Albert Einstein and the speed of light

[Mjolnir]

Never heard of Reginald T Cahills work until now, but I will definitely be reading more.

Another consequence of the above of course, is that the LIGO set-up is also flawed and will not work.

Cahill has a paper on LIGO here:
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1603.0232

Apparently his gravity wave detectors saw the same signal as LIGO ...

[willendure]

Never heard of Reginald T Cahills work until now, but I will definitely be reading more.

Another consequence of the above of course, is that the LIGO set-up is also flawed and will not work.

Cahill has a paper on LIGO here:
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1603.0232

Apparently his gravity wave detectors saw the same signal as LIGO ...

Some of his detectors went positive during LIGO t=0, and some went negative, and some were unchanged. Did he post-select the grouping of detectors to fit this pattern? Or are the groups of detectors aligned similarly which show a signal similarly? i.e. the ones 90 degrees out show nothing. It is fascinating but I am a little suspicious about what is going on with the results here.

[balsysr]

Just in case anyone thinks Cahill believes in black holes I would like to point out that he gives special thanks at the end of the paper to Stephen Crothers - who I believe many eu people have heard of.

The paper is available free online from http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS33.pdf

Cheers,

[Justatruthseeker]

Just in case anyone thinks Cahill believes in black holes I would like to point out that he gives special thanks at the end of the paper to Stephen Crothers - who I believe many eu people have heard of.

The paper is available free online from http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS33.pdf

Cheers,

I believe in black holes. Not as mainstream envisions them though. They are ionized matter orbiting a common electromagnetic center, not matter orbiting a zero point volume of infinite mass.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kanYuBptuZ0

[kiwi]

and the Hydrogen bond in water is capable of producing photons at the expected frequencies? ... it appears so http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0129v1.pdf

So that is why my cup of tea gets hot in a micro-wave oven...

Oh no! ... first you must "steep" your Tea in cold water, save the cold liquid then gently heat the leaves to near boiling in fresh water... combine the two and voila! ... Tea is served ... Microwave oven?? .. Philistine!!

Truthseeker ...

Oh, and what makes you believe it is a thermal signature?

Because the Monopole signal shows a Black Body curve, off-set by 3 kelvin ... but a "thermal" curve nonetheless

Cheers

[Justatruthseeker]

and the Hydrogen bond in water is capable of producing photons at the expected frequencies? ... it appears so http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0129v1.pdf

So that is why my cup of tea gets hot in a micro-wave oven...

Oh no! ... first you must "steep" your Tea in cold water, save the cold liquid then gently heat the leaves to near boiling in fresh water... combine the two and voila! ... Tea is served ... Microwave oven?? .. Philistine!!

Truthseeker ...

Oh, and what makes you believe it is a thermal signature?

Because the Monopole signal shows a Black Body curve, off-set by 3 kelvin ... but a "thermal" curve nonetheless

Cheers

I believe there is a video on thunderbolts you tube that explains my feelings of black body radiation pretty well. Wasn't it Robetelli (spelling) that did it? Kirchhoff' Laws or something such.
Edit: found it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c-Luq0fOJK8

[sketch1946]

"The puzzle of quantum physics is that even when the beam of light is so weak that it can be considered to be made of ‘particles of light’ or photons, the spots of light made by individual photons arriving at the screen eventually build up an interference pattern."
"How does each photon (which common sense says can only go through one slit or the other) ‘know’ about the slit it does not go through, and direct itself to the appropriate place on the detector screen?"

"...But, recently, some researchers have carried out the double slit experiment
using electrons, fired one at at a time, to build up an interference pattern."

"If he is right, all those textbooks that talk about photons as particles will have to be rewritten, and many lecture courses revised."

(A common problem with new or revised theories)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... lly-exist/


"The photoelectric effect results in electrons being ejected from a metal only by photons with energy above a specific value characteristic of the metal. One photon is absorbed to knock out one electron. ... All of these interactions indicate that if electrons exist, photons also exist."

I guess I've always been uneasy about the notion of an 'object' with no mass except when it's moving...

"But according to special relativity, light ALWAYS travels with the light speed c, and is NEVER at rest. And so it has zero REST mass. which means that though photons don't have rest mass, they do have energy and thus they have mass. The photons are wave particles."

It's interesting that Tesla who you might say had an almost magical 'grip' on electricity, even literally sometimes, didn't believe in electrons

"Tesla was also a physicist who studied in college such courses as analytic geometry, experimental physics and higher mathematics.1 In his early 1890s lectures at Columbia University, the Chicago World’s Fair and at Royal Societies in Paris and London, building on the ideas of Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin, Tesla demonstrated and discussed the structure of atoms as being similar to solar systems and wave-like and particle-like aspects to what later became known as the photon. Colleagues he lectured before and corresponded with included many Nobel Prize winners like Wilhelm Roentgen, J.J. Thompson, Lord Raleigh, Ernst Rutherford and Robert Millikan and other scientists such as Elmer Sperry, Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Kelvin, Heinreich Hertz and Hermann von Helmholtz.

As far as I know, no standard text on the history of physics mentions Tesla even though these ideas would lead to Nobel Prizes when they were further developed by Rutherford and Bohr (with their solar-system description of the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus) and Einstein’s discovery of the photoelectric effect, which was equivalent to Tesla’s wave and particle-like description of light."

"However, another idea which Tesla discussed was abandoned by modern physicists, and that was the concept of the all pervasive ether. This led to a number of key differences between Tesla’s view of the world as compared to that of Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Tesla disagreed with the findings of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in a number of ways. As far back as the turn of the century, Tesla thought that he had intercepted cosmic rays emanating from the sun that attained velocities “vastly exceeding that of light.” In the last decade of his life he also claimed that these cosmic rays could be harnessed to generate electrical power. Tesla also saw radioactivity as evidence of the material body absorbing energy as much as it was giving it up."

"Concrete proof that relativity can be violated can be found in George Gamow’s watershed book Thirty Years That Shook Physics. Gamow, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, tells us that in the mid-1920’s, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered not only that electrons were orthorotating, but also that they were spinning at 1.37 times the speed of light. Gamow makes it clear that this discovery did not violate anything in quantum physics, what it violated was Einstein’s principle that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Paul Adrian Dirac studied the problem. Following in the footsteps of Herman Minkowski, who used an imaginary number i, (the square root of -1) to be equivalent to the time coordinate in space-time equations, Dirac assigned the same number i to electron spin. In this way he was able to combine relativity with quantum mechanics and won a Nobel Prize for the idea in the process (1966, pp. 120-121). That was the upside. The downside was that the finding that elementary particles spin faster than the speed of light as a matter of course went the way of the passenger pigeon. No physicist talks about this anymore."

"What this means is that the entire evolution of 20th and nascent 21st century physics is evolving ignoring this key Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck finding. The ramifications suggest that elementary particles, by their nature, interface dimensions. Because they are spinning faster than the speed of light, the idea is that they are drawing this energy from the ether, a pre-physical realm, and converting the energy into material form."

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles ... ew-physics

[Zyxzevn]

In the context of "No Particles", there are some observations that refute the photon model.

See: http://www.unquantum.net
or the new website: http://www.thresholdmodel.com/

It says that the quantization effect is a result of a threshold, not a particle.
The threshold works like this:

sensor before reception:
0 2 3 5 9 5 7 4 1 3 7 2 4 0 5 6 (threshold model)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (particle model)

after reception, sensor finds an photon at X:
1 3 4 6 X 6 8 5 2 4 8 3 5 1 6 7 (threshold model: energy spreads evenly)
0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (particle model: one photon detected)

It also works with atomic "particles" like electrons and neutrons.
The threshold model is a very simple but effective way to explain quantum mechanics.

[willendure]

In the context of "No Particles", there are some observations that refute the photon model.

See: http://www.unquantum.net
or the new website: http://www.thresholdmodel.com/

It says that the quantization effect is a result of a threshold, not a particle.
The threshold works like this:

sensor before reception:
0 2 3 5 9 5 7 4 1 3 7 2 4 0 5 6 (threshold model)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (particle model)

after reception, sensor finds an photon at X:
1 3 4 6 X 6 8 5 2 4 8 3 5 1 6 7 (threshold model: energy spreads evenly)
0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (particle model: one photon detected)

It also works with atomic "particles" like electrons and neutrons.
The threshold model is a very simple but effective way to explain quantum mechanics.

sensor before reception:
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 (threshold model)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (particle model)

after reception, sensor finds an photon at X:
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X (threshold model: energy spreads evenly)
0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (particle model: one photon detected)

Q.E.D

[sketch1946]

Hi zyxzevn, willendure,
that stuff looks very interesting, it instantly makes me think of an analog-to-digital converter in electronics, or the subject of triggering, or the way that early computers would decide whether something was a 0 or a 1 for digital logic... ie an analog signal was a zero if it was **less than 0.2V, and a 1 if it was >2.8V (from memory) and not defined in between, and the wave form might show spikes and fluctuations so synchronous timing was introduced, and checksums etc etc

Haha, could life itself be working like that?

I still haven't come to grips with this quantum entanglement... it seems to my silly brain that the situation of quantum entanglement must something llke this: a single photon whatever it is must only be a form of energy, and probably a wave, ie maybe something analagous to a vibration or oscillation, and like a guitar string when plucked has a node that starts in the middle say, and then divides immediately in two and each node races to the end of the string and then reflects back, and so there are harmonics produced as the nodes reflect from the reflections, making even number harmonics in ever decreasing wave lengths and higher frequencies...

Someone said some particle was a 'nothing that spins' and then who was it? de Broglie? worked out that the oscillations were in a circle, and could only be either 2 or 3 or 4 or 5, and not anything in between...?

How do you understand how a field stores energy? It seems to me like physics has been hiding an ether under a mathematical carpet

[Zyxzevn]

The unquantum experiments show the following problem:

sensor before reception:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (assumed initial state)

sensor after reception of 1 photon.
0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 1 photon detected )
or:
0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 ( 2 photons detected )
or:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( no photon detected )

This already conflicts with the photon model.
It has been seen before, but was seen as noise.
But the experiments show that the 2 (or more) photon cases increase when
the energy of light increases. So higher frequency light has higher chance
of creating 2 photon cases.

The threshold model helps to explain this.
In this model the light spreads evenly over the sensor (as a wave),
and a threshold determines when the sensor switches to the "detected" state.
This probably means that the electrons only change position after they
accumulated enough energy to bridge the gap.

So the electrons in the sensor have a threshold state that I showed as numbers.
0 2 3 5 9 5 7 4 1 3 7 2 4 0 5 6 (initial random state)
1 3 4 6 X 6 8 5 2 4 8 3 5 1 6 7 (state after receiving 16.0 energy)
I rounded the numbers to make it easier to put them on a line.

According to the website, the initial state was thought to be zero:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (initial state zero?)
Because of this weird assumption, the scientists never looked further into the threshold model.

It might be interesting to see how high-energy photons affects sensors.
Usually we do see the energy of the photon affecting more cells on a CCD sensor.
0 0 0 X X X X X X X X X X X 0 0 (sensor overload)

[Justatruthseeker]

"The puzzle of quantum physics is that even when the beam of light is so weak that it can be considered to be made of ‘particles of light’ or photons, the spots of light made by individual photons arriving at the screen eventually build up an interference pattern."
"How does each photon (which common sense says can only go through one slit or the other) ‘know’ about the slit it does not go through, and direct itself to the appropriate place on the detector screen?"

"...But, recently, some researchers have carried out the double slit experiment
using electrons, fired one at at a time, to build up an interference pattern."

"If he is right, all those textbooks that talk about photons as particles will have to be rewritten, and many lecture courses revised."

(A common problem with new or revised theories)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... lly-exist/


"The photoelectric effect results in electrons being ejected from a metal only by photons with energy above a specific value characteristic of the metal. One photon is absorbed to knock out one electron. ... All of these interactions indicate that if electrons exist, photons also exist."

I guess I've always been uneasy about the notion of an 'object' with no mass except when it's moving...

"But according to special relativity, light ALWAYS travels with the light speed c, and is NEVER at rest. And so it has zero REST mass. which means that though photons don't have rest mass, they do have energy and thus they have mass. The photons are wave particles."

It's interesting that Tesla who you might say had an almost magical 'grip' on electricity, even literally sometimes, didn't believe in electrons

"Tesla was also a physicist who studied in college such courses as analytic geometry, experimental physics and higher mathematics.1 In his early 1890s lectures at Columbia University, the Chicago World’s Fair and at Royal Societies in Paris and London, building on the ideas of Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin, Tesla demonstrated and discussed the structure of atoms as being similar to solar systems and wave-like and particle-like aspects to what later became known as the photon. Colleagues he lectured before and corresponded with included many Nobel Prize winners like Wilhelm Roentgen, J.J. Thompson, Lord Raleigh, Ernst Rutherford and Robert Millikan and other scientists such as Elmer Sperry, Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Kelvin, Heinreich Hertz and Hermann von Helmholtz.

As far as I know, no standard text on the history of physics mentions Tesla even though these ideas would lead to Nobel Prizes when they were further developed by Rutherford and Bohr (with their solar-system description of the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus) and Einstein’s discovery of the photoelectric effect, which was equivalent to Tesla’s wave and particle-like description of light."

"However, another idea which Tesla discussed was abandoned by modern physicists, and that was the concept of the all pervasive ether. This led to a number of key differences between Tesla’s view of the world as compared to that of Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Tesla disagreed with the findings of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in a number of ways. As far back as the turn of the century, Tesla thought that he had intercepted cosmic rays emanating from the sun that attained velocities “vastly exceeding that of light.” In the last decade of his life he also claimed that these cosmic rays could be harnessed to generate electrical power. Tesla also saw radioactivity as evidence of the material body absorbing energy as much as it was giving it up."

"Concrete proof that relativity can be violated can be found in George Gamow’s watershed book Thirty Years That Shook Physics. Gamow, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, tells us that in the mid-1920’s, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered not only that electrons were orthorotating, but also that they were spinning at 1.37 times the speed of light. Gamow makes it clear that this discovery did not violate anything in quantum physics, what it violated was Einstein’s principle that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Paul Adrian Dirac studied the problem. Following in the footsteps of Herman Minkowski, who used an imaginary number i, (the square root of -1) to be equivalent to the time coordinate in space-time equations, Dirac assigned the same number i to electron spin. In this way he was able to combine relativity with quantum mechanics and won a Nobel Prize for the idea in the process (1966, pp. 120-121). That was the upside. The downside was that the finding that elementary particles spin faster than the speed of light as a matter of course went the way of the passenger pigeon. No physicist talks about this anymore."

"What this means is that the entire evolution of 20th and nascent 21st century physics is evolving ignoring this key Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck finding. The ramifications suggest that elementary particles, by their nature, interface dimensions. Because they are spinning faster than the speed of light, the idea is that they are drawing this energy from the ether, a pre-physical realm, and converting the energy into material form."

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles ... ew-physics

I don't really accept photons. Now an EM wave would convey the details of an object to your eyes, being attuned to that object. But a particle (photon) would have to be the silly putty of the universe, to strike an object, pick up color, texture and other detail etc.

I found an experiment with water waves that produced the same interference pattern by changing the frequency of the waves, I'll see if I can find it.

IMO it is simply electrons in the detector being excited by the EM waves and being mistaken as photons striking.

[Justatruthseeker]

In the context of "No Particles", there are some observations that refute the photon model.

See: http://www.unquantum.net
or the new website: http://www.thresholdmodel.com/

It says that the quantization effect is a result of a threshold, not a particle.
The threshold works like this:

sensor before reception:
0 2 3 5 9 5 7 4 1 3 7 2 4 0 5 6 (threshold model)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (particle model)

after reception, sensor finds an photon at X:
1 3 4 6 X 6 8 5 2 4 8 3 5 1 6 7 (threshold model: energy spreads evenly)
0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (particle model: one photon detected)

It also works with atomic "particles" like electrons and neutrons.
The threshold model is a very simple but effective way to explain quantum mechanics.

Interesting, will have to read the entire thing. I can see how such could easily be mistaken and sort of coincides with my view that it is simply electrons being excited in the detector.

[sketch1946]

As far as I understand the physics in human vision, the incoming wave of light, which is hundreds of times 'bigger' than the diameter of molecules, ie the wave lengths are 300 to 700 times 'bigger' than the width of a molecule, this wave interacts with receptors in the retina, which get 'triggered' to produce a ***code of some sort similar to RGB plus luminance.. light/dark...and which then is transmitted to the brain...
"...The rods and cones are the site of transduction of light into a neural signal...."
"...There are three types of cones <...>Some cones are maximally responsive to short light waves of 420 nm; they are called S cones ("S" for "short"). Other cones (M cones, for "medium") respond maximally to waves of 530 nm. A third group (L cones, or "long" cones) responds maximally to light of longer wavelengths at 560 nm...."

Is this another thing like the wave/particle story? ie a wave of light consisting of superimposed frequencies is physically and chemically turned into a source code for the brain to process further... the need for 'photons' seems redundant... the energy of the wave is doing a slit sort of thing, ending up with colour information separated out into 'energy levels' of R or G or B and then sharpness/brightness being processed separately, all to be 'understood' by further processing in the brain...

https://www.boundless.com/biology/textb ... 790-12025/

[kiwi]

and the Hydrogen bond in water is capable of producing photons at the expected frequencies? ... it appears so http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0129v1.pdf

So that is why my cup of tea gets hot in a micro-wave oven...

Oh no! ... first you must "steep" your Tea in cold water, save the cold liquid then gently heat the leaves to near boiling in fresh water... combine the two and voila! ... Tea is served ... Microwave oven?? .. Philistine!!

Truthseeker ...

Oh, and what makes you believe it is a thermal signature?

Because the Monopole signal shows a Black Body curve, off-set by 3 kelvin ... but a "thermal" curve nonetheless

Cheers

I believe there is a video on thunderbolts you tube that explains my feelings of black body radiation pretty well. Wasn't it Robetelli (spelling) that did it? Kirchhoff' Laws or something such.
Edit: found it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c-Luq0fOJK8

Thanks Truthseeker

Its the work of Dr Robitaille I represent here with my previous posts ... there is nothing coming through the Galactic "noise" that could in any way be construed as a bonafide "signal" of any description originating from the Cosmos ... but apparently Astrophysicist's have an open ticket to bend and twist the laws of Physic's as they please

Cheers