Re: What is a photon

Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 13:05 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 4:29:18 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
 

Am Donnerstag000012, 12.06.2025 um 04:01 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 5:30:00 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>

Am Montag000009, 09.06.2025 um 07:33 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 4:46:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>

Am Donnerstag000005, 05.06.2025 um 13:51 schrieb bertitaylor:

On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>

Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>

Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:

On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...]
How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?

>

>
Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light
is a
wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether.

>

>
A bit confused, Bertietaylor?

>
Not at all.

>
You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
not confused? :-D

>
Why should we be? Are you thick? We have following Arindam said
clearly
that as the Earth moves, light speed has to be variant as the nulls in
MMX could not happen otherwise. The foolish or sinister physicists
have
either not thought of or ignored the fact that the Earth's movement
would cause light to move more or less between any two points on the
moving Earth.

>

>

The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the
Universe.
And in 1543 Copernicus  knew nothing about the speed of light.

>

The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may have
heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do
NOT go
around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are supposedly
light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the crystal
spheres.

>
And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D

>
Light speed would be invariant as per MMX if the Earth did not move in
space as the Aristotle model has it.
>
We have following Arindam said clearly that as the Earth moves, light
speed has to be variant as the nulls in MMX could not happen
otherwise.
The foolish or sinister physicists have either not thought of or
ignored
the fact that the Earth's movement would cause light to move more or
less between any two points on the moving Earth.

>

>
>

>

But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question
if the speed of light is invariant.
>
Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
A few of them:
>
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>
The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
the speed of light is invariant.

>
However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the
light
speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a
greater or lesser distance between two points on the moving Earth is
ignored, the experiments will start off with a false basis.  So
nothing
true will come from such an horrendous bungle.

>
So I ask you again:
How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?

>
It is never invariant. It is always variant for all objects in the
universe move with respect to the common static medium, that is aum or
aether.

>
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is stationary?

>
The speed of light will always APPEAR to be invariant in an experiment
like MMX whereas it is variant. Making APPEARANCE reality, on the
unscientific subjective basis, is the constitution of Einsteinian
pseudo-physics.
>
That light speed is variant is clearly shown from the Doppler effect,
like radar or redshift and blueshift in the stars as the go away or
come
near.
>
>

>
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is moving with the speed v?

>
Aether does not move. The speed of light from a plane flying at
speed v
to a radar on the ground is c+v.

>
No answer, Bertietaylor?

>
Well, we cannot answer to all as promptly as we might wish. Lots of
other things to do, what.

>
I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the question:
"How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"

>
It cannot be invariant, it will always be variant. However on Earth we
may measure the speed as c following the usual methods. Also,
Maxwell's
equations provide a value for c, which match experimental values.

>
Maybe you don't know what invariant means?

>
Invariant means that the speed does not depend upon the speed of the
emitter, in this case.

>
Actually 'invarinat speed of light' means, that light travels always
with the same speed through vacuum.

>
As measured from the moving Earth, yes. It also matches the value found
from Maxwell's equations and the values of permittivity and
permeability, triumphantly showing the wave nature of light. However
with respect to static solid aether filling the universe it's speed
depends upon the velocity of its emitter.

>
>
ALL velocities are 'observer dependent', if you attatch the frame of
reference to the observer.

>
Quite so a moving observer sees higher velocities or lower velocities
from any source.

>
subjectivism would require to 'halt' the observer, because observers do
not move in respect to themselves.
>
>

>
That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world.

>
Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our
conclusions wrong.

???
>
Don't understand

 Doesn't look like you want to.

>

you had written this:
"Our observations may be correct but our analysis may be flawed and our conclusions wrong."
as a reply to may statement:
" subjectivism would require to 'halt' the observer, because observers do not move in respect to themselves.
That is actually useful, because that is how we observe the world."
My statement had nothing to do with 'conclusions' (whether wrong or not), but with 'observations'
Our observations are, of course, all 'incorrect', because they are necessarily subjective.
(That's why I named this 'subjectivism'.)
Objective correct observations are actually im impossible, because we cannot see the world with other eyes than with our own.
TH