On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 21:16:38 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:
>

>> >
>> > How is your 'gamma-particle' 'a collection of spinning (+-) pairs' ?
>>
>> It is not MY gamma particle. The idea has been around for many years.
>> You should support it. Such a spinning object WOULD have an absolute
>> frequency that could determine its energy, h.nu. It would be presumably
>> massless and it could exhibit polarization effects. It could even
>> consist of a line of +- pairs stuck together.
>> However the idea is claimed to be impossible...cant remember why
>
> Because it isn't even wrong,

Does that mean it is right?

I think you are out of your depth on this NG.

> Jan

--
-- lover of truth

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:50:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 21:16:38 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >> >
> >> > How is your 'gamma-particle' 'a collection of spinning (+-) pairs' ?
> >>
> >> It is not MY gamma particle. The idea has been around for many years.
> >> You should support it. Such a spinning object WOULD have an absolute
> >> frequency that could determine its energy, h.nu. It would be presumably
> >> massless and it could exhibit polarization effects. It could even
> >> consist of a line of +- pairs stuck together.
> >> However the idea is claimed to be impossible...cant remember why
> >
> > Because it isn't even wrong,
> Does that mean it is right?
>
> I think you are out of your depth on this NG.
> > Jan

How does science know anything?
Its central principle QM is all about its uncertainty.
Measurements are uncertain. They can't save
science. Even the scientific method has a fault.
It collects statistical data that creates
science's averages instead of accurates.

Mitchell Raemsch

>
>
>
>
> --
> -- lover of truth

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 10:55:16 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:
>

>
> That settles it then.
> Congratulations, you have made full nutter grade.
>
>> The question is "What aspect of light is supposed to be oscillating at
>> a frequency of c/lambda?"

>> Nobody knows what happens to individual photons or about the role they
>> play in light or radio. I personally doubt if they remain 'individual'
>> for very long. They might possibly coalesce into some kind of broad
>> wavefront.
>
> A standard mistake.
> Phenomena like interference are not a collective effect of many photons
> acting together. (Geoffrey Taylor, 1909)

....again showing your expertise by telling the world what something is
NOT... Very clever!

> Jan

--
-- lover of truth

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 11:02:20 -0700 (PDT), mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:50:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 21:16:38 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>

>>
>> I think you are out of your depth on this NG.
>> > Jan
>
>
> How does science know anything?
> Its central principle QM is all about its uncertainty. Measurements are
> uncertain. They can't save science. Even the scientific method has a
> fault.
> It collects statistical data that creates science's averages instead of
> accurates.

Physics has become a mixture of pure maths and statistics. That's why it is
going nowhere.

> Mitchell Raemsch
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -- lover of truth

--
-- lover of truth

Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 10:55:16 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > That settles it then.
> > Congratulations, you have made full nutter grade.
> >
> >> The question is "What aspect of light is supposed to be oscillating at
> >> a frequency of c/lambda?"
>
> >> Nobody knows what happens to individual photons or about the role they
> >> play in light or radio. I personally doubt if they remain 'individual'
> >> for very long. They might possibly coalesce into some kind of broad
> >> wavefront.
> >
> > A standard mistake.
> > Phenomena like interference are not a collective effect of many photons
> > acting together. (Geoffrey Taylor, 1909)
>
> ...again showing your expertise by telling the world what something is
> NOT... Very clever!

Not clever at all.
Just reminding you about experimental realities,

Jan

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why is there force in light? and why does it not have strength?
> Heat energy does push..

All radiation pushes.
Single photons push, whenever they interact,
by relativistic momentum conservation,

Jan

On 3/31/2023 1:27 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 11:02:20 -0700 (PDT), mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:50:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 21:16:38 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>
>>>
>>> I think you are out of your depth on this NG.
>>>> Jan
>>
>>
>> How does science know anything?
>> Its central principle QM is all about its uncertainty. Measurements are
>> uncertain. They can't save science. Even the scientific method has a
>> fault.
>> It collects statistical data that creates science's averages instead of
>> accurates.
>
> Physics has become a mixture of pure maths and statistics. That's why it is
> going nowhere.

I've pointed out on several occasions in these sci newsgroups that a
significant major advance, a eureka moment, resulted from an observation
while someone was taking a bath, with facts in evidence and visible to
everyone taking a bath for as long as mankind had been taking baths.

IMO it is quite likely that the next "breakthrough" moment will happen
in a similar mode, unrelated to anything being done by the segment of
society calling themselves scientists. Just because the current
formal scientific searches have stagnated doesn't mean the attempts
to progress are worthless. Discoveries are brilliant because they are
inobvious to the masses, and even to most scientists.

OTOH was science searching for a specific relationship between mass and
energy when Einstein wrote about it? There is still a question in my
mind about the constant c^2 about how that comes into play. I'm
certainly not smart enough to puzzle through to an answer that makes
sense and likely tha6t's why the question is bothersome to me. So it
remains possible that science could progress based on the existing
wondering, but as you say, IMO not likely unless and until we (humanity)
looks outside the current predominant approaches. David Berlinski
predicted (in print) that the day of math based scientific advance is
over. But that approach is going to be difficult to give up so long as
so many continue investing so much into maths training. I repeat an
already aging paradigm that progress depends on outliving our teachers.

For a very long time it was considered common knowledge in these
newsgroups that cranks didn't use math, and that's why their ideas
were clearly worthless. So now we have cranks who use math, always
misapplied, to support their points. That provides a clear demonstration
that math alone has no value. As an algorithm, we have far too many
monkeys sitting at typewriters.

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:12:49 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:

<snip>

> OTOH was science searching for a specific relationship between mass and
> energy when Einstein wrote about it? There is still a question in my
> mind about the constant c^2 about how that comes into play. I'm
> certainly not smart enough to puzzle through to an answer that makes
> sense and likely tha6t's why the question is bothersome to me.
........................................<snip>................................................

Shame on your ignorance about c^2, mass and energy. It's a matter of UNITS, either in cgs or MKS.

Poincaré, in 1900, wrote about the recoil of a cannon shooting a pulse of light. He used the energy flux S to express
the mass equivalence S/c^2 of the pulse of light in order to equate the opposite momentum in the recoil of the cannon.

In 1881, whilw J. J. Thomson worked with charged spherical conductors in motion, he derived a coefficient, E = 4/3mc2.
The same E = 4/3mc2 was found by F. Hasenöhrl in 1904/1905, when he published the first explicit statement that the
heat energy of a body INCREASES its “mechanical” mass.

Philipp Lenard, in his 1921 book Ether and Para-ether, Lenard demonstrated how simple it was to arrive at E = mc2 without
any reference to Relativity theory – something Einstein would also admit a few years prior to his death.

In his 1929 book Energy and Gravitation, Lenard honored Hasenöhrl as “the first to demonstrate that energy possesses mass (inertia).

The history of the 4/3 coefficient is intriguing. Arthur Miller shows both its origin and how Einstein sought to remove
it. Although Einstein purports to have legitimately removed it, Miller shows he did not succeed.

Einstein had attributed the excess 1/3 to mechanical constraints, but Poincaré had demonstrated earlier that it was due to forces that
avoid the explosion of the electron. Einstein did not visit the problem again.

Between 1921 and 1924, Fermi (and, independently, Sommerfeld in Germany) strongly endorsed the Hasenöhrl's relationship
E = 4/3mc2 as a complete proof for an isolated system (which was not the case of Einstein paper).

Jane wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 10:55:16 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> A standard mistake.
>> Phenomena like interference are not a collective effect of many photons
>> acting together. (Geoffrey Taylor, 1909)
>
> ...again showing your expertise by telling the world what something is
> NOT... Very clever!

that's right, why you have to send all these polakers, fooled by the
"uKrainian" GMO half price grains, to Siberia working the rest of their
life for the food they eat. Now you eat GMO bread in europe, even as
forbidden. Now watch this proof

Ukrainian 'Refugee' Complains About Something
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/NBJrfkQZt3wL

On 3/29/23 6:40 PM, Jane wrote:
> Of course not! It is the vacuum plane-wave SOLUTIONS of Maxwell's
>> equations that do so. You REALLY need to learn very basic physics.
>
> They only infer that the emitted light will move at c relative to its
> source.

This is not true. Remember that here we are discussing solutions to the
equations. The modern formulation of classical electrodynamics (which
includes Maxwell's equations) is expressed in tensor equations that are
independent of coordinates. That directly implies the traveling-wave
solutions to them will travel in vacuum at c relative to ANY inertial
frame, not just the rest frame of the source.

> To most academics and even NASA scientists, light is regarded as a
> traveling oscillator.

Good heavens, no. You are just making stuff up and ascribing it to other
people. To all physicists, including those working for NASA, the
traveling wave solutions of classical electrodynamics are TRAVELING
WAVES (aka waves), not "a traveling oscillator".

You are VERY BAD at guessing what other people think. Stop it!

> The whole classical theory of interferometry is based on that
> totally incorrect notion.

Only to you, due to your personal mistakes.

> All light and even particles are commonly described in terms of a
> 'nonexistent frequency'.

So you claim but have failed to demonstrate -- that is NOT a common
description at all (at least among physicists), it is much more
complicated than that.

In particular, for microwaves and radio waves < 10 GHz or so, it is
trivial to directly measure their frequency, if they satisfy the
requirements to be a traveling wave incident on an appropriate detector.
The frequencies of EM waves can be measured using heterodyne techniques,
all the way up to the near UV. That said, the frequency is not an
intrinsic property of the light, because its value depends on how it is
measured (in which inertial frame the detector is at rest). And, of
course, not all light can be modeled as such a traveling wave.

> One can only wonder how a discipline as advanced ans Physics can be
> so wrong about such a basic and important matter.

It is YOU who is wrong, not physics in general. It is OUTRAGEOUS for you
to think that you are the only person in the past 150 years or so to
"notice" this. In fact, you have only discovered inconsistencies in your
own misconceptions.

> [...]

It is useless to continue until you correct the above mistakes in your
appreciation of classical electrodynamics (leaving out the much greater
challenges of QED). I am happy to discuss classical electrodynamics, or
even QED, but cannot discuss your personal fantasies and misconceptions.

Tom Roberts

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:12:49 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

> OTOH was science searching for a specific relationship between mass and
> energy when Einstein wrote about it? There is still a question in my
> mind about the constant c^2 about how that comes into play. I'm
> certainly not smart enough to puzzle through to an answer that makes
> sense and likely tha6t's why the question is bothersome to me.
The energy of the impact of a bullet against a wall is equal to its mass times its velocity squared. Since the parts of an atom are supposed to be electromagnetic moving at C within the atom when they are released their velocity would be C. One problem recognized early on was that radium radiated out at less than C, perhaps 1/3rd C making the equation different.

On 3/30/23 10:56 AM, Jane wrote:
> Momentum is frame dependent. Mass is not.

Hurray! You finally got something correct.

> But you people claim all EM has no mass anyway.

It is not "you people", it is the equations of both models we have for
E&M phenomena: In classical electrodynamics, the norm of the 4-momentum
of any EM wave is zero [#]. In QED, the mass of a photon is zero.

[#] This is actually considerably more general than EM waves.

> Frankly, I cannot see any similarity between a radio signal and a
> gamma particle. can you?

Do you see any similarity between a river and a single water atom?

These are two examples where the first item consists of myriad instances
of the second. Of course you confused a radio photon with a gamma, but
that's just a matter of degree, not principle.

Tom Roberts

On 3/31/2023 10:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:12:49 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>
>> OTOH was science searching for a specific relationship between mass and
>> energy when Einstein wrote about it? There is still a question in my
>> mind about the constant c^2 about how that comes into play. I'm
>> certainly not smart enough to puzzle through to an answer that makes
>> sense and likely tha6t's why the question is bothersome to me.
> The energy of the impact of a bullet against a wall is equal to its mass times its velocity squared. Since the parts of an atom are supposed to be electromagnetic moving at C within the atom when they are released their velocity would be C. One problem recognized early on was that radium radiated out at less than C, perhaps 1/3rd C making the equation different.

Thank you for your reply. As with any good answer, this one
opens a myriad of new questions for me.

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 12:31:29 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 3/31/2023 10:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:12:49 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> >
> >> OTOH was science searching for a specific relationship between mass and
> >> energy when Einstein wrote about it? There is still a question in my
> >> mind about the constant c^2 about how that comes into play. I'm
> >> certainly not smart enough to puzzle through to an answer that makes
> >> sense and likely tha6t's why the question is bothersome to me.
> > The energy of the impact of a bullet against a wall is equal to its mass times its velocity squared. Since the parts of an atom are supposed to be electromagnetic moving at C within the atom when they are released their velocity would be C. One problem recognized early on was that radium radiated out at less than C, perhaps 1/3rd C making the equation different.
> Thank you for your reply. As with any good answer, this one
> opens a myriad of new questions for me.
That's a good attitude to have. I am inclined to think the equation is less of a pertinent issue. A different calculation is made to determine the energy released in atomic explosions.

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 22:08:13 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 3/29/23 6:40 PM, Jane wrote:
>> Of course not! It is the vacuum plane-wave SOLUTIONS of Maxwell's
>>> equations that do so. You REALLY need to learn very basic physics.
>>
>> They only infer that the emitted light will move at c relative to its
>> source.
>
> This is not true. Remember that here we are discussing solutions to the
> equations. The modern formulation of classical electrodynamics (which
> includes Maxwell's equations) is expressed in tensor equations that are
> independent of coordinates. That directly implies the traveling-wave
> solutions to them will travel in vacuum at c relative to ANY inertial
> frame, not just the rest frame of the source.
>
>> To most academics and even NASA scientists, light is regarded as a
>> traveling oscillator.
>
> Good heavens, no. You are just making stuff up and ascribing it to other
> people. To all physicists, including those working for NASA, the
> traveling wave solutions of classical electrodynamics are TRAVELING
> WAVES (aka waves), not "a traveling oscillator".
>
> You are VERY BAD at guessing what other people think. Stop it!
>
>> The whole classical theory of interferometry is based on that totally
>> incorrect notion.
>
> Only to you, due to your personal mistakes.
>
>> All light and even particles are commonly described in terms of a
>> 'nonexistent frequency'.
>
> So you claim but have failed to demonstrate -- that is NOT a common
> description at all (at least among physicists), it is much more
> complicated than that.
>
> In particular, for microwaves and radio waves < 10 GHz or so, it is
> trivial to directly measure their frequency, if they satisfy the
> requirements to be a traveling wave incident on an appropriate detector.
> The frequencies of EM waves can be measured using heterodyne techniques,
> all the way up to the near UV. That said, the frequency is not an
> intrinsic property of the light, because its value depends on how it is
> measured (in which inertial frame the detector is at rest). And, of
> course, not all light can be modeled as such a traveling wave.

You are referring to the version that has been deliberately doctored in
order to accommodate Einstein's SR. Your logic is circular. The movement
inferred by Maxwell's model is in conformity with Faraday's relationship
between E and B fields.
For a radio signal, the equations predict the speed of the E-field
disturbances relative to the source, nothing else. The magnetic component
goes along with it after being generated at the antenna. There is no
prediction of a continuing oscillation in the travelling waveform.
In reality there is absolutely no evidence that these equations apply to
light. The only reason why they were linked to light was that the value
produced by the sqt e.mu term was close to the then best estimate of
light speed . It is likely that many physical processes are linked to
that universal constant c, speed of gravity for instance. If the FORCE of
gravity takes time to operate, that would partly explain the claimed
anomaly in Mercury's precession.
>> One can only wonder how a discipline as advanced as Physics can be so
>> wrong about such a basic and important matter.
..
>
> Tom Roberts

--
-- lover of truth

On 4/1/23 6:35 PM, Jane wrote:
> For a radio signal, the equations predict the speed of the E-field
> disturbances relative to the source, nothing else.

This is not true. As I said, the modern formulation of classical
electrodynamics uses tensor equations that are independent of
coordinates. They can be projected onto ANY inertial frame, and used to
predict that EM waves travel with speed c in vacuum relative to
whichever inertial frame was used, not just the rest frame of the source.

> In reality there is absolutely no evidence that these equations
> apply to light.

Only in your fantasy world. In the world we inhabit there is LOTS of
evidence that the equations of classical electrodynamics apply to light,
within the domain of that theory (i.e. non quantum).

> If the FORCE of gravity takes time to operate, that would partly
> explain the claimed anomaly in Mercury's precession.

Nope. Not even close. If the FORCE of gravity took time to operate, all
the planets would have fallen into the sun long ago. They haven't.

As I keep saying, you have A LOT to learn about very basic physics. Go
study, and stop wasting your time posting nonsense to the net.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> A fellow called Tom Roberts assured me that it did not but in the same
> post stated that instruments can measured light's frequency. How can
> something that does not exist be measured?
> He also said that light's speed, 'c' equals its wavelength x its
> frequency. When I looked up the definition of 'frequency of light' I
> found it was just c/wavelength, which is nothing more that the number of
> waves leaving its source per second. So (wavelength x frequency) is
> nothing but (wavelength x c / wavelength) which obviously equals c.
> I can only assume that this Tom fellow is some kind of little kid that
> stumbled across an elementary physics book and became an instant expert
> on the subject.
> Can somebody please explain what the 'frequency of light' means.

At scientific acceptance principle light does change size in time.
Unless it is in the atom... stored with a point particle. Then it is not.

On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 19:12:44 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/1/23 6:35 PM, Jane wrote:
>> For a radio signal, the equations predict the speed of the E-field
>> disturbances relative to the source, nothing else.
>
> This is not true. As I said, the modern formulation of classical
> electrodynamics uses tensor equations that are independent of
> coordinates. They can be projected onto ANY inertial frame, and used to
> predict that EM waves travel with speed c in vacuum relative to
> whichever inertial frame was used, not just the rest frame of the
> source.

Yes Tom we know about 'Lorentz invariance'. It is a neat little
application of circular logic designed to make Maxwell appear to support
Einstein.
>> In reality there is absolutely no evidence that these equations apply
>> to light.
>
> Only in your fantasy world. In the world we inhabit there is LOTS of
> evidence that the equations of classical electrodynamics apply to light,
> within the domain of that theory (i.e. non quantum).

Well many eminent physicists would disagree. How is it that Maxwell's
equations don't even mention photons?
>> If the FORCE of gravity takes time to operate, that would partly
>> explain the claimed anomaly in Mercury's precession.
>
> Nope. Not even close. If the FORCE of gravity took time to operate, all
> the planets would have fallen into the sun long ago. They haven't.

Well something doesn't add up. You and Einstein openly claim that the
speed of gravitational waves is c. So how can you then be sure that its
action does not take time D/c to operate?

> As I keep saying, you have A LOT to learn about very basic physics. Go
> study, and stop wasting your time posting nonsense to the net.

Tom, don't try to pass your inadequacies onto me. Tell me about the role
photons play in a radio signal....
> Tom Roberts

--
-- lover of truth

On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:25:23 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 19:12:44 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > On 4/1/23 6:35 PM, Jane wrote:
> >> For a radio signal, the equations predict the speed of the E-field
> >> disturbances relative to the source, nothing else.
> >
> > This is not true. As I said, the modern formulation of classical
> > electrodynamics uses tensor equations that are independent of
> > coordinates. They can be projected onto ANY inertial frame, and used to
> > predict that EM waves travel with speed c in vacuum relative to
> > whichever inertial frame was used, not just the rest frame of the
> > source.
> Yes Tom we know about 'Lorentz invariance'. It is a neat little
> application of circular logic designed to make Maxwell appear to support
> Einstein.
> >> In reality there is absolutely no evidence that these equations apply
> >> to light.
> >
> > Only in your fantasy world. In the world we inhabit there is LOTS of
> > evidence that the equations of classical electrodynamics apply to light,
> > within the domain of that theory (i.e. non quantum).
> Well many eminent physicists would disagree. How is it that Maxwell's
> equations don't even mention photons?
> >> If the FORCE of gravity takes time to operate, that would partly
> >> explain the claimed anomaly in Mercury's precession.
> >
> > Nope. Not even close. If the FORCE of gravity took time to operate, all
> > the planets would have fallen into the sun long ago. They haven't.
> Well something doesn't add up. You and Einstein openly claim that the
> speed of gravitational waves is c. So how can you then be sure that its
> action does not take time D/c to operate?
> > As I keep saying, you have A LOT to learn about very basic physics. Go
> > study, and stop wasting your time posting nonsense to the net.
> Tom, don't try to pass your inadequacies onto me. Tell me about the role
> photons play in a radio signal....
> > Tom Roberts
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -- lover of truth

If an antenna atom electron is absorbing radio wave photons how
would it transmit a signal down the antenna? They would just be
absorbed and stored instead.

Radio waves have to push an electric signal.
Just absorbing accomplishes nothing.
Then that trickle of Aluminum electricity
signal downward must be converted into sound.
This is better than Edison understanding a
radio. Aluminum is like Silicon. EM energy
pushes their electricity. Changing electricity
is converted into modulated sound.

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> If an antenna atom electron is absorbing radio wave photons how would it
> transmit a signal down the antenna? They would just be absorbed and
> stored instead. Radio waves have to push an electric signal.
> Just absorbing accomplishes nothing.

that's AC in an antenna, so it's NOT a push. It goes both ways, up and
down in a conductive wire, say antenna. Your country is weak.

On 4/2/23 7:25 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 19:12:44 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> [...] the modern formulation of classical electrodynamics uses
>> tensor equations that are independent of coordinates. They can be
>> projected onto ANY inertial frame, and used to predict that EM
>> waves travel with speed c in vacuum relative to whichever inertial
>> frame was used, not just the rest frame of the source.
>
> Yes Tom we know about 'Lorentz invariance'.

Clearly YOU do not.

> It is a neat little application of circular logic designed to make
> Maxwell appear to support Einstein.

Describe the "circle".

As I see it, the Lorentz group is a subgroup of the invariance group of
the Maxwell's equations, which implies the property I described above.
No "circle" there, just math.

>> In the world we inhabit there is LOTS of evidence that the
>> equations of classical electrodynamics apply to light, within the
>> domain of that theory (i.e. non quantum).
>
> Well many eminent physicists would disagree.

Stop making things up and pretending they are true. Or name two such
"eminent physicists".

[I know and work with many physicists. Not a single one
would support your claim.]

> How is it that Maxwell's equations don't even mention photons?

Because Maxwell's equations are part of classical electrodynamics, not
QED -- DUH!!!

You REALLY need to learn basic physics -- this single question shows how
little you actually know about very basic physics. Stop fooling
yourself, stop fantasizing that you understand this stuff, stop wasting
your time posting nonsense to the net, and GO STUDY.

>> If the FORCE of gravity took time to operate, all the planets
>> would have fallen into the sun long ago. They haven't.
>
> Well something doesn't add up.

Yes. YOUR MISCONCEPTIONS certainly do not "add up".

> You and Einstein openly claim that the speed of gravitational waves
> is c.

Sure. But that does not apply here. This is A LOT more subtle than you
comprehend. It is probably more subtle than it is possible for you to
comprehend, as you understand so little about basic physics and math.

> So how can you then be sure that its action does not take time D/c
> to operate?

Simple vector addition applied to NEWTONIAN MECHANICS (not GR): If the
application of the force was delayed by D/c, the force vector on an
orbiting planet would not be radial, but would have a component trailing
the planet's path, which would slow it down and make it ultimately fall
into the sun.

I repeat: you REALLY need to learn a lot about basic physics.

[A major aspect of GR is that gravitation is not a force
but rather is an aspect of spacetime curvature. This
explains both why the above effect does not occur in
GR, and why changes in the metric (e.g. gravitational
waves) propagate at c.]

>> As I keep saying, you have A LOT to learn about very basic
>> physics. Go study, and stop wasting your time posting nonsense to
>> the net.
>
> Tom, don't try to pass your inadequacies onto me.

You are psychologically projecting your faults onto me. The problems are
YOURS, not mine, and not physics'.

I am going to give up -- this medium is not suited to teach you all you
need to learn about basic physics, and you keep repeating the same
mistakes and confusions. Stop trying to get information from the net,
get a good textbook [#] and STUDY. Or better, take a physics course at a
university or college. Whatever it is you are doing is not working for you.

[#] For instance, _The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics_.

Tom Roberts

On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 23:10:09 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/2/23 7:25 PM, Jane wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 19:12:44 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> [...] the modern formulation of classical electrodynamics uses tensor
>>> equations that are independent of coordinates. They can be projected
>>> onto ANY inertial frame, and used to predict that EM waves travel with
>>> speed c in vacuum relative to whichever inertial frame was used, not
>>> just the rest frame of the source.
>>
>> Yes Tom we know about 'Lorentz invariance'.
>
> Clearly YOU do not.
>
>> It is a neat little application of circular logic designed to make
>> Maxwell appear to support Einstein.
>
> Describe the "circle".

If one assumes constant light speed one can show that simultaneity will
be relative and derive transforms that can be used in all kinds of
analyses to order to make it appear that light speed is indeed always c.
> As I see it, the Lorentz group is a subgroup of the invariance group of
> the Maxwell's equations, which implies the property I described above.
> No "circle" there, just math.

Using logic based on constant OWLS will naturally end up showing that
OWLS is indeed constant.
>>> In the world we inhabit there is LOTS of evidence that the equations
>>> of classical electrodynamics apply to light, within the domain of that
>>> theory (i.e. non quantum).
>>
>> Well many eminent physicists would disagree.
>
> Stop making things up and pretending they are true. Or name two such
> "eminent physicists".
>
> [I know and work with many physicists. Not a single one
> would support your claim.]
>
>> How is it that Maxwell's equations don't even mention photons?
>
> Because Maxwell's equations are part of classical electrodynamics, not
> QED -- DUH!!!
>
> You REALLY need to learn basic physics -- this single question shows how
> little you actually know about very basic physics. Stop fooling
> yourself, stop fantasizing that you understand this stuff, stop wasting
> your time posting nonsense to the net, and GO STUDY.

QED is no longer Physics. It is a cross between theoretical maths and
statistic. It is sheer nonsense that has produced no important answers..
>>> If the FORCE of gravity took time to operate, all the planets would
>>> have fallen into the sun long ago. They haven't.
>>
>> Well something doesn't add up.
>
> Yes. YOUR MISCONCEPTIONS certainly do not "add up".
>
>> You and Einstein openly claim that the speed of gravitational waves is
>> c.
>
> Sure. But that does not apply here. This is A LOT more subtle than you
> comprehend. It is probably more subtle than it is possible for you to
> comprehend, as you understand so little about basic physics and math.

Why should I take any notice of you. You cannot even tell me what role
photons play in radio signal. You have no idea what a photon is or how it
operates.

>> So how can you then be sure that its action does not take time D/c to
>> operate?
>
> Simple vector addition applied to NEWTONIAN MECHANICS (not GR): If the
> application of the force was delayed by D/c, the force vector on an
> orbiting planet would not be radial, but would have a component trailing
> the planet's path, which would slow it down and make it ultimately fall
> into the sun.

At least I have made you think instead of preaching pro Einstein.
dogma. ...but what you said is wrong. As Mercury moved ahead before force
operated, the component would be FORWARD assuming the direction of action
is always in the direction of the Sun.
..
> I repeat: you REALLY need to learn a lot about basic physics.

Please look in a mirror and repeat that statement 100 times every day.

> [A major aspect of GR is that gravitation is not a force
> but rather is an aspect of spacetime curvature. This explains
both why
> the above effect does not occur in GR, and why changes in the
metric
> (e.g. gravitational waves) propagate at c.]
>
>>> As I keep saying, you have A LOT to learn about very basic physics. Go
>>> study, and stop wasting your time posting nonsense to the net.
>>
>> Tom, don't try to pass your inadequacies onto me.
>
> You are psychologically projecting your faults onto me. The problems are
> YOURS, not mine, and not physics'.
>
> I am going to give up -- this medium is not suited to teach you all you
> need to learn about basic physics, and you keep repeating the same
> mistakes and confusions. Stop trying to get information from the net,
> get a good textbook [#] and STUDY. Or better, take a physics course at a
> university or college. Whatever it is you are doing is not working for
> you.

I have taught basic physics and written a book about it. Would you like
an autographed copy?

> [#] For instance, _The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics_.
>
> Tom Roberts

--
-- lover of truth

On Tuesday, 4 April 2023 at 06:10:22 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/2/23 7:25 PM, Jane wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 19:12:44 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> [...] the modern formulation of classical electrodynamics uses
> >> tensor equations that are independent of coordinates. They can be
> >> projected onto ANY inertial frame, and used to predict that EM
> >> waves travel with speed c in vacuum relative to whichever inertial
> >> frame was used, not just the rest frame of the source.
> >
> > Yes Tom we know about 'Lorentz invariance'.
> Clearly YOU do not.

She doesn't even know that we're FORCED!!! To THE
BEST WAY!!!!!

Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 23:10:09 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > On 4/2/23 7:25 PM, Jane wrote:
> >> On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 19:12:44 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>> [...] the modern formulation of classical electrodynamics uses tensor
> >>> equations that are independent of coordinates. They can be projected
> >>> onto ANY inertial frame, and used to predict that EM waves travel with
> >>> speed c in vacuum relative to whichever inertial frame was used, not
> >>> just the rest frame of the source.
> >>
> >> Yes Tom we know about 'Lorentz invariance'.
> >
> > Clearly YOU do not.
> >
> >> It is a neat little application of circular logic designed to make
> >> Maxwell appear to support Einstein.
> >
> > Describe the "circle".
>
> If one assumes constant light speed one can show that simultaneity will
> be relative and derive transforms that can be used in all kinds of
> analyses to order to make it appear that light speed is indeed always c.

That's the way it goes, with axioms.

> > As I see it, the Lorentz group is a subgroup of the invariance group of
> > the Maxwell's equations, which implies the property I described above.
> > No "circle" there, just math.
>
> Using logic based on constant OWLS will naturally end up showing that
> OWLS is indeed constant.

This OWSL is just a red herring. Get over it.

> >>> In the world we inhabit there is LOTS of evidence that the equations
> >>> of classical electrodynamics apply to light, within the domain of that
> >>> theory (i.e. non quantum).
> >>
> >> Well many eminent physicists would disagree.
> >
> > Stop making things up and pretending they are true. Or name two such
> > "eminent physicists".
> >
> > [I know and work with many physicists. Not a single one
> > would support your claim.]
> >
> >> How is it that Maxwell's equations don't even mention photons?
> >
> > Because Maxwell's equations are part of classical electrodynamics, not
> > QED -- DUH!!!
> >
> > You REALLY need to learn basic physics -- this single question shows how
> > little you actually know about very basic physics. Stop fooling
> > yourself, stop fantasizing that you understand this stuff, stop wasting
> > your time posting nonsense to the net, and GO STUDY.
>
> QED is no longer Physics. It is a cross between theoretical maths and
> statistic. It is sheer nonsense that has produced no important answers..

No, merely predictions that are accurate to ten decimal places.
All fudged of course. For some strange reason those people
refuse to fudge the muon g-factor into fitting in too.

> >>> If the FORCE of gravity took time to operate, all the planets would
> >>> have fallen into the sun long ago. They haven't.
> >>
> >> Well something doesn't add up.
> >
> > Yes. YOUR MISCONCEPTIONS certainly do not "add up".
> >
> >> You and Einstein openly claim that the speed of gravitational waves is
> >> c.
> >
> > Sure. But that does not apply here. This is A LOT more subtle than you
> > comprehend. It is probably more subtle than it is possible for you to
> > comprehend, as you understand so little about basic physics and math.
>
> Why should I take any notice of you. You cannot even tell me what role
> photons play in radio signal. You have no idea what a photon is or how it
> operates.

Simple, photons don't 'operate'.
And for your physics education:
it is nowadays possible to detect single photons
in the microwave range.

> >> So how can you then be sure that its action does not take time D/c to
> >> operate?
> >
> > Simple vector addition applied to NEWTONIAN MECHANICS (not GR): If the
> > application of the force was delayed by D/c, the force vector on an
> > orbiting planet would not be radial, but would have a component trailing
> > the planet's path, which would slow it down and make it ultimately fall
> > into the sun.
>
> At least I have made you think instead of preaching pro Einstein.
> dogma. ...but what you said is wrong. As Mercury moved ahead before force
> operated, the component would be FORWARD assuming the direction of action
> is always in the direction of the Sun.

The matter is more subtle than you think.
You should look up Steve Carlip on it.
(supposing you really wanted to know)

> > I repeat: you REALLY need to learn a lot about basic physics.
>
> Please look in a mirror and repeat that statement 100 times every day.
>
> > [A major aspect of GR is that gravitation is not a force
> > but rather is an aspect of spacetime curvature. This explains
> both why
> > the above effect does not occur in GR, and why changes in the
> metric
> > (e.g. gravitational waves) propagate at c.]
> >
> >>> As I keep saying, you have A LOT to learn about very basic physics. Go
> >>> study, and stop wasting your time posting nonsense to the net.
> >>
> >> Tom, don't try to pass your inadequacies onto me.
> >
> > You are psychologically projecting your faults onto me. The problems are
> > YOURS, not mine, and not physics'.
> >
> > I am going to give up -- this medium is not suited to teach you all you
> > need to learn about basic physics, and you keep repeating the same
> > mistakes and confusions. Stop trying to get information from the net,
> > get a good textbook [#] and STUDY. Or better, take a physics course at a
> > university or college. Whatever it is you are doing is not working for
> > you.
>
> I have taught basic physics and written a book about it. Would you like
> an autographed copy?

A reference will do,

Jan

On 2023-04-04 09:36:01 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> [ … ]
>>
>>
>> Why should I take any notice of you. You cannot even tell me what role
>> photons play in radio signal. You have no idea what a photon is or how it
>> operates.
>
> Simple, photons don't 'operate'.
> And for your physics education:
> it is nowadays possible to detect single photons
> in the microwave range.

According to Richard Feynman, if I remember rightly, frogs have always
been able to do that (in the visible range no less).

>
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots