[guest39538]

Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.

I can already see him justifying the lack of such agreeing parties as evidence that he is the only one smart enough to understand it.

You claim not to understand even though they are the same symbols science uses in math and formula ?

I suggest you go learn what symbols science uses .

[guest39538]

None of that makes any sense.
Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.

Perhaps you need to learn how to ''read'' ?

Can you read this F=ma2 or this one E=mc²   ?

[Bored chemist]

You claim not to understand even though they are the same symbols science uses in math and formula ?

I wasn't sure if I should demonstrate the stupidity of that  with something like this
Rydych yn honni nad ydych yn deall er mai nhw yw'r un symbolau gwyddoniaeth sy'n cael eu defnyddio mewn mathemateg a fformiwla

or with something like this
Yettasacyeenmllrtrosaetomdmtcnhnfarahooenyubtisioencshotenuiuvgehadmnesuuhamedlss
But I decided just to reiterate  a point made earlier

Then on what you've just said , you have just shown the light clock thought experiment is invalid to begin with because Einstein also uses a light second in the light clock though experiment . 

No.
His thought experiment is valid because he uses it correctly.

You should try it.

[guest39538]

You claim not to understand even though they are the same symbols science uses in math and formula ?

I wasn't sure if I should demonstrate the stupidity of that  with something like this
Rydych yn honni nad ydych yn deall er mai nhw yw'r un symbolau gwyddoniaeth sy'n cael eu defnyddio mewn mathemateg a fformiwla

or with something like this
Yettasacyeenmllrtrosaetomdmtcnhnfarahooenyubtisioencshotenuiuvgehadmnesuuhamedlss
But I decided just to reiterate  a point made earlier

Then on what you've just said , you have just shown the light clock thought experiment is invalid to begin with because Einstein also uses a light second in the light clock though experiment . 

No.
His thought experiment is valid because he uses it correctly.

You should try it.

Oh right , so Einstein's thought is correct although I've shown the error ?

Don't talk absurd .

[Bored chemist]

None of that makes any sense.
Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.

[Bored chemist]

I've shown the error ?

No.
Have you forgotten?
You didn't show an error.
You made an error (well actually two errors)
First you thought that a light second was a unit of time (and it isn't)
Second you thought it was measured in m/s (and it isn't)

You really need to learn the basics of physics.

[guest39538]

I've shown the error ?

No.
Have you forgotten?
You didn't show an error.
You made an error (well actually two errors)
First you thought that a light second was a unit of time (and it isn't)
Second you thought it was measured in m/s (and it isn't)

You really need to learn the basics of physics.

Return when you can actually can think,  this isn't even the time dilation thread .  This thread demonstrated light is not lights speed , something else physics has wrong .

[Bored chemist]

As usual, you have missed the point.
Do you remember saying this

You claim not to understand even though they are the same symbols science uses in math and formula ?

Well, I was illustrating the point that you keep making the same mistake.

You use the symbols incorrectly- just as you used the concept of a light second incorrectly.

An that's either because you are trolling, or because you don't know how to use tem correctly which is why I keep saying
"

You really need to learn the basics of physics.

So, when are you going to learn what the symbols actually mean and how to manipulate them correctly?

OK, in the meantime:

This thread demonstrated light is not lights speed

No, it did not.
It didn't illustrate anything.

[guest39538]

No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.

That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand .  I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle 

[Bored chemist]

No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.

That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand .  I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle 

If it walks like a duck...


Anyway,
None of that makes any sense.
Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.

[guest39538]

No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.

That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand .  I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle 

If it walks like a duck...


Anyway,
None of that makes any sense.
Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.

You know what Mr Chemist , I couldn't care less if anybody agrees or not because I know I'm correct and even if it isn't established in my life time , I know it will be in the future . You can keep saying my sentencing doesn't make sense because you don't have the ability to understand my notions , they are way advanced .

[Bored chemist]

You know what Mr Chemist , I couldn't care less if anybody agrees or not because I know I'm correct and even if it isn't established in my life time , I know it will be in the future . You can keep saying my sentencing doesn't make sense because you don't have the ability to understand my notions , they are way advanced .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[jeffreyH]

No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.

That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand .  I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle 

Stop being a troll.

[guest39538]

No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.

That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand .  I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle 

Stop being a troll.

Mr Chemist is quite clearly fishing for the reaction .  He or maybe even she does not discuss theories , they just keep saying things like that's gibberish or that I don't understand when they know very well that I do .

Light speed is not lights speed ,  the speed of light is a transition speed  and the force of transition is F<E .

Do you disagree ?

If so why ?

It makes logical sense and is in accordance with spectral emissions .

[Bored chemist]

Do you disagree ?

If so why ?

Because I have measured it.

[mad aetherist]

No, it did not. It didn't illustrate anything.

That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand .  I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle 

A photon is indeed a particle. All quantum things are photonic.
However what u call a photon i call a free photon.
And what u call a particle i call a confined photon (eg electrons quarks etc)(Jeans)(Williamson)(Ranzan).
Here i prefer to not call a free photon a particle. Its a quasi-particle praps.

But most of that is semantics. For example u might prefer electrons & quarks to be called elementary particles. Which combine to form sub-atomic particles. Which combine to form atomic particles. Which combine to form molecular particles. Which combine to form particles. Most of this is semantics.

[guest39538]

A photon is indeed a particle

No , a photon is point quanta traversing point to point , .

It is potential energy pE .

[mad aetherist]

A photon is indeed a particle

No , a photon is point quanta traversing point to point , . It is potential energy pE .

No i dont agree. I reckon that nothing can be a point. Everything has 3 dimensions. This must be true of quantum things, & subquantum things, eg aether, & the fundamental essence praether (my name).  Alltho praps praether is 100 orders of size smaller than an electron.

If a free photon bites its own tail to form a loop which we call a confined photon (which Jeans called a bottled photon) then this cant happen if a free photon is merely a point.

[guest39538]

I reckon that nothing can be a point.

Well , correct ! nothing can be a point because a point is 0 dimensions .  A point is the centre of a minute volume . 

The smallest possible vector is two adjoining points 0+0=1x 

[mad aetherist]

I reckon that nothing can be a point.

Well , correct ! nothing can be a point because a point is 0 dimensions .  A point is the centre of a minute volume .

The smallest possible vector is two adjoining points 0+0=1x 

Yes. And no.  An Einsteinian blackhole is a point. Or at least it is a singularity. And the distance tween binary singularities is 0+0=1x, u could call these binularities, or pairularities, or blackularities, or pointularities. But what is the diff tween a point & a singularity. But there must be another end, the blunt end, the bluntularity.