🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 19, 9:42 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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

-------------------
Hi Pentco
i am flowing you claim that ligth should
move fater than c if emmited from
a moving particle

your claim is no doubt make sense
by simple thinking

but if experiment showes otherwise
let us make some effort and try to thinkand explain how the common
paradigm might be rigth:

now i tried to think about  a constellation
of which the common apradigm might be right:
suppose a system that moves at a velocity lets call it the main system
that moves in a velocity lower than c

now in that system there is a* sub system)
(for instance a particle)
in which  in that sub system you have
an interior movement *in a circle*
of which the* tangental* movement of that
circular movement is with the  velocity of c
now at at a certain moment from some reason the tangential circular
movement
becomes a linear movement
(some cuase deviated the circular
to linear moment
for instance by some push *vertically* to the tangential )
in that case
though the  main system is movng --
its movement has no effect on the sub system
**because there was no force  connection
between   main system and sub system*!!
in that case the above tangent movement
at velocity c
will *not* be affected by the movement
of the main system
and the that tangental movement
(out wards from main system)
 will be
just c  !!

how about it
(if i ddint make myself clear
i will try to explain it better )

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------