From Newsgroup: sci.physics


Imagine a 4 dimensional being. How would their view
of our world differ from your own? How might their
interactions with our world appear to us? How would
it manifest to us in our 3D existence?

Now. Imagine a photon. It doesn't experience time.
How would that differ from us? How might those
differences manifest in our existence where we do
experience time?

Does the word "Implications" mean anything to you?

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

There can't be.

A photon would exist EVERYWHERE it can potentially
exist, all at once.

Impossible by our point of view, but inescapable
to anyone or anything that doesn't experience time.

See, it takes a photon exactly the same "Time" to
each points A, B, B, D, E, F, G, (etc) as it does
to reach point A.

Without time, there's no duration. There's zero
delay reaching everywhere... everywhere it can
POTENTIALLY be.

That's ONE obvious difference, resulting from not
experiencing time: Distance/place/space no longer
exists!

That's ONE difference.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

JTEM wrote:
^^^^
Who?

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

While it is correct to say that zero proper time elapses along lightlike geodesics (ds^2 = +- c^2 (d tau)^2 = 0 ==> (d tau) = 0 ==> Delta tau = 0),
we also know that *a photon has no inertial rest frame* as that would contradict the postulate of the constancy of c, one of two postulates which make up the special principle of relativity which special relativity is
based on, *and* the Planck--Einstein relation E = p c = h f.

Curiously, special relativity fails to describe *completely* a motion at the speed c that it is based on.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/13/25 5:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

Of course we do. It's inescapable. Once you say they don't experience
time that means they don't experience distance/space.

But you are reacting as predicted.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

JTEM amok-crossposted across 5 newsgroups in 2 top-level hierarchies:

On 12/13/25 5:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

Of course we do. It's inescapable. Once you say they don't experience
time that means they don't experience distance/space.

Which part of "a photon has no inertial rest frame" did you not understand?

But you are reacting as predicted.

So do you.

F'up2 sci.physics.relativity
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/13/2025 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM wrote:
^^^^
Who?

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

While it is correct to say that zero proper time elapses along lightlike geodesics (ds^2 = +- c^2 (d tau)^2 = 0 ==> (d tau) = 0 ==> Delta tau = 0),
we also know that *a photon has no inertial rest frame* as that would contradict the postulate of the constancy of c, one of two postulates which make up the special principle of relativity which special relativity is
based on, *and* the Planck--Einstein relation E = p c = h f.

Curiously, special relativity fails to describe *completely* a motion at the speed c that it is based on.

Hi Thomas!

Thank you so very much for your post!! It's always great to have a
physicist among us!!!

Dawn
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 10:14:30 -0600, Dawn Flood
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/13/2025 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM wrote:
^^^^
Who?

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

While it is correct to say that zero proper time elapses along lightlike
geodesics (ds^2 = +- c^2 (d tau)^2 = 0 ==> (d tau) = 0 ==> Delta tau = 0), >> we also know that *a photon has no inertial rest frame* as that would
contradict the postulate of the constancy of c, one of two postulates which >> make up the special principle of relativity which special relativity is
based on, *and* the Planck--Einstein relation E = p c = h f.

Curiously, special relativity fails to describe *completely* a motion at the >> speed c that it is based on.

Hi Thomas!

Thank you so very much for your post!! It's always great to have a >physicist among us!!!

Dawn

"May I Say That I Have Not Thoroughly Enjoyed Serving With Humans? I
Find Their Illogic And Foolish Emotions A Constant Irritant."


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

JTEM wrote:

On 12/13/25 5:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

Of course we do. It's inescapable. Once you say they don't experience
time that means they don't experience distance/space.

But you are reacting as predicted.

i wanna suck black ass
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/14/25 9:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM amok-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You did. You crossposted to 5 newsgroups. As a typical mental
case you're in some narcissistic "Do as I say, not as I do"
mode...

Which part of "a photon has no inertial rest frame" did you not understand?

Omg! You're HILARIOUS!

The photon is everywhere is can potentially be! But to the photon
itself that's it -- the one and only frame!

There's no "Time" when it isn't everywhere it can potentially be. It
is at rest, from it's own perspective.

You have a tiny, disordered mind. You're imposing yourself, your own
understand of reality onto the photon, instead of doing exactly what I
said you couldn't do!

Lol!

You FAILED on command!

GOOD DOG!
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/14/2025 12:32 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 10:14:30 -0600, Dawn Flood
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/13/2025 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM wrote:
^^^^
Who?

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

While it is correct to say that zero proper time elapses along lightlike >>> geodesics (ds^2 = +- c^2 (d tau)^2 = 0 ==> (d tau) = 0 ==> Delta tau = 0), >>> we also know that *a photon has no inertial rest frame* as that would
contradict the postulate of the constancy of c, one of two postulates which >>> make up the special principle of relativity which special relativity is
based on, *and* the Planck--Einstein relation E = p c = h f.

Curiously, special relativity fails to describe *completely* a motion at the
speed c that it is based on.

Hi Thomas!

Thank you so very much for your post!! It's always great to have a
physicist among us!!!

Dawn

"May I Say That I Have Not Thoroughly Enjoyed Serving With Humans? I
Find Their Illogic And Foolish Emotions A Constant Irritant."

Yes, I am that old!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/14/2025 1:31 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/14/25 9:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM amok-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You did. You crossposted to 5 newsgroups. As a typical mental
case you're in some narcissistic "Do as I say, not as I do"
mode...

Which part of "a photon has no inertial rest frame" did you not
understand?

Omg! You're HILARIOUS!

The photon is everywhere is can potentially be!-a But to the photon
itself that's it -- the one and only frame!

There's no "Time" when it isn't everywhere it can potentially be. It
is at rest, from it's own perspective.

You have a tiny, disordered mind. You're imposing yourself, your own understand of reality onto the photon, instead of doing exactly what I
said you couldn't do!

Lol!

You FAILED on command!

GOOD DOG!

No, Thomas is correct; photons have no rest frame:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21959/why-cant-we-make-measurements-in-a-photons-rest-frame-when-loop-diagrams-make
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/14/25 3:16 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:

No, Thomas is correct; photons have no rest frame:

No, photons have one and only one "Frame," and from the
perspective of a photon they are always at rest.

You're illustrating my point but how dense you are, and
can't get anything even after it's pointed out to you:

YOU are trying to enforce your understanding of reality
onto a photon, instead of trying to understand the
photon.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/14/25 3:04 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:

Yes, I am that old!

Senile? That explains so much!
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

[F'up2 sci.physics.relativity (again)]

JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups and 2 top-level hierarchies *without* Followup-To:

On 12/14/25 9:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM amok-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You did. You crossposted to 5 newsgroups.

Because *you* did before. But I *also* set Followup-To
sci.physics.relativity to contain the crosspost, which you probably *deliberately* ignored. That is anti-social behavior on *your* part.

(If the header of your posting is not forged, you are using Mozilla
Thunderbird the same as I do. This software observes RFC 5537 "Netnews Architecture and Protocols", -o 3.4.3 "Followups", which means that if you
push the "Followup" button, the default for the target newsgroups is *only* those found in the "Followup-To" header field of the posting you post a followup to. The Followup-To header field of my posting was "Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity" which you can verify by expanding the header pane
or pressing Ctrl+U.)

As a typical mental case you're in some narcissistic "Do as I say, not as I do"
mode...

No, you simply either have no clue how newsgroups work; or you do, and you
are trolling, and you are the mental, narcissistic case here. Which one is it?

Which part of "a photon has no inertial rest frame" did you not understand?

Omg! You're HILARIOUS!

The photon is everywhere is can potentially be!

*If* it *had* an inertial rest frame which it *cannot* have.

But to the photon itself that's it -- the one and only frame!

Such an *inertial* frame of reference does not exist as the speed of a
photon *cannot* be zero. That would mean that its linear momentum p would
be zero, and by E = p c it would not exist:

The energy--momentum relation for a free particle in Minkowski space is

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2.

For a particle to move at the speed c in all inertial reference frames, it
is required that its mass is zero. Proof: Let us assume that its mass is
not zero, then

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2
= m^2 c^4 + gamma^2 m^2 v^2 c^2
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4 (1/gamma^2 + v^2/c^2)
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4 (1 - v^2/c^2 + v^2/c^2)
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4
gamma^2 = E^2/(m^2 c^4)
1/(1 - v^2/c^2) = E^2/(m^2 c^4)
1 - v^2/c^2 = m^2 c^4/E^2
v^2/c^2 = 1 - m^2 c^4/E^2 ==> (v = c ==> m = 0).

[You could also consider the relativistic Lagrangian

L = 1/2 m g_{mu nu} dot x^mu dot x^nu.

The corresponding Euler--Lagrange equations are

d/dt partial L/partial(dot x^mu) - partial L/partial x^mu = 0


But then its total energy squared is

E^2 = 0^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 = p^2 c^2,

so its total energy is (only) given by

E = p c.


Equivalently, by E = p c = h f, its frequency f would be zero which makes no sense (or you could say, with frequency zero there is no oscillation of electric and magnetic fields, so there cannot be photon which is an
excitation state of the electromagnetic field):

For a photon, P = hbar K ==> p = |P| = hbar k, so

E = p c = hbar k c = h/(2pi) 2pi/lambda c = h/lambda c = h f.

[Planck--Einstein relation]


Another, more robust, way to show that there is no such frame is to show
that there is no Lorentz transformation to such a frame:

The original Lorentz transformation (as derived by Einstein) for motion of a "primed" frame in the x-direction of an "unprimed" frame at the velocity v relative to the latter frame is

t' = gamma(v) [t - v/c^2 x]
x' = gamma(v) [x - v t]
y' = y
z' = z.

But

gamma(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),

where v is the speed of the unprimed frame relative to the primed frame (and vice-versa, and gamma(v) --> inf as v --> c.

Equivalently, the Lorentz transformation above can be performed conveniently
by multiplication of a four-vector (c t, x, y, z)^T on the left by the matrix

[ cosh(w) -sinh(w) 0 0]
Lambda := [-sinh(w) cosh(w) 0 0],
[ 0 0 1 0]
[ 0 0 0 1]

where w = artanh(v/c) is defined as rapidity. However, if v = c, then
v/c = 1, and artanh(1) is not well-defined: artanh(x) --> inf as x --> 1.

So we can calculate the elapsed proper time along a lightlike geodesic; it
is zero. In Minkowski space (where this is simple), it is (via the
Minkowski metric and the definition of proper time)

ds^2 = c^2 (d tau^2) = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
= c^2 dt^2 (1 - v^2/c^2)
(d tau)^2 = dt^2 sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
==> (v = c ==> d tau = 0 ==> Delta tau = int_W d tau = 0).

But that does not mean that we can make any scientifically solid statements about what "a photon experiences". In fact, not only does the existence of such an inertial frame contradict special relativity and quantum theories;
but also, if special relativity and quantum theories are correct theories
(and there is strong indication that they are), we will never be able to *falsify* any statements about this because *according to the theory*
material objects *cannot* move at c through space (as their mass is not
zero). But hypotheses that cannot be falsified are not scientific.

[The situation is very different if that frame is non-inertial in
the Newtonian sense. Is there such a frame? Absolutely: The relative
speed of a photon propagating radially outwards from the event horizon
of a Schwarzschild black hole is zero. But notice that I said
"propagating": it is still moving, but space is falling in as fast, so
its position does not change (this river model is one way to understand
it). This is just its *coordinate* speed, NOT its local speed. And
the geometry of our universe is NOT the Schwarzschild geometry.]
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

[F'up2 sci.physics.relativity (again)]

JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups and 2 top-level hierarchies *without* Followup-To:

On 12/14/25 9:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM amok-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You did. You crossposted to 5 newsgroups.

Because *you* did before. But I *also* set Followup-To
sci.physics.relativity to contain the crosspost, which you probably *deliberately* ignored. That is anti-social behavior on *your* part.

(If the header of your posting is not forged, you are using Mozilla
Thunderbird the same as I do. This software observes RFC 5537 "Netnews Architecture and Protocols", -o 3.4.3 "Followups", which means that if you
push the "Followup" button, the default for the target newsgroups is *only* those found in the "Followup-To" header field of the posting you post a followup to. The Followup-To header field of my posting was "Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity" which you can verify by expanding the header pane
or pressing Ctrl+U.)

As a typical mental case you're in some narcissistic "Do as I say, not as I do"
mode...

No, you simply either have no clue how newsgroups work; or you do, and you
are trolling, and you are the mental, narcissistic case here. Which one is it?

Which part of "a photon has no inertial rest frame" did you not understand?

Omg! You're HILARIOUS!

The photon is everywhere is can potentially be!

*If* it *had* an inertial rest frame which it *cannot* have.

But to the photon itself that's it -- the one and only frame!

Such an *inertial* frame of reference does not exist as the speed of a
photon *cannot* be zero. That would mean that its linear momentum p would
be zero, and by E = p c it would not exist:

The energy--momentum relation for a free particle in Minkowski space is

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2.

For a particle to move at the speed c in all inertial reference frames, it
is required that its mass is zero. Proof: Let us assume that its mass is
not zero, then

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2
= m^2 c^4 + gamma^2 m^2 v^2 c^2
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4 (1/gamma^2 + v^2/c^2)
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4 (1 - v^2/c^2 + v^2/c^2)
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4
gamma^2 = E^2/(m^2 c^4)
1/(1 - v^2/c^2) = E^2/(m^2 c^4)
1 - v^2/c^2 = m^2 c^4/E^2
v^2/c^2 = 1 - m^2 c^4/E^2 ==> (v = c ==> m = 0).

But then its total energy squared is

E^2 = 0^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 = p^2 c^2,

so its total energy is (only) given by

E = p c.


Equivalently, by E = p c = h f, its frequency f would be zero which makes no sense (or you could say, with frequency zero there is no oscillation of electric and magnetic fields, so there cannot be photon which is an
excitation state of the electromagnetic field):

For a photon, P = hbar K ==> p = |P| = hbar k, so

E = p c = hbar k c = h/(2pi) 2pi/lambda c = h/lambda c = h f.

[Planck--Einstein relation]


Another, more robust, way to show that there is no such frame is to show
that there is no Lorentz transformation to such a frame:

The original Lorentz transformation (as derived by Einstein) for motion of a "primed" frame in the x-direction of an "unprimed" frame at the velocity v relative to the latter frame is

t' = gamma(v) [t - v/c^2 x]
x' = gamma(v) [x - v t]
y' = y
z' = z.

But

gamma(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),

where v is the speed of the unprimed frame relative to the primed frame (and vice-versa, and gamma(v) --> inf as v --> c.

Equivalently, the Lorentz transformation above can be performed conveniently
by multiplication of a four-vector (c t, x, y, z)^T on the left by the matrix

[ cosh(w) -sinh(w) 0 0]
Lambda := [-sinh(w) cosh(w) 0 0],
[ 0 0 1 0]
[ 0 0 0 1]

where w = artanh(v/c) is defined as rapidity. However, if v = c, then
v/c = 1, and artanh(1) is not well-defined: artanh(x) --> inf as x --> 1.

So we can calculate the elapsed proper time along a lightlike geodesic; it
is zero. In Minkowski space (where this is simple), it is (via the
Minkowski metric and the definition of proper time)

ds^2 = c^2 (d tau^2) = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
= c^2 dt^2 (1 - v^2/c^2)
(d tau)^2 = dt^2 sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
==> (v = c ==> d tau = 0 ==> Delta tau = int_W d tau = 0).

But that does not mean that we can make any scientifically solid statements about what "a photon experiences". In fact, not only does the existence of such an inertial frame contradict special relativity and quantum theories;
but also, if special relativity and quantum theories are correct theories
(and there is strong indication that they are), we will never be able to *falsify* any statements about this because *according to the theory*
material objects *cannot* move at c through space (as their mass is not
zero). But hypotheses that cannot be falsified are not scientific.

[The situation is very different if that frame is non-inertial in
the Newtonian sense. Is there such a frame? Absolutely: The relative
speed of a photon propagating radially outwards from the event horizon
of a Schwarzschild black hole is zero. But notice that I said
"propagating": it is still moving, but space is falling in as fast, so
its position does not change (this river model is one way to understand
it). This is just its *coordinate* speed, NOT its local speed. And
the geometry of our universe is NOT the Schwarzschild geometry.]
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

[F'up2 sci.physics.relativity (again)]

JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups and 2 top-level hierarchies *without* Followup-To:

On 12/14/25 9:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM amok-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You did. You crossposted to 5 newsgroups.

Because *you* did before. But I *also* set Followup-To
sci.physics.relativity to contain the crosspost, which you probably *deliberately* ignored. That is anti-social behavior on *your* part.

(If the header of your posting is not forged, you are using Mozilla
Thunderbird the same as I do. This software observes RFC 5537 "Netnews Architecture and Protocols", -o 3.4.3 "Followups", which means that if you
push the "Followup" button, the default for the target newsgroups is *only* those found in the "Followup-To" header field of the posting you post a followup to. The Followup-To header field of my posting was "Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity" which you can verify by expanding the header pane
or pressing Ctrl+U.)

As a typical mental case you're in some narcissistic "Do as I say, not as I do"
mode...

No, you simply either have no clue how newsgroups work; or you do, and you
are trolling, and you are the mental, narcissistic case here. Which one is it?

Which part of "a photon has no inertial rest frame" did you not understand?

Omg! You're HILARIOUS!

The photon is everywhere is can potentially be!

*If* it *had* an inertial rest frame which it *cannot* have.

But to the photon itself that's it -- the one and only frame!

Such an *inertial* frame of reference does not exist as the speed of a
photon *cannot* be zero. That would mean that its linear momentum p would
be zero, and by E = p c it would not exist:

The energy--momentum relation for a free particle in Minkowski space is

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2.

For a particle to move at the speed c in all inertial reference frames, it
is required that its mass is zero. Proof: Let us assume that its mass is
not zero, then

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2
= m^2 c^4 + gamma^2 m^2 v^2 c^2
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4 (1/gamma^2 + v^2/c^2)
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4 (1 - v^2/c^2 + v^2/c^2)
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4
gamma^2 = E^2/(m^2 c^4)
1/(1 - v^2/c^2) = E^2/(m^2 c^4)
1 - v^2/c^2 = m^2 c^4/E^2
v^2/c^2 = 1 - m^2 c^4/E^2 ==> (v = c ==> m = 0).

But then its total energy squared is

E^2 = 0^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 = p^2 c^2,

so its total energy is (only) given by

E = p c.


Equivalently, by E = p c = h f, its frequency f would be zero which makes no sense (or you could say, with frequency zero there is no oscillation of electric and magnetic fields, so there cannot be photon which is an
excitation state of the electromagnetic field):

For a photon, P = hbar K ==> p = |P| = hbar k, so

E = p c = hbar k c = h/(2pi) 2pi/lambda c = h/lambda c = h f.

[Planck--Einstein relation]


Another, more robust, way to show that there is no such frame is to show
that there is no Lorentz transformation to such a frame:

The original Lorentz transformation (as derived by Einstein) for motion of a "primed" frame in the x-direction of an "unprimed" frame at the velocity v relative to the latter frame is

t' = gamma(v) [t - v/c^2 x]
x' = gamma(v) [x - v t]
y' = y
z' = z.

But

gamma(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),

where v is the speed of the unprimed frame relative to the primed frame (and vice-versa, and gamma(v) --> inf as v --> c.

Equivalently, the Lorentz transformation above can be performed conveniently
by multiplication of a four-vector (c t, x, y, z)^T on the left by the matrix

[ cosh(w) -sinh(w) 0 0]
Lambda := [-sinh(w) cosh(w) 0 0],
[ 0 0 1 0]
[ 0 0 0 1]

where w = artanh(v/c) is defined as rapidity. However, if v = c, then
v/c = 1, and artanh(1) is not well-defined: artanh(x) --> inf as x --> 1.

So we can calculate the elapsed proper time along a lightlike geodesic; it
is zero. In Minkowski space (where this is simple), it is (via the
Minkowski metric and the definition of proper time)

ds^2 = c^2 (d tau^2) = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
= c^2 dt^2 (1 - v^2/c^2)
(d tau)^2 = dt^2 sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
==> (v = c ==> d tau = 0 ==> Delta tau = int_W d tau = 0).

But that does not mean that we can make any scientifically solid statements about what "a photon experiences". In fact, not only does the existence of such an inertial frame contradict special relativity and quantum theories;
but also, if special relativity and quantum theories are correct theories
(and there is strong indication that they are), we will never be able to *falsify* any statements about this because *according to the theory*
material objects *cannot* move at c through space (as their mass is not
zero). But hypotheses that cannot be falsified are not scientific.

[The situation is very different if that frame is non-inertial in
the Newtonian sense. Is there such a frame? Absolutely: The relative
speed of a photon propagating radially outwards from the event horizon
of a Schwarzschild black hole is zero. But notice that I said
"propagating": it is still moving, but space is falling in as fast, so
its position does not change (this river model is one way to understand
it). This is just its *coordinate* speed, NOT its local speed. And
the geometry of our universe is NOT the Schwarzschild geometry.]
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Dawn Flood wrote:

On 12/13/2025 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

While it is correct to say that zero proper time elapses along lightlike
geodesics (ds^2 = +- c^2 (d tau)^2 = 0 ==> (d tau) = 0 ==> Delta tau = 0), >> we also know that *a photon has no inertial rest frame* as that would
contradict the postulate of the constancy of c, one of two postulates which >> make up the special principle of relativity which special relativity is
based on, *and* the Planck--Einstein relation E = p c = h f.

Curiously, special relativity fails to describe *completely* a motion at the >> speed c that it is based on.

Thank you so very much for your post!! It's always great to have a physicist among us!!!

Thank you. I am not a physicist (yet), but I do have studied Physics for
many years (at a university), including special relativity and quantum
theories (currently I am studying quantum field theories in an MSc course).

There was a time not so long ago when I also subscribed to this naive
pop-sci interpretation until it was pointed out to me by someone else (I
think it was on Quora, and it may have been a physicist, too) that the existence of a such a rest frame is a contradiction (to the special
principle of relativity, to begin with).

It would be great if it could be resolved, but I have no particular idea
how. One possibility would be that the mass of a photon is not actually exactly zero; then it(s rest frame) would not be moving at c, but slightly
less than that, and it could exist.

On the other hand, in quantum electrodynamics a photon cannot be understood
as a point particle with a position (not even an uncertain one) in the first place, but must be understood as a non-local excitation state of the quantum-electromagnetic field. It therefore exists everywhere (and at all times) from the outset. The semi-classical photon is merely where the peak
of that state, so to speak, is largest, where and when it has a high probability to be found. In Feynman's (path integral) interpretation, it
takes all paths between two points simultaneously. Both correspond nicely
to the naive interpretation that a photon is everywhere at the same time as
for it the rest of the universe is infinitely length-contracted, and the
purely mathematical result that zero proper time elapses along its
worldline. But I do not understand what that could mean.

F'up2 sci.physics
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

[Supersedes to set F'up2 sci.physics.relativity (again)]

JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups and 2 top-level hierarchies *without* Followup-To:

On 12/14/25 9:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM amok-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You did. You crossposted to 5 newsgroups.

Because *you* did before. But I *also* set Followup-To
sci.physics.relativity to contain the crosspost, which you probably *deliberately* ignored. That is anti-social behavior on *your* part.

(If the header of your posting is not forged, you are using Mozilla
Thunderbird the same as I do. This software observes RFC 5537 "Netnews Architecture and Protocols", -o 3.4.3 "Followups", which means that if you
push the "Followup" button, the default for the target newsgroups is *only* those found in the "Followup-To" header field of the posting you post a followup to. The Followup-To header field of my posting was "Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity" which you can verify by expanding the header pane
or pressing Ctrl+U.)

As a typical mental case you're in some narcissistic "Do as I say, not as I do"
mode...

No, you simply either have no clue how newsgroups work; or you do, and you
are trolling, and you are the mental, narcissistic case here. Which one is it?

Which part of "a photon has no inertial rest frame" did you not understand?

Omg! You're HILARIOUS!

The photon is everywhere is can potentially be!

*If* it *had* an inertial rest frame which it *cannot* have.

But to the photon itself that's it -- the one and only frame!

Such an *inertial* frame of reference does not exist as the speed of a
photon *cannot* be zero. That would mean that its linear momentum p would
be zero, and by E = p c it would not exist:

The energy--momentum relation for a free particle in Minkowski space is

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2.

For a particle to move at the speed c in all inertial reference frames, it
is required that its mass is zero. Proof: Let us assume that its mass is
not zero, then

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2
= m^2 c^4 + gamma^2 m^2 v^2 c^2
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4 (1/gamma^2 + v^2/c^2)
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4 (1 - v^2/c^2 + v^2/c^2)
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4
gamma^2 = E^2/(m^2 c^4)
1/(1 - v^2/c^2) = E^2/(m^2 c^4)
1 - v^2/c^2 = m^2 c^4/E^2
v^2/c^2 = 1 - m^2 c^4/E^2 ==> (v = c ==> m = 0).

But then its total energy squared is

E^2 = 0^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 = p^2 c^2,

so its total energy is (only) given by

E = p c.


Equivalently, by E = p c = h f, its frequency f would be zero which makes no sense (or you could say, with frequency zero there is no oscillation of electric and magnetic fields, so there cannot be photon which is an
excitation state of the electromagnetic field):

For a photon, P = hbar K ==> p = |P| = hbar k, so

E = p c = hbar k c = h/(2pi) 2pi/lambda c = h/lambda c = h f.

[Planck--Einstein relation]


Another, more robust, way to show that there is no such frame is to show
that there is no Lorentz transformation to such a frame:

The original Lorentz transformation (as derived by Einstein) for motion of a "primed" frame in the x-direction of an "unprimed" frame at the velocity v relative to the latter frame is

t' = gamma(v) [t - v/c^2 x]
x' = gamma(v) [x - v t]
y' = y
z' = z.

But

gamma(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),

where v is the speed of the unprimed frame relative to the primed frame (and vice-versa, and gamma(v) --> inf as v --> c.

Equivalently, the Lorentz transformation above can be performed conveniently
by multiplication of a four-vector (c t, x, y, z)^T on the left by the matrix

[ cosh(w) -sinh(w) 0 0]
Lambda := [-sinh(w) cosh(w) 0 0],
[ 0 0 1 0]
[ 0 0 0 1]

where w = artanh(v/c) is defined as rapidity. However, if v = c, then
v/c = 1, and artanh(1) is not well-defined: artanh(x) --> inf as x --> 1.

So we can calculate the elapsed proper time along a lightlike geodesic; it
is zero. In Minkowski space (where this is simple), it is (via the
Minkowski metric and the definition of proper time)

ds^2 = c^2 (d tau^2) = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
= c^2 dt^2 (1 - v^2/c^2)
(d tau)^2 = dt^2 sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
==> (v = c ==> d tau = 0 ==> Delta tau = int_W d tau = 0).

But that does not mean that we can make any scientifically solid statements about what "a photon experiences". In fact, not only does the existence of such an inertial frame contradict special relativity and quantum theories;
but also, if special relativity and quantum theories are correct theories
(and there is strong indication that they are), we will never be able to *falsify* any statements about this because *according to the theory*
material objects *cannot* move at c through space (as their mass is not
zero). But hypotheses that cannot be falsified are not scientific.

[The situation is very different if that frame is non-inertial in
the Newtonian sense. Is there such a frame? Absolutely: The relative
speed of a photon propagating radially outwards from the event horizon
of a Schwarzschild black hole is zero. But notice that I said
"propagating": it is still moving, but space is falling in as fast, so
its position does not change (this river model is one way to understand
it). This is just its *coordinate* speed, NOT its local speed. And
the geometry of our universe is NOT the Schwarzschild geometry.]
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Dawn Flood wrote:

On 12/13/2025 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

While it is correct to say that zero proper time elapses along

lightlike >> geodesics (ds^2 = +- c^2 (d tau)^2 = 0 ==> (d tau) = 0

Delta tau = 0), >> we also know that *a photon has no inertial

rest frame* as that would >> contradict the postulate of the
constancy of c, one of two postulates which >> make up the special
principle of relativity which special relativity is >> based on, and
the Planck--Einstein relation E = p c = h f.

Curiously, special relativity fails to describe completely a

motion at the >> speed c that it is based on.

Thank you so very much for your post!! It's always great to have a physicist among us!!!

Thank you. I am not a physicist (yet), but I do have studied Physics
for many years (at a university), including special relativity and
quantum theories (currently I am studying quantum field theories in
an MSc course).

There was a time not so long ago when I also subscribed to this naive
pop-sci interpretation until it was pointed out to me by someone else
(I think it was on Quora, and it may have been a physicist, too) that
the existence of a such a rest frame is a contradiction (to the
special principle of relativity, to begin with).

It would be great if it could be resolved, but I have no particular
idea how. One possibility would be that the mass of a photon is not
actually exactly zero; then it(s rest frame) would not be moving at
c, but slightly less than that, and it could exist.

On the other hand, in quantum electrodynamics a photon cannot be
understood as a point particle with a position (not even an uncertain
one) in the first place, but must be understood as a non-local
excitation state of the quantum-electromagnetic field. It therefore
exists everywhere (and at all times) from the outset. The
semi-classical photon is merely where the peak of that state, so to
speak, is largest, where and when it has a high probability to be
found. In Feynman's (path integral) interpretation, it takes all
paths between two points simultaneously. Both correspond nicely to
the naive interpretation that a photon is everywhere at the same time
as for it the rest of the universe is infinitely length-contracted,
and the purely mathematical result that zero proper time elapses
along its worldline. But I do not understand what that could mean.

F'up2 sci.physics

Are you able to tell us any more about the Feynman path itegral
interpretation?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 02:10:29 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

Dawn Flood wrote:

On 12/13/2025 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

While it is correct to say that zero proper time elapses along lightlike >>> geodesics (ds^2 = +- c^2 (d tau)^2 = 0 ==> (d tau) = 0 ==> Delta tau = 0), >>> we also know that *a photon has no inertial rest frame* as that would
contradict the postulate of the constancy of c, one of two postulates which >>> make up the special principle of relativity which special relativity is
based on, *and* the Planck--Einstein relation E = p c = h f.

Curiously, special relativity fails to describe *completely* a motion at the
speed c that it is based on.

Thank you so very much for your post!! It's always great to have a
physicist among us!!!

Thank you. I am not a physicist (yet), but I do have studied Physics for >many years (at a university), including special relativity and quantum >theories (currently I am studying quantum field theories in an MSc course).

There was a time not so long ago when I also subscribed to this naive
pop-sci interpretation until it was pointed out to me by someone else (I >think it was on Quora, and it may have been a physicist, too) that the >existence of a such a rest frame is a contradiction (to the special
principle of relativity, to begin with).

It would be great if it could be resolved, but I have no particular idea
how. One possibility would be that the mass of a photon is not actually >exactly zero; then it(s rest frame) would not be moving at c, but slightly >less than that, and it could exist.

On the other hand, in quantum electrodynamics a photon cannot be understood >as a point particle with a position (not even an uncertain one) in the first >place, but must be understood as a non-local excitation state of the >quantum-electromagnetic field. It therefore exists everywhere (and at all >times) from the outset. The semi-classical photon is merely where the peak >of that state, so to speak, is largest, where and when it has a high >probability to be found. In Feynman's (path integral) interpretation, it >takes all paths between two points simultaneously. Both correspond nicely
to the naive interpretation that a photon is everywhere at the same time as >for it the rest of the universe is infinitely length-contracted, and the >purely mathematical result that zero proper time elapses along its
worldline. But I do not understand what that could mean.

What " quantum electrodynamics a photon" means in your paragraph is
...a Jewish Photon.

sounds like you fell inside some Jewish basment and he was trying to
convert you to his religion.

Live Prosper and Long
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 18:50:47 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 02:10:29 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ><PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

Dawn Flood wrote:

On 12/13/2025 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

While it is correct to say that zero proper time elapses along lightlike >>>> geodesics (ds^2 = +- c^2 (d tau)^2 = 0 ==> (d tau) = 0 ==> Delta tau = 0), >>>> we also know that *a photon has no inertial rest frame* as that would
contradict the postulate of the constancy of c, one of two postulates which
make up the special principle of relativity which special relativity is >>>> based on, *and* the Planck--Einstein relation E = p c = h f.

Curiously, special relativity fails to describe *completely* a motion at the
speed c that it is based on.

Thank you so very much for your post!! It's always great to have a
physicist among us!!!

Thank you. I am not a physicist (yet), but I do have studied Physics for >>many years (at a university), including special relativity and quantum >>theories (currently I am studying quantum field theories in an MSc course). >>
There was a time not so long ago when I also subscribed to this naive >>pop-sci interpretation until it was pointed out to me by someone else (I >>think it was on Quora, and it may have been a physicist, too) that the >>existence of a such a rest frame is a contradiction (to the special >>principle of relativity, to begin with).

It would be great if it could be resolved, but I have no particular idea >>how. One possibility would be that the mass of a photon is not actually >>exactly zero; then it(s rest frame) would not be moving at c, but slightly >>less than that, and it could exist.

On the other hand, in quantum electrodynamics a photon cannot be understood >>as a point particle with a position (not even an uncertain one) in the first >>place, but must be understood as a non-local excitation state of the >>quantum-electromagnetic field. It therefore exists everywhere (and at all >>times) from the outset. The semi-classical photon is merely where the peak >>of that state, so to speak, is largest, where and when it has a high >>probability to be found. In Feynman's (path integral) interpretation, it >>takes all paths between two points simultaneously. Both correspond nicely >>to the naive interpretation that a photon is everywhere at the same time as >>for it the rest of the universe is infinitely length-contracted, and the >>purely mathematical result that zero proper time elapses along its >>worldline. But I do not understand what that could mean.

What " quantum electrodynamics a photon" means in your paragraph is
...a Jewish Photon.

sounds like you fell inside some Jewish basment and he was trying to
convert you to his religion.

Live Prosper and Long

In other words, worship a tree.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[Supersedes to set F'up2 sci.physics.relativity (again)]

JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You posted to five newsgroups! Lol!

What a stupid twat!

I can't take you serious! No, not after posting to FIVE NEWS
GROUPS and then attacking me for posting to the same ones!

Are you psychotic? SURE YOU ARE!

Lol.

Anyway, I like to stop at the very first critical error, for
reasons that are all too obvious for people familiar with the
definition of "Critical," so I'm stopping at your pathetic
"five newsgroups" rant!

Loser.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/14/25 8:10 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Thank you. I am not a physicist (yet), but I do

You're a deranged troll cowering behind a sock puppet,
pretending to be something you're not.

It is a fact, an inescapable consequence of not experiencing
time -- something you already accepted using that other
sock puppet: A photon is everywhere it can potentially exist.
That's it. There's no "travel" from one point in space to
another. It's not in motion as there is zero "time" separating
it from any & all locations (it can potentially exist).

To claim anything else REQUIRES you to claim that photons do
experience time.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Thank you. I am not a physicist (yet), but I do

You're a mentally unhinged troll. You're not anything except sick.

Existing everywhere it can potentially exists, simultaneously, is
an inescapable consequence of not experiencing time.

Now stop being such a loser! You're so pathetic...
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups *without Followup-To*:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[Supersedes to set F'up2 sci.physics.relativity (again)]

JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You posted to five newsgroups! Lol!

[more idiocy]

*facepalm*

Compare:

From: JTEM <[...]@[...]>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.atheism,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Here's an illustration that the collective won't grasp
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2025 14:31:16 -0500
[... no Followup-To header field ...]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Message-ID: <10hn3a4$1c3r5$2@dont-email.me>
[... no Followup-To header field ...]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[... no Followup-To header field ...]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
vs.

From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <[...]@[...]>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.atheism,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics
Subject: Rest frame of a photon (was: Here's an illustration that the
collective won't grasp)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>> Supersedes: <10hnkvu$1qquq$4@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>

Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 02:13:03 +0100
[...]
Message-ID: <10hnnb0$1qu18$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>
References: <10hkgtf$c0ql$4@dont-email.me>
<10hkp1a$1jan9$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> <10hlbtt$lisn$3@dont-email.me>
<10hmis6$1pf6q$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> <10hn3a4$1c3r5$2@dont-email.me>
[...]
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>> [...]

[Supersedes to set F'up2 sci.physics.relativity (again)]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups and 2 top-level hierarchies
*without* Followup-To:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
vs.

From: JTEM <[...]@[...]>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,sci.physics,alt.conspiracy

^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Subject: Re: Ta Ta Tee-Tee Ta (Rest) frame of a photon

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2025 22:06:15 -0500
[... no Followup-To header field ...]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Message-ID: <10hntv7$1jme5$2@dont-email.me>
References: <10hkgtf$c0ql$4@dont-email.me>
<10hkp1a$1jan9$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> <10hlbtt$lisn$3@dont-email.me>
<10hmis6$1pf6q$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> <10hn3a4$1c3r5$2@dont-email.me>
<10hnnb0$1qu18$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>
[... no Followup-To header field ...]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[... no Followup-To header field ...]

See also:

<https://www.lsu.edu/internet/usenet/usenet-etiquette.html>

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5536#section-3.1.6> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5536#section-3.2.6>


F'up2 poster
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

See also:

<https://www.lsu.edu/internet/usenet/usenet-etiquette.html>

This appears to be a bit dated. You should ignore

| * Reply to other people's articles by mail unless there is a specific
| reason to do otherwise.

This is NOT how Usenet works because it *cannot* reasonably work like that.

It should read: "Do NOT reply to other people's articles by (e-)mail, unless ...", i.e. messages should be public by default unless there is a specific reason to communicate only in private. (To enable that possibility, it is vital that the From header field contains a valid e-mail address or at least that if that is not so -- but it must not be arbitrary either, i.e. foreign
or yet unused namespaces are to be respected --, a Reply-To header field
with a valid e-mail address is specified.)

AFAICS the other advice there is still applicable and good.

F'up2 poster again
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

JTEM trolled:

On 12/14/25 8:10 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Thank you. I am not a physicist (yet), but I do

You're a deranged troll cowering behind a sock puppet,
pretending to be something you're not.

*PLONK*

F'up2 poster
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

JTEM trolled:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Thank you. I am not a physicist (yet), but I do

You're a mentally unhinged troll. You're not anything except sick.

Existing everywhere it can potentially exists, simultaneously, is
an inescapable consequence of not experiencing time.

Now stop being such a loser! You're so pathetic...

*PLONK*

F'up2 poster
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Please repair your From header field value. There has to be an actual
e-mail address, not just something resembling one.

Please avoid crossposting without Followup-To.

Jack Sovalot wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

On the other hand, in quantum electrodynamics a photon cannot be
understood as a point particle with a position (not even an uncertain
one) in the first place, but must be understood as a non-local
excitation state of the quantum-electromagnetic field. It therefore
exists everywhere (and at all times) from the outset. The
semi-classical photon is merely where the peak of that state, so to
speak, is largest, where and when it has a high probability to be
found. In Feynman's (path integral) interpretation, it takes all
paths between two points simultaneously. Both correspond nicely to
the naive interpretation that a photon is everywhere at the same time
as for it the rest of the universe is infinitely length-contracted,
and the purely mathematical result that zero proper time elapses
along its worldline. But I do not understand what that could mean.

Are you able to tell us any more about the Feynman path itegral interpretation?

At best partially (I know basically the Feynman rules, i.e. how to calculate
an n-point function for a Feynman diagram; but I have not studied QED yet),
but the mathematics is still too difficult to explain in a Usenet posting.
For that you have to take classes in quantum field theories.

However, good simplified graphical illustrations have been done by Don
Lincoln (experimental particle physicist at Fermilab) and Science Asylum (theoretical particle physicist, real name and place of work unknown), respectively:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Spc8xhvJQ&list=PLCfRa7MXBEspXPQVseC0dDV8nWfQXe_6g&index=5>
pp.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73XdlgzSKws&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC&index=7>

And, of course, Feynman's lectures can be found online, e.g. at

<https://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu>

and on various channels on YouTube. He also wrote a popular-scientific textbook about the subject: "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter".
(I have not read it yet.)

HTH.


F'up2 sci.physics
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/14/2025 7:13 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[Supersedes to set F'up2 sci.physics.relativity (again)]

JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups and 2 top-level hierarchies *without* Followup-To:

On 12/14/25 9:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM amok-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You did. You crossposted to 5 newsgroups.

Because *you* did before. But I *also* set Followup-To sci.physics.relativity to contain the crosspost, which you probably *deliberately* ignored. That is anti-social behavior on *your* part.

(If the header of your posting is not forged, you are using Mozilla Thunderbird the same as I do. This software observes RFC 5537 "Netnews Architecture and Protocols", -o 3.4.3 "Followups", which means that if you push the "Followup" button, the default for the target newsgroups is *only* those found in the "Followup-To" header field of the posting you post a followup to. The Followup-To header field of my posting was "Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity" which you can verify by expanding the header pane
or pressing Ctrl+U.)

As a typical mental case you're in some narcissistic "Do as I say, not as I do"
mode...

No, you simply either have no clue how newsgroups work; or you do, and you are trolling, and you are the mental, narcissistic case here. Which one is it?

Which part of "a photon has no inertial rest frame" did you not understand? >>

Omg! You're HILARIOUS!

The photon is everywhere is can potentially be!

*If* it *had* an inertial rest frame which it *cannot* have.

But to the photon itself that's it -- the one and only frame!

Such an *inertial* frame of reference does not exist as the speed of a
photon *cannot* be zero. That would mean that its linear momentum p would
be zero, and by E = p c it would not exist:

The energy--momentum relation for a free particle in Minkowski space is

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2.

For a particle to move at the speed c in all inertial reference frames, it
is required that its mass is zero. Proof: Let us assume that its mass is
not zero, then

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2
= m^2 c^4 + gamma^2 m^2 v^2 c^2
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4 (1/gamma^2 + v^2/c^2)
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4 (1 - v^2/c^2 + v^2/c^2)
= gamma^2 m^2 c^4
gamma^2 = E^2/(m^2 c^4)
1/(1 - v^2/c^2) = E^2/(m^2 c^4)
1 - v^2/c^2 = m^2 c^4/E^2
v^2/c^2 = 1 - m^2 c^4/E^2 ==> (v = c ==> m = 0).

But then its total energy squared is

E^2 = 0^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 = p^2 c^2,

so its total energy is (only) given by

E = p c.

Equivalently, by E = p c = h f, its frequency f would be zero which makes no sense (or you could say, with frequency zero there is no oscillation of electric and magnetic fields, so there cannot be photon which is an excitation state of the electromagnetic field):

For a photon, P = hbar K ==> p = |P| = hbar k, so

E = p c = hbar k c = h/(2pi) 2pi/lambda c = h/lambda c = h f.

[Planck--Einstein relation]

Another, more robust, way to show that there is no such frame is to show
that there is no Lorentz transformation to such a frame:

The original Lorentz transformation (as derived by Einstein) for motion of a "primed" frame in the x-direction of an "unprimed" frame at the velocity v relative to the latter frame is

t' = gamma(v) [t - v/c^2 x]
x' = gamma(v) [x - v t]
y' = y
z' = z.

But

gamma(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),

where v is the speed of the unprimed frame relative to the primed frame (and vice-versa, and gamma(v) --> inf as v --> c.

Equivalently, the Lorentz transformation above can be performed conveniently by multiplication of a four-vector (c t, x, y, z)^T on the left by the matrix

[ cosh(w) -sinh(w) 0 0]
Lambda := [-sinh(w) cosh(w) 0 0],
[ 0 0 1 0]
[ 0 0 0 1]

where w = artanh(v/c) is defined as rapidity. However, if v = c, then
v/c = 1, and artanh(1) is not well-defined: artanh(x) --> inf as x --> 1.

So we can calculate the elapsed proper time along a lightlike geodesic; it
is zero. In Minkowski space (where this is simple), it is (via the
Minkowski metric and the definition of proper time)

ds^2 = c^2 (d tau^2) = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
= c^2 dt^2 (1 - v^2/c^2)
(d tau)^2 = dt^2 sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
==> (v = c ==> d tau = 0 ==> Delta tau = int_W d tau = 0).

But that does not mean that we can make any scientifically solid statements about what "a photon experiences". In fact, not only does the existence of such an inertial frame contradict special relativity and quantum theories; but also, if special relativity and quantum theories are correct theories (and there is strong indication that they are), we will never be able to *falsify* any statements about this because *according to the theory* material objects *cannot* move at c through space (as their mass is not zero). But hypotheses that cannot be falsified are not scientific.

[The situation is very different if that frame is non-inertial in
the Newtonian sense. Is there such a frame? Absolutely: The relative
speed of a photon propagating radially outwards from the event horizon
of a Schwarzschild black hole is zero. But notice that I said
"propagating": it is still moving, but space is falling in as fast, so
its position does not change (this river model is one way to understand
it). This is just its *coordinate* speed, NOT its local speed. And
the geometry of our universe is NOT the Schwarzschild geometry.]

Wow, amazing!!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM wrote:
^^^^
Who?

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

While it is correct to say that zero proper time elapses along lightlike geodesics (ds^2 = +- c^2 (d tau)^2 = 0 ==> (d tau) = 0 ==> Delta tau = 0),
we also know that *a photon has no inertial rest frame* as that would contradict the postulate of the constancy of c, one of two postulates which make up the special principle of relativity which special relativity is
based on, *and* the Planck--Einstein relation E = p c = h f.

Curiously, special relativity fails to describe *completely* a motion at the speed c that it is based on.

hey i had replied to your post but it didnt show. i forgot what i
said.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Hiram wrote:

JTEM wrote:

On 12/13/25 5:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

Of course we do. It's inescapable. Once you say they don't experience
time that means they don't experience distance/space.

But you are reacting as predicted.

i wanna suck black ass

hiram, this is a serious physics discussion. you have to bring in
the physics of ass sucking to counter.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

jojo wrote:

Hiram wrote:

JTEM wrote:

On 12/13/25 5:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

Of course we do. It's inescapable. Once you say they don't
experience time that means they don't experience distance/space.

But you are reacting as predicted.

i wanna suck black ass

hiram, this is a serious physics discussion. you have to bring in the
physics of ass sucking to counter.

I've never studied the physics of black ass sucking but it does sound interesting.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

No, you

You either have to "Argue" that photons experience time, or for them
space doesn't exist either. They exist everywhere they can potentially
exist. Period. No "Different" place. It's all one and the same.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Please repair your From header field value. There has to be an actual
e-mail address, not just something resembling one.

Please avoid crossposting without Followup-To.

Jack Sovalot wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

On the other hand, in quantum electrodynamics a photon cannot be
understood as a point particle with a position (not even an

uncertain >> one) in the first place, but must be understood as a
non-local >> excitation state of the quantum-electromagnetic field.
It therefore >> exists everywhere (and at all times) from the outset.
The >> semi-classical photon is merely where the peak of that state,
so to >> speak, is largest, where and when it has a high probability
to be >> found. In Feynman's (path integral) interpretation, it
takes all >> paths between two points simultaneously. Both
correspond nicely to >> the naive interpretation that a photon is
everywhere at the same time >> as for it the rest of the universe is infinitely length-contracted, >> and the purely mathematical result
that zero proper time elapses >> along its worldline. But I do not understand what that could mean.

Are you able to tell us any more about the Feynman path itegral interpretation?

At best partially (I know basically the Feynman rules, i.e. how to
calculate an n-point function for a Feynman diagram; but I have not
studied QED yet), but the mathematics is still too difficult to
explain in a Usenet posting. For that you have to take classes in
quantum field theories.

However, good simplified graphical illustrations have been done by Don Lincoln (experimental particle physicist at Fermilab) and Science
Asylum (theoretical particle physicist, real name and place of work
unknown), respectively:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Spc8xhvJQ&list=PLCfRa7MXBEspXPQVseC0dDV8nWfQXe_6g&index=5>

pp.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73XdlgzSKws&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC&index=7>

And, of course, Feynman's lectures can be found online, e.g. at

<https://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu>

and on various channels on YouTube. He also wrote a
popular-scientific textbook about the subject: "QED: The Strange
Theory of Light and Matter". (I have not read it yet.)

HTH.

F'up2 sci.physics

Thanks so much, Thomas. And thanks for the advice. Now here's some
*serious* advice for you: Do NOT post under your real name.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Hiram wrote:

jojo wrote:

Hiram wrote:

JTEM wrote:

On 12/13/25 5:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

Of course we do. It's inescapable. Once you say they don't
experience time that means they don't experience distance/space.

But you are reacting as predicted.

i wanna suck black ass

hiram, this is a serious physics discussion. you have to bring in the
physics of ass sucking to counter.

I've never studied the physics of black ass sucking but it does sound interesting.

there is a course on that at columbia and nyu. its called power
to the people. it has dynamics, thermodynamics and ai and neurology.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 18:59:03 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 18:50:47 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 02:10:29 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >><PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

Dawn Flood wrote:

On 12/13/2025 4:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

JTEM wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

While it is correct to say that zero proper time elapses along lightlike >>>>> geodesics (ds^2 = +- c^2 (d tau)^2 = 0 ==> (d tau) = 0 ==> Delta tau = 0),
we also know that *a photon has no inertial rest frame* as that would >>>>> contradict the postulate of the constancy of c, one of two postulates which
make up the special principle of relativity which special relativity is >>>>> based on, *and* the Planck--Einstein relation E = p c = h f.

Curiously, special relativity fails to describe *completely* a motion at the
speed c that it is based on.

Thank you so very much for your post!! It's always great to have a
physicist among us!!!

Thank you. I am not a physicist (yet), but I do have studied Physics for >>>many years (at a university), including special relativity and quantum >>>theories (currently I am studying quantum field theories in an MSc course). >>>
There was a time not so long ago when I also subscribed to this naive >>>pop-sci interpretation until it was pointed out to me by someone else (I >>>think it was on Quora, and it may have been a physicist, too) that the >>>existence of a such a rest frame is a contradiction (to the special >>>principle of relativity, to begin with).

It would be great if it could be resolved, but I have no particular idea >>>how. One possibility would be that the mass of a photon is not actually >>>exactly zero; then it(s rest frame) would not be moving at c, but slightly >>>less than that, and it could exist.

On the other hand, in quantum electrodynamics a photon cannot be understood >>>as a point particle with a position (not even an uncertain one) in the first >>>place, but must be understood as a non-local excitation state of the >>>quantum-electromagnetic field. It therefore exists everywhere (and at all >>>times) from the outset. The semi-classical photon is merely where the peak >>>of that state, so to speak, is largest, where and when it has a high >>>probability to be found. In Feynman's (path integral) interpretation, it >>>takes all paths between two points simultaneously. Both correspond nicely >>>to the naive interpretation that a photon is everywhere at the same time as >>>for it the rest of the universe is infinitely length-contracted, and the >>>purely mathematical result that zero proper time elapses along its >>>worldline. But I do not understand what that could mean.

What " quantum electrodynamics a photon" means in your paragraph is
...a Jewish Photon.

sounds like you fell inside some Jewish basment and he was trying to >>convert you to his religion.

Live Prosper and Long

In other words, worship a tree.

Or follow Einstein's God called, "Spinoza's God".
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

jojo wrote:

Hiram wrote:

jojo wrote:

Hiram wrote:

JTEM wrote:

On 12/13/25 5:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

Of course we do. It's inescapable. Once you say they don't
experience time that means they don't experience
distance/space.

But you are reacting as predicted.

i wanna suck black ass

hiram, this is a serious physics discussion. you have to bring in
the physics of ass sucking to counter.

I've never studied the physics of black ass sucking but it does
sound interesting.

there is a course on that at columbia and nyu. its called power to
the people. it has dynamics, thermodynamics and ai and neurology.

sounds hard
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/14/25 11:08 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You posted to 5 newsgroups.

And you pretend to be studying physics? Can't even count as
high as five yet pretending to be studying physics?

Photons don't experience time. Thus, they don't experience space.
There is literally nothing separating any point is space from
any other point they can potentially reach.

It's all the exact same place and exact same time, to the photon.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/14/25 11:08 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You posted to 5 newsgroups.

And you pretend to be studying physics? Can't even count as
high as five yet pretending to be studying physics?

Photons don't experience time. Thus, they don't experience space.
There is literally nothing separating any point is space from
any other point they can potentially reach.

It's all the exact same place and exact same time, to the photon.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics


Bum sniffer. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

*PLONK*

Liar!

You keep crossposting to five groups and then attacking me
for posting to the same groups!

If there's one thing the world knows about trolls like you,
they never ever can do without. You'll switch handles, at
best, and keep reacting.

Photons don't experience time. They don't experience space.
And you're not a student much less a physics student.

Now take your meds.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/16/2025 9:08 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/14/25 11:08 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You posted to 5 newsgroups.

And you pretend to be studying physics? Can't even count as
high as five yet pretending to be studying physics?

Photons don't experience time. Thus, they don't experience space.
There is literally nothing separating any point is space from
any other point they can potentially reach.

It's all the exact same place and exact same time, to the photon.

The Internet needs to be gone, and the paddle needs to be applied.
Rinse & repeat as necessary!

Dawn
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/13/25 12:05, JTEM wrote:

Imagine a 4 dimensional being. How would their view
of our world differ from your own? How might their
interactions with our world appear to us? How would
it manifest to us in our 3D existence?

Now. Imagine a photon. It doesn't experience time.
How would that differ from us? How might those
differences manifest in our existence where we do
experience time?

'Space' is often thought of as having 3 'dimensions'
whereas 'time' is often thought of as having one.
It is possible for many people to conceive of spatial dimensions
in a photograph or painting being set in a specific time.

There is a specific set of philosophic ideas referred to as
'philosophic idealism' and 'philosophic materialism'.

I once remember reading in an astronomy magazine about 10 or
20 years ago where material streaming from maybe a pulsar
or quasar of going faster than light upon one vector direction
but not necessarily across the vector that the mass material
was going. In other words, since the mass stream was going at
an angle it was going 'faster than light' in comparison with
another reference frame. Then there is something called
Cherenkov radiation that deals with light not in a vacuum.

These specific 'ideas' in this circumstance are conveyed by
a mechanism known of as 'writing', however images or sounds
that are not in the form or writing might theoretically
potentially have meaning also in some circumstances. That
meaning might vary between different people at times.

...

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Dawn Flood wrote:

The Internet needs to be gone

Maybe just a switch to verified users. That'll end the
collective.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

x wrote:
^
Who?

On 12/13/25 12:05, JTEM wrote:

Imagine a 4 dimensional being. How would their view
of our world differ from your own? How might their
interactions with our world appear to us? How would
it manifest to us in our 3D existence?

Now. Imagine a photon. It doesn't experience time.
How would that differ from us? How might those
differences manifest in our existence where we do
experience time?

'Space' is often thought of as having 3 'dimensions'
whereas 'time' is often thought of as having one.

Instead, there are 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension that we
can be sure of as we can observe them.

It is possible for many people to conceive of spatial dimensions
in a photograph or painting being set in a specific time.

In a photograph or painting, the observed 3 spatial dimensions are projected onto a 2-dimensional surface.

I once remember reading in an astronomy magazine about 10 or
20 years ago where material streaming from maybe a pulsar
or quasar of going faster than light upon one vector direction
but not necessarily across the vector that the mass material
was going. In other words, since the mass stream was going at
an angle it was going 'faster than light' in comparison with
another reference frame.

Yes, these are only apparent speeds faster than light.

Then there is something called Cherenkov radiation that deal
with light not in a vacuum.

Cherenkov radiation is emitted by electrically charged particles when they
move faster than light relative to a medium, similar to the shockwave that created, and called a "sonic boom", when an object is moving through air
faster than the speed of sound in air. This is possible because the phase speed of light in a medium is usually less than in vacuum (if the medium has
a index of refraction n greater than 1), and which is the correct
explanation for refraction in the first place:

v_ph = c/n.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUjt36SD3h8&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC&index=2>
pp.

These specific 'ideas' in this circumstance are conveyed by
a mechanism known of as 'writing', however images or sounds
that are not in the form or writing might theoretically
potentially have meaning also in some circumstances. That
meaning might vary between different people at times.

I have no idea what you are getting at.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

x wrote:
^
Who?

On 12/13/25 12:05, JTEM wrote:

Imagine a 4 dimensional being. How would their view
of our world differ from your own? How might their
interactions with our world appear to us? How would
it manifest to us in our 3D existence?

Now. Imagine a photon. It doesn't experience time.
How would that differ from us? How might those
differences manifest in our existence where we do
experience time?

'Space' is often thought of as having 3 'dimensions'
whereas 'time' is often thought of as having one.

Instead, there are 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension that we
can be sure of as we can observe them.

It is possible for many people to conceive of spatial dimensions
in a photograph or painting being set in a specific time.

In a photograph or painting, the observed 3 spatial dimensions are projected onto a 2-dimensional surface.

I once remember reading in an astronomy magazine about 10 or
20 years ago where material streaming from maybe a pulsar
or quasar of going faster than light upon one vector direction
but not necessarily across the vector that the mass material
was going. In other words, since the mass stream was going at
an angle it was going 'faster than light' in comparison with
another reference frame.

Yes, these are only apparent speeds faster than light.

Then there is something called Cherenkov radiation that deal
with light not in a vacuum.

Cherenkov radiation is emitted by electrically charged particles when they
move faster than light relative to a medium, similar to the shockwave that
is created, and called a "sonic boom", when an object is moving through air faster than the speed of sound in air. This is possible because the phase speed of light in a medium is usually less than in vacuum (if the medium has
a index of refraction n greater than 1), and which is the correct
explanation for refraction in the first place:

v_ph = c/n.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUjt36SD3h8&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC&index=2>
pp.

These specific 'ideas' in this circumstance are conveyed by
a mechanism known of as 'writing', however images or sounds
that are not in the form or writing might theoretically
potentially have meaning also in some circumstances. That
meaning might vary between different people at times.

I have no idea what you are getting at.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/16/25 7:08 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/14/25 11:08 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You posted to 5 newsgroups.

And you pretend to be studying physics? Can't even count as
high as five yet pretending to be studying physics?

Photons don't experience time. Thus, they don't experience space.
There is literally nothing separating any point is space from
any other point they can potentially reach.

It's all the exact same place and exact same time, to the photon.

i've often wondered if this means the future is entirely set in stone
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Hiram wrote:

jojo wrote:

Hiram wrote:

jojo wrote:

Hiram wrote:

JTEM wrote:

On 12/13/25 5:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

Of course we do. It's inescapable. Once you say they don't
experience time that means they don't experience
distance/space.

But you are reacting as predicted.

i wanna suck black ass

hiram, this is a serious physics discussion. you have to bring in
the physics of ass sucking to counter.

I've never studied the physics of black ass sucking but it does
sound interesting.

there is a course on that at columbia and nyu. its called power to
the people. it has dynamics, thermodynamics and ai and neurology.

sounds hard

you will be able to get straight a's.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

dart200 wrote:

On 12/16/25 7:08 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/14/25 11:08 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You posted to 5 newsgroups.

And you pretend to be studying physics? Can't even count as
high as five yet pretending to be studying physics?

Photons don't experience time. Thus, they don't experience space.
There is literally nothing separating any point is space from
any other point they can potentially reach.

It's all the exact same place and exact same time, to the photon.

i've often wondered if this means the future is entirely set in
stone

cant be because then running this simulation would be pointless.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

JTEM wrote:

-aDawn Flood wrote:

The Internet needs to be gone

Maybe just a switch to verified users. That'll end the
collective.

no thank you. i dont care for that.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

jojo wrote:

Hiram wrote:

jojo wrote:

Hiram wrote:

jojo wrote:

Hiram wrote:

JTEM wrote:

On 12/13/25 5:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

For example, and I've already pointed this out a
number of times so you doubtlessly missed it but,
there's is no "Distance" or "Space" to a photon.

We simply do not know that.

Of course we do. It's inescapable. Once you say they don't experience time that means they don't experience
distance/space.

But you are reacting as predicted.

i wanna suck black ass

hiram, this is a serious physics discussion. you have to
bring in the physics of ass sucking to counter.

I've never studied the physics of black ass sucking but it does
sound interesting.

there is a course on that at columbia and nyu. its called power to
the people. it has dynamics, thermodynamics and ai and neurology.

sounds hard

you will be able to get straight a's.

I'm not smart enough. But that's okay, basic black ass sucking is good
enough for me.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/17/25 19:14, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

x wrote:
^
Who?

On 12/13/25 12:05, JTEM wrote:
>
> Imagine a 4 dimensional being. How would their view
> of our world differ from your own? How might their
> interactions with our world appear to us? How would
> it manifest to us in our 3D existence?
>
> Now. Imagine a photon. It doesn't experience time.
> How would that differ from us? How might those
> differences manifest in our existence where we do
> experience time?

'Space' is often thought of as having 3 'dimensions'
whereas 'time' is often thought of as having one.

Instead, there are 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension that we can be sure of as we can observe them.

It is possible for many people to conceive of spatial dimensions
in a photograph or painting being set in a specific time.

In a photograph or painting, the observed 3 spatial dimensions are projected onto a 2-dimensional surface.

I once remember reading in an astronomy magazine about 10 or
20 years ago where material streaming from maybe a pulsar
or quasar of going faster than light upon one vector direction
but not necessarily across the vector that the mass material
was going. In other words, since the mass stream was going at
an angle it was going 'faster than light' in comparison with
another reference frame.

Yes, these are only apparent speeds faster than light.

Then there is something called Cherenkov radiation that deal
with light not in a vacuum.

Cherenkov radiation is emitted by electrically charged particles when they move faster than light relative to a medium, similar to the shockwave that
is created, and called a "sonic boom", when an object is moving through air faster than the speed of sound in air. This is possible because the phase speed of light in a medium is usually less than in vacuum (if the medium has a index of refraction n greater than 1), and which is the correct
explanation for refraction in the first place:

v_ph = c/n.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUjt36SD3h8&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC&index=2>
pp.

These specific 'ideas' in this circumstance are conveyed by
a mechanism known of as 'writing', however images or sounds
that are not in the form or writing might theoretically
potentially have meaning also in some circumstances. That
meaning might vary between different people at times.

I have no idea what you are getting at.

Well you know with a lot of things what is obvious
may end up getting ignored so much that it might
be worthwhile to be 'pedantic' again simply because
if it is ignored too much then it might be worthwhile
to again point out to not neglect various steps in paths
to true knowledge.

You know there is 'writing' and there is 'pictures'
whether they are still or motion pictures. Usenet
tends to be oriented toward writing format.

There was once the phrase that 'a picture is worth
a thousand words', but some things do at times tend
to mutate into their opposites. Nowadays a picture
is almost proof that something is fake.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 12/18/25 6:33 AM, jojo wrote:

dart200 wrote:

On 12/16/25 7:08 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 12/14/25 11:08 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
JTEM *amok*-crossposted across 5 newsgroups

You posted to 5 newsgroups.

And you pretend to be studying physics? Can't even count as
high as five yet pretending to be studying physics?

Photons don't experience time. Thus, they don't experience space.
There is literally nothing separating any point is space from
any other point they can potentially reach.

It's all the exact same place and exact same time, to the photon.

i've often wondered if this means the future is entirely set in stone

cant be because then running this simulation would be pointless.

not necessarily considering the possibility of a seed "number"

god's just trying to experience what happens
--
hi, i'm nick! let's end war EfOa

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 15:45:54 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/20/2025 05:58 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:

On 12/19/2025 11:10 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

jojo wrote:

[full quote]

thomas, i dont think you and dawn will be able to collaborate.

That is a stupid remark to my posting, especially given the senseless
full
quote.

dawn is also getting a phd.

Not in Physics, apparently.

Nope. I am done with school. Besides, I could never study for a PhD in >>> physics, as I cannot do some of the graduate level math that is required >>> for such a degree.

Maybe you can start with the paradoxes of motion,
like Zeno's paradoxes, and about the "unstoppable
force and immovable object", as ideals, then about
how anything can change at all, since the slightest
continuous difference in velocity involves infinitely-many
higher orders of acceleration, while though most all of
those are infinitesimal.

The best they can do is to ignore megalomaniac lunatics like you who like to >use fancy terms but do not have the first clue what they are babbling about.

That directly applies to notions like rest frames
and acceleration and velocity, in a universe with
causality and continuity.

No, Zeno's paradox and ideas of "what happens if an unstoppable force acts
on an immovable object" play no role in Physics. Those are merely >laypeople's misconceptions what Physics would be about.

Physics is NOT philosophy.

You just tested Positive for Stupid.

Have you ever heard Albert Einstein mentioned he was a Physicist?

natural philosophy was the common term for the study of physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

on Einstein desk, there is a book on PHILOSOPHY because,
that is how he learned...Relativity. https://static.life.com/wp-content/uploads/migrated/2014/10/the-day-einstein-died-02.jpg

Natural philosophy or philosophy of nature is the philosophical study
of physics, that is, nature and the physical universe.

Learn to read.

Isaac Newton's book Philosophiu Naturalis Principia Mathematica
(1687) (English: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy)

Math is.. Philosophy.

mathematics were a part of natural philosophy...

Math is not science. Numbers don't exist.

dis stuff is all in the head.

(or should I say...all between your pointed ears?)



you gotta knock off dis off-the-cuff talk...

Usenet will not have it.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2