Re: The Relativity Mafia

On 11/30/2024 11:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/30/2024 10:23 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/29/2024 07:56 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 23:53:04 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

On 11/29/2024 02:30 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:36:18 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>

Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by
gravity and
I don't.

>
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has
proved
that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
>
Bertietaylor

>
Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the
"mass-less".

>
If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them
from
moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.

>
Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
as radiant the light.
>
That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
though the theory today has it simplified together,
helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
c =/= infinity.
>
And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
>
The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
>
One may notice that waves are not granular.
>
Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
>
"Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
>
Of course there's just adding definition underneath
the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".

>
You're right to place "successful theories" in quotation marks. What
troubles me is how can energy exist without mass? How ca photons be
massless?

>
Seems you got one of those "non-zero, yet vanishing"
"mathematical infinitesimal" type things to figure out.
>
These days the photon is acribed an arbitrarily small
yet non-zero mass, so small that it only effects that
light follow the geodesy, and so small that c = infinity
by definition doesn't make for that m_photon c^2 = infinity,
or, it's an infinitesimal.
>
Other types of nuclear radiation, where optical light is
considered a type of flux complement of nuclear radiation,
for example X-rays and gamma rays, vis-a-vis alpha and
beta particles, of nuclear radiation, have that optical
light is considered part of nuclear radiation, and that
furthermore that optical light is special in terms of
rays and waves and diffraction and the carriage of an image,
that "information is free, if metered" as it were.
>
So, SR has nothing to say about that until mathematics
has something to say about infinity and infinitesimals
in real things, much like Einstein's cosmological constant,
which according to the latest, most-expensive, most-cited
experiments like WMAP is "non-zero, yet vanishing".
>
Sort of like "Little Higgs".
>
These explorations of the trans-Planckian, the
Planck-plank of electron physics as it were,
make for things like super-string theory,
which are kind of simply understood as twice
as small as atoms, in orders of magnitude,
because "it's a continuum mechanics...".
>
So, mathematics _owes_ physics more and better
mathematics of mathematical infinities and infinitesimals
with regards to continuum analysis, and furthermore
physics is in dire _need_ of this.
>
Otherwise you can just point at QM and GR disagreeing
120 orders of magnitude and point out they're both wrong.
>
And quantum mechanics is never wrong, ...,
and neither is relativity (of motion) theory.
>
Maybe you're doing it wrong,
but QM after Democritan chemistry
and GR and for FitzGeraldian space-contraction,
need fixing in "mechanics" and furthermore "continuum mechanics".

Thanks for your thoughts. I suppose that if the mass is so small it does
not become infinite at c then it may not even be affected by gravity.

>
Well, there's an idea that "light orbits", and
another that "light encompasses", with regards
to making an explanation like "large-lens Fresnel"
helping show that things like "Arago spot" indicate
quite readily that "light encompasses" is more
than "light orbits", where as well it doesn't
apply to electromagnetic waves, only light and
about nuclear rays.
>
Then, that might seem "well that's another tuning
problem and it's already bad enough that the entire
Big Bang cosmology is a lop-sided tuning problem
that every few years gets added a billion years age",
yet the idea is that it's mostly the same as light
with regards to luminous matter and occlusion, and if
relativity the geodesy about the space-contraction
does make a lensing effect or Einstein lensing,
the rest of the effect that's un-accounted for is a
thing, and furthermore, there's Arago spot and other
features of light, not yet included.
>
I.e., the experiments of relativistic lensing added
about a missing half of the observed "deflection",
of the path, that there yet remains an un-accounted bit.
>
Saying that light has "a nominal non-zero mass" is
a pretty late addition to the theory, and thus as
it's part of the fragments of the babel of theories,
you won't find it everywhere.
>
>

>
>
Here for example a paper talks about "gravitational lensing"
with regards to the cosmological constant, that according
to science's account is, "vanishing, yet non-zero".
>
https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05183
>
"A general relativistic aberration relationship is established
as one of its applications. The question of whether or not the
cosmological constant, Λ, contributes to orbits of light and
to related observable quantities is addressed in detail."
>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_aberration
>
>
>
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.00956
>
"Measurements of galaxy clustering are affected by RSD.
Peculiar velocities, gravitational lensing, and other light-cone
projection effects modify the observed redshifts, fluxes,
and sky positions of distant light sources."
>
"Our results indicate that relativistic RSD, the contribution
from weak gravitational lensing in particular, cannot be
disregarded when modelling 2-point clustering statistics
extracted from the EWSS. "
>
>
>
https://skullsinthestars.com/2008/07/05/what-a-drag-aragos-experiment-1810/
>
"In fact, one of the earliest hints of special relativity
came from an experiment performed by François Arago
in 1810 on ‘stellar aberration’, nearly 100 years before
Einstein’s landmark 1905 paper! "
>
"From a historical point of view, Arago’s experiment* is
absolutely fascinating: as we will see, it was a failed experiment,
based on incorrect theories of light propagation, which was
interpreted incorrectly by Fresnel, but this incorrect
interpretation helped lead to the (correct) view that
light has wavelike properties!"
>
>
Now, Fresnel knew both corpuscular and wave-like
models of light, and also diffraction, and not merely
reflection, also the "optics", of the optics.
>
So, the idea that after Fresnel's account are more-and-better
ideas to revisit with regards to light's nature.
>
(Snell's law, Beer's law, ....)
>
"Arago, however, came up with a clever idea: according
to Newton’s theory of refraction, the angle of refraction
will be different for light particles moving at different speeds. "
>
"This frequency can be changed by relative motion of
source and observer, in what is known as a Doppler shift,
but the speed of light is always the same, regardless of
the motion of source and observer: this is in essence one
of the postulates of Einstein’s relativity." [L-principle]
>
"In 1818 Augustin Jean Fresnel suggested another possibility
to Arago*****: that the aether is partially dragged along
with a material object."
>
"Fresnel’s approach represents a compromise between
the ‘complete drag’ theories and ‘no drag’ theories. "
>
>
That's a pretty good article "What a drag: Arago's Experiment(1810)",
That's a pretty great article, of Greg Gbur, you should read that if
you're actually interested in how light works in nature.
>
>
Then, what it indicates is that Fresnel's "large-lens"
bit here as I frame it has ways to arrive at it's a thing.
>
>
I reflect some more on the geometric qualities of
lights in some of my podcasts on https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson ,
for example reading from Einstein, descriptive differential
dynamics, and Moment and Motion about wave theory.
>
Then those recent Arxiv accounts above give some
more idea of the all-over-the-place descriptive account,
of these days.
>
Most people don't know that gravitational lensing
of the most simple derivation is about, well, "at least"
one might generously say, about half-right.
>
>
>
>

Optical light of course is "special", in that it's
in constant flux, vis-a-vis in-flux and ex-flux as
it were, and its diffraction after refraction is
not the same as electromagnetic radio waves,
their reflections.
The images, "the films", the propagation of status
according to the L-principle meteredly, the extromissive
for the intromissive, make that the visible light is
special, and the human eye is basically evolved
about the particular concordance what is the
visible spectrum.
That, then, is about "color". The decoherent light
or white light and the "prismatic" differentiation
of light into color, is so very well known and demonstrable
simply, while the "chromatic" effects to reflect that
"color", is more than the usual notion as after a
tri-stimulus color space, or colorspace, that there
is for the prismatic _and_ chromatic, a dual-tri-stimulus
colorspace.
So, the prismatic and chromatic represent a particular
and special making as after duals, that in a deconstructive
account, effect to reflect that the usual model of those
combined, has that they are as yet different, with regards
to emission and transmission and absorption and reflection.
The Brehmsstrahlung, or braking radiation or Cerenkov,
most visibly demonstrates the relation of visible light,
"light" itself per se, and nuclear radiation, and not
(electrical, electromagnetic) radio.
So, visible light is special, and nuclear radiation the rays,
is a particular other side of that, the flux, as with regards
to the flow, the flux.
Then, color, is itself, a particular dynamism, and is to include
both the prismatic and chromatic, the additive and subtraction,
the sources and filters, about the rods, cones, and also pigments.
Light, then, visible light, is special.