On 16/05/2021 09:20, Daniel65 wrote:
> Bast wrote on 16/5/21 2:55 pm:
>> casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
>>> that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
>>> stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light speed,
>>> or of any communications. All experience so far has confirmed this.
>>
>> You mean,......SO FAR
>> It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was said
>> about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per hour......
>> Until it happened.
>
> I seem to remember, way back when, learning that people were to walk out
> in front of stage-coaches with a lite lantern. So that limited the
> coaches to, what, 5 m.p.h.!

Not stagecoaches, but early motor cars, which in the early days had to
be preceded by a man walking with a red flag (so I have heard). It
might be worth noting that in fact, there were many people killed or
injured by horse-drawn carriages and wagons back when these were running
rampant in our cities. No red-flag men.

Nobel Prize winner Pierre Curie was killed when he was run over by a
horse-drawn cart in Paris.

>>
>> If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to
>> believe
>> that limits are only something thet has not been figured out yet, then
>> you
>> are right.
>>
>> Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than "C",
>> and
>> it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call "dark matter".
>

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In alt.astronomy Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
>> that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
>> stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light speed,
>> or of any communications. All experience so far has confirmed this.
> You mean,......SO FAR
> It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was said
> about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per hour......
> Until it happened.
> If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to believe
> that limits are only something thet has not been figured out yet, then you
> are right.
> Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than "C", and
> it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call "dark matter".
....

Sounds a bit speculative.

We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
light in a material with a refractive index > 1.

But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are virtual
particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around any photon
trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum vaccum then you
might find photons moved faster.

Another paper I skimmed recently proposed the speed
of light in certain directions might be different from c because
we live in a simulation that has a discrete grid of space and time,
presumably to save on storage space in the computer system that's running us.
If a photo travels parallel to the grid squares it might travel at
c but if it travelled across the diagonal of the squares it might
be able to travel at e.g. 1.4 c. Maybe hard to measure if this idea
is true :) but it's the first proposal I've heard of an experiment
that might support whether or not we are simulations.

--
The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light
Marcel Urban, Francois Couchot, Xavier Sarazin, Arache Djannati-Atai
21/2/2013
https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light. We show that the
vacuum permeability and permittivity may originate from the magnetization
and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs.
We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum
as a series of transient captures within these ...

R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
> In alt.astronomy Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>> casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
>>> that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
>>> stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light speed,
>>> or of any communications. All experience so far has confirmed this.
>> You mean,......SO FAR
>> It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was said
>> about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per hour......
>> Until it happened.
>> If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to believe
>> that limits are only something thet has not been figured out yet, then you
>> are right.
>> Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than "C", and
>> it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call "dark matter".
> ...
> Sounds a bit speculative.
> We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
> light in a material with a refractive index > 1.
> But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are virtual
> particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around any photon
> trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum vaccum then you
> might find photons moved faster.
....

Here's a classic paper on photons travelling faster than c
in a "special vacuum".

Between the plates of a Casimir device there is a volume
of -ve energy -- i.e. a quantum energy density below
the zero point energy of the (normal) vacuum.

The -ve energy space allows us to extract energy from
nowhere but also it's observed photons travel faster than c
in there.

[Yat Another Case of FTL:]
Speed of light in non-trivial vacua
Jos? I. Latorre, Pedro Pascual, Rolf Tarrach
Cited by: 148
6/3/1995
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0550321394004906>
Finally, the modification of the speed of light due to Casimir plates has
been compared and related to the one due to temperature. A field-theoretical
explanation in terms of modes suggests the following physical picture of
why photons move faster between plates than in a normal vacuum, in contrast
to what happens in a heated vacuum.

Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 15/05/2021 23.55, Bast wrote:
>> casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
>>> that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
>>> stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light speed,
>>> or of any communications. All experience so far has confirmed this.
>>
>>
>> You mean,......SO FAR
>> It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was
>> said about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per
>> hour......
>
> Was that said by physicists, or by newspaper writers?

Probably by the physicists. After they went to their doctors to get bled
with leeches to let out the bad ether gasses that made people sick.

We laugh at the past .
Just like hundreds of years from now people will laugh at how stupid society
would have been to think a thin cloth mask would keep them from getting
sick from a KOOF Virus, as they walked though the forests, miles from any
other human,......or as they drive in their cars on highways with the
windows up.

Michael Dworetsky wrote on 18/5/21 12:51 am:
> On 16/05/2021 09:20, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Bast wrote on 16/5/21 2:55 pm:
>>> casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be
>>>> missed, that distances are FAR too great for any practical
>>>> travel between stars, even in the very unlikely event of
>>>> traveling near light speed, or of any communications. All
>>>> experience so far has confirmed this.
>>>
>>> You mean,......SO FAR It was not that long ago the same thought
>>> about being impossible was said about beng able to travel at
>>> speeds of over 30 miles per hour...... Until it happened.
>>
>> I seem to remember, way back when, learning that people were to
>> walk out in front of stage-coaches with a lite lantern. So that
>> limited the coaches to, what, 5 m.p.h.!
>
> Not stagecoaches, but early motor cars, which in the early days had
> to be preceded by a man walking with a red flag (so I have heard).

My mistake!! I did think of it being in front of cars .... but a walking
man just seemed toooooooo slow!! ;-P

> It might be worth noting that in fact, there were many people killed
> or injured by horse-drawn carriages and wagons back when these were
> running rampant in our cities. No red-flag men.
>
> Nobel Prize winner Pierre Curie was killed when he was run over by a
> horse-drawn cart in Paris.
>>>
>>> If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse
>>> to believe that limits are only something thet has not been
>>> figured out yet, then you are right.
>>>
>>> Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than
>>> "C", and it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call
>>> "dark matter"
--
Daniel

R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
> In alt.astronomy Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>> casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
>>> that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
>>> stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light speed,
>>> or of any communications. All experience so far has confirmed this.
>> You mean,......SO FAR
>> It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was said
>> about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per hour......
>> Until it happened.
>> If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to believe
>> that limits are only something thet has not been figured out yet, then you
>> are right.
>> Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than "C", and
>> it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call "dark matter".
> ...
>
> Sounds a bit speculative.
>
> We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
> light in a material with a refractive index > 1.
>
> But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are virtual
> particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around any photon
> trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum vaccum then you
> might find photons moved faster.

O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes unasked!!)

Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real" quantum
vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
--
Daniel

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:20:09 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
> R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
> > In alt.astronomy Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >> casagi...@optimum.net wrote:
> >>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
> >>> that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
> >>> stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light speed,
> >>> or of any communications. All experience so far has confirmed this.
> >> You mean,......SO FAR
> >> It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was said
> >> about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per hour......
> >> Until it happened.
> >> If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to believe
> >> that limits are only something thet has not been figured out yet, then you
> >> are right.
> >> Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than "C", and
> >> it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call "dark matter".
> > ...
> >
> > Sounds a bit speculative.
> >
> > We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
> > light in a material with a refractive index > 1.
> >
> > But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are virtual
> > particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around any photon
> > trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum vaccum then you
> > might find photons moved faster.
> O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
> theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes unasked!!)
>
> Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real" quantum
> vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
> --
> Daniel

A photon has no mass but it does have momentum. Recall that nothing with mass can attain the speed of light.

https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-calculate-the-momentum-of-a-photon

palsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:20:09 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
>> R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
>> > In alt.astronomy Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> casagi...@optimum.net wrote:
>> >>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
>> >>> that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
>> >>> stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light speed,
>> >>> or of any communications. All experience so far has confirmed this.
>> >> You mean,......SO FAR
>> >> It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was said
>> >> about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per hour......
>> >> Until it happened.
>> >> If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to believe
>> >> that limits are only something thet has not been figured out yet, then you
>> >> are right.
>> >> Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than "C", and
>> >> it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call "dark matter".
>> > ...
>> >
>> > Sounds a bit speculative.
>> >
>> > We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
>> > light in a material with a refractive index > 1.
>> >
>> > But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are virtual
>> > particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around any photon
>> > trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum vaccum then you
>> > might find photons moved faster.
>> O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
>> theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes unasked!!)
>>
>> Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real" quantum
>> vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
>> --
>> Daniel
> A photon has no mass but it does have momentum. Recall that nothing with mass can attain the speed of light.
> https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-calculate-the-momentum-of-a-photon

Although as we know photons can move faster than c and this has been
experimentally verified.

Moral: "laws" are only guides and not hard and fast rules.
People that take them literally dont make very good scientixsts.

--
[Even light can travel faster than c:]
Speed of light in non-trivial vacua
Jos? I. Latorre, Pedro Pascual, Rolf Tarrach
Cited by: 148
6/3/1995
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0550321394004906>
Finally, the modification of the speed of light due to Casimir plates has
been compared and related to the one due to temperature. A field-theoretical
explana- tion in terms of modes suggests the following physical picture of
why photons move faster between plates than in a normal vacuum, in contrast
to what happens in a heated vacuum.
Alcubierre drive - Wikipedia
The Alcubierre drive, Alcubierre warp drive, or Alcubierre metric (referring
to metric tensor) is a ... Alcubierre interpreted his "warp bubble" in terms
of a contraction of space ahead of the bubble and an expansion behind, ...
arXiv:gr-qc/0406083.
-- wiki

palsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:20:09 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
>> R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
>>> In alt.astronomy Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> casagi...@optimum.net wrote:
>>>>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
>>>>> that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
>>>>> stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light
>>>>> speed, or of any communications. All experience so far has
>>>>> confirmed this.
>>>> You mean,......SO FAR
>>>> It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was
>>>> said about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per
>>>> hour......
>>>> Until it happened.
>>>> If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to
>>>> believe that limits are only something thet has not been figured out
>>>> yet, then you are right.
>>>> Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than
>>>> "C", and it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call
>>>> "dark matter".
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Sounds a bit speculative.
>>>
>>> We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
>>> light in a material with a refractive index > 1.
>>>
>>> But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are virtual
>>> particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around any photon
>>> trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum vaccum then you
>>> might find photons moved faster.
>> O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
>> theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes
>> unasked!!)
>>
>> Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real" quantum
>> vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
>> --
>> Daniel
>
> A photon has no mass but it does have momentum. Recall that nothing
> with mass can attain the speed of light.
>
> https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-calculate-the-momentum-of-a-photon

There you go, BREAKING THE RULES again.
No mass, can not have any momentum. THAT is the rule, and has been for
decades

Funny how alll the rules of physics are total and unquestionable,.....until
somebody discovers something that doesn't fit, so a new rule gets made up.

Even the new 2020-21 rule that no mass is allowed for any photon, or any
other Christian. Churches are closed, Masses are outlawed.
Get with the globalist programs and quit thinking for yourself. Or the
Ministry of Truth thought police will come for you.

Photons have no mass.

Observed or measured speed in any inertial frame will always be c .

casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
> Photons have no mass.
>
> Observed or measured speed in any inertial frame will always be c .

Bzzzt.

R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
> casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>> Photons have no mass.
>> Observed or measured speed in any inertial frame will always be c .
> Bzzzt.

For any remaining hillbilly parrots that dont know what they are
talking about.

c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

But there is more than one kind of vacuum.

The vacuum most scientists mean is the standard vaccum where the
speed of a photon is c.

The speed of light in a medium is whatever it is. Many are slower
than c. The refractive index tells you how much slower.
(The change in speed of photons as they enter a medium defines the
angle of refraction and hence the RI).

The standard vacuum has an RI of 1.00000000000.

But the standard vacuum runs at the "zero point energy" where
virtual particules pop in and out of existence at high speed.
On balance the vacuum is "essentially" empty. But that doesnt mean
really empty.

Some of the virtual particles are electron/positron pairs. These
come in and out of existence in pairs and keep the electric charge
balanced. After a small time (~Plank time interval) they mutally
anahilate again. And it goes on and on.

These electrons do have an effect. They make the RI of the vacuum 1.0000.

But if you can create a vacumm with "less energy than 0" you can
decrease the RI to below 1 and the speed of light in that kind of
vacuum can be measured as faster than c.

In at least 1995 (op cit) this has been done.

Hillbillies will continue to quote from 100 year old high school
dulled-down-for-100-IQ-everyman science textbooks because they
are parrots and do not actually understand anything.

It's all covered in Incompetence Theory.

--
Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
they can be trained to substantially improve [their own performance].

Dunning later drew an analogy with anosognosia in which a person who
suffers a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of
or denies the existence of the disability, even for dramatic
impairments such as blindness or paralysis.

Dunning & Kruger & others concluded that the root cause is that, in
contrast to high performers, "poor performers do not learn from
feedback suggesting a need to improve".

-- Ehrlinger, Joyce; Johnson, Kerri; Banner, Matthew; Dunning, David;
Kruger, Justin (2008). "Why the unskilled are unaware: Further
explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent".
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (105): 98-121.

R Kym Horsell wrote on 19/5/21 11:21 pm:
> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
>> casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>> Photons have no mass.
>>> Observed or measured speed in any inertial frame will always be c .
>> Bzzzt.
>
> For any remaining hillbilly parrots that dont know what they are
> talking about.
>
> c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

What is the definition of "a Standard Vacuum"??

Is one Hydrogen atom per cubic kilometre "a Standard Vacuum"?? How about
one atom per million cubic kilometres??
--
Daniel

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 8:39:08 PM UTC-7, Bast wrote:
> palsing wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:20:09 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
> >> R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
> >>> In alt.astronomy Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> casagi...@optimum.net wrote:
> >>>>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
> >>>>> that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
> >>>>> stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light
> >>>>> speed, or of any communications. All experience so far has
> >>>>> confirmed this.
> >>>> You mean,......SO FAR
> >>>> It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was
> >>>> said about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per
> >>>> hour......
> >>>> Until it happened.
> >>>> If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to
> >>>> believe that limits are only something thet has not been figured out
> >>>> yet, then you are right.
> >>>> Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than
> >>>> "C", and it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call
> >>>> "dark matter".
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> Sounds a bit speculative.
> >>>
> >>> We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
> >>> light in a material with a refractive index > 1.
> >>>
> >>> But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are virtual
> >>> particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around any photon
> >>> trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum vaccum then you
> >>> might find photons moved faster.
> >> O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
> >> theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes
> >> unasked!!)
> >>
> >> Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real" quantum
> >> vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
> >> --
> >> Daniel
> >
> > A photon has no mass but it does have momentum. Recall that nothing
> > with mass can attain the speed of light.
> >
> > https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-calculate-the-momentum-of-a-photon
> There you go, BREAKING THE RULES again.
> No mass, can not have any momentum. THAT is the rule, and has been for
> decades
>
> Funny how alll the rules of physics are total and unquestionable,.....until
> somebody discovers something that doesn't fit, so a new rule gets made up.
>
> Even the new 2020-21 rule that no mass is allowed for any photon, or any
> other Christian. Churches are closed, Masses are outlawed.
> Get with the globalist programs and quit thinking for yourself. Or the
> Ministry of Truth thought police will come for you.

Your ignorance of freshman physics is showing again, Bast. Photons have momentum, just look it up. It is in every physics text ever written!

>
>Your ignorance of freshman physics is showing again, Bast. Photons have momentum, just look it up. It is in every physics text ever written!

Momentum yes, BUT no mass. Interesting.

casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
> Photons have no mass.
>
> Observed or measured speed in any inertial frame will always be c .

Y

palsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 8:39:08 PM UTC-7, Bast wrote:
>> palsing wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:20:09 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>> R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
>>>>> In alt.astronomy Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> casagi...@optimum.net wrote:
>>>>>>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
>>>>>>> that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
>>>>>>> stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light
>>>>>>> speed, or of any communications. All experience so far has
>>>>>>> confirmed this.
>>>>>> You mean,......SO FAR
>>>>>> It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible
>>>>>> was said about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per
>>>>>> hour......
>>>>>> Until it happened.
>>>>>> If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to
>>>>>> believe that limits are only something thet has not been figured
>>>>>> out yet, then you are right.
>>>>>> Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than
>>>>>> "C", and it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call
>>>>>> "dark matter".
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds a bit speculative.
>>>>>
>>>>> We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
>>>>> light in a material with a refractive index > 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are
>>>>> virtual particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around
>>>>> any photon trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum
>>>>> vaccum then you might find photons moved faster.
>>>> O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
>>>> theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes
>>>> unasked!!)
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real"
>>>> quantum vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> A photon has no mass but it does have momentum. Recall that nothing
>>> with mass can attain the speed of light.
>>>
>>> https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-calculate-the-momentum-of-a-photon
>> There you go, BREAKING THE RULES again.
>> No mass, can not have any momentum. THAT is the rule, and has been for
>> decades
>>
>> Funny how alll the rules of physics are total and
>> unquestionable,.....until somebody discovers something that doesn't
>> fit, so a new rule gets made up.
>>
>> Even the new 2020-21 rule that no mass is allowed for any photon, or
>> any other Christian. Churches are closed, Masses are outlawed.
>> Get with the globalist programs and quit thinking for yourself. Or the
>> Ministry of Truth thought police will come for you.
>
> Your ignorance of freshman physics is showing again, Bast. Photons have
> momentum, just look it up. It is in every physics text ever written!

Sorry, but do you remember how years ago, almost every home had a set of
encyclopedia books ?
If you grew up in a house with them,......were they passed on to new
generations and still are referred to as bibles of information.

I betcha, you don't. And do you know WHY ?

Because after 10 years most of what was written in those "textbooks" is
outdated garbage that can only be used for comedy.

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:36:01 PM UTC-7, Bast wrote:
> palsing wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 8:39:08 PM UTC-7, Bast wrote:
> >> palsing wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:20:09 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
> >>>> R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
> >>>>> In alt.astronomy Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>> casagi...@optimum.net wrote:
> >>>>>>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
> >>>>>>> that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
> >>>>>>> stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light
> >>>>>>> speed, or of any communications. All experience so far has
> >>>>>>> confirmed this.
> >>>>>> You mean,......SO FAR
> >>>>>> It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible
> >>>>>> was said about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per
> >>>>>> hour......
> >>>>>> Until it happened.
> >>>>>> If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to
> >>>>>> believe that limits are only something thet has not been figured
> >>>>>> out yet, then you are right.
> >>>>>> Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than
> >>>>>> "C", and it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call
> >>>>>> "dark matter".
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sounds a bit speculative.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
> >>>>> light in a material with a refractive index > 1.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are
> >>>>> virtual particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around
> >>>>> any photon trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum
> >>>>> vaccum then you might find photons moved faster.
> >>>> O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
> >>>> theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes
> >>>> unasked!!)
> >>>>
> >>>> Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real"
> >>>> quantum vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
> >>>> --
> >>>> Daniel
> >>>
> >>> A photon has no mass but it does have momentum. Recall that nothing
> >>> with mass can attain the speed of light.
> >>>
> >>> https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-calculate-the-momentum-of-a-photon
> >> There you go, BREAKING THE RULES again.
> >> No mass, can not have any momentum. THAT is the rule, and has been for
> >> decades
> >>
> >> Funny how alll the rules of physics are total and
> >> unquestionable,.....until somebody discovers something that doesn't
> >> fit, so a new rule gets made up.
> >>
> >> Even the new 2020-21 rule that no mass is allowed for any photon, or
> >> any other Christian. Churches are closed, Masses are outlawed.
> >> Get with the globalist programs and quit thinking for yourself. Or the
> >> Ministry of Truth thought police will come for you.
> >
> > Your ignorance of freshman physics is showing again, Bast. Photons have
> > momentum, just look it up. It is in every physics text ever written!

> Sorry, but do you remember how years ago, almost every home had a set of
> encyclopedia books ?
> If you grew up in a house with them,......were they passed on to new
> generations and still are referred to as bibles of information.
>
> I betcha, you don't. And do you know WHY ?
>
> Because after 10 years most of what was written in those "textbooks" is
> outdated garbage that can only be used for comedy.

Nice try, Bast, but still a big loss for you. Encyclopedias are ancient history. No matter how much you want to be correct, the fact of that matter that all MODERN textbooks STILL show how and why photons have momentum.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

Photons have momentum. Ask any of the tens of thousands of physicists around the world, they will all tell you the same thing. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it.

Good luck with that!

Bast wrote on 21/5/21 12:35 pm:
> palsing wrote:

<Snip>

>> Your ignorance of freshman physics is showing again, Bast. Photons have
>> momentum, just look it up. It is in every physics text ever written!
>
> Sorry, but do you remember how years ago, almost every home had a set of
> encyclopedia books ?
> If you grew up in a house with them,......were they passed on to new
> generations and still are referred to as bibles of information.
>
> I betcha, you don't. And do you know WHY ?
>
> Because after 10 years most of what was written in those "textbooks" is
> outdated garbage that can only be used for comedy.

"10 years"?? Some would have been out of date *before* they left the
Printers!! ;-P
--
Daniel

palsing wrote:
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:36:01 PM UTC-7, Bast wrote:
>> palsing wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 8:39:08 PM UTC-7, Bast wrote:
>>>> palsing wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:20:09 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>> R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
>>>>>>> In alt.astronomy Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> casagi...@optimum.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be
>>>>>>>>> missed, that distances are FAR too great for any practical
>>>>>>>>> travel between stars, even in the very unlikely event of
>>>>>>>>> traveling near light speed, or of any communications. All
>>>>>>>>> experience so far has confirmed this.
>>>>>>>> You mean,......SO FAR
>>>>>>>> It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible
>>>>>>>> was said about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per
>>>>>>>> hour......
>>>>>>>> Until it happened.
>>>>>>>> If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse
>>>>>>>> to believe that limits are only something thet has not been
>>>>>>>> figured out yet, then you are right.
>>>>>>>> Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than
>>>>>>>> "C", and it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call
>>>>>>>> "dark matter".
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds a bit speculative.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
>>>>>>> light in a material with a refractive index > 1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are
>>>>>>> virtual particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around
>>>>>>> any photon trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum
>>>>>>> vaccum then you might find photons moved faster.
>>>>>> O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
>>>>>> theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes
>>>>>> unasked!!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real"
>>>>>> quantum vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>
>>>>> A photon has no mass but it does have momentum. Recall that nothing
>>>>> with mass can attain the speed of light.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-calculate-the-momentum-of-a-photon
>>>> There you go, BREAKING THE RULES again.
>>>> No mass, can not have any momentum. THAT is the rule, and has been
>>>> for decades
>>>>
>>>> Funny how alll the rules of physics are total and
>>>> unquestionable,.....until somebody discovers something that doesn't
>>>> fit, so a new rule gets made up.
>>>>
>>>> Even the new 2020-21 rule that no mass is allowed for any photon, or
>>>> any other Christian. Churches are closed, Masses are outlawed.
>>>> Get with the globalist programs and quit thinking for yourself. Or
>>>> the Ministry of Truth thought police will come for you.
>>>
>>> Your ignorance of freshman physics is showing again, Bast. Photons
>>> have momentum, just look it up. It is in every physics text ever
>>> written!
>
>> Sorry, but do you remember how years ago, almost every home had a set
>> of encyclopedia books ?
>> If you grew up in a house with them,......were they passed on to new
>> generations and still are referred to as bibles of information.
>>
>> I betcha, you don't. And do you know WHY ?
>>
>> Because after 10 years most of what was written in those "textbooks" is
>> outdated garbage that can only be used for comedy.
>
> Nice try, Bast, but still a big loss for you. Encyclopedias are ancient
> history. No matter how much you want to be correct, the fact of that
> matter that all MODERN textbooks STILL show how and why photons have
> momentum.
>
> You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
>
> Photons have momentum. Ask any of the tens of thousands of physicists
> around the world, they will all tell you the same thing. If you have
> evidence to the contrary, let's see it.
>
> Good luck with that!

I am not making any claims, other than what we are told to "accept" as
truth. Is often later discovered to be a FLAT OUT LIE.
So I have no need of offering any evidence.
We've all been dragged through over a year of covid based lies, and you
STILL, do not see.

You also are falling into the latest media hoax of "UFO's" , that is meant
to draw the minions attention away from the fact that everyday you are
losing any rights you had left.
If you really want a "TEXTBBOOK" to read,......try Orwell's 1984. And pay
attention to how easily the "ministry of truth" actually controlled the
plebs.

Daniel65 wrote:
> Bast wrote on 21/5/21 12:35 pm:
>> palsing wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
>>> Your ignorance of freshman physics is showing again, Bast. Photons
>>> have momentum, just look it up. It is in every physics text ever
>>> written!
>>
>> Sorry, but do you remember how years ago, almost every home had a set
>> of encyclopedia books ?
>> If you grew up in a house with them,......were they passed on to new
>> generations and still are referred to as bibles of information.
>>
>> I betcha, you don't. And do you know WHY ?
>>
>> Because after 10 years most of what was written in those "textbooks" is
>> outdated garbage that can only be used for comedy.
>
> "10 years"?? Some would have been out of date *before* they left the
> Printers!! ;-P

Even the online stuff was just as wrong. By Design
And why all the encyclopedia's,....morphed into things like WIKIPEDEA.

Which is now why the simpletons who used to say, "it's printed in a book, so
it must be true".
Now try to win arguments by saying "it's on the internet, so it must be
true"

My opinion,......I'm keeping an open mind to all possibilities, until I see
hard proof myself.

Bast wrote on 21/5/21 7:30 pm:
> Daniel65 wrote:
>> Bast wrote on 21/5/21 12:35 pm:
>>> palsing wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>> Your ignorance of freshman physics is showing again, Bast. Photons
>>>> have momentum, just look it up. It is in every physics text ever
>>>> written!
>>>
>>> Sorry, but do you remember how years ago, almost every home had a set
>>> of encyclopedia books ?
>>> If you grew up in a house with them,......were they passed on to new
>>> generations and still are referred to as bibles of information.
>>>
>>> I betcha, you don't. And do you know WHY ?
>>>
>>> Because after 10 years most of what was written in those "textbooks" is
>>> outdated garbage that can only be used for comedy.
>>
>> "10 years"?? Some would have been out of date *before* they left the
>> Printers!! ;-P
>
> Even the online stuff was just as wrong. By Design
> And why all the encyclopedia's, .... morphed into things like WIKIPEDEA.
>
> Which is now why the simpletons who used to say, "it's printed in a book, so
> it must be true".

What was the old saying .... "Believe half of what you see and a quarter
of what you read"!!

https://www.juliantalbot.com/post/believe-half-of-what-you-see

> Now try to win arguments by saying "it's on the internet, so it must be
> true"

"The Truth is Out There!!" ;-P
>
> My opinion,......I'm keeping an open mind to all possibilities, until I see
> hard proof myself.

Sounds about right.
--
Daniel

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 2:21:08 AM UTC-7, Bast wrote:
> palsing wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:36:01 PM UTC-7, Bast wrote:
> >> palsing wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 8:39:08 PM UTC-7, Bast wrote:
> >>>> palsing wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:20:09 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
> >>>>>> R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
> >>>>>>> In alt.astronomy Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> casagi...@optimum.net wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be
> >>>>>>>>> missed, that distances are FAR too great for any practical
> >>>>>>>>> travel between stars, even in the very unlikely event of
> >>>>>>>>> traveling near light speed, or of any communications. All
> >>>>>>>>> experience so far has confirmed this.
> >>>>>>>> You mean,......SO FAR
> >>>>>>>> It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible
> >>>>>>>> was said about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per
> >>>>>>>> hour......
> >>>>>>>> Until it happened.
> >>>>>>>> If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse
> >>>>>>>> to believe that limits are only something thet has not been
> >>>>>>>> figured out yet, then you are right.
> >>>>>>>> Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than
> >>>>>>>> "C", and it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call
> >>>>>>>> "dark matter".
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sounds a bit speculative.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
> >>>>>>> light in a material with a refractive index > 1.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are
> >>>>>>> virtual particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around
> >>>>>>> any photon trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum
> >>>>>>> vaccum then you might find photons moved faster.
> >>>>>> O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
> >>>>>> theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes
> >>>>>> unasked!!)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real"
> >>>>>> quantum vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Daniel
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A photon has no mass but it does have momentum. Recall that nothing
> >>>>> with mass can attain the speed of light.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-calculate-the-momentum-of-a-photon
> >>>> There you go, BREAKING THE RULES again.
> >>>> No mass, can not have any momentum. THAT is the rule, and has been
> >>>> for decades
> >>>>
> >>>> Funny how alll the rules of physics are total and
> >>>> unquestionable,.....until somebody discovers something that doesn't
> >>>> fit, so a new rule gets made up.
> >>>>
> >>>> Even the new 2020-21 rule that no mass is allowed for any photon, or
> >>>> any other Christian. Churches are closed, Masses are outlawed.
> >>>> Get with the globalist programs and quit thinking for yourself. Or
> >>>> the Ministry of Truth thought police will come for you.
> >>>
> >>> Your ignorance of freshman physics is showing again, Bast. Photons
> >>> have momentum, just look it up. It is in every physics text ever
> >>> written!
> >
> >> Sorry, but do you remember how years ago, almost every home had a set
> >> of encyclopedia books ?
> >> If you grew up in a house with them,......were they passed on to new
> >> generations and still are referred to as bibles of information.
> >>
> >> I betcha, you don't. And do you know WHY ?
> >>
> >> Because after 10 years most of what was written in those "textbooks" is
> >> outdated garbage that can only be used for comedy.
> >
> > Nice try, Bast, but still a big loss for you. Encyclopedias are ancient
> > history. No matter how much you want to be correct, the fact of that
> > matter that all MODERN textbooks STILL show how and why photons have
> > momentum.
> >
> > You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
> >
> > Photons have momentum. Ask any of the tens of thousands of physicists
> > around the world, they will all tell you the same thing. If you have
> > evidence to the contrary, let's see it.
> >
> > Good luck with that!

> I am not making any claims, other than what we are told to "accept" as
> truth. Is often later discovered to be a FLAT OUT LIE.
> So I have no need of offering any evidence.

Yes, Bast, you certainly DID make a claim! You said "No mass, can not have any momentum. THAT is the rule, and has been for decades." Since a photon has no mass but has verifiable momentum, your claim is easily refuted.
> We've all been dragged through over a year of covid based lies, and you
> STILL, do not see.

Which covid hoax is that, Bast? Is it a hoax that, as of today, there have been 3,452,766 worldwide deaths due to this disease? Just what hoax are you referencing?

> You also are falling into the latest media hoax of "UFO's" , that is meant
> to draw the minions attention away from the fact that everyday you are
> losing any rights you had left.

I made no statement at all about UFO's, Bast, not a single word.

> If you really want a "TEXTBBOOK" to read,......try Orwell's 1984. And pay
> attention to how easily the "ministry of truth" actually controlled the
> plebs.

Orwell's book was a science fiction novel, Bast. Why would you make the false claim that it is a textbook? You always seem to confuse facts and fiction.

On 2021-05-15, casagiannoni@optimum.net <casagiannoni@optimum.net> wrote:
> that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
> stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light speed,

I imagine that you'll move the goalposts after this reply, but if we
traveled 'near light speed' the problem of distance would be essentially
solved due to relativistic time dilation. It's an often-cited factoid
that with constant acceleration, inching ever closer to the speed of
light, you could actually circumnavigate the whole visible universe in
just over fifty years (of course billions of years would have passed for
outside observers, but it works as an example).

I don't mean this to say that we /will/ travel near the speed of light,
but in the 'very unlikely event' it happens, you can go more or less
anywhere within a lifetime.

From any inertial frame, absolutely nothing will ever be observed to
exceed c .