Astronomers solve the 60-year mystery of quasars --
the most powerful objects in the Universe:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230425205342.htm

Colliding galaxies!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 05:21:24 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Astronomers solve the 60-year mystery of quasars --
the most powerful objects in the Universe:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230425205342.htm

Colliding galaxies!

Solved?
More like made up by desperate monks beating their
heads with ritual blocks of wood in their monastery to make
their job resume look better.
Notice part of this paper relies on the existence of black holes in
the colliding galaxies
Black holes are a fantasy that have never been observed. So
how could scientists solve how quasars are formed by pretending
it’s caused by multiple imaginary unverified fantasies?
Notice the only 2 actual supposed black holes ever “observed” are
false alarms. Fantasies.
Because neither had any accretion discs. Accretion discs are Fundamental
to the mythology of black holes.
The excuse from the nutty monks was that by chance both were face
on when viewed from earth. !! Both Face on?
The chances of the only 2 black holes
ever “observed” being both face on is about 1/36000.
It’s called delusional fantasy from the same crackpots who gave us the imaginary Big Bang.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 05:21:24 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Astronomers solve the 60-year mystery of quasars --
the most powerful objects in the Universe:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230425205342.htm

Colliding galaxies!

And ..not to mention the fact that quasars show no time dilation.
In case anyone doesn’t realise what this means ...it means that
Quasars do not appear to be moving away from us and thus are
evidence that the universe isn’t expanding.
For this paper to cite quasars as evidence for black holes in a
expanding universe is a bit like saying that Charles Darwin’s theory
of evolution is evidence that god created the world 13,000 years ago.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:29:53 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 05:21:24 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Astronomers solve the 60-year mystery of quasars --
the most powerful objects in the Universe:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230425205342.htm

Colliding galaxies!

Solved?
More like made up by desperate monks beating their
heads with ritual blocks of wood in their monastery to make
their job resume look better.
Notice part of this paper relies on the existence of black holes in
the colliding galaxies
Black holes are a fantasy that have never been observed.

Well that goes a bit far.
All a black hole is, is so much mass that the escape velocity is so high
that light cannot escape.
So, and I do think there is a limit to the maximum mass of an object
as I think a Le Sage theory of gravity predicts that at some point all Le Sage particles
are intercepted.
So no 'singularities' (Mathematicians doing a divide by zero, their hobby so to speak, or all they ever learned?).
I am reading into that paper (see posting subject line):
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/522/2/1736/7035603
As to the big bang, we know little about elementary particles,
places like CERN are looking - or trying to look for more of those.
But given all the stellar explosions and nuclear processes (sun and other stars)
why could not some sort of matter we do not yet know about (like now nuclear reactions)
but deeper than that, have occurred, and created this universe we see (what we see of it)...
And then there could have been many of those bangs and some galaxies we see would
then perhaps be from other bangs...

See one frog .. means there must be more...

So
how could scientists solve how quasars are formed by pretending
it’s caused by multiple imaginary unverified fantasies?
Notice the only 2 actual supposed black holes ever “observed�=
� are
false alarms. Fantasies.
Because neither had any accretion discs. Accretion discs are Fundamental
to the mythology of black holes.

Look at fireworks.
Thing explodes, spits out matter that is hot and lights up...
In the air no accretion disk forms.
The air molecules and Le Sage particles in this case are the thing that interacts.

All back holes a part of the bigger thing that exploded, those
then spitting out matter that forms disks with stars.
Black holes spitting out matter from 2 arms,
much like a garden sprinkler forming patterns in the air
where that air is now Le Sage particles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

We really need a mechanism to explain relativity...
Without a mechanism relativity is like Ohm's law without electrons.
Parroting it no end gives nothing and it will always break down
in experiment (Fleming tube).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleming_valve

Einstein came from an electrical background, so he grabbed similar things
in his formulas E=m.c^2 you see that in electric engineering as
power is U^2 / R
shows his way of thinking.

I do not think he ever understood ;-) Well..
So, mechanism will help us out of the endless loops science is now in
and a Le Sage like particle will unite gravity with the rest of the forces, something Einstein admitted on his deathbed he failed to do.

If a (state of) the Le Sage type particle is also the carrier of electromagnetism
then (as it seems they have measured gravity moves at the speed of light) we united things.
Le Sage also explains the internal heating of objects, it predicts clocks slowing down in a gravity well (pendulum get less compressed, longer, swings slower)
and no more parroting formulas. Understanding, a MECHANISM, is what we need.

What happens on a more deeper level then those nuclear reactions and what exactly a Le Sage
particle looks like, maybe many years from now?
OTOH we are just like an ant creeping in the field, will our few neurons ever, during the lifetime of this species, reach deep enough to understand EVERYTHING? I think not.
Dinos and many other species had their chance and a go ...

So much for philosophy, but there is some great science to discover.
First thing I thought about was : If Le Sage particles exist, can we make something
that lets those through in one direction, but not in the opposite direction, then we have a light speed propulsion system.
I was interested in that sort of propulsion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

I did some super conducting experiments, have a cryo-cooler..
But need a whole lab likely, somebody should check it and did:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)
Is it now top secret US stuff?

..Anyways. so a mechanism...
I am open to anything better but Le Sage like particles make sense to me so far.

The excuse from the nutty monks was that by chance both were face
on when viewed from earth. !! Both Face on?
The chances of the only 2 black holes
ever “observed” being both face on is about 1/36000.
It’s called delusional fantasy from the same crackpots who gave us =
the
imaginary Big Bang.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 13:02:21 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:29:53 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 05:21:24 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Astronomers solve the 60-year mystery of quasars --
the most powerful objects in the Universe:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230425205342.htm

Colliding galaxies!

Solved?
More like made up by desperate monks beating their
heads with ritual blocks of wood in their monastery to make
their job resume look better.
Notice part of this paper relies on the existence of black holes in
the colliding galaxies
Black holes are a fantasy that have never been observed.

Well that goes a bit far.
All a black hole is, is so much mass that the escape velocity is so high that light cannot escape.
So, and I do think there is a limit to the maximum mass of an object
as I think a Le Sage theory of gravity predicts that at some point all Le Sage particles
are intercepted.
So no 'singularities' (Mathematicians doing a divide by zero, their hobby so to speak, or all they ever learned?).
I am reading into that paper (see posting subject line): https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/522/2/1736/7035603
As to the big bang, we know little about elementary particles,
places like CERN are looking - or trying to look for more of those.
But given all the stellar explosions and nuclear processes (sun and other stars)
why could not some sort of matter we do not yet know about (like now nuclear reactions)
but deeper than that, have occurred, and created this universe we see (what we see of it)...
And then there could have been many of those bangs and some galaxies we see would
then perhaps be from other bangs...

See one frog .. means there must be more...

So
how could scientists solve how quasars are formed by pretending
it’s caused by multiple imaginary unverified fantasies?
Notice the only 2 actual supposed black holes ever “observed�€=
are
false alarms. Fantasies.
Because neither had any accretion discs. Accretion discs are Fundamental >to the mythology of black holes.

Look at fireworks.
Thing explodes, spits out matter that is hot and lights up...
In the air no accretion disk forms.
The air molecules and Le Sage particles in this case are the thing that interacts.

All back holes a part of the bigger thing that exploded, those
then spitting out matter that forms disks with stars.
Black holes spitting out matter from 2 arms,
much like a garden sprinkler forming patterns in the air
where that air is now Le Sage particles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

We really need a mechanism to explain relativity...
Without a mechanism relativity is like Ohm's law without electrons. Parroting it no end gives nothing and it will always break down
in experiment (Fleming tube).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleming_valve

Einstein came from an electrical background, so he grabbed similar things
in his formulas E=m.c^2 you see that in electric engineering as
power is U^2 / R
shows his way of thinking.

I do not think he ever understood ;-) Well..
So, mechanism will help us out of the endless loops science is now in
and a Le Sage like particle will unite gravity with the rest of the forces, something Einstein admitted on his deathbed he failed to do.

If a (state of) the Le Sage type particle is also the carrier of electromagnetism
then (as it seems they have measured gravity moves at the speed of light) we united things.
Le Sage also explains the internal heating of objects, it predicts clocks slowing down in a gravity well (pendulum get less compressed, longer, swings slower)
and no more parroting formulas. Understanding, a MECHANISM, is what we need.

What happens on a more deeper level then those nuclear reactions and what exactly a Le Sage
particle looks like, maybe many years from now?
OTOH we are just like an ant creeping in the field, will our few neurons ever,
during the lifetime of this species, reach deep enough to understand EVERYTHING? I think not.
Dinos and many other species had their chance and a go ...

So much for philosophy, but there is some great science to discover.
First thing I thought about was : If Le Sage particles exist, can we make something
that lets those through in one direction, but not in the opposite direction, then we have a light speed propulsion system.
I was interested in that sort of propulsion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

I did some super conducting experiments, have a cryo-cooler..
But need a whole lab likely, somebody should check it and did: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)
Is it now top secret US stuff?

I don’t think we can alter gravity as the above apparently did.
What is gravity caused by?
Mass.
The only way to lift you sitting on your living room chair using “Antigravity” would be to create a moon sized object hovering
above your living room. At which point it would probably be
cheaper and more energy efficient to give you a large balloon
filled with hydrogen gas.

..Anyways. so a mechanism...
I am open to anything better but Le Sage like particles make sense to me so far.

The excuse from the nutty monks was that by chance both were face
on when viewed from earth. !! Both Face on?
The chances of the only 2 black holes
ever “observed” being both face on is about 1/36000.
It’s called delusional fantasy from the same crackpots who gave us =
the
imaginary Big Bang.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 Apr 2023 05:18:45 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 13:02:21 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:29:53 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 05:21:24 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

So much for philosophy, but there is some great science to discover.
First thing I thought about was : If Le Sage particles exist, can we make=

something

that lets those through in one direction, but not in the opposite directi= >on,

then we have a light speed propulsion system.
I was interested in that sort of propulsion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

I did some super conducting experiments, have a cryo-cooler..
But need a whole lab likely, somebody should check it and did:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)
Is it now top secret US stuff?

I don’t think we can alter gravity as the above apparently did.
What is gravity caused by?
Mass.
The only way to lift you sitting on your living room chair using >“Antigravity” would be to create a moon sized object hoveri=
ng
above your living room. At which point it would probably be
cheaper and more energy efficient to give you a large balloon
filled with hydrogen gas.

..Anyways. so a mechanism...
I am open to anything better but Le Sage like particles make sense to me = >so far.

The excuse from the nutty monks was that by chance both were face
on when viewed from earth. !! Both Face on?
The chances of the only 2 black holes
ever “observed” being both face on is about 1/36000.
It’s called delusional fantasy from the same crackpots who gave =

us =

the
imaginary Big Bang.

Well, read about Le Sage theory:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

Scroll down for all the people up till now who had a go at it.
Objections and solutions...
We really need a mechanism, particle ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 05:39:07 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 Apr 2023 05:18:45 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 13:02:21 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:29:53 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 05:21:24 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

So much for philosophy, but there is some great science to discover.
First thing I thought about was : If Le Sage particles exist, can we make=

something

that lets those through in one direction, but not in the opposite directi= >on,

then we have a light speed propulsion system.
I was interested in that sort of propulsion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

I did some super conducting experiments, have a cryo-cooler..
But need a whole lab likely, somebody should check it and did:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)
Is it now top secret US stuff?

I don’t think we can alter gravity as the above apparently did.
What is gravity caused by?
Mass.
The only way to lift you sitting on your living room chair using >“Antigravity” would be to create a moon sized object hoveri=
ng
above your living room. At which point it would probably be
cheaper and more energy efficient to give you a large balloon
filled with hydrogen gas.

..Anyways. so a mechanism...
I am open to anything better but Le Sage like particles make sense to me = >so far.

The excuse from the nutty monks was that by chance both were face
on when viewed from earth. !! Both Face on?
The chances of the only 2 black holes
ever “observed” being both face on is about 1/36000.
It’s called delusional fantasy from the same crackpots who gave =

us =

the
imaginary Big Bang.

Well, read about Le Sage theory: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

Scroll down for all the people up till now who had a go at it.
Objections and solutions...
We really need a mechanism, particle ...

I m completely on board with you re: LeSage. It’s the only option
considering that relativity doesn’t even bother to give a mechanism.
Which is why relativity is a useless quasi religious fantasy.
But as you know I think it has to be waves.
Not least because we already have observed waves.
(And there is no observational evidence yet for light as
a particle.) I notice Even relativity hero Lorentz toyed with
wave LeSage. I did t read up too much though as he incorrectly
thinks emr has an electric component.

The advantage with wave lesage is that all the criticisms aren’t applicable. No heat or mass buildup. Atoms can be completely transparent as they are
just interference patterns of waves.
The interaction that gives gravity is that most of the wave travels through the atom,
But a small part is deflected and re emitted isotropically by the atoms magnetic field.
Giving us gravity and the short strong electroweak forces etc .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 05:39:07 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 Apr 2023 05:18:45 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou
wrote in
<[email protected]>:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 13:02:21 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:29:53 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou
<wrote in
<[email protected]>:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 05:21:24 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

So much for philosophy, but there is some great science to discover.
First thing I thought about was : If Le Sage particles exist, can we make=

something

that lets those through in one direction, but not in the opposite directi= >on,

then we have a light speed propulsion system.
I was interested in that sort of propulsion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

I did some super conducting experiments, have a cryo-cooler..
But need a whole lab likely, somebody should check it and did:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)
Is it now top secret US stuff?

I don’t think we can alter gravity as the above apparently did.
What is gravity caused by?
Mass.
The only way to lift you sitting on your living room chair using >“Antigravity” would be to create a moon sized object hoveri=
ng
above your living room. At which point it would probably be
cheaper and more energy efficient to give you a large balloon
filled with hydrogen gas.

..Anyways. so a mechanism...
I am open to anything better but Le Sage like particles make sense to me = >so far.

The excuse from the nutty monks was that by chance both were face
on when viewed from earth. !! Both Face on?
The chances of the only 2 black holes
ever “observed” being both face on is about 1/36000.
It’s called delusional fantasy from the same crackpots who gave =

us =

the
imaginary Big Bang.

Well, read about Le Sage theory: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

Scroll down for all the people up till now who had a go at it.
Objections and solutions...
We really need a mechanism, particle ...

Reading your wiki LeSage page takes me to the LET page....in
Which ite Interesting to also read how Poincarre actually summed up best
the results of MMX as quoted from

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

“Surely, the course of inventing special hypotheses for each new experimental result is somewhat artificial. It would be more satisfactory, if it were possible to show, by means of certain fundamental assumptions, and without neglecting terms of one
order of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system."

In other words the propagation of light away from a source
is unaffected by the motion of that source.
Something I’ve been saying for years but have been told by
relativists is nonsense. Relativists who, ironically, worship
almost as much as Albert Moronstein.
I’m not sure if what Poincarre says quoted above is accepted
by low IQ relativists (Ie retired computer programmers) but
If it is then this assumption is NOT consistent with
the theology of relativism.
In that Poincarre specifically rules out constant speed of
light in all frames.
I think what happened was that the low IQ Einstein misunderstood
Poincarre and thought that his hallucinations about clocks could
be consistent with a misinterpretation of Poincarre s comment.
In that the Einstein thought that Poincarre meant that the “electromagnetic actions are independent of the motion of the system” implied that
the speed of light was always c independent of the motion of the observer.
When in fact Poincarre meant it was always c independent of
the motion of the source

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Sat, 29 Apr 2023 04:55:10 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 05:39:07 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 Apr 2023 05:18:45 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou
wrote in
<[email protected]>:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 13:02:21 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:29:53 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou=

<wrote in
<[email protected]>:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 05:21:24 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

So much for philosophy, but there is some great science to discover.
First thing I thought about was : If Le Sage particles exist, can we m= >ake=

something

that lets those through in one direction, but not in the opposite dire= >cti=

on,

then we have a light speed propulsion system.
I was interested in that sort of propulsion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

I did some super conducting experiments, have a cryo-cooler..
But need a whole lab likely, somebody should check it and did:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)
Is it now top secret US stuff?

I don’t think we can alter gravity as the above apparently did.=

What is gravity caused by?
Mass.
The only way to lift you sitting on your living room chair using
“Antigravity” would be to create a moon sized object hov=

eri=

ng
above your living room. At which point it would probably be
cheaper and more energy efficient to give you a large balloon
filled with hydrogen gas.

..Anyways. so a mechanism...
I am open to anything better but Le Sage like particles make sense to = >me =

so far.

The excuse from the nutty monks was that by chance both were face
on when viewed from earth. !! Both Face on?
The chances of the only 2 black holes
ever “observed” being both face on is about 1/36000.
It’s called delusional fantasy from the same crackpots who ga=

ve =

us =

the
imaginary Big Bang.

Well, read about Le Sage theory:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

Scroll down for all the people up till now who had a go at it.
Objections and solutions...
We really need a mechanism, particle ...

Reading your wiki LeSage page takes me to the LET page....in
Which ite Interesting to also read how Poincarre actually summed up best
the results of MMX as quoted from

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

“Surely, the course of inventing special hypotheses for each new ex= >perimental result is somewhat artificial. It would be more satisfactory, if=
it were possible to show, by means of certain fundamental assumptions, and= without neglecting terms of one order of magnitude or another, that many e=
lectromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system= >."

In other words the propagation of light away from a source
is unaffected by the motion of that source.
Something I’ve been saying for years but have been told by
relativists is nonsense. Relativists who, ironically, worship
almost as much as Albert Moronstein.
I’m not sure if what Poincarre says quoted above is accepted
by low IQ relativists (Ie retired computer programmers) but
If it is then this assumption is NOT consistent with
the theology of relativism.
In that Poincarre specifically rules out constant speed of
light in all frames.
I think what happened was that the low IQ Einstein misunderstood
Poincarre and thought that his hallucinations about clocks could
be consistent with a misinterpretation of Poincarre s comment.
In that the Einstein thought that Poincarre meant that the “electro= >magnetic
actions are independent of the motion of the system” implied that
the speed of light was always c independent of the motion of the observer. >When in fact Poincarre meant it was always c independent of
the motion of the source

Yes, it is an interesting subject.
From a particle point of view (like a Le Sage type for example) I think
we need to look at _what such a particle needs to look like to get what we observe now_.

I see people like Feynman rejecting things but he (mathematician basically) simplifies things
(type of particle).

We now know 'atoms' are not simply small balls, but are very complex structures and that gives us among other things
the periodic system.
Atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks... and deeper and deeper we go! Would be interesting to see (if humanity persists) what the ideas would look like in say a few thousand years.
We came a long way from 'earth water wind and fire' as the basic elements....

Feynman lectures were once on youtube, have watched those, maybe still are. Albert E. worshipping was much a political thing in my view,
He wrote that letter to US president Roosevelt that US should build the nuclear bomb as they thought Germany was doing just that.
Questioning Albert's ideas is kicking the status quo, 'confirming' his ideas gets you published or at least promoted..

Same madness with CO2 and climate change these days...

I remember Alain Aspect's experiment in the early eighties:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experiment
EPR paradox...
That sure made a lot of noise in the media.
So, experiment, only way to find reality.
Math to describe to some depth the magnitudes of things.
But 'math' is just a construction of a few neurons in the human brain, and in fact extremely inefficient to solve real time things
Catch a ball, we can, learned!
Give a mathematician the question where to put his hands and he needs the gravitational constant, wind speed, air density, weight of the ball,
distance, hight, local time, speed ..
and before you know we have string theory with as many dimension as needed to explain anything.
Its funny, somebody, long ago, came up with the wheel,
Mathematicians are still figuring out PI to ? how many decimals...
Epicycles was their thing long ago, and dare you not question it!
Keep it simple.
Nature is, (well once you figured it out of course) relative (maybe I should not use that word) simple.
We are part of it and if you go one step beyond .. we are nature, and likely quantum coupled to every other thing in this universe
could we connect to that then we already know everything, and we are but a transient state anyways.
So its alright!
So much for philosophy?
Experimenting is fun, done it since I was a kid... Mostly electronics.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

PS
As to Alain Aspect's experiment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experiment
EPR paradox...

What bugs me in this is that we still believe in 'a photon'

I have some nice PMTs, can detect 'photons' if you will,
but to me when it detects a 'photon; it only means the waves were high enough to kick an electron lose from the target.
like a ball on a wire in the ocean.
Detecting a lose ball does not mean water photons exist!!!
The water molecules are orders of magnitude smaller, and behave differently. The 'wire' in this example is the electric forces holding
the election in orbit around the atoms in whatever material the detector is made of.

So, all crap, making 2 coupled 'photons;' is just the directional effect of the same wave!
Did the ball go up when it broke lose? Oh and the other one did too!
WOW!
And where does the crap originate? Mathematical definition of 'photon':
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

And who came up with that?
Albert E.



physicist do sometimes not even understand how the equipment they use works!!!

Seems to be common issue..

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28/04/2023 05:21, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Astronomers solve the 60-year mystery of quasars --
the most powerful objects in the Universe:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230425205342.htm

Colliding galaxies!

I'm not sure that is even remotely news.

It has always been thought that the main way that black holes get to
become really violently active is because of some major perturbation
like swallowing another galaxy makes gas and dust available for them to
feed on. Without friction and an accretion disk a black hole just sits
there as an inert object with things orbiting peacefully around it
(unless they happen to get too close).

The nearest one to us and brightest that is massively active is Cygnus A
and it is still active in the sense that new features appear on decadal timescales - much to everyone's surprise. It was heavily over observed
in the 1980's and nobody bothered to look again for quite a while. When
they did there was another bright source fairly near the nucleus.

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/mystery-object-in-cygnus-a-galaxy-1301201623/

It is very distant to be so incredibly bright in the radio and a rather
faint insignificant galaxy in the optical. Second only to the sun and
Cass A SNR in the radio sky.

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 08:21:15 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 29 Apr 2023 04:55:10 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou <wrote in
<[email protected]>:

On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 05:39:07 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 Apr 2023 05:18:45 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou
wrote in
<[email protected]>:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 13:02:21 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 Apr 2023 01:29:53 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou=

<wrote in
<[email protected]>:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 05:21:24 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

So much for philosophy, but there is some great science to discover.
First thing I thought about was : If Le Sage particles exist, can we m=

ake=

something

that lets those through in one direction, but not in the opposite dire= >cti=

on,

then we have a light speed propulsion system.
I was interested in that sort of propulsion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

I did some super conducting experiments, have a cryo-cooler..
But need a whole lab likely, somebody should check it and did:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)
Is it now top secret US stuff?

I don’t think we can alter gravity as the above apparently did.=

What is gravity caused by?
Mass.
The only way to lift you sitting on your living room chair using
“Antigravity” would be to create a moon sized object hov=

eri=

ng
above your living room. At which point it would probably be
cheaper and more energy efficient to give you a large balloon
filled with hydrogen gas.

..Anyways. so a mechanism...
I am open to anything better but Le Sage like particles make sense to = >me =

so far.

The excuse from the nutty monks was that by chance both were face
on when viewed from earth. !! Both Face on?
The chances of the only 2 black holes
ever “observed” being both face on is about 1/36000.
It’s called delusional fantasy from the same crackpots who ga=

ve =

us =

the
imaginary Big Bang.

Well, read about Le Sage theory:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

Scroll down for all the people up till now who had a go at it.
Objections and solutions...
We really need a mechanism, particle ...

Reading your wiki LeSage page takes me to the LET page....in
Which ite Interesting to also read how Poincarre actually summed up best >the results of MMX as quoted from

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

“Surely, the course of inventing special hypotheses for each new ex= >perimental result is somewhat artificial. It would be more satisfactory, if=
it were possible to show, by means of certain fundamental assumptions, and=
without neglecting terms of one order of magnitude or another, that many e=
lectromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system= >."

In other words the propagation of light away from a source
is unaffected by the motion of that source.
Something I’ve been saying for years but have been told by
relativists is nonsense. Relativists who, ironically, worship
almost as much as Albert Moronstein.
I’m not sure if what Poincarre says quoted above is accepted
by low IQ relativists (Ie retired computer programmers) but
If it is then this assumption is NOT consistent with
the theology of relativism.
In that Poincarre specifically rules out constant speed of
light in all frames.
I think what happened was that the low IQ Einstein misunderstood
Poincarre and thought that his hallucinations about clocks could
be consistent with a misinterpretation of Poincarre s comment.
In that the Einstein thought that Poincarre meant that the “electro= >magnetic
actions are independent of the motion of the system” implied that
the speed of light was always c independent of the motion of the observer. >When in fact Poincarre meant it was always c independent of
the motion of the source

Yes, it is an interesting subject.
From a particle point of view (like a Le Sage type for example) I think
we need to look at _what such a particle needs to look like to get what we observe now_.

I see people like Feynman rejecting things but he (mathematician basically) simplifies things
(type of particle).

We now know 'atoms' are not simply small balls, but are very complex structures and that gives us among other things
the periodic system.
Atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks... and deeper and deeper we go! Would be interesting to see (if humanity persists) what the ideas would look like in say a few thousand years.
We came a long way from 'earth water wind and fire' as the basic elements....

Feynman lectures were once on youtube, have watched those, maybe still are. Albert E. worshipping was much a political thing in my view,
He wrote that letter to US president Roosevelt that US should build the nuclear bomb as they thought Germany was doing just that.
Questioning Albert's ideas is kicking the status quo, 'confirming' his ideas gets you published or at least promoted..

Same madness with CO2 and climate change these days...

I remember Alain Aspect's experiment in the early eighties: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experiment
EPR paradox...
That sure made a lot of noise in the media.

I’ve looked in detail at one of his experiments with Grangier and also the Kim et al quantum eraser experiments and they all fall apart under
scrutiny. I’m not sure if the experiment in your link was exactly the same
as the Grangier one he did but what is noticeable is that he did
NOT get a perfect bell curve graph. Usual lies from a quantum theorist.
Because at very low levels of emission his graph did NOT go to
zero as predicted by QT. His lousy excuse was that these were
random “accidentals” and these could be ignored.
Kind of like the way the BBT ignores the latest JWST findings which
technically rule out the BBT.
If one calculates what a wave model would produce in coincidentals
you do get a graph that never goes to zero even below the single photon threshold. Because wave light amplitude can be infinitely lower than
1 photon energy.
In fact if the above experiment is the same on I analysed (it’s a limited description) it actually proves that QT can be violated. Not the other way round.
And the Kim et al experiment is the same lies from QT supporters.
They pretend its qt magic that decides which detection is made
when corellating the different detectors.
In fact the whole setup is creating light arriving at the 5 detectors
that has very specific polarisations. So that for instance the idler
detector detects both polarisations. But then D1 only detects let’s horizontal polarisation and matches with D3. But if one compares D2
(Which only detects vertical polarised part of the cycle)
with D 3 ...there is no correlated detection! “Magic” say the QT religious fanatic.
NOOOO.
It’s because D3 only detects vertical polarised light from the cycle.
And therefore doesn’t correlate with any detection at D1
It’s amazing how dishonest QT and Relativity supporters are.
They either say evidence that refutes their model can be ignored
(Aspect, & BBT re JWST) or they will say a purely classical effect
( polarisation) is actually quantum magic.!!

So, experiment, only way to find reality.
Math to describe to some depth the magnitudes of things.
But 'math' is just a construction of a few neurons in the human brain, and in fact extremely inefficient to solve real time things
Catch a ball, we can, learned!
Give a mathematician the question where to put his hands and he needs the gravitational constant, wind speed, air density, weight of the ball,
distance, hight, local time, speed ..
and before you know we have string theory with as many dimension as needed to explain anything.
Its funny, somebody, long ago, came up with the wheel,
Mathematicians are still figuring out PI to ? how many decimals...
Epicycles was their thing long ago, and dare you not question it!
Keep it simple.
Nature is, (well once you figured it out of course) relative (maybe I should not use that word) simple.
We are part of it and if you go one step beyond .. we are nature, and likely quantum coupled to every other thing in this universe
could we connect to that then we already know everything, and we are but a transient state anyways.
So its alright!
So much for philosophy?
Experimenting is fun, done it since I was a kid... Mostly electronics.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 09:29:45 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

PS
As to Alain Aspect's experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experiment
EPR paradox...

What bugs me in this is that we still believe in 'a photon'

I have some nice PMTs, can detect 'photons' if you will,
but to me when it detects a 'photon; it only means the waves were high enough to kick an electron lose from the target.
like a ball on a wire in the ocean.
Detecting a lose ball does not mean water photons exist!!!
The water molecules are orders of magnitude smaller, and behave differently. The 'wire' in this example is the electric forces holding
the election in orbit around the atoms in whatever material the detector is made of.

So, all crap, making 2 coupled 'photons;' is just the directional effect of the same wave!

Yes.
For starters the quantum nutters pretend that their calcite Crystal
is producing TWO corellated photons. In actual fact what is happening
is the light exiting the crystal is split by what is essentially birefringence into two beams. Both of which are oppositely circularly polarised.
So that when one is at the vertical part of the cycle,..the other is horizontal. No QT magic needed. Just classical polarised states.
All the QT wacko has to do then is set up an experiment with a coincidence counter and pretend that playing parlour tricks with classical polarisation
is MAGIC!!

Did the ball go up when it broke lose? Oh and the other one did too!
WOW!
And where does the crap originate? Mathematical definition of 'photon': https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

And who came up with that?
Albert E.

physicist do sometimes not even understand how the equipment they use works!!!

Seems to be common issue..

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

PS
This is also fun:
Tunneling electrons
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230426210503.htm
Physicists measure and control electron release from metals in the attosecond range
quote from that link:
"In principle, you have to know that with very strong laser light,
the individual photons are no longer responsible for the release of the electrons,
but rather the electric field of the laser
"

So much for photons.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)