Genady

It is perfectly correct, but I have a caveat to add. I think that all photons are virtual. We never observe photons directly, only their interactions with some detectors. The so-called real photons are just virtual photons that last so long that their deviation from the shell is immeasurably small.

They will not match in the case of Earth, too, if length is in cm, or length in feet and mass in pounds, etc. (in case the OP does not realize what mismatched units mean.)

Right, and that was my simple comment above:

1 AU = 1.5x1011 m g/G = 9.8 / (6.67x10-11) = 1.47x1011 kg/m2 Close... 😉

In that case, the person will need to check in the list of facts I believe in, if that fact is there: Item 1a: My name is Genady. Item 1b: I am a member in SFn. Item 1c: I live in Bonaire. ... This list is longer, but finite anyway. Alternatively, the test could go like this, for example: They: Do you believe it is a fact that an intelligent being created Universe? I (quickly checking my list): No.

I don't need to know, because I am not the one who asks the question. I am an object in this test. The subject, the one who wants to know if I believe in God, supposedly has some idea what it is. Then they go through my list: Item 1: facts and logic. Is it God? - No. Item 2: Earth is not flat. Is it God? - No. Item 3: Money helps. Is it God? - No. ... etc.

g/G has units of mass per area. 1 AU is a distance. How can they be equal?

They are both plausible definitions, but the second one has a problem, IMO, that it requires some definition of God, and this is problematic. The first definition, OTOH, does not require it and thus is easily tested. The second definition leads to farther confusions about 'which God don't you believe in?', 'does it include Buddha?', 'is Jesus God?', 'can you prove that God does not exist?', etc. OTOH, the first definition only needs to look at the list of things I believe in - which is not very long and definitely finite - and to check that there is no God on this list.

Of course, they don't. That's why we tried to point out the wrong assumptions in your calculations which led to the wrong conclusion that they do.

I wish. +1

I'm starting to think your arguments are less than logical.

This is even worse. Now you decide for other people what their opinion should've been. I show that your argument is illogical. Of course I don't argue it, because there is no way to logically argue an illogical argument. Here is another example of how illogical your argument is. There, you talked about atheists. Now, you replace it with the attacks on religion.

Only if you stick with the second definition.

Exactly. As for me, for the most of my life I thought that the first definition is the accepted one. Only discussions in this forum convinced me that most members rather relate to the second one. Since then, I don't call myself an atheist, at least not in this forum.

Variable substitution is not a logical fallacy. Your downvote of my post is a bad mark on you.

You make them to glow.

All electric and magnetic phenomena.

They interact with charged particles.

I have an idea how interference of two waves moving with the speed c can result in a wave moving with a speed v < c, in principle. The two waves don't travel on the same line, like in the video, but at an angle, like here: The waves from A and from B interfere in such a way that the resulting wave appears in C. Each one moves with the speed c, but the resulting wave propagates with a slower speed v.

It was me that informed you (Are there other Versions of Fourth Dimensional Energies - Speculations - Science Forums). I said there that you were 150 years late. I did not say that you were correct. However, your conclusion stays: don't waste your time on this idea.

But he is talking there about two waves moving with different speeds. It is not the case here. Here we have two electromagnetic waves, and both have the same speed in vacuum. How do they add up to a slower wave?

Where does he say that? (time stamp)? 4:51 This is my problem, too. I'm looking for a better explanation, if there is one.

I don't believe it. I'd love to see that math. The Fermilab video linked above says that this explanation is wrong. Do you think they are wrong?

The direction of the resultant wave is different. Why the speed would be different, though? I don't see how they could. They are not. They are moving in all directions, I think. Another questions in relation to this. Let's assume for simplicity that the primary wave is monochromatic. Is the resultant wave monochromatic? If so, what is different about it, i.e., wavelength, frequency, or both?

Right, it shows that the amplitude changes. It does not explain why the speed changes, though, does it? Also, there are no slow and fast waves there, as both waves are electromagnetic and thus both move with the speed of light. Right?