Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 11:53:38 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: In relativity "s" is for "spin"
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <218bad07e23f4a46a00f34853e2bcf1d@www.novabbs.com> <v5ohjh$3rj15$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <v5ohjh$3rj15$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 43
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 09:53:38 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 2307
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17dd70f242283716$4030$490172$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 2712

W dniu 29.06.2024 o 10:45, Mikko pisze:
> On 2024-06-28 18:29:02 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
> 
>> In relativity "s" is for "spin"
>>
>> For everyone's edification, I hereby share relativity explaining how
>> light is affected twice as much as everything else, flouting Galileo &
>> Eotvos.
>>
>> "Are Photons Massless or Massive?"
>>
>> = "Since the photon is a spin-1 particle, according to this new
>> equation, Eg^2= s^2p^2c^2 + mi^2c^4 , it follows that, s = 2 , for the
>> photon. In Section 10, it will become clear when we analysis the motion
>> of star light (electromagnetic waves) that this fact that for a photon
>> we must have, s = 2 , if Newtonian gravitation is to stand-up to the
>> eclipse measurements of the Solar gravitational bending of star light.
>> This fact on its it own—i.e., the fact that for a photon we must have, s
>> = 2 ; explains the missing factor “2” in the gravitational bending of
>> light angle in Newtonian gravitation. We take this as a notable
>> achievement of the theory of the Curved Spacetime Dirac Equations
>> presented in the readings [14]-[16], in that this theory has been able
>> to furnish a missing piece of a great puzzle. It is an achievement in
>> much the same way that Professor Paul Dirac [17] [18]’s equation
>> furnished the puzzle of the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron (see e.g.
>> [16] on how the Dirac equation solved the
>> gyromagnetic ratio of the electron)."
> 
> Relativity is a theory about nature.


It's mostly about clocks and observers, which
are out of your "nature" tale, poor halfbrain.



  It does not define language
> conventions
> such as meaning of "s". 

Instead it's mumbling mystically.