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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #673266

Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann)

Show all headers | View raw

On 09/14/2026 08:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/14/2026 02:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:25:09 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/12/2026 07:48 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GR and QM disagree about 120 orders of decimal magnitude, for example
>>>>>> the "function freedom" accounts, then that the account of "asymptotic
>>>>>> freedom" then makes for unifying the fall-gravity and the strong
>>>>>> nuclear force and where the atom is the real graviton.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein's way of saying that GR doesn't intend to constantly violate
>>>>> conservation of energy everywhere is calling it an "inertial-system",
>>>>> which is a good idea since then the massy bodies being inert aren't
>>>>> constantly violating conservation of energy everywhere, then though
>>>>> his
>>>>> account of the geodesy as "follow-gravity" after Newton's
>>>>> "pull-gravity" does not have an account of the mechanism of what makes
>>>>> the geodesy, only that it's always straight-down and always
>>>>> instantaneously evaluated everywhere, and is Newtonian in the limit,
>>>>> that accounts of gravity that aren't a "fall-gravity" a bit un-like
>>>>> Fatio/LeSage's account of "push-gravity" are constantly violating
>>>>> conservation of energy everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The "fall gravity" is not dissimilar to accounts of "shadow gravity"
>>>> also known as "umbral gravity", and it sometimes is under accounts of
>>>> "super-gravity", though that's overloaded since accounts like "fifth
>>>> force" and so on, not to be confused with "super-force".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyways a true "fall-gravity" is about the only way for the Mach-ian
>>>> and
>>>> so on, that the usual account of Lagrange that the classical and
>>>> potential forces simply sum to equate to zero and calling that
>>>> conservation of energy doesn't explain what makes those in the first
>>>> place.
>>>
>>> How does Einstein's GR explain the huge pull-force that exists
>>> between two
>>> Neodymium bar magnets?
>>
>> It doesn't, as you should know.
>> You need electromagnetism and a lot of solid state physics for that.
>>
>>> His whole 'constant c spacetime' concept is just a nonsensical way of
>>> redefining the problem. It is ridiculously complicated, achieves
>>> nothing..and ends up with an error of 2.
>>
>> Ah, at last, a verifiable claim.
>> Please enlighten us further, how is this factor of 2 derived,
>> in which particular experiment is this factor of 2 measured?
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>
>
> Euh, "spurious" factors of two abound throughout the stack of
> derivations that's always given, usually in the a-diabatic
> and accounts like spring-mass systems.
>
> For examples, Hooke's law, Clausius, Arrhenius, and the usual
> formalisms of Kelvin and Planck, have these scattered about,
> about factors of 2 (or 1/2) and about pi and pi/2 and 2pi in
> the case of Planck.
>
> These are given since otherwise they don't add up, while usually
> enough they're considered negligeable, since then what results
> is the integration over those terms the collection of their
> infinitude into finite numbers of physics.
>
> So, you must've heard of Zeno, about the archer and what's
> resulting the geometric series which for original accounts
> of methods of exhaustion gives sums of infinite series,
> then most people have never heard of "Zeno's moving rows",
> which give an account of segments in series an infinite sum
> that adds up to _twice_ the naive account.
>
> Then, Vitali the geometer and mathematician is usually given
> as the reason why there are "non-measurable sets", yet what
> he does is split the unit magnitude into infinitesimal bits
> and sum them back to 2 (or, strictly between 1 and 3, in
> a reductio exactly 2, in 1-dimension).
>
> Then Hausdorff after Vitali makes the first account of
> Vitali-Hausdorff the equi-decomposability of the 3-dimensional
> ball, that later was taken up by Banach-Tarski in a set-theoretic
> algebraic approach invoking non-measurable sets to make the
> more publicized construction of Banach-Tarski, that Vitali-Hausdorff
> already have one and it's geometrical.
>
> The von Neumann account then in the 2-dimensional gives a number
> of accounts of how these things come and go, about what happens
> when you split a finite magnitude into infinitely-many like-size
> pieces then attempt to re-assemble them,
>
> So, the "doubling spaces" and "doubling measures" and "halving
> spaces" and "halving measures" are accounts of non-standard
> analysis that have been around since Zeno, and patches or
> "the spurious" about them are present in derivations quite
> universally.
>
>
> Then, the "pi-ratio" also shows up directly in accounts like Planck's.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

"Finlaysonian"

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 16:06 +0000
  Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-07 16:12 +0000
    Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 16:30 +0000
      Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-09 12:12 +0300
        Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:35 +0000
          Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-10 11:18 +0300
            Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 17:52 +0000
              Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 12:09 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 00:11 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 19:20 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 21:02 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 16:11 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-12 00:44 +0000
              Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-11 11:26 +0300
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-11 11:02 +0200
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 07:37 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 21:05 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-12 13:05 +0300
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 07:41 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 07:48 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 08:25 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 23:12 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 18:16 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 18:35 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 16:01 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:21 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 17:14 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:24 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 00:03 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 17:22 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 05:21 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-14 11:43 +0200
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 15:48 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 08:52 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:25 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:45 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-12 12:59 +0200
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-12 13:04 +0200
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 23:28 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-14 11:41 +0300
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 16:05 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:24 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 17:18 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:29 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:53 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:49 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:48 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-15 12:07 +0300
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 23:25 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-16 10:48 +0300
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-14 11:43 +0200
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 16:14 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-13 10:18 +0200
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 07:30 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 09:45 -0700
            Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-11 22:10 +0200
              Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 16:13 -0700
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-12 00:46 +0000
        Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-29 10:56 +0000
          Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-29 15:12 -0700
            Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-02 20:46 -0700
          Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-30 09:43 +0000
  Speed of light (was: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-09 04:03 +0200
  Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-09 12:06 +0300
    Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:39 +0000
      Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-09 16:44 -0700
        Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-09 17:12 -0700
          Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 18:19 +0000
            Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-11 08:45 -0700
  Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-09 11:31 +0200
    Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:43 +0000
      Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-10 23:58 +0200

csiph-web