Maybe we can go on with some questions about light, particular speed, bending the course, and other important questions.
As explained before, light travels at that particular speed due to it being made of much more infinitesimal EMR pulses (“affects”) which cannot logically travel any faster. It is not because we have never noticed light traveling any faster nor because we have never found a way to push light to go faster. It is a logical impossibility for light to travel faster in a homogeneous extreme “vacuum”. Logic “dictates”.
Light alters its course because, like particles, it is always reconstituting itself, picking up small infinitesimal pulses and losing some. And when it picks up more on one side than the other, the center of the entire clump shifts, just as it does with particles (causing gravity and electrostatic interactions). A more dense gradient mass field (“gravity field”) causes the clump of infinitesimal EMR pulses to accumulate more toward the higher density side of the clump and lose more on the far side. Thus the clump appears to have shifted and the clump as a whole, has shifted. But it should be noted that the original minute pulses are no longer a part of that clump because they have continued straight but merely far to small to be detected in normal ways.
Light has some properties similar to particles, but with one critical difference. A pulse of light has basically all of its constituent infinitesimal pulses (“Affectance”) traveling in the same direction. A mass particle, although made of exactly the same thing, has its infinitesimal pulses traveling in all directions (which is why it can’t travel as fast as the light). Like particles, a light pulse is always rebuilding itself but cannot maintain itself as a clump as well as a mass particle. And thus the light clump is actually a wave that disperses extremely slowly, and not a true particle. But physics experiments can only detect light as either existing or not, thus giving the impression that they are either a full clump or not there, misleading theoretical physicists into thinking that a “photon” is a “particle”, either existing as a clump of energy or not existing at all (despite them having further evidence proving the contrary).
And for those who can’t gain confidence from immutable logic, this theory can be empirically proven with the double slit experiment as specified thusly:
So you do not deny the speed of light as a constant (299792458 m/s).
Infinitesimal pulses means affectance. But where do the small infinitesimal pulses which are picked up by the light come from? You are describing it as if the light were a particle (see here), although you also say that light is a wave and not or actually not a particle. So do you actually deny that the character or property of light can be both a wave and a particle? And you say that “a photon is a particlized wave”, but you “would indicate that photons really are strictly particles”. You can’t overcome the wave/particle dualism.
Actually, can not this duality be overcome by the concept of situational function, vis., that it acts like a wave under certain conditions, but appears as a particle in others?/ And thirdly it may not appear nor function, in others? (Where the gaps, as James desribes the pulsing ?)
I can’t verify the number itself other than the fact that they have declared that to be the proper number by definition. They might choose to change that later. But I can verify that it is a fixed number close to that.
From the space that the light pulse is traveling through. Space is never empty of such affectance.
Have I stated that a photon is strictly a particle somewhere? I didn’t mean to, if I did. 
The issue is that a light pulse will be detected as though it was a particle whether it was or not because detectors have a threshold and as a light pulse bends its path, it largely maintains its energy level by picking up more affectance headed in the new direction. The total level of energy is largely maintained, but the inner constituency is exchanged.
Mass particles do that also, but they are stable when not moving. So there isn’t much difference between a particle and a pulse. And a pulse does spread out over extreme distances whereas a particle will not. The photons detected from distance stars are not the pulses that departed from the stars as much as newly formed clumps made from all of the affectance waves that left the stars in the same general direction along with a great deal picked up along the way. Photons are not a one-for-one transaction between source and destination over very long distances. They combine portions such as to vary in intensity depending upon what the ran across on the way. They are a blob of affectance.
That is the way they are handling it. But I prefer to not speak in terms of “a photon” because every photon is actually merely a “virtual photon”, a selected portion that might be of any chosen amount of energy. That is another distinction between particles and waves of light. A particle has a pretty solidly fixed amount of energy within it. You can’t raise the energy within a particle so freely (although it can be done temporarily). A light pulse can be given more energy or lose some energy down to the point of not being able to detect it at all, such as when reflecting between parallel mirrors.
I would prefer calling light “pulses” (a portion of a wave), not waves or particles.
Here you can even see how much I am affected by the currently prevailing physics. Sorry, for I had forgotten that according to RM:AO space is never empty of affectance, especially of such affectance.
You haven’t. Excuse me but I read “I” instead of “it”, so I read “I would indicate that photons really are strictly particles” instead of “it would indicate that photons really are strictly particles” (here). Excuse me.
How can we verify or prove what affectance really is and how can we falsify or disprove it?
Not in that way because it is the way the currently hegemonic physicists prefer. It is not possible to overcome the wave/particle duality with the wave/particle duality.
The only rational way to prove anything: Rational Metaphysics:
1) Definitional Logic (so that you know what you are actually proposing)
2) Scientific Falsification (so that you know there is no alternative)
3) Resolution Debating (so that you can verify that nothing has been overlooked)
- Define the concepts involved: Fundamentals of Affectance Ontology
- Emulate the concepts and see where they lead: Jack (the program)
- Debate the issue (online for example) to see if anything has been left out.
It is not possible to know whether there will also be “no alternative” in the future. Due to that there is no scientific truth but merely probability. The conclusion “gold, silver, iron … etc. are metals, they are havier than water, thus all metals are heavier than water” had been “true” (“no alternative”; see your point 2)) until the potassium was discovered.
I’m not sure what you mean by that.
With anyone who you suspect might contribute a logically critical view. You are merely seeking any varied perspectives that might point out anything that you left out.
Really?
Did I say anything about asking others, such as scientists for what is true?
Logic doesn’t change through time, merely people’s use or misuse of it.
If something is totally logically impossible, do you believe that there is any possibility that it will happen anyway?
It refers to your point 2). Again the following example: The conclusion that „all metals are heavier than water“ had been „true“ until the potassium was discovered. It seems that conclusions can also “die”.
Logic as a such doesn’t change, but some or many contents of it change; they may have a proton pseudos or any other logical falsity. The conclusion that „all metals are heavier than water“ had been “true” for a long time; but then it changed to “false” because the potassium was discovered. Since the potassium was discovered the conclusion that „not all metals are heavier than water“ has been veing “true”; probably it will be “true” forever because probably the premise that "potassium is a metal" will be “true” forever". Please don’t forget that this example refers to science, thus is not merely logical but also scientifical, thus is not merely theoretical but also empirical, and it is the science (and not the logic as a such) which caused the false conclusion.
Oh, I see. I’m sorry. I wasn’t referring to SCIENTISTS and whatever they might say, but rather the scientific method of observing an occurrence that could logically only happen if the hypothesis was true because there is no alternative.
You didn’t answer my question. But I see that you are conflating what is said to be true by others with what is “actually true”, not merely what is speculated by others.
Remember:
Nullius in Verba.
Never mind.
I answered that question not directly but indirectly, although it is not typical for me to answer questions indirectly.
Okay, so what is the “direct” answer?
It’s like the indirect answer but not so easy to find out.
What do you say? According to RM:AO “nothing is possible until something is impossible”. What is your answer to the question wether there is any possibility that something will happen although it is totally logically impossible?
From another thread:
“We have been through this before” probably means “no one else than you and I have been through this before”.
And that is a bad sign, at least then, if it is not explained that it has not very much to do with mathematics. It has very much to do with confusing the people, so that it becomes easier to reconvert science to religion.
I thought it was on an open forum. Very few people see any of these conversations anyway.
Mathematics has become merely mysticism for the masses, much like early Hinduism rituals - “seemingly profound”, thus alluring to the masses.
But among the scientists, the mathematicians are currently the least corrupted scientists.
The same is true of the other religions. Those doing the real thinking deep within the church are the honest ones, not those reporting to the public.
Yes. Those who think deeply are the best, and those who report to the public are the worst.