Re: The Relativity Mafia

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".