EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 5 Aug 2008 20:28 On Aug 1, 5:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinst...(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? Its 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 doesnt 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 isnt 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 isnt 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 spacingwhich 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 havent found a single > >observation in nature that cant 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 etheror > >> >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" fallingwhile 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Henri: There is just a single ether that's composed of varying densities of IOTAs (not implying that ether has 'mass'). Why do you think it's necessary to have more than one type of ether? Don't simple explanations that work, trump complicated ones that are... forcedto save previous brain waste? NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 5 Aug 2008 20:39 On Aug 1, 6:12 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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] Dear Eric: I REPEAT: "All measurements require a point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL. Interferometers COMPARE two light beams for variations in the time of travel of the photons. Unless one course remains unchanging, there can be no measurement of the arrival times of either course relative to the other. M-M had all of the optical components mounted on a single horizontal surface. So, any time changes in one light course were matched by the time changes in the other. Sadly, you would rather repeat your imagined knowledge of interferometers rather that to write one or two simple algebraic equations to verify, mathematically, that the TIMES of travel do not vary. When the chapter is written that "Laziness Trumps Reason", your picture will be at the top. NoEinstein Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en
From: NoEinstein on 5 Aug 2008 20:41 On Aug 1, 6:13 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 And what character did you come as, PD, THE FOOL? NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 5 Aug 2008 20:43 On Aug 1, 9:43 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear John: :) NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 5 Aug 2008 20:49
On Aug 1, 11:56 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > john wrote: > > > Of course, Dark Matter is *much more scientific*!! > > At least the unseen dark matter can, and is being, mapped, John. Dear Sam: The "need" for dark matter to... keep the Universe Flat, isn't there. First, the supposed Doppler red shift (out there) is just the aging of light. Second, Newton's Law of "Universal" Gravitation yields the WRONG mass estimate for the Universe. Correct the Universe's mass, and everything is in perfect and infinite equilibrium! NoEinstein |