On 02/16/2026 03:28 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
In physics, by "light" we do not only mean human-visible light, but it is
rather a shorthand for "electromagnetic waves".
No, it is not universal that "light" is "electromagnetic radiation".
On 02/16/2026 05:06 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/16/2026 03:28 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
In physics, by "light" we do not only mean human-visible light, but it is >>> rather a shorthand for "electromagnetic waves".
No, it is not universal that "light" is "electromagnetic radiation".
I suppose then we can get into Shapiro and
about lunar laser ranging and "the photon sector".
https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818 (Gezari)
The J.S. Bell inequality
and Alain Aspect type experiments
have also made sure that "optical light is special".
In other ideas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern
(Infinite speed of gravity,
of course the solar system has gravity always pointing to the source
not the image,
or the usual premier theories would
be falsified even more strongly.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allais_effect#Allais_effect_and_consensus
Have you ever watched the Moon during a Lunar eclipse?
It's quite clear the rolling of the image and otherwise
as would be effects in the optical or "large Fresnel".
The image of the Moon actually spins around, while,
for example, shadows of leaves exhibit scattered refringence.
"Optical light is special", ....
There are usual conspiracy theories like from
"Craters of the Moon" and Kubrick and about
things like there being extra Buran and STS shuttles.
I was never able to compute how to get the moon
lander the correct fuel-to-weight to get it to
land and take off again, though hydrazine is
quite a thing, and the conics of blast chamber
resonances had many iterations, or, "the nozzles".
http://www.astronautix.com/v/vonbraunlunarlander.html
Ross Finlayson wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Optical light is special", ....
"Optical light" is a pleonasm. _Visible_ light is only special in that humans can see it with their naked eyes. That is how visible light is defined by humans: it is light in the *human*-visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Historically it was the other way around: first, "light" was defined by humans as a phenomenon that could be seen with the human naked eye, and then subsequently electromagnetic radiation had been discovered (at least three times by accident, and named so accordingly by their discoverers: infrared [lit. "below red"], ultraviolet ["above violet"], and X-rays ["X" for "unknown"]) that was invisible to humans because their eyes, specifically
the photoreceptors cells in their retina, are not sensible to it (the energy of each of those photons is either too low or too high to enable the
required biochemical reaction; although too high energies can damage or even
destroy cells).^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/16/2026 03:28 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
In physics, by "light" we do not only mean human-visible light, but it is >>> rather a shorthand for "electromagnetic waves".
No, it is not universal that "light" is "electromagnetic radiation".
Yes it is.
See also: <http://www.hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ligcon.html#c1>
F'up2 sci.physics
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/16/2026 05:06 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/16/2026 03:28 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
In physics, by "light" we do not only mean human-visible light, but it is >>>> rather a shorthand for "electromagnetic waves".
No, it is not universal that "light" is "electromagnetic radiation".
I suppose then we can get into Shapiro and
about lunar laser ranging and "the photon sector".
You can get into anything you like from there, as /ex falso quodlibet/: from a false statement follows anything. But that does not make it true nor your argument valid.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818 (Gezari)
Title: "Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector"
Interesting, but irrelevant to this discussion.
The J.S. Bell inequality
_Bell's_ inequality has nothing to do with your claim, and so does not corroborate it. While Bell's inequality, and therefore the quantization of light energy, i.e. the existence of photons, can be proven using polarizing filters for visible light, that does not mean that it is limited to that.
minutephysics: "Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC&index=14>
[followed by 3Blue1Brown and minutephysics: "Some light quantum mechanics (with minutephysics)" -- notice the pun :-D]
and Alain Aspect type experiments
have also made sure that "optical light is special".
No.
> In other ideas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern
(Infinite speed of gravity,
Experimentally falsified by GW150914 where a gravitational wave was detected by LIGO Hanford, WA ca. 10 ms after it had been detected by LIGO Livingston, LA, as predicted.
of course the solar system has gravity always pointing to the source
There are multiple sources of gravitation in the Sol System, and indeed any *system*.
not the image,
Gravitation is an effect, not a quantity.
or the usual premier theories would
be falsified even more strongly.)
You don't know what you are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allais_effect#Allais_effect_and_consensus
Read this carefully.
Not only does it refer to an effect that has no (agreed-on) explanation, nor is there scientific consensus on the effect itself; it also has nothing to
do with your claim.
Have you ever watched the Moon during a Lunar eclipse?
Yes, many times, using my (amateur) telescope; I have even taken photos of it:
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/iSD6myV1QCmohYFa7>
Have you ever looked through a telescope for making astronomical observations?
It's quite clear the rolling of the image and otherwise
as would be effects in the optical or "large Fresnel".
You don't know what you are talking, let alone talking about.
The image of the Moon actually spins around, while,
for example, shadows of leaves exhibit scattered refringence.
The Moon never spinned around in my telescope. You must have been smoking something bad (now or at the time).
"Optical light is special", ....
"Optical light" is a pleonasm. _Visible_ light is only special in that humans can see it with their naked eyes. That is how visible light is defined by humans: it is light in the *human*-visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Historically it was the other way around: first, "light" was defined by humans as a phenomenon that could be seen with the human naked eye, and then subsequently electromagnetic radiation had been discovered (at least three times by accident, and named so accordingly by their discoverers: infrared [lit. "below red"], ultraviolet ["above violet"], and X-rays ["X" for "unknown"]) that was invisible to humans because their eyes, specifically
the photoreceptors cells in their retina, are not sensible to it (the energy of each of those photons is either too low or too high to enable the
required biochemical reaction; although too high energies can damage or even destroy cells).
There are usual conspiracy theories like from
"Craters of the Moon" and Kubrick and about
things like there being extra Buran and STS shuttles.
I was never able to compute how to get the moon
lander the correct fuel-to-weight to get it to
land and take off again, though hydrazine is
quite a thing, and the conics of blast chamber
resonances had many iterations, or, "the nozzles".
http://www.astronautix.com/v/vonbraunlunarlander.html
Irrelevant statement.
On 02/17/2026 08:34 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/16/2026 05:06 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/16/2026 03:28 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
In physics, by "light" we do not only mean human-visible light, but
it is
rather a shorthand for "electromagnetic waves".
No, it is not universal that "light" is "electromagnetic radiation".
I suppose then we can get into Shapiro and
about lunar laser ranging and "the photon sector".
You can get into anything you like from there, as /ex falso
quodlibet/: from
a false statement follows anything. But that does not make it true
nor your
argument valid.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818 (Gezari)
Title: "Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector"
Interesting, but irrelevant to this discussion.
The J.S. Bell inequality
_Bell's_ inequality has nothing to do with your claim, and so does not
corroborate it. While Bell's inequality, and therefore the
quantization of
light energy, i.e. the existence of photons, can be proven using
polarizing
filters for visible light, that does not mean that it is limited to that.
minutephysics: "Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC&index=14>
[followed by 3Blue1Brown and minutephysics: "Some light quantum mechanics
(with minutephysics)" -- notice the pun :-D]
and Alain Aspect type experiments
have also made sure that "optical light is special".
No.
> In other ideas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern
(Infinite speed of gravity,
Experimentally falsified by GW150914 where a gravitational wave was
detected
by LIGO Hanford, WA ca. 10 ms after it had been detected by LIGO
Livingston,
LA, as predicted.
of course the solar system has gravity always pointing to the source
There are multiple sources of gravitation in the Sol System, and
indeed any
*system*.
not the image,
Gravitation is an effect, not a quantity.
or the usual premier theories would
be falsified even more strongly.)
You don't know what you are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allais_effect#Allais_effect_and_consensus
Read this carefully.
Not only does it refer to an effect that has no (agreed-on)
explanation, nor
is there scientific consensus on the effect itself; it also has
nothing to
do with your claim.
Have you ever watched the Moon during a Lunar eclipse?
Yes, many times, using my (amateur) telescope; I have even taken
photos of it:
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/iSD6myV1QCmohYFa7>
Have you ever looked through a telescope for making astronomical
observations?
It's quite clear the rolling of the image and otherwise
as would be effects in the optical or "large Fresnel".
You don't know what you are talking, let alone talking about.
The image of the Moon actually spins around, while,
for example, shadows of leaves exhibit scattered refringence.
The Moon never spinned around in my telescope. You must have been
smoking
something bad (now or at the time).
"Optical light is special", ....
"Optical light" is a pleonasm. _Visible_ light is only special in that
humans can see it with their naked eyes. That is how visible light is
defined by humans: it is light in the *human*-visible part of the
electromagnetic spectrum.
Historically it was the other way around: first, "light" was defined by
humans as a phenomenon that could be seen with the human naked eye,
and then
subsequently electromagnetic radiation had been discovered (at least
three
times by accident, and named so accordingly by their discoverers:
infrared
[lit. "below red"], ultraviolet ["above violet"], and X-rays ["X" for
"unknown"]) that was invisible to humans because their eyes, specifically
the photoreceptors cells in their retina, are not sensible to it (the
energy
of each of those photons is either too low or too high to enable the
required biochemical reaction; although too high energies can damage
or even
destroy cells).
There are usual conspiracy theories like from
"Craters of the Moon" and Kubrick and about
things like there being extra Buran and STS shuttles.
I was never able to compute how to get the moon
lander the correct fuel-to-weight to get it to
land and take off again, though hydrazine is
quite a thing, and the conics of blast chamber
resonances had many iterations, or, "the nozzles".
http://www.astronautix.com/v/vonbraunlunarlander.html
Irrelevant statement.
"When Loves Comes to Town", ....
"I've seen love conquer the great divide."
The idea that eyes evolved to visible, optical light
instead of the other way around, and that eyeballs
are globular to reflect the theory since the division
of the sky by the Sumerians of optical _effects_,
then has that after Rayleigh-Jeans and the "ultraviolet
catastrophe", which made for a great reductionism to
make for an account of spectroscopy, that things like
Faraday's "magnetizing the medium about the light"
later was reduced to Zeeman's that again these days
is back in the data about "Faraday Rotation".
That, "optical light is special", and furthermore that
"visible light is special" intends to relay that it's
not radio waves, and as chargeless and massless it's
not electromagnetic. That's not the same "Special" as
"Special a.k.a. Restricted Relativity" about "Einstein's
Spacial for Einstein's Special", though of course Einstein
also has his own "spacial" about the "special", and for
example also Einstein has an "Aether" in effect in _his_
stated words, about the other reason to ignore the
difference as it would imply an "Aether". What is is
though about the special focus and lensing, since there
are effects in the optical that make for explaining
away "tired light", _which demands an explanation since
it's falsified the theory_, for redshift-distortion as
a simply effect of the free, if metered, travel of optical
radiation ("in deep space, in a vacuum, at a constant velocity",
alone).
Then, about gravity's speed, what we have here is an idea
that instead of the everywhere violation of the conservation
of energy by pull-gravity or follow-gravity, which you will
acknowledge means that otherwise there's no theory of gravity
in the premier theory yet the oldest theory is "what goes up
must come down", that the idea that gravity really is "action
at a distance", has that it's not observed less than that
c_g is infinity, else the usual model of the solar system
would fly directly apart, or into a clump.
Modern accounts of "gravity's speed" as "light's plus/minus
nothing" is simply enough a quite contrived peak in the signal.
Then, it's a usual topic of conversation the turning and
spinning of the Moon's face in a lunar eclipse.
If you take a look under the comments on my "Logos 2000:
physics today" or for example you can find many essays
in my posts on Usenet about the theory of light, it's
rather easy to get open-minded conscientious, co-operative,
competent, large reasoners to agree observing these things.
"Midnight Special"
"Midnight Blue"? Colorless green. "Under the Milky Way"
no kidding, an optical system is light based. You are talking to an
idiot.
s/to/like/
In physics, by "light" we do not only mean human-visible light, but it
is rather a shorthand for "electromagnetic waves".
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:03:59 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| Messages: | 196,197 |