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: <345893bac4b67219938a7b06e34a63b7@www.novabbs.com> <57SdnWmo3pNprtf6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <0c5c8073e0bd9d454a030c43a2e6569d@www.novabbs.com> <6adb9f21fde3ebf543d7df769db643e8@www.novabbs.com> From: Ross Finlayson 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: 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 ==========