is_ oscillating, i.e. changing in a periodic >>>>> way, >>>>> as I have already told you /ad nauseam/? >> >> The oscillation at the point is NOT an oscillation in the travelling >> object itself. > > There is no such notion in physics. You are delusional. You know nothing about physics. You were taught a religion. >> When a magnetic tape goes through a detector,it produces oscillations >> in that detector. > > In a sense, yes. > >> NOTHING ON THE TAPE ITSELF OSCILLATES. > > A wave is not a tape. It is not even /like/ a tape. How would you know? >> the same applies to a radio signal or travelling light. > > No, it does not. > >> It does NOT oscillate in it own frame. > > It does not even need to have a frame (in which it is at rest), and > light _in vacuum_ has none. Religious crap. It takes time to go from A to B, therefore it defines a reference frame. >> Like the information on the tape, it does NOT possess an intrinsic >> frequency... > > It does. I already told you how that is defined in physics. You keep telling us what light does not what it is. In fact that is about all we know about light. >> but students of Physics are forced to accept that it does... > > No, one defines a quantity and then works with it. It is very useful to > define frequency the way I told you, and how it is defined in all > physics textbooks, and it is not useful to define it the way you do. > That is why nobody else uses or is going to use your definition. You > are just wasting everybody's precious time with this self-aggrandizing > nonsense, including your own. Look, I have already restored some sanity into physics with my terms WER and WAR to replace the nonexistent 'frequency of light'. >> because the idiots that teach them know no better. > > False; they know _far better_ than you, but that is not so difficult to > do as you are so mindbogglingly ignorant: /Almost everybody/ knows > better than you, but you are suffering from delusions of grandeur in > order to feel important; probably because you feel irrelevant the rest > of the day. Like you, they have been indoctrinated entirely with Einsteiniana. They know no better. >> Maybe I'm the only person in the world who can understand this stuff. > > See? /That/ are your delusions of grandeur. You should see a > psychiatrist to have them treated. > >> That's why I had to write a book about all the myths of modern physics. > > No, you wrote such a book because you are utterly ignorant of modern and > even Newtonian physics and mathematics, you have many misconceptions > about it, you are utterly incompetent in it (as your articles show), and > you have delusions of grandeur (ditto). So your book will only serve to > mislead those who already know and have understood even less than you, > provided that someone would even read it, let alone buy it. I'm quite aware that the relatidiots will laugh at my book...until they come to the proof. >>>> The rred and blue waves are NOT oscillating. >>> >>> You have avoided considering and answering the question put to you. >>> >>>> The structure is static in its own frame. >>> >>> It actually has no (rest) frame of reference, at least not when it is >>> propagating at c. >> >> Another Einsteinian myth > > No, a consequence of the mathematics that describes our universe > correctly. > >>>> The moving arrows represent the induced wave at a relatively moving >>>> point. >>> >>> No, they do not. The represent the value of the respective field at a >>> point at a time. So again, if you consider one fixed point, what do >>> you observe about the field values there? >> >> They read the instantaneous values of the spatial wave structure as it >> moves past. > > That is what I just said. > >> That does not mean the structure is oscillating. That should be >> obvious. > > There is no "structure". A physical wave does not even have to be > represented by a sine function; it can be any periodic pattern that > propagates in space (and we even call a pulse in which nothing repeats > "a wave" because it is described by the same mathematics [1]). > Fourier's theorem proves that such a pattern can be produced as a > superposition of sine and cosine functions, as can be seen for example > here: Look, you sound like a five year old kid talking to a physicist like me. > <https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=sin%28x%29+%2B+sin%282x%29+ %2B+sin%283x%29> > > We use this in signal analysis to extract short-term and long-term > oscillations in a signal or measurements. ...and the signal doesn't change form as it travels. Can you not understand that. > [1] > >>>>>> The moving arrows show what will be detected at a passing point. >>>> Precisely. .and the travelling wave is a fixed structure. >>> No. >> >> You can see that it is fixed in the animation. > > It is not; it is moving. Press the Play button on the slider for time > t. (Disable the additional wave functions at your convenience.) > >> It is an unchanging object that moves. > > Irrelevant even if true. It is far from being irrelevant. It is the whole point. >>>>> because the wave is NOT changing at all. >>> >>> It is propagating through space, that is its way of changing. >> >> You are raving. You should be on alt.religion > > No; you have another big misconception there. > >>> Said the unstudied wannabe physicist-and-teacher to the senior >>> Astrophysics student and tutor :-D >> >> No wonder you want light speed to be constant. For 5000 years, the >> whole of astronomy has assumes it is. > > No, the first time that this was indicated by a measurement was in the > 17th century, only about 400 years ago. It was not possible to measure > the speed of light before that because the required technologies and > techniques had not been invented yet (Galilei famously tried and failed > using lanterns and watches): The history (and mystery) of measuring light speed is well documented in my book. You must read it. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Speed_of_light#First_measurement_attempts>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 13:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11bb8c9$9oib$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674775 |
On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: [...] Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting field lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-23 17:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18e1397faef1cbe0$3116$25751$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674816 |
On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > [...] > > Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which the stuff we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. Whatever travels might not actually be 'light'. > Ponder on a photon riding a > gravitational field line. Plotting field lines is fun. Some 2d examples > of mine: > > https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 > > https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc Yeh! Nice..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-23 13:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <5O-dnVqeZJ9XXEb3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #674909 |
On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >> On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> [...] >> >> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? > > 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which the stuff > we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. Whatever travels might > not actually be 'light'. > >> Ponder on a photon riding a >> gravitational field line. Plotting field lines is fun. Some 2d examples >> of mine: >> >> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >> >> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc > > Yeh! Nice.. > No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 16:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18e185114ee497a7$7672$2261517$4276dc23@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674920 |
On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> >>> On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? >> >> 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which the >> stuff we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. Whatever >> travels might not actually be 'light'. >> >>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting field >>> lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: >>> >>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>> >>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >> >> Yeh! Nice.. >> >> > > No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, if any.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 11:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <DNmdnSszc_NPaEH3nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #674948 |
On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? >>> >>> 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which the >>> stuff we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. Whatever >>> travels might not actually be 'light'. >>> >>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting field >>>> lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: >>>> >>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>> >>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>> >>> Yeh! Nice.. >>> >>> >> >> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. > > I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, if > any. > Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot is readily belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information among _static_ systems among what is considerable as a "tetrad of quantities", whether that's fundamental particles, forces, fields, or otherwise for a "tetrad of quantities", for example mass of the proton, charge of the electron, lifetime of the neutron, and velocity of the photon, or the usual account of strong/electrical/weak/electroweak, about _tetrads_ of quantities and _triads_ of super-symmetries, then that hadron physics after boson physics after electron physics is one of those and there are each the combinations the others, about _super-symmetry_ in a world of "running constants" that NIST PDG CODATA advises updated every few years and that the fundamental physical constants grow _smaller_ with higher energies of experiments, running constants, while yet the observable physical universe grows large, thus older, every few years, explaining why that neither Big Bang nor Steady State are falsifiable yet either fit the data somehow, and that neither mass nor charge are truly fundamental themselves yet in terms of each other, helping explain why Nature is not an Idiot and is furthermore very, very Simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 14:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c5mpj$1fnct$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674953 |
On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? >>>> >>>> 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which the >>>> stuff we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. Whatever >>>> travels might not actually be 'light'. >>>> >>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting field >>>>> lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: >>>>> >>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>> >>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>> >>>> Yeh! Nice.. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. >> >> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, if >> any. >> > > Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot > is readily belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. > > Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) > among _static_ systems among what is considerable as > a "tetrad of quantities", whether that's fundamental particles, > forces, fields, or otherwise for a "tetrad of quantities", > for example mass of the proton, charge of the electron, > lifetime of the neutron, and velocity of the photon, > or the usual account of strong/electrical/weak/electroweak, > about _tetrads_ of quantities and _triads_ of super-symmetries, > then that hadron physics after boson physics after electron physics > is one of those and there are each the combinations the others, > about _super-symmetry_ in a world of "running constants" that > NIST PDG CODATA advises updated every few years and that the > fundamental physical constants grow _smaller_ with higher energies > of experiments, running constants, while yet the observable physical > universe grows large, thus older, every few years, explaining why > that neither Big Bang nor Steady State are falsifiable yet either > fit the data somehow, and that neither mass nor charge are truly > fundamental themselves yet in terms of each other, helping explain > why Nature is not an Idiot and is furthermore very, very Simple. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 01:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <11c6161$3279d$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #675416 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting field >>>>>> lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>> >>>>> Yeh! Nice.. >>>> >>>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. >>> >>> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, if >>> any. >> >> Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot >> is readily belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. >> >> Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information > > How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) In theory, there is no upper limit to the wavelength λ of light, and the energy of a photon is inversely proportional to the wavelength (E = ℎ f = ℎ c/λ); so a free electron can emit "countably infinitely many" photons with an arbitrarily small energy without violating the condition that its energy cannot be smaller than its zero-point energy. However, if the electron is in a bound state, it can only have discrete energies. When the ground (lowest-energy) state is reached, an electron cannot emit a photon, thus cannot lose energy. That is how we (can) explain that atoms are stable and how we can exist: University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Hydrogen Atom Simulator <https://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/light/hydrogenatom.html> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 21:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <6AE6C0E1.724A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #675420 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > >>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >>>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting field > >>>>>> lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc > >>>>> > >>>>> Yeh! Nice.. > >>>> > >>>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. > >>> > >>> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, if > >>> any. > >> > >> Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot > >> is readily belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. > >> > >> Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information > > > > How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) > In theory, there is no upper limit to the wavelength λ of light, and the > energy of a photon is inversely proportional to the wavelength (E = ℎ f > = ℎ c/λ); so a free electron can emit "countably infinitely many" > photons with an arbitrarily small energy without violating the condition > that its energy cannot be smaller than its zero-point energy. > > However, if the electron is in a bound state, it can only have discrete > energies. When the ground (lowest-energy) state is reached, an electron > cannot emit a photon, thus cannot lose energy. That is how we (can) > explain that atoms are stable and how we can exist: > > University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Hydrogen Atom Simulator > <https://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/light/hydrogenatom.html> > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. Looks like I found some pointed ears in the state of Delaware! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 04:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18e3d1c488a1d676$110$3068120$4056de03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #675420 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:29:52 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting >>>>>>> field lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeh! Nice.. >>>>> >>>>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. >>>> >>>> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, >>>> if any. >>> >>> Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot is >>> readily belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. >>> >>> Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information >> >> How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) > In theory, there is no upper limit to the wavelength λ of light, and the > energy of a photon is inversely proportional to the wavelength (E = ℎ f > = ℎ c/λ); so a free electron can emit "countably infinitely many" > photons with an arbitrarily small energy without violating the condition > that its energy cannot be smaller than its zero-point energy. > > However, if the electron is in a bound state, it can only have discrete > energies. When the ground (lowest-energy) state is reached, an electron > cannot emit a photon, thus cannot lose energy. That is how we (can) > explain that atoms are stable and how we can exist: > > University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Hydrogen Atom Simulator > <https://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/light/hydrogenatom.html> I wouldn't necessarily agree. I think the photon comes from the field rather than the electron body...as does synchrotron radiation..but because fields are not regarded as physical objects, there is no proof either way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 07:57 +0100 |
| Subject | Electrons and photons (was: Newton and the speed of light) |
| Message-ID | <11c6nsr$36pqb$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #675428 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:29:52 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) >> >> In theory, there is no upper limit to the wavelength λ of light, and the >> energy of a photon is inversely proportional to the wavelength (E = ℎ f >> = ℎ c/λ); so a free electron can emit "countably infinitely many" >> photons with an arbitrarily small energy without violating the condition >> that its energy cannot be smaller than its zero-point energy. >> >> However, if the electron is in a bound state, it can only have discrete >> energies. When the ground (lowest-energy) state is reached, an electron >> cannot emit a photon, thus cannot lose energy. That is how we (can) >> explain that atoms are stable and how we can exist: >> >> University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Hydrogen Atom Simulator >> <https://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/light/hydrogenatom.html> > > I wouldn't necessarily agree. I think the photon comes from the field > rather than the electron body... Yes, that is the idea of quantum electrondynamics (which I did not discuss here): The electron is a quantum, an elementary excitation state, of the electron field, and when it has an energy that is larger than its zero-point energy, then it is a further excited state of that field. Thus that field can give off the extra energy to the electromagnetic/photon field which produces a photon, an elementary excited state of that field. See also: The Science Asylum: What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?! <https://youtu.be/zS2vI_2faII?si=tr1yqLTGJpnNi4xP> (from my "Quantum Physics" public playlist) > as does synchrotron radiation.. Synchrotron radiation is electromagnetic radiation that is emitted and absorbed in portions, quanta, called photons. It is a form of light. > but because fields are not regarded as physical objects, there is no > proof either way. Natural science cannot, and thus does not attempt to, provide proofs; (its) theories cannot be proven, just falsified or confirmed by observations. To demand proof for a scientific theory means to not have understood what it is. See also: StarTalk: Why Science Doesn't Make Laws Anymore <https://youtu.be/EVJdwD7coQ4?si=lMVstMeajqyXM13E> Quantum electrodynamics, which is a special-relativistic quantum field theory, produce "the best comparisons between theory and experiment in all of science: to [now probably more than] 10 decimal places [...] we can get the right answer". Which is why the devices you and I use here to communicate are designed, built and /work/ based on the assumption that it (and therefore special relativity, too) is correct. Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science: 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009. Vacuum energy (at 18:59). <https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo?t=1139&si=LW4PN7HVNPfU-DOP> -- 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 | 2026-11-01 07:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Electrons and photons |
| Message-ID | <FUednfVqQ-_rx3r3nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675435 |
On 10/31/2026 11:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:29:52 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) >>> >>> In theory, there is no upper limit to the wavelength λ of light, and the >>> energy of a photon is inversely proportional to the wavelength (E = ℎ f >>> = ℎ c/λ); so a free electron can emit "countably infinitely many" >>> photons with an arbitrarily small energy without violating the condition >>> that its energy cannot be smaller than its zero-point energy. >>> >>> However, if the electron is in a bound state, it can only have discrete >>> energies. When the ground (lowest-energy) state is reached, an electron >>> cannot emit a photon, thus cannot lose energy. That is how we (can) >>> explain that atoms are stable and how we can exist: >>> >>> University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Hydrogen Atom Simulator >>> <https://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/light/hydrogenatom.html> >> >> I wouldn't necessarily agree. I think the photon comes from the field >> rather than the electron body... > > Yes, that is the idea of quantum electrondynamics (which I did not > discuss here): The electron is a quantum, an elementary excitation > state, of the electron field, and when it has an energy that is larger > than its zero-point energy, then it is a further excited state of that > field. Thus that field can give off the extra energy to the > electromagnetic/photon field which produces a photon, an elementary > excited state of that field. > > See also: > > The Science Asylum: What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?! > <https://youtu.be/zS2vI_2faII?si=tr1yqLTGJpnNi4xP> > > (from my "Quantum Physics" public playlist) > >> as does synchrotron radiation.. > > Synchrotron radiation is electromagnetic radiation that is emitted and > absorbed in portions, quanta, called photons. It is a form of light. > >> but because fields are not regarded as physical objects, there is no >> proof either way. > Natural science cannot, and thus does not attempt to, provide proofs; > (its) theories cannot be proven, just falsified or confirmed by > observations. To demand proof for a scientific theory means to not have > understood what it is. > > See also: > > StarTalk: Why Science Doesn't Make Laws Anymore > <https://youtu.be/EVJdwD7coQ4?si=lMVstMeajqyXM13E> > > Quantum electrodynamics, which is a special-relativistic quantum field > theory, produce "the best comparisons between theory and experiment in > all of science: to [now probably more than] 10 decimal places [...] we > can get the right answer". Which is why the devices you and I use here > to communicate are designed, built and /work/ based on the assumption > that it (and therefore special relativity, too) is correct. > > Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science: 'A Universe From > Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009. Vacuum energy (at 18:59). > <https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo?t=1139&si=LW4PN7HVNPfU-DOP> > Thanks for writing. Please post a link to your video essay channel. I have one of these video essay channels, https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson . I similarly have posted up a playlist of eclectic content called "Musatoreum". I'd suggest something like "See the Pattern", Garret or Garreth's interesting essays. If video content says things like "time doesn't exist" or these sorts of non-sensical things, or gets all MWI, I quit watching it. Accounts of the philosophy that ignore the idealistic tradition for the analytical tradition have thrown away their justification. That's not necessarily to say "theology", yet, "teleology" is a thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 08:42 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Electrons and photons |
| Message-ID | <LIOcnfuJUo-C8Xr3nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675443 |
On 11/01/2026 07:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/31/2026 11:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:29:52 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) >>>> >>>> In theory, there is no upper limit to the wavelength λ of light, and >>>> the >>>> energy of a photon is inversely proportional to the wavelength (E = ℎ f >>>> = ℎ c/λ); so a free electron can emit "countably infinitely many" >>>> photons with an arbitrarily small energy without violating the >>>> condition >>>> that its energy cannot be smaller than its zero-point energy. >>>> >>>> However, if the electron is in a bound state, it can only have discrete >>>> energies. When the ground (lowest-energy) state is reached, an >>>> electron >>>> cannot emit a photon, thus cannot lose energy. That is how we (can) >>>> explain that atoms are stable and how we can exist: >>>> >>>> University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Hydrogen Atom Simulator >>>> <https://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/light/hydrogenatom.html> >>> >>> I wouldn't necessarily agree. I think the photon comes from the field >>> rather than the electron body... >> >> Yes, that is the idea of quantum electrondynamics (which I did not >> discuss here): The electron is a quantum, an elementary excitation >> state, of the electron field, and when it has an energy that is larger >> than its zero-point energy, then it is a further excited state of that >> field. Thus that field can give off the extra energy to the >> electromagnetic/photon field which produces a photon, an elementary >> excited state of that field. >> >> See also: >> >> The Science Asylum: What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?! >> <https://youtu.be/zS2vI_2faII?si=tr1yqLTGJpnNi4xP> >> >> (from my "Quantum Physics" public playlist) >> >>> as does synchrotron radiation.. >> >> Synchrotron radiation is electromagnetic radiation that is emitted and >> absorbed in portions, quanta, called photons. It is a form of light. >> >>> but because fields are not regarded as physical objects, there is no >>> proof either way. >> Natural science cannot, and thus does not attempt to, provide proofs; >> (its) theories cannot be proven, just falsified or confirmed by >> observations. To demand proof for a scientific theory means to not have >> understood what it is. >> >> See also: >> >> StarTalk: Why Science Doesn't Make Laws Anymore >> <https://youtu.be/EVJdwD7coQ4?si=lMVstMeajqyXM13E> >> >> Quantum electrodynamics, which is a special-relativistic quantum field >> theory, produce "the best comparisons between theory and experiment in >> all of science: to [now probably more than] 10 decimal places [...] we >> can get the right answer". Which is why the devices you and I use here >> to communicate are designed, built and /work/ based on the assumption >> that it (and therefore special relativity, too) is correct. >> >> Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science: 'A Universe From >> Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009. Vacuum energy (at 18:59). >> <https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo?t=1139&si=LW4PN7HVNPfU-DOP> >> > > > Thanks for writing. Please post a link to your video essay channel. > > I have one of these video essay channels, > https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson . > I similarly have posted up a playlist of > eclectic content called "Musatoreum". > > I'd suggest something like "See the Pattern", Garret or Garreth's > interesting essays. > > If video content says things like "time doesn't exist" or these > sorts of non-sensical things, or gets all MWI, I quit watching it. > > Accounts of the philosophy that ignore the idealistic tradition > for the analytical tradition have thrown away their justification. > That's not necessarily to say "theology", yet, "teleology" is a thing. > > > > Somehow my television is set up so that I don't see "advertisements" on "YouTube", for example never clicking on "Free with Ads", contra the browser, which is infested with inappropriate, jarring, obnoxious, loud, insinuating, overbearing non-related content, and my channel is not "monetized" per se, so, if you see "ads", it's not my fault, though I have a usual policy of boycotting forever anything for which I see an "ad". Straight content, no ads.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 18:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Electrons and photons |
| Message-ID | <18e400701afb44e8$1052$3105571$4286dcd3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #675445 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:42:52 -0800, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 11/01/2026 07:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 10/31/2026 11:57 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 01:29:52 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> >>> Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science: 'A Universe From >>> Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009. Vacuum energy (at 18:59). >>> <https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo?t=1139&si=LW4PN7HVNPfU-DOP> >>> >>> >> >> Thanks for writing. Please post a link to your video essay channel. >> >> I have one of these video essay channels, >> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson . >> I similarly have posted up a playlist of eclectic content called >> "Musatoreum". >> >> I'd suggest something like "See the Pattern", Garret or Garreth's >> interesting essays. >> >> If video content says things like "time doesn't exist" or these sorts >> of non-sensical things, or gets all MWI, I quit watching it. >> >> Accounts of the philosophy that ignore the idealistic tradition for the >> analytical tradition have thrown away their justification. That's not >> necessarily to say "theology", yet, "teleology" is a thing. >> >> >> >> >> > > Somehow my television is set up so that I don't see "advertisements" on > "YouTube", for example never clicking on "Free with Ads", contra the > browser, which is infested with inappropriate, jarring, obnoxious, > loud, insinuating, overbearing non-related content, and my channel is > not "monetized" per se, so, if you see "ads", it's not my fault, though > I have a usual policy of boycotting forever anything for which I see an > "ad". > > Straight content, no ads. Pay TV was originally set up here with the promise of zero ads. Now we pay a lot more and get bombarded with them. If everyone agreed to boycott anything advertized the practice might diminish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 21:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <b6ucnU5YmLZRXHv3nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675420 |
On 10/31/2026 05:29 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting field >>>>>>> lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeh! Nice.. >>>>> >>>>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. >>>> >>>> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, if >>>> any. >>> >>> Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot >>> is readily belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. >>> >>> Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information >> >> How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) > In theory, there is no upper limit to the wavelength λ of light, and the > energy of a photon is inversely proportional to the wavelength (E = ℎ f > = ℎ c/λ); so a free electron can emit "countably infinitely many" > photons with an arbitrarily small energy without violating the condition > that its energy cannot be smaller than its zero-point energy. > > However, if the electron is in a bound state, it can only have discrete > energies. When the ground (lowest-energy) state is reached, an electron > cannot emit a photon, thus cannot lose energy. That is how we (can) > explain that atoms are stable and how we can exist: > > University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Hydrogen Atom Simulator > <https://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/light/hydrogenatom.html> > Usually given to "Born's infinite self-energy" and "Feynman's re-normalizable theories". Quantum theories are due that in the very, very small: that mass, charge, length, and distance lose which way is up, as they spin infinitely fast. Then usual quantum properties like "spin" are basically in terms of half-integer amounts of "infinite" that. Bohm's pilot-wave and Fadeev-Popov ghosts and the like, are usual consequences of considering "real wave-collapse", which behave super-classically, i.e., in terms of "scalar infinities" about the "running constants" of the "extremes and regimes" of "the Angstroms and Plancks". Electrons in solid-state physics are usually described in terms of Fermi-holes, and in physics with Lienard-Wiechert and the usual account given for _potentials_, as of a limited account called "electron-holes", a sort of reductionism, to keep things simple. Then, besides real wave-collapse, then most people don't have that "length & distance" are any different at all, except everybody does since they call them according to "metric & norm", for real space-contraction. Of course "real wave-collapse" was roundly derided for many decades, as was "real space-contraction". Which is unfortunate since they're not wrong, .... Pauli doesn't know whether he's coming or going. The account of electron orbitals then, all may agree that the model of atomic chemistry as it's called is entirely great about accounts like stoichiometry and ions and the like, all the way down to the atomic scale. Then, for things like London dispersion forces and accounts of potentials on the other side of the covalent bond past ionic and carbon and van der Wall's and chimeric bonds and all that: it's called "structural chemistry" or "molecular chemistry", and the usual account of "solid-state physics" and "electron physics" is its own little field after Fermi.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 04:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18e3d167b608d591$109$3068120$4056de03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #675416 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 14:32:32 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? >>>>> >>>>> 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which the >>>>> stuff we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. Whatever >>>>> travels might not actually be 'light'. >>>>> >>>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting >>>>>> field lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>> >>>>> Yeh! Nice.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. >>> >>> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, if >>> any. >>> >>> >> Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot is readily >> belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. >> >> Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information > > How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) Ah! But is the photon emitted from the electron itself or its surrounding field? >> among _static_ systems among what is considerable as a "tetrad of >> quantities", whether that's fundamental particles, forces, fields, or >> otherwise for a "tetrad of quantities", >> for example mass of the proton, charge of the electron, >> lifetime of the neutron, and velocity of the photon, >> or the usual account of strong/electrical/weak/electroweak, >> about _tetrads_ of quantities and _triads_ of super-symmetries, then >> that hadron physics after boson physics after electron physics is one >> of those and there are each the combinations the others, about >> _super-symmetry_ in a world of "running constants" that NIST PDG CODATA >> advises updated every few years and that the fundamental physical >> constants grow _smaller_ with higher energies of experiments, running >> constants, while yet the observable physical universe grows large, thus >> older, every few years, explaining why that neither Big Bang nor Steady >> State are falsifiable yet either fit the data somehow, and that neither >> mass nor charge are truly fundamental themselves yet in terms of each >> other, helping explain why Nature is not an Idiot and is furthermore >> very, very Simple. >> >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 21:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <gfGdnUdKf7jcXnv3nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #675425 |
On 10/31/2026 09:28 PM, HenryWilson wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 14:32:32 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >> On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? >>>>>> >>>>>> 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which the >>>>>> stuff we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. Whatever >>>>>> travels might not actually be 'light'. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting >>>>>>> field lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeh! Nice.. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. >>>> >>>> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, if >>>> any. >>>> >>>> >>> Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot is readily >>> belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. >>> >>> Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information >> >> How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) > > Ah! But is the photon emitted from the electron itself or its surrounding > field? > >>> among _static_ systems among what is considerable as a "tetrad of >>> quantities", whether that's fundamental particles, forces, fields, or >>> otherwise for a "tetrad of quantities", >>> for example mass of the proton, charge of the electron, >>> lifetime of the neutron, and velocity of the photon, >>> or the usual account of strong/electrical/weak/electroweak, >>> about _tetrads_ of quantities and _triads_ of super-symmetries, then >>> that hadron physics after boson physics after electron physics is one >>> of those and there are each the combinations the others, about >>> _super-symmetry_ in a world of "running constants" that NIST PDG CODATA >>> advises updated every few years and that the fundamental physical >>> constants grow _smaller_ with higher energies of experiments, running >>> constants, while yet the observable physical universe grows large, thus >>> older, every few years, explaining why that neither Big Bang nor Steady >>> State are falsifiable yet either fit the data somehow, and that neither >>> mass nor charge are truly fundamental themselves yet in terms of each >>> other, helping explain why Nature is not an Idiot and is furthermore >>> very, very Simple. >>> >>> > The usual theory of physics since Noether's theorem is that nothing is ever created or destroyed. Otherwise you'd need a continuity law for something like Shech and "his" paper about spherical cows instead of Noether and conservation law, else "symmetry-breaking". Then, it's also so that in usual physics that everything is a _form_ of energy, nothing is _pure_ energy, then that interactions make dynamics for things like the optoelectronic effect, which derives that photons are particles from that electrons are particles, "the particle conceit", which is a way to talk about where quantum effects begin, because otherwise, it would just be continuous quantities, and "atoms" would be infinitely small, which is more-than-less the point of "superstring theory", with those as smaller than "atoms" as atoms are smaller than us, thus, "atoms", with extra scratch-pad dimensions for whatever adds up, the, "curling up" of the dimensions, if you've heard of that. It's a continuum mechanics, ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 18:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton and the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <18e40098b301cafa$1053$3105571$4286dcd3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #675431 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 21:42:22 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/31/2026 09:28 PM, HenryWilson wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 14:32:32 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> >>> On 10/24/2026 11:15 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 10/24/2026 09:47 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:21:36 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/23/2026 10:42 AM, HenryWilson wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:47:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/20/2026 5:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can light be thought as a wave and a photon? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'Light' is our psychological interpretation of the way in which >>>>>>> the stuff we call 'travelling light' reacts with our senses. >>>>>>> Whatever travels might not actually be 'light'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ponder on a photon riding a gravitational field line. Plotting >>>>>>>> field lines is fun. Some 2d examples of mine: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Doeci7xBYh0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hOieGunExoc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeh! Nice.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> No, that's "films" since Lucretius, you're an idiot. >>>>> >>>>> I meant 'nice artistically'...very surreal, ...bugger the meaning, >>>>> if any. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Well that's agreeable, the harshness of calling you an idiot is >>>> readily belayed by open conscientiousness as an example. >>>> >>>> Light is free, _if metered_, propagation of information >>> >>> How many photons can an electron emit? Limitless? :^) >> >> Ah! But is the photon emitted from the electron itself or its >> surrounding field? >> >>>> among _static_ systems among what is considerable as a "tetrad of >>>> quantities", whether that's fundamental particles, forces, fields, or >>>> otherwise for a "tetrad of quantities", >>>> for example mass of the proton, charge of the electron, >>>> lifetime of the neutron, and velocity of the photon, >>>> or the usual account of strong/electrical/weak/electroweak, >>>> about _tetrads_ of quantities and _triads_ of super-symmetries, then >>>> that hadron physics after boson physics after electron physics is one >>>> of those and there are each the combinations the others, about >>>> _super-symmetry_ in a world of "running constants" that NIST PDG >>>> CODATA advises updated every few years and that the fundamental >>>> physical constants grow _smaller_ with higher energies of >>>> experiments, running constants, while yet the observable physical >>>> universe grows large, thus older, every few years, explaining why >>>> that neither Big Bang nor Steady State are falsifiable yet either fit >>>> the data somehow, and that neither mass nor charge are truly >>>> fundamental themselves yet in terms of each other, helping explain >>>> why Nature is not an Idiot and is furthermore very, very Simple. >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > > The usual theory of physics since Noether's theorem is that nothing is > ever created or destroyed. > > Otherwise you'd need a continuity law for something like Shech and "his" > paper about spherical cows instead of Noether and conservation law, else > "symmetry-breaking". > > Then, it's also so that in usual physics that everything is a _form_ of > energy, nothing is _pure_ energy, then that interactions make dynamics > for things like the optoelectronic effect, which derives that photons > are particles from that electrons are particles, "the particle conceit", > which is a way to talk about where quantum effects begin, because > otherwise, it would just be continuous quantities, and "atoms" would be > infinitely small, which is more-than-less the point of "superstring > theory", with those as smaller than "atoms" as atoms are smaller than > us, thus, "atoms", with extra scratch-pad dimensions for whatever adds > up, > the, "curling up" of the dimensions, if you've heard of that. > > It's a continuum mechanics, .... In other words, Physics still has long way to go.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web