XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

J. J. Lodder wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails.
A. General relativity explains Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance
and the bending of light by treating gravity as electromagnetic using
electromagnetic formulas and the assumption of the speed of light for
the speed of gravity.

Your mistakes.

rather you, not undrestanding the difference between the two, gravity and light. Huge difference. Light is not gravity, my boy. Light motivates by
the necessity of making paradoxes impossible. See my

"On The Divergent Matter of the Moving Koerpers Model", which plainly it's about the amplitude probability distribution. The Einstine was an wanker.

https://www.r%74.com/russia/599728-kiev-talk-eu-extradite-ukrainian/
It's not "BIDEN'S" expansion rhetoric, it's the western neocons who are
trying to kill 3/4 of humankind to enjoy their comfort.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-23 02:26:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

It doesn't move at the speed of light because it's not
electromagnetism,

That 'because' is false as false as this:
The sky is not blue because it is not painted.

sure, which proves the Einstine wrong, because 𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙚𝙙_𝙤𝙛_𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 is not
the speed of light because the speed of light. Btw, the Einstine was gay,
worth to be mentioned, ant not "german".

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗕𝗲𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗻𝗴
Trade is deteriorating due to China’s relations with Russia amid the
Ukraine conflict, Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck has claimed https://r%74.com/business/599783-habeck-germany-russia-china-trade/

No, blame the Zionists in the USA who are trying to slow down or stop
China future dominance in the world. It has nothing to do with Russia or Ukraine,
it is the main agenda for the tribe in the USA to find a way to prevent
China to achieve first place. The tribe would find or invent excuse to
sanction or to provoke China, it is nothing new or original in their
script and plans.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Ross Finlayson wrote:

Relativity still thinks gravity is electromagnetism even after the
unified field theory failed.

Making stuff up and pretending it is true is USELESS. Grow up!
Tom Roberts

Reading about usual retarded and non-classical advanced potentials, or Wheeler-Feynman and about Feynman saying "hey there's an invariance or symmetry if you will here that does indicate a sort of standing tension
where electromagnetic waves live", gets into that much like

absolutely

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗕𝗲𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗻𝗴
Trade is deteriorating due to China’s relations with Russia amid the
Ukraine conflict, Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck has claimed https://r%74.com/business/599783-habeck-germany-russia-china-trade/

Everytime EU leaders say something, they should add a footnote to their statement; " This message was approved by our masters in Washington and Tel Aviv".

You lying Kraut ‘huns’ had better watch out or else Russian soldiers shall be revisiting you in Berlin!!

The e.u has become 100% irrelevant in the global economy!

The Green party destroyed Germany, the power house of EU. And when the dust settles, these EU leaders should be arrested and sentenced capitally.

Germany had a good deal with Russia, the US blew that deal.. fucking lying idiot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Tom Roberts wrote:

A forteriori, any result that depends on any particular choice
of units (or dimensions) is unphysical.

Yes, of course. Good point. Similarly, any result that depends on choice
of coordinates is unphysical.

if material, then that's physical. The description is irrelevant. Please reconsider.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

J. J. Lodder wrote:

Yet, "conservation", i.e. "neither the destruction or creation", of
quantities, is exactly as according to the quantity its units.

Conservation laws do no depend on units and dimensions in any way.

of course it does, without which you have no "conservation" to begin with.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗢𝗯𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀_𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲_𝗜𝘀_𝗡𝗼𝘁_𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗜𝘁_𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀_𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲
https://old.bi%74%63%68ute.com/%76%69%64eo/XCdFOeE1dQhl

𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹𝗶_𝗣𝗠_𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀_𝗮𝗺𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮_𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗸𝘀_𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲_𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗸𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗲𝗻𝘁�
�𝗿𝗲_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 https://old.bi%74%63%68ute.com/%76%69%64eo/PSWzdvIjsHX8

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Conservation of charge is the only conservation law.
Rest is bollocks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 02:15 schrieb bertietaylor:

Conservation of charge is the only conservation law.
Rest is bollocks.

I would say: no, charge is not 'observer invariant'.

Actually I try to promote a concept, where the electron and a photon
are the same thing, where the electron is circeling around in an atom,
while the photon flies away in a streight line.

The 'photoelectric effect' is then easy:

in this concept a photon is kind of helical srew (wave packet).

If that is stopped (e.g. by a metall screen) then the helical screw is
'knocked flat' and circles around a point, hence is an electron.

A electron is actually not a real separate entity, but a certain aspect
of a standing 'rotation wave'.

The outer edge is called 'electron' and the inner turning point 'proton'.

If the electron 'rolls away', it will become a photon.

And if the photon gets stopped, it will become an electron.

Therefore: charge is not conserved.


TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Le 06/07/2024 à 07:04, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 02:15 schrieb bertietaylor:

Conservation of charge is the only conservation law.
Rest is bollocks.

I would say: no, charge is not 'observer invariant'.

Actually I try to promote a concept, where the electron and a photon
are the same thing, where the electron is circeling around in an atom,
while the photon flies away in a streight line.

The 'photoelectric effect' is then easy:

in this concept a photon is kind of helical srew (wave packet).

If that is stopped (e.g. by a metall screen) then the helical screw is 'knocked flat' and circles around a point, hence is an electron.

A electron is actually not a real separate entity, but a certain aspect
of a standing 'rotation wave'.

The outer edge is called 'electron' and the inner turning point 'proton'.

If the electron 'rolls away', it will become a photon.

And if the photon gets stopped, it will become an electron.

Therefore: charge is not conserved.

TH

C'est intéressant.

Sauf que j'ai toujours dit que "the photon doesn't exist".

Je veux dire par là qu'il n'existe pas "entre ça et là".

Le photon est un quantum d'énergie qui se déplace instantanément, et de façon quantique, de là à là, parfois sur des espaces gigantesques.

C'est la nature anisochrone de l'espace qui lui donne l'aspect d'une
entité voyageuse, soit sous forme d'onde, soit sous forme de particule.

Tout cela n'est qu'un leurre.

On ne pourra jamais lancer un photon sur un autre photon, puisqu'ils n'ont
ni trajectoire physique réelle,
ni durée de vie réelle (pas plus que la durée de vie d'une licorne
bleue).

Par contre, on peut lancer un électron sur un autre électron, et cela
donne des photons.

Les deux électrons qui se percutent disparaissent de l'univers et ressurgissent instantanément ailleurs en tant qu'énergie. Ce phénomène devrait être mieux expliqué.

A noter qu'on ne sait pas ce que pourraient devenir deux électrons qui se percuteraient dans un univers cosmique totalement vide, c'est à dire sans récepteur photonique possible, et donc où la notion de récepteur
photonique serait retirée.

Beaucoup de questions se posent encore.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 02:15 schrieb bertietaylor:

Conservation of charge is the only conservation law.
Rest is bollocks.

I would say: no, charge is not 'observer invariant'.

Charge exist without observers. All matter save aether is electrons and protons.

Actually I try to promote a concept, where the electron and a photon
are the same thing, where the electron is circeling around in an atom,
while the photon flies away in a streight line.

Wrong. Photon is a brief em pulse.

The 'photoelectric effect' is then easy:

It has to do with the dimensions of the atom sized radiating antenna
causing the aetheric vibration.

in this concept a photon is kind of helical srew (wave packet).

Every photon is a brief em pulse.

If that is stopped (e.g. by a metall screen) then the helical screw is 'knocked flat' and circles around a point, hence is an electron.

A electron is actually not a real separate entity, but a certain aspect
of a standing 'rotation wave'.

The outer edge is called 'electron' and the inner turning point
'proton'.

If the electron 'rolls away', it will become a photon.

And if the photon gets stopped, it will become an electron.

Therefore: charge is not conserved.

As per your conjecture and assumptions which have no physical basis but
worthy of the great physics hoaxes of our time.

TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 13:41 schrieb Richard Hachel:

Le 06/07/2024 à 07:04, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 02:15 schrieb bertietaylor:

Conservation of charge is the only conservation law.
Rest is bollocks.

I would say: no, charge is not 'observer invariant'.

Actually  I try to promote a concept, where the electron and a photon
are the same thing, where the electron is circeling around in an atom,
while the photon flies away in a streight line.

The 'photoelectric effect' is then easy:

in this concept a photon is kind of helical srew (wave packet).

If that is stopped (e.g. by a metall screen) then the helical screw is
'knocked flat' and circles around a point, hence is an electron.

A electron is actually not a real separate entity, but a certain
aspect of a standing 'rotation wave'.

The outer edge is called 'electron' and the inner turning point 'proton'.

If the electron 'rolls away', it will become a photon.

And if the photon gets stopped, it will become an electron.

Therefore: charge is not conserved.


TH

C'est intéressant.

Sauf que j'ai toujours dit que "the photon doesn't exist".

Sorry, but I understand only very little French ( a little but, but not
much).

So, please, say it again, but in English.

(german would be ok, too, but I guess you don't speak that).



TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Le 07/07/2024 à 10:19, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 13:41 schrieb Richard Hachel:

Le 06/07/2024 à 07:04, Thomas Heger a écrit :

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 02:15 schrieb bertietaylor:

Conservation of charge is the only conservation law.
Rest is bollocks.

I would say: no, charge is not 'observer invariant'.

Actually  I try to promote a concept, where the electron and a photon
are the same thing, where the electron is circeling around in an atom,
while the photon flies away in a streight line.

The 'photoelectric effect' is then easy:

in this concept a photon is kind of helical srew (wave packet).

If that is stopped (e.g. by a metall screen) then the helical screw is
'knocked flat' and circles around a point, hence is an electron.

A electron is actually not a real separate entity, but a certain
aspect of a standing 'rotation wave'.

The outer edge is called 'electron' and the inner turning point 'proton'. >>>
If the electron 'rolls away', it will become a photon.

And if the photon gets stopped, it will become an electron.

Therefore: charge is not conserved.


TH

C'est intéressant.

Sauf que j'ai toujours dit que "the photon doesn't exist".

Sorry, but I understand only very little French ( a little but, but not much).

So, please, say it again, but in English.

(german would be ok, too, but I guess you don't speak that).

TH

Ich sagte, Sir, dass das Photon keine Existenzmöglichkeit habe. Es
handelt sich lediglich um ein augenblicklich übertragenes Energiequantum
(im Bezugssystem des Empfängers, aber nicht im Bezugssystem der Quelle,
selbst wenn diese komobil und stationär sind).
Das habe ich gesagt.
Aufgrund einer Eigenschaft des Raums, die Doktor Richard Hachel
universelle Anisochronie nennt, nimmt das „Photon“ je nach Betrachtungsweise die Erscheinung einer Welle oder eines Teilchens an.
Ich glaube auch, dass ein guter Physiker gerade einen Artikel über die
Idee geschrieben hat, dass das Photon nicht existiert.
Wenn das wahr ist, stimme ich zu und unterstütze, was er sagt.
„Das Photon existiert nicht: Zwischen hier und dort gibt es nichts.“ Zwischen der Quelle und dem Empfänger.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Den 07.07.2024 13:51, skrev Richard Hachel:

I said, sir, that the photon had no possibility of existence.

It is just a quantum of energy transferred instantaneously
(in the reference frame of the receiver, but not in the reference
frame of the source, even if they are comobile and stationary).
That is what I said.

So if a source and a receiver are stationary relative to each other,
and a non existing quantum of energy is transmitted from the source
and received by the receiver, the transit time of the non existing
entity will be zero measured in the frame of reference where the
receiver and source are stationary, while the transit time will
be different from zero measured in the frame of reference where
the source and receiver are stationary.

That was indeed what Richard Hachel said.

Due to a property of space that Doctor Richard Hachel calls
universal anisochrony, the “photon” takes on the appearance
of a wave or a particle, depending on how you look at it.

When you look at a non existing quantum of energy,
then what you see depend on how you look at it.

I also believe that a good physicist just wrote an article
about the idea that the photon doesn't exist.
If this is true, I agree and support what he says.
“The photon does not exist: there is nothing between here and there.” Between the source and the receiver.

Quite. The non existing quantum of energy is indeed nothing.

Well said.

BTW, is Richard Hachel the non exiting Doctor with three Nobel Prizes?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)