From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal


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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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!  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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

[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", § 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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

[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", § 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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

[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", § 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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

[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", § 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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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", § 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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 05:20:19 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

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

How does someone as uneducated as you manage to post?

| * 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 >..."

Unless the poster includes a physical mailing address, it will be understood to be E-mail.
You have to be pretending to be this stupid.

[...]
--
Kenito Benito
Strategic Writer,
Psychotronic World Dominator.
And FEMA camp counselor.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal


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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

On 12/16/2025 9:08 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.

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

Dawn
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

JTEM wrote:

 Dawn 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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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 🙃

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal

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

Why are homosexuals far more intelligent than Trump?

If it wasn't so, Stephen Miller wouldn't be telling him what to do all day.

It's part of the big conspiracy.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2