Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Jul 2005 03:23 On 17 Jul 2005 20:31:05 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 11 Jul 2005 20:47:02 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> On 10 Jul 2005 22:37:30 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> NASA would put it down to a slight orbit error rather than accept variable >> >> >> light speed. >> >> >Is this measurable with current instrumenation? >> >> >Or are any case SRT effects are negligible and really not worth >> >> >considering in >> >> >the current area of space flight? >> >> >> >> they are too small to hve an effect. Everything is corrected empirically >> > >> >Henri >> > >> > Need reference for this. In any case the DHR's will be asking >> >in their minds so might as well. >> > >> >Just a comment, that all this hoopla about relativity when >> >it is too small to have an effect. Maybe the world needed >> >to embrace Relativity as its philosphy because >> >it served well to justify its moral conscience that says that >> >there are no abolutes, maybe the effect of two world wars >> >and the failure of religion. >> >> Relativity is here to stay....it is the Einsteinian version that is wrong. >> >> > >> >If Einstein did not exist it would have been necessary to >> >invent him. >> > >> >Any plans to write a book? You can be sure it will be >> >good if you let the SRians edit it and fix all the errors >> >> It would also be completely useless if they ever got their hands on it. >> >> > > >Some interesting links > >"... All sorts of experiments have already been conducted in space. But >the few experiments >which might have truly tested the perhaps most fundamental and >controversial hypotheses >in twentieth century physics- Einstein's postulates - have curiously >not been done." Makes one wonder, eh? Mind you, until recently, it was virtually impossible to measure OWLS from a moving source. Nobody would get the funding to do it even now. >(NB: Only Extra-terrestrial measurements can test the Ether-Drag >hypothesis; >. . . . the M/M experiment (1887): measuring light-speed along Earth >surface is insufficient) >- Bryan G.Wallace : "The Farce of Physics" >http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/links.htm >> >> >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: newedana on 19 Jul 2005 00:35 >Dear Mr. Henry Wilson. When I newedana posted for this issue on Jun 12 you relied "I will read no further. You are spouting Einsteiniana. You really misunderstood! I red your H-aether Theory through website, and I know that you admit the incorrect theory of photonics based on which Einstein's relativity things were built. You also appear to believe the stupid idea, the gravity gradient changes the speed of light in the cosmic space upon which Einstein's general relativity things were built. The gravity has nothing to do at all with the light propagation. You also mentioned that neighboring EM can interact to the speed of light (may be from the wrong idea of the group theory of EM in QM. Two Lights never be unified to be a single light unless their source is the same. I should like to encourage your eager effort to prove Einstein wrong, but my worry for your effort is that as far as you accept even a part of established fraudulent theories, established by particle physicists, based on probability logics, your trial would end in vain and would absolutely fail. It is because it is like to lift your body up with your hands against gravitation. You have to account for a new science in order to debunk Einstein things. Dr Yoon's textbook(www.yoonsatom.net), denies all the natural science established up to the present, and explains them with his own innate scientific knowledge(no one can deny) built based on a new atomic model ( universal due atomic model), without setting forth any postulations, premises or hypotheses. He describes the light emission and its propagation through the vacant space, is an equilibrating phenomenon of EM energy through vacant space. The light wave generated by orbital electron rings, propagates through the vacant empty space in radial symmetric around them, constructing milliards of concentric spherical wave fronts with equi-energy levels. All the wave fronts produced by oscillation of orbital electron rings (orbiting electron builds a tiny persistent current ring around its nucleus) expand their spherical radii infinitely as they propagate through the vast space of this universe. However, the energy of each wave front does not change depending on the magnitude of their spherical radii. All the successive wave fronts have exactly the same energy as that of orbital electron rings performing a half cycle of their oscillation. E=S1e1=S2e2=S3e3=. . . . .=Snen Where E: energy of an orbital electron ring oscillating a half cycle, S1,S2,S3.......Sn: surface areas of sequential spherical wave fronts,e1, e2 e3 .......en S1,S2,S3.......Sn: energy densities of each wave fronts Since Sn/S1=n^2, where n is integer, thus the intensity of a light beam decreases by inverse square distance rule. A light beam is nothing but a thinly sliced sections of these spherical wave fronts, arranged concentrically along the propagating direction of light. It is not a flow of corpuscular photons. The oscillatory energy of orbital electron rings in the source disperses uniformly through the vacant space of this universe in order to attain an equilibrium state. It is a natural character of energy to attain an equilibrium state by flowing from a higher energy level to a lower one. The energy does not need a separate energy to drive it to be equilibrated, as though the water dam at a higher latitude, does not provide energy to make its discharging water flow downward. Likewise the light source never provides momentum to its photons, possible to travel through the vacant space of this universe. If so, it is quite natural that the speed of light source can change the speed of photon travelling through the space. However, it is a big mistake! Light can move independently from the speed of its source with their own speed. That is why the speed of light through vacant space is constant, and the speed of source never change the speed of light it emits. If a shield is put in the path of sequential spherical wave fronts, there makes a shadowy space toward which light wave immigrates due to energy gradient between broken part of the wave fronts and shadowy space. The energy of light disperses not only along the moving direction for its wave fronts, but also the perpendicular direction if a shield breaks the wave fronts. That is the mechanism of light refraction and diffraction. Based on this basic fact, he could establish a refractive equation without involving speed factor of light as posted on Jun 12. Consequently the star light bending near the sun is not due to gravitational attraction of the sun but because of slitting action of neuclear particles involved in the solar wind for the spherical wave fronts, as posted before. If you will check my post dated on Jun 12 carefully in combination with this post, you will find all the worldwide people during the past 20th century were completely toyed by Dr, Einstein's relativistic theories. newedana
From: G on 19 Jul 2005 01:45 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 17 Jul 2005 20:31:05 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 11 Jul 2005 20:47:02 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> >> On 10 Jul 2005 22:37:30 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> NASA would put it down to a slight orbit error rather than accept variable > >> >> >> light speed. > >> >> >Is this measurable with current instrumenation? > >> >> >Or are any case SRT effects are negligible and really not worth > >> >> >considering in > >> >> >the current area of space flight? > >> >> > >> >> they are too small to hve an effect. Everything is corrected empirically > >> > > >> >Henri > >> > > >> > Need reference for this. In any case the DHR's will be asking > >> >in their minds so might as well. > >> > > >> >Just a comment, that all this hoopla about relativity when > >> >it is too small to have an effect. Maybe the world needed > >> >to embrace Relativity as its philosphy because > >> >it served well to justify its moral conscience that says that > >> >there are no abolutes, maybe the effect of two world wars > >> >and the failure of religion. > >> > >> Relativity is here to stay....it is the Einsteinian version that is wrong. > >> > >> > > >> >If Einstein did not exist it would have been necessary to > >> >invent him. > >> > > >> >Any plans to write a book? You can be sure it will be > >> >good if you let the SRians edit it and fix all the errors > >> > >> It would also be completely useless if they ever got their hands on it. > >> > >> > > > > >Some interesting links > > > >"... All sorts of experiments have already been conducted in space. But > >the few experiments > >which might have truly tested the perhaps most fundamental and > >controversial hypotheses > >in twentieth century physics- Einstein's postulates - have curiously > >not been done." > > Makes one wonder, eh? > > Mind you, until recently, it was virtually impossible to measure OWLS from a > moving source. > Nobody would get the funding to do it even now. Does that mean it is now possible? What about bz's rotating laser experiment? Is that a valid esperiment? What about timing radio signals between two spacefraft in space? Also I need to go through your VB programs - there is a lot of info there but undoubtedly there will be some heretical questions :) > > >(NB: Only Extra-terrestrial measurements can test the Ether-Drag > >hypothesis; > >. . . . the M/M experiment (1887): measuring light-speed along Earth > >surface is insufficient) > >- Bryan G.Wallace : "The Farce of Physics" > >http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/links.htm > >> > >> > >> HW. > >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> > >> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > >> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. > > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: G on 19 Jul 2005 01:51 newedana wrote: > >Dear Mr. Henry Wilson. > When I newedana posted for this issue on Jun 12 you relied "I will read > no further. You are spouting Einsteiniana. You really misunderstood! I > red your H-aether Theory through website, and I know that you admit the > incorrect theory of photonics based on which Einstein's relativity > things were built. You also appear to believe the stupid idea, the > gravity gradient changes the speed of light in the cosmic space upon > which Einstein's general relativity things were built. The gravity has > nothing to do at all with the light propagation. You also mentioned > that neighboring EM can interact to the speed of light (may be from the > wrong idea of the group theory of EM in QM. Two Lights never be unified > to be a single light unless their source is the same. > I should like to encourage your eager effort to prove Einstein wrong, > but my worry for your effort is that as far as you accept even a part > of established fraudulent theories, established by particle physicists, > based on probability logics, your trial would end in vain and would > absolutely fail. It is because it is like to lift your body up with > your hands against gravitation. You have to account for a new science > in order to debunk Einstein things. > Dr Yoon's textbook(www.yoonsatom.net), denies all the natural science > established up to the present, and explains them with his own innate > scientific knowledge(no one can deny) built based on a new atomic model > ( universal due atomic model), without setting forth any postulations, > premises or hypotheses. He describes the light emission and its > propagation through the vacant space, is an equilibrating phenomenon of > EM energy through vacant space. > The light wave generated by orbital electron rings, propagates through > the vacant empty space in radial symmetric around them, constructing > milliards of concentric spherical wave fronts with equi-energy levels. > All the wave fronts produced by oscillation of orbital electron rings > (orbiting electron builds a tiny persistent current ring around its > nucleus) expand their spherical radii infinitely as they propagate > through the vast space of this universe. > However, the energy of each wave front does not change depending on > the magnitude of their spherical radii. All the successive wave fronts > have exactly the same energy as that of orbital electron rings > performing a half cycle of their oscillation. > > E=S1e1=S2e2=S3e3=. . . . .=Snen > > Where E: energy of an orbital electron ring oscillating a half cycle, > S1,S2,S3.......Sn: surface areas of sequential spherical wave > fronts,e1, e2 e3 .......en S1,S2,S3.......Sn: energy densities of > each wave fronts > > Since Sn/S1=n^2, where n is integer, thus the intensity of a light beam > decreases by inverse square distance rule. A light beam is nothing but > a thinly sliced sections of these spherical wave fronts, arranged > concentrically along the propagating direction of light. It is not a > flow of corpuscular photons. > The oscillatory energy of orbital electron rings in the source > disperses uniformly through the vacant space of this universe in order > to attain an equilibrium state. It is a natural character of energy to > attain an equilibrium state by flowing from a higher energy level to a > lower one. The energy does not need a separate energy to drive it to > be equilibrated, as though the water dam at a higher latitude, does not > provide energy to make its discharging water flow downward. Likewise > the light source never provides momentum to its photons, possible to > travel through the vacant space of this universe. > > If so, it is quite natural that the speed of light source can change > the speed of photon travelling through the space. However, it is a big > mistake! Light can move independently from the speed of its source with > their own speed. Relative to what? Their own speed is c relative the source. Their speed is c relative to another moving source. That is why the speed of light through vacant space is > constant, and the speed of source never change the speed of light it > emits. > > If a shield is put in the path of sequential spherical wave fronts, > there makes a shadowy space toward which light wave immigrates due to > energy gradient between broken part of the wave fronts and shadowy > space. The energy of light disperses not only along the moving > direction for its wave fronts, but also the perpendicular direction if > a shield breaks the wave fronts. That is the mechanism of light > refraction and diffraction. Based on this basic fact, he could > establish a refractive equation without involving speed factor of light > as posted on Jun 12. > > Consequently the star light bending near the sun is not due to > gravitational attraction of the sun but because of slitting action of > neuclear particles involved in the solar wind for the spherical wave > fronts, as posted before. > > If you will check my post dated on Jun 12 carefully in combination with > this post, you will find all the worldwide people during the past 20th > century were completely toyed by Dr, Einstein's relativistic theories. Toyed with? > newedana
From: Henri Wilson on 19 Jul 2005 21:21
On 18 Jul 2005 21:35:30 -0700, "newedana" <simplesong1004(a)hanmail.net> wrote: >>Dear Mr. Henry Wilson. >When I newedana posted for this issue on Jun 12 you relied "I will read >no further. You are spouting Einsteiniana. You really misunderstood! I >red your H-aether Theory through website, and I know that you admit the >incorrect theory of photonics based on which Einstein's relativity >things were built. You also appear to believe the stupid idea, the >gravity gradient changes the speed of light in the cosmic space upon >which Einstein's general relativity things were built. The gravity has >nothing to do at all with the light propagation. You also mentioned >that neighboring EM can interact to the speed of light (may be from the >wrong idea of the group theory of EM in QM. Two Lights never be unified >to be a single light unless their source is the same. >I should like to encourage your eager effort to prove Einstein wrong, >but my worry for your effort is that as far as you accept even a part >of established fraudulent theories, established by particle physicists, >based on probability logics, your trial would end in vain and would >absolutely fail. It is because it is like to lift your body up with >your hands against gravitation. You have to account for a new science >in order to debunk Einstein things. >Dr Yoon's textbook(www.yoonsatom.net), denies all the natural science >established up to the present, and explains them with his own innate >scientific knowledge(no one can deny) built based on a new atomic model >( universal due atomic model), without setting forth any postulations, >premises or hypotheses. He describes the light emission and its >propagation through the vacant space, is an equilibrating phenomenon of >EM energy through vacant space. >The light wave generated by orbital electron rings, propagates through >the vacant empty space in radial symmetric around them, constructing >milliards of concentric spherical wave fronts with equi-energy levels. >All the wave fronts produced by oscillation of orbital electron rings >(orbiting electron builds a tiny persistent current ring around its >nucleus) expand their spherical radii infinitely as they propagate >through the vast space of this universe. > However, the energy of each wave front does not change depending on >the magnitude of their spherical radii. All the successive wave fronts >have exactly the same energy as that of orbital electron rings >performing a half cycle of their oscillation. > > E=S1e1=S2e2=S3e3=. . . . .=Snen > > Where E: energy of an orbital electron ring oscillating a half cycle, >S1,S2,S3.......Sn: surface areas of sequential spherical wave >fronts,e1, e2 e3 .......en S1,S2,S3.......Sn: energy densities of >each wave fronts > >Since Sn/S1=n^2, where n is integer, thus the intensity of a light beam >decreases by inverse square distance rule. A light beam is nothing but >a thinly sliced sections of these spherical wave fronts, arranged >concentrically along the propagating direction of light. It is not a >flow of corpuscular photons. >The oscillatory energy of orbital electron rings in the source >disperses uniformly through the vacant space of this universe in order >to attain an equilibrium state. It is a natural character of energy to >attain an equilibrium state by flowing from a higher energy level to a >lower one. The energy does not need a separate energy to drive it to >be equilibrated, as though the water dam at a higher latitude, does not >provide energy to make its discharging water flow downward. Likewise >the light source never provides momentum to its photons, possible to >travel through the vacant space of this universe. > >If so, it is quite natural that the speed of light source can change >the speed of photon travelling through the space. However, it is a big >mistake! Light can move independently from the speed of its source with >their own speed. That is why the speed of light through vacant space is >constant, and the speed of source never change the speed of light it >emits. > >If a shield is put in the path of sequential spherical wave fronts, >there makes a shadowy space toward which light wave immigrates due to >energy gradient between broken part of the wave fronts and shadowy >space. The energy of light disperses not only along the moving >direction for its wave fronts, but also the perpendicular direction if >a shield breaks the wave fronts. That is the mechanism of light >refraction and diffraction. Based on this basic fact, he could >establish a refractive equation without involving speed factor of light >as posted on Jun 12. > >Consequently the star light bending near the sun is not due to >gravitational attraction of the sun but because of slitting action of >neuclear particles involved in the solar wind for the spherical wave >fronts, as posted before. > >If you will check my post dated on Jun 12 carefully in combination with >this post, you will find all the worldwide people during the past 20th >century were completely toyed by Dr, Einstein's relativistic theories. >newedana I think you just reinvented a kind of aether theory. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |