There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: spudnik on 30 Mar 2010 18:18 I'm sure that de Broglie had used that very same arrow- pierced apple picture, in his lectures -- it surely is old enough. so, step away from the God-am keyboard & think about it: there are NO photons & there is NO vacuum. > I don't know why you insist the photon 'particle' exists as a self > contained entity. That is not what is being said. --Light: A History! http://tarpley.net/bushb.htm
From: mpc755 on 30 Mar 2010 18:20 On Mar 30, 6:18 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm sure that de Broglie had used that very same arrow- > pierced apple picture, in his lectures -- > it surely is old enough. so, > step away from the God-am keyboard & think about it: > there are NO photons & there is NO vacuum. > > > I don't know why you insist the photon 'particle' exists as a self > > contained entity. That is not what is being said. > > --Light: A History!http://tarpley.net/bushb.htm Not sure what you mean by 'no vacuum'. From your previous posts it seems you mean 'no aether', or space is a void. A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. Explain how this is possible without aether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference.
From: spudnik on 30 Mar 2010 18:42 nah; your own assumption is that "there really is a vacuum, in space, some where, which is the same as the void or 'plenum' of pascal's experiment," so "I need to fill this with a medium through which the wave may ropogate; call it, The Aether!" all that I am saying is not, "give poor Harry Potter a chance to fly out of Hogwarts on a jetbroom," but that there is only "relative vacuum," period -- duh! --They did not follow that money! http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm
From: spudnik on 30 Mar 2010 18:44 that image is a pernicious little devil, almost as bad as Minkowski's silly say-so about phase-space, then dying on us. cast thee out! > http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif --Hey; they certainly did not follow *that* money. http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm
From: Paul Stowe on 30 Mar 2010 20:13
On Mar 30, 6:56 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Mar 29, 9:56 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Paul: Maxwell is a 'nice' name to... drop. But he was too naive > to realizewhen he proposed to A. A. Michelson that Michelson use his > new interferometer to detect the drag of the ether on lightthat if > ether ever could 'drag' light, that the light from the Sun and from > the stars would never get here, and we would all be dead! Maxwell, > wasn't a very deep thinker, now, was he. NoEinstein We are all naive if totally ignorant of relevant and necessary information. For what was known and available to him Maxwell was a much greater thinker than Einstein. I do not fault him for not figuring everything out. He died quite young and had he survived to the early 20th century he might have done wonders. |