Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #467924 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-15 09:48 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-13 12:29 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 659 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-15 09:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-15 19:17 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-16 13:18 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-16 10:27 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-16 10:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-06 01:07 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-09-19 16:06 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-19 10:43 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-19 15:56 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-09-20 06:45 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-20 16:35 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-21 19:45 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirw.on> - 2018-09-21 21:41 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-22 00:14 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirv.on> - 2018-09-21 22:48 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-21 19:43 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-09-23 16:23 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-23 16:44 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-20 11:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 12:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jayson Durante <tug@wsedwsa.np> - 2018-09-20 19:43 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-20 15:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-20 23:34 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-21 09:23 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-21 11:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 16:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-22 10:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-22 20:23 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-19 15:48 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-19 09:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-21 09:58 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-19 23:43 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-15 19:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-16 04:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-16 07:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-16 16:44 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-16 22:42 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 07:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 07:43 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:57 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 08:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 09:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 11:23 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 14:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 14:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 23:39 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 22:44 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-17 18:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 14:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 22:45 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 22:42 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:45 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-18 08:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Sushika Imaki <kukih@wkkss.ki> - 2018-08-18 17:52 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 12:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:32 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 19:08 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-17 19:07 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 08:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light egas@pacbell.net - 2018-08-17 09:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 14:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 15:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 23:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 00:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-08-15 12:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 20:55 +0000
Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-15 17:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 20:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 21:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:33 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-19 19:15 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-20 14:09 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-16 17:11 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-17 18:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 10:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-17 19:11 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-16 00:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-16 00:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-16 00:56 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 07:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-16 10:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 13:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 09:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-16 13:03 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-16 18:24 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-16 13:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-17 13:13 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 14:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-08-17 14:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 10:47 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 09:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-16 10:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 09:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-17 13:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-17 14:08 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-17 14:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-17 15:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 06:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-18 13:49 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-17 19:28 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-18 07:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 10:46 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 17:45 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 11:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-23 05:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-19 15:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-19 16:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-19 19:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 06:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-20 08:03 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 22:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-21 05:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 05:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:01 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-20 10:54 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 18:06 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 17:23 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 09:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 17:24 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:03 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 20:51 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-20 23:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 16:59 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 01:04 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-20 21:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 13:04 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 16:55 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-22 07:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:39 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 10:48 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 09:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 09:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 10:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 11:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 10:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 10:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 11:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 12:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 13:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 13:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 13:31 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 13:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 15:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 13:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 14:31 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-22 14:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 07:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-23 10:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 13:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-23 15:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 21:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 07:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 20:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 16:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 20:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 08:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 10:34 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-22 11:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-21 21:17 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 22:05 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-22 15:12 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-22 15:20 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-23 10:44 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 20:12 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 11:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 11:24 +0100
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-24 22:53 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-19 10:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-19 20:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-19 12:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-19 23:15 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:04 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-20 01:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 12:54 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 07:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 16:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 08:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 08:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-20 17:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 09:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-20 12:53 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 13:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 21:21 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 11:11 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 10:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-22 20:23 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 08:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-23 11:52 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 10:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 13:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-23 15:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-23 21:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-24 06:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-24 13:25 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-25 03:33 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-28 11:09 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-28 08:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-28 09:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-28 16:07 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 07:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-24 08:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 08:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 09:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-24 09:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-25 23:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 08:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 13:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-20 15:29 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 09:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 09:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 12:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-20 13:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-20 13:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-20 13:56 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-21 09:54 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-21 07:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-21 07:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-21 09:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 13:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 14:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-21 23:29 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-08-21 14:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 15:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 10:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-21 08:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 07:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-08-22 10:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 02:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-08-22 07:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:10 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 14:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-22 11:36 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 10:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-21 17:09 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-21 14:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jed Sosebee <eue@eosgps.pn> - 2018-08-22 11:45 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-20 23:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-21 20:33 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-22 15:04 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 07:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 10:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-22 12:08 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 18:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 04:46 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-22 20:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-22 23:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 09:23 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 19:55 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-23 15:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-24 03:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 08:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-23 00:39 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 17:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 01:03 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 16:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 02:01 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 17:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 18:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-25 11:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 03:33 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-24 16:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-25 02:45 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-25 09:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-26 23:27 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-27 12:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-28 11:01 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-28 09:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 14:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 08:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 10:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 12:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 13:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 13:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 13:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 14:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 14:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 13:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-30 07:56 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-30 09:21 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Fattore Nzavecchia <avcir@valecw.ba> - 2018-08-31 16:27 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-31 12:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jeanclaud Erald <urdu@iuoienv.vu> - 2018-09-02 12:52 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-27 15:43 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-27 11:22 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Toloni D'antonio <uut@gwrroei.ta> - 2018-08-27 16:37 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 10:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 17:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 17:43 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 10:51 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 18:01 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-27 18:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 19:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 21:53 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 15:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-27 18:31 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light hallstoncliff@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 19:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 09:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-27 12:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-23 14:43 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-25 23:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-26 22:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-27 23:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-24 15:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-25 07:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-22 14:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-23 07:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 08:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-23 13:34 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-23 13:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 14:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 15:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-24 06:10 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-25 23:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-25 23:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 06:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-08-26 08:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 15:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 15:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 16:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 16:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 16:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 17:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 01:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-08-24 02:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 08:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 17:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 18:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 17:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 11:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 18:54 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 12:32 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-27 23:08 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 13:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 13:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 00:47 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 20:28 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 00:59 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 01:37 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 21:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 13:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 23:46 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 16:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:41 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 17:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 17:51 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-29 10:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 20:04 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-29 11:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 20:42 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 13:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 22:10 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 15:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-30 22:48 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-30 15:36 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 10:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-27 13:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-27 23:19 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 16:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 01:18 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 16:27 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 02:06 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 09:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:52 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 22:09 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 13:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 17:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 21:47 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 11:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 17:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-31 09:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-31 12:38 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 18:40 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-31 12:03 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-31 21:17 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-31 12:42 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-31 20:29 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Fattore Nzavecchia <avcir@valecw.ba> - 2018-09-01 12:53 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-04 10:20 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-04 08:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-04 09:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-04 12:24 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-04 20:08 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-05 09:27 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-05 16:50 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-05 17:31 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 20:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-06 07:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-06 17:57 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-07 05:33 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-07 08:27 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-07 22:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 12:23 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-17 10:29 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-21 17:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-06 07:59 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-06 08:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 07:58 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-08 12:00 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 22:21 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-08 15:42 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-06 18:12 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 16:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 11:08 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 11:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-07 18:51 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 12:23 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Lorent Regoire <euar@ewghwpq.gr> - 2018-09-08 11:08 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 11:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 12:27 -0700
Gezari's relativity paper is useless Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-21 15:51 -0500
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Rhett Joyner <rurof@rsrrfirw.on> - 2018-09-21 21:27 +0000
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirw.on> - 2018-09-21 21:55 +0000
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 16:26 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirv.on> - 2018-09-22 08:37 +0000
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 16:25 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirv.on> - 2018-09-21 23:33 +0000
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-22 02:21 +0200
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 19:42 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirv.on> - 2018-09-22 08:31 +0000
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-22 10:50 +0200
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirv.on> - 2018-09-22 08:52 +0000
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 13:40 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirwv.on> - 2018-09-22 20:55 +0000
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-23 10:35 +0200
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 13:41 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-24 23:12 +0000
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 19:43 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-25 05:23 +0200
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 13:48 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-27 22:29 +0000
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 16:00 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-27 23:10 +0000
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 19:30 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-25 04:49 +0200
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 13:47 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-26 00:24 +0200
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 15:36 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-21 17:52 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-21 23:54 -0500
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirv.on> - 2018-09-22 08:50 +0000
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-28 17:43 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 13:13 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-24 10:58 -0500
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 11:20 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-25 12:07 -0500
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-27 22:35 +0000
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 22:59 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-25 12:09 -0500
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 19:44 -0700
Re: Gezari's relativity paper is useless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 21:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 12:31 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Fattore Nzavecchia <avcir@valecw.ba> - 2018-08-31 22:13 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-31 13:04 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-08-31 23:26 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-31 20:34 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 19:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 19:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:42 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 14:56 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 16:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:03 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 22:52 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 12:03 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 12:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 00:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-29 09:10 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 11:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 13:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Hilton Packett <wod@wcotahr.ce> - 2018-09-30 16:24 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 11:03 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 09:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 19:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 22:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-01 10:02 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-01 07:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-01 08:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-01 12:18 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Fattore Nzavecchia <avcir@valecw.ba> - 2018-08-31 22:12 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 11:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-31 13:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-31 13:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-31 14:27 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-01 00:03 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 15:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-01 07:33 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Emeraude Bertrand <rntmuurdu@arterabbr.ma> - 2018-09-01 14:42 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-01 08:11 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-01 08:20 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-01 08:31 -0700
Usenet (was: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-01 18:28 +0200
Re: Usenet (was: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light) Jeanclaude Erald <urdu@iufienv.vu> - 2018-09-01 17:40 +0000
Re: Usenet Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-02 05:09 +0200
Re: Usenet Jeanclaud Erald <urdu@iuoienv.vu> - 2018-09-02 12:49 +0000
Re: Usenet (was: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-01 21:54 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 20:43 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 20:42 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 20:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 17:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-01 07:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-21 16:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-01 23:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-02 10:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 20:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 15:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-01 00:39 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 19:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-03 18:02 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 11:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-03 22:00 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 17:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 18:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 18:16 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 19:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 21:32 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 10:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-03 14:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-03 21:16 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-04 07:06 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-04 14:57 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-04 08:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-03 15:27 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-04 07:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-04 09:50 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-04 10:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-04 16:29 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-05 07:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-05 15:07 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-05 08:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-05 09:03 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-05 09:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-05 09:57 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 10:47 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 12:05 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 12:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-05 12:42 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-05 14:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-06 05:10 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-06 07:43 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:53 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-06 14:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-07 08:34 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-07 18:03 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-09-07 09:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-07 09:45 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-07 16:50 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-09-07 23:38 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 15:23 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 22:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-08 08:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 06:32 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-10 07:23 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 09:56 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 14:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-10 21:18 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 14:56 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-12 16:37 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 13:34 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-10 13:02 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 15:01 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-07 08:40 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-07 08:48 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-06 05:42 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 08:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-04 01:39 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-01 07:15 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 20:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-01 18:42 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-02 06:33 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-02 07:38 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Unaga Kinomoto <unh@oawhhi.jp> - 2018-09-02 18:31 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-03 11:13 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-03 06:39 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-03 18:25 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-03 09:30 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-03 09:35 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-03 18:39 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-03 09:42 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-03 19:07 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-03 10:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-03 09:37 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-03 09:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-03 10:13 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Unaga Kinomoto <unh@oawhhi.jp> - 2018-09-02 18:32 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 13:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 13:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 15:12 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:43 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 16:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 00:52 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-07 05:08 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 20:18 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 11:34 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 16:53 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 00:52 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-07 01:25 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 20:07 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-06 18:15 -0500
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 12:44 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 12:46 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 12:49 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 12:59 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-07 20:09 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 13:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-07 20:43 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 16:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-08 00:53 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 18:09 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 18:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 18:42 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 20:56 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 13:42 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 18:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 18:26 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 20:28 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-09 11:58 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 19:57 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-09 13:22 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-09 20:45 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-09 15:19 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 20:46 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 13:25 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 01:16 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 18:55 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 02:20 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 20:14 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-13 10:42 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 12:29 +0000
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 20:17 -0700
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-13 10:44 +0200
Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 12:29 +0000
Page 25 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 33 Next page →
| From | Fattore Nzavecchia <avcir@valecw.ba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 22:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmcehh$1fjl$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470054 |
JanPB wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 10:38:12 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 8/31/18 11:57 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >> > How can anyone argue that Einstein said the speed of light is >> > invariable? >> >> By actually READING his papers. Note the correct word is "invariant". >> >> The NYT is not a reliable source of scientific ideas and theories. > > That applies not only to scientific ideas and theories They said the moon landing was real.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 13:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12450f77-16be-4b06-b57c-1dd0180e0906@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470032 |
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 12:38:12 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/31/18 11:57 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > How can anyone argue that Einstein said the speed of light is invariable? > > By actually READING his papers. Note the correct word is "invariant". When I read his papers, he says very clearly that the speed of light varies when time varies. You just argue that that may be what he wrote, but you claim it isn't what he MEANT. > > The NYT is not a reliable source of scientific ideas and > theories. The article you referenced makes several > fundamental mistakes about the point in question. Attacking the source is just a way of ignoring the facts. > > The speed of light in vacuum, relative to ANY inertial frame, is NOT variable in > SR (it is invariant). Einstein said precisely this in his 1905 paper on SR [#]. Yes, but you have a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of Relativity. Light will travel at c in ANY inertial frame, BUT it will measured to be different in one inertial frame versus another when the length of a second is compared. When the length of a second in c is different, then c is different. > > Your fantasy that "the duration of a second differs among > different inertial frames" is just that -- a FANTASY. It is > NOT part of SR, or any other theory of modern physics, and > experiments SOLIDLY support this. In particular, the first > postulate of SR is in direct conflict with your FANTASY -- > if your claim were true, SR could not be confirmed by the > hundreds of experiments that do confirm it. The fact that the duration of a second is DIFFERENT in virtually EVERY inertial frame is what Special Relativity is all about. It is the FUNDAMENTAL lesson of SR. You just fail to comprehend the significance of the first postulate, particularly how it relates to the second postulate. > > [#] But the proof came well after his introduction, so you > seem to never have noticed it. > > Tom Roberts You should read some of his books, they will show you that your interpretations are MISinterpretations. Or read my papers. In them I cite from his papers and books. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 23:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pmcbql$1ce1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #470059 |
Op 31-aug-2018 om 22:04 schreef Ed Lake: > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 12:38:12 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 8/31/18 11:57 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> How can anyone argue that Einstein said the speed of light is >>> invariable? >> >> By actually READING his papers. Note the correct word is >> "invariant". > > When I read his papers, he says very clearly that the speed of light > varies when time varies. You just argue that that may be what he > wrote, but you claim it isn't what he MEANT. > >> >> The NYT is not a reliable source of scientific ideas and theories. >> The article you referenced makes several fundamental mistakes about >> the point in question. > > Attacking the source is just a way of ignoring the facts. > >> >> The speed of light in vacuum, relative to ANY inertial frame, is >> NOT variable in SR (it is invariant). Einstein said precisely this >> in his 1905 paper on SR [#]. > > Yes, but you have a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of Relativity. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! > Light will travel at c in ANY inertial frame, BUT it will measured to > be different in one inertial frame versus another when the length of > a second is compared. When the length of a second in c is different, > then c is different. > >> >> Your fantasy that "the duration of a second differs among different >> inertial frames" is just that -- a FANTASY. It is NOT part of SR, >> or any other theory of modern physics, and experiments SOLIDLY >> support this. In particular, the first postulate of SR is in direct >> conflict with your FANTASY -- if your claim were true, SR could not >> be confirmed by the hundreds of experiments that do confirm it. > > The fact that the duration of a second is DIFFERENT in virtually > EVERY inertial frame is what Special Relativity is all about. It is > the FUNDAMENTAL lesson of SR. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! > You just fail to comprehend the > significance of the first postulate, particularly how it relates to > the second postulate. > >> >> [#] But the proof came well after his introduction, so you seem to >> never have noticed it. >> >> Tom Roberts > > You should read some of his books, they will show you that your > interpretations are MISinterpretations. Or read my papers. In them > I cite from his papers and books. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 20:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ZdqdnWnpxeMhcRTGnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #470059 |
On 8/31/18 3:04 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > The fact that the duration of a second is DIFFERENT in virtually > EVERY inertial frame is what Special Relativity is all about. That is neither fact nor any part of SR. It is YOU who is confused and wrong, not the tens of thousands of physicists alive today. I repeat: if your claim were true, experiments could not possibly confirm the validity of SR. They do. [And here I cease attempting to teach the unteachable.] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 19:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <949e5ed4-b6eb-479a-9501-d3d3188574f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470100 |
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/31/18 3:04 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > The fact that the duration of a second is DIFFERENT in virtually > > EVERY inertial frame is what Special Relativity is all about. > > That is neither fact nor any part of SR. It is YOU who is confused and > wrong, not the tens of thousands of physicists alive today. > > I repeat: if your claim were true, experiments could not possibly > confirm the validity of SR. They do. > > [And here I cease attempting to teach the unteachable.] > > Tom Roberts Maybe their clocks are moving. Best way to explain, "physics is wrong". Then at least their clocks are on time. So, most of physics is right. "In the theory." In physics, physics is always right. Nature, though.... This basically has Lake's theories as a fragment of an explanation that would otherwise make sense under the physics, or why those are the natural constants. Physics being right and all.... Lake's theories might not be relevant to you, though, here these days it is the invariants about the constant so what is relevant that in the model, writing the quantities naturally reduces to the constants. For some people it's money, might as well be time. The SR is GR in the Newtonian. Which explains why light speed isn't infinite. Light is the fastest speed in the space, gravity is also moving in the same time. Then, when the move is over the speed, that is why it is "SR is local". It's still in effect, just goes out or over, light is flux, for fall gravity and imaging for example in revolutions, Special Relativity, then that the wave optics in the space are the effect (in terms of effective differences in SR). This is flux then for light with neutrinos and then also gravity and gravitinos, where fall gravity is "gravific". light -> neutrinos (neutrinos move in effective mass) gravity -> gravitinos Then though the graviton is the atom and real particle or in the singularity for real particle, though I saw in a different relevant paper the graviton was for example _an exact opposite_ over the singularity, here "gravitinos", also mass moments, is the effective draw in the effect or like the electrical moment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitino Then, working that up as potential for current, then here it is also compression. Light's transit of space is effectively absolute in time. It's at least as fast as you can see it. Here then the neutrinos are components of the image. Here "dark matter theory" is "it's explained with matter". Energy is similar in terms of potential or "shadow matter theory" that is something like "this is what supergravity explains, gravitinos as components in mass transit systems, vis-a-vis the usual parallel transport in Special Relativity and the General Theory of Relativity".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 19:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07b31bc5-a575-476f-b26f-57730290a304@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470103 |
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:15:34 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 8/31/18 3:04 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > The fact that the duration of a second is DIFFERENT in virtually > > > EVERY inertial frame is what Special Relativity is all about. > > > > That is neither fact nor any part of SR. It is YOU who is confused and > > wrong, not the tens of thousands of physicists alive today. > > > > I repeat: if your claim were true, experiments could not possibly > > confirm the validity of SR. They do. > > > > [And here I cease attempting to teach the unteachable.] > > > > Tom Roberts > > Maybe their clocks are moving. > > Best way to explain, "physics is wrong". > > Then at least their clocks are on time. > > So, most of physics is right. > > "In the theory." > > In physics, physics is always right. > > Nature, though.... > > This basically has Lake's theories as > a fragment of an explanation that would > otherwise make sense under the physics, > or why those are the natural constants. > > Physics being right and all.... > > Lake's theories might not be relevant > to you, though, here these days it is > the invariants about the constant so > what is relevant that in the model, > writing the quantities naturally > reduces to the constants. > > For some people it's money, might as well be time. > > The SR is GR in the Newtonian. > > Which explains why light speed isn't infinite. > > Light is the fastest speed in the space, > gravity is also moving in the same time. > > Then, when the move is over the speed, > that is why it is "SR is local". > > It's still in effect, just goes out or over, light is flux, > for fall gravity and imaging for example in revolutions, > Special Relativity, then that the wave optics in the space > are the effect (in terms of effective differences in SR). > > This is flux then for light with neutrinos and then > also gravity and gravitinos, where fall gravity is "gravific". > > light -> neutrinos (neutrinos move in effective mass) > gravity -> gravitinos > > Then though the graviton is the atom and real particle or > in the singularity for real particle, though I saw in a > different relevant paper the graviton was for example > _an exact opposite_ over the singularity, here "gravitinos", > also mass moments, is the effective draw in the effect or > like the electrical moment. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitino > > > Then, working that up as potential for current, then here > it is also compression. > > Light's transit of space is effectively absolute > in time. > > > > > It's at least as fast as you can see it. > > Here then the neutrinos are components of the image. > > > Here "dark matter theory" is > "it's explained with matter". > Energy is similar in terms of > potential or "shadow matter > theory" that is something like > "this is what supergravity explains, > gravitinos as components in > mass transit systems, vis-a-vis > the usual parallel transport in > Special Relativity and the General > Theory of Relativity". Mass works. Light works, irradiating. Differences in potential gravity for example see mass work. Here though mass is the quantity while light is the substance, each though is "how much" are doing the work, here in falling or irradiating. Light's speed is constant in space while eletrical current effectively finds space an insulator (in the same terms or current potential, that mass and light work in the same space and mass is no slower than light in terms of light's speed through space (or, how much time light travels space with zero mass and its massless neutrino). Then the color is just that while the touching is surfaces, just all falling out the model. Then this about where the physical or motion effects can find from the theory of the light effects the potentials on the electricity effects and so on see models of visual or image difference when for example the component is 1, instead of 0, when it contributes. This somewhat chilling, that's though a niche or "fringe" effect in terms of being "highly contrived" where most "contrivations" aren't physical, as for the example the image could be too, with or without the lower component contribution to the supersymmetry effect. Then it looks on the charge difference here the "If the gravitino indeed has a mass of the order of TeV, ...". In the standard model there are only particles, everything's in usual quantities. As quantities, the standard model basically includes it, then for relevance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 13:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3239c441-a6a2-4eee-92e8-b961908b62a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470104 |
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:15:34 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 8/31/18 3:04 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > The fact that the duration of a second is DIFFERENT in virtually > > > > EVERY inertial frame is what Special Relativity is all about. > > > > > > That is neither fact nor any part of SR. It is YOU who is confused and > > > wrong, not the tens of thousands of physicists alive today. > > > > > > I repeat: if your claim were true, experiments could not possibly > > > confirm the validity of SR. They do. > > > > > > [And here I cease attempting to teach the unteachable.] > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > Maybe their clocks are moving. > > > > Best way to explain, "physics is wrong". > > > > Then at least their clocks are on time. > > > > So, most of physics is right. > > > > "In the theory." > > > > In physics, physics is always right. > > > > Nature, though.... > > > > This basically has Lake's theories as > > a fragment of an explanation that would > > otherwise make sense under the physics, > > or why those are the natural constants. > > > > Physics being right and all.... > > > > Lake's theories might not be relevant > > to you, though, here these days it is > > the invariants about the constant so > > what is relevant that in the model, > > writing the quantities naturally > > reduces to the constants. > > > > For some people it's money, might as well be time. > > > > The SR is GR in the Newtonian. > > > > Which explains why light speed isn't infinite. > > > > Light is the fastest speed in the space, > > gravity is also moving in the same time. > > > > Then, when the move is over the speed, > > that is why it is "SR is local". > > > > It's still in effect, just goes out or over, light is flux, > > for fall gravity and imaging for example in revolutions, > > Special Relativity, then that the wave optics in the space > > are the effect (in terms of effective differences in SR). > > > > This is flux then for light with neutrinos and then > > also gravity and gravitinos, where fall gravity is "gravific". > > > > light -> neutrinos (neutrinos move in effective mass) > > gravity -> gravitinos > > > > Then though the graviton is the atom and real particle or > > in the singularity for real particle, though I saw in a > > different relevant paper the graviton was for example > > _an exact opposite_ over the singularity, here "gravitinos", > > also mass moments, is the effective draw in the effect or > > like the electrical moment. > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitino > > > > > > Then, working that up as potential for current, then here > > it is also compression. > > > > Light's transit of space is effectively absolute > > in time. > > > > > > > > > > It's at least as fast as you can see it. > > > > Here then the neutrinos are components of the image. > > > > > > Here "dark matter theory" is > > "it's explained with matter". > > Energy is similar in terms of > > potential or "shadow matter > > theory" that is something like > > "this is what supergravity explains, > > gravitinos as components in > > mass transit systems, vis-a-vis > > the usual parallel transport in > > Special Relativity and the General > > Theory of Relativity". > > > Mass works. Light works, irradiating. > > Differences in potential gravity for example see mass work. > > Here though mass is the quantity while light is the substance, > each though is "how much" are doing the work, here in falling > or irradiating. > > Light's speed is constant in space while eletrical current effectively > finds space an insulator (in the same terms or current potential, > that mass and light work in the same space and mass is no slower > than light in terms of light's speed through space (or, how much > time light travels space with zero mass and its massless neutrino). > > Then the color is just that while the touching is surfaces, > just all falling out the model. > > Then this about where the physical or motion effects > can find from the theory of the light effects the > potentials on the electricity effects and so on see > models of visual or image difference when for example > the component is 1, instead of 0, when it contributes. > > This somewhat chilling, that's though a niche or "fringe" > effect in terms of being "highly contrived" where most > "contrivations" aren't physical, as for the example the > image could be too, with or without the lower component > contribution to the supersymmetry effect. > > Then it looks on the charge difference here the > "If the gravitino indeed has a mass of the order of TeV, ...". > > In the standard model there are only particles, > everything's in usual quantities. As quantities, > the standard model basically includes it, then > for relevance. "See this is a game that robots can play." It's just that under some torsions gravitinos have mass, but it is negative mass as it is virtual in terms in how it is current, under the torsions (that are not spin-preserving), here of the flux of potential of gravity. So, they're particles in the standard model with supergravity, supersymmetry works out the symmetry under the torsion (virtual partner-inos). Virtual partnerinos of supersymmetry are basically particles in the particle model the standard model, here for example plainly hypothetically and defined by their mathematical value for its physical interpretation, here being "oh all this ''effects of dark matter'' that add up in supergravity, that is solved in supersymmetry" (besides any other "dark matter", for example locally). Like other matters of potential is as much or more an estimate, the effect of partnerinos in mass differences, it is a field effect. Then, "finding large neutrinos" is like a measurement of the field. (In matters of flux here for irradiative potential.) Finding large neutrinos: largely computed because the relatively large action of the clockworks is not outside chaos theory (or dynamical systems, dynamical methods). Large neutrinos: quite most usually bradyonic, i.e positive mass. Bank to bank can have work under the mass to differentiate mass effect in finding neutrinos, for example compass orientation. These are banks of clocks and marble games underneath under averages. This is basically just that the virtual partner has exact same mass, then maybe opposite in the additive differences in the field that is static and the field that is dynamic, then for whether it's the image or the source for the dynamic. Then it's for EM like the field and the polarizing field, the action under the torsion, about how the field strengths are defined in terms of that basically the virtual the difference from zero, here expressed in the non-virtual or real frame's value (at any given event or coordinate, with there only being one space for all the fields). In the standard model in GTR, virtual particles have positive mass. Then, the non-Newtonian (or, absolute again, supergravity) having virtual particles with negative mass, basically fills in the potential. There's no reason to have negative mass in GTR. It adds up the same, though, supergravity in GTR. Here then with supersymmetry and instantaneous gravity, or supergravity, the particles are virtual anyways then that the effect is all in the usual kinetic in mass and distance terms of particles in the standard model (and here under field configurations). (And also the usual potential in the fall, irradiate, and for gravity, electricity, opticity, that it is the multiplicity under the potentials that so contrive notions of "virtual negative" particles as under "additive differences" as "any" differences in the terms of the potential, while still being particles under the catalog where the particles under the catalog work out under the mass and kinetic and spin that any member of the Particle Zoo is as good as any other in those terms (as a theoretical element).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35eb62bc-2cb0-4786-b2fb-b663b1f78ed9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470176 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 1:42:46 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:15:34 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > On 8/31/18 3:04 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > The fact that the duration of a second is DIFFERENT in virtually > > > > > EVERY inertial frame is what Special Relativity is all about. > > > > > > > > That is neither fact nor any part of SR. It is YOU who is confused and > > > > wrong, not the tens of thousands of physicists alive today. > > > > > > > > I repeat: if your claim were true, experiments could not possibly > > > > confirm the validity of SR. They do. > > > > > > > > [And here I cease attempting to teach the unteachable.] > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > Maybe their clocks are moving. > > > > > > Best way to explain, "physics is wrong". > > > > > > Then at least their clocks are on time. > > > > > > So, most of physics is right. > > > > > > "In the theory." > > > > > > In physics, physics is always right. > > > > > > Nature, though.... > > > > > > This basically has Lake's theories as > > > a fragment of an explanation that would > > > otherwise make sense under the physics, > > > or why those are the natural constants. > > > > > > Physics being right and all.... > > > > > > Lake's theories might not be relevant > > > to you, though, here these days it is > > > the invariants about the constant so > > > what is relevant that in the model, > > > writing the quantities naturally > > > reduces to the constants. > > > > > > For some people it's money, might as well be time. > > > > > > The SR is GR in the Newtonian. > > > > > > Which explains why light speed isn't infinite. > > > > > > Light is the fastest speed in the space, > > > gravity is also moving in the same time. > > > > > > Then, when the move is over the speed, > > > that is why it is "SR is local". > > > > > > It's still in effect, just goes out or over, light is flux, > > > for fall gravity and imaging for example in revolutions, > > > Special Relativity, then that the wave optics in the space > > > are the effect (in terms of effective differences in SR). > > > > > > This is flux then for light with neutrinos and then > > > also gravity and gravitinos, where fall gravity is "gravific". > > > > > > light -> neutrinos (neutrinos move in effective mass) > > > gravity -> gravitinos > > > > > > Then though the graviton is the atom and real particle or > > > in the singularity for real particle, though I saw in a > > > different relevant paper the graviton was for example > > > _an exact opposite_ over the singularity, here "gravitinos", > > > also mass moments, is the effective draw in the effect or > > > like the electrical moment. > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitino > > > > > > > > > Then, working that up as potential for current, then here > > > it is also compression. > > > > > > Light's transit of space is effectively absolute > > > in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's at least as fast as you can see it. > > > > > > Here then the neutrinos are components of the image. > > > > > > > > > Here "dark matter theory" is > > > "it's explained with matter". > > > Energy is similar in terms of > > > potential or "shadow matter > > > theory" that is something like > > > "this is what supergravity explains, > > > gravitinos as components in > > > mass transit systems, vis-a-vis > > > the usual parallel transport in > > > Special Relativity and the General > > > Theory of Relativity". > > > > > > Mass works. Light works, irradiating. > > > > Differences in potential gravity for example see mass work. > > > > Here though mass is the quantity while light is the substance, > > each though is "how much" are doing the work, here in falling > > or irradiating. > > > > Light's speed is constant in space while eletrical current effectively > > finds space an insulator (in the same terms or current potential, > > that mass and light work in the same space and mass is no slower > > than light in terms of light's speed through space (or, how much > > time light travels space with zero mass and its massless neutrino). > > > > Then the color is just that while the touching is surfaces, > > just all falling out the model. > > > > Then this about where the physical or motion effects > > can find from the theory of the light effects the > > potentials on the electricity effects and so on see > > models of visual or image difference when for example > > the component is 1, instead of 0, when it contributes. > > > > This somewhat chilling, that's though a niche or "fringe" > > effect in terms of being "highly contrived" where most > > "contrivations" aren't physical, as for the example the > > image could be too, with or without the lower component > > contribution to the supersymmetry effect. > > > > Then it looks on the charge difference here the > > "If the gravitino indeed has a mass of the order of TeV, ...". > > > > In the standard model there are only particles, > > everything's in usual quantities. As quantities, > > the standard model basically includes it, then > > for relevance. > > > "See this is a game that robots can play." > > It's just that under some torsions gravitinos have mass, > but it is negative mass as it is virtual in terms in how it > is current, under the torsions (that are not spin-preserving), > here of the flux of potential of gravity. > > So, they're particles in the standard model with > supergravity, supersymmetry works out the > symmetry under the torsion (virtual partner-inos). > > Virtual partnerinos of supersymmetry are basically > particles in the particle model the standard model, > here for example plainly hypothetically and defined > by their mathematical value for its physical interpretation, > here being "oh all this ''effects of dark matter'' that add > up in supergravity, that is solved in supersymmetry" > (besides any other "dark matter", for example locally). > > Like other matters of potential is as much or more an > estimate, the effect of partnerinos in mass differences, > it is a field effect. > > Then, "finding large neutrinos" is like a measurement > of the field. > > (In matters of flux here for irradiative potential.) > > Finding large neutrinos: largely computed because > the relatively large action of the clockworks is not > outside chaos theory (or dynamical systems, > dynamical methods). > > Large neutrinos: quite most usually bradyonic, > i.e positive mass. > > > Bank to bank can have work under the mass > to differentiate mass effect in finding neutrinos, > for example compass orientation. These are banks > of clocks and marble games underneath under averages. > > This is basically just that the virtual partner has exact > same mass, then maybe opposite in the additive differences > in the field that is static and the field that is dynamic, > then for whether it's the image or the source for the > dynamic. > > Then it's for EM like the field and the polarizing field, > the action under the torsion, about how the field > strengths are defined in terms of that basically > the virtual the difference from zero, here expressed > in the non-virtual or real frame's value (at any given > event or coordinate, with there only being one space > for all the fields). > > In the standard model in GTR, virtual particles have > positive mass. Then, the non-Newtonian (or, absolute > again, supergravity) having virtual particles with negative > mass, basically fills in the potential. There's no reason to > have negative mass in GTR. > > It adds up the same, though, supergravity in GTR. Here > then with supersymmetry and instantaneous gravity, or > supergravity, the particles are virtual anyways then that > the effect is all in the usual kinetic in mass and distance > terms of particles in the standard model (and here under > field configurations). (And also the usual potential in the > fall, irradiate, and for gravity, electricity, opticity, that it is > the multiplicity under the potentials that so contrive notions > of "virtual negative" particles as under "additive differences" > as "any" differences in the terms of the potential, while still > being particles under the catalog where the particles under > the catalog work out under the mass and kinetic and spin > that any member of the Particle Zoo is as good as any other > in those terms (as a theoretical element). There's no infinite self-energy at c because as the massy body increases velocity to c and gains relativistic mass, it brings along the frames around it with it, for example the destination frame. I.e., frames might naturally settle (here usually with moving apart, the frames on the path). This is usually thermodynamic as representing kinetic equilibrium (i.e. not under current). "Warp wake". Then it generally in terms of virtual fields, and Higgs for example isn't a field but it is virtual, their existence or not is usually enough on the transport, basically that in the "real" transport, they don't exist, the virtual fields. But, they exist for when otherwise the model would not have had the real transport under the term, in such a case, the "virtual fields" and their real results. This includes for example these real particles, about for example they decay and to radiation, that these "particles" may be recurring, to, in terms of the same supersymmetry making "new" virtual particles, that it's the same field effect. This is absorbing the half-life back above the transport. One might look at the "ions" as possibly adding and "inos" as possibly differencing. The "inos" are in the "ions" in their reference. "The vortex structure is imprinted into the underlayer's interfacial region via suppressing the PMA by a critical ion-irradiation step." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyrmion#Magnetic_materials/data_storage Then, what's the "sol-ino"? It's the soliton (its own virtual particle). The atom's the real particle for the kinetic and it is matter and a massy body. (It's its own real particle, but, charge is also real.) The particle is on the transport (the overall effect in fields). (With mass-energy equivalence.) Real particles always add up. That virtual particles as parterninos are either Pauli excluded, when non-zero, in difference, or not under Pauli exclusion, because the partner-ino and particle are still the same i.e. no different than real, the statistical ensembles might work up with the usual ergodic equilibrium accounted about the other way for the parastatistical ensemble, here that all statistics are virtual. (And for eg measurements under current invariants, real as it gets.) This is where the centralizing tendency is to attribute for no differences that then there's the standardizing tendency besides the normalizing tendency, with building the "non-central" results as about the standardization under bounds besides means. (I.e. the real is central.) The partnerinos (or superpartners) are ubiquitous as antiparticles but only exist under effects in potential (field effects). (I.e. their contribution to the effect is non-zero in the field terms on the particles in their terms, for what are field effects.) "In the massless limit, it means that only one of two possible chiralities is observed for either particle. These are the only chiralities included in the Standard Model of particle interactions. " -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Chirality Then among -ino's is the Z boson "neutral and its own anti-particle". Also the weak force's particles are -ino's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons "Z bosons for supergravity, photons are chargeless, too." It reminds me of mathematics and the uniqueness up to isomorphism of the complete ordered field, then equipping [-1,1] with field operations, also. (For the "field" in the "field theory" as "a field" or "the field" or some "particle's quantum field", in usual terms that particles are real. Or: "operator-valued".) "In particular, values of the fields generally do not commute." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Vectors,_scalars,_and_spinors ... but they do for scalars and results, i.e., values of the (real) field ideally commute.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 16:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e034e4a4-9b22-40e6-9c4d-d9fab8808c54@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470183 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:56:16 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 1:42:46 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:15:34 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > On 8/31/18 3:04 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > The fact that the duration of a second is DIFFERENT in virtually > > > > > > EVERY inertial frame is what Special Relativity is all about. > > > > > > > > > > That is neither fact nor any part of SR. It is YOU who is confused and > > > > > wrong, not the tens of thousands of physicists alive today. > > > > > > > > > > I repeat: if your claim were true, experiments could not possibly > > > > > confirm the validity of SR. They do. > > > > > > > > > > [And here I cease attempting to teach the unteachable.] > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > Maybe their clocks are moving. > > > > > > > > Best way to explain, "physics is wrong". > > > > > > > > Then at least their clocks are on time. > > > > > > > > So, most of physics is right. > > > > > > > > "In the theory." > > > > > > > > In physics, physics is always right. > > > > > > > > Nature, though.... > > > > > > > > This basically has Lake's theories as > > > > a fragment of an explanation that would > > > > otherwise make sense under the physics, > > > > or why those are the natural constants. > > > > > > > > Physics being right and all.... > > > > > > > > Lake's theories might not be relevant > > > > to you, though, here these days it is > > > > the invariants about the constant so > > > > what is relevant that in the model, > > > > writing the quantities naturally > > > > reduces to the constants. > > > > > > > > For some people it's money, might as well be time. > > > > > > > > The SR is GR in the Newtonian. > > > > > > > > Which explains why light speed isn't infinite. > > > > > > > > Light is the fastest speed in the space, > > > > gravity is also moving in the same time. > > > > > > > > Then, when the move is over the speed, > > > > that is why it is "SR is local". > > > > > > > > It's still in effect, just goes out or over, light is flux, > > > > for fall gravity and imaging for example in revolutions, > > > > Special Relativity, then that the wave optics in the space > > > > are the effect (in terms of effective differences in SR). > > > > > > > > This is flux then for light with neutrinos and then > > > > also gravity and gravitinos, where fall gravity is "gravific". > > > > > > > > light -> neutrinos (neutrinos move in effective mass) > > > > gravity -> gravitinos > > > > > > > > Then though the graviton is the atom and real particle or > > > > in the singularity for real particle, though I saw in a > > > > different relevant paper the graviton was for example > > > > _an exact opposite_ over the singularity, here "gravitinos", > > > > also mass moments, is the effective draw in the effect or > > > > like the electrical moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitino > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, working that up as potential for current, then here > > > > it is also compression. > > > > > > > > Light's transit of space is effectively absolute > > > > in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's at least as fast as you can see it. > > > > > > > > Here then the neutrinos are components of the image. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here "dark matter theory" is > > > > "it's explained with matter". > > > > Energy is similar in terms of > > > > potential or "shadow matter > > > > theory" that is something like > > > > "this is what supergravity explains, > > > > gravitinos as components in > > > > mass transit systems, vis-a-vis > > > > the usual parallel transport in > > > > Special Relativity and the General > > > > Theory of Relativity". > > > > > > > > > Mass works. Light works, irradiating. > > > > > > Differences in potential gravity for example see mass work. > > > > > > Here though mass is the quantity while light is the substance, > > > each though is "how much" are doing the work, here in falling > > > or irradiating. > > > > > > Light's speed is constant in space while eletrical current effectively > > > finds space an insulator (in the same terms or current potential, > > > that mass and light work in the same space and mass is no slower > > > than light in terms of light's speed through space (or, how much > > > time light travels space with zero mass and its massless neutrino). > > > > > > Then the color is just that while the touching is surfaces, > > > just all falling out the model. > > > > > > Then this about where the physical or motion effects > > > can find from the theory of the light effects the > > > potentials on the electricity effects and so on see > > > models of visual or image difference when for example > > > the component is 1, instead of 0, when it contributes. > > > > > > This somewhat chilling, that's though a niche or "fringe" > > > effect in terms of being "highly contrived" where most > > > "contrivations" aren't physical, as for the example the > > > image could be too, with or without the lower component > > > contribution to the supersymmetry effect. > > > > > > Then it looks on the charge difference here the > > > "If the gravitino indeed has a mass of the order of TeV, ...". > > > > > > In the standard model there are only particles, > > > everything's in usual quantities. As quantities, > > > the standard model basically includes it, then > > > for relevance. > > > > > > "See this is a game that robots can play." > > > > It's just that under some torsions gravitinos have mass, > > but it is negative mass as it is virtual in terms in how it > > is current, under the torsions (that are not spin-preserving), > > here of the flux of potential of gravity. > > > > So, they're particles in the standard model with > > supergravity, supersymmetry works out the > > symmetry under the torsion (virtual partner-inos). > > > > Virtual partnerinos of supersymmetry are basically > > particles in the particle model the standard model, > > here for example plainly hypothetically and defined > > by their mathematical value for its physical interpretation, > > here being "oh all this ''effects of dark matter'' that add > > up in supergravity, that is solved in supersymmetry" > > (besides any other "dark matter", for example locally). > > > > Like other matters of potential is as much or more an > > estimate, the effect of partnerinos in mass differences, > > it is a field effect. > > > > Then, "finding large neutrinos" is like a measurement > > of the field. > > > > (In matters of flux here for irradiative potential.) > > > > Finding large neutrinos: largely computed because > > the relatively large action of the clockworks is not > > outside chaos theory (or dynamical systems, > > dynamical methods). > > > > Large neutrinos: quite most usually bradyonic, > > i.e positive mass. > > > > > > Bank to bank can have work under the mass > > to differentiate mass effect in finding neutrinos, > > for example compass orientation. These are banks > > of clocks and marble games underneath under averages. > > > > This is basically just that the virtual partner has exact > > same mass, then maybe opposite in the additive differences > > in the field that is static and the field that is dynamic, > > then for whether it's the image or the source for the > > dynamic. > > > > Then it's for EM like the field and the polarizing field, > > the action under the torsion, about how the field > > strengths are defined in terms of that basically > > the virtual the difference from zero, here expressed > > in the non-virtual or real frame's value (at any given > > event or coordinate, with there only being one space > > for all the fields). > > > > In the standard model in GTR, virtual particles have > > positive mass. Then, the non-Newtonian (or, absolute > > again, supergravity) having virtual particles with negative > > mass, basically fills in the potential. There's no reason to > > have negative mass in GTR. > > > > It adds up the same, though, supergravity in GTR. Here > > then with supersymmetry and instantaneous gravity, or > > supergravity, the particles are virtual anyways then that > > the effect is all in the usual kinetic in mass and distance > > terms of particles in the standard model (and here under > > field configurations). (And also the usual potential in the > > fall, irradiate, and for gravity, electricity, opticity, that it is > > the multiplicity under the potentials that so contrive notions > > of "virtual negative" particles as under "additive differences" > > as "any" differences in the terms of the potential, while still > > being particles under the catalog where the particles under > > the catalog work out under the mass and kinetic and spin > > that any member of the Particle Zoo is as good as any other > > in those terms (as a theoretical element). > > > There's no infinite self-energy at c because > as the massy body increases velocity to c > and gains relativistic mass, it brings along > the frames around it with it, for example the > destination frame. > > I.e., frames might naturally settle (here usually > with moving apart, the frames on the path). > This is usually thermodynamic as representing > kinetic equilibrium (i.e. not under current). > > "Warp wake". > > Then it generally in terms of virtual fields, > and Higgs for example isn't a field but it is > virtual, their existence or not is usually enough > on the transport, basically that in the "real" transport, > they don't exist, the virtual fields. > > But, they exist for when otherwise the model > would not have had the real transport under the > term, in such a case, the "virtual fields" and their > real results. > > > > This includes for example these real particles, > about for example they decay and to radiation, > that these "particles" may be recurring, to, in > terms of the same supersymmetry making "new" > virtual particles, that it's the same field effect. > > This is absorbing the half-life back above the transport. > > One might look at the "ions" as possibly adding > and "inos" as possibly differencing. > > The "inos" are in the "ions" in their reference. > > > "The vortex structure is imprinted into the underlayer's > interfacial region via suppressing the PMA by a critical > ion-irradiation step." > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyrmion#Magnetic_materials/data_storage > > Then, what's the "sol-ino"? It's the soliton (its own virtual particle). > > The atom's the real particle for the kinetic and it is matter and a massy body. > > (It's its own real particle, but, charge is also real.) > > The particle is on the transport (the overall effect in fields). > > (With mass-energy equivalence.) > > Real particles always add up. > > That virtual particles as parterninos are either Pauli excluded, > when non-zero, in difference, or not under Pauli exclusion, > because the partner-ino and particle are still the same i.e. > no different than real, the statistical ensembles might work > up with the usual ergodic equilibrium accounted about the > other way for the parastatistical ensemble, here that all > statistics are virtual. (And for eg measurements under > current invariants, real as it gets.) > > This is where the centralizing tendency is to > attribute for no differences that then there's > the standardizing tendency besides the normalizing > tendency, with building the "non-central" results as > about the standardization under bounds besides means. > > (I.e. the real is central.) > > The partnerinos (or superpartners) are > ubiquitous as antiparticles but only exist > under effects in potential (field effects). > > (I.e. their contribution to the effect is non-zero > in the field terms on the particles in their terms, > for what are field effects.) > > > "In the massless limit, it means that only one of > two possible chiralities is observed for either > particle. These are the only chiralities included > in the Standard Model of particle interactions. " > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Chirality > > Then among -ino's is the Z boson "neutral and > its own anti-particle". Also the weak force's > particles are -ino's. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons > > "Z bosons for supergravity, > photons are chargeless, too." > > > > It reminds me of mathematics and the uniqueness > up to isomorphism of the complete ordered field, > then equipping [-1,1] with field operations, also. > (For the "field" in the "field theory" as "a field" or > "the field" or some "particle's quantum field", > in usual terms that particles are real. Or: > "operator-valued".) > > "In particular, values of the fields generally > do not commute." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Vectors,_scalars,_and_spinors > > ... but they do for scalars and results, i.e., > values of the (real) field ideally commute. It seems nice when models start making sense. The mathematical models are quite free, it is up to the field effects to explain the "interaction picture" (but the propagation of anti-particles). (Of the particles.) "This is also how the Higgs field is thought to give particles mass: the part of the interaction term which corresponds to the (nonzero) vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field is moved from the interaction to the free field Lagrangian, where it looks just like a mass term having nothing to do with Higgs. " -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Perturbative_QFT_and_the_interaction_picture "The graviton is atomic"? All the -ino's or virtual or self-anti-particles are "dark matter candidates" or "dark energy candidates" but there is no "dark matter" and is no "dark energy". "Dark matter" is theoretical in general relativity. The Standard Model of particle physics may have this is so, up to then explaining what dark matter is in terms, of elements, of general relativity, the theory. Here this is that real particles exist in general relativity. (And also outside general relativity, or they'd all be "luminous matter" already, the particles and all their systems in the field, i.e., general relativity isn't "complete", the theory, though presumably adding the "true" theory of gravity underneath would make it so, with respect to "dark matter" or "dark energy". This is that "general relativity isn't wrong, and passes along tests".) General relativity is so, there are limits, here as of limiting and dynamical regimes of open and large systems, for gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60753836-2fb7-4939-bd6b-75c67c004f53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470187 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 4:02:43 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:56:16 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 1:42:46 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:15:34 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > On 8/31/18 3:04 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > The fact that the duration of a second is DIFFERENT in virtually > > > > > > > EVERY inertial frame is what Special Relativity is all about. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is neither fact nor any part of SR. It is YOU who is confused and > > > > > > wrong, not the tens of thousands of physicists alive today. > > > > > > > > > > > > I repeat: if your claim were true, experiments could not possibly > > > > > > confirm the validity of SR. They do. > > > > > > > > > > > > [And here I cease attempting to teach the unteachable.] > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > > > Maybe their clocks are moving. > > > > > > > > > > Best way to explain, "physics is wrong". > > > > > > > > > > Then at least their clocks are on time. > > > > > > > > > > So, most of physics is right. > > > > > > > > > > "In the theory." > > > > > > > > > > In physics, physics is always right. > > > > > > > > > > Nature, though.... > > > > > > > > > > This basically has Lake's theories as > > > > > a fragment of an explanation that would > > > > > otherwise make sense under the physics, > > > > > or why those are the natural constants. > > > > > > > > > > Physics being right and all.... > > > > > > > > > > Lake's theories might not be relevant > > > > > to you, though, here these days it is > > > > > the invariants about the constant so > > > > > what is relevant that in the model, > > > > > writing the quantities naturally > > > > > reduces to the constants. > > > > > > > > > > For some people it's money, might as well be time. > > > > > > > > > > The SR is GR in the Newtonian. > > > > > > > > > > Which explains why light speed isn't infinite. > > > > > > > > > > Light is the fastest speed in the space, > > > > > gravity is also moving in the same time. > > > > > > > > > > Then, when the move is over the speed, > > > > > that is why it is "SR is local". > > > > > > > > > > It's still in effect, just goes out or over, light is flux, > > > > > for fall gravity and imaging for example in revolutions, > > > > > Special Relativity, then that the wave optics in the space > > > > > are the effect (in terms of effective differences in SR). > > > > > > > > > > This is flux then for light with neutrinos and then > > > > > also gravity and gravitinos, where fall gravity is "gravific". > > > > > > > > > > light -> neutrinos (neutrinos move in effective mass) > > > > > gravity -> gravitinos > > > > > > > > > > Then though the graviton is the atom and real particle or > > > > > in the singularity for real particle, though I saw in a > > > > > different relevant paper the graviton was for example > > > > > _an exact opposite_ over the singularity, here "gravitinos", > > > > > also mass moments, is the effective draw in the effect or > > > > > like the electrical moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitino > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, working that up as potential for current, then here > > > > > it is also compression. > > > > > > > > > > Light's transit of space is effectively absolute > > > > > in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's at least as fast as you can see it. > > > > > > > > > > Here then the neutrinos are components of the image. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here "dark matter theory" is > > > > > "it's explained with matter". > > > > > Energy is similar in terms of > > > > > potential or "shadow matter > > > > > theory" that is something like > > > > > "this is what supergravity explains, > > > > > gravitinos as components in > > > > > mass transit systems, vis-a-vis > > > > > the usual parallel transport in > > > > > Special Relativity and the General > > > > > Theory of Relativity". > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass works. Light works, irradiating. > > > > > > > > Differences in potential gravity for example see mass work. > > > > > > > > Here though mass is the quantity while light is the substance, > > > > each though is "how much" are doing the work, here in falling > > > > or irradiating. > > > > > > > > Light's speed is constant in space while eletrical current effectively > > > > finds space an insulator (in the same terms or current potential, > > > > that mass and light work in the same space and mass is no slower > > > > than light in terms of light's speed through space (or, how much > > > > time light travels space with zero mass and its massless neutrino). > > > > > > > > Then the color is just that while the touching is surfaces, > > > > just all falling out the model. > > > > > > > > Then this about where the physical or motion effects > > > > can find from the theory of the light effects the > > > > potentials on the electricity effects and so on see > > > > models of visual or image difference when for example > > > > the component is 1, instead of 0, when it contributes. > > > > > > > > This somewhat chilling, that's though a niche or "fringe" > > > > effect in terms of being "highly contrived" where most > > > > "contrivations" aren't physical, as for the example the > > > > image could be too, with or without the lower component > > > > contribution to the supersymmetry effect. > > > > > > > > Then it looks on the charge difference here the > > > > "If the gravitino indeed has a mass of the order of TeV, ...". > > > > > > > > In the standard model there are only particles, > > > > everything's in usual quantities. As quantities, > > > > the standard model basically includes it, then > > > > for relevance. > > > > > > > > > "See this is a game that robots can play." > > > > > > It's just that under some torsions gravitinos have mass, > > > but it is negative mass as it is virtual in terms in how it > > > is current, under the torsions (that are not spin-preserving), > > > here of the flux of potential of gravity. > > > > > > So, they're particles in the standard model with > > > supergravity, supersymmetry works out the > > > symmetry under the torsion (virtual partner-inos). > > > > > > Virtual partnerinos of supersymmetry are basically > > > particles in the particle model the standard model, > > > here for example plainly hypothetically and defined > > > by their mathematical value for its physical interpretation, > > > here being "oh all this ''effects of dark matter'' that add > > > up in supergravity, that is solved in supersymmetry" > > > (besides any other "dark matter", for example locally). > > > > > > Like other matters of potential is as much or more an > > > estimate, the effect of partnerinos in mass differences, > > > it is a field effect. > > > > > > Then, "finding large neutrinos" is like a measurement > > > of the field. > > > > > > (In matters of flux here for irradiative potential.) > > > > > > Finding large neutrinos: largely computed because > > > the relatively large action of the clockworks is not > > > outside chaos theory (or dynamical systems, > > > dynamical methods). > > > > > > Large neutrinos: quite most usually bradyonic, > > > i.e positive mass. > > > > > > > > > Bank to bank can have work under the mass > > > to differentiate mass effect in finding neutrinos, > > > for example compass orientation. These are banks > > > of clocks and marble games underneath under averages. > > > > > > This is basically just that the virtual partner has exact > > > same mass, then maybe opposite in the additive differences > > > in the field that is static and the field that is dynamic, > > > then for whether it's the image or the source for the > > > dynamic. > > > > > > Then it's for EM like the field and the polarizing field, > > > the action under the torsion, about how the field > > > strengths are defined in terms of that basically > > > the virtual the difference from zero, here expressed > > > in the non-virtual or real frame's value (at any given > > > event or coordinate, with there only being one space > > > for all the fields). > > > > > > In the standard model in GTR, virtual particles have > > > positive mass. Then, the non-Newtonian (or, absolute > > > again, supergravity) having virtual particles with negative > > > mass, basically fills in the potential. There's no reason to > > > have negative mass in GTR. > > > > > > It adds up the same, though, supergravity in GTR. Here > > > then with supersymmetry and instantaneous gravity, or > > > supergravity, the particles are virtual anyways then that > > > the effect is all in the usual kinetic in mass and distance > > > terms of particles in the standard model (and here under > > > field configurations). (And also the usual potential in the > > > fall, irradiate, and for gravity, electricity, opticity, that it is > > > the multiplicity under the potentials that so contrive notions > > > of "virtual negative" particles as under "additive differences" > > > as "any" differences in the terms of the potential, while still > > > being particles under the catalog where the particles under > > > the catalog work out under the mass and kinetic and spin > > > that any member of the Particle Zoo is as good as any other > > > in those terms (as a theoretical element). > > > > > > There's no infinite self-energy at c because > > as the massy body increases velocity to c > > and gains relativistic mass, it brings along > > the frames around it with it, for example the > > destination frame. > > > > I.e., frames might naturally settle (here usually > > with moving apart, the frames on the path). > > This is usually thermodynamic as representing > > kinetic equilibrium (i.e. not under current). > > > > "Warp wake". > > > > Then it generally in terms of virtual fields, > > and Higgs for example isn't a field but it is > > virtual, their existence or not is usually enough > > on the transport, basically that in the "real" transport, > > they don't exist, the virtual fields. > > > > But, they exist for when otherwise the model > > would not have had the real transport under the > > term, in such a case, the "virtual fields" and their > > real results. > > > > > > > > This includes for example these real particles, > > about for example they decay and to radiation, > > that these "particles" may be recurring, to, in > > terms of the same supersymmetry making "new" > > virtual particles, that it's the same field effect. > > > > This is absorbing the half-life back above the transport. > > > > One might look at the "ions" as possibly adding > > and "inos" as possibly differencing. > > > > The "inos" are in the "ions" in their reference. > > > > > > "The vortex structure is imprinted into the underlayer's > > interfacial region via suppressing the PMA by a critical > > ion-irradiation step." > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyrmion#Magnetic_materials/data_storage > > > > Then, what's the "sol-ino"? It's the soliton (its own virtual particle). > > > > The atom's the real particle for the kinetic and it is matter and a massy body. > > > > (It's its own real particle, but, charge is also real.) > > > > The particle is on the transport (the overall effect in fields). > > > > (With mass-energy equivalence.) > > > > Real particles always add up. > > > > That virtual particles as parterninos are either Pauli excluded, > > when non-zero, in difference, or not under Pauli exclusion, > > because the partner-ino and particle are still the same i.e. > > no different than real, the statistical ensembles might work > > up with the usual ergodic equilibrium accounted about the > > other way for the parastatistical ensemble, here that all > > statistics are virtual. (And for eg measurements under > > current invariants, real as it gets.) > > > > This is where the centralizing tendency is to > > attribute for no differences that then there's > > the standardizing tendency besides the normalizing > > tendency, with building the "non-central" results as > > about the standardization under bounds besides means. > > > > (I.e. the real is central.) > > > > The partnerinos (or superpartners) are > > ubiquitous as antiparticles but only exist > > under effects in potential (field effects). > > > > (I.e. their contribution to the effect is non-zero > > in the field terms on the particles in their terms, > > for what are field effects.) > > > > > > "In the massless limit, it means that only one of > > two possible chiralities is observed for either > > particle. These are the only chiralities included > > in the Standard Model of particle interactions. " > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Chirality > > > > Then among -ino's is the Z boson "neutral and > > its own anti-particle". Also the weak force's > > particles are -ino's. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons > > > > "Z bosons for supergravity, > > photons are chargeless, too." > > > > > > > > It reminds me of mathematics and the uniqueness > > up to isomorphism of the complete ordered field, > > then equipping [-1,1] with field operations, also. > > (For the "field" in the "field theory" as "a field" or > > "the field" or some "particle's quantum field", > > in usual terms that particles are real. Or: > > "operator-valued".) > > > > "In particular, values of the fields generally > > do not commute." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Vectors,_scalars,_and_spinors > > > > ... but they do for scalars and results, i.e., > > values of the (real) field ideally commute. > > > It seems nice when models start making sense. > > The mathematical models are quite free, > it is up to the field effects to explain the > "interaction picture" (but the propagation > of anti-particles). (Of the particles.) > > "This is also how the Higgs field is thought > to give particles mass: the part of the interaction > term which corresponds to the (nonzero) vacuum > expectation value of the Higgs field is moved from > the interaction to the free field Lagrangian, where > it looks just like a mass term having nothing to do > with Higgs. " > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Perturbative_QFT_and_the_interaction_picture > > > "The graviton is atomic"? > > > All the -ino's or virtual or self-anti-particles are "dark matter > candidates" or "dark energy candidates" but there is no > "dark matter" and is no "dark energy". "Dark matter" > is theoretical in general relativity. The Standard Model > of particle physics may have this is so, up to then > explaining what dark matter is in terms, of elements, > of general relativity, the theory. Here this is that > real particles exist in general relativity. > > (And also outside general relativity, or they'd all > be "luminous matter" already, the particles and > all their systems in the field, i.e., general relativity > isn't "complete", the theory, though presumably > adding the "true" theory of gravity underneath > would make it so, with respect to "dark matter" > or "dark energy". This is that "general relativity > isn't wrong, and passes along tests".) > > General relativity is so, there are limits, here as > of limiting and dynamical regimes of open and > large systems, for gravity. "String theory Since the Virasoro algebra comprises the generators of the conformal group of the worldsheet, the stress tensor in string theory obeys the commutation relations of (two copies of) the Virasoro algebra. This is because the conformal group decomposes into separate diffeomorphisms of the forward and back lightcones. Diffeomorphism invariance of the worldsheet implies additionally that the stress tensor vanishes. This is known as the Virasoro constraint, and in the quantum theory, cannot be applied to all the states in the theory, but rather only on the physical states (compare Gupta–Bleuler formalism). " "13.4 - 13.6 billion years old might be the age of the universe, but I don't know much more past a billion years old." This is where Higgs is in the reality of the particle but its in hadronic or radiative terms instead of about the gravitinos being in gravity (or fall terms). Each virtual to the reality of the particle, but with Higgs over the hadronic (weak, electroweak) and gravity as over the strong and electrical as mediates it the effect of the field of the strength of gravity, it seems clear that most of the production and propagation of virtual particles with be cascade-type events, with the lifetime going to zero as cascade velocity goes to infinity, when the geometry otherwise of the geometric is poured-over the flux in compensation/conservation totally. "In July 2018, the IceCube Neutrino Observatory announced that they have traced an extremely-high-energy neutrino that hit their Antarctica-based research station in September 2017 back to its point of origin in the blazar TXS 0506+056 located 3.7 billion light-years away in the direction of the constellation Orion. This is the first time that a neutrino detector has been used to locate an object in space and that a source of cosmic rays has been identified." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_astronomy "A search of archived neutrino data from IceCube found evidence for an earlier flare of lower-energy neutrinos in 2014-2015 (a form of precovery), which supports identification of the blazar as a source of neutrinos.[22] An independent analysis found no gamma-ray flare during this earlier period of neutrino emission, but supported its association with the blazar.[6] The neutrinos emitted by TXS 0506+056 are six orders of magnitude higher in energy than those from any previously- identified astrophysical neutrino source." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TXS_0506%2B056 "The IceCube collaboration has published flux limits for neutrinos from point sources,[25] gamma-ray bursts,[26] and neutralino annihilation in the Sun, with implications for WIMP-proton cross section." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory Flux, current, and the tide. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/L47/meta ... https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/2/1354/3573855 : "Among other sources, tidal disruption events (TDEs) have been suggested as possible origins of high-energy neutrinos (Wang et al. 2011; Wang & Liu 2016; Pfeffer, Kovetz & Kamionkowski 2017). A TDE happens when a star approaches a supermassive black hole (SMBH) so close that the tidal force from the black hole exceeds the stellar self-gravity and tears apart the star (e.g. Hills 1975; Lacy, Townes & Hollenbach 1982; Carter & Luminet 1983; Rees 1988). A few dozens of TDE candidates have been found based on the characteristic optical, UV and/or X-ray emission produced as stellar debris loses orbital energy and is eventually accreted on to the black hole (for reviews of observational status of TDEs, see Komossa 2015; Auchettl, Guillochon & Ramirez-Ruiz 2016). While a TDE is a transient event typically lasting about 1 yr, the rate that stellar material is supplied back to the vicinity of the black hole can be over 100 times the Eddington accretion rate for black hole of mass around 106 M⊙ (Evans & Kochanek 1989; Guillochon, Manukian & Ramirez-Ruiz 2014)." "We find that if the neutrino emission is limited to the jet region, the total flux from the jetted TDE population cannot meet the IceCube measurement. Therefore, TDEs cannot be the dominant contributor to the IceCube neutrinos unless a significant fraction of them, with or without the presence of a jet like that of Sw 1644, can emit or redistribute neutrinos into a wide angle." "This phenomenon is caused by the jets traveling very near the speed of light at a very small angle towards the observer." "Although a few astrophysicists still argue in favor of this view, most believe that apparent velocities greater than the velocity of light are optical illusions and involve no physics incompatible with the theory of special relativity. " -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion "We have observed two periods of significant neutrino emission consistent with the position of TXS 0506+056 in connection with two very different γ-ray states, namely one, high/soft, connected to the IceCube-170922A event, and another one, low/hard, related to the neutrino flare. PKS 0502+049 was also flaring right before and right after the neutrino flare but not in coincidence with it." -- https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.04461.pdf https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Radiation_astronomy/Superluminals#Electromagnetics ... https://www.nrao.edu/meetings/isstt/papers/2005/2005117000.pdf ""The emission of electromagnetic radiation from a superluminal (faster-than-light in vacuo) charged particle [is such] that no physical principle forbids emission by extended, massless superluminal sources. A polarization current density (dP/dt; see Maxwell's fourth equation) can provide such a source; the individual charged particles creating the polarization do not move faster than c, the speed of light, and yet it is relatively trivial to make the envelope of the polarization current density to do so."" Hannay on Singleton and the Ardavan's: "This is straightforward to make rigorous in the particular circumstances in question (confined smooth current density j). Therefore by their own formula, the standard one of electrodynamics is confirmed, and the disproof of their long range claim stands." -- https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-26-10-2107 "...this result implies that the boundary contribution to the solution of the wave equation governing the radiation field does not always vanish in the limit where the boundary tends to infinity (as is commonly assumed in textbooks and the published literature). While the boundary contribution to the retarded solution for the potential can always be rendered equal to zero by means of a gauge transformation that preserves the Lorenz condition, the boundary contribution to the retarded solution of the wave equation for the field may be neglected only if it diminishes with distance faster than the contribution of the source density. In the case of a rotating superluminal source, however, the boundary term in the retarded solution for the field is by a factor of the order of 𝑅1⁄2 larger than the source term of this solution, in the limit where the boundary tends to infinity. This result explains why an argument based on the solution of the wave equation governing the field in which the boundary term is neglected [such as that presented by Hannay, J. Opt. Soc. A 23, 1530 (2006)] misses the nonspherical decay of the field that is generated by a rotating superluminal source. The only way one can calculate the free-space radiation field of an accelerated superluminal source is via the retarded solution for the potential. Our findings have implications also for the observations of the pulsar emission: The more distant a pulsar, the narrower and brighter its giant pulses should be." -- https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-25-3-543 Then with electroweak as about the hadronic (radiation and transmutation about nuclear effects) and the strong and gravity about then charge as an envelope in the space envelope, it seems there are ways to reconsider formalisms of Special Relativity as what aspects of light with its constant speed through space see arrived at the conditions of flux as under potential.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 22:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <db85d3f9-d1c9-4709-91df-03a0ffbfaf6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470270 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 1:03:27 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 4:02:43 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:56:16 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 1:42:46 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:15:34 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > On 8/31/18 3:04 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > The fact that the duration of a second is DIFFERENT in virtually > > > > > > > > EVERY inertial frame is what Special Relativity is all about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is neither fact nor any part of SR. It is YOU who is confused and > > > > > > > wrong, not the tens of thousands of physicists alive today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I repeat: if your claim were true, experiments could not possibly > > > > > > > confirm the validity of SR. They do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [And here I cease attempting to teach the unteachable.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe their clocks are moving. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best way to explain, "physics is wrong". > > > > > > > > > > > > Then at least their clocks are on time. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, most of physics is right. > > > > > > > > > > > > "In the theory." > > > > > > > > > > > > In physics, physics is always right. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nature, though.... > > > > > > > > > > > > This basically has Lake's theories as > > > > > > a fragment of an explanation that would > > > > > > otherwise make sense under the physics, > > > > > > or why those are the natural constants. > > > > > > > > > > > > Physics being right and all.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Lake's theories might not be relevant > > > > > > to you, though, here these days it is > > > > > > the invariants about the constant so > > > > > > what is relevant that in the model, > > > > > > writing the quantities naturally > > > > > > reduces to the constants. > > > > > > > > > > > > For some people it's money, might as well be time. > > > > > > > > > > > > The SR is GR in the Newtonian. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which explains why light speed isn't infinite. > > > > > > > > > > > > Light is the fastest speed in the space, > > > > > > gravity is also moving in the same time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, when the move is over the speed, > > > > > > that is why it is "SR is local". > > > > > > > > > > > > It's still in effect, just goes out or over, light is flux, > > > > > > for fall gravity and imaging for example in revolutions, > > > > > > Special Relativity, then that the wave optics in the space > > > > > > are the effect (in terms of effective differences in SR). > > > > > > > > > > > > This is flux then for light with neutrinos and then > > > > > > also gravity and gravitinos, where fall gravity is "gravific". > > > > > > > > > > > > light -> neutrinos (neutrinos move in effective mass) > > > > > > gravity -> gravitinos > > > > > > > > > > > > Then though the graviton is the atom and real particle or > > > > > > in the singularity for real particle, though I saw in a > > > > > > different relevant paper the graviton was for example > > > > > > _an exact opposite_ over the singularity, here "gravitinos", > > > > > > also mass moments, is the effective draw in the effect or > > > > > > like the electrical moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitino > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, working that up as potential for current, then here > > > > > > it is also compression. > > > > > > > > > > > > Light's transit of space is effectively absolute > > > > > > in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's at least as fast as you can see it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here then the neutrinos are components of the image. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here "dark matter theory" is > > > > > > "it's explained with matter". > > > > > > Energy is similar in terms of > > > > > > potential or "shadow matter > > > > > > theory" that is something like > > > > > > "this is what supergravity explains, > > > > > > gravitinos as components in > > > > > > mass transit systems, vis-a-vis > > > > > > the usual parallel transport in > > > > > > Special Relativity and the General > > > > > > Theory of Relativity". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass works. Light works, irradiating. > > > > > > > > > > Differences in potential gravity for example see mass work. > > > > > > > > > > Here though mass is the quantity while light is the substance, > > > > > each though is "how much" are doing the work, here in falling > > > > > or irradiating. > > > > > > > > > > Light's speed is constant in space while eletrical current effectively > > > > > finds space an insulator (in the same terms or current potential, > > > > > that mass and light work in the same space and mass is no slower > > > > > than light in terms of light's speed through space (or, how much > > > > > time light travels space with zero mass and its massless neutrino). > > > > > > > > > > Then the color is just that while the touching is surfaces, > > > > > just all falling out the model. > > > > > > > > > > Then this about where the physical or motion effects > > > > > can find from the theory of the light effects the > > > > > potentials on the electricity effects and so on see > > > > > models of visual or image difference when for example > > > > > the component is 1, instead of 0, when it contributes. > > > > > > > > > > This somewhat chilling, that's though a niche or "fringe" > > > > > effect in terms of being "highly contrived" where most > > > > > "contrivations" aren't physical, as for the example the > > > > > image could be too, with or without the lower component > > > > > contribution to the supersymmetry effect. > > > > > > > > > > Then it looks on the charge difference here the > > > > > "If the gravitino indeed has a mass of the order of TeV, ...". > > > > > > > > > > In the standard model there are only particles, > > > > > everything's in usual quantities. As quantities, > > > > > the standard model basically includes it, then > > > > > for relevance. > > > > > > > > > > > > "See this is a game that robots can play." > > > > > > > > It's just that under some torsions gravitinos have mass, > > > > but it is negative mass as it is virtual in terms in how it > > > > is current, under the torsions (that are not spin-preserving), > > > > here of the flux of potential of gravity. > > > > > > > > So, they're particles in the standard model with > > > > supergravity, supersymmetry works out the > > > > symmetry under the torsion (virtual partner-inos). > > > > > > > > Virtual partnerinos of supersymmetry are basically > > > > particles in the particle model the standard model, > > > > here for example plainly hypothetically and defined > > > > by their mathematical value for its physical interpretation, > > > > here being "oh all this ''effects of dark matter'' that add > > > > up in supergravity, that is solved in supersymmetry" > > > > (besides any other "dark matter", for example locally). > > > > > > > > Like other matters of potential is as much or more an > > > > estimate, the effect of partnerinos in mass differences, > > > > it is a field effect. > > > > > > > > Then, "finding large neutrinos" is like a measurement > > > > of the field. > > > > > > > > (In matters of flux here for irradiative potential.) > > > > > > > > Finding large neutrinos: largely computed because > > > > the relatively large action of the clockworks is not > > > > outside chaos theory (or dynamical systems, > > > > dynamical methods). > > > > > > > > Large neutrinos: quite most usually bradyonic, > > > > i.e positive mass. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bank to bank can have work under the mass > > > > to differentiate mass effect in finding neutrinos, > > > > for example compass orientation. These are banks > > > > of clocks and marble games underneath under averages. > > > > > > > > This is basically just that the virtual partner has exact > > > > same mass, then maybe opposite in the additive differences > > > > in the field that is static and the field that is dynamic, > > > > then for whether it's the image or the source for the > > > > dynamic. > > > > > > > > Then it's for EM like the field and the polarizing field, > > > > the action under the torsion, about how the field > > > > strengths are defined in terms of that basically > > > > the virtual the difference from zero, here expressed > > > > in the non-virtual or real frame's value (at any given > > > > event or coordinate, with there only being one space > > > > for all the fields). > > > > > > > > In the standard model in GTR, virtual particles have > > > > positive mass. Then, the non-Newtonian (or, absolute > > > > again, supergravity) having virtual particles with negative > > > > mass, basically fills in the potential. There's no reason to > > > > have negative mass in GTR. > > > > > > > > It adds up the same, though, supergravity in GTR. Here > > > > then with supersymmetry and instantaneous gravity, or > > > > supergravity, the particles are virtual anyways then that > > > > the effect is all in the usual kinetic in mass and distance > > > > terms of particles in the standard model (and here under > > > > field configurations). (And also the usual potential in the > > > > fall, irradiate, and for gravity, electricity, opticity, that it is > > > > the multiplicity under the potentials that so contrive notions > > > > of "virtual negative" particles as under "additive differences" > > > > as "any" differences in the terms of the potential, while still > > > > being particles under the catalog where the particles under > > > > the catalog work out under the mass and kinetic and spin > > > > that any member of the Particle Zoo is as good as any other > > > > in those terms (as a theoretical element). > > > > > > > > > There's no infinite self-energy at c because > > > as the massy body increases velocity to c > > > and gains relativistic mass, it brings along > > > the frames around it with it, for example the > > > destination frame. > > > > > > I.e., frames might naturally settle (here usually > > > with moving apart, the frames on the path). > > > This is usually thermodynamic as representing > > > kinetic equilibrium (i.e. not under current). > > > > > > "Warp wake". > > > > > > Then it generally in terms of virtual fields, > > > and Higgs for example isn't a field but it is > > > virtual, their existence or not is usually enough > > > on the transport, basically that in the "real" transport, > > > they don't exist, the virtual fields. > > > > > > But, they exist for when otherwise the model > > > would not have had the real transport under the > > > term, in such a case, the "virtual fields" and their > > > real results. > > > > > > > > > > > > This includes for example these real particles, > > > about for example they decay and to radiation, > > > that these "particles" may be recurring, to, in > > > terms of the same supersymmetry making "new" > > > virtual particles, that it's the same field effect. > > > > > > This is absorbing the half-life back above the transport. > > > > > > One might look at the "ions" as possibly adding > > > and "inos" as possibly differencing. > > > > > > The "inos" are in the "ions" in their reference. > > > > > > > > > "The vortex structure is imprinted into the underlayer's > > > interfacial region via suppressing the PMA by a critical > > > ion-irradiation step." > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyrmion#Magnetic_materials/data_storage > > > > > > Then, what's the "sol-ino"? It's the soliton (its own virtual particle). > > > > > > The atom's the real particle for the kinetic and it is matter and a massy body. > > > > > > (It's its own real particle, but, charge is also real.) > > > > > > The particle is on the transport (the overall effect in fields). > > > > > > (With mass-energy equivalence.) > > > > > > Real particles always add up. > > > > > > That virtual particles as parterninos are either Pauli excluded, > > > when non-zero, in difference, or not under Pauli exclusion, > > > because the partner-ino and particle are still the same i.e. > > > no different than real, the statistical ensembles might work > > > up with the usual ergodic equilibrium accounted about the > > > other way for the parastatistical ensemble, here that all > > > statistics are virtual. (And for eg measurements under > > > current invariants, real as it gets.) > > > > > > This is where the centralizing tendency is to > > > attribute for no differences that then there's > > > the standardizing tendency besides the normalizing > > > tendency, with building the "non-central" results as > > > about the standardization under bounds besides means. > > > > > > (I.e. the real is central.) > > > > > > The partnerinos (or superpartners) are > > > ubiquitous as antiparticles but only exist > > > under effects in potential (field effects). > > > > > > (I.e. their contribution to the effect is non-zero > > > in the field terms on the particles in their terms, > > > for what are field effects.) > > > > > > > > > "In the massless limit, it means that only one of > > > two possible chiralities is observed for either > > > particle. These are the only chiralities included > > > in the Standard Model of particle interactions. " > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Chirality > > > > > > Then among -ino's is the Z boson "neutral and > > > its own anti-particle". Also the weak force's > > > particles are -ino's. > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons > > > > > > "Z bosons for supergravity, > > > photons are chargeless, too." > > > > > > > > > > > > It reminds me of mathematics and the uniqueness > > > up to isomorphism of the complete ordered field, > > > then equipping [-1,1] with field operations, also. > > > (For the "field" in the "field theory" as "a field" or > > > "the field" or some "particle's quantum field", > > > in usual terms that particles are real. Or: > > > "operator-valued".) > > > > > > "In particular, values of the fields generally > > > do not commute." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Vectors,_scalars,_and_spinors > > > > > > ... but they do for scalars and results, i.e., > > > values of the (real) field ideally commute. > > > > > > It seems nice when models start making sense. > > > > The mathematical models are quite free, > > it is up to the field effects to explain the > > "interaction picture" (but the propagation > > of anti-particles). (Of the particles.) > > > > "This is also how the Higgs field is thought > > to give particles mass: the part of the interaction > > term which corresponds to the (nonzero) vacuum > > expectation value of the Higgs field is moved from > > the interaction to the free field Lagrangian, where > > it looks just like a mass term having nothing to do > > with Higgs. " > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Perturbative_QFT_and_the_interaction_picture > > > > > > "The graviton is atomic"? > > > > > > All the -ino's or virtual or self-anti-particles are "dark matter > > candidates" or "dark energy candidates" but there is no > > "dark matter" and is no "dark energy". "Dark matter" > > is theoretical in general relativity. The Standard Model > > of particle physics may have this is so, up to then > > explaining what dark matter is in terms, of elements, > > of general relativity, the theory. Here this is that > > real particles exist in general relativity. > > > > (And also outside general relativity, or they'd all > > be "luminous matter" already, the particles and > > all their systems in the field, i.e., general relativity > > isn't "complete", the theory, though presumably > > adding the "true" theory of gravity underneath > > would make it so, with respect to "dark matter" > > or "dark energy". This is that "general relativity > > isn't wrong, and passes along tests".) > > > > General relativity is so, there are limits, here as > > of limiting and dynamical regimes of open and > > large systems, for gravity. > > > > "String theory > Since the Virasoro algebra comprises the > generators of the conformal group of the > worldsheet, the stress tensor in string theory > obeys the commutation relations of (two copies of) > the Virasoro algebra. This is because the conformal > group decomposes into separate diffeomorphisms > of the forward and back lightcones. Diffeomorphism > invariance of the worldsheet implies additionally that > the stress tensor vanishes. This is known as the Virasoro > constraint, and in the quantum theory, cannot be applied > to all the states in the theory, but rather only on the physical > states (compare Gupta–Bleuler formalism). " > > "13.4 - 13.6 billion years old > might be the age of the universe, > but I don't know much more past > a billion years old." > > This is where Higgs is in the reality of the particle > but its in hadronic or radiative terms instead of > about the gravitinos being in gravity (or fall terms). > > Each virtual to the reality of the particle, but with > Higgs over the hadronic (weak, electroweak) and > gravity as over the strong and electrical as mediates > it the effect of the field of the strength of gravity, > it seems clear that most of the production and propagation > of virtual particles with be cascade-type events, with > the lifetime going to zero as cascade velocity goes to > infinity, when the geometry otherwise of the geometric > is poured-over the flux in compensation/conservation totally. > > "In July 2018, the IceCube Neutrino Observatory announced > that they have traced an extremely-high-energy neutrino > that hit their Antarctica-based research station in September > 2017 back to its point of origin in the blazar TXS 0506+056 > located 3.7 billion light-years away in the direction of the > constellation Orion. This is the first time that a neutrino detector > has been used to locate an object in space and that a source of > cosmic rays has been identified." > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_astronomy > > "A search of archived neutrino data from IceCube found > evidence for an earlier flare of lower-energy neutrinos in > 2014-2015 (a form of precovery), which supports identification > of the blazar as a source of neutrinos.[22] An independent > analysis found no gamma-ray flare during this earlier period > of neutrino emission, but supported its association with the > blazar.[6] The neutrinos emitted by TXS 0506+056 are six orders > of magnitude higher in energy than those from any previously- > identified astrophysical neutrino source." > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TXS_0506%2B056 > > "The IceCube collaboration has published flux limits for > neutrinos from point sources,[25] gamma-ray bursts,[26] > and neutralino annihilation in the Sun, with implications > for WIMP-proton cross section." > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory > > Flux, current, and the tide. > > http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/L47/meta ... > https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/2/1354/3573855 : > > "Among other sources, tidal disruption events (TDEs) have been > suggested as possible origins of high-energy neutrinos (Wang et > al. 2011; Wang & Liu 2016; Pfeffer, Kovetz & Kamionkowski 2017). > A TDE happens when a star approaches a supermassive black hole > (SMBH) so close that the tidal force from the black hole exceeds > the stellar self-gravity and tears apart the star (e.g. Hills 1975; Lacy, > Townes & Hollenbach 1982; Carter & Luminet 1983; Rees 1988). A > few dozens of TDE candidates have been found based on the > characteristic optical, UV and/or X-ray emission produced as > stellar debris loses orbital energy and is eventually accreted > on to the black hole (for reviews of observational status of > TDEs, see Komossa 2015; Auchettl, Guillochon & Ramirez-Ruiz 2016). > While a TDE is a transient event typically lasting about 1 yr, the rate > that stellar material is supplied back to the vicinity of the black hole > can be over 100 times the Eddington accretion rate for black hole > of mass around 106 M⊙ (Evans & Kochanek 1989; Guillochon, > Manukian & Ramirez-Ruiz 2014)." > > "We find that if the neutrino emission is limited to the jet region, > the total flux from the jetted TDE population cannot meet the > IceCube measurement. Therefore, TDEs cannot be the dominant > contributor to the IceCube neutrinos unless a significant fraction > of them, with or without the presence of a jet like that of Sw 1644, > can emit or redistribute neutrinos into a wide angle." > > > > "This phenomenon is caused by the jets traveling very near > the speed of light at a very small angle towards the observer." > > "Although a few astrophysicists still argue in favor of this view, > most believe that apparent velocities greater than the velocity > of light are optical illusions and involve no physics incompatible > with the theory of special relativity. " > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion > > "We have observed two periods of significant neutrino > emission consistent with the position of TXS 0506+056 in > connection with two very different γ-ray states, namely > one, high/soft, connected to the IceCube-170922A event, > and another one, low/hard, related to the neutrino flare. > PKS 0502+049 was also flaring right before and right after > the neutrino flare but not in coincidence with it." > -- https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.04461.pdf > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Radiation_astronomy/Superluminals#Electromagnetics ... > https://www.nrao.edu/meetings/isstt/papers/2005/2005117000.pdf > > ""The emission of electromagnetic radiation from a superluminal > (faster-than-light in vacuo) charged particle [is such] that no physical > principle forbids emission by extended, massless superluminal sources. > A polarization current density (dP/dt; see Maxwell's fourth equation) > can provide such a source; the individual charged particles creating > the polarization do not move faster than c, the speed of light, and yet > it is relatively trivial to make the envelope of the polarization current > density to do so."" > > Hannay on Singleton and the Ardavan's: > > "This is straightforward to make rigorous in the particular circumstances > in question (confined smooth current density j). Therefore by their own > formula, the standard one of electrodynamics is confirmed, and the > disproof of their long range claim stands." -- https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-26-10-2107 > > > "...this result implies that the boundary contribution to > the solution of the wave equation governing the radiation > field does not always vanish in the limit where the boundary > tends to infinity (as is commonly assumed in textbooks and > the published literature). While the boundary contribution > to the retarded solution for the potential can always be > rendered equal to zero by means of a gauge transformation > that preserves the Lorenz condition, the boundary contribution > to the retarded solution of the wave equation for the field may > be neglected only if it diminishes with distance faster than the > contribution of the source density. In the case of a rotating > superluminal source, however, the boundary term in the retarded > solution for the field is by a factor of the order of 𝑅1⁄2 larger than > the source term of this solution, in the limit where the boundary > tends to infinity. This result explains why an argument based on > the solution of the wave equation governing the field in which > the boundary term is neglected [such as that presented by Hannay, > J. Opt. Soc. A 23, 1530 (2006)] misses the nonspherical decay of > the field that is generated by a rotating superluminal source. > The only way one can calculate the free-space radiation field > of an accelerated superluminal source is via the retarded solution > for the potential. Our findings have implications also for the observations > of the pulsar emission: The more distant a pulsar, the narrower and > brighter its giant pulses should be." -- https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-25-3-543 > > > Then with electroweak as about the hadronic (radiation and > transmutation about nuclear effects) and the strong and gravity > about then charge as an envelope in the space envelope, it seems > there are ways to reconsider formalisms of Special Relativity as > what aspects of light with its constant speed through space see > arrived at the conditions of flux as under potential. (And flux-casting.) If the mathematics is worked out to the non- and anti-commutative seems then the idea to build the fleeting field effects back into the distributive. Finding the birth of existence of gravitinos with having a theory that is a fall gravity basically has that there were gravitinos before gravitons then as all baryonic matter came into existence that settled into gravitons, better known in at least one guise as the atom. As discussed gravitinos are short-lived and fleeting in the astronomical in cascades as basically they reflect the vanishing to the true gradient of gravity as it evolves, then around something like the "Higgs boson" as slow-moving and long-lived, relatively. Seems people should learn more about the hadronic and gamma rays and muons as about the weak force and then more about the various supersymmetries involved with electromagnetic radiation, ionizing radiation, and gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98b05fb3-11cb-4849-b22c-3a909e19e984@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470320 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 10:52:57 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 1:03:27 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 4:02:43 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:56:16 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 1:42:46 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:15:34 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8/31/18 3:04 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > The fact that the duration of a second is DIFFERENT in virtually > > > > > > > > > EVERY inertial frame is what Special Relativity is all about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is neither fact nor any part of SR. It is YOU who is confused and > > > > > > > > wrong, not the tens of thousands of physicists alive today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I repeat: if your claim were true, experiments could not possibly > > > > > > > > confirm the validity of SR. They do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [And here I cease attempting to teach the unteachable.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe their clocks are moving. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best way to explain, "physics is wrong". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then at least their clocks are on time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, most of physics is right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "In the theory." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In physics, physics is always right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nature, though.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This basically has Lake's theories as > > > > > > > a fragment of an explanation that would > > > > > > > otherwise make sense under the physics, > > > > > > > or why those are the natural constants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Physics being right and all.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lake's theories might not be relevant > > > > > > > to you, though, here these days it is > > > > > > > the invariants about the constant so > > > > > > > what is relevant that in the model, > > > > > > > writing the quantities naturally > > > > > > > reduces to the constants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For some people it's money, might as well be time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The SR is GR in the Newtonian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which explains why light speed isn't infinite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Light is the fastest speed in the space, > > > > > > > gravity is also moving in the same time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, when the move is over the speed, > > > > > > > that is why it is "SR is local". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's still in effect, just goes out or over, light is flux, > > > > > > > for fall gravity and imaging for example in revolutions, > > > > > > > Special Relativity, then that the wave optics in the space > > > > > > > are the effect (in terms of effective differences in SR). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is flux then for light with neutrinos and then > > > > > > > also gravity and gravitinos, where fall gravity is "gravific". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light -> neutrinos (neutrinos move in effective mass) > > > > > > > gravity -> gravitinos > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then though the graviton is the atom and real particle or > > > > > > > in the singularity for real particle, though I saw in a > > > > > > > different relevant paper the graviton was for example > > > > > > > _an exact opposite_ over the singularity, here "gravitinos", > > > > > > > also mass moments, is the effective draw in the effect or > > > > > > > like the electrical moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitino > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, working that up as potential for current, then here > > > > > > > it is also compression. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Light's transit of space is effectively absolute > > > > > > > in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's at least as fast as you can see it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here then the neutrinos are components of the image. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here "dark matter theory" is > > > > > > > "it's explained with matter". > > > > > > > Energy is similar in terms of > > > > > > > potential or "shadow matter > > > > > > > theory" that is something like > > > > > > > "this is what supergravity explains, > > > > > > > gravitinos as components in > > > > > > > mass transit systems, vis-a-vis > > > > > > > the usual parallel transport in > > > > > > > Special Relativity and the General > > > > > > > Theory of Relativity". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass works. Light works, irradiating. > > > > > > > > > > > > Differences in potential gravity for example see mass work. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here though mass is the quantity while light is the substance, > > > > > > each though is "how much" are doing the work, here in falling > > > > > > or irradiating. > > > > > > > > > > > > Light's speed is constant in space while eletrical current effectively > > > > > > finds space an insulator (in the same terms or current potential, > > > > > > that mass and light work in the same space and mass is no slower > > > > > > than light in terms of light's speed through space (or, how much > > > > > > time light travels space with zero mass and its massless neutrino). > > > > > > > > > > > > Then the color is just that while the touching is surfaces, > > > > > > just all falling out the model. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then this about where the physical or motion effects > > > > > > can find from the theory of the light effects the > > > > > > potentials on the electricity effects and so on see > > > > > > models of visual or image difference when for example > > > > > > the component is 1, instead of 0, when it contributes. > > > > > > > > > > > > This somewhat chilling, that's though a niche or "fringe" > > > > > > effect in terms of being "highly contrived" where most > > > > > > "contrivations" aren't physical, as for the example the > > > > > > image could be too, with or without the lower component > > > > > > contribution to the supersymmetry effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then it looks on the charge difference here the > > > > > > "If the gravitino indeed has a mass of the order of TeV, ...". > > > > > > > > > > > > In the standard model there are only particles, > > > > > > everything's in usual quantities. As quantities, > > > > > > the standard model basically includes it, then > > > > > > for relevance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "See this is a game that robots can play." > > > > > > > > > > It's just that under some torsions gravitinos have mass, > > > > > but it is negative mass as it is virtual in terms in how it > > > > > is current, under the torsions (that are not spin-preserving), > > > > > here of the flux of potential of gravity. > > > > > > > > > > So, they're particles in the standard model with > > > > > supergravity, supersymmetry works out the > > > > > symmetry under the torsion (virtual partner-inos). > > > > > > > > > > Virtual partnerinos of supersymmetry are basically > > > > > particles in the particle model the standard model, > > > > > here for example plainly hypothetically and defined > > > > > by their mathematical value for its physical interpretation, > > > > > here being "oh all this ''effects of dark matter'' that add > > > > > up in supergravity, that is solved in supersymmetry" > > > > > (besides any other "dark matter", for example locally). > > > > > > > > > > Like other matters of potential is as much or more an > > > > > estimate, the effect of partnerinos in mass differences, > > > > > it is a field effect. > > > > > > > > > > Then, "finding large neutrinos" is like a measurement > > > > > of the field. > > > > > > > > > > (In matters of flux here for irradiative potential.) > > > > > > > > > > Finding large neutrinos: largely computed because > > > > > the relatively large action of the clockworks is not > > > > > outside chaos theory (or dynamical systems, > > > > > dynamical methods). > > > > > > > > > > Large neutrinos: quite most usually bradyonic, > > > > > i.e positive mass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bank to bank can have work under the mass > > > > > to differentiate mass effect in finding neutrinos, > > > > > for example compass orientation. These are banks > > > > > of clocks and marble games underneath under averages. > > > > > > > > > > This is basically just that the virtual partner has exact > > > > > same mass, then maybe opposite in the additive differences > > > > > in the field that is static and the field that is dynamic, > > > > > then for whether it's the image or the source for the > > > > > dynamic. > > > > > > > > > > Then it's for EM like the field and the polarizing field, > > > > > the action under the torsion, about how the field > > > > > strengths are defined in terms of that basically > > > > > the virtual the difference from zero, here expressed > > > > > in the non-virtual or real frame's value (at any given > > > > > event or coordinate, with there only being one space > > > > > for all the fields). > > > > > > > > > > In the standard model in GTR, virtual particles have > > > > > positive mass. Then, the non-Newtonian (or, absolute > > > > > again, supergravity) having virtual particles with negative > > > > > mass, basically fills in the potential. There's no reason to > > > > > have negative mass in GTR. > > > > > > > > > > It adds up the same, though, supergravity in GTR. Here > > > > > then with supersymmetry and instantaneous gravity, or > > > > > supergravity, the particles are virtual anyways then that > > > > > the effect is all in the usual kinetic in mass and distance > > > > > terms of particles in the standard model (and here under > > > > > field configurations). (And also the usual potential in the > > > > > fall, irradiate, and for gravity, electricity, opticity, that it is > > > > > the multiplicity under the potentials that so contrive notions > > > > > of "virtual negative" particles as under "additive differences" > > > > > as "any" differences in the terms of the potential, while still > > > > > being particles under the catalog where the particles under > > > > > the catalog work out under the mass and kinetic and spin > > > > > that any member of the Particle Zoo is as good as any other > > > > > in those terms (as a theoretical element). > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no infinite self-energy at c because > > > > as the massy body increases velocity to c > > > > and gains relativistic mass, it brings along > > > > the frames around it with it, for example the > > > > destination frame. > > > > > > > > I.e., frames might naturally settle (here usually > > > > with moving apart, the frames on the path). > > > > This is usually thermodynamic as representing > > > > kinetic equilibrium (i.e. not under current). > > > > > > > > "Warp wake". > > > > > > > > Then it generally in terms of virtual fields, > > > > and Higgs for example isn't a field but it is > > > > virtual, their existence or not is usually enough > > > > on the transport, basically that in the "real" transport, > > > > they don't exist, the virtual fields. > > > > > > > > But, they exist for when otherwise the model > > > > would not have had the real transport under the > > > > term, in such a case, the "virtual fields" and their > > > > real results. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This includes for example these real particles, > > > > about for example they decay and to radiation, > > > > that these "particles" may be recurring, to, in > > > > terms of the same supersymmetry making "new" > > > > virtual particles, that it's the same field effect. > > > > > > > > This is absorbing the half-life back above the transport. > > > > > > > > One might look at the "ions" as possibly adding > > > > and "inos" as possibly differencing. > > > > > > > > The "inos" are in the "ions" in their reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > "The vortex structure is imprinted into the underlayer's > > > > interfacial region via suppressing the PMA by a critical > > > > ion-irradiation step." > > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyrmion#Magnetic_materials/data_storage > > > > > > > > Then, what's the "sol-ino"? It's the soliton (its own virtual particle). > > > > > > > > The atom's the real particle for the kinetic and it is matter and a massy body. > > > > > > > > (It's its own real particle, but, charge is also real.) > > > > > > > > The particle is on the transport (the overall effect in fields). > > > > > > > > (With mass-energy equivalence.) > > > > > > > > Real particles always add up. > > > > > > > > That virtual particles as parterninos are either Pauli excluded, > > > > when non-zero, in difference, or not under Pauli exclusion, > > > > because the partner-ino and particle are still the same i.e. > > > > no different than real, the statistical ensembles might work > > > > up with the usual ergodic equilibrium accounted about the > > > > other way for the parastatistical ensemble, here that all > > > > statistics are virtual. (And for eg measurements under > > > > current invariants, real as it gets.) > > > > > > > > This is where the centralizing tendency is to > > > > attribute for no differences that then there's > > > > the standardizing tendency besides the normalizing > > > > tendency, with building the "non-central" results as > > > > about the standardization under bounds besides means. > > > > > > > > (I.e. the real is central.) > > > > > > > > The partnerinos (or superpartners) are > > > > ubiquitous as antiparticles but only exist > > > > under effects in potential (field effects). > > > > > > > > (I.e. their contribution to the effect is non-zero > > > > in the field terms on the particles in their terms, > > > > for what are field effects.) > > > > > > > > > > > > "In the massless limit, it means that only one of > > > > two possible chiralities is observed for either > > > > particle. These are the only chiralities included > > > > in the Standard Model of particle interactions. " > > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Chirality > > > > > > > > Then among -ino's is the Z boson "neutral and > > > > its own anti-particle". Also the weak force's > > > > particles are -ino's. > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons > > > > > > > > "Z bosons for supergravity, > > > > photons are chargeless, too." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It reminds me of mathematics and the uniqueness > > > > up to isomorphism of the complete ordered field, > > > > then equipping [-1,1] with field operations, also. > > > > (For the "field" in the "field theory" as "a field" or > > > > "the field" or some "particle's quantum field", > > > > in usual terms that particles are real. Or: > > > > "operator-valued".) > > > > > > > > "In particular, values of the fields generally > > > > do not commute." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Vectors,_scalars,_and_spinors > > > > > > > > ... but they do for scalars and results, i.e., > > > > values of the (real) field ideally commute. > > > > > > > > > It seems nice when models start making sense. > > > > > > The mathematical models are quite free, > > > it is up to the field effects to explain the > > > "interaction picture" (but the propagation > > > of anti-particles). (Of the particles.) > > > > > > "This is also how the Higgs field is thought > > > to give particles mass: the part of the interaction > > > term which corresponds to the (nonzero) vacuum > > > expectation value of the Higgs field is moved from > > > the interaction to the free field Lagrangian, where > > > it looks just like a mass term having nothing to do > > > with Higgs. " > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Perturbative_QFT_and_the_interaction_picture > > > > > > > > > "The graviton is atomic"? > > > > > > > > > All the -ino's or virtual or self-anti-particles are "dark matter > > > candidates" or "dark energy candidates" but there is no > > > "dark matter" and is no "dark energy". "Dark matter" > > > is theoretical in general relativity. The Standard Model > > > of particle physics may have this is so, up to then > > > explaining what dark matter is in terms, of elements, > > > of general relativity, the theory. Here this is that > > > real particles exist in general relativity. > > > > > > (And also outside general relativity, or they'd all > > > be "luminous matter" already, the particles and > > > all their systems in the field, i.e., general relativity > > > isn't "complete", the theory, though presumably > > > adding the "true" theory of gravity underneath > > > would make it so, with respect to "dark matter" > > > or "dark energy". This is that "general relativity > > > isn't wrong, and passes along tests".) > > > > > > General relativity is so, there are limits, here as > > > of limiting and dynamical regimes of open and > > > large systems, for gravity. > > > > > > > > "String theory > > Since the Virasoro algebra comprises the > > generators of the conformal group of the > > worldsheet, the stress tensor in string theory > > obeys the commutation relations of (two copies of) > > the Virasoro algebra. This is because the conformal > > group decomposes into separate diffeomorphisms > > of the forward and back lightcones. Diffeomorphism > > invariance of the worldsheet implies additionally that > > the stress tensor vanishes. This is known as the Virasoro > > constraint, and in the quantum theory, cannot be applied > > to all the states in the theory, but rather only on the physical > > states (compare Gupta–Bleuler formalism). " > > > > "13.4 - 13.6 billion years old > > might be the age of the universe, > > but I don't know much more past > > a billion years old." > > > > This is where Higgs is in the reality of the particle > > but its in hadronic or radiative terms instead of > > about the gravitinos being in gravity (or fall terms). > > > > Each virtual to the reality of the particle, but with > > Higgs over the hadronic (weak, electroweak) and > > gravity as over the strong and electrical as mediates > > it the effect of the field of the strength of gravity, > > it seems clear that most of the production and propagation > > of virtual particles with be cascade-type events, with > > the lifetime going to zero as cascade velocity goes to > > infinity, when the geometry otherwise of the geometric > > is poured-over the flux in compensation/conservation totally. > > > > "In July 2018, the IceCube Neutrino Observatory announced > > that they have traced an extremely-high-energy neutrino > > that hit their Antarctica-based research station in September > > 2017 back to its point of origin in the blazar TXS 0506+056 > > located 3.7 billion light-years away in the direction of the > > constellation Orion. This is the first time that a neutrino detector > > has been used to locate an object in space and that a source of > > cosmic rays has been identified." > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_astronomy > > > > "A search of archived neutrino data from IceCube found > > evidence for an earlier flare of lower-energy neutrinos in > > 2014-2015 (a form of precovery), which supports identification > > of the blazar as a source of neutrinos.[22] An independent > > analysis found no gamma-ray flare during this earlier period > > of neutrino emission, but supported its association with the > > blazar.[6] The neutrinos emitted by TXS 0506+056 are six orders > > of magnitude higher in energy than those from any previously- > > identified astrophysical neutrino source." > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TXS_0506%2B056 > > > > "The IceCube collaboration has published flux limits for > > neutrinos from point sources,[25] gamma-ray bursts,[26] > > and neutralino annihilation in the Sun, with implications > > for WIMP-proton cross section." > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory > > > > Flux, current, and the tide. > > > > http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/L47/meta ... > > https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/2/1354/3573855 : > > > > "Among other sources, tidal disruption events (TDEs) have been > > suggested as possible origins of high-energy neutrinos (Wang et > > al. 2011; Wang & Liu 2016; Pfeffer, Kovetz & Kamionkowski 2017). > > A TDE happens when a star approaches a supermassive black hole > > (SMBH) so close that the tidal force from the black hole exceeds > > the stellar self-gravity and tears apart the star (e.g. Hills 1975; Lacy, > > Townes & Hollenbach 1982; Carter & Luminet 1983; Rees 1988). A > > few dozens of TDE candidates have been found based on the > > characteristic optical, UV and/or X-ray emission produced as > > stellar debris loses orbital energy and is eventually accreted > > on to the black hole (for reviews of observational status of > > TDEs, see Komossa 2015; Auchettl, Guillochon & Ramirez-Ruiz 2016). > > While a TDE is a transient event typically lasting about 1 yr, the rate > > that stellar material is supplied back to the vicinity of the black hole > > can be over 100 times the Eddington accretion rate for black hole > > of mass around 106 M⊙ (Evans & Kochanek 1989; Guillochon, > > Manukian & Ramirez-Ruiz 2014)." > > > > "We find that if the neutrino emission is limited to the jet region, > > the total flux from the jetted TDE population cannot meet the > > IceCube measurement. Therefore, TDEs cannot be the dominant > > contributor to the IceCube neutrinos unless a significant fraction > > of them, with or without the presence of a jet like that of Sw 1644, > > can emit or redistribute neutrinos into a wide angle." > > > > > > > > "This phenomenon is caused by the jets traveling very near > > the speed of light at a very small angle towards the observer." > > > > "Although a few astrophysicists still argue in favor of this view, > > most believe that apparent velocities greater than the velocity > > of light are optical illusions and involve no physics incompatible > > with the theory of special relativity. " > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion > > > > "We have observed two periods of significant neutrino > > emission consistent with the position of TXS 0506+056 in > > connection with two very different γ-ray states, namely > > one, high/soft, connected to the IceCube-170922A event, > > and another one, low/hard, related to the neutrino flare. > > PKS 0502+049 was also flaring right before and right after > > the neutrino flare but not in coincidence with it." > > -- https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.04461.pdf > > > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Radiation_astronomy/Superluminals#Electromagnetics ... > > https://www.nrao.edu/meetings/isstt/papers/2005/2005117000.pdf > > > > ""The emission of electromagnetic radiation from a superluminal > > (faster-than-light in vacuo) charged particle [is such] that no physical > > principle forbids emission by extended, massless superluminal sources. > > A polarization current density (dP/dt; see Maxwell's fourth equation) > > can provide such a source; the individual charged particles creating > > the polarization do not move faster than c, the speed of light, and yet > > it is relatively trivial to make the envelope of the polarization current > > density to do so."" > > > > Hannay on Singleton and the Ardavan's: > > > > "This is straightforward to make rigorous in the particular circumstances > > in question (confined smooth current density j). Therefore by their own > > formula, the standard one of electrodynamics is confirmed, and the > > disproof of their long range claim stands." -- https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-26-10-2107 > > > > > > "...this result implies that the boundary contribution to > > the solution of the wave equation governing the radiation > > field does not always vanish in the limit where the boundary > > tends to infinity (as is commonly assumed in textbooks and > > the published literature). While the boundary contribution > > to the retarded solution for the potential can always be > > rendered equal to zero by means of a gauge transformation > > that preserves the Lorenz condition, the boundary contribution > > to the retarded solution of the wave equation for the field may > > be neglected only if it diminishes with distance faster than the > > contribution of the source density. In the case of a rotating > > superluminal source, however, the boundary term in the retarded > > solution for the field is by a factor of the order of 𝑅1⁄2 larger than > > the source term of this solution, in the limit where the boundary > > tends to infinity. This result explains why an argument based on > > the solution of the wave equation governing the field in which > > the boundary term is neglected [such as that presented by Hannay, > > J. Opt. Soc. A 23, 1530 (2006)] misses the nonspherical decay of > > the field that is generated by a rotating superluminal source. > > The only way one can calculate the free-space radiation field > > of an accelerated superluminal source is via the retarded solution > > for the potential. Our findings have implications also for the observations > > of the pulsar emission: The more distant a pulsar, the narrower and > > brighter its giant pulses should be." -- https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-25-3-543 > > > > > > Then with electroweak as about the hadronic (radiation and > > transmutation about nuclear effects) and the strong and gravity > > about then charge as an envelope in the space envelope, it seems > > there are ways to reconsider formalisms of Special Relativity as > > what aspects of light with its constant speed through space see > > arrived at the conditions of flux as under potential. > > (And flux-casting.) > > If the mathematics is worked out to the > non- and anti-commutative seems then > the idea to build the fleeting field effects > back into the distributive. > > > Finding the birth of existence of gravitinos > with having a theory that is a fall gravity > basically has that there were gravitinos before > gravitons then as all baryonic matter came into > existence that settled into gravitons, better > known in at least one guise as the atom. > > As discussed gravitinos are short-lived and > fleeting in the astronomical in cascades as > basically they reflect the vanishing to the > true gradient of gravity as it evolves, then > around something like the "Higgs boson" as > slow-moving and long-lived, relatively. > > Seems people should learn more about the > hadronic and gamma rays and muons as about > the weak force and then more about the > various supersymmetries involved with > electromagnetic radiation, ionizing radiation, > and gravity. Basically particles have various kinds of "anti-" particles, that are virtual, besides something like "contra-" particles like anti-matter (eg the "contra-terrene") that are real. The different kinds of anti-particles or here virtual partners model in the otherwise usual parallel transport of the particles differences as according to changes in potential, and changes in conditions in potential, basically reflecting the difference of the value of the component and then that in the parallel transport of the particles they are always picking the next correct partner, which in usual classical linear low-energy cases are themselves. (The force in the field naturally sees that as equilibrium in the gradient to equilibrium.) This is in a refined model of "granular" time though which as continuous then is worked up a bit more about the differences between effectively continuous and effectively discrete. The virtual particles aren't real but they are algebraic, that then successful models of virtual particles (and there are, and the analysis arrives at their existence eg Dirac) are also natural in a usual mathematical sense. Then something like the Majorana spinor and going about then predicting the Majorana fermion is an offshoot of the model, mathematical, and perhaps natural, but it's an example of that the preservation of the algebra's properties in the derivation offer direction more than straight ahead (but not discognizance). Then this is often again an exercise in self-duals etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ff14958-1807-4201-b384-f77497d400f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470365 |
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:03:06 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 10:52:57 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 1:03:27 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 4:02:43 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:56:16 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 1:42:46 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:15:34 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 8/31/18 3:04 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The fact that the duration of a second is DIFFERENT in virtually > > > > > > > > > > EVERY inertial frame is what Special Relativity is all about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is neither fact nor any part of SR. It is YOU who is confused and > > > > > > > > > wrong, not the tens of thousands of physicists alive today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I repeat: if your claim were true, experiments could not possibly > > > > > > > > > confirm the validity of SR. They do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [And here I cease attempting to teach the unteachable.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe their clocks are moving. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best way to explain, "physics is wrong". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then at least their clocks are on time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, most of physics is right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "In the theory." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In physics, physics is always right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nature, though.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This basically has Lake's theories as > > > > > > > > a fragment of an explanation that would > > > > > > > > otherwise make sense under the physics, > > > > > > > > or why those are the natural constants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Physics being right and all.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lake's theories might not be relevant > > > > > > > > to you, though, here these days it is > > > > > > > > the invariants about the constant so > > > > > > > > what is relevant that in the model, > > > > > > > > writing the quantities naturally > > > > > > > > reduces to the constants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For some people it's money, might as well be time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The SR is GR in the Newtonian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which explains why light speed isn't infinite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Light is the fastest speed in the space, > > > > > > > > gravity is also moving in the same time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, when the move is over the speed, > > > > > > > > that is why it is "SR is local". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's still in effect, just goes out or over, light is flux, > > > > > > > > for fall gravity and imaging for example in revolutions, > > > > > > > > Special Relativity, then that the wave optics in the space > > > > > > > > are the effect (in terms of effective differences in SR). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is flux then for light with neutrinos and then > > > > > > > > also gravity and gravitinos, where fall gravity is "gravific". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light -> neutrinos (neutrinos move in effective mass) > > > > > > > > gravity -> gravitinos > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then though the graviton is the atom and real particle or > > > > > > > > in the singularity for real particle, though I saw in a > > > > > > > > different relevant paper the graviton was for example > > > > > > > > _an exact opposite_ over the singularity, here "gravitinos", > > > > > > > > also mass moments, is the effective draw in the effect or > > > > > > > > like the electrical moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitino > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, working that up as potential for current, then here > > > > > > > > it is also compression. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Light's transit of space is effectively absolute > > > > > > > > in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's at least as fast as you can see it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here then the neutrinos are components of the image. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here "dark matter theory" is > > > > > > > > "it's explained with matter". > > > > > > > > Energy is similar in terms of > > > > > > > > potential or "shadow matter > > > > > > > > theory" that is something like > > > > > > > > "this is what supergravity explains, > > > > > > > > gravitinos as components in > > > > > > > > mass transit systems, vis-a-vis > > > > > > > > the usual parallel transport in > > > > > > > > Special Relativity and the General > > > > > > > > Theory of Relativity". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass works. Light works, irradiating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Differences in potential gravity for example see mass work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here though mass is the quantity while light is the substance, > > > > > > > each though is "how much" are doing the work, here in falling > > > > > > > or irradiating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Light's speed is constant in space while eletrical current effectively > > > > > > > finds space an insulator (in the same terms or current potential, > > > > > > > that mass and light work in the same space and mass is no slower > > > > > > > than light in terms of light's speed through space (or, how much > > > > > > > time light travels space with zero mass and its massless neutrino). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then the color is just that while the touching is surfaces, > > > > > > > just all falling out the model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then this about where the physical or motion effects > > > > > > > can find from the theory of the light effects the > > > > > > > potentials on the electricity effects and so on see > > > > > > > models of visual or image difference when for example > > > > > > > the component is 1, instead of 0, when it contributes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This somewhat chilling, that's though a niche or "fringe" > > > > > > > effect in terms of being "highly contrived" where most > > > > > > > "contrivations" aren't physical, as for the example the > > > > > > > image could be too, with or without the lower component > > > > > > > contribution to the supersymmetry effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then it looks on the charge difference here the > > > > > > > "If the gravitino indeed has a mass of the order of TeV, ...". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the standard model there are only particles, > > > > > > > everything's in usual quantities. As quantities, > > > > > > > the standard model basically includes it, then > > > > > > > for relevance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "See this is a game that robots can play." > > > > > > > > > > > > It's just that under some torsions gravitinos have mass, > > > > > > but it is negative mass as it is virtual in terms in how it > > > > > > is current, under the torsions (that are not spin-preserving), > > > > > > here of the flux of potential of gravity. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, they're particles in the standard model with > > > > > > supergravity, supersymmetry works out the > > > > > > symmetry under the torsion (virtual partner-inos). > > > > > > > > > > > > Virtual partnerinos of supersymmetry are basically > > > > > > particles in the particle model the standard model, > > > > > > here for example plainly hypothetically and defined > > > > > > by their mathematical value for its physical interpretation, > > > > > > here being "oh all this ''effects of dark matter'' that add > > > > > > up in supergravity, that is solved in supersymmetry" > > > > > > (besides any other "dark matter", for example locally). > > > > > > > > > > > > Like other matters of potential is as much or more an > > > > > > estimate, the effect of partnerinos in mass differences, > > > > > > it is a field effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, "finding large neutrinos" is like a measurement > > > > > > of the field. > > > > > > > > > > > > (In matters of flux here for irradiative potential.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Finding large neutrinos: largely computed because > > > > > > the relatively large action of the clockworks is not > > > > > > outside chaos theory (or dynamical systems, > > > > > > dynamical methods). > > > > > > > > > > > > Large neutrinos: quite most usually bradyonic, > > > > > > i.e positive mass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bank to bank can have work under the mass > > > > > > to differentiate mass effect in finding neutrinos, > > > > > > for example compass orientation. These are banks > > > > > > of clocks and marble games underneath under averages. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is basically just that the virtual partner has exact > > > > > > same mass, then maybe opposite in the additive differences > > > > > > in the field that is static and the field that is dynamic, > > > > > > then for whether it's the image or the source for the > > > > > > dynamic. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then it's for EM like the field and the polarizing field, > > > > > > the action under the torsion, about how the field > > > > > > strengths are defined in terms of that basically > > > > > > the virtual the difference from zero, here expressed > > > > > > in the non-virtual or real frame's value (at any given > > > > > > event or coordinate, with there only being one space > > > > > > for all the fields). > > > > > > > > > > > > In the standard model in GTR, virtual particles have > > > > > > positive mass. Then, the non-Newtonian (or, absolute > > > > > > again, supergravity) having virtual particles with negative > > > > > > mass, basically fills in the potential. There's no reason to > > > > > > have negative mass in GTR. > > > > > > > > > > > > It adds up the same, though, supergravity in GTR. Here > > > > > > then with supersymmetry and instantaneous gravity, or > > > > > > supergravity, the particles are virtual anyways then that > > > > > > the effect is all in the usual kinetic in mass and distance > > > > > > terms of particles in the standard model (and here under > > > > > > field configurations). (And also the usual potential in the > > > > > > fall, irradiate, and for gravity, electricity, opticity, that it is > > > > > > the multiplicity under the potentials that so contrive notions > > > > > > of "virtual negative" particles as under "additive differences" > > > > > > as "any" differences in the terms of the potential, while still > > > > > > being particles under the catalog where the particles under > > > > > > the catalog work out under the mass and kinetic and spin > > > > > > that any member of the Particle Zoo is as good as any other > > > > > > in those terms (as a theoretical element). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no infinite self-energy at c because > > > > > as the massy body increases velocity to c > > > > > and gains relativistic mass, it brings along > > > > > the frames around it with it, for example the > > > > > destination frame. > > > > > > > > > > I.e., frames might naturally settle (here usually > > > > > with moving apart, the frames on the path). > > > > > This is usually thermodynamic as representing > > > > > kinetic equilibrium (i.e. not under current). > > > > > > > > > > "Warp wake". > > > > > > > > > > Then it generally in terms of virtual fields, > > > > > and Higgs for example isn't a field but it is > > > > > virtual, their existence or not is usually enough > > > > > on the transport, basically that in the "real" transport, > > > > > they don't exist, the virtual fields. > > > > > > > > > > But, they exist for when otherwise the model > > > > > would not have had the real transport under the > > > > > term, in such a case, the "virtual fields" and their > > > > > real results. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This includes for example these real particles, > > > > > about for example they decay and to radiation, > > > > > that these "particles" may be recurring, to, in > > > > > terms of the same supersymmetry making "new" > > > > > virtual particles, that it's the same field effect. > > > > > > > > > > This is absorbing the half-life back above the transport. > > > > > > > > > > One might look at the "ions" as possibly adding > > > > > and "inos" as possibly differencing. > > > > > > > > > > The "inos" are in the "ions" in their reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The vortex structure is imprinted into the underlayer's > > > > > interfacial region via suppressing the PMA by a critical > > > > > ion-irradiation step." > > > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyrmion#Magnetic_materials/data_storage > > > > > > > > > > Then, what's the "sol-ino"? It's the soliton (its own virtual particle). > > > > > > > > > > The atom's the real particle for the kinetic and it is matter and a massy body. > > > > > > > > > > (It's its own real particle, but, charge is also real.) > > > > > > > > > > The particle is on the transport (the overall effect in fields). > > > > > > > > > > (With mass-energy equivalence.) > > > > > > > > > > Real particles always add up. > > > > > > > > > > That virtual particles as parterninos are either Pauli excluded, > > > > > when non-zero, in difference, or not under Pauli exclusion, > > > > > because the partner-ino and particle are still the same i.e. > > > > > no different than real, the statistical ensembles might work > > > > > up with the usual ergodic equilibrium accounted about the > > > > > other way for the parastatistical ensemble, here that all > > > > > statistics are virtual. (And for eg measurements under > > > > > current invariants, real as it gets.) > > > > > > > > > > This is where the centralizing tendency is to > > > > > attribute for no differences that then there's > > > > > the standardizing tendency besides the normalizing > > > > > tendency, with building the "non-central" results as > > > > > about the standardization under bounds besides means. > > > > > > > > > > (I.e. the real is central.) > > > > > > > > > > The partnerinos (or superpartners) are > > > > > ubiquitous as antiparticles but only exist > > > > > under effects in potential (field effects). > > > > > > > > > > (I.e. their contribution to the effect is non-zero > > > > > in the field terms on the particles in their terms, > > > > > for what are field effects.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "In the massless limit, it means that only one of > > > > > two possible chiralities is observed for either > > > > > particle. These are the only chiralities included > > > > > in the Standard Model of particle interactions. " > > > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Chirality > > > > > > > > > > Then among -ino's is the Z boson "neutral and > > > > > its own anti-particle". Also the weak force's > > > > > particles are -ino's. > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons > > > > > > > > > > "Z bosons for supergravity, > > > > > photons are chargeless, too." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It reminds me of mathematics and the uniqueness > > > > > up to isomorphism of the complete ordered field, > > > > > then equipping [-1,1] with field operations, also. > > > > > (For the "field" in the "field theory" as "a field" or > > > > > "the field" or some "particle's quantum field", > > > > > in usual terms that particles are real. Or: > > > > > "operator-valued".) > > > > > > > > > > "In particular, values of the fields generally > > > > > do not commute." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Vectors,_scalars,_and_spinors > > > > > > > > > > ... but they do for scalars and results, i.e., > > > > > values of the (real) field ideally commute. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems nice when models start making sense. > > > > > > > > The mathematical models are quite free, > > > > it is up to the field effects to explain the > > > > "interaction picture" (but the propagation > > > > of anti-particles). (Of the particles.) > > > > > > > > "This is also how the Higgs field is thought > > > > to give particles mass: the part of the interaction > > > > term which corresponds to the (nonzero) vacuum > > > > expectation value of the Higgs field is moved from > > > > the interaction to the free field Lagrangian, where > > > > it looks just like a mass term having nothing to do > > > > with Higgs. " > > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Perturbative_QFT_and_the_interaction_picture > > > > > > > > > > > > "The graviton is atomic"? > > > > > > > > > > > > All the -ino's or virtual or self-anti-particles are "dark matter > > > > candidates" or "dark energy candidates" but there is no > > > > "dark matter" and is no "dark energy". "Dark matter" > > > > is theoretical in general relativity. The Standard Model > > > > of particle physics may have this is so, up to then > > > > explaining what dark matter is in terms, of elements, > > > > of general relativity, the theory. Here this is that > > > > real particles exist in general relativity. > > > > > > > > (And also outside general relativity, or they'd all > > > > be "luminous matter" already, the particles and > > > > all their systems in the field, i.e., general relativity > > > > isn't "complete", the theory, though presumably > > > > adding the "true" theory of gravity underneath > > > > would make it so, with respect to "dark matter" > > > > or "dark energy". This is that "general relativity > > > > isn't wrong, and passes along tests".) > > > > > > > > General relativity is so, there are limits, here as > > > > of limiting and dynamical regimes of open and > > > > large systems, for gravity. > > > > > > > > > > > > "String theory > > > Since the Virasoro algebra comprises the > > > generators of the conformal group of the > > > worldsheet, the stress tensor in string theory > > > obeys the commutation relations of (two copies of) > > > the Virasoro algebra. This is because the conformal > > > group decomposes into separate diffeomorphisms > > > of the forward and back lightcones. Diffeomorphism > > > invariance of the worldsheet implies additionally that > > > the stress tensor vanishes. This is known as the Virasoro > > > constraint, and in the quantum theory, cannot be applied > > > to all the states in the theory, but rather only on the physical > > > states (compare Gupta–Bleuler formalism). " > > > > > > "13.4 - 13.6 billion years old > > > might be the age of the universe, > > > but I don't know much more past > > > a billion years old." > > > > > > This is where Higgs is in the reality of the particle > > > but its in hadronic or radiative terms instead of > > > about the gravitinos being in gravity (or fall terms). > > > > > > Each virtual to the reality of the particle, but with > > > Higgs over the hadronic (weak, electroweak) and > > > gravity as over the strong and electrical as mediates > > > it the effect of the field of the strength of gravity, > > > it seems clear that most of the production and propagation > > > of virtual particles with be cascade-type events, with > > > the lifetime going to zero as cascade velocity goes to > > > infinity, when the geometry otherwise of the geometric > > > is poured-over the flux in compensation/conservation totally. > > > > > > "In July 2018, the IceCube Neutrino Observatory announced > > > that they have traced an extremely-high-energy neutrino > > > that hit their Antarctica-based research station in September > > > 2017 back to its point of origin in the blazar TXS 0506+056 > > > located 3.7 billion light-years away in the direction of the > > > constellation Orion. This is the first time that a neutrino detector > > > has been used to locate an object in space and that a source of > > > cosmic rays has been identified." > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_astronomy > > > > > > "A search of archived neutrino data from IceCube found > > > evidence for an earlier flare of lower-energy neutrinos in > > > 2014-2015 (a form of precovery), which supports identification > > > of the blazar as a source of neutrinos.[22] An independent > > > analysis found no gamma-ray flare during this earlier period > > > of neutrino emission, but supported its association with the > > > blazar.[6] The neutrinos emitted by TXS 0506+056 are six orders > > > of magnitude higher in energy than those from any previously- > > > identified astrophysical neutrino source." > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TXS_0506%2B056 > > > > > > "The IceCube collaboration has published flux limits for > > > neutrinos from point sources,[25] gamma-ray bursts,[26] > > > and neutralino annihilation in the Sun, with implications > > > for WIMP-proton cross section." > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory > > > > > > Flux, current, and the tide. > > > > > > http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/L47/meta ... > > > https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/2/1354/3573855 : > > > > > > "Among other sources, tidal disruption events (TDEs) have been > > > suggested as possible origins of high-energy neutrinos (Wang et > > > al. 2011; Wang & Liu 2016; Pfeffer, Kovetz & Kamionkowski 2017). > > > A TDE happens when a star approaches a supermassive black hole > > > (SMBH) so close that the tidal force from the black hole exceeds > > > the stellar self-gravity and tears apart the star (e.g. Hills 1975; Lacy, > > > Townes & Hollenbach 1982; Carter & Luminet 1983; Rees 1988). A > > > few dozens of TDE candidates have been found based on the > > > characteristic optical, UV and/or X-ray emission produced as > > > stellar debris loses orbital energy and is eventually accreted > > > on to the black hole (for reviews of observational status of > > > TDEs, see Komossa 2015; Auchettl, Guillochon & Ramirez-Ruiz 2016). > > > While a TDE is a transient event typically lasting about 1 yr, the rate > > > that stellar material is supplied back to the vicinity of the black hole > > > can be over 100 times the Eddington accretion rate for black hole > > > of mass around 106 M⊙ (Evans & Kochanek 1989; Guillochon, > > > Manukian & Ramirez-Ruiz 2014)." > > > > > > "We find that if the neutrino emission is limited to the jet region, > > > the total flux from the jetted TDE population cannot meet the > > > IceCube measurement. Therefore, TDEs cannot be the dominant > > > contributor to the IceCube neutrinos unless a significant fraction > > > of them, with or without the presence of a jet like that of Sw 1644, > > > can emit or redistribute neutrinos into a wide angle." > > > > > > > > > > > > "This phenomenon is caused by the jets traveling very near > > > the speed of light at a very small angle towards the observer." > > > > > > "Although a few astrophysicists still argue in favor of this view, > > > most believe that apparent velocities greater than the velocity > > > of light are optical illusions and involve no physics incompatible > > > with the theory of special relativity. " > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion > > > > > > "We have observed two periods of significant neutrino > > > emission consistent with the position of TXS 0506+056 in > > > connection with two very different γ-ray states, namely > > > one, high/soft, connected to the IceCube-170922A event, > > > and another one, low/hard, related to the neutrino flare. > > > PKS 0502+049 was also flaring right before and right after > > > the neutrino flare but not in coincidence with it." > > > -- https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.04461.pdf > > > > > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Radiation_astronomy/Superluminals#Electromagnetics ... > > > https://www.nrao.edu/meetings/isstt/papers/2005/2005117000.pdf > > > > > > ""The emission of electromagnetic radiation from a superluminal > > > (faster-than-light in vacuo) charged particle [is such] that no physical > > > principle forbids emission by extended, massless superluminal sources. > > > A polarization current density (dP/dt; see Maxwell's fourth equation) > > > can provide such a source; the individual charged particles creating > > > the polarization do not move faster than c, the speed of light, and yet > > > it is relatively trivial to make the envelope of the polarization current > > > density to do so."" > > > > > > Hannay on Singleton and the Ardavan's: > > > > > > "This is straightforward to make rigorous in the particular circumstances > > > in question (confined smooth current density j). Therefore by their own > > > formula, the standard one of electrodynamics is confirmed, and the > > > disproof of their long range claim stands." -- https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-26-10-2107 > > > > > > > > > "...this result implies that the boundary contribution to > > > the solution of the wave equation governing the radiation > > > field does not always vanish in the limit where the boundary > > > tends to infinity (as is commonly assumed in textbooks and > > > the published literature). While the boundary contribution > > > to the retarded solution for the potential can always be > > > rendered equal to zero by means of a gauge transformation > > > that preserves the Lorenz condition, the boundary contribution > > > to the retarded solution of the wave equation for the field may > > > be neglected only if it diminishes with distance faster than the > > > contribution of the source density. In the case of a rotating > > > superluminal source, however, the boundary term in the retarded > > > solution for the field is by a factor of the order of 𝑅1⁄2 larger than > > > the source term of this solution, in the limit where the boundary > > > tends to infinity. This result explains why an argument based on > > > the solution of the wave equation governing the field in which > > > the boundary term is neglected [such as that presented by Hannay, > > > J. Opt. Soc. A 23, 1530 (2006)] misses the nonspherical decay of > > > the field that is generated by a rotating superluminal source. > > > The only way one can calculate the free-space radiation field > > > of an accelerated superluminal source is via the retarded solution > > > for the potential. Our findings have implications also for the observations > > > of the pulsar emission: The more distant a pulsar, the narrower and > > > brighter its giant pulses should be." -- https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-25-3-543 > > > > > > > > > Then with electroweak as about the hadronic (radiation and > > > transmutation about nuclear effects) and the strong and gravity > > > about then charge as an envelope in the space envelope, it seems > > > there are ways to reconsider formalisms of Special Relativity as > > > what aspects of light with its constant speed through space see > > > arrived at the conditions of flux as under potential. > > > > (And flux-casting.) > > > > If the mathematics is worked out to the > > non- and anti-commutative seems then > > the idea to build the fleeting field effects > > back into the distributive. > > > > > > Finding the birth of existence of gravitinos > > with having a theory that is a fall gravity > > basically has that there were gravitinos before > > gravitons then as all baryonic matter came into > > existence that settled into gravitons, better > > known in at least one guise as the atom. > > > > As discussed gravitinos are short-lived and > > fleeting in the astronomical in cascades as > > basically they reflect the vanishing to the > > true gradient of gravity as it evolves, then > > around something like the "Higgs boson" as > > slow-moving and long-lived, relatively. > > > > Seems people should learn more about the > > hadronic and gamma rays and muons as about > > the weak force and then more about the > > various supersymmetries involved with > > electromagnetic radiation, ionizing radiation, > > and gravity. > > > Basically particles have various kinds of "anti-" particles, > that are virtual, besides something like "contra-" particles > like anti-matter (eg the "contra-terrene") that are real. > > The different kinds of anti-particles or here virtual partners > model in the otherwise usual parallel transport of the particles > differences as according to changes in potential, and changes in > conditions in potential, basically reflecting the difference of the > value of the component and then that in the parallel transport > of the particles they are always picking the next correct partner, > which in usual classical linear low-energy cases are themselves. > (The force in the field naturally sees that as equilibrium in the > gradient to equilibrium.) > > This is in a refined model of "granular" time though which as > continuous then is worked up a bit more about the differences > between effectively continuous and effectively discrete. > > The virtual particles aren't real but they are algebraic, that > then successful models of virtual particles (and there are, > and the analysis arrives at their existence eg Dirac) are also > natural in a usual mathematical sense. > > Then something like the Majorana spinor and going about > then predicting the Majorana fermion is an offshoot of the > model, mathematical, and perhaps natural, but it's an example > of that the preservation of the algebra's properties in the > derivation offer direction more than straight ahead > (but not discognizance). > > Then this is often again an exercise in self-duals etc. Here's an interesting article from Golovnev on "Introduction to teleparallel gravities": https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.06929.pdf Teleparallelism: Einstein's spooky action at a distance (for gravity): -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism Supergravity (for example) as a formalism has some quite natural representations in usual formalisms of teleparallelism. (As does fall gravity.) These naturally collapse to zero if a theory has nothing to see here. "Einstein's approach was different. He did not trust any specific assumption about the form of the [Oppenheimer] equation of state, because he anticipated that, under sufficiently exotic conditions of density and pressure, the relativistic behavior of the constituent particles of matter might give rise to new phenomena which could invalidate theoretical results, such as those obtained by Oppenheimer. Einstein considered it safer, as long as no comprehensive theory of highly condensed matter had been worked out from first principles, to start from atomistic models certain to satisfy all requirements of relativity, however unrealistic or artificial the models might be in other respects." -- Bergmann, "The Riddle of Gravitation", p.132 Bergmann recounts Einstein's objection to gravitic singularities in General Relativity. There's not an entry for "teleparallelism" in Bergmann's excellent book but there is for self-parallel about here on p.74: "To describe and to explain Einstein's theory of gravitation, some further discussion of curvature of space is necessary. As indicated previously, a space is said to be curved if the result of parallel transport of a vector from one point to another depends on the path chosen to connect these two points with each other. Hereafter, it is accepted that parallel transport is to be considered a well-defined operation along any chosen curve, which leaves unchanged both the length (or magnitude) of the vector being transported and the angle between two vectors which are transported along the same path." I.e., this "curved" is "flat". "If the vector to be transported happens, at some point along the path, to be tangential to the path itself, then it depends on the choice of the path whether parallel transport preserves this property all along the path or not. In the former case the chosen path is said to be an auto-parallel (self-parallel) curve. Given a point and an initial direction, there is always exactly one auto-parallel curve that passes through the given point in the given direction. On the surface of a sphere the great circles are the auto-parallel curves. In a flat space, they are the straight lines." Here then is talk about flux in terms of pressure and density, as so differs from the line model of current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-29 00:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ebb7ebf8-e9b7-4a6d-b255-5db6467a9d32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #470365 |
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:03:06 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 10:52:57 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 1:03:27 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 4:02:43 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:56:16 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 1:42:46 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:15:34 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 8/31/18 3:04 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The fact that the duration of a second is DIFFERENT in virtually > > > > > > > > > > EVERY inertial frame is what Special Relativity is all about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is neither fact nor any part of SR. It is YOU who is confused and > > > > > > > > > wrong, not the tens of thousands of physicists alive today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I repeat: if your claim were true, experiments could not possibly > > > > > > > > > confirm the validity of SR. They do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [And here I cease attempting to teach the unteachable.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe their clocks are moving. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best way to explain, "physics is wrong". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then at least their clocks are on time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, most of physics is right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "In the theory." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In physics, physics is always right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nature, though.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This basically has Lake's theories as > > > > > > > > a fragment of an explanation that would > > > > > > > > otherwise make sense under the physics, > > > > > > > > or why those are the natural constants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Physics being right and all.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lake's theories might not be relevant > > > > > > > > to you, though, here these days it is > > > > > > > > the invariants about the constant so > > > > > > > > what is relevant that in the model, > > > > > > > > writing the quantities naturally > > > > > > > > reduces to the constants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For some people it's money, might as well be time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The SR is GR in the Newtonian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which explains why light speed isn't infinite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Light is the fastest speed in the space, > > > > > > > > gravity is also moving in the same time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, when the move is over the speed, > > > > > > > > that is why it is "SR is local". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's still in effect, just goes out or over, light is flux, > > > > > > > > for fall gravity and imaging for example in revolutions, > > > > > > > > Special Relativity, then that the wave optics in the space > > > > > > > > are the effect (in terms of effective differences in SR). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is flux then for light with neutrinos and then > > > > > > > > also gravity and gravitinos, where fall gravity is "gravific". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light -> neutrinos (neutrinos move in effective mass) > > > > > > > > gravity -> gravitinos > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then though the graviton is the atom and real particle or > > > > > > > > in the singularity for real particle, though I saw in a > > > > > > > > different relevant paper the graviton was for example > > > > > > > > _an exact opposite_ over the singularity, here "gravitinos", > > > > > > > > also mass moments, is the effective draw in the effect or > > > > > > > > like the electrical moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitino > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, working that up as potential for current, then here > > > > > > > > it is also compression. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Light's transit of space is effectively absolute > > > > > > > > in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's at least as fast as you can see it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here then the neutrinos are components of the image. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here "dark matter theory" is > > > > > > > > "it's explained with matter". > > > > > > > > Energy is similar in terms of > > > > > > > > potential or "shadow matter > > > > > > > > theory" that is something like > > > > > > > > "this is what supergravity explains, > > > > > > > > gravitinos as components in > > > > > > > > mass transit systems, vis-a-vis > > > > > > > > the usual parallel transport in > > > > > > > > Special Relativity and the General > > > > > > > > Theory of Relativity". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass works. Light works, irradiating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Differences in potential gravity for example see mass work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here though mass is the quantity while light is the substance, > > > > > > > each though is "how much" are doing the work, here in falling > > > > > > > or irradiating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Light's speed is constant in space while eletrical current effectively > > > > > > > finds space an insulator (in the same terms or current potential, > > > > > > > that mass and light work in the same space and mass is no slower > > > > > > > than light in terms of light's speed through space (or, how much > > > > > > > time light travels space with zero mass and its massless neutrino). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then the color is just that while the touching is surfaces, > > > > > > > just all falling out the model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then this about where the physical or motion effects > > > > > > > can find from the theory of the light effects the > > > > > > > potentials on the electricity effects and so on see > > > > > > > models of visual or image difference when for example > > > > > > > the component is 1, instead of 0, when it contributes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This somewhat chilling, that's though a niche or "fringe" > > > > > > > effect in terms of being "highly contrived" where most > > > > > > > "contrivations" aren't physical, as for the example the > > > > > > > image could be too, with or without the lower component > > > > > > > contribution to the supersymmetry effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then it looks on the charge difference here the > > > > > > > "If the gravitino indeed has a mass of the order of TeV, ...". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the standard model there are only particles, > > > > > > > everything's in usual quantities. As quantities, > > > > > > > the standard model basically includes it, then > > > > > > > for relevance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "See this is a game that robots can play." > > > > > > > > > > > > It's just that under some torsions gravitinos have mass, > > > > > > but it is negative mass as it is virtual in terms in how it > > > > > > is current, under the torsions (that are not spin-preserving), > > > > > > here of the flux of potential of gravity. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, they're particles in the standard model with > > > > > > supergravity, supersymmetry works out the > > > > > > symmetry under the torsion (virtual partner-inos). > > > > > > > > > > > > Virtual partnerinos of supersymmetry are basically > > > > > > particles in the particle model the standard model, > > > > > > here for example plainly hypothetically and defined > > > > > > by their mathematical value for its physical interpretation, > > > > > > here being "oh all this ''effects of dark matter'' that add > > > > > > up in supergravity, that is solved in supersymmetry" > > > > > > (besides any other "dark matter", for example locally). > > > > > > > > > > > > Like other matters of potential is as much or more an > > > > > > estimate, the effect of partnerinos in mass differences, > > > > > > it is a field effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, "finding large neutrinos" is like a measurement > > > > > > of the field. > > > > > > > > > > > > (In matters of flux here for irradiative potential.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Finding large neutrinos: largely computed because > > > > > > the relatively large action of the clockworks is not > > > > > > outside chaos theory (or dynamical systems, > > > > > > dynamical methods). > > > > > > > > > > > > Large neutrinos: quite most usually bradyonic, > > > > > > i.e positive mass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bank to bank can have work under the mass > > > > > > to differentiate mass effect in finding neutrinos, > > > > > > for example compass orientation. These are banks > > > > > > of clocks and marble games underneath under averages. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is basically just that the virtual partner has exact > > > > > > same mass, then maybe opposite in the additive differences > > > > > > in the field that is static and the field that is dynamic, > > > > > > then for whether it's the image or the source for the > > > > > > dynamic. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then it's for EM like the field and the polarizing field, > > > > > > the action under the torsion, about how the field > > > > > > strengths are defined in terms of that basically > > > > > > the virtual the difference from zero, here expressed > > > > > > in the non-virtual or real frame's value (at any given > > > > > > event or coordinate, with there only being one space > > > > > > for all the fields). > > > > > > > > > > > > In the standard model in GTR, virtual particles have > > > > > > positive mass. Then, the non-Newtonian (or, absolute > > > > > > again, supergravity) having virtual particles with negative > > > > > > mass, basically fills in the potential. There's no reason to > > > > > > have negative mass in GTR. > > > > > > > > > > > > It adds up the same, though, supergravity in GTR. Here > > > > > > then with supersymmetry and instantaneous gravity, or > > > > > > supergravity, the particles are virtual anyways then that > > > > > > the effect is all in the usual kinetic in mass and distance > > > > > > terms of particles in the standard model (and here under > > > > > > field configurations). (And also the usual potential in the > > > > > > fall, irradiate, and for gravity, electricity, opticity, that it is > > > > > > the multiplicity under the potentials that so contrive notions > > > > > > of "virtual negative" particles as under "additive differences" > > > > > > as "any" differences in the terms of the potential, while still > > > > > > being particles under the catalog where the particles under > > > > > > the catalog work out under the mass and kinetic and spin > > > > > > that any member of the Particle Zoo is as good as any other > > > > > > in those terms (as a theoretical element). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no infinite self-energy at c because > > > > > as the massy body increases velocity to c > > > > > and gains relativistic mass, it brings along > > > > > the frames around it with it, for example the > > > > > destination frame. > > > > > > > > > > I.e., frames might naturally settle (here usually > > > > > with moving apart, the frames on the path). > > > > > This is usually thermodynamic as representing > > > > > kinetic equilibrium (i.e. not under current). > > > > > > > > > > "Warp wake". > > > > > > > > > > Then it generally in terms of virtual fields, > > > > > and Higgs for example isn't a field but it is > > > > > virtual, their existence or not is usually enough > > > > > on the transport, basically that in the "real" transport, > > > > > they don't exist, the virtual fields. > > > > > > > > > > But, they exist for when otherwise the model > > > > > would not have had the real transport under the > > > > > term, in such a case, the "virtual fields" and their > > > > > real results. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This includes for example these real particles, > > > > > about for example they decay and to radiation, > > > > > that these "particles" may be recurring, to, in > > > > > terms of the same supersymmetry making "new" > > > > > virtual particles, that it's the same field effect. > > > > > > > > > > This is absorbing the half-life back above the transport. > > > > > > > > > > One might look at the "ions" as possibly adding > > > > > and "inos" as possibly differencing. > > > > > > > > > > The "inos" are in the "ions" in their reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The vortex structure is imprinted into the underlayer's > > > > > interfacial region via suppressing the PMA by a critical > > > > > ion-irradiation step." > > > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyrmion#Magnetic_materials/data_storage > > > > > > > > > > Then, what's the "sol-ino"? It's the soliton (its own virtual particle). > > > > > > > > > > The atom's the real particle for the kinetic and it is matter and a massy body. > > > > > > > > > > (It's its own real particle, but, charge is also real.) > > > > > > > > > > The particle is on the transport (the overall effect in fields). > > > > > > > > > > (With mass-energy equivalence.) > > > > > > > > > > Real particles always add up. > > > > > > > > > > That virtual particles as parterninos are either Pauli excluded, > > > > > when non-zero, in difference, or not under Pauli exclusion, > > > > > because the partner-ino and particle are still the same i.e. > > > > > no different than real, the statistical ensembles might work > > > > > up with the usual ergodic equilibrium accounted about the > > > > > other way for the parastatistical ensemble, here that all > > > > > statistics are virtual. (And for eg measurements under > > > > > current invariants, real as it gets.) > > > > > > > > > > This is where the centralizing tendency is to > > > > > attribute for no differences that then there's > > > > > the standardizing tendency besides the normalizing > > > > > tendency, with building the "non-central" results as > > > > > about the standardization under bounds besides means. > > > > > > > > > > (I.e. the real is central.) > > > > > > > > > > The partnerinos (or superpartners) are > > > > > ubiquitous as antiparticles but only exist > > > > > under effects in potential (field effects). > > > > > > > > > > (I.e. their contribution to the effect is non-zero > > > > > in the field terms on the particles in their terms, > > > > > for what are field effects.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "In the massless limit, it means that only one of > > > > > two possible chiralities is observed for either > > > > > particle. These are the only chiralities included > > > > > in the Standard Model of particle interactions. " > > > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Chirality > > > > > > > > > > Then among -ino's is the Z boson "neutral and > > > > > its own anti-particle". Also the weak force's > > > > > particles are -ino's. > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons > > > > > > > > > > "Z bosons for supergravity, > > > > > photons are chargeless, too." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It reminds me of mathematics and the uniqueness > > > > > up to isomorphism of the complete ordered field, > > > > > then equipping [-1,1] with field operations, also. > > > > > (For the "field" in the "field theory" as "a field" or > > > > > "the field" or some "particle's quantum field", > > > > > in usual terms that particles are real. Or: > > > > > "operator-valued".) > > > > > > > > > > "In particular, values of the fields generally > > > > > do not commute." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Vectors,_scalars,_and_spinors > > > > > > > > > > ... but they do for scalars and results, i.e., > > > > > values of the (real) field ideally commute. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems nice when models start making sense. > > > > > > > > The mathematical models are quite free, > > > > it is up to the field effects to explain the > > > > "interaction picture" (but the propagation > > > > of anti-particles). (Of the particles.) > > > > > > > > "This is also how the Higgs field is thought > > > > to give particles mass: the part of the interaction > > > > term which corresponds to the (nonzero) vacuum > > > > expectation value of the Higgs field is moved from > > > > the interaction to the free field Lagrangian, where > > > > it looks just like a mass term having nothing to do > > > > with Higgs. " > > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Perturbative_QFT_and_the_interaction_picture > > > > > > > > > > > > "The graviton is atomic"? > > > > > > > > > > > > All the -ino's or virtual or self-anti-particles are "dark matter > > > > candidates" or "dark energy candidates" but there is no > > > > "dark matter" and is no "dark energy". "Dark matter" > > > > is theoretical in general relativity. The Standard Model > > > > of particle physics may have this is so, up to then > > > > explaining what dark matter is in terms, of elements, > > > > of general relativity, the theory. Here this is that > > > > real particles exist in general relativity. > > > > > > > > (And also outside general relativity, or they'd all > > > > be "luminous matter" already, the particles and > > > > all their systems in the field, i.e., general relativity > > > > isn't "complete", the theory, though presumably > > > > adding the "true" theory of gravity underneath > > > > would make it so, with respect to "dark matter" > > > > or "dark energy". This is that "general relativity > > > > isn't wrong, and passes along tests".) > > > > > > > > General relativity is so, there are limits, here as > > > > of limiting and dynamical regimes of open and > > > > large systems, for gravity. > > > > > > > > > > > > "String theory > > > Since the Virasoro algebra comprises the > > > generators of the conformal group of the > > > worldsheet, the stress tensor in string theory > > > obeys the commutation relations of (two copies of) > > > the Virasoro algebra. This is because the conformal > > > group decomposes into separate diffeomorphisms > > > of the forward and back lightcones. Diffeomorphism > > > invariance of the worldsheet implies additionally that > > > the stress tensor vanishes. This is known as the Virasoro > > > constraint, and in the quantum theory, cannot be applied > > > to all the states in the theory, but rather only on the physical > > > states (compare Gupta–Bleuler formalism). " > > > > > > "13.4 - 13.6 billion years old > > > might be the age of the universe, > > > but I don't know much more past > > > a billion years old." > > > > > > This is where Higgs is in the reality of the particle > > > but its in hadronic or radiative terms instead of > > > about the gravitinos being in gravity (or fall terms). > > > > > > Each virtual to the reality of the particle, but with > > > Higgs over the hadronic (weak, electroweak) and > > > gravity as over the strong and electrical as mediates > > > it the effect of the field of the strength of gravity, > > > it seems clear that most of the production and propagation > > > of virtual particles with be cascade-type events, with > > > the lifetime going to zero as cascade velocity goes to > > > infinity, when the geometry otherwise of the geometric > > > is poured-over the flux in compensation/conservation totally. > > > > > > "In July 2018, the IceCube Neutrino Observatory announced > > > that they have traced an extremely-high-energy neutrino > > > that hit their Antarctica-based research station in September > > > 2017 back to its point of origin in the blazar TXS 0506+056 > > > located 3.7 billion light-years away in the direction of the > > > constellation Orion. This is the first time that a neutrino detector > > > has been used to locate an object in space and that a source of > > > cosmic rays has been identified." > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_astronomy > > > > > > "A search of archived neutrino data from IceCube found > > > evidence for an earlier flare of lower-energy neutrinos in > > > 2014-2015 (a form of precovery), which supports identification > > > of the blazar as a source of neutrinos.[22] An independent > > > analysis found no gamma-ray flare during this earlier period > > > of neutrino emission, but supported its association with the > > > blazar.[6] The neutrinos emitted by TXS 0506+056 are six orders > > > of magnitude higher in energy than those from any previously- > > > identified astrophysical neutrino source." > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TXS_0506%2B056 > > > > > > "The IceCube collaboration has published flux limits for > > > neutrinos from point sources,[25] gamma-ray bursts,[26] > > > and neutralino annihilation in the Sun, with implications > > > for WIMP-proton cross section." > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory > > > > > > Flux, current, and the tide. > > > > > > http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/L47/meta ... > > > https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/2/1354/3573855 : > > > > > > "Among other sources, tidal disruption events (TDEs) have been > > > suggested as possible origins of high-energy neutrinos (Wang et > > > al. 2011; Wang & Liu 2016; Pfeffer, Kovetz & Kamionkowski 2017). > > > A TDE happens when a star approaches a supermassive black hole > > > (SMBH) so close that the tidal force from the black hole exceeds > > > the stellar self-gravity and tears apart the star (e.g. Hills 1975; Lacy, > > > Townes & Hollenbach 1982; Carter & Luminet 1983; Rees 1988). A > > > few dozens of TDE candidates have been found based on the > > > characteristic optical, UV and/or X-ray emission produced as > > > stellar debris loses orbital energy and is eventually accreted > > > on to the black hole (for reviews of observational status of > > > TDEs, see Komossa 2015; Auchettl, Guillochon & Ramirez-Ruiz 2016). > > > While a TDE is a transient event typically lasting about 1 yr, the rate > > > that stellar material is supplied back to the vicinity of the black hole > > > can be over 100 times the Eddington accretion rate for black hole > > > of mass around 106 M⊙ (Evans & Kochanek 1989; Guillochon, > > > Manukian & Ramirez-Ruiz 2014)." > > > > > > "We find that if the neutrino emission is limited to the jet region, > > > the total flux from the jetted TDE population cannot meet the > > > IceCube measurement. Therefore, TDEs cannot be the dominant > > > contributor to the IceCube neutrinos unless a significant fraction > > > of them, with or without the presence of a jet like that of Sw 1644, > > > can emit or redistribute neutrinos into a wide angle." > > > > > > > > > > > > "This phenomenon is caused by the jets traveling very near > > > the speed of light at a very small angle towards the observer." > > > > > > "Although a few astrophysicists still argue in favor of this view, > > > most believe that apparent velocities greater than the velocity > > > of light are optical illusions and involve no physics incompatible > > > with the theory of special relativity. " > > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion > > > > > > "We have observed two periods of significant neutrino > > > emission consistent with the position of TXS 0506+056 in > > > connection with two very different γ-ray states, namely > > > one, high/soft, connected to the IceCube-170922A event, > > > and another one, low/hard, related to the neutrino flare. > > > PKS 0502+049 was also flaring right before and right after > > > the neutrino flare but not in coincidence with it." > > > -- https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.04461.pdf > > > > > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Radiation_astronomy/Superluminals#Electromagnetics ... > > > https://www.nrao.edu/meetings/isstt/papers/2005/2005117000.pdf > > > > > > ""The emission of electromagnetic radiation from a superluminal > > > (faster-than-light in vacuo) charged particle [is such] that no physical > > > principle forbids emission by extended, massless superluminal sources. > > > A polarization current density (dP/dt; see Maxwell's fourth equation) > > > can provide such a source; the individual charged particles creating > > > the polarization do not move faster than c, the speed of light, and yet > > > it is relatively trivial to make the envelope of the polarization current > > > density to do so."" > > > > > > Hannay on Singleton and the Ardavan's: > > > > > > "This is straightforward to make rigorous in the particular circumstances > > > in question (confined smooth current density j). Therefore by their own > > > formula, the standard one of electrodynamics is confirmed, and the > > > disproof of their long range claim stands." -- https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-26-10-2107 > > > > > > > > > "...this result implies that the boundary contribution to > > > the solution of the wave equation governing the radiation > > > field does not always vanish in the limit where the boundary > > > tends to infinity (as is commonly assumed in textbooks and > > > the published literature). While the boundary contribution > > > to the retarded solution for the potential can always be > > > rendered equal to zero by means of a gauge transformation > > > that preserves the Lorenz condition, the boundary contribution > > > to the retarded solution of the wave equation for the field may > > > be neglected only if it diminishes with distance faster than the > > > contribution of the source density. In the case of a rotating > > > superluminal source, however, the boundary term in the retarded > > > solution for the field is by a factor of the order of 𝑅1⁄2 larger than > > > the source term of this solution, in the limit where the boundary > > > tends to infinity. This result explains why an argument based on > > > the solution of the wave equation governing the field in which > > > the boundary term is neglected [such as that presented by Hannay, > > > J. Opt. Soc. A 23, 1530 (2006)] misses the nonspherical decay of > > > the field that is generated by a rotating superluminal source. > > > The only way one can calculate the free-space radiation field > > > of an accelerated superluminal source is via the retarded solution > > > for the potential. Our findings have implications also for the observations > > > of the pulsar emission: The more distant a pulsar, the narrower and > > > brighter its giant pulses should be." -- https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-25-3-543 > > > > > > > > > Then with electroweak as about the hadronic (radiation and > > > transmutation about nuclear effects) and the strong and gravity > > > about then charge as an envelope in the space envelope, it seems > > > there are ways to reconsider formalisms of Special Relativity as > > > what aspects of light with its constant speed through space see > > > arrived at the conditions of flux as under potential. > > > > (And flux-casting.) > > > > If the mathematics is worked out to the > > non- and anti-commutative seems then > > the idea to build the fleeting field effects > > back into the distributive. > > > > > > Finding the birth of existence of gravitinos > > with having a theory that is a fall gravity > > basically has that there were gravitinos before > > gravitons then as all baryonic matter came into > > existence that settled into gravitons, better > > known in at least one guise as the atom. > > > > As discussed gravitinos are short-lived and > > fleeting in the astronomical in cascades as > > basically they reflect the vanishing to the > > true gradient of gravity as it evolves, then > > around something like the "Higgs boson" as > > slow-moving and long-lived, relatively. > > > > Seems people should learn more about the > > hadronic and gamma rays and muons as about > > the weak force and then more about the > > various supersymmetries involved with > > electromagnetic radiation, ionizing radiation, > > and gravity. > > > Basically particles have various kinds of "anti-" particles, > that are virtual, besides something like "contra-" particles > like anti-matter (eg the "contra-terrene") that are real. > > The different kinds of anti-particles or here virtual partners > model in the otherwise usual parallel transport of the particles > differences as according to changes in potential, and changes in > conditions in potential, basically reflecting the difference of the > value of the component and then that in the parallel transport > of the particles they are always picking the next correct partner, > which in usual classical linear low-energy cases are themselves. > (The force in the field naturally sees that as equilibrium in the > gradient to equilibrium.) > > This is in a refined model of "granular" time though which as > continuous then is worked up a bit more about the differences > between effectively continuous and effectively discrete. > > The virtual particles aren't real but they are algebraic, that > then successful models of virtual particles (and there are, > and the analysis arrives at their existence eg Dirac) are also > natural in a usual mathematical sense. > > Then something like the Majorana spinor and going about > then predicting the Majorana fermion is an offshoot of the > model, mathematical, and perhaps natural, but it's an example > of that the preservation of the algebra's properties in the > derivation offer direction more than straight ahead > (but not discognizance). > > Then this is often again an exercise in self-duals etc. Quite a bit in the media these days about IceCube and neutrinos. https://icecube.wisc.edu/ There's probably quite a reticence to consider the tachyonic components of the neutrino which essentially it has and that otherwise "it's always as fast as light, this particle with non-zero mass, even through the solid Earf". Of course, that's where, theoretically and all, that's as fast as it can go. General Relativity is a very well established theory (and with various interpretations these days for example about the locality of SR) and so is Quantum Mechanics, the real physics has the real theories of these objects really agree. Einstein's "total field" as was his research in his later career is quite the Mach-ian concept and physics has much to thank about mass-energy equivalence, and the cosmological constant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-29 09:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ponfiu$14iq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473445 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >> Then this is often again an exercise in self-duals etc. > > Quite a bit in the media these days about IceCube and neutrinos. quote less, my friend. Requoting 34 kilowatts is spamming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-29 11:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2a84f11-76fd-4347-8ccd-b9ffbeb8b005@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473447 |
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 2:10:57 AM UTC-7, Hilton Packett wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > >> Then this is often again an exercise in self-duals etc. > > > > Quite a bit in the media these days about IceCube and neutrinos. > > > quote less, my friend. Requoting 34 kilowatts is spamming. > > > > https://icecube.wisc.edu/ > > > > There's probably quite a reticence to consider the tachyonic > > components of the neutrino which essentially it has and that > > otherwise "it's always as fast as light, this particle with non-zero > > mass, even through the solid Earf". > > > > Of course, that's where, theoretically and all, that's as fast as it can go. > > > > General Relativity is a very well established theory (and with > > various interpretations these days for example about the > > locality of SR) and so is Quantum Mechanics, the real physics > > has the real theories of these objects really agree. > > > > Einstein's "total field" as was his research in his later career > > is quite the Mach-ian concept and physics has much to thank > > about mass-energy equivalence, and the cosmological constant. It's a narrative. Here re: news:sci.physics.relativity the neutrinos and their surprising behavior in terms of their properties of velocity and mass is relevant to some who have an interest in extensions of the theories but really usually unification of the theories. Then, quoting all that relevant context, and I pretty much do enjoy besides find interest in fundamental aspects of the physics besides and above usual interpretations of the theories, is for this extended discussion and perhaps readers not having simple following of the thread references or as those messages may have expired for readers locally, it's at least something, for some, interesting to read. This comes back to looking at the Higgs boson as being "the final" particle in the standard model (though, really the "particles" in our world of "wavicles" as it were can be broken down ad infinitum and zoo'd into the standard model), the Higgs boson or its dual nature as the kernel of its own Higgs boson-ino or supersymmetry partner or anti-particle as above (in reflection as where basically the properties split in their sign reflecting about a transition of the particle to a supersymmetric regime as about the maintaining the invariance part of the quasi-invariance of what would otherwise be the symmetry violation), has that gravity as a force and a field and for a unified field theory (and it's for a gauge theory about what results as supersymmetry and what results as local symmetries), really has that when someone says "New Physics" it means "not just the Old Physics, and establishing apologetics for the classical, modern, and today's, too". Then, does this really have anything to do with "Variable Time and Variable Speed of Light"? No, it doesn't. Light's speed is an invariant and a clock hypothesis is usual. A B. Rosenberg remarks on reference: "Now that the chapter has a name, you can refer to it as many times as you want from anywhere in the book. For example, in Chapter 2 you might write, ''...and then the wolverine, primitive beast that he was, asked the waiter to bring a Bordeaux with the chicken. See Chapter 19 for details.''" -- KornShell Programming Tutorial So, the search for new physics may have quite different approaches for the experimental, and the theoretical. Then, they agree (in theory).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-29 13:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <082569c6-d9b3-40fc-a8fe-2169d056d383@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473470 |
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:09:15 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 2:10:57 AM UTC-7, Hilton Packett wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > >> Then this is often again an exercise in self-duals etc. > > > > > > Quite a bit in the media these days about IceCube and neutrinos. > > > > > quote less, my friend. Requoting 34 kilowatts is spamming. > > > > > > https://icecube.wisc.edu/ > > > > > > There's probably quite a reticence to consider the tachyonic > > > components of the neutrino which essentially it has and that > > > otherwise "it's always as fast as light, this particle with non-zero > > > mass, even through the solid Earf". > > > > > > Of course, that's where, theoretically and all, that's as fast as it can go. > > > > > > General Relativity is a very well established theory (and with > > > various interpretations these days for example about the > > > locality of SR) and so is Quantum Mechanics, the real physics > > > has the real theories of these objects really agree. > > > > > > Einstein's "total field" as was his research in his later career > > > is quite the Mach-ian concept and physics has much to thank > > > about mass-energy equivalence, and the cosmological constant. > > > It's a narrative. Here re: news:sci.physics.relativity the > neutrinos and their surprising behavior in terms of their > properties of velocity and mass is relevant to some who > have an interest in extensions of the theories but really > usually unification of the theories. > > Then, quoting all that relevant context, and I pretty much > do enjoy besides find interest in fundamental aspects of > the physics besides and above usual interpretations of > the theories, is for this extended discussion and perhaps > readers not having simple following of the thread references > or as those messages may have expired for readers locally, > it's at least something, for some, interesting to read. > > This comes back to looking at the Higgs boson as being > "the final" particle in the standard model (though, really > the "particles" in our world of "wavicles" as it were can > be broken down ad infinitum and zoo'd into the standard > model), the Higgs boson or its dual nature as the kernel > of its own Higgs boson-ino or supersymmetry partner or > anti-particle as above (in reflection as where basically the > properties split in their sign reflecting about a transition > of the particle to a supersymmetric regime as about the > maintaining the invariance part of the quasi-invariance of > what would otherwise be the symmetry violation), has that > gravity as a force and a field and for a unified field theory > (and it's for a gauge theory about what results as supersymmetry > and what results as local symmetries), really has that when > someone says "New Physics" it means "not just the Old Physics, > and establishing apologetics for the classical, modern, and > today's, too". > > Then, does this really have anything to do with "Variable Time > and Variable Speed of Light"? No, it doesn't. Light's speed is > an invariant and a clock hypothesis is usual. > > A B. Rosenberg remarks on reference: "Now that the chapter > has a name, you can refer to it as many times as you want from > anywhere in the book. For example, in Chapter 2 you might write, > ''...and then the wolverine, primitive beast that he was, asked the > waiter to bring a Bordeaux with the chicken. See Chapter 19 > for details.''" -- KornShell Programming Tutorial > > > So, the search for new physics may have quite different approaches > for the experimental, and the theoretical. > > Then, they agree (in theory). Of course, it's a mathematical physics.... The constancy of terms in theory is relevant to their clarity and in overloading the terms' definitions that it is to establish both of the terms' meanings as about their "individual duality". Here "particle" is an example, about the "wavicle" (as coined or relayed by Feynman in "QED" but also here reflecting that physicists who know "particle" know "particle-wave duality") also "Higgs field", not a classical field (of physics) and about that physics' "field" is mathematics "vector field" (or continuous manifold with a continuous function to the continuous manifold of space-time) vis-a-vis algebra's "field" (the rational field). So, the Higgs boson is a "Standard Model particle", and, also, "not a Standard Model particle". It's a system about the extremes and transitions and as above about Shech a usual complement about Noether of infinite limits for phase transitions as basically conservative as symmetries for conservations. When physics in its abstraction then formalism builds the super-model (as above here about the super-symmetry, and also about the super-wave model and beyond Bohm and de Broglie vis-a-vis the usual wave of the usual fluid), then one approach is extension, and the other, division, but they both reflect on the "real ground theory". The dual is the dialectic not just the dichotomous, and quite simply "plus/minus _tertium non datur_". Then here "quasi-invariance" has quite the same meaning for physics and mathematics. (And "Birkhoff" is about "Ramsey".) "Continuum mechanics."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hilton Packett <wod@wcotahr.ce> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 16:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poqtb4$ggh$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473470 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 2:10:57 AM UTC-7, Hilton Packett > wrote: >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >> >> >> Then this is often again an exercise in self-duals etc. >> > >> > Quite a bit in the media these days about IceCube and neutrinos. >> >> quote less, my friend. Requoting 34 kilowatts is spamming. > > It's a narrative. Here re: news:sci.physics.relativity the neutrinos > and A 6 kilowatts is still alot. We are not that intelligent. You are overestimate us. But thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-30 11:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe1ca671-5b03-44c4-bcf6-d7cb42359489@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473565 |
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 9:24:08 AM UTC-7, Hilton Packett wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 2:10:57 AM UTC-7, Hilton Packett > > wrote: > >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > >> > >> >> Then this is often again an exercise in self-duals etc. > >> > > >> > Quite a bit in the media these days about IceCube and neutrinos. > >> > >> quote less, my friend. Requoting 34 kilowatts is spamming. > > > > It's a narrative. Here re: news:sci.physics.relativity the neutrinos > > and > > A 6 kilowatts is still alot. We are not that intelligent. You are > overestimate us. But thanks. I'd certainly rather "fly right over your head" than "insult your intelligence". I come from a time of "reading comprehension", not "find and click the 'got it' button", and for the critically thinking person, not the mouse in the maze for the pellet to keep it occupied. If it's possible to make a point that illustrates a complicated issue, then that's positive for the cognoscenti in reducing confusion about complicated issues (or, the overcomplicated about simple issues). It's also positive for the novice in helping them understand more simply the complicated. Then, I'd certainly rather "speak to your intellect" than "flail at your base lower tragedies of the human condition or the bestial". This is the egalitarian in opportunity, thus condition, not despair, and the mud. Too wordy? No, not here. There are certainly some here who I could only hope to find agreement with: conscientious scientists and physicists understanding and interested in the matters of physical and mathematical and logical and philosophical foundation, conscientious formalists 24/7, here largely the schools of men as schools of thought who establish the canon as dogmatic scientists, then their modern counterparts the conscientious researchers in the field, for some constant, consistent, complete, and concrete logical theory for reason and science (a "physics"). This is basically a comment on intellectual quality. Then, there are other forums like fqxi or so that would have higher standards quite altogether than usenet, but I won't yet abandon usenet when at least there are people like Roberts, Carlip, Franzius, even Burse (et alia, i.e. knowledgeable types) from whom to absorb relevant acceptable formalisms, dogma, and novelties, and about the opportunity to approach the science side from the investment in science not dogma (and that's dogmatic). Then also usenet's simple affordance of cheap vanity publishing (and to the public, not the public domain) is quite neatly compatible with those who basically will conscientiously suffer spam, junk, and crankety- trolls on the same channel because "letters".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 09:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <956bb5ed-2714-470e-8dda-ac5c34f4af4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473445 |
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:45:17 AM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:03:06 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 10:52:57 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 1:03:27 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 4:02:43 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:56:16 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 1:42:46 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:49:18 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:15:34 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: That you replied to yourself so many times is a sign of confusion, at best, on your part. That you added no new content, shows your lack of courtesy. get yourself some help. Kindly, Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 25 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 33 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web