A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from
external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric
field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a
electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on,
infinitely infinitely.
Bertietaylor
--
Den 01.06.2025 12:03, skrev bertitaylor:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from
external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric
field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a
electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on,
infinitely infinitely.
Bertietaylor
--
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant:
On 6/1/2025 12:46 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant:
Or, at least - a brainwashed religious maniac
is asserting they show; kind of the same thing.
Even his idiot guru, however, was unable to
stick to such a nonsense for a long time and
his GR shit had to abandon it.
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Woof woof woof woof, great is the design of the universe and wonderful
its workings, when seen in correct detail. Bertietaylor
Den 01.06.2025 12:51, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
On 6/1/2025 12:46 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant:
Or, at least - a brainwashed religious maniac
is asserting they show; kind of the same thing.
So what is the "kind of the same thing"
that your brainwashed religious maniac is asserting
these experiments show ?
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
You have read them, so you must know what they are about.
Or haven't you, so you don't?
Even his idiot guru, however, was unable to
stick to such a nonsense for a long time and
his GR shit had to abandon it.
What is "the kind of the same thing" some idiot guru was
unable to stick to?
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant:
causing vibration to aether.
Bertietaylor
--
Le 01/06/2025 à 12:39, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant:
Ce n'est pas la vitesse de la lumière qui est invariante, mais l'anisochronie universelle dans le vide parfait.
R.H.
Le 01/06/2025 à 12:03, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) a écrit :
causing vibration to aether.
Bertietaylor
--
to aether?
After all the trouble we've gone to to refute and get rid of it, you
want
to reintroduce it?
R.H.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 13:20:29 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 01/06/2025 à 12:03, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) a écrit :
causing vibration to aether.
Bertietaylor
--
to aether?
After all the trouble we've gone to to refute and get rid of it, you
want
to reintroduce it?
Declaration that it does not exist, by the pumped-up moron Einstein, in
his infamous 1905 paper, does not constitute a refutation.
On 6/1/2025 3:03 AM, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Think of a laser. Emitting photons, or radiation. All with the same
spin?
Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from
external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric
field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a
electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on,
infinitely infinitely.
Woof woof woof woof, great is the design of the universe and wonderful
its workings, when seen in correct detail.
Bertietaylor
--
Le 01/06/2025 à 12:39, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant:
Ce n'est pas la vitesse de la lumière qui est invariante, mais l'anisochronie universelle dans le vide parfait.
R.H.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 13:22:24 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 01/06/2025 à 12:39, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant:
Wrong. In the Copernican model the light speed has to be variant.
This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
Planck:
A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
- Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
light itself.
- It's a carrier of energy (Planck) that is emitted/absorbed by
electrons that
are orbiting atoms, which have different levels of energy.
- It's created as if space of any kind (Maxwell) IGNITES under such discharge
causing that the point-like energy oscillates with electric and
magnetic fields
in quadrature, with speed depending on the refraction index of the
media.
- Under classic physics (Maxwell, unaware of Planck discovery) photons
are not
perceived as a sum of enormous amounts of ray of light (each ray
linked to a
bounded electron). On the opposite side, under Planck vision, light is composed
of a large amount of photons, each one with energy E=hf.
- The confusion between classic and quantum physics is due to the interpretation
of what light is. In Maxwell's world, light is the sum (coherent or
not) of huge
amounts of ray of light (each one a photon), and is expressed in terms
of energy
per unit area. In Planck's world, light is the sum (coherent or not)
of huge
amount of photons, each one carrying energy E=hf.
- The speed of the photon or the ray of light is defined by Maxwell, in
terms of
the permittivity and permeability of the medium. The collision of the emitted
energy per atom is what ignites the medium, creating the point-like particle.
- The classic representation of light as a sinusoidal wave is just an abstraction
used for more than a century, representing the behavior of the
electrical field.
- There is not a dual behavior of light. This "paradox" is caused by the confusion
when light is analyzed entirely (Maxwell) or at its least expression (Planck).
Top-down versus bottom-up appreciation of light.
- But the point-like structure (the photon) has always been there since
1865-
Absolute truth has been spoken.
A photon is
a brief electromagnetic
wave pulse travelling a
light speed
in the medium of aether.
Following antenna
theory,
of asymmetry in the electron orbit
from
external excitation causing vibration to aether.
A change in
...
Woof woof woof woof
- It's a carrier of energy (Planck) that is emitted/absorbed by
electrons that
are orbiting atoms, which have different levels of energy.
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
Planck:
A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
- Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
light itself.
Rubbish. Point particles can not bend nicely in denser medium. They
cannot have interference patterns. They cannot be polarized. They cannot
get a uniform phase front as in laser or maser. They cannot diffract.
There is no way they can create standing wave patterns.
Bertietaylor, YOUR LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL
ANALYSIS IS APPALLING. YOU NEED TO RESET YOURSELF AND FIND OUT WHAT IS
WRONG WITH YOUR MIND.
IT'S NOT THE POINT-LIKE PARTICLE WHICH BENDS OR CREATE INTERFERENCE
PATTERNS, MAN.
IT'S DUE TO THEIR ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC FIELDS, WHICH ARE SELF-GENERATED AND SELF-SUSTAINED FOREVER, ACROSS HUGE DISTANCES OF
BILLIONS OF LY.
WHEN TRESPASSING MEDIUMS ON ITS LONG JOURNEY ON SPACE, BOTH FIELDS ADAPT
TO CORRECT THE SPEED OF SUCH PARTICLE (AKA PHOTON).
ALWAYS, SINCE 1865 AND 1901, BOTH THEORIES WERE THE EXACT REPRESENTATION
OF A TOP-DOWN APPROACH (MAXWELL) AND A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (PLANCK).
THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IT OR UNDERSTAND IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE NOT A DEEP
THINKER, AND I PITY YOU FOR IT.
GIVE YOURSELF A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND BOTH MODELS SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND
YOU'LL FIND THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR A CENTURY, DUE TO
FUCKING IMBECILES LIKE THE QUANTUM GUYS, WHO PRETENDED (VERY ENCOURAGED)
TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD IN A WAY MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN WHAT IS NEEDED.
EITHER IN RADIO ENGINEERING OR IN QUANTUM PHYSICS, THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE
THE SAME. THIS IS WHAT ALLOWED PROGRESS IN PHOTONICS AS WELL AS ANYTHING RELATED TO RADIO TELECOM, RANGING, ETC.
- It's a carrier of energy (Planck) that is emitted/absorbed by
electrons that
are orbiting atoms, which have different levels of energy.
Forget energy. That is trader talk from Jewish physics. It is force that
is the keyword. Aether is back thanks to Arindam and all the
extraordinary bungling wrapped by math gibberish is out.
- It's created as if space of any kind (Maxwell) IGNITES under such
discharge
causing that the point-like energy oscillates with electric and
magnetic fields
in quadrature, with speed depending on the refraction index of the
media.
Blah
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
- Under classic physics (Maxwell, unaware of Planck discovery) photons
are not
perceived as a sum of enormous amounts of ray of light (each ray
linked to a
bounded electron). On the opposite side, under Planck vision, light is >>> composed
of a large amount of photons, each one with energy E=hf.
- The confusion between classic and quantum physics is due to the
interpretation
of what light is. In Maxwell's world, light is the sum (coherent or
not) of huge
amounts of ray of light (each one a photon), and is expressed in terms >>> of energy
per unit area. In Planck's world, light is the sum (coherent or not)
of huge
amount of photons, each one carrying energy E=hf.
- The speed of the photon or the ray of light is defined by Maxwell, in
terms of
the permittivity and permeability of the medium. The collision of the
emitted
energy per atom is what ignites the medium, creating the point-like
particle.
- The classic representation of light as a sinusoidal wave is just an
abstraction
used for more than a century, representing the behavior of the
electrical field.
- There is not a dual behavior of light. This "paradox" is caused by the >>> confusion
when light is analyzed entirely (Maxwell) or at its least expression
(Planck).
Top-down versus bottom-up appreciation of light.
- But the point-like structure (the photon) has always been there since
1865-
Absolute truth has been spoken.
--
On 6/1/2025 3:03 AM, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Think of a laser. Emitting photons, or radiation. All with the same spin?
On 6/1/2025 3:03 AM, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Think of a laser. Emitting photons, or radiation. All with the same spin?
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
Planck:
A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
- Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
light itself.
Rubbish. Point particles can not bend nicely in denser medium. They
cannot have interference patterns. They cannot be polarized. They cannot >>> get a uniform phase front as in laser or maser. They cannot diffract.
There is no way they can create standing wave patterns.
Bertietaylor, YOUR LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL
ANALYSIS IS APPALLING. YOU NEED TO RESET YOURSELF AND FIND OUT WHAT IS
WRONG WITH YOUR MIND.
We the heavendogs of divine Arindam are perfectly sane and sound; you
apes are crazy, if not cunning parasitic apes howling out lies for
funding.
IT'S NOT THE POINT-LIKE PARTICLE WHICH BENDS OR CREATE INTERFERENCE
PATTERNS, MAN.
Certainly not.
IT'S DUE TO THEIR ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC FIELDS, WHICH ARE
SELF-GENERATED AND SELF-SUSTAINED FOREVER, ACROSS HUGE DISTANCES OF
BILLIONS OF LY.
There are no particles, foolish ape. There are only disturbances of travelling amplitude/frequency varying electric and magnetic fields in
the medium of aether. What you call a particle is nothing but a brief electromagnetic pulse caused by distortions of the electronic orbits in atoms, for light. For gamma rays that is because of the very small
distances between the nucleus and the escaping electrons. For low
frequncies the distances involved are large and so the electric fields
are easy to detect along the radiator, or associated transmission line
(VSWR measurements involving slotted coaxial cable).
WHEN TRESPASSING MEDIUMS ON ITS LONG JOURNEY ON SPACE, BOTH FIELDS ADAPT
TO CORRECT THE SPEED OF SUCH PARTICLE (AKA PHOTON).
Rubbish, blah, nonsense, brainwashed aether denying fool.
ALWAYS, SINCE 1865 AND 1901, BOTH THEORIES WERE THE EXACT REPRESENTATION
OF A TOP-DOWN APPROACH (MAXWELL) AND A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (PLANCK).
Planck is rubbish, those apes did not have a clue about antenna theory. Arindam easily explained the photoelectric effect with antenna theory.
NO need for quantum bunkum. You silly apes have no clue about energy,
really. Whereas Arindam has united all forces as electric, explained the cause of gravity, novas and supernovas.
THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IT OR UNDERSTAND IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE NOT A DEEP
THINKER, AND I PITY YOU FOR IT.
Arindam is the greatest of all time as a genius, and as a physicist he
comes after Newton. The Newton-Arindam laws of motion will take humanity
to the stars or at least to the Moon, hopefully in Arindam's lifetime.
You miserable aether-denying apes have your cowardice and conformity and careerism - so predictable.
GIVE YOURSELF A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND BOTH MODELS SIMULTANEOUSLY,
YOU'LL FIND THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR A CENTURY, DUE TO
FUCKING IMBECILES LIKE THE QUANTUM GUYS,
TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD IN A WAY MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN WHAT IS NEEDED.
EITHER IN RADIO ENGINEERING OR IN QUANTUM PHYSICS, THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE
THE SAME. THIS IS WHAT ALLOWED PROGRESS IN PHOTONICS AS WELL AS ANYTHING
RELATED TO RADIO TELECOM, RANGING, ETC.
What a confused ape you are! Get this clear - thermodynamics is wrong, relativity is depravity and quantum is bunkum. Nature is not
schizophrenic; so do not givea that quality to the most important aspect
of Nature - light! Light thus cannot be a particle or a wave, depending
upon mood of the pseudoscientist who will for his funding from the Abrahmics_allsorts deny the existence of aum, or aether.
Woof woof woof woof woo
Bertietaylor
- It's a carrier of energy (Planck) that is emitted/absorbed by
electrons that
are orbiting atoms, which have different levels of energy.
Forget energy. That is trader talk from Jewish physics. It is force that >>> is the keyword. Aether is back thanks to Arindam and all the
extraordinary bungling wrapped by math gibberish is out.
- It's created as if space of any kind (Maxwell) IGNITES under such
discharge
causing that the point-like energy oscillates with electric and
magnetic fields
in quadrature, with speed depending on the refraction index of the
media.
Blah
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
- Under classic physics (Maxwell, unaware of Planck discovery) photons >>>> are not
perceived as a sum of enormous amounts of ray of light (each ray
linked to a
bounded electron).
composed
of a large amount of photons, each one with energy E=hf.
- The confusion between classic and quantum physics is due to the
interpretation
of what light is. In Maxwell's world, light is the sum (coherent or
not) of huge
amounts of ray of light (each one a photon), and is expressed in terms >>>> of energy
per unit area.
of huge
amount of photons, each one carrying energy E=hf.
- The speed of the photon or the ray of light is defined by Maxwell, in >>>> terms of
the permittivity and permeability of the medium. The collision of the >>>> emitted
energy per atom is what ignites the medium, creating the point-like
particle.
- The classic representation of light as a sinusoidal wave is just an
abstraction
used for more than a century, representing the behavior of the
electrical field.
- There is not a dual behavior of light. This "paradox" is caused by the >>>> confusion
when light is analyzed entirely (Maxwell) or at its least expression >>>> (Planck).
Top-down versus bottom-up appreciation of light.
- But the point-like structure (the photon) has always been there since >>>> 1865-
Absolute truth has been spoken.
--
--
On 6/2/2025 3:52 AM, rhertz wrote:
[...]
Afaict, think of a photon traveling along a field line at the speed of
light in space,
field.
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:36:17 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/2/2025 3:52 AM, rhertz wrote:
[...]
Afaict, think of a photon traveling along a field line at the speed of
light in space,
The photon or brief electromagnetic pulse spreads out as per inverse
square law. Photons in phase are lasers.
On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is
A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties
of light called the 'photoelectric effect'. It can have
some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it
can have meaning that varies between people. It is not
obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer
to that specific theory concerning light or not.
a brief electromagnetic
Yes some properties of light have been related to electricity
and magnetism. Those are other theories of light developed
some in the 1800s.
wave pulse travelling a
light speed
Then there are other theories about light having a constant
speed with respect to an observer or different speeds with
respect to both light emission and light observation.
in the medium of aether.
Still other theories about light jumbled together.
Following antenna
?
theory,
What you have here is a bunch of sci-fi sounding
terms thrown together with no clear real meaning assigned
to them. They sound like they may refer to something
superficially referring to an array of different theories
about light, but in reality they could have an array of
different meanings that you might assign to them later.
For you they are a generative pejorative to nay-say,
but in reality they have been assigned no clear meaning,
they only indirectly sound like an array of different
theories of light in the past.
of asymmetry in the electron orbit
Yes there is something called 'orbitals' that
have been related to something called 'quantum
mechanics', and that has been related to something
called 'chemistry' and not just 'nuclear physics'.
from
external excitation causing vibration to aether.
Yup. Jumping between theories tends to point again
to a generic pejorative called 'science' but in
reality terms assigned no clear meaning.
A change in
Yup.
No clear meaning.
Gibberish.
Yup.
...
Woof woof woof woof
Yup. Dogs are non-sentient animals.
Yup.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference where the
aether is moving with the speed v?
Make my day, claim that the speed of light isn't invariant.
Paul, retarded narcissist & relativist.
On 6/2/2025 5:18 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:36:17 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/2/2025 3:52 AM, rhertz wrote:
[...]
Afaict, think of a photon traveling along a field line at the speed of
light in space,
The photon or brief electromagnetic pulse spreads out as per inverse
square law. Photons in phase are lasers.
that is warped and influenced by the gravitational
field.
The gravitational field cannot disturb the photon. Only the change in
the aetheric medium can with change of refractive index which relates to
both frequency and permittivity.
The photon rides the field lines... ;^)
Woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the light speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a
This sounds strange and unsatisfying. But I don't think so, because it
is actually much easier to understand than current standard cosmology.
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
The interesting thing, at least to me, is that I notice 'scientists'
scream 'PHOTON DETECTED" when their equipment says so.
Strange. All of you nutters here seem to think that scientists are
screaming all the time.
I can assure all of you from direct experience that they rarely do, if
at all. They would be quite hoarse if they had to scream for every
photon detected,
Impossible as the field line will weaken according to inverse square law
so the photon's mount will change from horse to donkey to snail to near nothing meaning it cannot continue at the speed of light.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof
This sounds strange and unsatisfying. But I don't think so, because it
is actually much easier to understand than current standard cosmology.
An infinite universe has to be eternal.
However stars go through multi trillion year cycles.
Volume and frequency of screaming depend upon need for funding.
Genuine scientists use their own resources for research.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertitaylor wrote:
This sounds strange and unsatisfying. But I don't think so, because it
is actually much easier to understand than current standard cosmology.
An infinite universe has to be eternal.
However stars go through multi trillion year cycles.
you can't have an infinite eternal universe, since after the latest
reset
the "jew rob jew" stole all the patents.
eternal, such deplorable things can't happen. Please just think.
On 6/5/2025 5:08 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
There likely have been 'many big bangs' (if those existed at all)I think so. "Our" big bang is just nothing more that a hyper large
If you google 'penrose youtube multiple big bangs'
I do remember following some of those videos..
He presents interesting views.
explosion, perhaps. I think so. Also, think about two galaxies merging
in space. On their final point where they actually become one, aka their
In an infinite universe, and
eternal, such deplorable things can't happen. Please just think.
Anything can happen with the infinity supertensor. Infinity relates
directly to the Divine. All clever Jews are atheists so have a problem
thus with infinity.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
On 6/4/2025 6:16 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:55:12 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/2/2025 5:18 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:36:17 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/2/2025 3:52 AM, rhertz wrote:
[...]
Afaict, think of a photon traveling along a field line at the speed of >>>>> light in space,
The photon or brief electromagnetic pulse spreads out as per inverse
square law. Photons in phase are lasers.
that is warped and influenced by the gravitational
field.
The gravitational field cannot disturb the photon. Only the change in
the aetheric medium can with change of refractive index which relates to >>>> both frequency and permittivity.
The photon rides the field lines... ;^)
Well of course as a hypothetical atomic bundle of time varying
electromagnetic fields.
Do they tend to ride the gravitational field?
[...]
Many experiments have confirmed the invariance of the speed of light,
and no experiment have shown otherwise.
A few of them:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:36:17 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/2/2025 3:52 AM, rhertz wrote:
[...]
Afaict, think of a photon traveling along a field line at the speed of
light in space,
The photon or brief electromagnetic pulse spreads out as per inverse
square law. Photons in phase are lasers.
Nope, bunches of photons spread out per the inverse square law and many devices produce photons in phase.
Wrong as always crackpot.
<snip remaining delusional drivel>
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 0:38:01 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:36:17 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/2/2025 3:52 AM, rhertz wrote:
[...]
Afaict, think of a photon traveling along a field line at the speed of >>>> light in space,
The photon or brief electromagnetic pulse spreads out as per inverse
square law. Photons in phase are lasers.
Nope, bunches of photons spread out per the inverse square law and many
devices produce photons in phase.
Idiot, particles don't split up smoothly and infinitely in all
directions and how on earth can particles have interference patterns.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 0:38:01 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:36:17 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/2/2025 3:52 AM, rhertz wrote:
[...]
Afaict, think of a photon traveling along a field line at the speed of >>>>> light in space,
The photon or brief electromagnetic pulse spreads out as per inverse
square law. Photons in phase are lasers.
Nope, bunches of photons spread out per the inverse square law and many
devices produce photons in phase.
Idiot, particles don't split up smoothly and infinitely in all
directions and how on earth can particles have interference patterns.
No one said that, crackpot.
Since particles don't generally split, individuals don't follow the
inverse
square law, only bunches do, crackpot.
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from
external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric
field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a
electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on,
infinitely infinitely.
Woof woof woof woof, great is the design of the universe and wonderful
its workings, when seen in correct detail.
Bertietaylor
--
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 12:24:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 0:38:01 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:36:17 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/2/2025 3:52 AM, rhertz wrote:
[...]
Afaict, think of a photon traveling along a field line at the speed of >>>>>> light in space,
The photon or brief electromagnetic pulse spreads out as per inverse >>>>> square law. Photons in phase are lasers.
Nope, bunches of photons spread out per the inverse square law and many >>>> devices produce photons in phase.
Idiot, particles don't split up smoothly and infinitely in all
directions and how on earth can particles have interference patterns.
No one said that, crackpot.
Since particles don't generally split, individuals don't follow the
inverse
square law, only bunches do, crackpot.
Bunches of Einsteinian moronic particles like you do not follow any law, Penisnino. Only absurd conjectures from rabid imagination. Problem is
that thanks to fear from nukes, money and propaganda they have global prestige. Which Arindam has punctured. It will take time for the whole stinking gasbag to deflate.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are of
equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a different
world. And all observers observe necessarily from their own position.
Now this contaions a part, which is against certain assumptions about
the world, but despite of this is true:
we don't see the same world!
Perhaps, but we all see the same speed of light.
[snip more nonsense]
I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are of
equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a different
world. And all observers observe necessarily from their own position.
On 6/8/2025 3:31 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 18:28:11 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/4/2025 6:16 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:55:12 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/2/2025 5:18 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:36:17 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/2/2025 3:52 AM, rhertz wrote:
[...]
Afaict, think of a photon traveling along a field line at the
speed of
light in space,
The photon or brief electromagnetic pulse spreads out as per inverse >>>>>> square law. Photons in phase are lasers.
that is warped and influenced by the gravitational
field.
The gravitational field cannot disturb the photon. Only the change in >>>>>> the aetheric medium can with change of refractive index which
relates to
both frequency and permittivity.
The photon rides the field lines... ;^)
Well of course as a hypothetical atomic bundle of time varying
electromagnetic fields.
Do they tend to ride the gravitational field?
They ride through on their aetheric mount.
There are masses out there in space, Earth is just one of them. Big
ones, say a cluster of galaxies, a large star, ect...
riding the rails on its field line, can twist and turn and maybe come
out on the "other side" depending on its line's specific properties.
Some photons can angle in and start to orbit a black hole for a while,
and/or eventually crash into its even horizon. Fair enough? Some photons might orbit for a while then get ejected, not doomed... :^)
Woof
[...]
--
Am Montag000009, 09.06.2025 um 07:33 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 4:46:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000005, 05.06.2025 um 13:51 schrieb bertitaylor:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...] >>>>>>>>>> How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light is a >>>>>>>> wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether. >>>>>
A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
Not at all.
You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
not confused? :-D
Why should we be? Are you thick? We have following Arindam said clearly >>>> that as the Earth moves, light speed has to be variant as the nulls in >>>> MMX could not happen otherwise. The foolish or sinister physicists have >>>> either not thought of or ignored the fact that the Earth's movement
would cause light to move more or less between any two points on the
moving Earth.
The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the
Universe.
And in 1543 Copernicus knew nothing about the speed of light.
The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may have >>>>>> heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do
NOT go
around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are supposedly >>>>>> light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the crystal >>>>>> spheres.
And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D
Light speed would be invariant as per MMX if the Earth did not move in >>>> space as the Aristotle model has it.
We have following Arindam said clearly that as the Earth moves, light
speed has to be variant as the nulls in MMX could not happen otherwise. >>>> The foolish or sinister physicists have either not thought of or ignored >>>> the fact that the Earth's movement would cause light to move more or
less between any two points on the moving Earth.
But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question
if the speed of light is invariant.
Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
A few of them:
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
the speed of light is invariant.
However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the light >>>> speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a
greater or lesser distance between two points on the moving Earth is
ignored, the experiments will start off with a false basis. So nothing >>>> true will come from such an horrendous bungle.
So I ask you again:
How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
It is never invariant. It is always variant for all objects in the
universe move with respect to the common static medium, that is aum or >>>> aether.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is stationary?
The speed of light will always APPEAR to be invariant in an experiment >>>> like MMX whereas it is variant. Making APPEARANCE reality, on the
unscientific subjective basis, is the constitution of Einsteinian
pseudo-physics.
That light speed is variant is clearly shown from the Doppler effect,
like radar or redshift and blueshift in the stars as the go away or come >>>> near.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is moving with the speed v?
Aether does not move. The speed of light from a plane flying at speed v >>>> to a radar on the ground is c+v.
No answer, Bertietaylor?
Well, we cannot answer to all as promptly as we might wish. Lots of
other things to do, what.
I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the question: >>>>> "How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"
It cannot be invariant, it will always be variant. However on Earth we >>>> may measure the speed as c following the usual methods. Also, Maxwell's >>>> equations provide a value for c, which match experimental values.
Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
Invariant means that the speed does not depend upon the speed of the
emitter, in this case.
Actually 'invarinat speed of light' means, that light travels always
with the same speed through vacuum.
As measured from the moving Earth, yes. It also matches the value found
from Maxwell's equations and the values of permittivity and
permeability, triumphantly showing the wave nature of light. However
with respect to static solid aether filling the universe it's speed
depends upon the velocity of its emitter.
ALL velocities are 'observer dependent', if you attatch the frame of reference to the observer.
That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world.
I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are of
equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a different
world. And all observers observe necessarily from their own position.
Now this contaions a part, which is against certain assumptions about
the world, but despite of this is true:
we don't see the same world!
This is easy to prove:
we see the others, but not ourself, while others do the same, but with somebody else as 'I'.
So: if all observers are of equal rights, we cannot assume, that they
all see the same world.
Instead we need to assume, that everybody see the world from the own perspective (->'subjectivism').
Now the coordinate system of each and every observer is a different
one, because every observer uses the own position (naturally) as 'zero
spot' and the local 'up' as z-axis, right as x and ahead as y-axis.
That spot carries also a local time, hence time is also 'relative'.
Now we usually ignore this and think, that we all live in the same
world, hence see the same things.
But that is, of course, only an illusion.
This does, of course, include independence from the speed of the
emitter.
Which is wrong as the MMX and Doppler prove both on Earth and from the
stars.
A 'very sticky' misconception is hidden in the term 'the stars'.
What we actually see in the night sky is not real, but a picture, which
we receive from the past.
This picture is organised in 'cyrstall spheres' (of equal distance), the further away the longer ago.
Since everything moves, we cannot use the stars as reference points,
because we would need to create a consistent picture of stars at their present positions at the same time first, before we could use star
positions as reference.
Unfortunately this is VERY (!!) difficult, hence not done.
Cosmology swept this problem 'under the rug', because it is almost
impossible to solve.
....
TH
On 6/11/2025 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
There are masses out there in space, Earth is just one of them. Big
ones, say a cluster of galaxies, a large star, ect... A single photon
riding the rails on its field line, can twist and turn and maybe come
out on the "other side" depending on its line's specific properties.
Some photons can angle in and start to orbit a black hole for a while,
and/or eventually crash into its even horizon. Fair enough? Some photons
might orbit for a while then get ejected, not doomed... :^)
How about a continuous gravitational field is an infinite gravitational
field with infinite paths for a newly created photon to follow?
Any better?
Thomas Heger wrote:
I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are of
equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a different
world. And all observers observe necessarily from their own position.
no, that's called 'objectivism'
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 5:30:00 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000009, 09.06.2025 um 07:33 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 4:46:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000005, 05.06.2025 um 13:51 schrieb bertitaylor:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...] >>>>>>>>>>> How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light >>>>>>>>> is a
wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether. >>>>>>
A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
Not at all.
You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
not confused? :-D
Why should we be? Are you thick? We have following Arindam said
clearly
that as the Earth moves, light speed has to be variant as the nulls in >>>>> MMX could not happen otherwise. The foolish or sinister physicists
have
either not thought of or ignored the fact that the Earth's movement
would cause light to move more or less between any two points on the >>>>> moving Earth.
The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the >>>>>>>> Universe.
And in 1543 Copernicus knew nothing about the speed of light.
The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may have >>>>>>> heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do >>>>>>> NOT go
around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are supposedly >>>>>>> light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the crystal >>>>>>> spheres.
And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D
Light speed would be invariant as per MMX if the Earth did not move in >>>>> space as the Aristotle model has it.
We have following Arindam said clearly that as the Earth moves, light >>>>> speed has to be variant as the nulls in MMX could not happen
otherwise.
The foolish or sinister physicists have either not thought of or
ignored
the fact that the Earth's movement would cause light to move more or >>>>> less between any two points on the moving Earth.
But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question
if the speed of light is invariant.
Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
A few of them:
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
the speed of light is invariant.
However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the
light
speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a
greater or lesser distance between two points on the moving Earth is >>>>> ignored, the experiments will start off with a false basis. So
nothing
true will come from such an horrendous bungle.
So I ask you again:
How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
It is never invariant. It is always variant for all objects in the
universe move with respect to the common static medium, that is aum or >>>>> aether.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is stationary?
The speed of light will always APPEAR to be invariant in an experiment >>>>> like MMX whereas it is variant. Making APPEARANCE reality, on the
unscientific subjective basis, is the constitution of Einsteinian
pseudo-physics.
That light speed is variant is clearly shown from the Doppler effect, >>>>> like radar or redshift and blueshift in the stars as the go away or
come
near.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is moving with the speed v?
Aether does not move. The speed of light from a plane flying at
speed v
to a radar on the ground is c+v.
No answer, Bertietaylor?
Well, we cannot answer to all as promptly as we might wish. Lots of
other things to do, what.
I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the question: >>>>>> "How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"
It cannot be invariant, it will always be variant. However on Earth we >>>>> may measure the speed as c following the usual methods. Also,
Maxwell's
equations provide a value for c, which match experimental values.
Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
Invariant means that the speed does not depend upon the speed of the >>>>> emitter, in this case.
Actually 'invarinat speed of light' means, that light travels always
with the same speed through vacuum.
As measured from the moving Earth, yes. It also matches the value found
from Maxwell's equations and the values of permittivity and
permeability, triumphantly showing the wave nature of light. However
with respect to static solid aether filling the universe it's speed
depends upon the velocity of its emitter.
ALL velocities are 'observer dependent', if you attatch the frame of
reference to the observer.
Quite so a moving observer sees higher velocities or lower velocities
from any source.
???
That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world.
Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our conclusions wrong.
Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 04:01 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 5:30:00 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000009, 09.06.2025 um 07:33 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 4:46:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000005, 05.06.2025 um 13:51 schrieb bertitaylor:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...] >>>>>>>>>>>> How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light >>>>>>>>>> is a
wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether. >>>>>>>
A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
Not at all.
You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
not confused? :-D
Why should we be? Are you thick? We have following Arindam said
clearly
that as the Earth moves, light speed has to be variant as the nulls in >>>>>> MMX could not happen otherwise. The foolish or sinister physicists >>>>>> have
either not thought of or ignored the fact that the Earth's movement >>>>>> would cause light to move more or less between any two points on the >>>>>> moving Earth.
The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the >>>>>>>>> Universe.The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may have >>>>>>>> heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do >>>>>>>> NOT go
And in 1543 Copernicus knew nothing about the speed of light. >>>>>>>
around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are supposedly >>>>>>>> light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the crystal >>>>>>>> spheres.
And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D
Light speed would be invariant as per MMX if the Earth did not move in >>>>>> space as the Aristotle model has it.
We have following Arindam said clearly that as the Earth moves, light >>>>>> speed has to be variant as the nulls in MMX could not happen
otherwise.
The foolish or sinister physicists have either not thought of or
ignored
the fact that the Earth's movement would cause light to move more or >>>>>> less between any two points on the moving Earth.
But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question >>>>>>>>> if the speed of light is invariant.
Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
A few of them:
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
the speed of light is invariant.
However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the >>>>>> light
speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a >>>>>> greater or lesser distance between two points on the moving Earth is >>>>>> ignored, the experiments will start off with a false basis. So
nothing
true will come from such an horrendous bungle.
So I ask you again:
How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
It is never invariant. It is always variant for all objects in the >>>>>> universe move with respect to the common static medium, that is aum or >>>>>> aether.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is stationary?
The speed of light will always APPEAR to be invariant in an experiment >>>>>> like MMX whereas it is variant. Making APPEARANCE reality, on the
unscientific subjective basis, is the constitution of Einsteinian
pseudo-physics.
That light speed is variant is clearly shown from the Doppler effect, >>>>>> like radar or redshift and blueshift in the stars as the go away or >>>>>> come
near.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is moving with the speed v?
Aether does not move. The speed of light from a plane flying at
speed v
to a radar on the ground is c+v.
No answer, Bertietaylor?
Well, we cannot answer to all as promptly as we might wish. Lots of >>>>>> other things to do, what.
I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the question: >>>>>>> "How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"
It cannot be invariant, it will always be variant. However on Earth we >>>>>> may measure the speed as c following the usual methods. Also,
Maxwell's
equations provide a value for c, which match experimental values. >>>>>>>
Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
Invariant means that the speed does not depend upon the speed of the >>>>>> emitter, in this case.
Actually 'invarinat speed of light' means, that light travels always >>>>> with the same speed through vacuum.
As measured from the moving Earth, yes. It also matches the value found >>>> from Maxwell's equations and the values of permittivity and
permeability, triumphantly showing the wave nature of light. However
with respect to static solid aether filling the universe it's speed
depends upon the velocity of its emitter.
ALL velocities are 'observer dependent', if you attatch the frame of
reference to the observer.
Quite so a moving observer sees higher velocities or lower velocities
from any source.
subjectivism would require to 'halt' the observer, because observers do
not move in respect to themselves.
???
That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world.
Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our
conclusions wrong.
Don't understand
....
TH
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are of
equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a different
world. And all observers observe necessarily from their own position.
Now this contaions a part, which is against certain assumptions about
the world, but despite of this is true:
we don't see the same world!
Perhaps, but we all see the same speed of light.
[snip more nonsense]
at what speed you see that speed of light, your sentence makes no sense. Rephrase.
Jeon Tomanov <ma@nojn.ru> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Perhaps, but we all see the same speed of light.
[snip more nonsense]
at what speed you see that speed of light, your sentence makes no
sense. Rephrase.
You learn some physics instead,
Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 00:19 schrieb Laurence Vassilikos:
Thomas Heger wrote:
I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are
of equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a
different world. And all observers observe necessarily from their own
position.
no, that's called 'objectivism'
No, because I had called that schema 'subjectivism'.
Except for the speed of light.
There is no 'except'!
Velocity IS frame-dependent!
This is inevitable and also the case for light.
The field might look like this volumetric field around a large super
cluster, there are a shit load of black holes in here:
https://i.ibb.co/V0TMS5Hz/image.png
The photons are riding field lines. Well, in real life the field is 100% continuous. The field line approach is to get a visualization of the
field. Each photon riding a field line has a direction, and its moving
at the speed of light.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 00:19 schrieb Laurence Vassilikos:
Thomas Heger wrote:
I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are
of equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a
different world. And all observers observe necessarily from their own
position.
no, that's called 'objectivism'
No, because I had called that schema 'subjectivism'.
you cant call shit as you want; that's already defined by consent.
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Jeon Tomanov <ma@nojn.ru> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Perhaps, but we all see the same speed of light.
[snip more nonsense]
at what speed you see that speed of light, your sentence makes no
sense. Rephrase.
You learn some physics instead,
that's exactly you, seeing the speed of light using the speed of light.
Not even correct logically or grammatically.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 4:29:18 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 04:01 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 5:30:00 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000009, 09.06.2025 um 07:33 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 4:46:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000005, 05.06.2025 um 13:51 schrieb bertitaylor:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light >>>>>>>>>>> is a
wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is >>>>>>>>>>> aether.
A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
Not at all.
You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
not confused? :-D
Why should we be? Are you thick? We have following Arindam said
clearly
that as the Earth moves, light speed has to be variant as the
nulls in
MMX could not happen otherwise. The foolish or sinister physicists >>>>>>> have
either not thought of or ignored the fact that the Earth's movement >>>>>>> would cause light to move more or less between any two points on the >>>>>>> moving Earth.
The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the >>>>>>>>>> Universe.The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may >>>>>>>>> have
And in 1543 Copernicus knew nothing about the speed of light. >>>>>>>>
heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do >>>>>>>>> NOT go
around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are
supposedly
light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the
crystal
spheres.
And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D
Light speed would be invariant as per MMX if the Earth did not
move in
space as the Aristotle model has it.
We have following Arindam said clearly that as the Earth moves,
light
speed has to be variant as the nulls in MMX could not happen
otherwise.
The foolish or sinister physicists have either not thought of or >>>>>>> ignored
the fact that the Earth's movement would cause light to move more or >>>>>>> less between any two points on the moving Earth.
But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question >>>>>>>>>> if the speed of light is invariant.
Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
A few of them:
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
the speed of light is invariant.
However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the >>>>>>> light
speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a >>>>>>> greater or lesser distance between two points on the moving Earth is >>>>>>> ignored, the experiments will start off with a false basis. So >>>>>>> nothing
true will come from such an horrendous bungle.
So I ask you again:
How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
It is never invariant. It is always variant for all objects in the >>>>>>> universe move with respect to the common static medium, that is
aum or
aether.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference >>>>>>>>>> where the aether is stationary?
The speed of light will always APPEAR to be invariant in an
experiment
like MMX whereas it is variant. Making APPEARANCE reality, on the >>>>>>> unscientific subjective basis, is the constitution of Einsteinian >>>>>>> pseudo-physics.
That light speed is variant is clearly shown from the Doppler
effect,
like radar or redshift and blueshift in the stars as the go away or >>>>>>> come
near.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference >>>>>>>>>> where the aether is moving with the speed v?
Aether does not move. The speed of light from a plane flying at
speed v
to a radar on the ground is c+v.
No answer, Bertietaylor?
Well, we cannot answer to all as promptly as we might wish. Lots of >>>>>>> other things to do, what.
I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the
question:
"How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"
It cannot be invariant, it will always be variant. However on
Earth we
may measure the speed as c following the usual methods. Also,
Maxwell's
equations provide a value for c, which match experimental values. >>>>>>>>
Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
Invariant means that the speed does not depend upon the speed of the >>>>>>> emitter, in this case.
Actually 'invarinat speed of light' means, that light travels always >>>>>> with the same speed through vacuum.
As measured from the moving Earth, yes. It also matches the value
found
from Maxwell's equations and the values of permittivity and
permeability, triumphantly showing the wave nature of light. However >>>>> with respect to static solid aether filling the universe it's speed
depends upon the velocity of its emitter.
ALL velocities are 'observer dependent', if you attatch the frame of
reference to the observer.
Quite so a moving observer sees higher velocities or lower velocities
from any source.
subjectivism would require to 'halt' the observer, because observers do
not move in respect to themselves.
???
That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world.
Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our
conclusions wrong.
Don't understand
Doesn't look like you want to.
Chon Won <cnwww@nooochcc.cn> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Jeon Tomanov <ma@nojn.ru> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:You learn some physics instead,
Perhaps, but we all see the same speed of light.at what speed you see that speed of light, your sentence makes no
[snip more nonsense]
sense. Rephrase.
that's exactly you, seeing the speed of light using the speed of light.
Not even correct logically or grammatically.
My my, Chinese and Russian trolls playing together. Have fun.
BTW, You should learn some physics too,
Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 15:33 schrieb Afif Lew:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 00:19 schrieb Laurence Vassilikos:
Thomas Heger wrote:No, because I had called that schema 'subjectivism'.
I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are >>>>> of equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe ano, that's called 'objectivism'
different world. And all observers observe necessarily from their
own position.
you cant call shit as you want; that's already defined by consent.
I used the word 'subjectivism' for the rule, that all observers see the
world 'subjective' (meaning: with their own eyes only).
On 6/12/2025 4:04 PM, Cash Matzuev wrote:
The photons are riding field lines. Well, in real life the field is
100%
continuous. The field line approach is to get a visualization of the
field. Each photon riding a field line has a direction, and its moving
at the speed of light.
not true, in blackhole conditions light runs back into the atom,
creating an electric potential and an electric current threshold. No
light needed.
You mean they can’t even beat the Houthis and now they want to go for
Iran….LMAOL!
https://www.r%74.com/news/619032-israel-looming-iran-attack/
I think a photon riding a field line always goes at the speed of light, right?
Den 13.06.2025 10:13, skrev Thomas Heger:
Now we need to attatch an axis of time to any location and place the
observer in the center of its local frame of reference, we could see,
that the past light-cone of the observer is using this angle c, while
the opposite means 'standstill' (actually 'relative standstill' in
respect to the observer).
Now I called the comoving patters 'matter' and the inverse 'axis of
time', hence matter and time are 'relative', too.
I, the reader, don't understand this text, which according to Thomas
Heger is the author's fault. So could you please write an annotated
version of this text, where you
point out the errors that make me fail to understand it?
Bertitaylor wrote:
Volume and frequency of screaming depend upon need for funding.
Genuine scientists use their own resources for research.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
I can see your point. I was about going into the business, getting
patents
and so on. Realizing suddenly, what the hell am I doing, it's all "jew
rob
jew" and I'm not jew.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 15:33 schrieb Afif Lew:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 00:19 schrieb Laurence Vassilikos: >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
No, because I had called that schema 'subjectivism'.I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are >>>>>> of equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe ano, that's called 'objectivism'
different world. And all observers observe necessarily from their
own position.
you cant call shit as you want; that's already defined by consent.
I used the word 'subjectivism' for the rule, that all observers see the
world 'subjective' (meaning: with their own eyes only).
you never know nor prove that; you are making shit as you go.
Den 11.06.2025 15:41, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 18:50:26 +0000, x wrote:
You know I tend to get the idea that some things in physics
are actually based upon observation, but burying one's head
in the sand for some things can be subtle.
Quite so do observe that as bigger telescopes are made the universe
becomes bigger with no end in sight.
Observe that the outer galaxies are NOT going away at very great speed
from our observation point on Earth.
Observe that blueshift is as prominent as redshift.
One can but be impressed by your knowledge of astronomy.
Well done!
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Chon Won <cnwww@nooochcc.cn> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Jeon Tomanov <ma@nojn.ru> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:You learn some physics instead,
Perhaps, but we all see the same speed of light.at what speed you see that speed of light, your sentence makes no
[snip more nonsense]
sense. Rephrase.
that's exactly you, seeing the speed of light using the speed of light.
Not even correct logically or grammatically.
My my, Chinese and Russian trolls playing together. Have fun.
BTW, You should learn some physics too,
amazing, this elevator is out of order all the time. You cant see _A_
speed of light between A and B, since for one, light is invisible, and for two, you are using light to see the same. Completely idiot, let alone physics. You never had your ass inside a physics laboratory, you just gave the proof.
anybody awake in this forum here??
Am Freitag000013, 13.06.2025 um 15:21 schrieb Ladd Hudoleev:
Thomas Heger wrote:
I used the word 'subjectivism' for the rule, that all observers see
the world 'subjective' (meaning: with their own eyes only).
you never know nor prove that; you are making shit as you go.
That's actually quite rude.
But, anyhow: you can only see with your own eyes!
That's why I thought, that 'subjectivism' would be a good thing, because
it matches the way we see the world.
This would include the concept of relativity and local time.
Harry Jdakaev <haha@rrhavv.ru> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
amazing, this elevator is out of order all the time. You cant see _A_J. J. Lodder wrote:
Perhaps, but we all see the same speed of light.
[snip more nonsense]
speed of light between A and B, since for one, light is invisible, and
for two, you are using light to see the same. Completely idiot, let
alone physics. You never had your ass inside a physics laboratory, you
just gave the proof. anybody awake in this forum here??
Excercise for idiots and trolls: DO find out how precision speed of
light measurements were actually done,
in the times when this was still possible,
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Harry Jdakaev <haha@rrhavv.ru> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
amazing, this elevator is out of order all the time. You cant see _A_J. J. Lodder wrote:
Perhaps, but we all see the same speed of light.
[snip more nonsense]
speed of light between A and B, since for one, light is invisible, and
for two, you are using light to see the same. Completely idiot, let
alone physics. You never had your ass inside a physics laboratory, you
just gave the proof. anybody awake in this forum here??
Excercise for idiots and trolls: DO find out how precision speed of
light measurements were actually done,
in the times when this was still possible,
that's not the point, you fool. It's about what you said, that you can see the speed of light. You are that troll and idiot. So better shut the feck
up. Go to war for ukrane, you stupid braindead fuck.
I see. The problem isn't just with your understanding of physics.
Your command of the English language is inadequate,
I will not insult the reader by explaining why I find this hilarious!If the air pressure is zero, can we breathe?
Bertitaylor, did you know that the air pressure in your room is zero,
because the forces cancel, and there is no net force acting on the air?
depends on how strong that field is, but in blackhole conditions
gravity is huge. It has no choice but to go back into the atom. Talking
macro scale logic here. At quantum, nobody knows. The standard
deviation would be zero, the amplitude of the probability distribution
goes to infinity.
Can a photon ride a field line at the speed of light no matter how
twisted up the gravitational field is? I think it should be able to.
On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is
A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties
of light called the 'photoelectric effect'. It can have
some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it
can have meaning that varies between people. It is not
obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer
to that specific theory concerning light or not.
a brief electromagnetic
Yes some properties of light have been related to electricity
and magnetism. Those are other theories of light developed
some in the 1800s.
wave pulse travelling a
light speed
Then there are other theories about light having a constant
speed with respect to an observer or different speeds with
respect to both light emission and light observation.
in the medium of aether.
Still other theories about light jumbled together.
Following antenna
?
theory,
What you have here is a bunch of sci-fi sounding
terms thrown together with no clear real meaning assigned
to them. They sound like they may refer to something
superficially referring to an array of different theories
about light, but in reality they could have an array of
different meanings that you might assign to them later.
For you they are a generative pejorative to nay-say,
but in reality they have been assigned no clear meaning,
they only indirectly sound like an array of different
theories of light in the past.
of asymmetry in the electron orbit
Yes there is something called 'orbitals' that
have been related to something called 'quantum
mechanics', and that has been related to something
called 'chemistry' and not just 'nuclear physics'.
from
external excitation causing vibration to aether.
Yup. Jumping between theories tends to point again
to a generic pejorative called 'science' but in
reality terms assigned no clear meaning.
A change in
Yup.
No clear meaning.
Gibberish.
Yup.
...
Woof woof woof woof
Yup. Dogs are non-sentient animals.
Yup.
On 6/1/2025 3:03 AM, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Think of a laser. Emitting photons, or radiation. All with the same
spin?
Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from
external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric
field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a
electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on,
infinitely infinitely.
Woof woof woof woof, great is the design of the universe and wonderful
its workings, when seen in correct detail.
Bertietaylor
--
On 6/14/2025 2:47 AM, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:50:14 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 11.06.2025 15:41, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 18:50:26 +0000, x wrote:
You know I tend to get the idea that some things in physics
are actually based upon observation, but burying one's head
in the sand for some things can be subtle.
Quite so do observe that as bigger telescopes are made the universe
becomes bigger with no end in sight.
Observe that the outer galaxies are NOT going away at very great speed >>>> from our observation point on Earth.
Observe that blueshift is as prominent as redshift.
One can but be impressed by your knowledge of astronomy.
Well done!
Good. The universe gets bigger and bigger with more powerful telescopes.
It is infinite and so, eternal.
High time to give up on the faulty Ohlberg stuff on the lack of
brightness causing a finite universe. Chap had no clue about galaxies
and the vast intergalactic distances.
Throwing out Helmholtz, Einstein, Feynman etc. and following Arindam is
the way for science.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Not sure if its a fractal where we can zoom in forever and/or zoom out forever wrt certain fractal logic. If you hit a border, then the fun
part is that border is infinitely complex... ;^)
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:21:51 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/14/2025 2:47 AM, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:50:14 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 11.06.2025 15:41, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 18:50:26 +0000, x wrote:
You know I tend to get the idea that some things in physics
are actually based upon observation, but burying one's head
in the sand for some things can be subtle.
Quite so do observe that as bigger telescopes are made the universe
becomes bigger with no end in sight.
Observe that the outer galaxies are NOT going away at very great speed >>>>> from our observation point on Earth.
Observe that blueshift is as prominent as redshift.
One can but be impressed by your knowledge of astronomy.
Well done!
Good. The universe gets bigger and bigger with more powerful telescopes. >>>
It is infinite and so, eternal.
High time to give up on the faulty Ohlberg stuff on the lack of
brightness causing a finite universe. Chap had no clue about galaxies
and the vast intergalactic distances.
Throwing out Helmholtz, Einstein, Feynman etc. and following Arindam is
the way for science.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Not sure if its a fractal where we can zoom in forever and/or zoom out
forever wrt certain fractal logic. If you hit a border, then the fun
part is that border is infinitely complex... ;^)
Fractals do not explain why with larger telescopes the universe gets
bigger with no end in sight.
Woof
--
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:But not disptoven
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from
external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric
field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a
electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on,
infinitely infinitely.
Woof woof woof woof, great is the design of the universe and wonderful
its workings, when seen in correct detail.
Bertietaylor
--
AI evaluation of your post:
Scientific Accuracy:
Inaccurate Concept of Aether:
The text refers to a photon traveling in the "medium of aether."
This is an outdated concept.
after the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) and the development
of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which showed that light
does not require a medium.
Mischaracterization of Photons:
A photon is not best described as a "brief electromagnetic wave
pulse"
in classical terms. In modern physics, a photon is a quantum
particle
of light, which exhibits both wave and particle properties
(wave-particle duality). While wave packets can model photons in
quantum electrodynamics, calling it a “brief wave pulse” oversimplifies
and potentially misleads.
Electromagnetic Field Propagation:
The text says: “A change in electric field causes a change in the
magnetic field... infinitely infinitely.” This loosely references
Maxwell’s equations, where changing electric and magnetic fields
sustain each other in a propagating wave. However, "infinitely
infinitely" is meaningless here—fields don’t oscillate infinitely
without damping or interference in practical systems.
Antenna Theory Reference:
The idea that an external excitation causes electron motion and
radiation is broadly consistent with antenna theory, but the
phrasing is vague and imprecise. There’s no clear link to how
this explains photon generation or behavior.
Clarity and Coherence:
The text starts with a speculative and obsolete idea (aether) and
shifts toward poetic exclamations (“woof woof woof...”), creating
a jarring mix of pseudoscience and expressive prose.
The narrative lacks a clear logical flow or rigorous definitions,
mixing metaphors with partial scientific terminology.
Tone and Style:
The last sentence (“Woof woof...”) appears metaphorical or playful,
which undermines the scientific tone. This could be viewed as either
charming or confusing, depending on context.
It attempts to evoke wonder, but the shift in register feels abrupt
and ungrounded.
Summary Evaluation:
Scientific Rigor: ★☆☆☆☆ (1/5)
Clarity: ★★☆☆☆ (2/5)
Literary/Artistic Flair: ★★★☆☆ (3/5)
Final Verdict:
The text reflects a mix of outdated science, vague technical references,
and poetic mysticism. For a meaningful discussion of photons or electromagnetic theory, it would need significant revision to align
with modern physics and clear communication.
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
Planck:
A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
- Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
light itself.
Rubbish. Point particles can not bend nicely in denser medium. They
cannot have interference patterns. They cannot be polarized. They cannot
get a uniform phase front as in laser or maser. They cannot diffract.
There is no way they can create standing wave patterns.
Bertietaylor, YOUR LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL
ANALYSIS IS APPALLING. YOU NEED TO RESET YOURSELF AND FIND OUT WHAT IS
WRONG WITH YOUR MIND.
IT'S NOT THE POINT-LIKE PARTICLE WHICH BENDS OR CREATE INTERFERENCE
PATTERNS, MAN.
IT'S DUE TO THEIR ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC FIELDS, WHICH ARE SELF-GENERATED AND SELF-SUSTAINED FOREVER, ACROSS HUGE DISTANCES OF
BILLIONS OF LY.
WHEN TRESPASSING MEDIUMS ON ITS LONG JOURNEY ON SPACE, BOTH FIELDS ADAPT
TO CORRECT THE SPEED OF SUCH PARTICLE (AKA PHOTON).
ALWAYS, SINCE 1865 AND 1901, BOTH THEORIES WERE THE EXACT REPRESENTATION
OF A TOP-DOWN APPROACH (MAXWELL) AND A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (PLANCK).
THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IT OR UNDERSTAND IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE NOT A DEEP
THINKER, AND I PITY YOU FOR IT.
GIVE YOURSELF A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND BOTH MODELS SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND
YOU'LL FIND THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR A CENTURY, DUE TO
FUCKING IMBECILES LIKE THE QUANTUM GUYS, WHO PRETENDED (VERY ENCOURAGED)
TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD IN A WAY MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN WHAT IS NEEDED.
EITHER IN RADIO ENGINEERING OR IN QUANTUM PHYSICS, THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE
THE SAME. THIS IS WHAT ALLOWED PROGRESS IN PHOTONICS AS WELL AS ANYTHING RELATED TO RADIO TELECOM, RANGING, ETC.
- It's a carrier of energy (Planck) that is emitted/absorbed by
electrons that
are orbiting atoms, which have different levels of energy.
Forget energy. That is trader talk from Jewish physics. It is force that
is the keyword. Aether is back thanks to Arindam and all the
extraordinary bungling wrapped by math gibberish is out.
- It's created as if space of any kind (Maxwell) IGNITES under such
discharge
causing that the point-like energy oscillates with electric and
magnetic fields
in quadrature, with speed depending on the refraction index of the
media.
Blah
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
- Under classic physics (Maxwell, unaware of Planck discovery) photons
are not
perceived as a sum of enormous amounts of ray of light (each ray
linked to a
bounded electron). On the opposite side, under Planck vision, light is >>> composed
of a large amount of photons, each one with energy E=hf.
- The confusion between classic and quantum physics is due to the
interpretation
of what light is. In Maxwell's world, light is the sum (coherent or
not) of huge
amounts of ray of light (each one a photon), and is expressed in terms >>> of energy
per unit area. In Planck's world, light is the sum (coherent or not)
of huge
amount of photons, each one carrying energy E=hf.
- The speed of the photon or the ray of light is defined by Maxwell, in
terms of
the permittivity and permeability of the medium. The collision of the
emitted
energy per atom is what ignites the medium, creating the point-like
particle.
- The classic representation of light as a sinusoidal wave is just an
abstraction
used for more than a century, representing the behavior of the
electrical field.
- There is not a dual behavior of light. This "paradox" is caused by the >>> confusion
when light is analyzed entirely (Maxwell) or at its least expression
(Planck).
Top-down versus bottom-up appreciation of light.
- But the point-like structure (the photon) has always been there since
1865-
Absolute truth has been spoken.
--
Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 13:05 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 4:29:18 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 04:01 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 5:30:00 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000009, 09.06.2025 um 07:33 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 4:46:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000005, 05.06.2025 um 13:51 schrieb bertitaylor:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light >>>>>>>>>>>> is a
wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is >>>>>>>>>>>> aether.
A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
Not at all.
You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
not confused? :-D
Why should we be? Are you thick? We have following Arindam said >>>>>>>> clearly
that as the Earth moves, light speed has to be variant as the
nulls in
MMX could not happen otherwise. The foolish or sinister physicists >>>>>>>> have
either not thought of or ignored the fact that the Earth's movement >>>>>>>> would cause light to move more or less between any two points on the >>>>>>>> moving Earth.
The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the >>>>>>>>>>> Universe.The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may >>>>>>>>>> have
And in 1543 Copernicus knew nothing about the speed of light. >>>>>>>>>
heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do >>>>>>>>>> NOT go
around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are
supposedly
light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the >>>>>>>>>> crystal
spheres.
And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D
Light speed would be invariant as per MMX if the Earth did not >>>>>>>> move in
space as the Aristotle model has it.
We have following Arindam said clearly that as the Earth moves, >>>>>>>> light
speed has to be variant as the nulls in MMX could not happen
otherwise.
The foolish or sinister physicists have either not thought of or >>>>>>>> ignored
the fact that the Earth's movement would cause light to move more or >>>>>>>> less between any two points on the moving Earth.
But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question >>>>>>>>>>> if the speed of light is invariant.
Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
A few of them:
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
the speed of light is invariant.
However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the >>>>>>>> light
speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a >>>>>>>> greater or lesser distance between two points on the moving Earth is >>>>>>>> ignored, the experiments will start off with a false basis. So >>>>>>>> nothing
true will come from such an horrendous bungle.
So I ask you again:
How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
It is never invariant. It is always variant for all objects in the >>>>>>>> universe move with respect to the common static medium, that is >>>>>>>> aum or
aether.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference >>>>>>>>>>> where the aether is stationary?
The speed of light will always APPEAR to be invariant in an
experiment
like MMX whereas it is variant. Making APPEARANCE reality, on the >>>>>>>> unscientific subjective basis, is the constitution of Einsteinian >>>>>>>> pseudo-physics.
That light speed is variant is clearly shown from the Doppler
effect,
like radar or redshift and blueshift in the stars as the go away or >>>>>>>> come
near.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference >>>>>>>>>>> where the aether is moving with the speed v?
Aether does not move. The speed of light from a plane flying at >>>>>>>> speed v
to a radar on the ground is c+v.
No answer, Bertietaylor?
Well, we cannot answer to all as promptly as we might wish. Lots of >>>>>>>> other things to do, what.
I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the
question:
"How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"
It cannot be invariant, it will always be variant. However on
Earth we
may measure the speed as c following the usual methods. Also,
Maxwell's
equations provide a value for c, which match experimental values. >>>>>>>>>
Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
Invariant means that the speed does not depend upon the speed of the >>>>>>>> emitter, in this case.
Actually 'invarinat speed of light' means, that light travels always >>>>>>> with the same speed through vacuum.
As measured from the moving Earth, yes. It also matches the value
found
from Maxwell's equations and the values of permittivity and
permeability, triumphantly showing the wave nature of light. However >>>>>> with respect to static solid aether filling the universe it's speed >>>>>> depends upon the velocity of its emitter.
ALL velocities are 'observer dependent', if you attatch the frame of >>>>> reference to the observer.
Quite so a moving observer sees higher velocities or lower velocities
from any source.
subjectivism would require to 'halt' the observer, because observers do
not move in respect to themselves.
???
That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world.
Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our >>>> conclusions wrong.
Don't understand
Doesn't look like you want to.
you had written this:
"Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our conclusions wrong."
as a reply to may statement:
" subjectivism would require to 'halt' the observer, because observers
do not move in respect to themselves.
That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world."
My statement had nothing to do with 'conclusions' (whether wrong or
not), but with 'observations'
Our observations are, of course, all 'incorrect', because they are necessarily subjective.
(That's why I named this 'subjectivism'.)
Objective correct observations are actually im impossible, because we
cannot see the world with other eyes than with our own.
TH
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
Planck:
A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
- Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
light itself.
Rubbish. Point particles can not bend nicely in denser medium. They
cannot have interference patterns. They cannot be polarized. They cannot >>> get a uniform phase front as in laser or maser. They cannot diffract.
There is no way they can create standing wave patterns.
Bertietaylor, YOUR LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL
ANALYSIS IS APPALLING. YOU NEED TO RESET YOURSELF AND FIND OUT WHAT IS
WRONG WITH YOUR MIND.
Instead of shouting repeat Arindam's rail gun experiments that update Newtonian laws, throw out thermodynamics by busting inertia, and totally chuck out the pure nonsenses of relativity and quantum. They bring back aether. Make the universe Sanatana that is eternal and infinite.
IT'S NOT THE POINT-LIKE PARTICLE WHICH BENDS OR CREATE INTERFERENCE
PATTERNS, MAN.
Of course not so energy does not travel in quanta. That is pure nonsense
Aether travels as electromagnetic waves from any radiation through
aether.
IT'S DUE TO THEIR ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC FIELDS, WHICH ARE
SELF-GENERATED AND SELF-SUSTAINED FOREVER, ACROSS HUGE DISTANCES OF
BILLIONS OF LY.
So no point of thinking of them as quanta for they do not go linearly
from one point to the other. Energy is radiated from radiators long and
short depending upon their lengths. Gamma rays are from nuclear sized distances.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs and his only friends on
Earth)
WHEN TRESPASSING MEDIUMS ON ITS LONG JOURNEY ON SPACE, BOTH FIELDS ADAPT
TO CORRECT THE SPEED OF SUCH PARTICLE (AKA PHOTON).
ALWAYS, SINCE 1865 AND 1901, BOTH THEORIES WERE THE EXACT REPRESENTATION
OF A TOP-DOWN APPROACH (MAXWELL) AND A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (PLANCK).
THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IT OR UNDERSTAND IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE NOT A DEEP
THINKER, AND I PITY YOU FOR IT.
GIVE YOURSELF A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND BOTH MODELS SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND
YOU'LL FIND THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR A CENTURY, DUE TO
FUCKING IMBECILES LIKE THE QUANTUM GUYS, WHO PRETENDED (VERY ENCOURAGED)
TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD IN A WAY MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN WHAT IS NEEDED.
EITHER IN RADIO ENGINEERING OR IN QUANTUM PHYSICS, THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE
THE SAME. THIS IS WHAT ALLOWED PROGRESS IN PHOTONICS AS WELL AS ANYTHING
RELATED TO RADIO TELECOM, RANGING, ETC.
- It's a carrier of energy (Planck) that is emitted/absorbed by
electrons that
are orbiting atoms, which have different levels of energy.
Forget energy. That is trader talk from Jewish physics. It is force that >>> is the keyword. Aether is back thanks to Arindam and all the
extraordinary bungling wrapped by math gibberish is out.
- It's created as if space of any kind (Maxwell) IGNITES under such
discharge
causing that the point-like energy oscillates with electric and
magnetic fields
in quadrature, with speed depending on the refraction index of the
media.
Blah
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
- Under classic physics (Maxwell, unaware of Planck discovery) photons >>>> are not
perceived as a sum of enormous amounts of ray of light (each ray
linked to a
bounded electron). On the opposite side, under Planck vision, light is >>>> composed
of a large amount of photons, each one with energy E=hf.
- The confusion between classic and quantum physics is due to the
interpretation
of what light is. In Maxwell's world, light is the sum (coherent or
not) of huge
amounts of ray of light (each one a photon), and is expressed in terms >>>> of energy
per unit area. In Planck's world, light is the sum (coherent or not) >>>> of huge
amount of photons, each one carrying energy E=hf.
- The speed of the photon or the ray of light is defined by Maxwell, in >>>> terms of
the permittivity and permeability of the medium. The collision of the >>>> emitted
energy per atom is what ignites the medium, creating the point-like
particle.
- The classic representation of light as a sinusoidal wave is just an
abstraction
used for more than a century, representing the behavior of the
electrical field.
- There is not a dual behavior of light. This "paradox" is caused by the >>>> confusion
when light is analyzed entirely (Maxwell) or at its least expression >>>> (Planck).
Top-down versus bottom-up appreciation of light.
- But the point-like structure (the photon) has always been there since >>>> 1865-
Absolute truth has been spoken.
--
--
No, because I had called that schema 'subjectivism'.I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers are >>>>>> of equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe ano, that's called 'objectivism'
different world. And all observers observe necessarily from their
own position.
you cant call shit as you want; that's already defined by consent.
I used the word 'subjectivism' for the rule, that all observers see the
world 'subjective' (meaning: with their own eyes only).
you never know nor prove that; you are making shit as you go.
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:50:31 +0000, x wrote:
On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is
A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties
of light called the 'photoelectric effect'. It can have
some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it
can have meaning that varies between people. It is not
obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer
to that specific theory concerning light or not.
The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory. Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as
his theories on relativity.
J. J. Lodder wrote:
I see. The problem isn't just with your understanding of physics.
Your command of the English language is inadequate,
you are staring in a mirror.
Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 00:17 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:50:31 +0000, x wrote:
On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is
A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties
of light called the 'photoelectric effect'. It can have
some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it
can have meaning that varies between people. It is not
obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer
to that specific theory concerning light or not.
The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory.
Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as
his theories on relativity.
My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named 'structured spacetime'.
In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is actually
a standing wave.
That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'.
My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of
'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions.
These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike
elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations.
The equation is simple:
q' = p* q* p^-1
Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing
rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'.
The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and the inner turning point the core of that 'atom'.
Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but
certain points of a single structure.
If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly
'roll away'.
This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call
'photon'.
If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps into
some structure, which blocks its movement.
Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity
is charging up the plate.
My concept does sound certainly quite foolish.
BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions.
As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE
and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other.
And GE can be proven!
....
TH
Omee Szatmári <emzoae@tt.hu> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
I see. The problem isn't just with your understanding of physics.you are staring in a mirror.
Your command of the English language is inadequate,
My my, so Hungary has been added to the troll clan,
Am Freitag000013, 13.06.2025 um 15:21 schrieb Ladd Hudoleev:
No, because I had called that schema 'subjectivism'.I call this scheme 'subjectivism', which means: if all observers >>>>>>> are of equal rights, than all possible observers need to observe a >>>>>>> different world. And all observers observe necessarily from their >>>>>>> own position.no, that's called 'objectivism'
you cant call shit as you want; that's already defined by consent.
I used the word 'subjectivism' for the rule, that all observers see
the world 'subjective' (meaning: with their own eyes only).
you never know nor prove that; you are making shit as you go.
???
How would you like to see with other eyes than with your own?
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
If EM-radiation were a wave in an aether, it would be as easy to measure
the speed of Earth relative to the aether,
as it is to measure the speed of an aeroplane relative to the air.
v = dl/dt
The distance l is measured with the odometer and the time is measured
with a clock.
bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
For the kiddies: this is wrong.
A photon is (by definition) a momentum eigenstate of the EM field,
hence also an energy eigenstate.
This implies both wave and particle aspects.
Hence it has infinite extent. It is not a brief flash.
You can make brief flashes of light of course,
as linear superpositions of (infinitely many) eigenstates.
But then but its localisation and its frequency/energy are spread out. (typical example: coherent states)
Jan
[snip more nonsense]
Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
"F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case when
the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure is
force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is also
zero. Where the pressure is zero, the temperature is also zero,
or near zero."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at the centre
of the Earth is zero and the temperature is near 0 K.?
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
"F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case when
the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure is
force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is also
zero. Where the pressure is zero, the temperature is also zero,
or near zero."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at the centre
of the Earth is zero and the temperature is near 0 K.?
that equation is not the domain you are using. It appears you guys are
self taught with no proper education.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 12:36:51 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
For the kiddies: this is wrong.
No, it is consistent with reality.
A photon is (by definition) a momentum eigenstate of the EM field,
Nice bullshit but no kid will swallow that.
For one thing a field has no mass so no momentum for momentum is mass
times velocity.
And eigenstate is a complex math term which is well beyond the scope of
kids. In this context it makes no sense except to bamboozle the
pullulating gullible.
Typical Einsteinian garbage designed to confuse. Anti Science!
So what is happening?
What is happening is aetheric vibrations travelling at speed of light to
and from all the infinite charges in the universe.
They are caused and created by impacts upon and corresponding
rectifications the atomic structures that cause or rectify distortions
to the electronic structure.
Looks like this will be well within the scope of kiddies, like most of Arindam's physics. That is, all not dealing with his new rail gun design theory which is a bit difficult for kids.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
hence also an energy eigenstate.
This implies both wave and particle aspects.
Hence it has infinite extent. It is not a brief flash.
You can make brief flashes of light of course,
as linear superpositions of (infinitely many) eigenstates.
But then but its localisation and its frequency/energy are spread out.
(typical example: coherent states)
Jan
[snip more nonsense]
--
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 8:56:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 00:17 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:50:31 +0000, x wrote:
On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is
A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties
of light called the 'photoelectric effect'. It can have
some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it
can have meaning that varies between people. It is not
obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer
to that specific theory concerning light or not.
The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory.
Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as
his theories on relativity.
My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named
'structured spacetime'.
In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is actually
a standing wave.
That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'.
My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of
'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions.
These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike
elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations.
The equation is simple:
q' = p* q* p^-1
Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing
rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'.
The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and the
inner turning point the core of that 'atom'.
Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but
certain points of a single structure.
If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly
'roll away'.
This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call
'photon'.
If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps into
some structure, which blocks its movement.
Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity
is charging up the plate.
My concept does sound certainly quite foolish.
BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions.
As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE
and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other.
And GE can be proven!
....
TH
Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as
the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal
universe?
If you can believe in dinosaurs and thus go against JCI metaphysics who
not believe in aether?
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 11:52 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 8:56:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000015, 15.06.2025 um 00:17 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:50:31 +0000, x wrote:
On 6/1/25 03:03, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is
A word thought up a while ago concerning some properties
of light called the 'photoelectric effect'. It can have
some meaning, and like with any word or set of words, it
can have meaning that varies between people. It is not
obvious whether the meaning that you use might even refer
to that specific theory concerning light or not.
The photoelectric effect is explained much better with antenna theory. >>>> Einstein's explanation is wrong though not ridiculous and criminal as
his theories on relativity.
My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named
'structured spacetime'.
In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is actually >>> a standing wave.
That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'.
My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of
'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions.
These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike
elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations.
The equation is simple:
q' = p* q* p^-1
Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing
rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'.
The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and the >>> inner turning point the core of that 'atom'.
Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but
certain points of a single structure.
If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly
'roll away'.
This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call
'photon'.
If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps into >>> some structure, which blocks its movement.
Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity
is charging up the plate.
My concept does sound certainly quite foolish.
BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions.
As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE
and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other.
And GE can be proven!
....
TH
Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as
the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal
universe?
This has a reason, but a little complicated one:
'aether' is assumed as fine fluidlike substance, fills all of space.
But this aether isn't 'relative'.
I mean:
if you want to fill all space with aether, you would need space and
aether in the first place.
But I wanted something else and somthing compatible with 'big-bang
theory'.
I think, that big-bang theory is actauylly wrong, but not entirely.
Instead of one single timeline as in in bb-theory, I wanted multiple timelines, which could run into different direction and which denote
local time.
So: any point in the universe is placed upon a timeline, which points to
a remote big bang.
But these big-bangs are all different and the axes of time point into different directions.
So, 'space' had to be 'relative', too, and also matter.
This would actually make 'aether' impossible, because aether had to be
there, before that stuff could fill all of space.
My own concept is based on a different idea. The best discription could
be found in the book 'From Zero to Infinity' by Prof. Peter Rowland.
Unfortunately this book is not easy to read and also very expensive.
But my own 'book' is much easier to read and actually free:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
If you can believe in dinosaurs and thus go against JCI metaphysics who
not believe in aether?
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
On 6/16/2025 10:35 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.06.2025 00:56, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 12:36:51 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:The physics of Arindam Banerjee, employee of a medical research
laboratory, is extremely naive, and is, like other fairy tales,
well suited for kiddies who know no physics.
Well, so is the physics of Einstein, which was not even consistent.
My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named >>>> 'structured spacetime'.
In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is
actually
a standing wave.
That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'.
My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of
'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions.
These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike
elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations.
The equation is simple:
q' = p* q* p^-1
Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing
rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'.
The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and
the
inner turning point the core of that 'atom'.
Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but
certain points of a single structure.
If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly
'roll away'.
This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call
'photon'.
If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps
into
some structure, which blocks its movement.
Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity >>>> is charging up the plate.
My concept does sound certainly quite foolish.
BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions.
As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE >>>> and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other.
And GE can be proven!
....
TH
Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as >>> the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal
universe?
This has a reason, but a little complicated one:
'aether' is assumed as fine fluidlike substance, fills all of space.
Wrong. Aether is infinitely fine and infinitely elastic SOLID which
means that all its elements stay fixed relative to each other UNLIKE a
fluid.
Get your basics straight and do not lie.
Am Dienstag000017, 17.06.2025 um 08:01 schrieb Bertitaylor:
My own explanation uses a concept of my own'theory', which I had named >>>>> 'structured spacetime'.
In this concept electrons and protons are 'one thing', which is
actually
a standing wave.
That special kind of wave is a 'multiplicative' 'rotation wave'.
My idea was, that spacetime of GR is actually real and composed of
'elements' which behave like bi-quaternions.
These have the tendency to connect 'sideways' to adjecent pointlike
elements, similar to how quaternions model rotations.
The equation is simple:
q' = p* q* p^-1
Now we could assume, that such a behaviour could create 'standing
rotation waves', which are commonly called 'atoms'.
The electron denotes in this picture the outer edge of this wave and >>>>> the
inner turning point the core of that 'atom'.
Therefore electron and proton are not real independent particles, but >>>>> certain points of a single structure.
If now such a standing wave' gets hit by something, it could possibly >>>>> 'roll away'.
This is a helical screw-like wave packet, which we usually call
'photon'.
If that gets block by some conducting metall plate, the helix bumps
into
some structure, which blocks its movement.
Then the helix is pushed back together and the remainder of electricity >>>>> is charging up the plate.
My concept does sound certainly quite foolish.
BUT: it simply doesn't matter, if we like how nature functions.
As 'proof oc concept' I usually use 'Growing Earth' theory, because GE >>>>> and the standard model of QM directly contradict each other.
And GE can be proven!
....
TH
Instead of all that stupid crap, why not return to the fact of aether as >>>> the solid fine elastic medium permeating the infinite and eternal
universe?
This has a reason, but a little complicated one:
'aether' is assumed as fine fluidlike substance, fills all of space.
Wrong. Aether is infinitely fine and infinitely elastic SOLID which
means that all its elements stay fixed relative to each other UNLIKE a
fluid.
Get your basics straight and do not lie.
Actually I had already written, that I think that 'aether' is wrong.
So: 'solid' wouldn't rescue the aether concept.
The aether is actually meant as 'stuff' (whether fluid or solid), while
I wanted to make stuff out of spacetime.
My concept is related, but not equal to the 'aether concept' (which I
think is wrong).
It is close, however.
TH
....
On 6/1/2025 6:22 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 01/06/2025 à 12:39, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant:
Ce n'est pas la vitesse de la lumière qui est invariante, mais
l'anisochronie universelle dans le vide parfait.
R.H.
More riders in a field: https://youtu.be/YsAkm0VlCsw
Why are the molecules bouncing off each other?
Because the negative electrons in the two molecules repel each other!
Den 17.06.2025 01:02, skrev Bertitaylor:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:And the IQ of a dog?
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at the
centre of the Earth is zero and the temperature is near 0 K.?
Yes. Woof woof woof woof-woof woof in dog lingo as well.
So on each side of you there is a 335 Tg pile of rock,
and every gram of the rock is gravitationally pulled towards you. Sure,
you are still weightless, but the piles of rock on ether side of you are
not.
The pressure at the centre of the Earth is 360 GPa = 3.5 million atm.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:33:59 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 17.06.2025 01:02, skrev Bertitaylor:
Yes.
Woof woof woof woof-woof woof in dog lingo as well.
And the IQ of a dog?
Far surpasses that of stupid Einsteinian apes.
WOOF woof-woof woof
thanks, you are great. Can you post the script, for me to learn, if
allowed in your country, thank you in advance. I like models in physics
and partial differential equations.
Well, I am keeping my n-ary field algo secret for now. However, here is
an algorithm of mine that can be considered a little bit similar in a
strange sense, just a touch:
https://paulbourke.net/fractals/multijulia
Paul was kind enough to give it a go.
https://i.ibb.co/HfThrbW4/image.png
______________________
// Fractal Parametric Wave Plotter void ct_fwave_mpara(
ct::plot2d& plot,
unsigned int n, ct_complex p0, ct_complex p1,
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:50:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Don't bluff, nobody will believe you.
You have never showed the logic that shows that it is impossible to
measure the speed of the Earth in the aether.
Don't be silly. We have done just that. Can't repeat to dimwits.
Woof woof, what absurd fools these dull apes be! Can't even understand simple English and the simplest maths!
Quite, well said!
The 'aether' has to be at rest in respect to all observers, even when
the observers are moving relative each other.
Since this is impossible, the conclusion is inevitable:
It is impossible to measure the speed of the aether, because the
'aether' doesn't exist
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from
external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric
field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a
electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on,
infinitely infinitely.
Woof woof woof woof, great is the design of the universe and wonderful
its workings, when seen in correct detail.
Bertietaylor
--
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:03:22 +0000, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from
external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric
field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a
electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on,
infinitely infinitely.
Woof woof woof woof, great is the design of the universe and wonderful
its workings, when seen in correct detail.
Bertietaylor
--
When a nascent hydrogen ion or proton meets an electron coming at or
near it, one of three things must happen.
The electron can go past it if the speed or angle was too much.
The electron can orbit the proton forming a hydrogen atom.
The electron and proton can meet in tight union and form a neutron.
WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:03:22 +0000, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from
external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric
field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a
electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on,
infinitely infinitely.
Woof woof woof woof, great is the design of the universe and wonderful
its workings, when seen in correct detail.
Bertietaylor
--
When a nascent hydrogen ion or proton meets an electron coming at or
near it, one of three things must happen.
How would the proton be nascent?
What difference would it make if the proton were 5 billion years old
versus 5 nanoseconds old?
The electron can go past it if the speed or angle was too much.
Yes.
The electron can orbit the proton forming a hydrogen atom.
Yes.
The electron and proton can meet in tight union and form a neutron.
Nope, free protons are stable and don't turn into neutrons. Beta plus
decay is a type of radioactive decay where a proton in a NUCLEUS is
converted into a neutron, a positron and a neutrino.
WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 0:54:45 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:03:22 +0000, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed >>>> in the medium of aether.
Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from
external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric
field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a
electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on,
infinitely infinitely.
Woof woof woof woof, great is the design of the universe and wonderful >>>> its workings, when seen in correct detail.
Bertietaylor
--
When a nascent hydrogen ion or proton meets an electron coming at or
near it, one of three things must happen.
How would the proton be nascent?
What difference would it make if the proton were 5 billion years old
versus 5 nanoseconds old?
The electron can go past it if the speed or angle was too much.
Yes.
The electron can orbit the proton forming a hydrogen atom.
Yes.
The electron and proton can meet in tight union and form a neutron.
Nope, free protons are stable and don't turn into neutrons. Beta plus
decay is a type of radioactive decay where a proton in a NUCLEUS is
converted into a neutron, a positron and a neutrino.
Rubbish, beta ray is electron coming out from a radioactive nucleus.
Neutrinos and positrons are lies too. Made up to protect the evil and
wrong law of conservation of energy.
(Checked the above about beta ray from a textbook on nuclear physics)
What liars these Einsteinian rogues be!
Woof woof
Bertietaylor
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
Planck:
A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
- Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
light itself.
Rubbish. Point particles can not bend nicely in denser medium. They
cannot have interference patterns. They cannot be polarized. They cannot
get a uniform phase front as in laser or maser. They cannot diffract.
There is no way they can create standing wave patterns.
Bertietaylor, YOUR LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL
ANALYSIS IS APPALLING.
WRONG WITH YOUR MIND.
IT'S NOT THE POINT-LIKE PARTICLE WHICH BENDS OR CREATE INTERFERENCE
PATTERNS, MAN.
IT'S DUE TO THEIR ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC FIELDS, WHICH ARE SELF-GENERATED AND SELF-SUSTAINED FOREVER, ACROSS HUGE DISTANCES OF
BILLIONS OF LY.
WHEN TRESPASSING MEDIUMS ON ITS LONG JOURNEY ON SPACE, BOTH FIELDS ADAPT
TO CORRECT THE SPEED OF SUCH PARTICLE (AKA PHOTON).
ALWAYS, SINCE 1865 AND 1901, BOTH THEORIES WERE THE EXACT REPRESENTATION
OF A TOP-DOWN APPROACH (MAXWELL) AND A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (PLANCK).
THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IT OR UNDERSTAND IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE NOT A DEEP
THINKER, AND I PITY YOU FOR IT.
GIVE YOURSELF A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND BOTH MODELS SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND
YOU'LL FIND THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR A CENTURY, DUE TO
FUCKING IMBECILES LIKE THE QUANTUM GUYS, WHO PRETENDED (VERY ENCOURAGED)
TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD IN A WAY MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN WHAT IS NEEDED.
EITHER IN RADIO ENGINEERING OR IN QUANTUM PHYSICS, THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE
THE SAME. THIS IS WHAT ALLOWED PROGRESS IN PHOTONICS AS WELL AS ANYTHING RELATED TO RADIO TELECOM, RANGING, ETC.
- It's a carrier of energy (Planck) that is emitted/absorbed by
electrons that
are orbiting atoms, which have different levels of energy.
Forget energy. That is trader talk from Jewish physics. It is force that
is the keyword. Aether is back thanks to Arindam and all the
extraordinary bungling wrapped by math gibberish is out.
- It's created as if space of any kind (Maxwell) IGNITES under such
discharge
causing that the point-like energy oscillates with electric and
magnetic fields
in quadrature, with speed depending on the refraction index of the
media.
Blah
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
- Under classic physics (Maxwell, unaware of Planck discovery) photons
are not
perceived as a sum of enormous amounts of ray of light (each ray
linked to a
bounded electron). On the opposite side, under Planck vision, light is >>> composed
of a large amount of photons, each one with energy E=hf.
- The confusion between classic and quantum physics is due to the
interpretation
of what light is. In Maxwell's world, light is the sum (coherent or
not) of huge
amounts of ray of light (each one a photon), and is expressed in terms >>> of energy
per unit area. In Planck's world, light is the sum (coherent or not)
of huge
amount of photons, each one carrying energy E=hf.
- The speed of the photon or the ray of light is defined by Maxwell, in
terms of
the permittivity and permeability of the medium. The collision of the
emitted
energy per atom is what ignites the medium, creating the point-like
particle.
- The classic representation of light as a sinusoidal wave is just an
abstraction
used for more than a century, representing the behavior of the
electrical field.
- There is not a dual behavior of light. This "paradox" is caused by the >>> confusion
when light is analyzed entirely (Maxwell) or at its least expression
(Planck).
Top-down versus bottom-up appreciation of light.
- But the point-like structure (the photon) has always been there since
1865-
Absolute truth has been spoken.
--
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
Planck:
A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
- Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
light itself.
How ridiculous as a point particle being a point cannot diminish with distance as per the inverse square law which is logical, real and
evident to all those blessed with sanity.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
Planck:
A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
- Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of >>>>> light itself.
How ridiculous as a point particle being a point cannot diminish with
distance as per the inverse square law which is logical, real and
evident to all those blessed with sanity.
A single photon doesn't diminish with distance, a GROUP of photons
disperses with distance, Arindam.
<snip remaining insane babble>
True there are no inertial frames, but we can take a ruler and mark out
two points. That amounts to a distance.
Both end points and all in between are say travelling at speed v with
respect to aether. Say marked out distance if D.
So in time T both points will travel distance vT with respect to the
fixed solid aether.
With respect to the end point before T the other end point will move
distance vT.
If light started from end point before T then at other end point it will
have travelled D+vT.
From starting at other end it will travel D-vT.
However time T is the same for both sides as per MMI experiment.
Which means that light speed has to be variant meaning c+v one way and
c-v the other way, just as for anything kinetic.
QED
Woof
Bertietaylor
--
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 2:31:11 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and >>>>>> Planck:
A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
- Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of >>>>>> light itself.
How ridiculous as a point particle being a point cannot diminish with
distance as per the inverse square law which is logical, real and
evident to all those blessed with sanity.
A single photon doesn't diminish with distance, a GROUP of photons
disperses with distance, Arindam.
Since a group of photons is constituted of individual photons,
diminishment if the group applies to the individuals if sanity means
anything in physics.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 160:29:58 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,056 |
| Messages: | 6,416,493 |
