Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: spudnik on 15 Apr 2010 17:57 I mean, such simplistic models; they are not necessarily theories, of course. there are no photons -- give them "up!" > what dulls the mind is not "the vacuum" or > "the aether" or "the photon," mere comcepts, but > the simple avoidance of the anomalies that cannot --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: NoEinstein on 15 Apr 2010 18:17 On Apr 14, 4:24 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 abr, 21:52, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 13, 10:03 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Miguel: What you have just said is: You don't wish to have > > anything you ever wrote subject to scrutiny! Like I figured, you are > > a mental lightweight who hopes to 'seem' to be an intellectual, > > because of your supposed credentials. Put up or shut up, fellow! The > > Readers want to see how LITTLE you have contributed to the World of > > Science! NoEinstein > > What I write about the research I do, is read and commented by my > peers on the appropriate channels. This group is neither appropriate > nor there are peers of mine. > So why I comment here some of the nonsense written by characters like > you or Seto?. Well it amuses me, while I take a break from my main > research. > For sure I, with several others here, am still waiting to see your so > called "contribution to the world of science" whatever that may mean > to you... > > Miguel Rios Dear Miguel: ...Once again: You've done nothing worthy of being shown to your superiors, here. Your "peers" never made it out of kindergarten! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 15 Apr 2010 18:33 On Apr 15, 5:52 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear Spudnik: The maximum 'internal speed' of the ether energy, IOTAs, that compose matter is 'c'. That's why photons get slung out of the valence rings of atoms at 'c'. But if those atoms are, themselves, moving at .5 'c', then, the velocity of the photons could be a maximum of 1.5 'c'; and a minimum of .5 'c'. depending on the angle of emission relative to the velocity vector. "Matter is: Tangles of IOTAs which are capable of resisting (but not stopping) the flow of the ether through such; and which can give off at least one photon or a particle(s)." Giving off and receiving the latter is the mechanism of gravity, so, masses can attract. Photons can't attract other photons, but can be bent by the varying ether density near massive objects like the Sun. NoEinstein > > if energy is somehow composing/interconvertible > to matter, why should matter not show effects > of being accelerated toward the maximum "internal speed" > of itself?... note that > electricty in the wire approaches the speed of light (at least, > the impulse of switching does; is that, so?) > > thus: > what dulls the mind is not "the vacuum" or > "the aether" or "the photon," mere comcepts, but > the simple avoidance of the anomalies that cannot > be explained by such bland theories (and > their hare-brained protagonists -- > tehy make far-fewer predictions or explanations, > than stringtheory !-) > > if you can't take the heat, get out of the fryin'pan! > > > There is no need for an aether, and Miller's results are not > > discernable from the error bars. > > http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/hilt08.htmlhttp://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/Vernadsky_W00-0...
From: NoEinstein on 15 Apr 2010 18:35 On Apr 15, 5:57 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I mean, such simplistic models; > they are not necessarily theories, of course. > > there are no photons -- give them "up!" > > > what dulls the mind is not "the vacuum" or > > "the aether" or "the photon," mere comcepts, but > > the simple avoidance of the anomalies that cannot > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com Dear Spudnik: If you believe everything is a wave rather than quanta or particles, then, you have been sleeping on a water-bed for too long! NoEinstein
From: spudnik on 15 Apr 2010 18:47
no; I know of only one fundamental wave, which you & the Einsteiniacs & the Newtoniacs refer to as a corpuscle -- quelle absurdite'! and there are many others, all of which are always said to go through a medium: Alfven, Love, Rayleigh etc.; so, why should waves of light be known, only as an obscure apparatus-finding, the "photo-electrical effect Nobel?" > Dear Spudnik: If you believe everything is a wave rather than quanta > or particles, then, you have been sleeping on a water-bed for too > long! Albert Einstein - Revue "Science", 1925 "Si les observations du Dr Miller étaient confirmées, la théorie de la relativité serait en défaut. L'expérience est le juge suprème". http://allais.maurice.free.fr/Paradoxe.htm |