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.
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...]
How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
On 6/1/2025 5:07 PM, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
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.
The huge number of different experiments by different people since 1887
to the present do however constitute a refutation, delusional crackpot.
And in the meantime in the real world -
forbidden by relativistic idiots improper
clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in
improper seconds.
In sci.physics bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
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.
The huge number of different experiments by different people since 1887
to the present do however constitute a refutation, delusional crackpot.
<snip delusional, insane babble>
On 6/1/25 5:46 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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:
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
How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
Hehe :) Cute.
That Hindu has the brain of a high-school dropout. You expect him to understand the 5 papers? Could be that there's something about your
brain as well.
Ask him a high school physics question to see if he even knows that
much.
Here, ask him this. We solved it in 12th grade high school: Arindam is standing on the edge of the roof of a 20 meter high building. He has two balls (in his hands, that is - below his huge stomach there's nothing)
with him. He throws one straight upward and let the other one fall
downward by itself a second later. What initial speed should he give to
the first one so the two balls would hit the ground at the same time?
I can bet my boots Arindam cannot solve this question by himself. He'd
search the web for the solution, or ask AI to solve it for him.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 11:29:03 +0000, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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.
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.
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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.
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...]
How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
"Fields are not objects that move around in space."
Mistaking the Map for the Territory in Physics - J. Barandes <https://youtu.be/9068pS75Uds?si=WXQmwVYg7kyBxAyN>
(Need to reconsider ether theory. And decoherence.)
-Julio
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:speed
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 11:29:03 +0000, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 01.06.2025 12:03, skrev bertitaylor:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light
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.
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.
Utter, delusional nonsense, crackpot.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
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.
Le 01/06/2025 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.
Have not posted to this group for a long time.
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 6/1/25 7:28 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 21:25:21 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 6/1/25 5:46 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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:
They are all bungled stuff
Light speed is variant, kinetic.
The stupid apes, the silliest of pseudoscientific pretentious pigheads,
following Aristotle in effect, forgot that the Earth moves in aether
just as planes fly in air.
So the distance light travels from one point on Earth to another is at
just one angle the same as the measured distance
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
How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
Hehe :) Cute.
That Hindu has the brain of a high-school dropout. You expect him to
understand the 5 papers? Could be that there's something about your
brain as well.
Ask him a high school physics question to see if he even knows that
much.
Here, ask him this. We solved it in 12th grade high school: Arindam is
standing on the edge of the roof of a 20 meter high building. He has two >>> balls (in his hands, that is - below his huge stomach there's nothing)
with him. He throws one straight upward and let the other one fall
downward by itself a second later. What initial speed should he give to
the first one so the two balls would hit the ground at the same time?
I can bet my boots Arindam cannot solve this question by himself. He'd
search the web for the solution, or ask AI to solve it for him.
Silly Roachie, Arindam has no use for your pitiable self. Keep on
lurking in the catacombs of Paris gorging on discarded baguettes.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
Get beheaded.
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.
Have not posted to this group for a long time.
Fysicks has gone 'astray' after them jews forced everybody to parrot
Albert Onestone
Only because he recommended to Johnson I think it was? to develop nukes.
That Albert E. was a clueless idiot, his way of thinking was already
proven wrong by the Alain Aspect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect
Now as to those solutions, reality.
Imagine a space full of (very small) particles
Now imagine those moving.
Not true?
Read this paper by somebody from CERN (you must have heard of CERN?):
http://cds.cern.ch/record/301528/files/open-96-008.pdf
Now we can have gravity, Le Sage theory of gravity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
Light is a wave in that sea of particles.
Like sound in water, its speed is depending on the density of the
medium, the particles in this case.
(water pressure).
Also, like sound in the wind, its speed depends on the direction of the medium (particles) too.
Clocks run slower in a 'gravity well' (near earth).
Close to earth more Le Sage particles are intercepted, medium is less
dense, light is slower.
In 'free' space (outside earth) particle density is higher and clocks
run faster,
like a pendulum of a clock gets more compressed and shorter make the
clock run faster.
Einstein with 'curved space' was a idiot.
Mathematicians like to do divide by zero and create black holes and infinities.
There are no 'infinities' in nature, even kids know that something will eventually break down if you stress it hard enough.
Einstein was a fake, he got e=m.c^2 from somebody else,
Bose-Einstein condensate was stolen from Bose, Einstein put his name on
it.
His e=m.c^2 likely likely came from his wife who was a mama-tician IIRC.
Boycott all US products as long as they support genocide and land
stealing by jews
Not that US makes any useful products anyways,...
That was many years ago before idiots like Trump and Musk (drug
addicted) took over.
So.. simple explanation, simple solutions
Unlike in medieval times when the church hammered in the heads that the
sun orbited the earth and mathematicians from those days
even made nice calculation showing it to be true.
Bit like the electric car climate change terrorists groups try to
destroy power infrastructure worldwide.
We need diversity in power generation and to bring every power source we
can online to protect this species against the real changes.
http://old.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
Milankovich cycles
And bomb - and fallout shelters, as US is working very hard on starting
a WW3 (going to nuke Iran??) and UK and Europe militarizing.
OTOH without Hitler and Von Braun no man would have landed on the moon.
One can wonder if, when space is full of particles, like water molecules
in a sea,
a propeller sort of would give thrust if rotated, maybe a chiral superconductor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov
And what happened to Ning Lee?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)
Did she know too much?
What is hidden from the masses?
Viking Mars experiment was already positive for life:
http://www.gillevin.com/
Dont' be:
google.com/search?q=youtube+another+brick+in+the+wall+pink+floyd&sca_esv=f6bc877b3d7fa12d
Revolt!!!
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> 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?
R.H.
Have not posted to this group for a long time.
Fysicks has gone 'astray' after them jews forced everybody to parrot Albert Onestone
Only because he recommended to Johnson I think it was? to develop nukes. >>That Albert E. was a clueless idiot, his way of thinking was already proven wrong by the Alain Aspect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect
Now as to those solutions, reality.
Imagine a space full of (very small) particles
Now imagine those moving.
Not true?
Read this paper by somebody from CERN (you must have heard of CERN?):
http://cds.cern.ch/record/301528/files/open-96-008.pdf
Now we can have gravity, Le Sage theory of gravity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
Light is a wave in that sea of particles.
Like sound in water, its speed is depending on the density of the medium, the particles in this case.
(water pressure).
Also, like sound in the wind, its speed depends on the direction of the medium (particles) too.
Clocks run slower in a 'gravity well' (near earth).
Close to earth more Le Sage particles are intercepted, medium is less dense, light is slower.
In 'free' space (outside earth) particle density is higher and clocks run faster,
like a pendulum of a clock gets more compressed and shorter make the clock run faster.
Einstein with 'curved space' was a idiot.
Mathematicians like to do divide by zero and create black holes and infinities.
There are no 'infinities' in nature, even kids know that something will eventually break down if you stress it hard enough.
Einstein was a fake, he got e=m.c^2 from somebody else,
Bose-Einstein condensate was stolen from Bose, Einstein put his name on it. >>His e=m.c^2 likely likely came from his wife who was a mama-tician IIRC.
Boycott all US products as long as they support genocide and land stealing by jews
Not that US makes any useful products anyways,...
That was many years ago before idiots like Trump and Musk (drug addicted) took over.
So.. simple explanation, simple solutions
Unlike in medieval times when the church hammered in the heads that the sun orbited the earth and mathematicians from those days
even made nice calculation showing it to be true.
Bit like the electric car climate change terrorists groups try to destroy power infrastructure worldwide.
We need diversity in power generation and to bring every power source we can online to protect this species against the real changes.
http://old.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
Milankovich cycles
And bomb - and fallout shelters, as US is working very hard on starting a WW3 (going to nuke Iran??) and UK and Europe militarizing.
OTOH without Hitler and Von Braun no man would have landed on the moon.
One can wonder if, when space is full of particles, like water molecules in a sea,
a propeller sort of would give thrust if rotated, maybe a chiral superconductor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov
And what happened to Ning Lee?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)
Did she know too much?
What is hidden from the masses?
Viking Mars experiment was already positive for life:
http://www.gillevin.com/
Dont' be:
google.com/search?q=youtube+another+brick+in+the+wall+pink+floyd&sca_esv=f6bc877b3d7fa12d
Revolt!!!
Then please stop doing it.
Or else, don't crosspost to us.politics.
People who crosspost to us.politics are not welcome hered,
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 12:47:56 +0000, Jan Panteltje 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?
R.H.
Have not posted to this group for a long time.
Fysicks has gone 'astray' after them jews forced everybody to parrot
Albert Onestone
Only because he recommended to Johnson I think it was? to develop nukes. >>> That Albert E. was a clueless idiot, his way of thinking was already
proven wrong by the Alain Aspect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect
Now as to those solutions, reality.
Imagine a space full of (very small) particles
Now imagine those moving.
Not true?
Read this paper by somebody from CERN (you must have heard of CERN?):
http://cds.cern.ch/record/301528/files/open-96-008.pdf
Now we can have gravity, Le Sage theory of gravity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
Light is a wave in that sea of particles.
Wrong. aether is the medium for light wave and that is infinitely fine
and elastic solid. So fine that electrons ho through with no loss of >>momentum.
Call it aether or whatever, 'solid' is a bit limiting term, and
'infinitely' does not exist.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof Woof
Dear doggy
Try reading the links I gave, do some web searches perhaps,
it is all very simple.
As is life: just a chemical reaction.
Bertietaylor
Like sound in water, its speed is depending on the density of the
medium, the particles in this case.
(water pressure).
Also, like sound in the wind, its speed depends on the direction of the
medium (particles) too.
Clocks run slower in a 'gravity well' (near earth).
Close to earth more Le Sage particles are intercepted, medium is less
dense, light is slower.
In 'free' space (outside earth) particle density is higher and clocks
run faster,
like a pendulum of a clock gets more compressed and shorter make the
clock run faster.
Einstein with 'curved space' was a idiot.
Mathematicians like to do divide by zero and create black holes and
infinities.
There are no 'infinities' in nature, even kids know that something will
eventually break down if you stress it hard enough.
Einstein was a fake, he got e=m.c^2 from somebody else,
Bose-Einstein condensate was stolen from Bose, Einstein put his name on
it.
His e=m.c^2 likely likely came from his wife who was a mama-tician IIRC. >>>
Boycott all US products as long as they support genocide and land
stealing by jews
Not that US makes any useful products anyways,...
That was many years ago before idiots like Trump and Musk (drug
addicted) took over.
So.. simple explanation, simple solutions
Unlike in medieval times when the church hammered in the heads that the
sun orbited the earth and mathematicians from those days
even made nice calculation showing it to be true.
Bit like the electric car climate change terrorists groups try to
destroy power infrastructure worldwide.
We need diversity in power generation and to bring every power source we >>> can online to protect this species against the real changes.
http://old.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
Milankovich cycles
And bomb - and fallout shelters, as US is working very hard on starting
a WW3 (going to nuke Iran??) and UK and Europe militarizing.
OTOH without Hitler and Von Braun no man would have landed on the moon.
One can wonder if, when space is full of particles, like water molecules >>> in a sea,
a propeller sort of would give thrust if rotated, maybe a chiral
superconductor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov
And what happened to Ning Lee?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)
Did she know too much?
What is hidden from the masses?
Viking Mars experiment was already positive for life:
http://www.gillevin.com/
Dont' be:
google.com/search?q=youtube+another+brick+in+the+wall+pink+floyd&sca_esv=f6bc877b3d7fa12d
Revolt!!!
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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.
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.
[-]Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
Have not posted to this group for a long time.
Then please stop doing it.
Or else, don't crosspost to us.politics.
People who crosspost to us.politics are not welcome hered,
It is spelled 'here'
Try reading the links I gave,
Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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.
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?
The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the Universe.
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.
On 6/3/2025 1:22 PM, 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 ?
[...] Light is a wave.
All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether.
The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
the speed of light is invariant.
No, the result is that some brainwashed idiots
are asserting that the speed of light is
invariant,
ignoring the fact that even
their idiot guru had to abandon this
absurd soon after he invented it.
On 03/06/2025 14:52, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 6/3/2025 1:22 PM, 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 ?
[...] Light is a wave.
All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether.
That makes sense to me: the speed of propagation of water waves
when a boat passes by is not dependent on the speed of the boat,
it depends on the medium. (Right?)
Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
On 03/06/2025 14:52, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 6/3/2025 1:22 PM, 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 ?
[...] Light is a wave.
All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether.
That makes sense to me: the speed of propagation of water waves
when a boat passes by is not dependent on the speed of the boat,
it depends on the medium. (Right?)
Not at all. Some of the surface waves are locked
to the boat that produces them, and travel with the same speed.
(compare Cerenkov radiation for light)
Just don't use this kind of analogy to argue things about light,
when straightforward special relativity will do,
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
[-]Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
Have not posted to this group for a long time.
Then please stop doing it.
Or else, don't crosspost to us.politics.
People who crosspost to us.politics are not welcome hered,
It is spelled 'here'
Try reading the links I gave,
Of course not.
As long as you crosspost to us.politics you are scum,
Jan
Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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.
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?
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.
You obviously meant to refer to the "Copenhagen interpretation",
that is the interpretation of quantum mechanics given
by Bohr and Heisenberg in ~1925.
Modern quantum fields theories such as QED are based on SR.
In QED light is a particle and the speed of light is invariant.
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.
So I ask you again:
How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is stationary?
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
You obviously meant to refer to the "Copenhagen interpretation",
that is the interpretation of quantum mechanics given
by Bohr and Heisenberg in ~1925.
Modern quantum fields theories such as QED are based on SR.
In QED light is a particle and the speed of light is invariant.
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.
Paul, retarded narcissist & relativist.
Forget any local experiment (within the Solar System) about the
constancy of
the speed of light.
Come here when you can show off with ONE EXPERIMENT AT GALACTIC
DISTANCE, like
OWLS or TWLS between some planet in a random star system at Andromeda,
to the least.
Or get proofs for that assertion between another random planet at ESO
6-1 or
NGC 5237, close to the Milky Way.
WHAT? You can't wait some million years? No shit.
Then SHUT UP! SHUT THE FUCK UP, IMBECILE!
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.
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.
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.
So I ask you again:
How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is stationary?
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is moving with the speed v?
Den 03.06.2025 13:48, skrev rhertz:
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:
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.
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?
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.
You obviously meant to refer to the "Copenhagen interpretation",
that is the interpretation of quantum mechanics given
by Bohr and Heisenberg in ~1925.
Modern quantum fields theories such as QED are based on SR.
In QED light is a particle and the speed of light is invariant.
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.
Paul, retarded narcissist & relativist.
Forget any local experiment (within the Solar System) about the
constancy of
the speed of light.
Does that mean that you accept that light is invariant
in the Solar system, but not outside our galaxy?
BTW, "invariant" doesn't really mean constant,
it means independent of frames of reference.
For example: mass is invariant, but not always constant.
(But the speed of light is constant _and_ invariant.)
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
...
...
And pulse doppler radar leaves the crackpots flummoxed.
On 6/4/25 05:32, 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
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.
For a constant speed of light (hey don't confuse Doppler
effect with speed) you don't just have one observation, but
the simple idea that if changed speeds for light happened
upon emission and observation kept happening time after
time after time then eventually you would have some very
slow and very fast light with some of that light actually
going as slow as you can jog.
But the big one is of course RADAR (radio detecting and
ranging). It does not just guide missiles. It can also
be used in weather forecasting. Simple inferences about
how RADAR works eventually calls out naysaying as naysaying,
no matter how much the naysayers may repeat themselves.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 03.06.2025 13:48, skrev rhertz:
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:
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.
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?
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.
You obviously meant to refer to the "Copenhagen interpretation",
that is the interpretation of quantum mechanics given
by Bohr and Heisenberg in ~1925.
Modern quantum fields theories such as QED are based on SR.
In QED light is a particle and the speed of light is invariant.
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.
Paul, retarded narcissist & relativist.
Forget any local experiment (within the Solar System) about the
constancy of
the speed of light.
Does that mean that you accept that light is invariant
in the Solar system, but not outside our galaxy?
BTW, "invariant" doesn't really mean constant,
it means independent of frames of reference.
For example: mass is invariant, but not always constant.
(But the speed of light is constant _and_ invariant.)
Come here when you can show off with ONE EXPERIMENT AT GALACTIC
DISTANCE, like
OWLS or TWLS between some planet in a random star system at Andromeda,
to the least.
Or get proofs for that assertion between another random planet at ESO
6-1 or
NGC 5237, close to the Milky Way.
WHAT? You can't wait some million years? No shit.
Then SHUT UP! SHUT THE FUCK UP, IMBECILE!
Watch your blood pressure, Richard. :-D
THE SPEED OF LIGHT, ALONG THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, IS RANDOMLY VARIANT
(MAXWELL SAID THAT, WITH THE PERMITTIVITY AND PERMEABILITY SHIT),
...
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.
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.
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
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
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.
So I ask you again:
How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is stationary?
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is moving with the speed v?
No answer, Bertietaylor?
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?"
Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
Am Mittwoch000004, 04.06.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Bertitaylor:
...
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.
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.
The solar system moves around the center of our home galaxy and this
galaxy around the center of our local super-cluster and that around what
only heaven knows.
So: everything moves!
BUT: we could use a simple trick and stop motion for at least the observer.
This would make 'at rest' 'relative' and we could say, that all
observers are of equal rights, hence all observers are at rest. But they
are only at rest for themselves, while for any other they move.
This means essentially the same thing: everything moves.
That's why the universe cannot have a center (because that center would
not move).
Also the so called 'big-bang' must be 'relative'.
This sounds strange and unsatisfying. But I don't think so, because it
is actually much easier to understand than current standard cosmology.
Am Mittwoch000004, 04.06.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Bertitaylor:
....
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.
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.
The solar system moves around the center of our home galaxy and this
galaxy around the center of our local super-cluster and that around what
only heaven knows.
So: everything moves!
BUT: we could use a simple trick and stop motion for at least the
observer.
This would make 'at rest' 'relative' and we could say, that all
observers are of equal rights, hence all observers are at rest. But they
are only at rest for themselves, while for any other they move.
This means essentially the same thing: everything moves.Yes ja da oui with wohls on.
That's why the universe cannot have a center (because that center would
not move).
Also the so called 'big-bang' must be 'relative'.None of that big bang bollocks, please.
This sounds strange and unsatisfying. But I don't think so, because it
is actually much easier to understand than current standard cosmology.
....
TH
On 6/5/25 7:41 AM, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 9:24:35 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000004, 04.06.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Bertitaylor:
....
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.
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.
The solar system moves around the center of our home galaxy and this
galaxy around the center of our local super-cluster and that around what >>> only heaven knows.
So: everything moves!
BUT: we could use a simple trick and stop motion for at least the
observer.
Just not possible. Your observer may SEEM still but he is on a platform
that is moving.
This would make 'at rest' 'relative' and we could say, that all
observers are of equal rights, hence all observers are at rest. But they >>> are only at rest for themselves, while for any other they move.
Nobody can ve at rest. Even a snail is moving at 30km per sec around the
Sun.
Yes ja da oui with wohls on.
This means essentially the same thing: everything moves.
That's why the universe cannot have a center (because that center would
not move).
As the universe is infinite all points in the universe can be its
centre.
None of that big bang bollocks, please.
Also the so called 'big-bang' must be 'relative'.
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.
Woof woof
Bertietaylor
TH
--
Get beheaded, Hindu.
We update physics laws as per divine Arindam's new and glorious
inventions and discoveries.
On 6/5/25 10:54, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 6/5/25 7:41 AM, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 9:24:35 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000004, 04.06.2025 um 10:39 schrieb Bertitaylor:
....
A bit confused, Bertietaylor?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. >>>>>>
Not at all.
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.
The solar system moves around the center of our home galaxy and this
galaxy around the center of our local super-cluster and that around what >>>> only heaven knows.
So: everything moves!
BUT: we could use a simple trick and stop motion for at least the
observer.
Just not possible. Your observer may SEEM still but he is on a platform
that is moving.
This would make 'at rest' 'relative' and we could say, that all
observers are of equal rights, hence all observers are at rest. But they >>>> are only at rest for themselves, while for any other they move.
Nobody can ve at rest. Even a snail is moving at 30km per sec around the >>> Sun.
Yes ja da oui with wohls on.
This means essentially the same thing: everything moves.
That's why the universe cannot have a center (because that center would >>>> not move).
As the universe is infinite all points in the universe can be its
centre.
None of that big bang bollocks, please.
Also the so called 'big-bang' must be 'relative'.
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.
Woof woof
Bertietaylor
TH
--
Get beheaded, Hindu.
The word 'diabolis' means 'to cast against'.
There is also the sixth commandment 'thou shalt
not kill'.
Then there is the question, are beliefs something
that one can control, or are they the product of
an external environment?
I may have already posted this, but out of respect
for the second phrase some of my earlier statements
are repealed.
Nonetheless, I think it is also reasonable to say
that is not possible for words to have meaning to
human beings anyway.
by their base instincts, and all words emitted by
humans follow this.
word of any person to be good. It is not possible
for a person to adopt any religion. Have a nice
day. You can get back to naysaying physical laws.
On 6/4/25 08:45, rhertz wrote:Which does not work when it is wrong and then for justification leads to absurdities described by wrong theories backed by math mumbo jumbo.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 03.06.2025 13:48, skrev rhertz:
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:
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.
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?
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.
You obviously meant to refer to the "Copenhagen interpretation",
that is the interpretation of quantum mechanics given
by Bohr and Heisenberg in ~1925.
Modern quantum fields theories such as QED are based on SR.
In QED light is a particle and the speed of light is invariant.
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.
Paul, retarded narcissist & relativist.
Forget any local experiment (within the Solar System) about the
constancy of
the speed of light.
Does that mean that you accept that light is invariant
in the Solar system, but not outside our galaxy?
BTW, "invariant" doesn't really mean constant,
it means independent of frames of reference.
For example: mass is invariant, but not always constant.
(But the speed of light is constant _and_ invariant.)
Come here when you can show off with ONE EXPERIMENT AT GALACTIC
DISTANCE, like
OWLS or TWLS between some planet in a random star system at Andromeda, >>>> to the least.
Or get proofs for that assertion between another random planet at ESO
6-1 or
NGC 5237, close to the Milky Way.
WHAT? You can't wait some million years? No shit.
Then SHUT UP! SHUT THE FUCK UP, IMBECILE!
Watch your blood pressure, Richard. :-D
THE SPEED OF LIGHT, ALONG THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, IS RANDOMLY VARIANT
(MAXWELL SAID THAT, WITH THE PERMITTIVITY AND PERMEABILITY SHIT),
If you bothered to notice, the permittivity and permeability stuff
even allowed a calculation of light speed.
These and an array of other phenomena tend to give me the idea that
it is very hasty to throw out all aspects of wave theory. Rather
something like the 'ether' may have something to do with space and
time. (Historically the term 'ether' was tossed out, but of course
words can have different meanings.)
To me, it seems best to keep it simple.
of energy or momentum transfer.
also be tied to phenomena that obey Fermi-Dirac statistics (only
one state allowed by way of the Pauli exclusion principle) to form
'matter' (it takes up space). This also allows the 'orbitals' in
'chemistry' (cool and also 'nuclear physics' if you add 'strong' and
'weak' forces).
These are not entirely obvious inferences but not everything is
entirely obvious.
...
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 it does, as redshift and blueshift shows, and the Doppler radar effect.
However we cannot find the speed of the moving Earth (or aether drift as
they called it) as it is just not possible. The light speed variance
nicely cuts out the extra plus or minus distances travelled.
This is rather subtle, so requires some deep thinking. Also, it is not
easy to give up on programming and brainwashing done by the
establishment for well over a century now.
Woof woof woof woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:22:52 +0000, x wrote:
On 6/4/25 08:45, rhertz wrote:A 'photon' is an increment
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
of energy or momentum transfer.
Certainly NOT as energy is a scalar. The energy obtained from a single
photon follows the inversae square law. Which has to happen as the
photon is an atomic-scale brief electromagnetic wave.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:22:52 +0000, x wrote:
On 6/4/25 08:45, rhertz wrote:A 'photon' is an increment
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
of energy or momentum transfer.
Certainly NOT as energy is a scalar. The energy obtained from a single
photon follows the inversae square law. Which has to happen as the
photon is an atomic-scale brief electromagnetic wave.
The interesting thing, at least to me,
is that I notice 'scientists' scream 'PHOTON DETECTED" when their equipment says so.
As I designed that sort of equipment, to be a bit more specific,
they cry 'PHOTON DETECTED' when an electron is knocked out of the target electrode of the PMT (photo-multiplier tube).
In reality even a half blind pig can see that that is an amount of energy at that location (that atom with its electron),
and as such hit by part of a wave in a larger medium.
Like a ball connected with a wire to a pole in the ocean hit by a wave,
If the wave is strong enough the wire will break.
It says NOTHING about the size of the water molecules (so the medium) etc etc.
Those are likely magnitudes smaller than that ball (electron).
I like to do experiments, unlike Albert E. who never did one in his life, that is what made him a clueless idiot.
PMTs (photomultiplier tubes) are fun to play with:
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
that test is almost 20 years old..
More experiments:
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/index.html
bit of asm coding
More projects:
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/download.html
There is more...
https://panteltje.nl/pub/cryo/
cooling superconductors
much more....
So do experiments!!
I am but a neural net, and as to mama-ticians: math is just a sub circuit in the neural net
it is not truth related.
:-)
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:22:52 +0000, x wrote:
On 6/4/25 08:45, rhertz wrote:A 'photon' is an increment
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
of energy or momentum transfer.
Certainly NOT as energy is a scalar. The energy obtained from a single >>photon follows the inversae square law. Which has to happen as the
photon is an atomic-scale brief electromagnetic wave.
The interesting thing, at least to me,
is that I notice 'scientists' scream 'PHOTON DETECTED" when their
equipment says so.
As I designed that sort of equipment, to be a bit more specific,
they cry 'PHOTON DETECTED' when an electron is knocked out of the target electrode of the PMT (photo-multiplier tube).
In reality even a half blind pig can see that that is an amount of
energy at that location (that atom with its electron),
and as such hit by part of a wave in a larger medium.
Like a ball connected with a wire to a pole in the ocean hit by a wave,
If the wave is strong enough the wire will break.
It says NOTHING about the size of the water molecules (so the medium)
etc etc.
Those are likely magnitudes smaller than that ball (electron).
I like to do experiments, unlike Albert E. who never did one in his
life, that is what made him a clueless idiot.
PMTs (photomultiplier tubes) are fun to play with:
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
that test is almost 20 years old..
More experiments:
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/index.html
bit of asm coding
More projects:
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/download.html
There is more...
https://panteltje.nl/pub/cryo/
cooling superconductors
much more....
So do experiments!!
I am but a neural net, and as to mama-ticians: math is just a sub
circuit in the neural net
it is not truth related.
:-)
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:22:52 +0000, x wrote:
On 6/4/25 08:45, rhertz wrote:A 'photon' is an increment
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
of energy or momentum transfer.
Certainly NOT as energy is a scalar. The energy obtained from a single >photon follows the inversae square law. Which has to happen as the
photon is an atomic-scale brief electromagnetic wave.
The interesting thing, at least to me, is that I notice 'scientists'
scream 'PHOTON DETECTED" when their equipment says so.
I am but a neural net, and as to mama-ticians: math is just a sub circuit
in the neural net it is not truth related.
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:22:52 +0000, x wrote:
On 6/4/25 08:45, rhertz wrote:A 'photon' is an increment
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
of energy or momentum transfer.
Certainly NOT as energy is a scalar. The energy obtained from a single >>>photon follows the inversae square law. Which has to happen as the
photon is an atomic-scale brief electromagnetic wave.
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,
Jan
On 06/06/2025 07:33, Jan Panteltje wrote:
I am but a neural net, and as to mama-ticians: math is just a sub circuit
in the neural net it is not truth related.
You are simply a clueless + moron.
If physics means anything, it means that physical reality
is mathematical. OTOH, thinking that is logical...
HTH,
On 6/5/2025 4:51 AM, bertitaylor wrote:
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 it does, as redshift and blueshift shows, and the Doppler radar
effect.
However we cannot find the speed of the moving Earth (or aether drift as
they called it) as it is just not possible. The light speed variance
nicely cuts out the extra plus or minus distances travelled.
This is rather subtle, so requires some deep thinking. Also, it is not
easy to give up on programming and brainwashing done by the
establishment for well over a century now.
[...]
Think of a photon riding a field line at light speed, however the path
is bent and twisted.
through that area in space? A straight field line, vs a twisted one.
Think if the field lines are infinitely dense. These lines are there to visually allow us to "see" the bent twisted nature of the field, say
around a dense cluster of galaxies...
Fair enough, or kook ville?
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 it does, as redshift and blueshift shows, and the Doppler radar effect.
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.
This does, of course, include independence from the speed of the
emitter.
But that is't sufficiant.
If light would be faster near the Moon, for instance, and slower near Jupiter, we had also different speeds of light.
Also the speed of the observer shouldn't have an influence.
That part is actually tricky, because if we take a strong laser beam
from, say, Alpha Centaury and fly with our spaceship along that beam, we would need to measure the same velocity of the light from that beam,
weather we speed up or decelerate.
Actually it does, as redshift and blueshift shows, and the Doppler radar
effect.
Doppler effect is also tricky, because we could easily imagine to move
faster than necessary to redshift below zero Hertz (of a beam from a
remote station).
If so, what is frequency below zero?
Or we could do the opposite an fly towards the emitter and blueshift
that ray beyond infinity.
Now we could measure the speed of that 'squezed ray' and find, that it behaves like a material object and does not move at all (in respect to
our spaceship).
....
TH
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.
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.
Inertia getting busted thanks to Arindam's electrodynamic rail gun experiments also bins light speed invariance.
It may take a while for apes to absorb all that.
But that is't sufficiant.
If light would be faster near the Moon, for instance, and slower near
Jupiter, we had also different speeds of light.
Also the speed of the observer shouldn't have an influence.
That part is actually tricky, because if we take a strong laser beam
from, say, Alpha Centaury and fly with our spaceship along that beam, we
would need to measure the same velocity of the light from that beam,
weather we speed up or decelerate.
Actually it does, as redshift and blueshift shows, and the Doppler radar >>> effect.
Doppler effect is also tricky, because we could easily imagine to move
faster than necessary to redshift below zero Hertz (of a beam from a
remote station).
No signal at all.
If so, what is frequency below zero?
Or we could do the opposite an fly towards the emitter and blueshift
that ray beyond infinity.
Now we could measure the speed of that 'squezed ray' and find, that it
behaves like a material object and does not move at all (in respect to
our spaceship).
....
TH
--
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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 it does, as redshift and blueshift shows, and the Doppler radar effect.
However we cannot find the speed of the moving Earth (or aether drift as
they called it) as it is just not possible. The light speed variance
nicely cuts out the extra plus or minus distances travelled.
This is rather subtle, so requires some deep thinking.
On 6/5/25 4:24 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
The solar system moves around the center of our home galaxy and this
galaxy around the center of our local super-cluster and that around what
only heaven knows.
S
No, Heaven and I.
It moves around Physfit's dick, you stupid Bitch of the USA.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 18:59:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 05.06.2025 13:51, skrev bertitaylor:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
Invariant means that the speed of light in vacuum
is the same in all inertial frames of reference.
No, invariant means that the speed of light does not vary with the speed
of the emitter.
There is no such thing as the inertial reference frame in the entire universe.
Den 05.06.2025 13:51, skrev bertitaylor:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
Invariant means that the speed of light in vacuum
is the same in all inertial frames of reference.
The speed of a wave in a medium (air, water, eather) is not invariant.
Many experiments have confirmed the invariance of the speed of light,
and no experiment have shown otherwise.
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
Light is not a wave in an aether.
Actually it does, as redshift and blueshift shows, and the Doppler radar
effect.
It would be interesting to see the math that shows that
Doppler shift of EM-radiation implies that the speed of light
is different in different inertial frames.
But we won't see that, will we? :-d
However we cannot find the speed of the moving Earth (or aether drift as
they called it) as it is just not possible. The light speed variance
nicely cuts out the extra plus or minus distances travelled.
In other words, it is impossible to find the speed of the Earth
in the aether because the speed of light is invariant, and light
isn't a wave in an aether.
This is rather subtle, so requires some deep thinking.
What does "deep thinking" mean? Is it logical thinking?
Can you show the logic that show that it is impossible
to measure the speed of the Earth in the aether?
On 6/1/25 5:46 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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:
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
How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
Hehe :) Cute.
That Hindu has the brain of a high-school dropout. You expect him to understand the 5 papers? Could be that there's something about your
brain as well.
Ask him a high school physics question to see if he even knows that
much.
Here, ask him this. We solved it in 12th grade high school: Arindam is standing on the edge of the roof of a 20 meter high building. He has two balls (in his hands, that is - below his huge stomach there's nothing)
with him. He throws one straight upward and let the other one fall
downward by itself a second later. What initial speed should he give to
the first one so the two balls would hit the ground at the same time?
I can bet my boots Arindam cannot solve this question by himself. He'd
search the web for the solution, or ask AI to solve it for him.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 18:59:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 05.06.2025 13:51, skrev bertitaylor:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
Invariant means that the speed of light in vacuum
is the same in all inertial frames of reference.
No, invariant means that the speed of light does not vary with the speed
of the emitter.
There is no such thing as the inertial reference frame in the entire universe.
Everything moves in the solid fine aether or AUM.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof
Bertietaylor
The speed of a wave in a medium (air, water, eather) is not invariant.
As is the case for light.
Many experiments have confirmed the invariance of the speed of light,
and no experiment have shown otherwise.
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
Light is not a wave in an aether.
Actually it does, as redshift and blueshift shows, and the Doppler radar >>> effect.
It would be interesting to see the math that shows that
Doppler shift of EM-radiation implies that the speed of light
is different in different inertial frames.
But we won't see that, will we? :-d
However we cannot find the speed of the moving Earth (or aether drift as >>> they called it) as it is just not possible. The light speed variance
nicely cuts out the extra plus or minus distances travelled.
In other words, it is impossible to find the speed of the Earth
in the aether because the speed of light is invariant, and light
isn't a wave in an aether.
This is rather subtle, so requires some deep thinking.
What does "deep thinking" mean? Is it logical thinking?
Can you show the logic that show that it is impossible
to measure the speed of the Earth in the aether?
--
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.
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.
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!
Many experiments have confirmed the invariance of the speed of light,
and no experiment have shown otherwise.
It would be interesting to see the math that shows that
Doppler shift of EM-radiation implies that the speed of light
is different in different inertial frames.
That's why the universe cannot have a center (because that center would
not move).
On 6/4/25 05:32, 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
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.
For a constant speed of light (hey don't confuse Doppler
effect with speed) you don't just have one observation, but
the simple idea that if changed speeds for light happened
upon emission and observation kept happening time after
time after time then eventually you would have some very
slow and very fast light with some of that light actually
going as slow as you can jog.
But the big one is of course RADAR (radio detecting and
ranging). It does not just guide missiles. It can also
be used in weather forecasting. Simple inferences about
how RADAR works eventually calls out naysaying as naysaying,
no matter how much the naysayers may repeat themselves.
...
...
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 22:11:04 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 18:59:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 05.06.2025 13:51, skrev bertitaylor:
However we cannot find the speed of the moving Earth (or aether
drift as
they called it) as it is just not possible. The light speed variance
nicely cuts out the extra plus or minus distances travelled.
This is rather subtle, so requires some deep thinking.
What does "deep thinking" mean? Is it logical thinking?
Can you show the logic that show that it is impossible
to measure the speed of the Earth in the aether?
Done that.
See all we post here. When you realise that all moves, no
inertial frame with respect to aether, then you will realise that what
MMX et al show is light speed variance.
However, waves in a medium is anisotropic in all inertial
frames but the one that is stationary relative to the medium.
So MMX shows that light is not a wave in the aether.
Den 11.06.2025 20:50, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
However, waves in a medium is anisotropic in all inertial
frames but the one that is stationary relative to the medium.
Should (obviously) be:
The speed of waves in a medium is anisotropic in all inertial
frames
So MMX shows that light is not a wave in the aether.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> 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.
Except for the speed of light.
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!
Perhaps, but we all see the same speed of light.
[snip more nonsense]
Jan
Am Mittwoch000011, 11.06.2025 um 11:35 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> 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.
Except for the speed of light.
There is no 'except'!
Velocity IS frame-dependent!
This is inevitable and also the case for light.
Velocity IS frame-dependent!
This is inevitable and also the case for light.
BUT: we can use this to define light:
light (and other frequencies of the em-spectrum) are light, if they move
with c.
Other 'influences' might be possible, but are not light.
This is also a defining statement, and it is compatible with the main principle of relativity.
Incompatible, on the other hand, is a certain paradigme:
to 'materialise' light.
This is so, because any 'ballistic' or 'material' theory of light would
get in conflict with the definition of the term 'light' from above.
Instead we need to consider a continuum, where light is actually a
certain state.
This would allow us to reinterpret the so called 'photo electric effect':
in this system electrons and photons are actually the same 'structures',
but electrons are not moving, while photons do.
TH
When the observer is moving and getting same light speed that is because light speed has to be variant.
However we cannot find the speed of the moving Earth (or aether drift as they called it) as it is just not possible. The light speed variance
nicely cuts out the extra plus or minus distances travelled.
This is rather subtle, so requires some deep thinking.
On 6/6/2025 12:40 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/5/2025 4:51 AM, bertitaylor wrote:
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 it does, as redshift and blueshift shows, and the Doppler radar >>> effect.
However we cannot find the speed of the moving Earth (or aether drift as >>> they called it) as it is just not possible. The light speed variance
nicely cuts out the extra plus or minus distances travelled.
This is rather subtle, so requires some deep thinking. Also, it is not
easy to give up on programming and brainwashing done by the
establishment for well over a century now.
[...]
Think of a photon riding a field line at light speed, however the path
is bent and twisted. So, it's going to take a "little" longer to get
through that area in space? A straight field line, vs a twisted one.
Think if the field lines are infinitely dense. These lines are there to
visually allow us to "see" the bent twisted nature of the field, say
around a dense cluster of galaxies...
Fair enough, or kook ville?
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.
Den 12.06.2025 06:12, skrev Thomas Heger:
Velocity IS frame-dependent!
This is inevitable and also the case for light.
No.
It is experimentally confirmed that the speed of light in vacuum
is invariant, which means that it is the same in all inertial
frames of reference.
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
This is what all the cranks in this forum fail to understand.
Their problem is that because they find it counter intuitive
they think it can't be like that.
But it is!
BUT: we can use this to define light:
light (and other frequencies of the em-spectrum) are light, if they
move with c.
So you think that the speed of light is frame dependent,
but can be defined to be frame independent? :-D
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Mittwoch000011, 11.06.2025 um 11:35 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> 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.
Except for the speed of light.
There is no 'except'!
Velocity IS frame-dependent!
This is inevitable and also the case for light.
Shouting doesn't make it so,
[snip more garbage]
Photons are electron-worths of light, in energy,
in a very small region, for a very small amount of time.
Den 12.06.2025 06:12, skrev Thomas Heger:
Velocity IS frame-dependent!
This is inevitable and also the case for light.
No.
It is experimentally confirmed
is invariant
frames of reference.
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
This is what all the cranks in this forum fail to understand.
On 06/06/2025 02:37 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 06/06/2025 11:31, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 06/06/2025 07:33, Jan Panteltje wrote:
I am but a neural net, and as to mama-ticians: math is just a sub
circuit
in the neural net it is not truth related.
You are simply a clueless + moron.
If physics means anything, it means that physical reality
is mathematical. OTOH, thinking that is logical...
HTH,
Eh, that too, but I meant to say "it's thinking that is logical".
(Logic is *not* mathematics and neither is a subbranch of the
other, contrary to widespread brainwashing to the contrary, up
to logicism on a side and the lying with numbers on the other.)
-Julio
Photons are electron-worths of light, in energy,
in a very small region, for a very small amount of time.
On 13/06/2025 06:58, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Photons are electron-worths of light, in energy,
in a very small region, for a very small amount of time.
Ideas without referent or substance: indeed, you could say
that of any particle, so that's pointless, in fact rather
missing the point of *a* geometry, not any.
That said, I do strongly "sympathise" with the it's all fields
approach, but 1) unless we include the boundary at infinity,
it's just broken, and 2) does it really and fully work? And
I haven't yet found a clear answer to that last one: but, if
the problem is just "time", that's the bit we have now solved.
Sometimes I think I am talking to a rubber wall.
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.
Den 13.06.2025 10:13, skrev Thomas Heger:
I meant, that 'speed of light' is actually an angle.
This angle is measured locally as velocity c.
In geometric terms it would be 45° and means the equality of two complex
intervals called 'timelike' and 'spacelike'.
For any 'influence' (all sorts of interactions in a certain space with
complex valued 'points', called 'spacetime') which fulfills this
condition, we could use the term 'light speed'.
Now light falls into this cathegory as other em-waves, too.
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.
...
TH
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?
I meant, that 'speed of light' is actually an angle.
This angle is measured locally as velocity c.
In geometric terms it would be 45° and means the equality of two complex intervals called 'timelike' and 'spacelike'.
For any 'influence' (all sorts of interactions in a certain space with complex valued 'points', called 'spacetime') which fulfills this
condition, we could use the term 'light speed'.
Now light falls into this cathegory as other em-waves, too.
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.
...
TH
Den 13.06.2025 10:13, skrev Thomas Heger:
I meant, that 'speed of light' is actually an angle.
This angle is measured locally as velocity c.
In geometric terms it would be 45° and means the equality of two
complex intervals called 'timelike' and 'spacelike'.
For any 'influence' (all sorts of interactions in a certain space with
complex valued 'points', called 'spacetime') which fulfills this
condition, we could use the term 'light speed'.
Now light falls into this cathegory as other em-waves, too.
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.
...
TH
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?
Am Freitag000013, 13.06.2025 um 20:27 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 13.06.2025 10:13, skrev Thomas Heger:
I meant, that 'speed of light' is actually an angle.
This angle is measured locally as velocity c.
In geometric terms it would be 45° and means the equality of two
complex intervals called 'timelike' and 'spacelike'.
For any 'influence' (all sorts of interactions in a certain space
with complex valued 'points', called 'spacetime') which fulfills this
condition, we could use the term 'light speed'.
Now light falls into this cathegory as other em-waves, too.
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.
...
TH
I, the reader, don't understand this text, which according
to Thomas Heger is the author's fault.
No, to understand is the problem of the reader.
The author's fault would be, if the text cannot be understood.
So could you please write an annotated version of this text,sure
where you point out the errors that make me fail to understand it?
Please have a look at my 'book':
https://docs.google.com/presentation/ d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
the speed of light is invariant.
Velocity is meant as change of distance per unit of time.
Since 'distance' is meant as a length of a vector between two points, we
need a point 'at rest' in the first place, if we like to measure velocity.
Since we cannot use empty space itself as reference, we need to define,
what we mean by 'at rest'.
This is actually a little difficult, because 'the universe' or 'the background stars' do not provide any 'natural' anchor for position vectors.
So, we need to take what we have and that is actually the observer
himself, because observers do not move in respect to themselves.
But: all inertial observers are of equal rights!
That's why we could use any observer, even hypothetical observers.
Now this would include, that we measure velocity of something from one
point, which rests in respect to the object in question and from another point, which moves with velocity v.
This would mean: that object is at rest and moving with velocity c at
the same time!
On 6/1/25 5:46 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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:
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
How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
Hehe :) Cute.
That Hindu has the brain of a high-school dropout. You expect him to understand the 5 papers? Could be that there's something about your
brain as well.
Ask him a high school physics question to see if he even knows that
much.
Here, ask him this. We solved it in 12th grade high school: Arindam is standing on the edge of the roof of a 20 meter high building. He has two balls (in his hands, that is - below his huge stomach there's nothing)
with him. He throws one straight upward and let the other one fall
downward by itself a second later. What initial speed should he give to
the first one so the two balls would hit the ground at the same time?
I can bet my boots Arindam cannot solve this question by himself. He'd
search the web for the solution, or ask AI to solve it for him.
Den 14.06.2025 09:07, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Freitag000013, 13.06.2025 um 20:27 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 13.06.2025 10:13, skrev Thomas Heger:
I meant, that 'speed of light' is actually an angle.
This angle is measured locally as velocity c.
In geometric terms it would be 45° and means the equality of two
complex intervals called 'timelike' and 'spacelike'.
For any 'influence' (all sorts of interactions in a certain space
with complex valued 'points', called 'spacetime') which fulfills
this condition, we could use the term 'light speed'.
Now light falls into this cathegory as other em-waves, too.
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.
...
TH
I, the reader, don't understand this text, which according
to Thomas Heger is the author's fault.
No, to understand is the problem of the reader.
But it is Einstein's fault that you don't understand his text?
The author's fault would be, if the text cannot be understood.
So could you please write an annotated version of this text,sure
where you point out the errors that make me fail to understand it?
Please have a look at my 'book':
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
This text cannot be understood. Your fault!
Den 13.06.2025 09:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
Velocity is meant as change of distance per unit of time.
Since 'distance' is meant as a length of a vector between two points,
we need a point 'at rest' in the first place, if we like to measure
velocity.
Since we cannot use empty space itself as reference, we need to
define, what we mean by 'at rest'.
This is actually a little difficult, because 'the universe' or 'the
background stars' do not provide any 'natural' anchor for position
vectors.
So, we need to take what we have and that is actually the observer
himself, because observers do not move in respect to themselves.
But: all inertial observers are of equal rights!
That's why we could use any observer, even hypothetical observers.
Now this would include, that we measure velocity of something from one
point, which rests in respect to the object in question and from
another point, which moves with velocity v.
This would mean: that object is at rest and moving with velocity c at
the same time!
When I drive in my car the speed of the car in front of me
relative to me is v(t) = dl(t)/dt where l(t) is the distance
between our cars. Right?
Does that mean that I am at rest and moving with velocity c
at the same time?
Am Samstag000014, 14.06.2025 um 11:09 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 14.06.2025 09:07, skrev Thomas Heger:
Please have a look at my 'book':
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
This text cannot be understood. Your fault!
Well, that's actually not true, because the text contains also lots of pictures, which are in most cases very nice.
These pictures actually transport most of the content of my paper.
So: simply try to understand my illustrations.
TH
Den 15.06.2025 10:35, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Samstag000014, 14.06.2025 um 11:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 13.06.2025 09:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
Velocity is meant as change of distance per unit of time.
Since 'distance' is meant as a length of a vector between two
points, we need a point 'at rest' in the first place, if we like to
measure velocity.
Since we cannot use empty space itself as reference, we need to
define, what we mean by 'at rest'.
This is actually a little difficult, because 'the universe' or 'the
background stars' do not provide any 'natural' anchor for position
vectors.
So, we need to take what we have and that is actually the observer
himself, because observers do not move in respect to themselves.
But: all inertial observers are of equal rights!
That's why we could use any observer, even hypothetical observers.
Now this would include, that we measure velocity of something from
one point, which rests in respect to the object in question and from
another point, which moves with velocity v.
This would mean: that object is at rest and moving with velocity c
at the same time!
When I drive in my car the speed of the car in front of me
relative to me is v(t) = dl(t)/dt where l(t) is the distance
between our cars. Right?
Does that mean that I am at rest and moving with velocity c
at the same time?
When driving your car you usually don't use other cars as reference,
but (most likely) the surface of planet Earth.
If you are driving a car and want to measure the speed of the car
in front of you relative to you, your car is obviously the reference.
Am Samstag000014, 14.06.2025 um 11:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 13.06.2025 09:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
Velocity is meant as change of distance per unit of time.
Since 'distance' is meant as a length of a vector between two points,
we need a point 'at rest' in the first place, if we like to measure
velocity.
Since we cannot use empty space itself as reference, we need to
define, what we mean by 'at rest'.
This is actually a little difficult, because 'the universe' or 'the
background stars' do not provide any 'natural' anchor for position
vectors.
So, we need to take what we have and that is actually the observer
himself, because observers do not move in respect to themselves.
But: all inertial observers are of equal rights!
That's why we could use any observer, even hypothetical observers.
Now this would include, that we measure velocity of something from
one point, which rests in respect to the object in question and from
another point, which moves with velocity v.
This would mean: that object is at rest and moving with velocity c at
the same time!
When I drive in my car the speed of the car in front of me
relative to me is v(t) = dl(t)/dt where l(t) is the distance
between our cars. Right?
Does that mean that I am at rest and moving with velocity c
at the same time?
When driving your car you usually don't use other cars as reference, but (most likely) the surface of planet Earth.
But that surface does in fact move (actually very fast) and you simply
ignore that movement.
You could, however, consider also that movement, which is caused by
rotation of Earth around its own axis.
But that axis moves, too, but around the sun. And also the sun moves
around the center of our home galaxy.
And even that moves.
Therefore your odometer needs to show a simplified version of your
velocity and ignores cosmology entirely.
Relative velocities in respect to other cars is mostly not very useful,
Den 15.06.2025 00:33, skrev Bertitaylor:
These bunglers had no clue that the Earth was actually moving. And so
the equipment on the Earth was moving. This light always travels in
aether greater or lesser distances than marked out. This is a universal
phenomenon. No one can know what the speed is wrt the static solid fine
aether filling the infinite and eternal universe.
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.
The MMX is the big daddy of such velocity experiments. The light speed
varies with emitter to take care of the extra distances travelled
between any two points of the moving platform. > Which is Earth in our
case. Thus the nulls formed are due to light speed variance and not
light speed invariance.
The MMX shows that the speed of light is isotropic in all
inertial frames.
Waves in a medium are anisotropic in all inertial
frames but the one that is stationary relative to the medium.
So MMX shows that light is not a wave in the aether.
Arindam found this huge bungle back in 2005. Some 20 years ago. As the
physicists are a shameless criminal lot they have ignored Arindam's
discovery.
Quite.
The physics of Arindam Banerjee, employee of a medical research
laboratory, has discovered much new physics.
Complete works in physics by Arindam Banerjee: https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.bengali/c/mbbPlpsbbxk
"The cause of gravity": https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ
Quote of the first few statements:
"The formula for universal gravitation is well known to be,
as the force F acting between two masses m and M, parted by
a distance r from their centres of mass, as F=GmM/r^2, where G
is the gravitational constant found by experiment. Recently
the author has updated this formula to F=BnN/r^2 where B is
a constant, and n and N are the number of protons or electrons
in the masses m and M. It is obvious that as n and N are proportional
to m and M, this is essentially the same formula with the difference
that instead of masses, the new formula involves charges. Thus the
gravitational force is expressed electrostatically, as a
manifestation
of electrostatic force. In other words, there is no difference
between
electrostatic force and gravitational force."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the Sun is exerting
the electrostatic force 3.6e22 N on the Earth?
I bet you will ignore this question. :-D
"The Structure of Heavenly Bodies": https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
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."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at
the centre of the Earth is zero?
I bet you will ignore this question. :-D
In that case, I will ask again.
I may also quote more genial discoveries from Arindam's papers,
because they are rather entertaining.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 15.06.2025 00:33, skrev Bertitaylor:
These bunglers had no clue that the Earth was actually moving. And so
the equipment on the Earth was moving. This light always travels in
aether greater or lesser distances than marked out. This is a universal
phenomenon. No one can know what the speed is wrt the static solid fine
aether filling the infinite and eternal universe.
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.
No. The premise for the MMX was flawed. You can never find the speed of
any object with respect to aether as light speed is variant. And light travels more or less distance than two marked points. So the speed of
light APPEARS the same when actually it is variant. As proved by the
Doppler effect.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
The MMX is the big daddy of such velocity experiments. The light speed
varies with emitter to take care of the extra distances travelled
between any two points of the moving platform. > Which is Earth in our
case. Thus the nulls formed are due to light speed variance and not
light speed invariance.
The MMX shows that the speed of light is isotropic in all
inertial frames.
Waves in a medium are anisotropic in all inertial
frames but the one that is stationary relative to the medium.
So MMX shows that light is not a wave in the aether.
Arindam found this huge bungle back in 2005. Some 20 years ago. As the
physicists are a shameless criminal lot they have ignored Arindam's
discovery.
Quite.
The physics of Arindam Banerjee, employee of a medical research
laboratory, has discovered much new physics.
Complete works in physics by Arindam Banerjee:
https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.bengali/c/mbbPlpsbbxk
"The cause of gravity":
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ
Quote of the first few statements:
"The formula for universal gravitation is well known to be,
as the force F acting between two masses m and M, parted by
a distance r from their centres of mass, as F=GmM/r^2, where G
is the gravitational constant found by experiment. Recently
the author has updated this formula to F=BnN/r^2 where B is
a constant, and n and N are the number of protons or electrons
in the masses m and M. It is obvious that as n and N are proportional
to m and M, this is essentially the same formula with the difference
that instead of masses, the new formula involves charges. Thus the
gravitational force is expressed electrostatically, as a
manifestation
of electrostatic force. In other words, there is no difference
between
electrostatic force and gravitational force."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the Sun is exerting
the electrostatic force 3.6e22 N on the Earth?
I bet you will ignore this question. :-D
"The Structure of Heavenly Bodies":
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
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."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at
the centre of the Earth is zero?
I bet you will ignore this question. :-D
In that case, I will ask again.
I may also quote more genial discoveries from Arindam's papers,
because they are rather entertaining.
--
Den 15.06.2025 10:35, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Samstag000014, 14.06.2025 um 11:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 13.06.2025 09:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
Velocity is meant as change of distance per unit of time.
Since 'distance' is meant as a length of a vector between two
points, we need a point 'at rest' in the first place, if we like to
measure velocity.
Since we cannot use empty space itself as reference, we need to
define, what we mean by 'at rest'.
This is actually a little difficult, because 'the universe' or 'the
background stars' do not provide any 'natural' anchor for position
vectors.
So, we need to take what we have and that is actually the observer
himself, because observers do not move in respect to themselves.
But: all inertial observers are of equal rights!
That's why we could use any observer, even hypothetical observers.
Now this would include, that we measure velocity of something from
one point, which rests in respect to the object in question and from
another point, which moves with velocity v.
This would mean: that object is at rest and moving with velocity c
at the same time!
When I drive in my car the speed of the car in front of me
relative to me is v(t) = dl(t)/dt where l(t) is the distance
between our cars. Right?
Does that mean that I am at rest and moving with velocity c
at the same time?
When driving your car you usually don't use other cars as reference,
but (most likely) the surface of planet Earth.
If you are driving a car and want to measure the speed of the car
in front of you relative to you, your car is obviously the reference.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 22:28:38 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:Wrong. They are not the same, liar
Den 17.06.2025 01:35, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:14:44 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The physics of Arindam Banerjee, employee of a medical research
laboratory, has discovered much new physics.
Wrong as always! Arindam never worked in medical research. Wonder where >>>> you got that from and how low you racist and bigoted creeps will stoop >>>> to demean and diminish the divine Arindam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
At the very beginning of the video you can read:
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd.
6 September 2022
https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.bengali/c/mbbPlpsbbxk
Quote:
" Complete works in physics by Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne"
HTN stands for hypertension. Go figure.
BTW, why do you think working in a medical research lab
would "diminish the divine Arindam" ?
So to his "physics":
Complete works in physics by Arindam Banerjee:
https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.bengali/c/mbbPlpsbbxk
"The cause of gravity":
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ >>>>>>
Quote of the first few statements:
"The formula for universal gravitation is well known to be,
as the force F acting between two masses m and M, parted by
a distance r from their centres of mass, as F=GmM/r^2, where G >>>>>> is the gravitational constant found by experiment. Recently
the author has updated this formula to F=BnN/r^2 where B is
a constant, and n and N are the number of protons or electrons >>>>>> in the masses m and M. It is obvious that as n and N are proportional
to m and M, this is essentially the same formula with the difference
that instead of masses, the new formula involves charges. Thus the >>>>>> gravitational force is expressed electrostatically, as a
manifestation
of electrostatic force. In other words, there is no difference >>>>>> between
electrostatic force and gravitational force."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the Sun is exerting
the electrostatic force 3.6e22 N on the Earth?
The gravitational force between Earth and the Sun is 3.6e22 N.
Ridiculous question seeing that there is gravitational attraction which >>>> is really electrostatic.
Maybe you should read it again?
The Newtonian formula is F=GmM/r² (1)
Arindam's formula is: F=BnN/r² (2)
Where:
B = G
n = number of protons and electrons in the mass m
N = number of protons and electrons in the mass M
That means:
m = n⋅mₑ + n⋅mₚ (3)
M = N⋅mₑ + N⋅mₚ (4)
where mₑ is the mass of an electron and mₚ is the mass of a proton.
Huh? Abracadabra here!
Rubbish. That is your idea which is not Arindam's.
Don't twist meanings to suit your nonsense.
The whole essay has to be read not just bits which are twisted.
Arindam DOES NOT TALK OF MASSES ATTRACTING. That is just Newtonian
thinking which is obsolete. He shows how masses attract when masses are
considered charges.
HE TALKS OF CHARGES ATTRACTING.
See the diagrams. There are no masses considered. Only charges.
Typical dishonesty, twisting, manipulating here by Einsteinian fraud.
Inserting (3) and (4) in (2) yields:
F=BnN/r² ≡ BnN/r²
Wtf!
So the two equations are identical!
No, one assumes masses attract naturally being masses as per Newton.
Arindam shows they attract because of the atomic configuration causing
mild electrostatic attraction.
Arindam thus shows that gravity is a consequence of electrostatic
attraction being slightly larger than electrostatic repulsion between
two atoms.
An universal phenomenon of such simplicity that only Arindam's genius
could discover.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs doing propaganda for
Arindam's works from low Heaven)
Since the number of protons and electrons in is the same,
there is no net electric charge in m. Same with M.
Do you really not understand that there is no electrostatic
force between the two neutral masses m and M ?
Do you still claim:
"there is gravitational attraction which is really electrostatic"?
"The Structure of Heavenly Bodies":
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ >>>>>>
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."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at
the centre of the Earth is zero?
Yes da oui si haaN hyaN bilkul zaroor ja with wohls on...
Thanks for a clear answer.
You, like Arindam believe that the pressure within the Earth
is highest right below the surface and is diminishing with depth.
The equation F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3 is the gravitational force
on a mass m when it is a distance R from the centre of the Earth.
The gravitational force on the mass m at the surface is:
F = m⋅9.91953 N (we ignore the rotation of the Earth)
Let's consider the following scenario:
We have a 1000 m deep cylindrical hole in the surface of the Earth.
The gravitational force on you standing at the bottom of the hole is:
F = m⋅9.91790 N
If your mass is 80 kg, your weight will be 0.1244 N less at
the bottom of the hole than on the surface.
So the gravitational force diminish with depth.
Now we fill the hole with water.
The pressure at the surface is 1 atm = 1013.25 hPa
The pressure on you is now 10020 kPa or ca 100 atm.
The pressure increases with depth, as any scuba diver would tell you.
How can you, like Arindam, fail to know this?
If we fill the hole with stone with density 5563 kg/m³
(the average density of the Earth),
the pressure at the bottom of the hole becomes:
55275 kPa or 556 atm
The pressure at the centre of the Earth is 360 Gpa
3.5 millions atm.
Do you still not understand how idiotic Arindam is when he
claim that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero?
--
--
Den 17.06.2025 01:02, skrev Bertitaylor:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
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.
And the IQ of a dog?
WOOF woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
"The Structure of Heavenly Bodies":
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
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."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at
the centre of the Earth is zero?
Den 17.06.2025 01:35, skrev Bertitaylor:
Yes
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Thanks for a clear answer.
You, like Arindam believe that the pressure within the Earth
is highest right below the surface and is diminishing with depth.
The equation F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3 is the gravitational force
on a mass m when it is a distance R from the centre of the Earth.
Den 18.06.2025 03:29, skrev Bertitaylor:
Wrong. See if you can find where you are wrong.
As your knowledge of basic physics is far lower than that of any Indian
kid in middle school in the 1960s no point in continuing.
You are making a fool of yourself again.
This equation is taken from Arindam's paper quoted above.
Arindam:
" 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."
This is correct!
F is the gravitational force on a body with mass m a distance
R from the centre of the Earth.
A more common variant of the equation is:
g = dF/dm = G*D*pi*4*R/3
The force on a mass m is F = g*m
Arindam's knowledge of basic physics is far lower than that
of any Indian kid in middle school in the 1960s so he believes
that when the gravitational force on a small mass is zero, then
the pressure must be zero, which is absolutely ridiculous!
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The gravitational force on the mass m at the surface is:
F = m⋅9.91953 N (we ignore the rotation of the Earth)
Let's consider the following scenario:
We have a 1000 m deep cylindrical hole in the surface of the Earth.
The gravitational force on you standing at the bottom of the hole is:
F = m⋅9.91790 N
If your mass is 80 kg, your weight will be 0.1244 N less at
the bottom of the hole than on the surface.
So the gravitational force diminish with depth.
Now we fill the hole with water.
The pressure at the surface is 1 atm = 1013.25 hPa
The pressure on you is now 10020 kPa or ca 100 atm.
The pressure increases with depth, as any scuba diver would tell you.
How can you, like Arindam, fail to know this?
If we fill the hole with stone with density 5563 kg/m³
(the average density of the Earth),
the pressure at the bottom of the hole becomes:
55275 kPa or 556 atm
Consider this scenario:
There is a cylindrical tunnel right through the Earth.
The cross area of the tunnel is 10 m².
You jump into the tunnel, and end up weightless at
the centre of the Earth. No gravitational forces are
acting on you, as correctly claimed by Arindam.
Now we fill the tunnel with 710e9 kg (710 Tg) of stone.
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.
Do you still not understand how idiotic Arindam is when he
claim that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero?
Any particular reason for why you haven't responded to this post?
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
Any particular reason for why you haven't responded to this post?
I know you are not talking to me, but I saw this subject "Re: What
is a photon" pop up here, and I feel like I have to chime in, since
this actually does have something to do with the English language!
The question "What is a photon?" might sound to some like
it is about nature, but really, it is about language.
"Photon" is an English word, and /people/ decide what words
mean. So this is kind of a cultural thing: "How did people
settle on what 'photon' means?"
And the answer is, it depends on the theory you are using!
(Honestly, it can even depend on the specific paper or book.)
Right now, quantum field theory (QFT) - and especially quantum
electrodynamics - is the main theory here. It gives some crazy
accurate predictions that have been checked in experiments, so
it definitely tells us something about nature, but at the end of
the day, it is a model, just like anything people come up with.
QFT is not the whole story, since it does not deal with gravity.
There could be a bigger theory "TOE" someday where "photon"
gets defined differently than in QFT. In a lot of areas, we
could swap out QFT for TOE, and the meaning of "photon" would
kind of shift. But nature itself would not change.
The photon is part of our culture, not part of nature.
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
Any particular reason for why you haven't responded to this post?
I know you are not talking to me, but I saw this subject "Re: What
is a photon" pop up here, and I feel like I have to chime in, since
this actually does have something to do with the English language!
The question "What is a photon?" might sound to some like
it is about nature, but really, it is about language.
"Photon" is an English word, and /people/ decide what words
mean. So this is kind of a cultural thing: "How did people
settle on what 'photon' means?"
And the answer is, it depends on the theory you are using!
(Honestly, it can even depend on the specific paper or book.)
Right now, quantum field theory (QFT) - and especially quantum
electrodynamics - is the main theory here. It gives some crazy
accurate predictions that have been checked in experiments, so
it definitely tells us something about nature, but at the end of
the day, it is a model, just like anything people come up with.
QFT is not the whole story, since it does not deal with gravity.
There could be a bigger theory "TOE" someday where "photon"
gets defined differently than in QFT. In a lot of areas, we
could swap out QFT for TOE, and the meaning of "photon" would
kind of shift. But nature itself would not change.
The photon is part of our culture, not part of nature.
Den 20.06.2025 01:00, skrev Bertitaylor:
WOOF woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Any particular reason for why you haven't responded to this post?
???On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
"The Structure of Heavenly Bodies":
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
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."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at
the centre of the Earth is zero?
Den 17.06.2025 01:35, skrev Bertitaylor:
Yes
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Thanks for a clear answer.
You, like Arindam believe that the pressure within the Earth
is highest right below the surface and is diminishing with depth.
The equation F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3 is the gravitational force
on a mass m when it is a distance R from the centre of the Earth.
Den 18.06.2025 03:29, skrev Bertitaylor:
Wrong. See if you can find where you are wrong.
As your knowledge of basic physics is far lower than that of any Indian
kid in middle school in the 1960s no point in continuing.
Den 19.06.2025 20:01, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
You are making a fool of yourself again.
This equation is taken from Arindam's paper quoted above.
Arindam:
" 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."
This is correct!
F is the gravitational force on a body with mass m a distance
R from the centre of the Earth.
A more common variant of the equation is:
g = dF/dm = G*D*pi*4*R/3
The force on a mass m is F = g*m
Arindam's knowledge of basic physics is far lower than that
of any Indian kid in middle school in the 1960s so he believes
that when the gravitational force on a small mass is zero, then
the pressure must be zero, which is absolutely ridiculous!
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The gravitational force on the mass m at the surface is:
F = m⋅9.91953 N (we ignore the rotation of the Earth)
Let's consider the following scenario:
We have a 1000 m deep cylindrical hole in the surface of the Earth.
The gravitational force on you standing at the bottom of the hole is:
F = m⋅9.91790 N
If your mass is 80 kg, your weight will be 0.1244 N less at
the bottom of the hole than on the surface.
So the gravitational force diminish with depth.
Now we fill the hole with water.
The pressure at the surface is 1 atm = 1013.25 hPa
The pressure on you is now 10020 kPa or ca 100 atm.
The pressure increases with depth, as any scuba diver would tell you.
How can you, like Arindam, fail to know this?
If we fill the hole with stone with density 5563 kg/m³
(the average density of the Earth),
the pressure at the bottom of the hole becomes:
55275 kPa or 556 atm
Den 19.06.2025 20:01, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
Consider this scenario:
There is a cylindrical tunnel right through the Earth.
The cross area of the tunnel is 10 m².
You jump into the tunnel, and end up weightless at
the centre of the Earth. No gravitational forces are
acting on you, as correctly claimed by Arindam.
Now we fill the tunnel with 710e9 kg (710 Tg) of stone.
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.
Do you still not understand how idiotic Arindam is when he
claim that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero?
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
"The Structure of Heavenly Bodies": Arindam Banerjee, HTN Research Pty >>>>>> Ltd. Melbourne
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ >>>>>>
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."
Taken literally, this is of course nonsense.
Arindam says:
"When the radius of the Earth is zero, the pressure at the centre of
the Earth is zero." No Earth, no pressure! :-D
However, the equation is correct, because:
The gravitational force F on a mass m at the position R from the centre
of the Earth is:
F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3 (1)
Where:
G is the gravitational constant
D is the average density of the Earth
Den 21.06.2025 00:38, skrev Bertitaylor:
Yes, the net force is zero as the mass at the centre of Earth, Sun etc.
is pulled equally in all directions. Opposites cancel leaving no
pressure.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Let us take it from the start:
Equation (1) can be written:
F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R [N] (1)
where
G = 6.6743e-11 N⋅m²/kg²
D = 5563 kg/m³ average density of the Earth, mass/volume
We are considering the density to be constant, which make
the calculation simpler.
This is however a gross simplification, the density
varies very much with depth. Near the surface it can be as
low as 1000 kg/m³ (ocean), and in the inner core as high as
~8000 kg/m³ (Nickel/iron).
This means that our calculations below can not be expected
to be very precise, but they will give a good indication
of the order of magnitude of the pressure at the centre of
the Earth.
Consider a cylindrical hole with cross area A = 1 m²
from the surface and down to the centre of the Earth.
Let R₀ = 6.378e6 m be the radius of the Earth.
Let your mass be m = 80 kg.
Standing on the ground, the gravitational force acting on you is:
F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R₀ = 793.5 N
Standing at the bottom of the hole,the gravitational force on you is:
F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅0 = 0 N, you are weightless!
Now we fill the hole with stone with density D = 5563 kg/m³.
Every gram of that pile of stone is gravitationally pulled
towards the centre of the Earth, so you has to be as ignorant
of basic physics as Arindam to fail to understand that the pressure
at the centre of the Earth must be formidable.
Let us calculate what it will be.
Equation (1) above is for a (small) mass at a specific depth.
But the mass of the pile of stone is distributed all the way
from the surface to the centre, so we can't use equation (1)
as it is, so we write it like this:
dF/dm = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R [N/kg] (2)
We have: dm = D⋅A⋅dR [kg] (the mass in the hole)
dF = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅A⋅R⋅dR [N]
The pressure P is F/A
dP = dF/A = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅R⋅dR [N/m²]
P = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅∫(from 0 to R₀)R⋅dR = (2π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅R₀² [N/m²]
P = 176e9 N/m² = 176 GN/m² = 176 GPa
If you look up on the net, you will see that the pressure
at the centre is thought to be ~360 GPa.
Our number is about half by reasons explained above.
------------------
Bertitaylor, if you have elementary knowledge of physics and math,
you will have no problem with understanding my calculations above,
and why the pressure at the centre of the Earth is formidable.
Right?
Den 11.06.2025 06:27, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 22:11:04 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 18:59:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 05.06.2025 13:51, skrev bertitaylor:
However we cannot find the speed of the moving Earth (or aether
drift as
they called it) as it is just not possible. The light speed variance >>>>> nicely cuts out the extra plus or minus distances travelled.
This is rather subtle, so requires some deep thinking.
What does "deep thinking" mean? Is it logical thinking?
Can you show the logic that show that it is impossible
to measure the speed of the Earth in the aether?
Done that.
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.
If EM-radiation is 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.
See all we post here. When you realise that all moves, no
inertial frame with respect to aether, then you will realise that what
MMX et al show is light speed variance.
The MMX shows that the speed of light is isotropic in all
inertial frames.
It says nothing about what the speed of light is, and if it
is the same in all frames of reference.
That's why the the KTX was performed. https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
However, waves in a medium is anisotropic in all inertial
frames but the one that is stationary relative to the medium.
So MMX shows that light is not a wave in the aether.
Den 23.06.2025 00:56, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
"The Structure of Heavenly Bodies": Arindam Banerjee, HTN
Research Pty
Ltd. Melbourne
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ >>>>>
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."
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 19:14:15 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Taken literally, this is of course nonsense.
Arindam says:
"When the radius of the Earth is zero, the pressure at the centre of
the Earth is zero." No Earth, no pressure! :-D
However, the equation is correct, because:
The gravitational force F on a mass m at the position R from the centre
of the Earth is:
F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3 (1)
Where:
G is the gravitational constant
D is the average density of the Earth
Den 21.06.2025 00:38, skrev Bertitaylor:
Yes, the net force is zero as the mass at the centre of Earth, Sun etc. >>>> is pulled equally in all directions. Opposites cancel leaving no
pressure.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 19:14:15 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Let us take it from the start:
Equation (1) can be written:
F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R [N] (1)
where
G = 6.6743e-11 N⋅m²/kg²
D = 5563 kg/m³ average density of the Earth, mass/volume
We are considering the density to be constant, which make
the calculation simpler.
This is however a gross simplification, the density
varies very much with depth. Near the surface it can be as
low as 1000 kg/m³ (ocean), and in the inner core as high as
~8000 kg/m³ (Nickel/iron).
This means that our calculations below can not be expected
to be very precise, but they will give a good indication
of the order of magnitude of the pressure at the centre of
the Earth.
Consider a cylindrical hole with cross area A = 1 m²
from the surface and down to the centre of the Earth.
Let R₀ = 6.378e6 m be the radius of the Earth.
Let your mass be m = 80 kg.
Standing on the ground, the gravitational force acting on you is:
F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R₀ = 793.5 N
Standing at the bottom of the hole,the gravitational force on you is:
F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅0 = 0 N, you are weightless!
Now we fill the hole with stone with density D = 5563 kg/m³.
Every gram of that pile of stone is gravitationally pulled
towards the centre of the Earth, so you has to be as ignorant
of basic physics as Arindam to fail to understand that the pressure
at the centre of the Earth must be formidable.
Point is, that the stones just above me will be weightless as me so
will not cause any pressure upon me.
And the stones that are higher up will press sideways as any arch does.
Not down. Surely you don't expect bridges and domes to fall upon you
when you go under them?
Consider this scenario:
We have a swimming pool which is h = 10 m deep.
We also have a 10 m long tube with cross area A = 1 m².
The walls of the tube are very thin and flexible.
We place the tube vertically in the pool.
Given the constants:
The air pressure is P₀ = 1 atm = 101,325 N/m²
The density of water is D = 1000 kg/m²
The gravitationally acceleration is g = 9.8 m/s²,
and we can consider it constant over 10 meter.
The weight of the water in the tube is:
W₁₀ = g⋅D⋅A⋅h = 98,000 N
The pressure at the bottom of the pool is:
P₁₀ = P₀ + W₁₀/A = 199,525 N/m² = 1.97 atm.
At any point in the pool the pressure is isotropic,
the same in all direction. So the water in the pool
will indeed press sideways on the tube.
Will you therefore say:
"The water that is higher up will press sideways on
the tube, as any arc does. Not down.
So the pressure on the bottom of the tube will be zero.
Surely you don't expect bridges and domes to fall upon you
when you go under them?"
Bit of lateral thinking helps, what?
Why are you pretending to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam?
I don't think you are.
I think you don't allow yourself to think because you have
a religious belief in your Messiah Arindam, and think his Gospel
is a divine revelation.
So please, allow yourself to think, and read the rest.
If you find an error in it, please point out exactly
where and what the error is.
<snip idiotic barking>
Let us calculate what it will be.
Equation (1) above is for a (small) mass at a specific depth.
But the mass of the pile of stone is distributed all the way
from the surface to the centre, so we can't use equation (1)
as it is, so we write it like this:
dF/dm = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R [N/kg] (2)
We have: dm = D⋅A⋅dR [kg] (the mass in the hole)
dF = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅A⋅R⋅dR [N]
The pressure P is F/A
dP = dF/A = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅R⋅dR [N/m²]
P = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅∫(from 0 to R₀)R⋅dR = (2π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅R₀² [N/m²]
P = 176e9 N/m² = 176 GN/m² = 176 GPa
The weight of the pile of stone is 176 GN
If you look up on the net, you will see that the pressure
at the centre is thought to be ~360 GPa.
Our number is about half by reasons explained above.
------------------
Bertitaylor, if you have elementary knowledge of physics and math,
you will have no problem with understanding my calculations above,
and why the pressure at the centre of the Earth is formidable.
Right?
Still not right?
Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
You are an ass, Paul.
Now, fuck off.
So this is your response to this:
Paul.b.Andersen wrote:
| Consider this scenario:
|
| We have a swimming pool which is h = 10 m deep.
| We also have a 10 m long tube with cross area A = 1 m².
| The walls of the tube are very thin and flexible.
| We place the tube vertically in the pool.
|
| Given the constants:
| The air pressure is P₀ = 1 atm = 101,325 N/m²
| The density of water is D = 1000 kg/m²
| The gravitationally acceleration is g = 9.8 m/s²,
| and we can consider it constant over 10 meter.
|
| The weight of the water in the tube is:
| W₁₀ = g⋅D⋅A⋅h = 98,000 N
| The pressure at the bottom of the pool is:
| P₁₀ = P₀ + W₁₀/A = 199,525 N/m² = 1.97 atm.
|
Bertitaylor responded:
Because of gravity, it [the water] is
pulled down and without disturbance stays nicely in layers, pressed from
above so the water pressure varies with depth, increasing till it meets
the bottom.
So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.
According to Arindam, the pressure will diminish with depth
and will be 101324.997 N/m² at the bottom of the pool,
which is 0.0028 N/m² less than the pressure on the surface
of the pool.
That's why I wrote:
Congratulations, you have now demonstrated that you are
able to think for yourself and understand that Arindam is wrong.
I can understand that you now feel like a traitor, having
betrayed your Messiah Arindam.
But why do you blame me? :-D
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:51:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
You are an ass, Paul.
Now, fuck off.
So this is your response to this:
So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.
We don't.
Upto a few say 2-3 thousand kilometres below the surface of the Earth it
does when rocks melt to magna. Below that from say 3000 to 13000 on km
the pressure starts to fall and at the centre becomes zero.
Give it up.
Den 27.06.2025 06:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:51:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
You are an ass, Paul.
Now, fuck off.
So this is your response to this:
So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.
We don't.
Upto a few say 2-3 thousand kilometres below the surface of the Earth it
does when rocks melt to magna. Below that from say 3000 to 13000 on km
the pressure starts to fall and at the centre becomes zero.
Give it up.
You have to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam to believe
that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero,
and the temperature is near zero.
The pressure at the centre of the Earth is ~ 350 GPa,
and the temperature is ~ 5700⁰ K.
You are an idiot, Bertitaylor,
Now, shut up.
Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 27.06.2025 06:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:51:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
You are an ass, Paul.
Now, fuck off.
So this is your response to this:
So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.
We don't.
Upto a few say 2-3 thousand kilometres below the surface of the Earth it >>> does when rocks melt to magna. Below that from say 3000 to 13000 on km
the pressure starts to fall and at the centre becomes zero.
Give it up.
You have to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam to believe
that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero,
and the temperature is near zero.
The pressure at the centre of the Earth is ~ 350 GPa,
and the temperature is ~ 5700⁰ K.
You are an idiot, Bertitaylor,
Now, shut up.
Well, possibly, but mainly because there is no '13000 km below', because
the Earth radius is slightly smaller (6378 km).
TH
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 4:09:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 27.06.2025 06:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:51:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
You are an ass, Paul.
Now, fuck off.
So this is your response to this:
So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.
We don't.
Upto a few say 2-3 thousand kilometres below the surface of the Earth it >>>> does when rocks melt to magna. Below that from say 3000 to 13000 on km >>>> the pressure starts to fall and at the centre becomes zero.
Give it up.
You have to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam to believe
that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero,
and the temperature is near zero.
The pressure at the centre of the Earth is ~ 350 GPa,
and the temperature is ~ 5700⁰ K.
You are an idiot, Bertitaylor,
Now, shut up.
Well, possibly, but mainly because there is no '13000 km below', because
the Earth radius is slightly smaller (6378 km).
Right. Sorry for our mistake, we are only dead doggies never much food
in arithmetic.
Anyway say after 1000-2000 Km down the magma seas causing tectonic
plates shifts solidify as they cannot rush
That leaves 5378-4378 Km of solid depth which insulates the core and distributes the forces from above as arches and domes do.
So when we agree that the cores of heavenly bodies are cold then out
goes fusion, neutron stars, black holes, big bang etc.
Out with thermodynamics, relativity, quantum as horribly bad, wrong
notions hanging on by fraud and bad habits.
WOOF woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
TH
--
But, of course, to turn a proton into a neutron an up quark must be
changed to a down quark, and that involves the strong nuclear force,
which the electron does not have at all.
Hence the fact that this can only occur in a nucleus, where the strong
force is present.
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.
I admit that for a second I wondered if a neutron could not be formed
that way.
But, of course, to turn a proton into a neutron an up quark must be
changed to a down quark,
which the electron does not have at all.
Hence the fact that this can only occur in a nucleus, where the strong
force is present.
I actually learned something in sci.physics! That takes me back ...
William Hyde
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 19:45:47 +0000, William Hyde wrote:
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.
No in beta decay an electron is emitted just as in alpha decay a helium nucleus is emitted.
I admit that for a second I wondered if a neutron could not be formed
that way.
A neutron is an electron-proton pair, very very tight. The electron
there can attract other protons making it a deuterium nucleus.
But, of course, to turn a proton into a neutron an up quark must be
changed to a down quark,
Quack-quack. At some stage imagination becomes reality following
Einsteinian paradigms.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 4:09:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 27.06.2025 06:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:51:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
You are an ass, Paul.
Now, fuck off.
So this is your response to this:
So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.
We don't.
Upto a few say 2-3 thousand kilometres below the surface of the
Earth it
does when rocks melt to magna. Below that from say 3000 to 13000 on km >>>> the pressure starts to fall and at the centre becomes zero.
Give it up.
You have to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam to believe
that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero,
and the temperature is near zero.
The pressure at the centre of the Earth is ~ 350 GPa,
and the temperature is ~ 5700⁰ K.
You are an idiot, Bertitaylor,
Now, shut up.
Well, possibly, but mainly because there is no '13000 km below', because
the Earth radius is slightly smaller (6378 km).
Right. Sorry for our mistake, we are only dead doggies never much food
in arithmetic.
Anyway say after 1000-2000 Km down the magma seas causing tectonic
plates shifts solidify as they cannot rush the below rocks any more.
That leaves 5378-4378 Km of solid depth which insulates the core and distributes the forces from above as arches and domes do.
So when we agree that the cores of heavenly bodies are cold then out
goes fusion, neutron stars, black holes, big bang etc.
Out with thermodynamics, relativity, quantum as horribly bad, wrong
notions hanging on by fraud and bad habits.
Am Sonntag000029, 29.06.2025 um 06:28 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 4:09:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:14 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 27.06.2025 06:01, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:51:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 25.06.2025 00:42, skrev Bertitaylor:
You are an ass, Paul.
Now, fuck off.
So this is your response to this:
So we agree, the pressure increases with depth.
We don't.
Upto a few say 2-3 thousand kilometres below the surface of the
Earth it
does when rocks melt to magna. Below that from say 3000 to 13000 on km >>>>> the pressure starts to fall and at the centre becomes zero.
Give it up.
You have to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam to believe
that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero,
and the temperature is near zero.
The pressure at the centre of the Earth is ~ 350 GPa,
and the temperature is ~ 5700⁰ K.
You are an idiot, Bertitaylor,
Now, shut up.
Well, possibly, but mainly because there is no '13000 km below', because >>> the Earth radius is slightly smaller (6378 km).
Right. Sorry for our mistake, we are only dead doggies never much food
in arithmetic.
Anyway say after 1000-2000 Km down the magma seas causing tectonic
plates shifts solidify as they cannot rush the below rocks any more.
That leaves 5378-4378 Km of solid depth which insulates the core and
distributes the forces from above as arches and domes do.
So when we agree that the cores of heavenly bodies are cold then out
goes fusion, neutron stars, black holes, big bang etc.
Out with thermodynamics, relativity, quantum as horribly bad, wrong
notions hanging on by fraud and bad habits.
Platetectonics isn't entirely wrong.
But we should think more about the inside of planet Earth and about how
the temperature changes with depth.
Since any movement of plates upon the underground would require so kind
of liquid between the plate and the underground, we have not much
choice:
we need either 'growing Earth' or materials in sub-surface layers
beneath such plates, which are in a liquid state.
Since stone mealts at temperatures above say 1600 °C, we need higher temperatur, which allows molten stone.
(otherwise plates cannot float).
since the upper mantle is only 300°C hot, we would need a lot of extra space, in which the interior of the Earth gets hot enough to melt stone.
That could be the case below the upper mantle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_mantle
"Temperatures range from approximately 500 K (227 °C; 440 °F) at the
upper boundary with the crust to approximately 4,200 K (3,930 °C; 7,100
°F) at the core-mantle boundary.[12] The highest temperature of the
upper mantle is 1,200 K (930 °C; 1,700 °F).[13] Although the high temperature far exceeds the melting points of the mantle rocks at the surface, the mantle is almost exclusively solid.[14]"
Don't know, when exactly rock gets molten, but it seems to be well below
the continental crust.
If so: how could plates move at all (supposed plate tectonics would be correct)?
TH
Still, I've been unable to find any observations of free protons
becoming neutrons + anti-neutrino on collision with a fast electron.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 506 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 125:04:15 |
| Calls: | 9,941 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,819 |
| Messages: | 6,351,081 |
