Re: Time Dilation Experiments

On Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 8:33:29 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 11:31:53 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 10:50:47 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:47:38 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:08:15 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 2:21:28 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

On 7/5/2022 4:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>

A photon is a moving electromagnetic charge. When you have lots of
photons, you have a greater electromagnetic charge.

Idjit. Photons have NO charge! You didn't even understand what you
copied-and-pasted.

>
Photons are virtual moments in magnetic fields which have energy.
>
These are electronic photons, though.

As opposed to quarkonic photons?
>
Jan

>
No, quarks are part of hadrons, these are leptops.

Some of your detectors need retuning,
>
Jan

When I bother to think about leptons,
after hadrons, is that I am not abusing the language.
>
If I could understand, say, a laboratory,
and, electricity arrives in the form of a contact,
then this "solid insulating ilght" and
"vacuum insulating current" is power semiconductors.
>
Then under the current detector, if you mention it,
it is re-tuning the detector or antenna, no I really
made the point of having the photon as both a hadron,
and a lepton, and ....
>
Then I expect in these terms that the photonic, cicrcuits,
and electronic, circuits, in what results "build a board
and apply contact", is that matter-of-fact I do expect that
in those terms.
>
"Photonic leptons", or "'lectrons", now why I have
these are only "photo-leptons".
>
So, to be sure, if I just automatiically ascribe all photon's
properties in leptons, it should be about same.
>
But, I won't, because without explaining that, again,
now that I just discovered it according to grammar,
then I would have to constantly retract why I said
"photons should be called leptons instead of hadrons".
>
Or that the radiant or infra-red is baryonic,
but radio is leptonic or electro-weak,
it's at least electro.
>
"Or baryons."
>
Here photon is "anything at about the wavefront with c,
for example a significant percentage of c in a constant image,
massless, chargeless, particles".
>
That's though plasma, usual background ether, background plasma ether.
>
Now I am staring at it all wrong.
>
No, I meant leptons.
>
Not sure what I thought I typed, ..., sure it was 'leptons".
>
Alright then "photons are defined hadrons".
>
The systolic at c or pump, here notice this is optical, thermo, radio front,
that is a point in area terms and a contact. Hadronic and leptonic.
>
"Photons"
>
So, yeah, no, I meant leptons.

"The known force carrier bosons all have spin = 1 and are therefore vector bosons.
The hypothetical graviton has spin = 2 and is a tensor boson;
it is unknown whether it is a gauge boson as well."
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#Overview
>
>
Oh, these are spinless, too, massless, chargeless, spinless, photons.
>
"Photo-leptons: spinless photons"
>
"The other three leptons are neutrinos, ...".
>
Now I am getting into it.
>
>
"Quark hadronics"
>
What the theory leaves out according to units is particles, in a
usual enough sense, that the values, in the particles, are
dynamical, in the particles.
>
Or "according to the dimensional analysis these are still both
photons, in area or current terms, and leptons, neutrinos, ...".
>
When dynamical, ....
>
Reading the Wiki, that's just that for the current terms, sure
"the photon's erased inside the diagram, so it can be called
a photon according to the diagram that dynamics gives it,
it's current in electron-volts", is for because "photons are
massless, these leptons couldn't be massy or electrons, at all".
>
I.e. they are definitely what you'd expect, when "photons"
are what are under the dynamics, the point here is that
"the photon is a very inclusive particle". As are neutrinos,
in a Dirac positronic sea.
>
"These leptons couldn't be massy or charged, at all".
>
>
Yeah, as "particle" that constitutes, energy, the photon,
that travels only and exactly at the bradyonic/tachyonic
speed, results that traveling image besides hologram
includes a radiant component.
>
I suppose then that's rays.
>
Rays, here is this "radiant component" included, which are
waves, result particles in current in effect.
>
Here this is basically that "photons like electrons are used to
define current in effect, which in space terms is space current",
also, "photons are frequency/wavelength numbers of a result
that according to electron gap, is the ratio of a quantum energy
level, that sums to a finite number".
>
The photons in the various are as various, when it's as "according
to the theory these particles could only be photons not the
plasma or rays or power, that was called particles again that
massless and c could only be photons".
>
Here I'm making the point whether area and current terms,
and particle terms, making sure they are defined, because
elementary theory really only has very few particles.
>
"Photons"

Ha, "photo-hadrons", "photo-leptons", "spinless, empty photons", just like
the SI redefinition of units went I called all these what would be anti or
partner or virtual particles, "photons".
>
So, that's in STR, in a way.
>
Then, the photon is the massless, chargless, spinless, ..., particle
that moves at the speed of light, in electron-volts, and either in
current, or, instead, under quantum mechanics, either electromagnetic
and radio, or radiant and blazing, or optical and laser.
>
"Photons"
>
Then about quantum numbers in their field occupation, here is that some
of what are "could only be photons, must at least be virtual photons", have
diagrams besides arithmetic in the quantum numbers, why there are the
"dash less particles" that according to diagrams, are leptons, hadrons, and
so on, in "few elementary particles".
>
Ha, "photons".
>
The few elementary particles though more dimensionless proportionality,
results still in all the terms in their dimensions, why quantization or "seesaw"
under supersymmetry result in those dimensional terms, what are beyond
experiment, in terms what according to the theory are "photons".
>
Which like white holes and for gravitons in the virtual always exist everywhere,
in a Dirac positronic sea.
At least then all of GR, SR, QM, also now brane theory, can be put together,
in what results few units, and linearly of course exactly one.
>
Well, alright then, now I added three particles photohadrons, photoleptons,
lessphotons, they are simply virtual "particles" not much even needing a
theory, just following out definition in "quantum mechanics" and "the standard
model".
>
In STR, "STR's photons", next to "STR's electrons".
>
That in these other theories are "not STR's photons".

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics#Processes
>
Mostly it seems "potentials is in Yukawa".
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen%E2%80%93Olesen_vortex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_equation#Weyl_spinors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-current#Physical_interpretation
>
Basically "insulator physics" for current, is variously where
again it's following not just super-symmetry, but isotropy,
what is in terms of kinetics a Dirac positronic sea.
>
(If rather "the old Quantum Mechanics".)
>
Then, some "invariance bars" for "symmetry flex", this "seesaw" type
approach, it's courtesy geometry what it results "gross error" or "gross
precision", up over a bar of invariance, with the quasi-invariance,
up after usual "quantization, linearisation and small-angle-approximation,
seesaw, ..., renormalizability concerns".
>
>
I try to keep this simple with "unified field theory:  fall gravity unites,
charge mediates, atom is real graviton", here that there are at least
three photonic interfaces (some say "fields") and for each of those
the stimulated interfaces, of charged and pumped particles, what
make for parallel and bulk, transport.  (Here that parallel transport
is molecular as it were while bulk transport is current.)
>
Ah, then excuse me there, it's important I be read as correct.
>
>
>