On Friday, 19 August 2022 at 11:51:39 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Aug 2022 02:04:27 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Lou
<noel wrote
Other erroneous =E2=80=9Cexamples=E2=80=9D of the particle nature of light include
experiments
like grangier coincidence and the QT eraser experiments.
Grangier experimental results are better peeled by wave emr being >quantifies at the detectors( QT cannot explain some of the results and >pretends their failure of model are due to unexplained residuals)
And the QT eraser experiments are consistent with wave only light
being polarised at different angles at the detectors. In fact Kim et al >completely ignores polarisation in his analysis. Odd, considering how >polarisation is such an important fundamental aspect of light.
Feynman unwittingly implies that VARIABLE wavelength of light https://youtube.com/watch?v=3DxsVxC_NR64M
is an unrealistic wave-based concept. In Einstein-free
physics the wavelength of light will be nothing more than an invariable >proportionality coefficient in the formula
(frequency) =3D (speed of light)/(wavelength)
By the way, "light is made of particles" also implies variable speed of light
as posited by Newton's theory:
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his
paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle >seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage >than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent
of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist >of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they
will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the >null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting
lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, >Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms >of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced >as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought
of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots,
p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Take a step back.
Einstein never managed to unite gravity with the other forces
There is an old theory (google "Le Sage theory of gravity wikipedia")
Definitely gravity is push not pull. And LeSage is the best way to model gravity.
where gravity is caused by very fast particles flying in all directions. already back in the 5 inch or there about floppy days I wrote a simulation and to my surprise it worked.
If now electromagnetic radiation is just a state of the Le Sage particles, and Le Sage particles move at light speed,
then we get
gravity propagates at the speed of light.
And light speed does not have to be the same everywhere
Question for me was always 'where do Le Sage particles come from'
The answer is...Waves!! Yes. Because if you use an EMR wave Lesage model, you have all the evidence already seeing as we know emr exists. And we know
from solar sails that emr exerts a pressure on atoms.
So instead of particles itâs emr waves. And Iâm sure your modelling will work as well.
And waves work for LeSage where particles didnât. Because one criticism of a particle LeSage gravity is what happens to the particles? Wouldnt the atom get heavier as it collects more particles?
But with waves there is no problem. Because most emr waves from any one direction
pass through the atom but a small percentage push the magnetic field of the atom ,
creating the push and then re radiating that interaction as emr energy isotropically.
Which is observed as the strong , weak and magnetic forces of the atom.
That way no energy is stored( it all passes thru) but a small amount doesnât pass
straight thru but rather, interacts with atoms mag field and is reradiated in all directions.
Maybe from black holes or our - or other big bangs... assuming there was a big bang, processes in stars?
Wow then! now the universe is expanding ever faster!! Pushing itself apart.
Most todays fishsicks is just parroted and you will not get published if you do not acknowledge
how great Einstein was and how 'right' he was..
One of Einsteins greatest lies was his supposed solution to Mercury Preccession. Total nonsense. He only really knew Mercuries preccession and found
his r^2⌠formula worked. But it doesnât work as well for the other planets. In fact a better solution to orbital preccession uses MY formula
based on the assumption that gravity pull of a planet comes from its whole volume. Not itâs theoretical Center as incorrectly Newton pretended.
Which means you calculate preccession from perihelion. Seeing as thatâs
when this effect is greatest. And my formula is:
B)Preccessional advance in arcseconds= 1/(r+3R)^2
Observed. GRT. B
Mercury. 43.1 43.5 43.24
Venus. 8.0 8.6 8.33
Earth. 5.0 3.87 4.49
Mars. *2.5 1.3 2.29
( Errors on Venus observed are 8.0 +-5.0)
*It is also worth pointing out that usually reference say Marsâ âobservedâ is 1.3.
This is actually a theoretical assumption. Erroneously assumed by the Einstein cult so as to be consistent with the incorrect prediction made by GRT.
In fact it is commonly accepted that only Mercury, Earth and Venus orbits can be
measured to any sufficient degree of accuracy. Not Mars or any of the other planets.
What dishonest relativist revisionists fail to mention is that total of the best measured
preccession of Mars, which includes any anomalous contribution,
is 9.0arcseconds/Century.
Of which *2.5* is an unattributable âuncertaintyâ. Not 1.3
May take generations for a fresh view to be accepted.
We need a MECHANISM, not just a silly mamamatical formula.
In a Le Sage system there are no singularities as at one point all particles are intercepted.
the mamaticians like to do a divide by zero on incomplete formulas,
and then declare their result an ultimate truth.
But of logical thinking is needed,
earthlings!!!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)