🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 19, 2:42 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Dear P. V.:  Light isn't a particle, per se.  It is bundles of IOTA's,
the smallest energy unit in the Universe, that constitute photons.
Each IOTA is polar—meaning that such will have a charge that is
dependent on which end you view that IOTA from.  The ether is composed
of IOTAs through which the photons pass.  But the ether isn't a medium
that's necessary for photon passage.  The ether IOTAs, I rationalize,
have a tangential velocity of 'c'.  All photons emit at velocity 'c'
plus or minus the velocity of the light emitting source.  After random
encounters with the ether IOTAs, photons traveling other than velocity
'c' will get modified in velocity to 'c'.  But very high energy
photons or charged particles can 'tunnel' through the ether for very
long distances without a loss of velocity due to ether drag.

As you should know by now, the M-M experiment—a failed experiment—
should not be part of any rationale of what science is.  M-M was
improperly designed to detect velocity changes in light.  The simple
reason: M-M lacked a CONTROL, or unchanging light course to which the
TEST light course could be compared via interference.  Because all of
the optics of M-M were mounted on the same plane, and rotated normal
to that plane, both light courses speeded up or slowed down,
identically.  Identical changes in the two light courses caused there
to be ZERO fringe shifts at the target.  My correctly designed X, Y, &
Z interferometer places the CONTROL light course along the Z axis,
only, so that the path length changes in the TEST light course that is
caused by the lateral motion of the light while in transit to a 45
degree mirror, can cause readily-observable interference and hundreds
of fringe shifts in 180 degrees of instrument rotation.

Instead of continually rehashing the OLD science, you should try to
learn a bit of my NEW science.  — NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...

>
> On Dec 18, 3:27 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > In our best model of light, QED, the photon is NOT a particle. Neither is it a
> > wave.
>
> >         There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
> >         Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Shakespeare
>
> > There is no expectation that words and concepts from your everyday life capture
> > the essence of phenomena far removed from you everyday experience. Photons and
> > quantum phenomena are indeed far removed (you experience light, not photons or
> > their quantum implications).
>
> Honest Roberts stop introducing red herrings! You know that the
> problem crucial for contemporary physics is: Does the speed of light
> depend on the speed of the light source, as Newton's emission theory
> of light assumes, or is it independent of the speed of the light
> source, as Einstein's special relativity assumes. I suggest that you
> return to and develop the following insights of yours:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/44abc7dbb30...
>
> John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
> AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
>
> Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible
> with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full
> experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
> relativity."
>
> Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
> EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
>
> Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
> relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
> emission theories, but not relativity."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com