Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Let's Set The Stage First.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by J Raymond Redbourne on November 4, 2002 19:08:09 UTC

The invalidation of the Michelson Morley experiment includes the necessary math for it. It really isn't much more than simple arithmentic. And the mechanics of the explanatory conceptualizing for the Relativity aspect of the invalidation are quite a bit more difficult than the math.

As to the math for Power Waves, again mechanics comes first, with the math to follow. The math techniques are largely already provided by Conventional Physics, including Wave Mechanics and Maxwell. But certain constants are not known as of yet, simply because the necessary studies have not been done to generate them empirically. But I think all the raw data are probably available now to do so. And some existing data need to be re-applied.

To look at the chain of development: Classical Physics was getting along and developing just fine, until Michelson and Morley did their Aether Wind experiment in 1887. But previous to that in 1818, Arago, Fresnel and Poisson had developed theory and an experiment, which predicted light to be a wave. Poisson's Bright Spot experiment settled the issue, and light was accepted as a wave until the MM Exp.

The compression/extension of wavelength when a wave enters a portion of the wave medium moving differently from the portion in which the wave was generated, was not considered in the evaluation of the MM Exp results. And I have shown that it invalidates the MM Exp. The MM Exp almost singlehandedly ejected the aether from Theoretical Physics, even tho' the MM Exp setup is insensitive to the aether wind if it does exist.

I have also invalidated the Non-Skewed Light Waves experiment, which was just as damning as the MM Exp, but curiously didn't receive the press.

I have had several agreements on my MM Exp invalidation, and no disagreements on my invalidation of either experiment.

Therefore, the ejection of the aether was not justified, whether it in fact exists or not.

THEN (chronologically), so I'm told, Einstein invented the "photon particle" to explain how light gets from the Sun to us. With no wave medium, a particle was required. And because light has observable impact, the photon must have mass. But if it has mass, it must be affected by gravity. And if this is so, then the Sun's gravity must deflect photons. And so the prediction was made, and subsequently verified.

But the old aether can do exactly the same thing as an optical medium of increased density in close to the Sun, on light waves. This does not invalidate the photon, but it certainly provides a viable alternative.

So I can legitimately reinsert the aether into physics to see what happens. And eventually come to the matter of Einstein's time-rate effects.

Wavelength can be lengthened at source or in transit by at least three things, perhaps 4. 1. Doppler. 2. The expansion of space. 3. Gravity well. 4. Wave Dispersion.

If by 1 or 2, then the universe must be expanding. But the photon runs into many problems as I'm sure most interested people know. And all sorts of properties must be invented and assigned, to accomodate the conflicts and paradoxes. For instance, if the photon is a particle necessary for light to possess inherent structural integrity, and be unaffected by the absence of anything like a wave medium in space, or colliding with other photon particles, then what is the property of empty, expanding space that stretches the photon in its journey?

This is an impossible paradox, answered by: Well, it just does; that's all. No math is required to see that it does not make sense.

Why don't photons collide? Why do they pass right through each other, just like wave energies do, instead of colliding and smashing into quantum dust like particles in an accelerator? Yet they maintain structural integrity in spite of these two things occupying the same place at the same time, and moving at c in opposite directions!

How about Doppler stretch at source? Here we have a particle possessing mass, that is created at light speed, with no need to accelerate. No significant math is required to invalidate this, but if demanded, the standard formula for kinetic energy immediately disproves the theory. Even the tiniest amount of mass cannot be accelerated in zero time, and especially to the forbidden c.

How is it that this "particle" can have one constant velocity in a vacuum, slow down to a different constant velocity in glass, then re-accelerate to a third constant velocity when it emerges into air? Its velocity may change down or up, but nothing saps its velocity, even though its kinetic energy may be sapped. Then what is sapped;- its mass? -the "substance" that gave it structural integrity in free space? But in being sapped then, it decelerated from c, which velocity is impossible for massive objects, to zero in zero time, which should transfer infinite energy; regardless of the mass involved. This is actually math relationships stated in english.

Interestingly enough, waves can actually do the things ascribed to photons.

And these statements delineate impossible paradoxes in Relativity, regardless of difficulties with alternative explanations using the aether. Aether Physics is a completely separate issue. Relativity is a faulty structure and collapses of its own weight, without outside attack.

What about "as velocity approaches c, mass approaches infinity, and length approaches zero"? Then we have the absurdity of the extrapolation to c, where we have infinite mass contained in zero volume. Aether Physics is not an alternative to this, nor an attack on it. It is a self-contained impossible paradox.

More next post.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins