On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks.
> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric?
> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are
> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better.
> > NONE contains a
> > description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on
> > page 1254;
> >
> > ------ Start quote ------
> >
> > When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of
> > electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect
> > of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it
> > is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called
> > photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the
> > radiation.
> > We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle
> > duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference
> > and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption
> > of photons demonstrate the particle behavior.
> >
> > ------- end quote ------
> > The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by
> > Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman
> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics
> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?

It's number 3 on this list:
https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/
It's number 7 on this list:
https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/
It's number 1 on this list:
https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/

When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3.

Ed

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:

(snip)

> >> Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s
> >> motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way
> >> that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from
> >> Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be
> >> if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were
> >> moving.
> >
> > Then you need to look at things logically. Years ago it was determined that
> > everything in our visible universe is moving away from the point of the Big Bang.
> Unfortunately, you have not read correctly. There is no “point of the Big
> Bang” that everything is moving away from. What is true is that everything
> is moving away from EACH OTHER (aside from local variations) but there is
> no identifiable point these are all moving away from.

That is because our "observable universe" is only a tiny fraction of "the BIG BANG
universe," and the point of the Big Bang is not within our observable universe.
And the Big Bang universe is expanding into "the Infinite Universe."

Things expanded away from the point of the Big Bang for many thousands of years
before atoms formed that could emit light. You can read all the details in my
paper on "Logical versus Mathematical Universes":
https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v2.pdf

>
> Now, listen to me Ed. It doesn’t matter whether you think IT ONLY MAKES
> SENSE that there is a single point that everything is receding from, this
> IS NOT what the Big Bang model says. It says something almost the direct
> opposite, that THERE IS NO POINT that everything is receding from. First,
> it’s important for you to recognize that what is ACTUALLY SAID is not what
> you think it should say. Then, it will be important to sit back,
> recognizing what is actually said, and THEN try to make sense of what is
> actually said.
(snip more of the same)

Read my paper. It explains how totally wrong you are.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:11 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:45:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>>>> I gave you a good reference, a book for layman. I don’t think it’s good for
>>>>>> me to replicate the book here. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law. Read
>>>>>> the WHOLE THING because the whole thing is relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a hardback copy of "The Character of Physical Law," and I read the whole
>>>>> thing years ago. About half the pages have passages that I have highlighted or
>>>>> underlined.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also have a copy in digital format. Using that copy, I just did a search for the
>>>>> word "photon" and found this on page 142 (it's on page 134 in my hardcover copy):
>>>>>
>>>>> ------- start quote ------
>>>>> But of course light is not like a wave of water. Light also comes
>>>>> in particle-like character, called photons, and as you turn
>>>>> down the intensity of the light you are not turning down the
>>>>> effect, you are turning down the number of photons that
>>>>> are coming out of the source. As I turn down the light I am
>>>>> getting fewer and fewer photons.
>>>>> -------- end quote ---------
>>>>>
>>>> Again, the WHOLE book is about the behavior of particles. Grabbing one
>>>> little sound bite out of it is not going to capture the message.
>>>>
>>>> What did you learn from the book about what Feynman says about the behavior
>>>> of particles? What did he say about the paths of particles?
>>>
>>> We're not discussing particles, we're discussing PHOTONS.
>> Doesn’t matter. Feynman, recall, said that photons behave like PARTICLES.
>
> Actually, what he said was that photons are NOT WAVES, they are particles.
> His definition of a particle was simply that you can COUNT the particles as
> they hit a photomultiplier, and the brighter the light, the more particles that
> hit the photomultiplier.

No, that is NOT his definition of a particle. It is a SINGLE attribute that
distinguishes particle behavior from classical waves, but there are many
others. AND you have not plumbed out particles behave, because you
obviously have not absorbed what is said in the rest of the book.

>
>> So then the question is, how do PARTICLES behave (including photons)?
>> That’s what he spends the book discussing, how particles behave (including
>> photons).
>
> Yes, but there are many different kinds of particles, and they behave in
> different ways. So, you cannot generalize "particles" other than to say
> they are individual bits of something, they are NOT WAVES.

No, that is not true. There are certain behaviors (other than the one you
mention above) that are common to ALL particles, which is precisely the
kind of thing he goes to great length to describe in the book. These
behaviors are common to protons, photons, electrons, neutrinos, and even
molecules. And one of those common behaviors for ALL particles is that they
cannot be said to travel in straight lines. And in fact, in his greatest
achievement, quantum electrodynamics, he uses the fact that this behavior
is true for both photons and electrons (and other charged particles
relevant to the theory; neutrinos, for example, are not covered by quantum
electrodynamics).

>
>>> Particles
>>> come in various forms, like protons, neutrons and electrons. Most of them
>>> contain MASS. Most of them move in orbits or cling to other particles.
>>> Photons have no mass, they travel in straight lines, and they do not cling to
>>> other particles.
>> Photons do not travel in straight lines. That is the point.
>
> PHOTONS DO TRAVEL IN STRAIGHT LINES. That is one attribute that
> distinguishes photons from some other "particles."

No, sorry, that is counter to what Feynman says in his book, and just
because you just made that statement up does not make it so.

>
>> And neutrinos (also particles) do not cling to other particles. So it’s
>> important that you do not attach attributes to particles that do not
>> pertain.
>
> Right. I didn't do that. Different types of "particles" have different attributes.
> The only difference between photon types is how much energy they contain.
>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are imagining photons are like little balls or bullets of energy fired
>>>>>>>> along a trajectory. They are not. It’s helpful to first learn some DETAILS
>>>>>>>> (not just a one-sentence synopsis) of how photons really behave.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of oscillating
>>>>>>> electric and magnetic fields.
>>>>>> And that’s not what a photon is.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is what virtually every source says it is. Do you have your own
>>>>> personal definition?
>>>> Heck no, not a personal definition. And
>>>>> “virtually every source” must not
>>>> include any textbooks, because that’s not what a photon is.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's what got me interested in this subject in the first place. Many
>>> physics textbooks do not even MENTION photons, and very few describe them.
>> Then you’re not looking at the right textbooks. I have whole textbooks that
>> are about photons.
>>> Instead, they MORONICALLY just tell you to use one mathematical model when
>>> a photon seems to acts like a wave and another mathematical model when a
>>> photon seems to act like a particle. And if you ask your teacher how a photon
>>> can do both things, you will probably be told to shut up if you do not want to
>>> flunk the course.
>> That’s actually straightforward. A photon is neither a classical wave nor a
>> classical particle. It is a new thing, a field quantum (what Feynman calls
>> a particle, which is much different than a classical particle). Field
>> quanta have some properties of particles and some properties of waves,
>> while not being either one. There’s nothing wrong with that. The erroneous
>> assumption is that EVERYTHING is either a particle or a wave and it must be
>> one or the other. That’s simply not true. There is a new kind of thing not
>> imagined in the 19th century — a field quantum.
>
> If you are going to give a photon a name, call it a "photon" and do not call it
> a particle. AND DEFINE exactly what a photon is. "Field Quantum" is a name
> given to lots of different objects, including objects with mass, and objects
> which cannot travel at the speed of light.

A photon is a type of field quantum. But so is an electron. So is a Higgs
boson. So is a quark.
These ALL exhibit behaviors that are common to all field quanta.

I am FULLY AWARE that you got confused by the Feynman’s use of the word
“particle” and you took that word to mean something he did not intend. Do
not blame Feynman for that. He wrote a whole book to elaborate on what
“particles” do, which is MUCH DIFFERENT than what you are expecting. He
expects you to read the WHOLE BOOK, not just search it for keywords.

>
>>
>> Now, to understand what a field quantum is and how it behaves, you’re going
>> to find books with some mathematics in them. Finding books without any
>> mathematics that gives you a clear idea what a field quantum is — that’s
>> going to be a struggle.
>
> It's easier to just Google "What is a Field Quantum?"
> https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+a+field+quantum

Yes, lots of internet searching is easier than reading a book. But
unfortunately, the internet is a cesspool of data, most of which is rotten
and unreliable. The adage “you get what you pay for” applies here and the
internet is free. Would you fill your house with furniture placed on the
curb with “Free” signs on them? No, you would go to places where you know
there is quality assurance, even though there is more effort and cost to
obtain it.

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks.
>> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric?
>> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are
>> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better.
>>> NONE contains a
>>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on
>>> page 1254;
>>>
>>> ------ Start quote ------
>>>
>>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of
>>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect
>>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it
>>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called
>>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the
>>> radiation.
>>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle
>>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference
>>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption
>>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior.
>>>
>>> ------- end quote ------
>>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by
>>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman
>> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics
>> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?
>
> It's number 3 on this list:
> https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/
> It's number 7 on this list:
> https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/
> It's number 1 on this list:
> https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/
>
> When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3.
>
> Ed
>

OK, so let’s take a look at your metrics. First of all, you are using votes
by SINGLE REVIEWERS, which is not a metric. It’s like reading local
newspaper articles for “Best Barbecue in North Carolina” or “Best Movies of
Summer 2021”. Those are single opinions, not metrics. Metrics might be
“copies sold in the US in 2021”, or “used by most physics departments in
4-year universities and colleges”. Those provide numbers that are
quantifiable rankings. While you’re pondering that, consider that the last
link was from a website for professional video gamers. Does this seem like
a reliable source to you? Does this help you understand why doing Google
searches is only going to pull from a vast cesspool of questionable
information, and unless you examine the quality of the sources, you’re just
going to be repeating sewage.

While Sears, Zemansky, and Young was indeed a very popular textbook dating
back to the 1960’s, I recall, it’s worth noting that the only continuous
author on that franchise, Hugh Young, died in 2013 at the age of 83. The
current edition of Young and Freedman carries none of the breeding of that
original franchise. It has survived by loyalty alone. Again, mind your
sources.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>>> Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s
>>>> motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way
>>>> that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from
>>>> Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be
>>>> if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were
>>>> moving.
>>>
>>> Then you need to look at things logically. Years ago it was determined that
>>> everything in our visible universe is moving away from the point of the Big Bang.
>> Unfortunately, you have not read correctly. There is no “point of the Big
>> Bang” that everything is moving away from. What is true is that everything
>> is moving away from EACH OTHER (aside from local variations) but there is
>> no identifiable point these are all moving away from.
>
> That is because our "observable universe" is only a tiny fraction of "the BIG BANG
> universe," and the point of the Big Bang is not within our observable universe.

Now you are no longer talking about the Big Bang model, but Ed Lake
Cosmology.

The Big Bang model does not say that there is a stationary origin that lies
outside our observable universe. It says that there IS NO stationary origin
of the Big Bang at all.

Please wrap your head around what the Big Bang model ACTUALLY SAYS, not
with added statements that you put in to try to make sense of it.

> And the Big Bang universe is expanding into "the Infinite Universe."
>
> Things expanded away from the point of the Big Bang for many thousands of years
> before atoms formed that could emit light. You can read all the details in my
> paper on "Logical versus Mathematical Universes":
> https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v2.pdf
>
>>
>> Now, listen to me Ed. It doesn’t matter whether you think IT ONLY MAKES
>> SENSE that there is a single point that everything is receding from, this
>> IS NOT what the Big Bang model says. It says something almost the direct
>> opposite, that THERE IS NO POINT that everything is receding from. First,
>> it’s important for you to recognize that what is ACTUALLY SAID is not what
>> you think it should say. Then, it will be important to sit back,
>> recognizing what is actually said, and THEN try to make sense of what is
>> actually said.
> (snip more of the same)
>
> Read my paper. It explains how totally wrong you are.

I’m talking about what the Big Bang model ACTUALLY SAYS. I’m not
particularly interested in Ed Lake Cosmology that modifies the Big Bang
model by adding things that are actually counter to what the Big Bang model
says.

If you have an ALTERNATE to the Big Bang model, which you think makes sense
to you, then it is up to you to turn that into a viable physical model. The
biggest part of that responsibility is doing calculations with your model
to make testable predictions, which — yes — will require some math skills.
The physicists who put together the Big Bang model did do that, because it
IS an obligation in physics.

But don’t try to add things to the Big Bang model that are actually counter
to what Big Bang says, and then try to pass it off as the Big Bang model,
properly understood.

>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/26/2022 11:14 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:12:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>>>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the
>>>>>>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space.
>>>>>> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly
>>>>>> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements
>>>>>> are flatly falsified by aberration.
>>>>>>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what
>>>>>>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically
>>>>>> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace
>>>>>> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to
>>>>>> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and
>>>>>> engage with the grown-up objective world of science.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And
>>>>> with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms,
>>>>> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line
>>>>> from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart.
>>>> Not relevant here, but that's not how light moves through a transparent
>>>> substance such as glass.
>>>
>>> No one said it was. "In empty space" means "in empty space."
>> You stated that light traveled in a straight line at c from atom to atom
>> and I pointed out that's not how light in clear substances work. I also
>> stated "not relevant here".
>
> If it's not relevant, why mention it?

YOU mentioned it!

>>> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a
>>> straight line from one atom to another atom

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to
>>>>> move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves
>>>>> but the point of emission does not, doesn't that mean that the point of emission is
>>>>> a stationary point in space?
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>> 1) No such thing as a "stationary point in space". Einstein from his SR
>> paper: "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
>> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
>> an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, *nor
>> assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
>> electromagnetic processes take place.*"
>>
>> "Stationary", of course, would mean a velocity vector of 0 magnitude.
>>
>> 2) "Stationary" relative to what? You didn't say.
>
> Stationary relative to all other stationary points in space.

What are "all other stationary points in space" ?

You are defining something in terms of itself as well as coming up with
a "preferred" frame, in violation of the first postulate.

> It's a point in space with NO "special properties."

Yes it does. It is "stationary" with respect to "NOTHING" or to all
other "stationary points in space", depending on which of your statement
to believe. These points have the special property of being
"stationary", and in another post you state it's where "time runs fastest".

> And there is no specific point in empty space where it happens.
> It happens wherever and whenever an atom emits a photon.

Yet you claim it's "stationary".

On 4/26/2022 11:30 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:33:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
> (snip)
>>>> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space
>>>> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?"
>>>
>>> Stationary to NOTHING!
>> That makes zero sense. None whatsoever. Everything is relative.
>>> EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING
>>> RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS!
>> Then those "stationary" points are moving relative to everything else in
>> the universe, in an equal and opposite direction. I think you need a
>> better description of those points other than "stationary".
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> It appears to me that your biggest problem is that you simply don't
>> grasp the concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics.
>> You don't understand that part of physics at all. Instead you are too
>> stubborn to even attempt to learn about it, and would rather blame your
>> boogeymen for them, those evil "mathematicians" 🧟‍♂️. And add to your
>> manifesto, of course.
>
> I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics."
> It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS.

If you feel it's the cause of "IDIOTIC BELIEFS", you definitely do not
understand it. Forget Einstein, this is from Galileo.
>
> It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue
> that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as
> moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving
> away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC.

Because you don't understand it. If I'm on the rocket, the earth is
obviously moving away from me, I see it receding and getting smaller and
smaller. The energy involved is relative to the center of mass, and
discussing how much energy it it would have to take to move the earth
away is meaningless.
>
> The BIG BANG provided the energy that put all the stars and galaxies into
> motion. Gravity then provided energy to move somethings closer together.
> And nuclear reactions provided energy to blast things apart again if too
> much got too close together.
>
> The Big Bang put everything in motion relative to the stationary point of
> the Big Bang.

Nonsense. You are trying to apply ancient concepts to the Big Bang, as
if the Big Bang was a big bomb at a specific location which exploded,
and we can go see where the bomb was.

Actually if you try to figure out where the Big Bang was located, it
will come up with the answer of wherever you are. I will get where I am.
The location of the Big Bang is everywhere. The Big Bang can't be
thought of an explosion of a bomb IN space and time, think of it as an
explosion OF space and time.

> The only thing that remained stationary is empty space.
> Moving through empty space requires energy.
>
Einstein: "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, *nor
assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place.*"

You ignored this last time I posted it. Pay attention to the phrase
after the comma.

On 4/26/2022 4:37 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks.
>> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric?
>> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are
>> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better.
>>> NONE contains a
>>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on
>>> page 1254;
>>>
>>> ------ Start quote ------
>>>
>>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of
>>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect
>>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it
>>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called
>>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the
>>> radiation.
>>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle
>>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference
>>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption
>>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior.
>>>
>>> ------- end quote ------
>>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by
>>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman
>> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics
>> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?
>
> It's number 3 on this list:
> https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/
> It's number 7 on this list:
> https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/
> It's number 1 on this list:
> https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/
>
> When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3.
>
Those lists are individual bloggers looking for affiliate sales. Not
exactly indicating any expert opinions.

On 4/26/2022 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of
>>> oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
>> No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually
>> is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics,
>> you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously
>> incorrect statements.
>
> Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually
> every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric
> and magnetic fields.

NO physics teaches that photons are oscillating E/M fields.
The closest you'll see is a light WAVE shown as electric and magnetic
field WAVES at right angles to each other.

>> Hint: electric and magnetic fields are an APPROXIMATION to
>> the physical situation in which there are trillions and
>> trillions of photons having the appropriate configuration
>> to make the approximation valid [#]. E & M fields cannot be
>> used to model a situation in which there is just a single
>> photon, or even when there are just a few million of them.
>
> It's done every day with radio telescopes and radar guns.

Nope. Radio/microwave photons are so low in energy they aren't
individually detectable. It is the mass behavior of trillions of photons
which make radio/microwaves behave so much like the classic wave model
of light.
>
>>
>> [#] This physical situation is quite different from that
>> of a light beam containing trillions and trillions of
>> photons -- the photon configurations are very different.
>>> I've been experimenting with a radar gun for years.
>> So, do you still claim that a radar gun inside a closed truck moving
>> along a street, will measure anything other than zero? In all your
>> "experimenting" have you actually done this?
>
> I deleted the paper where I said that. Further experiments showed
> me that a moving radar gun detects ITS OWN movement when it is
> pointed at the earth. I didn't realize a radar gun could do that.

There were several people, including myself, who tried to explain how
Doppler radar guns worked. Did you listen? Nnnooooo.....

> We know

Who is "we"? A pet mouse is in your pocket?

> We know that light travels in straight lines,

Light actually travels along geodesics.

> so we can trace a photon back
> to its point of origin.

Approximately.

> It is a stationary point in space

Something Einstein said was not possible.

> where some ATOM was
> located when it emitted the photon.

> "Duration" has nothing to do with anything,

Without a duration, no velocity can exist, so "stationary" (zero
velocity) can't either.

> since a photon is emitted instantaneously from a stationary point in space

Again, no such thing.
Get rid of "stationary" and replace "point in space" with x,y,z
coordinates in your frame of reference.

> that is left behind when the emitter moves.

Moves relative to what? The emitter is stationary relative to the rest
of the supernova remnant.

(insert solipsistic whine here)

On Tuesday, 26 April 2022 at 23:50:59 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/26/2022 11:30 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:33:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> > (snip)
> >>>> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space
> >>>> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?"
> >>>
> >>> Stationary to NOTHING!
> >> That makes zero sense. None whatsoever. Everything is relative.
> >>> EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING
> >>> RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS!
> >> Then those "stationary" points are moving relative to everything else in
> >> the universe, in an equal and opposite direction. I think you need a
> >> better description of those points other than "stationary".
> >>>
> >>> Ed
> >>
> >> It appears to me that your biggest problem is that you simply don't
> >> grasp the concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics.
> >> You don't understand that part of physics at all. Instead you are too
> >> stubborn to even attempt to learn about it, and would rather blame your
> >> boogeymen for them, those evil "mathematicians" 🧟‍♂️. And add to your
> >> manifesto, of course.
> >
> > I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics."
> > It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS.
>
> If you feel it's the cause of "IDIOTIC BELIEFS", you definitely do not
> understand it. Forget Einstein, this is from Galileo.

Too bad for Galileo, stupid Mike - it's still an idiotic belief.

On 2022-04-26 16:13:10 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-04-25 17:04:21 +0000, Ed Lake said:

>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:

>>>> So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving?
>
> Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda
> galaxy is moving?"
>
> Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins
> on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph.
> The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And
> the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra
> at 1,342,161 mph.

For the others the evidence is obvious but how do you know that Milky Way
is moving, let alone its speed and direction?

> Using trigonometry we can view things from one point in space in the
> summer and from another point about 185 million miles away in the winter.
> That allows us to measure distances to some objects in space. A type
> of star called a "Cepheid variable" pulses at a specific rate, and
> because light travels at a specific rate, we can determine how far away
> a Cepheid variable is even if it is trillions of miles away.

This way we can measure the distance to the Andromeda galaxy but the
distance does not change enough to observe motion so how is its motion
observed and measured?

> And, of course, there are ways to measure changes in light frequency and
> in photon arrival frequencies.

We cannot compare photon arrival rates on Earth to their emission rates
in Andromeda Galaxy as we were not there two and half million years ago
to measure it. Frequencies of emissions and absorptions by atoms are known
so it is possible to compare them to the observed frequencies and determine
the blue shift. But what is the connection of blue shift to the motion
of light source? The article https://vixra.org/pdf/2204.0016v2.pdf says
that there is no connection. If the only way that this motion is ever
observed is invalid then there is no justification to the claim that
the Andromeda galaxy is moving.

> Or we can just Google the answer:
> https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/astronomy-questions-answers/is-it-true-that-the-andromeda-galaxy-is-blueshifted-and-moving-toward-us/
>

It only tells the result but does not say how those results are obtained
or why we should believe them. But of course we already know that light
from a moving object is blueshifted and that's how we know that the
Andromed galaxy is approaching.

Mikko

On 4/27/2022 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-04-26 16:13:10 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-25 17:04:21 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>
>>>>>  So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving?
>>
>> Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda
>> galaxy is moving?"
>>
>> Because we know that everything we can see is moving.  The earth spins
>> on its axis at about 1,040 mph.  The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph.
>> The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph.  And
>> the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation
>> Hydra
>> at 1,342,161 mph.
>
> For the others the evidence is obvious but how do you know that Milky Way
> is moving, let alone its speed and direction?

Are you certain that every element of the milky way galaxy is moving as
a unit?

"Sprinkled around the disk and the bulge are globular clusters,
collections of ancient stars, as well as approximately 40 dwarf galaxies
that are either orbiting or colliding with the larger Milky Way
according to a statement from ESA."

And:

"There is also evidence that the Milky Way collided with several smaller
galaxies during its evolution. In 2018, a team of Dutch astronomers
found a group of 30,000 stars moving in sync through the sun's
neighborhood in the opposite direction to the rest of the stars in the
data set. The motion pattern matched what scientists had previously seen
in computer simulations of galactic collisions. These stars also
differed in color and brightness, which suggested they came from a
different galaxy"

And there's a lot more meat...

https://www.space.com/19915-milky-way-galaxy.html

<snip>

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks.
> >> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric?
> >> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are
> >> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better.
> >>> NONE contains a
> >>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on
> >>> page 1254;
> >>>
> >>> ------ Start quote ------
> >>>
> >>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of
> >>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect
> >>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it
> >>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called
> >>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the
> >>> radiation.
> >>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle
> >>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles.. Interference
> >>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption
> >>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior.
> >>>
> >>> ------- end quote ------
> >>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by
> >>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman
> >> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics
> >> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?
> >
> > It's number 3 on this list:
> > https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/
> > It's number 7 on this list:
> > https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/
> > It's number 1 on this list:
> > https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/
> >
> > When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> OK, so let’s take a look at your metrics. First of all, you are using votes
> by SINGLE REVIEWERS, which is not a metric. It’s like reading local
> newspaper articles for “Best Barbecue in North Carolina” or “Best Movies of
> Summer 2021”. Those are single opinions, not metrics. Metrics might be
> “copies sold in the US in 2021”, or “used by most physics departments in
> 4-year universities and colleges”. Those provide numbers that are
> quantifiable rankings. While you’re pondering that, consider that the last
> link was from a website for professional video gamers. Does this seem like
> a reliable source to you? Does this help you understand why doing Google
> searches is only going to pull from a vast cesspool of questionable
> information, and unless you examine the quality of the sources, you’re just
> going to be repeating sewage.
>
> While Sears, Zemansky, and Young was indeed a very popular textbook dating
> back to the 1960’s, I recall, it’s worth noting that the only continuous
> author on that franchise, Hugh Young, died in 2013 at the age of 83. The
> current edition of Young and Freedman carries none of the breeding of that
> original franchise. It has survived by loyalty alone. Again, mind your
> sources.

If you have a better source for a list of the best physics textbooks, why don't
you provide it?

You forget, I'm arguing that most physics textbooks are CRAP. Less than a
month ago I started a thread here about ""REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS
TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"

It was about his article: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING

Ed

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >>>> Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s
> >>>> motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way
> >>>> that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from
> >>>> Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be
> >>>> if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were
> >>>> moving.
> >>>
> >>> Then you need to look at things logically. Years ago it was determined that
> >>> everything in our visible universe is moving away from the point of the Big Bang.
> >> Unfortunately, you have not read correctly. There is no “point of the Big
> >> Bang” that everything is moving away from. What is true is that everything
> >> is moving away from EACH OTHER (aside from local variations) but there is
> >> no identifiable point these are all moving away from.
> >
> > That is because our "observable universe" is only a tiny fraction of "the BIG BANG
> > universe," and the point of the Big Bang is not within our observable universe.
> Now you are no longer talking about the Big Bang model, but Ed Lake
> Cosmology.
>
> The Big Bang model does not say that there is a stationary origin that lies
> outside our observable universe. It says that there IS NO stationary origin
> of the Big Bang at all.
>
> Please wrap your head around what the Big Bang model ACTUALLY SAYS, not
> with added statements that you put in to try to make sense of it.
> > And the Big Bang universe is expanding into "the Infinite Universe."
> >
> > Things expanded away from the point of the Big Bang for many thousands of years
> > before atoms formed that could emit light. You can read all the details in my
> > paper on "Logical versus Mathematical Universes":
> > https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v2.pdf
> >
> >>
> >> Now, listen to me Ed. It doesn’t matter whether you think IT ONLY MAKES
> >> SENSE that there is a single point that everything is receding from, this
> >> IS NOT what the Big Bang model says. It says something almost the direct
> >> opposite, that THERE IS NO POINT that everything is receding from. First,
> >> it’s important for you to recognize that what is ACTUALLY SAID is not what
> >> you think it should say. Then, it will be important to sit back,
> >> recognizing what is actually said, and THEN try to make sense of what is
> >> actually said.
> > (snip more of the same)
> >
> > Read my paper. It explains how totally wrong you are.
> I’m talking about what the Big Bang model ACTUALLY SAYS. I’m not
> particularly interested in Ed Lake Cosmology that modifies the Big Bang
> model by adding things that are actually counter to what the Big Bang model
> says.
>
> If you have an ALTERNATE to the Big Bang model, which you think makes sense
> to you, then it is up to you to turn that into a viable physical model. The
> biggest part of that responsibility is doing calculations with your model
> to make testable predictions, which — yes — will require some math skills.
> The physicists who put together the Big Bang model did do that, because it
> IS an obligation in physics.
>
> But don’t try to add things to the Big Bang model that are actually counter
> to what Big Bang says, and then try to pass it off as the Big Bang model,
> properly understood.

When you talk about "the Big Bang Model," you should say what you really
mean: "The Big Bang MATHEMATICAL Model."

In that IDIOTIC model you have an expanding universe that reaches only as
far as the farthest visible star. And you see that as the end of the universe,
even though that star is moving away from us. What is that star moving INTO?
That is a forbidden question. How can the universe be expanding if there is
nothing to expand into? That is a forbidden question. What is outside of your
expanding universe? That is a forbidden question.

LOGICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY you cannot have something that is expanding
unless there is something to expand into.

Your Big Bang Mathematical model is MORONIC. It conflicts with everything
that we know about science.

And just to show that I am not the only one who disagrees with you:

"The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent.
Some parts of the universe are too far away for the light emitted since the
Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth or space-based instruments,
and therefore lie outside the observable universe."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#The_universe_versus_the_observable_universe

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks.
>>>> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric?
>>>> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are
>>>> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better.
>>>>> NONE contains a
>>>>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on
>>>>> page 1254;
>>>>>
>>>>> ------ Start quote ------
>>>>>
>>>>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of
>>>>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect
>>>>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it
>>>>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called
>>>>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the
>>>>> radiation.
>>>>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle
>>>>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference
>>>>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption
>>>>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------- end quote ------
>>>>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by
>>>>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman
>>>> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics
>>>> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?
>>>
>>> It's number 3 on this list:
>>> https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/
>>> It's number 7 on this list:
>>> https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/
>>> It's number 1 on this list:
>>> https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/
>>>
>>> When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>> OK, so let’s take a look at your metrics. First of all, you are using votes
>> by SINGLE REVIEWERS, which is not a metric. It’s like reading local
>> newspaper articles for “Best Barbecue in North Carolina” or “Best Movies of
>> Summer 2021”. Those are single opinions, not metrics. Metrics might be
>> “copies sold in the US in 2021”, or “used by most physics departments in
>> 4-year universities and colleges”. Those provide numbers that are
>> quantifiable rankings. While you’re pondering that, consider that the last
>> link was from a website for professional video gamers. Does this seem like
>> a reliable source to you? Does this help you understand why doing Google
>> searches is only going to pull from a vast cesspool of questionable
>> information, and unless you examine the quality of the sources, you’re just
>> going to be repeating sewage.
>>
>> While Sears, Zemansky, and Young was indeed a very popular textbook dating
>> back to the 1960’s, I recall, it’s worth noting that the only continuous
>> author on that franchise, Hugh Young, died in 2013 at the age of 83. The
>> current edition of Young and Freedman carries none of the breeding of that
>> original franchise. It has survived by loyalty alone. Again, mind your
>> sources.
>
> If you have a better source for a list of the best physics textbooks, why don't
> you provide it?
>
> You forget, I'm arguing that most physics textbooks are CRAP. Less than a
> month ago I started a thread here about ""REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS
> TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"

Then there is absolutely no point in mischaracterizing ANY book you look at
as belong to “one of the top three”, when you don’t intend to give it any
credence AND your ranking is based on erroneous claims anyway.

Here’s one fundamental point you seem to be ignoring. You’re looking at the
wrong books. Introductory, first year books are not going to treat
relativity well, not going to treat quantum mechanics well, certainly not
going to give you anything but a cursory glance at what photons are or how
they behave. For such specialized topics, you should be reading books that
are focused on those specific topics. The downside is that you’re going to
be confronted with mathematics (which is impenetrable Sanskrit to you) of
even higher density than in the introductory books. The lesson is that IT
IS AN EXPECTATION that you develop certain skills to learn anything
substantial about physics. If you do not develop those skills, then you
will end up with erroneous impressions of those more advanced topics and
the concepts in them. Researching on Google will only worsen things by
flooding you with information sewage.

You are not going about this in a sensible way. Period.

>
> It was about his article:
> https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:36:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/26/2022 11:14 AM, Ed Lake wrote:

(snip)
> >> "Stationary", of course, would mean a velocity vector of 0 magnitude.
> >>
> >> 2) "Stationary" relative to what? You didn't say.
> >
> > Stationary relative to all other stationary points in space.
>
> What are "all other stationary points in space" ?

Every photon that is emitted is emitted from a stationary point in space.
And every stationary point in space is, of course, stationary relative to
every other stationary point in space.

>
> You are defining something in terms of itself as well as coming up with
> a "preferred" frame, in violation of the first postulate.

It has nothing to do with the first postulate. And the first postulate says
nothing about any preferred frame. The two postulates together are
about TIME DILATION. The second postulate BY ITSELF does not involve
time dilation. It is what we are discussing.

>
> > It's a point in space with NO "special properties."
>
> Yes it does. It is "stationary" with respect to "NOTHING" or to all
> other "stationary points in space", depending on which of your statement
> to believe. These points have the special property of being
> "stationary", and in another post you state it's where "time runs fastest".

But it has no special properties. It is just empty space. The "special property"
isn't IN empty space. It is how light works. When an atom emits a photon,
that photon is emitted from a stationary point in space. The atom moves
on, but the photon travels away in a straight line from that stationary point
in space where it was emitted. If the atom emits another photon, that
photon is also emitted from a stationary point in space - A DIFFERENT
stationary point in space unless the atom is somehow also stationary.
ALL the stars we see in the universe we see because the stars emitted
photons from stationary points in space.

How do we know the point of emission is stationary? Because the star
moved on, but the path of the photon traces back to that stationary point in
space. If it is not stationary, how can the path trace back to it in a straight
line?

>
> > And there is no specific point in empty space where it happens.
> > It happens wherever and whenever an atom emits a photon.
>
> Yet you claim it's "stationary".

Logically, it MUST be stationary. If it isn't, then we wouldn't be able to
trace a photon back in a straight line to its point of origin.

And, logically, it MUST be where time ticks fastest, because time ticks
slower for everything that is moving relative to that stationary point. And
the faster it moves, the slower time passes for that object.
Ed

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:50:59 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/26/2022 11:30 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:33:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> > (snip)
> >>>> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space
> >>>> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?"
> >>>
> >>> Stationary to NOTHING!
> >> That makes zero sense. None whatsoever. Everything is relative.
> >>> EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING
> >>> RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS!
> >> Then those "stationary" points are moving relative to everything else in
> >> the universe, in an equal and opposite direction. I think you need a
> >> better description of those points other than "stationary".
> >>>
> >>> Ed
> >>
> >> It appears to me that your biggest problem is that you simply don't
> >> grasp the concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics.
> >> You don't understand that part of physics at all. Instead you are too
> >> stubborn to even attempt to learn about it, and would rather blame your
> >> boogeymen for them, those evil "mathematicians" 🧟‍♂️. And add to your
> >> manifesto, of course.
> >
> > I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics."
> > It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS.
>
> If you feel it's the cause of "IDIOTIC BELIEFS", you definitely do not
> understand it. Forget Einstein, this is from Galileo.

The discussion is about EINSTEIN'S Second Postulate. Galileo has nothing
to do with anything in this discussion.

> >
> > It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue
> > that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as
> > moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving
> > away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC.
>
> Because you don't understand it. If I'm on the rocket, the earth is
> obviously moving away from me, I see it receding and getting smaller and
> smaller.

Wow! Now you are really in LUNATIC territory! If I am in a rocket, I am
obviously moving away from the earth, because I can see earth receding and
getting smaller and smaller. To believe that you somehow caused the earth
to move away from YOU is lunacy that is beyond hilarious.

> The energy involved is relative to the center of mass, and
> discussing how much energy it it would have to take to move the earth
> away is meaningless.

Because it would disprove your screwball beliefs.

> >
> > The BIG BANG provided the energy that put all the stars and galaxies into
> > motion. Gravity then provided energy to move somethings closer together..
> > And nuclear reactions provided energy to blast things apart again if too
> > much got too close together.
> >
> > The Big Bang put everything in motion relative to the stationary point of
> > the Big Bang.
>
> Nonsense. You are trying to apply ancient concepts to the Big Bang, as
> if the Big Bang was a big bomb at a specific location which exploded,
> and we can go see where the bomb was.

We could, but it would take countless lifetimes, and it would be a point
far outside of our observable universe. So, first you'd have to decide on a
direction to go. The best bet is to try the direction that is OPPOSITE to
where the blue-shifted stars and galaxies are. (They are ALL in the same
general area.) We are traveling TOWARD the blue shifted stars and galaxies,
which should mean that we are traveling away from some point in the
opposite direction.

>
> Actually if you try to figure out where the Big Bang was located, it
> will come up with the answer of wherever you are. I will get where I am.
> The location of the Big Bang is everywhere. The Big Bang can't be
> thought of an explosion of a bomb IN space and time, think of it as an
> explosion OF space and time.

Nonsense. See what I just wrote above.

>
> > The only thing that remained stationary is empty space.
> > Moving through empty space requires energy.
> >
> Einstein: "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
> an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, *nor
> assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
> electromagnetic processes take place.*"
> You ignored this last time I posted it. Pay attention to the phrase
> after the comma.

He appears to be saying that you do not need to assign a velocity-vector
to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place..

"A velocity vector represents the rate of change of the position of an object.
The magnitude of a velocity vector gives the speed of an object while the
vector direction gives its direction."

Einstein is saying that you do not need that, because photons are emitted
from STATIONARY points in space. There is no "change in position" involved,
and a stationary point has no direction.

Ed

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:20:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/26/2022 4:37 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks.
> >> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric?
> >> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are
> >> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better.
> >>> NONE contains a
> >>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on
> >>> page 1254;
> >>>
> >>> ------ Start quote ------
> >>>
> >>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of
> >>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect
> >>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it
> >>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called
> >>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the
> >>> radiation.
> >>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle
> >>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles.. Interference
> >>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption
> >>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior.
> >>>
> >>> ------- end quote ------
> >>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by
> >>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman
> >> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics
> >> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?
> >
> > It's number 3 on this list:
> > https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/
> > It's number 7 on this list:
> > https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/
> > It's number 1 on this list:
> > https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/
> >
> > When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3.
> >
> Those lists are individual bloggers looking for affiliate sales. Not
> exactly indicating any expert opinions.

The sites are not blogs. If you have a better source for identifying
the best physics textbooks, NAME IT. Don't just state your opinions.

Ed

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:38:09 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/26/2022 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of
> >>> oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
> >> No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually
> >> is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics,
> >> you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously
> >> incorrect statements.
> >
> > Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually
> > every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric
> > and magnetic fields.
>
> NO physics teaches that photons are oscillating E/M fields.
> The closest you'll see is a light WAVE shown as electric and magnetic
> field WAVES at right angles to each other.

You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.

>
> >> Hint: electric and magnetic fields are an APPROXIMATION to
> >> the physical situation in which there are trillions and
> >> trillions of photons having the appropriate configuration
> >> to make the approximation valid [#]. E & M fields cannot be
> >> used to model a situation in which there is just a single
> >> photon, or even when there are just a few million of them.
> >
> > It's done every day with radio telescopes and radar guns.
>
> Nope. Radio/microwave photons are so low in energy they aren't
> individually detectable. It is the mass behavior of trillions of photons
> which make radio/microwaves behave so much like the classic wave model
> of light.

Radio telescopes are dish shaped so they can FOCUS MORE PHOTONS onto
a specific point just as regular telescopes focus photons on your eye.
The more photons you can focus on a screen, the clearer the object that
emitted the photons will appear on that screen. The bigger the dish, the more
photons you can collect.

WAVES are NOT involved. All that is involved is collecting more PHOTONS
so that you can convert them into an IMAGE. The "wave-like properties" of
a photon will define the type of photon.

Ed

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 2:08:25 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-04-26 16:13:10 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> >> On 2022-04-25 17:04:21 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>
> >>>> So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving?
> >
> > Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda
> > galaxy is moving?"
> >
> > Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins
> > on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph.
> > The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And
> > the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra
> > at 1,342,161 mph.
> For the others the evidence is obvious but how do you know that Milky Way
> is moving, let alone its speed and direction?

We know the earth is orbiting the sun because of how the locations of stars
change between summer and winter.

We know how gravity keeps the earth in its orbit around the sun.

We know that the stars in the Milky Way galaxy are orbiting something at
the center that has the mass to cause all the orbiting. It is a black hole.
There appears to be a black hole at the center of every galaxy.

We know that the Milky Way and Andromeda are moving because EVERYTHING
in the observable universe appears to be moving. If they are not moving in orbits,
they are moving toward or away from each other. Most galaxies are moving away
from each other, evidently due to the Big Bang sending everything off in different
directions away from the point of the Big Bang.

Knowing how gravity works allows us to DEDUCE what must have happened in
the past to cause what we see today.

Ed

On 2022-04-27 15:14:53 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> We could, but it would take countless lifetimes, and it would be a point
> far outside of our observable universe. So, first you'd have to decide on a
> direction to go. The best bet is to try the direction that is OPPOSITE
> towhere the blue-shifted stars and galaxies are. (They are ALL in the
> same
> general area.) We are traveling TOWARD the blue shifted stars and
> galaxies,which should mean that we are traveling away from some point
> in theopposite direction.

There are several blueshifted galaxies in Virgo cluster. So the opposite
direction would be roughly towards M33 (in Triangulum). But M33 is also
blueshifted, as is M31 (Andromeda). In a different direction M81 (in
Ursa Major) is also blueshifted. So, which galaxy we should go away from?

Mikko

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 9:26:24 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks.
> >>>> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric?
> >>>> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are
> >>>> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better.
> >>>>> NONE contains a
> >>>>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on
> >>>>> page 1254;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------ Start quote ------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of
> >>>>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect
> >>>>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it
> >>>>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called
> >>>>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the
> >>>>> radiation.
> >>>>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle
> >>>>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference
> >>>>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption
> >>>>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------- end quote ------
> >>>>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by
> >>>>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman
> >>>> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics
> >>>> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?
> >>>
> >>> It's number 3 on this list:
> >>> https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/
> >>> It's number 7 on this list:
> >>> https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/
> >>> It's number 1 on this list:
> >>> https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/
> >>>
> >>> When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3.
> >>>
> >>> Ed
> >>>
> >> OK, so let’s take a look at your metrics. First of all, you are using votes
> >> by SINGLE REVIEWERS, which is not a metric. It’s like reading local
> >> newspaper articles for “Best Barbecue in North Carolina” or “Best Movies of
> >> Summer 2021”. Those are single opinions, not metrics. Metrics might be
> >> “copies sold in the US in 2021”, or “used by most physics departments in
> >> 4-year universities and colleges”. Those provide numbers that are
> >> quantifiable rankings. While you’re pondering that, consider that the last
> >> link was from a website for professional video gamers. Does this seem like
> >> a reliable source to you? Does this help you understand why doing Google
> >> searches is only going to pull from a vast cesspool of questionable
> >> information, and unless you examine the quality of the sources, you’re just
> >> going to be repeating sewage.
> >>
> >> While Sears, Zemansky, and Young was indeed a very popular textbook dating
> >> back to the 1960’s, I recall, it’s worth noting that the only continuous
> >> author on that franchise, Hugh Young, died in 2013 at the age of 83. The
> >> current edition of Young and Freedman carries none of the breeding of that
> >> original franchise. It has survived by loyalty alone. Again, mind your
> >> sources.
> >
> > If you have a better source for a list of the best physics textbooks, why don't
> > you provide it?
> >
> > You forget, I'm arguing that most physics textbooks are CRAP. Less than a
> > month ago I started a thread here about ""REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS
> > TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
> Then there is absolutely no point in mischaracterizing ANY book you look at
> as belong to “one of the top three”, when you don’t intend to give it any
> credence AND your ranking is based on erroneous claims anyway.
>
> Here’s one fundamental point you seem to be ignoring. You’re looking at the
> wrong books. Introductory, first year books are not going to treat
> relativity well, not going to treat quantum mechanics well, certainly not
> going to give you anything but a cursory glance at what photons are or how
> they behave. For such specialized topics, you should be reading books that
> are focused on those specific topics. The downside is that you’re going to
> be confronted with mathematics (which is impenetrable Sanskrit to you) of
> even higher density than in the introductory books. The lesson is that IT
> IS AN EXPECTATION that you develop certain skills to learn anything
> substantial about physics. If you do not develop those skills, then you
> will end up with erroneous impressions of those more advanced topics and
> the concepts in them. Researching on Google will only worsen things by
> flooding you with information sewage.
>
> You are not going about this in a sensible way. Period.

We seem to have irreconcilable differences, making it clear it is about time
to bring this discussion to an end.

If we disagree, we need to find WHERE we disagree and WHY we disagree.

You stated: "It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top
3 physics textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?"

In response I showed you three web sites and how they ranked the Young-Freedman
textbook.

You disapprove of those web sites, but you provide NO ALTERNATIVE SOURCES
to back up your claims.

We are arguing physics FUNDAMENTALS. You argue that I shouldn't be looking
at textbooks which are about physics FUNDAMENTALS, I should be looking at
more advanced textbooks. Why? You don't say. Which books? You don't say..

I support my claims by citing sources, you make claims without citing sources
because your claims are just your personal beliefs. And you claim that I am the
one who is "not going about this in a sensible way." That makes arguing with
you a total waste of time.

Ed

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 10:58:56 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-04-27 15:14:53 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> > We could, but it would take countless lifetimes, and it would be a point
> > far outside of our observable universe. So, first you'd have to decide on a
> > direction to go. The best bet is to try the direction that is OPPOSITE
> > towhere the blue-shifted stars and galaxies are. (They are ALL in the
> > same
> > general area.) We are traveling TOWARD the blue shifted stars and
> > galaxies,which should mean that we are traveling away from some point
> > in theopposite direction.
>
> There are several blueshifted galaxies in Virgo cluster. So the opposite
> direction would be roughly towards M33 (in Triangulum). But M33 is also
> blueshifted, as is M31 (Andromeda). In a different direction M81 (in
> Ursa Major) is also blueshifted. So, which galaxy we should go away from?
>
> Mikko

According to a Cornell University web page:
“There are in all about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions
of galaxies in the observable universe. Most of these blue-shifted galaxies
are in our own local group, and are all bound to each other. Most are also
dwarf galaxies which you've probably never heard of, although the Andromeda
Galaxy, M31, is in there.”

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ask-a-question/97-the-universe/galaxies/cosmology/539-why-are-there-blue-shifted-galaxies-intermediate

What about the galaxies that are NOT part of our Local Group? And is there
a pattern to what we see in the Local Group? Are there MORE in one direction
than another. You can't just say there is a blue shifted galaxy in that direction
and there is a blue shifted galaxy in another direction, so there is no pattern
that means anything.

I recall doing some research and seeing a pattern, but I don't recall where I
wrote about it.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>>>> Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s
>>>>>> motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way
>>>>>> that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from
>>>>>> Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be
>>>>>> if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were
>>>>>> moving.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you need to look at things logically. Years ago it was determined that
>>>>> everything in our visible universe is moving away from the point of the Big Bang.
>>>> Unfortunately, you have not read correctly. There is no “point of the Big
>>>> Bang” that everything is moving away from. What is true is that everything
>>>> is moving away from EACH OTHER (aside from local variations) but there is
>>>> no identifiable point these are all moving away from.
>>>
>>> That is because our "observable universe" is only a tiny fraction of "the BIG BANG
>>> universe," and the point of the Big Bang is not within our observable universe.
>> Now you are no longer talking about the Big Bang model, but Ed Lake
>> Cosmology.
>>
>> The Big Bang model does not say that there is a stationary origin that lies
>> outside our observable universe. It says that there IS NO stationary origin
>> of the Big Bang at all.
>>
>> Please wrap your head around what the Big Bang model ACTUALLY SAYS, not
>> with added statements that you put in to try to make sense of it.
>>> And the Big Bang universe is expanding into "the Infinite Universe."
>>>
>>> Things expanded away from the point of the Big Bang for many thousands of years
>>> before atoms formed that could emit light. You can read all the details in my
>>> paper on "Logical versus Mathematical Universes":
>>> https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v2.pdf
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, listen to me Ed. It doesn’t matter whether you think IT ONLY MAKES
>>>> SENSE that there is a single point that everything is receding from, this
>>>> IS NOT what the Big Bang model says. It says something almost the direct
>>>> opposite, that THERE IS NO POINT that everything is receding from. First,
>>>> it’s important for you to recognize that what is ACTUALLY SAID is not what
>>>> you think it should say. Then, it will be important to sit back,
>>>> recognizing what is actually said, and THEN try to make sense of what is
>>>> actually said.
>>> (snip more of the same)
>>>
>>> Read my paper. It explains how totally wrong you are.
>> I’m talking about what the Big Bang model ACTUALLY SAYS. I’m not
>> particularly interested in Ed Lake Cosmology that modifies the Big Bang
>> model by adding things that are actually counter to what the Big Bang model
>> says.
>>
>> If you have an ALTERNATE to the Big Bang model, which you think makes sense
>> to you, then it is up to you to turn that into a viable physical model. The
>> biggest part of that responsibility is doing calculations with your model
>> to make testable predictions, which — yes — will require some math skills.
>> The physicists who put together the Big Bang model did do that, because it
>> IS an obligation in physics.
>>
>> But don’t try to add things to the Big Bang model that are actually counter
>> to what Big Bang says, and then try to pass it off as the Big Bang model,
>> properly understood.
>
> When you talk about "the Big Bang Model," you should say what you really
> mean: "The Big Bang MATHEMATICAL Model."

No, it is THE Big Bang model.

You have a tendency to add words that don’t belong, for the sake of
disparaging that which you find difficult to understand. Your favorite word
for that purpose is “mathematical”, as though mathematics is some kind of
poison that taints all it touches. It’s a language you are illiterate in,
that’s all.

>
> In that IDIOTIC model you have an expanding universe that reaches only as
> far as the farthest visible star.

No, the Big Bang model says no such thing.

> And you see that as the end of the universe,
> even though that star is moving away from us. What is that star moving INTO?
> That is a forbidden question. How can the universe be expanding if there is
> nothing to expand into? That is a forbidden question. What is outside of your
> expanding universe? That is a forbidden question.

None of these are forbidden questions. They are all questions that have
simple answers, but you haven’t found them easily and so you MISTAKENLY
think the questions must be forbidden if you can’t find simple answers.
Again, I will remind you that your main resource pool is a cesspool of
information sewage, and your frustrations with it are due purely to your
poor choices of the materials you consume.

>
> LOGICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY you cannot have something that is expanding
> unless there is something to expand into.

No, this is not correct. Your mind is limiting your consideration to finite
volumes with a boundary edge. Then expansion means the outward movement of
that edge. It is with FINITE things that you can ask, “What is that edge
moving into?”

But you have NOT asked yourself the question, “But what about an INFINITE
space, a space that has no limit, no edge? Can an infinite anything be also
characterized as expanding? After all, if infinity grows, it’s still
infinite. Does expansion mean anything?”

The answer, which has no occurred to you, is YES, even infinite things can
be said to be expanding. And it just takes an eensy bit of thinking to
imagine this.

Suppose you were able to draw an infinitely long line — or even to point to
one you can imagine. For example, imagine a line that passes through the
period of this sentence and goes upwards infinitely and also goes downward,
through the earth and beyond infinitely. This is not an unreal thing — it’s
a line that lives in the real world. Notice that there is no center to this
line, because there are no ends to the line to find the midpoint between.
Repeat: no center. Now, suppose today you managed to attach little marks
every foot along this line, as far as you can see, regularly spaced. Now
also suppose that you come back tomorrow and you notice that the marks are
all still there, regularly spaced, but they’re all 13 inches apart instead
of 12 inches apart. This is evidence that the whole line is expanding. Note
that the whole line is expanding even though there are no ends to the line,
and the line is infinite. This is a new concept to you, how an infinite
thing can be thought of as expanding.

>
> Your Big Bang Mathematical model is MORONIC. It conflicts with everything
> that we know about science.

No it doesn’t. What I just described to you was even understood by the
Greeks. It just conflicts with what YOU think the world is like, where the
only things that can be thought of as expanding are finite things with ends
and boundaries. Well, now you know what the Greeks knew a couple thousand
years ago.

>
> And just to show that I am not the only one who disagrees with you:
>
> "The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent.

Exactly. And still expanding, because that is not a contradiction.

And note that there IS NO REFERENCE in that article about any center to the
universe or where it might lie. That whole stuff about the center of the
universe lying outside the observable universe was something you made up.
There is no center, there is no edge.

> Some parts of the universe are too far away for the light emitted since the
> Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth or space-based instruments,
> and therefore lie outside the observable universe."
>
> Source:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#The_universe_versus_the_observable_universe
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:38:09 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/26/2022 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of
>>>>> oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
>>>> No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually
>>>> is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics,
>>>> you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously
>>>> incorrect statements.
>>>
>>> Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually
>>> every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric
>>> and magnetic fields.
>>
>> NO physics teaches that photons are oscillating E/M fields.
>> The closest you'll see is a light WAVE shown as electric and magnetic
>> field WAVES at right angles to each other.
>
> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.

No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
something correctly.

>
>>
>>>> Hint: electric and magnetic fields are an APPROXIMATION to
>>>> the physical situation in which there are trillions and
>>>> trillions of photons having the appropriate configuration
>>>> to make the approximation valid [#]. E & M fields cannot be
>>>> used to model a situation in which there is just a single
>>>> photon, or even when there are just a few million of them.
>>>
>>> It's done every day with radio telescopes and radar guns.
>>
>> Nope. Radio/microwave photons are so low in energy they aren't
>> individually detectable. It is the mass behavior of trillions of photons
>> which make radio/microwaves behave so much like the classic wave model
>> of light.
>
> Radio telescopes are dish shaped so they can FOCUS MORE PHOTONS onto
> a specific point just as regular telescopes focus photons on your eye.
> The more photons you can focus on a screen, the clearer the object that
> emitted the photons will appear on that screen. The bigger the dish, the more
> photons you can collect.
>
> WAVES are NOT involved. All that is involved is collecting more PHOTONS
> so that you can convert them into an IMAGE. The "wave-like properties" of
> a photon will define the type of photon.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables