EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 1 Aug 2008 17:56 On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >On Jul 31, 7:02�pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: >> >Dear Henri: > >You are using logic to support and defend a variable velocity for >light. Your theory requires that light be �vibrating�. Tell me, why >is it necessary for light to vibrate in order to travel? Do bullets >have to vibrate in order to travel? > >We agree that a photon will emit at velocity �c� relative to the >emitting atom. But why is that so? It�s because the motive force of >the photon out of the electron ring it was in, results from the >universal tangential velocity of my IOTAs. Think of that process as >being like two contra-rotating automobile tires shooting out an >inserted football at a uniform velocity. > >A photon is at least one IOTA. But because those are polar, as it >shoots out, the ether in its path can cling to it, IOTA to IOTA, like >little flying cylinders. And the increasing size of the photon tends >to let more non-aligned IOTAs bank up in front. And those can attract >their own IOTAS to become these gobs of energy shooting along. > >Your �one photon� case doesn�t correctly tell the nature of light. In >most cases, light is TRAINS of photons. Those are being emitted at a >spacing which corresponds to the energy plateau of the electron ring >from which they originated. Trains of light, like water coming from a >concentrated fire hose, will tend to induce the ether adjacent to the >photons to flow in the same direction as the emitted light. > >What we may think of as �uniform illumination� with photons, is >probably no more than a few percent of the illuminated cross section. >That means that the vast majority of the ether in front of the light >source is unaffected by the fact that trains of photons are traveling >through. Also, since the trains keep right on coming, the IOTAs will >move to a sustainable position and orientation relative to the passing >photons. And it is that adjacent position that allows the IOTAs >beside the photons to assist the photons in traveling at or near >velocity �c�. > >All of that �banging into ether� that a lone photon would do, probably >slow it down a lot. But another photon, and another�, that are >behind, will soon get the entire train up to speed. For me the >velocity isn�t as important as the DISTANCES that light is able to >cover. If, say, 50% of the photons in a train get batted off of >course, the remaining 50% is enough to still tell �the color� of the >source. The so-called microwave background radiation is probably just >photons that got batted off of course. > >All light, regardless of the wavelengths, is composed of the same >basic clumps of IOTAs. The characteristic that gives the light >�color� isn�t inherent in the photons themselves. Color is determined >by the spacing of the photons, and that was the responsibility of the >light source. When light from afar strikes a white paper, the >perception of the color results from the apt electron rings responding >to the arriving frequency of the light by emitting light that has an >identical spacing�which the human eye can translate into color. So, >there is no need for photons to be �vibrating� in order to communicate >their color. Only the spacing of the photons in the photon trains >determines the color. > >I, for one, have never been hypnotized by what Einstein, nor any >scientist has professed. I insulate myself from the explanations of >others, and reason things out alone. So far, I haven�t found a single >observation in nature that can�t be explained by varying ether density >and flow. > >All things being equal, I tend to go with those explanations that are >the simplest. Nature does things in simple ways, because those are >the most beautiful processes. �� NoEinstein �� > >> >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:51:12 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 29, 8:48�pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: >> >> >Dear Henri: �For much too long, many have considered that a >> >luminiferous ether is necessary for the propagation of light. �IF >> >light was... waves, the pressure differences in the ether would keep >> >the light going. �But that supposes that the ether is uniform. >> >Otherwise, the light couldn't travel where there is no ether. �But >> >light isn't in the least waves! �It is perfectly happy to travel >> >through the Swiss cheese voids between galaxies where there is no >> >ether. >> > � � The smallest energy unit in the Universe is an IOTA (my own >> >term). �I consider those to be like little rotating doughnuts of >> >energy. �Depending upon which side of the doughnut you are looking at, >> >the rotation can be clockwise, or counterclockwise. �So, ether is >> >polar. �If IOTAs are able to line-up with all of the rotation going in >> >the same direction, you have rotating cylinders. �If the cylinders >> >bend back on themselves, you have thin rotating screws of ether��or >> >magnetic lines of force. �It is their rotation that can induce >> >electric current to flow in wires. >> > � � LIGHT is just speeding ether. �GRAVITY is flowing ether, like >> >"snowflakes" falling��while light, or charged particles, that go in >> >the opposite direction, replace the ether pressure, down. �Light >> >shoots up through the �falling ether snow� like compressed snowballs. >> >On Earth 'the light' is infrared heat energy. �ELECTROMAGNETISM is >> >just strings of aligned ether, which are the longest 'threads' in the >> >Universe. �MATTER is just tangles of ether. �So, everything that >> >exists is made of a single building block! >> > � � That term... "fields" is superfluous. �Yes, gravity pressure >> >varies. �But the word field injects another variable to the >> >understanding of very simple processes. �Using the 'field crutch' is >> >like saying "vague" or... "this needs mathematicians to understand how >> >it all works". �Or... �you can't understand what is happening HERE, >> >without knowing what is happening OUT THERE�. �The Laws of Physics are >> >the same all across the Universe. �Understand what is happening HERE, >> >and you KNOW what is happening... OUT THERE. �THAT is how I have come >> >to understand the Universe as a simple truth, not as an unfathomable >> >mystery! >> > � � So, use EM as a term in explaining the very small, but refrain >> >from using it in the very large "simpler" contexts. �Do that, and we >> >both are 'teaching' the same physics! ��� NoEinstein �� >> >> It would be nice if all the processes of the universe could be explained in >> simple and basic terms by your 'IOTA'....but I think it is rather more >> complicated than that. >> >> For instance, if an isolated atom in space emits a single light quanta, what >> causes it to initially move at c wrt that atom....... which it presumeably >> does. It has no speed reference other than its source. >> My theory says its speed is likely to subsequently vary over time as it >> interacts with the various factors in space that affect it, factors we probably >> know little or nothing about at present. Nobody looks for such things because >> the physics establishment has been completely hypnotised by Einstein's >> confidence trick. >> >> I view a photon as a long, thin, self contained lump of 'aether' along which an >> intrinsic EM field oscillates backwards and forwards to form a standing wave >> with an absolute wavelength. An alternative model views a photon as a pair of >> charges that spin very rapidly and self propagate through space with very >> little energy loss. ....just enough to cause the cosmic redshift. >> >> It appears that little or nothing in the universe moves at anywhere near c wrt >> anything else. Therefore all photons travelling in any one direction initially >> moves at speeds that do not differ much. These speeds tend to unify over time. >> Variable star curves support such a unification theory. � >> >> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - ....but there is no single aether. your theory is an oversimplification. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
From: Eric Gisse on 1 Aug 2008 18:12 On Aug 1, 12:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 1, 12:20 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > Dear Sam: And in just one hour of analysis in my local library, I > realized that M-M lacked a CONTROL. That's because it is an interferometer. [snip]
From: PD on 1 Aug 2008 18:13 On Aug 1, 4:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > ...but there is no single aether. > your theory is an oversimplification. > Of course not. There are four and a half ethers. Possibly more, if you count the one with the long ears. I do love it when two people idle away the time by *making up stuff on the fly* that doesn't mean anything and chucking it at each other. It's kind of like watching two people at a costume party, having a conversation by saying things they *imagine* their characters would say, being wholly absorbed in the *game* and not at all in what each other is saying. PD
From: john on 1 Aug 2008 21:43 On Aug 1, 4:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 4:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > > > ...but there is no single aether. > > your theory is an oversimplification. > > Of course not. There are four and a half ethers. Possibly more, if you > count the one with the long ears. > > I do love it when two people idle away the time by *making up stuff on > the fly* that doesn't mean anything and chucking it at each other. > It's kind of like watching two people at a costume party, having a > conversation by saying things they *imagine* their characters would > say, being wholly absorbed in the *game* and not at all in what each > other is saying. > > PD There is the aether in M + M's heads that they 'disproved' after deciding what it could or could not do beforehand. Of course, Dark Matter is *much more scientific*!! Idiot. John
From: Sam Wormley on 1 Aug 2008 23:56
john wrote: > > Of course, Dark Matter is *much more scientific*!! > At least the unseen dark matter can, and is being, mapped, John. |