Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 21:32:49 +0000
Subject: Re: The Relativity Mafia
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <a286e4c1a77753568151f1184e1d8e47@www.novabbs.com>
 <ee3c60b588f3bce0e15a548cf115bf85@www.novabbs.com>
 <bb9df963b38c602b698971db98d0dd9c@www.novabbs.com>
 <345893bac4b67219938a7b06e34a63b7@www.novabbs.com>
 <z92cnb7o0oWdkNf6nZ2dnZfqnPjcy52d@giganews.com>
 <e6ddd9175af3242e0296b730fa1ce325@www.novabbs.com>
 <57SdnWmo3pNprtf6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <0c5c8073e0bd9d454a030c43a2e6569d@www.novabbs.com>
 <mn2dnetKA51wztf6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <6adb9f21fde3ebf543d7df769db643e8@www.novabbs.com>
 <JxSdnfHaAcGSxdb6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <z8qcnfR5d-o__Nb6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 13:32:57 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <z8qcnfR5d-o__Nb6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <NB-dnfiyk6scGdb6nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 300
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-KDXEPxe3t/q53FF6gEBeZU7qbysCIduXH1OWJAkll+M/VHHZZ2ghOLH6GwpQKzinsqGCw9ZYLbCp09L!YybH9lOfy5ntZQJoIejEXn7hfzOVEpv4HKEC8KwmMK2VugAEh8qV6TCDtegV15/ULqhIxsYxU1mh
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 14202

On 11/30/2024 11:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 11/30/2024 10:23 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 11/29/2024 07:56 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 23:53:04 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2024 02:30 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:36:18 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
>>>>>>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by
>>>>>>>>>> gravity and
>>>>>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has
>>>>>>>>> proved
>>>>>>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
>>>>>>>> was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the
>>>>>>>> "mass-less".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
>>>>>> nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
>>>>>> though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
>>>>>> as radiant the light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
>>>>>> about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
>>>>>> out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
>>>>>> and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
>>>>>> then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
>>>>>> and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
>>>>>> though the theory today has it simplified together,
>>>>>> helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
>>>>>> the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
>>>>>> mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
>>>>>> c =/= infinity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
>>>>>> at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One may notice that waves are not granular.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
>>>>>> and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
>>>>>> not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course there's just adding definition underneath
>>>>>> the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
>>>>>> makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".
>>>>>
>>>>> You're right to place "successful theories" in quotation marks. What
>>>>> troubles me is how can energy exist without mass? How ca photons be
>>>>> massless?
>>>>
>>>> Seems you got one of those "non-zero, yet vanishing"
>>>> "mathematical infinitesimal" type things to figure out.
>>>>
>>>> These days the photon is acribed an arbitrarily small
>>>> yet non-zero mass, so small that it only effects that
>>>> light follow the geodesy, and so small that c = infinity
>>>> by definition doesn't make for that m_photon c^2 = infinity,
>>>> or, it's an infinitesimal.
>>>>
>>>> Other types of nuclear radiation, where optical light is
>>>> considered a type of flux complement of nuclear radiation,
>>>> for example X-rays and gamma rays, vis-a-vis alpha and
>>>> beta particles, of nuclear radiation, have that optical
>>>> light is considered part of nuclear radiation, and that
>>>> furthermore that optical light is special in terms of
>>>> rays and waves and diffraction and the carriage of an image,
>>>> that "information is free, if metered" as it were.
>>>>
>>>> So, SR has nothing to say about that until mathematics
>>>> has something to say about infinity and infinitesimals
>>>> in real things, much like Einstein's cosmological constant,
>>>> which according to the latest, most-expensive, most-cited
>>>> experiments like WMAP is "non-zero, yet vanishing".
>>>>
>>>> Sort of like "Little Higgs".
>>>>
>>>> These explorations of the trans-Planckian, the
>>>> Planck-plank of electron physics as it were,
>>>> make for things like super-string theory,
>>>> which are kind of simply understood as twice
>>>> as small as atoms, in orders of magnitude,
>>>> because "it's a continuum mechanics...".
>>>>
>>>> So, mathematics _owes_ physics more and better
>>>> mathematics of mathematical infinities and infinitesimals
>>>> with regards to continuum analysis, and furthermore
>>>> physics is in dire _need_ of this.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise you can just point at QM and GR disagreeing
>>>> 120 orders of magnitude and point out they're both wrong.
>>>>
>>>> And quantum mechanics is never wrong, ...,
>>>> and neither is relativity (of motion) theory.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you're doing it wrong,
>>>> but QM after Democritan chemistry
>>>> and GR and for FitzGeraldian space-contraction,
>>>> need fixing in "mechanics" and furthermore "continuum mechanics".
>>> Thanks for your thoughts. I suppose that if the mass is so small it does
>>> not become infinite at c then it may not even be affected by gravity.
>>
>> Well, there's an idea that "light orbits", and
>> another that "light encompasses", with regards
>> to making an explanation like "large-lens Fresnel"
>> helping show that things like "Arago spot" indicate
>> quite readily that "light encompasses" is more
>> than "light orbits", where as well it doesn't
>> apply to electromagnetic waves, only light and
>> about nuclear rays.
>>
>> Then, that might seem "well that's another tuning
>> problem and it's already bad enough that the entire
>> Big Bang cosmology is a lop-sided tuning problem
>> that every few years gets added a billion years age",
>> yet the idea is that it's mostly the same as light
>> with regards to luminous matter and occlusion, and if
>> relativity the geodesy about the space-contraction
>> does make a lensing effect or Einstein lensing,
>> the rest of the effect that's un-accounted for is a
>> thing, and furthermore, there's Arago spot and other
>> features of light, not yet included.
>>
>> I.e., the experiments of relativistic lensing added
>> about a missing half of the observed "deflection",
>> of the path, that there yet remains an un-accounted bit.
>>
>> Saying that light has "a nominal non-zero mass" is
>> a pretty late addition to the theory, and thus as
>> it's part of the fragments of the babel of theories,
>> you won't find it everywhere.
>>
>>
>
>
> Here for example a paper talks about "gravitational lensing"
> with regards to the cosmological constant, that according
> to science's account is, "vanishing, yet non-zero".
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05183
>
> "A general relativistic aberration relationship is established
> as one of its applications. The question of whether or not the
> cosmological constant, Λ, contributes to orbits of light and
> to related observable quantities is addressed in detail."
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========