On Apr 22, 4:40*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:51*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Apr 21, 2:18*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
[snip]

My own X-Y-Z interferometer easily detects Earth's movement in the
cosmos. *Einstein himself said that no Earth based experiment could
detect such movement, but he was so WRONG! *— NoEinstein —

Really?

That'd be worth a Nobel - why do you keep it to yourself?

[Snip remaining dribble...]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Eric: *Have you gotten "religion" or something? *You've made
three non-offensive comments in a row. *Keep that up and I will remove
your PNG status!

Like I give a rats ass about what you think about me. You could
promote me to the 42nd Commandant of the Unicorn army with a secondary
degree in underwater upside down basket weaving, and I still wouldn't
care.

* * *To answer your question: *My simple experiment has been described
in numerous of my replies. *One guy, Tom Davidson, even asked for, and
got a drawing and a detailed description of the construction. *I will
avoid any "PD like" groupies who only want to pass judgment—when they
have zero qualifications to p... on anything.

Paul is an experimentalist with published papers. Slightly more
qualified than an architect with no formal training in the field.

*If you will search my
profile for: X-Y-Z interferometer, one or more of those will describe
the arrangement of the laser, mirrors and target, etc. *But to
understand what is happening all that is needed is to realize that
while the light (of either light course) is in transit, the apparatus
itself keeps moving due to Earth's velocity component. *My
interferometer places the CONTROL light course on the SAME Z axis that
the rest of the apparatus rotates about. *The beam splitter is
perpendicular to the first leg of the laser light. *Since the TIME
required for light to travel to a PERPENDICULAR surface doesn't vary,
even though the mirror is moving, such can act as a CONTROL (something
that doesn't vary, to which something that DOES vary can be compared).

You still don't know how an interferometer works. If there is a change
in path length, there will be a phase difference and thus interference
at the detector where the beams reconverge. That's why there is no
CONTROL as you randomly capitalize it.

* * *After passing through the 30R, 70T beam splitter, the TEST light
course reflects from a 45 degree first surface mirror; and on to a
perpendicular first surface mirror; back to the 45 degree mirror;
through the BS; and on to the painted metal target bonded to the front
of the laser. *That target has a precision pin hole to allow the laser
light to pass through. *Because the light diverges about .5 degree, by
the time it reflects back to the target, the fringe pattern is a clear
3/8" diameter with about 8 fringes.

Really? 8 fringes you say?

Where is the writeup that contains the design, theory, and analysis?
What's your error?

* * *The reason my interferometer works, and the M-M didn't, is
because M-M had BOTH light courses reflect from the 45 degree mirror!
So, the lateral motion of the apparatus affected both of its light
courses, identically. *My interferometer has an effective physical
length change of the light course that reflects from the 45 degree
mirror. *The faster the Earth's velocity component, the further off
center the light hits the 45 degree mirror, and the greater is the
physical change in the length of that course. *As Michelson knew, a
physical change of length (via screws) of ONE COURSE of his
interferometer allowed making precise measurements—like the "official"
meter stick. *But when he let Earth's velocity "move" the light, both
courses reflected from the 45 degree BS, and so both TIMES of travel
remained identical…
* * *If any of those two dozen universities that I've sent all of my
information to had been objective, they have had more than enough time
to replicate my results. *So, THAT is the real reason it SEEMS that I
am keeping my experiment to myself. *There just aren't any (ha, ha...)
“scientists” out there objective enough to buck the status quo of
stupidity at ALL USA universities! *Note: Exceptions to the latter are
URGED to ask for my experiment descriptions! *— NoEinstein —

Are you smarter than every physicist ever? No? Then learn some
humility.

If you want people to give a damn, perform the experiment and write it
up. Go to a research university and read some papers on the subject so
you can get a feel for the terminology and how to write things up.
You'll note that adhoms, random capitalizations, appeals to personal
[nonexistent!!!] authority, and general insults against scientists
won't be in there. You'll also want to explain why over a century of
experiments haven't detected the aether - and you'll have to do better
than "the MMX didn't have a control" since has been a followup or
fifty in the intervening 130 years using different interferometer
designs.

On Apr 22, 9:00*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:
Huang wrote:

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

You should question what you are told. You should ask "if it is a wave
what is the wave propagating IN". The answer you will get is that modern
physics does not attempt to answer those sorts of question. I feel it
should.

I think that the answer to this question is at hand. In fact, I do.

Probabilistic considerations explain this.

This was only the first of a number of experiments which disproved the
idea that light is a wave. It was eventually discovered that light
consists of particles we call photons and these leave the source and
arrive at their destination unchanged.

Strange that one can prove it a wave, and also a particle.

One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both. One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently.

The aether was originally hypothesised to explain electrostatic and
magnetic action at a distance as at the time magnetic and electrostatic
attraction were seen to defy nature as all other force seemed to require
a "connection rod" to transmit it. Now it is apparent that ALL force
acts at a distance. Even a "connecting rod" at the molecular level acts
'at a distance'. The option is open therefore to simply accept that in
nature all force acts naturally at a distance and therefore requires no
intermediary. If one takes that view then a 'field' is simply the field
of influence of a charge and a field of influence cannot exist without a
source of influence. One of the absurdities of modern physics is the
retention of the idea of an independent field, which used to be a stress
in the aether, having got rid of the aether it was a stress in. Physics
hasn't got rid of the aether at all. All they have done is renamed it
'something in which independent fields can exist'.

If one accepts that there is no aether and that force naturally acts 'at
a distance' without any intermediary then a field is a field of
influence and cannot exist without a source of influence.

Maxwell showed a link between the mathematics of charge and the
mathematics of light therefore there must be a link between photons and
charge.

If light has associated with it fields and if fields can only be 'fields
of influence' then a photon must contain sources of influence i.e. a
photon must contain charge. It has no overall charge so it must have
equal positive and negative charges and it seems logical that these must
be rotating in order to give rise to a field changing at a rate we
associate with frequency.

It seems to me that this is a basis on which one might be able to
explain the wavelike properties produced by photons.

You might sensibly ask how two observers moving with respect to each
other can both be stationary w.r.t the same aether and I can tell you
that there is no sensible answer.

There is a sensible answer to this.
Probabilistic considerations explain this as well.

perhaps you can explain.



I think that there is a probabilistic explanation to this, but it
requires some prerequisite material which could become pretty long
winded. I'll try to compress it.

[1] Length can be graduated by Plancklengths.

[2] The precise position of graduations is indeterminate. The
graduations can slide back and forth.

[3] Therefore length is probabilistic, and _any_ length contained in R
can exist in space, despite Plancklength.

[4] You will then have two possible cases for length.
[a] points are existentially indeterminate (space is
everywhere discrete)
[b] points are not existentially indeterminate (space is
everywhere continuous)

[5] Whether you have case [a] or case [b] is indeterminate, therefore
you have wave particle duality.

[6] You can now model randomness as if it were a fluid embedded in
length, which gives _tremendous_freedom_ to model spacebending.

and lastly -

[7] Motion is relative, we know this from GR. It can also be made
relative in terms of the fluid mechanics described in [6]. I think
that the easiest way to explain it is "conservation of probabilities".


This approach is basically SR in steroids. The only thing which exists
is space and dynamics, modelled easily using probability theory.
Sounds crazy but I think it works.


This far from sensible assumption
rescues Maxwell's wave in aether theory from the results of the MM
experiment but not from the glaring inconsistency that light is made up
of particles. It has dire consequences. In order to get the right answer
one has to assume that at different speeds a ruler changes its length,
time slows down, and the mass of an object changes. Note that no
physical processes have been identified which could cause a ruler to
change its length etc. These effects are *assumed* to occur in order to
get the answer required having made the absurd assumption embedded in
the second postulate.

What you will be told, and it isn't true, is that Einstein came up with
a theory which doesn't need an aether. Einstein actually argued in
favour of retaining the idea of the aether. An aether which every
observer can be naturally stationary with, is clearly absurd so
physicists got rid of it from their thinking but they did not rethink
how that affected the very basis of relativity. Its removal was not the
result of experiment nor some clever theoretical argument. It was
removed from physics by the totally arbitrary decision taken by
physicists that physics did not need to explain what is going on in
physical terms, that mathematics will suffice. That modern physics does
not attempt to answer those sorts of question.

Agreed. And I dont like it either.

There are now two branches of physics which deal with light and it
depends what question you are asking.

One will tell you that light is an electromagnetic wave because its
properties can be modelled by Maxwell's wave equation. You will be told
that the aether does not exist and nothing has replaced it for light
waves to be physical waves IN. You may be told that it consists of
electromagnetic fields but fields were stresses in the aether and now
there is no aether for them to be stresses in. Because physics no longer
has to explain anything in physical terms it does not have to explain
what a field is made of as long as they can write an equation describing
its properties.

The other branch of physics will tell you that light is made up of
photons but so as not to encroach on the other branch of physics it
claims that photons have no internal structure. Such a structureless
photon cannot explain the wavelike properties of light.

Essentially by retaining a disproved theory Physics has ended up with
two branches which further down the line disagree. Attempts are being
made to unify these two branches by means of highly complicated
mathematics called string theory. According to Stephen Hawking string
theory may succeed in unifying physics if we assume that the universe
has either 10 or 26 dimensions and even then "only if the infinities
cancel" - whatever that means.

I'm not a huge fan of String Theory because it makes no predictions

* Physics decided it no longer needs a physical interpretation to
complicate the maths because it wanted to accept a theory which is
physically absurd - SR. Physics no longer tries to understand nature
merely to model it mathematically. In modern physics it is assumed that
it is nature which is weird rather than that physics might have got it
wrong and it is no longer a part of physics remit to try and make sense
of it.

* The problem now is that once it is accepted that it is nature which is
cocked up rather than physics which has got it wrong, there really is no
quality assurance criteria. You cannot reject an idea on the basis that
"physics is weird but it cannot be THAT weird" so now anything goes. You
can invent whatever you want to patch up a theory. If you want a
particle to be both massless and massive you invent a Higgs field which
turns a massless particle into a massive one. I understand that parallel
universes are becoming popular - an idea nicked from science fiction.
Virtual photons, which are inherently undetectable and are allowed to
ignore the normal laws of physics provided they hop in and out of
hyperspace quickly enough. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy
invented to prop up a theory because the data didn't fit the theory.



If one can prove A and also prove NOT A, then our training tells us
that something is amiss. There must be an error somewhere. I disagree.

This is the reason why stochastic calculus reads like the King James
version of the Old Testament. They dont want to construct a "random
length" which is indeterminately continuous or discrete. I think that
they are all just scared that people will point and laugh.

Not only that, but "as everyone knows"....something either exists or
it does not. There is no "in between".

HAH !

The fact is that existential indeterminacy works just fine. Example:

L = |--------------------| + |~ ~ ~|

L' = |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|

L is a chunk of length with some random length attatched to an
endpoint.

L' is a length where to each point in L' we assign a probability that
the point exists.

The "expected values" or "expected length" which result from L and L'
are identical.

But science does not want to see any bifuracations in the logic. So it
stagnates. Well, dont blame me for it - I am not God.




John Kennaugh
"If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation I should
have recommended something simpler." Alfonso 'the wise' of Castile- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 22, 9:23*am, (Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article ,

PD wrote:
One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both.
Why not?

Because, in the normal use of those terms, "particle and "wave" are
mutually exclusive, one denoting a physical object and the other
denoting a movement.

Light has wave-like and particle-like properties.

-- Richard
--
:wq



It would be nice to speak of a product-sum duality instead.

I give you a number - say 8. And that is all I will tell you. Then I
ask -

....is it [a] a product, or is it [b] a sum ?


Well ? Is the number 8 a product or a sum ? It is BOTH.

And so is the photon - both a particle AND a wave. It is no different
whatsoever. It is the same ****ing question for Xhrist sakes.

Quacks.

PD wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:00*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:


One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both.

Why not?

One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently.


A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also
exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird.

A US quarter is incapable of starting an unnecessary war without having
even the vaguest plan as to what to do after it had been 'won' neither
is it capable of eating flesh so a US quarter exhibits neither the
properties of a president nor of a carnivorous bird.


--
John Kennaugh

Androcles wrote:

I cannot be a father and a cyclist,

A man can be a father, a man can be a cyclist. A man cannot be both in
one place and everywhere at the same time. A man cannot at the same time
punch a hole in a fence and spread himself evenly along its entire
length.

--
John Kennaugh

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...

If you wish to comment upon what I write, Kennaugh, don't do a
Phuckwit Duck and knee-jerk into mid-sentence or you will
be snipped in return.

| Androcles wrote:

|
I cannot be a father and a cyclist, a diner and an airline passenger,
an engineer and a clerk? You have a strange idea of what cannot be.
QUESTION MARK ^
Can you see the question mark, knee-jerk Kennaugh?

Light is a wave and a particle, it can be and it is both.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm

On Apr 22, 7:48*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:18*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:





"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...
On Apr 21, 8:18 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:

"
?=
wrote in message

.. .

What makes you believe Art Deco could understand
â?o integer units of action â? ? !

He couldn't understand potty humor if it exeeded one line.
We're like idiot savants with non-overlapping esoteric talents;
so one man's talent can't be seen by the other.

Actually Art Deco understands, and does,
his job very well.

Art works out of the caliballista.org boiler-room,
which is operated by a few Jewish bigots,
and used to intimidate and smear people,
that the bigots target.

Art's job is not to engage in rational, intelligent, moral
discussions to arrive at fundamental truths,

but his job is to smear folks, and obscure threads
on issues that his handlers don't want to have
the public exposed to.

Art does his job in several ways.

1. He ****es out posters,
and gets them off the issue,
and into a ****ing war.

2. He tries to link his victims
with negative images, negative ideas,
and negative people.

3. He appends alt.usenet.kook
to threads he wants to disrupt
in order to instigate a flame war between
the poster, the caliballista, boiler-rook bigots,
and the young boys and sociopaths
who hang out in alt.usenet.kook.

Art does a pretty good job
directing the activities of a few race/religion motivated bigots,
and in exploiting inferiority complexes in a few
sociopaths and young boys,
who tend to boost their egos by demeaning folks.
( Note that Art also exploits the inferiority complexes
of young boys and sociopaths in the serious newsgroups,
and gets some of them to append alt.usenet.kook to posts.

The Republican Party,
and now the Clinton gang
use the same tactics
used by the calaballista.org race motivated bigots,
and the tactic must work,
as they spend millions of dollars
trying to divert the attention of people
from facts and details.

I dare say that if Obama becomes president,
the masses will begin to turn aggressively on the
bigots, media, and politicians who use
smear as a weapon to promote their agenda,
which could not be promote successfully
using logic, intelligence and facts.

Hopefully, when the public gets sick of the
smear tactics, laws will be passed that make
it easy for folks smeared by Institutionalized Bigotry
to collect damages from the individuals and
organization that effected the smears.

The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
own."

To read the stories of a few of the many folks
who have been victims of Institutionalized bigotry
visit the web site below.

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...crazyideas.blo....

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

-- Dear Tom: *If Obama becomes President, the USA is probably doomed....

Considering that - NoEinstein -
is making Einstein look good,

and considering that he is opposed to Obama,
the only candidate for president
that is not totally controlled by the Jewish lobby,

one has to wonder if - NoEinstein -
is a shill,

working for the Einstein Cult,
and the War-for-Profit Gang.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...crazyideas.blo...

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Tom: *Obama is a "minority" candidate supported by "minority"
Jews. *TIME-Warner and CNN network are hugely biased toward Obama.
The publishers of science texts are mostly controlled by Jews; and
those love the fact that they make so much money trying to "explain"
Einstein. *Einstein was a Jew, and Jews get their egos boosted by
letting him remain unchallenged. *So, you could rightly say that Jews
are the primary reason my Einstein disproofs haven't gotten to the
front pages. *Do you agree? *:-) *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


That is pure bull****. You cant possibly know how stupid you sound, or
how wrong you are. You should probably go drown yourself in a toilet.

John Kennaugh wrote:
PD wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:00 am, John Kennaugh
wrote:


One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both.

Why not?

One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently.


A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also
exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird.

A US quarter is incapable of starting an unnecessary war without having
even the vaguest plan as to what to do after it had been 'won' neither
is it capable of eating flesh so a US quarter exhibits neither the
properties of a president nor of a carnivorous bird.

PD overestimated your ability to extract the point from his example.
Try this. A US quarter "gives an impeccable impression" of being a
picture of a president, so using Kennaugh "logic" it's impossible, or
at least exceedingly difficult, for it to "give an impeccable
impression" of being a picture of an eagle too.

On Apr 22, 6:58*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:08*pm, PD wrote:



On Apr 21, 5:44*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 21, 7:55*am, "Paul Mays" wrote:

--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
*I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...
On Apr 19, 4:51 am, "Paul Mays" wrote:

"Paul Mays" wrote in message

.. .

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a
wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic
Field?
How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know
whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion..php

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because
Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps
as
somewhat quantum string like items. Of course, this still doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of
gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available
gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
. - Brad Guth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc".

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the quantum
string like photon. In other words, without the spin of atoms, we got
nothing.
. - Brad Guth

Well my interpretation Explains why there no need for gravitons to
denote the Causation of Gravity, What specifically light is and why its
detectable as a Wave or Little ball of stuff (Photon), Why its velocity
will always be independent of source or target, and seemingly a constant..

Yet allows all existing physical rules to remain valid to a Intrinsically
Biased
observer.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: *You're right on all but one point: "The velocity of
emitted (or reflected) light ALWAYS increases or decreases depending
on the velocity and direction of the source or reflecting surface." *—
NoEinstein —

No .. *A car is going 50mph at a brick wall... *if the wall is moving at the
car
at 50 mpg yes the impact comes sooner and with more force but the car
is still doing 50mph..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: Closing velocity is confusing you. *Think of a baseball
pitcher on the bow of a boat. *If the boat is going 10 mph, and he
throws a 90 mph fast ball (relative to the boat) in the direction the
boat is headed, the baseball will be increased in speed to 100 mph.

Not quite. The baseball will be going (90 mph + 10 mph)/(1 + (90 mph)
(10 mph)/c^2).

But if the same pitcher throws the ball 90 mph from the stern, the
ball will only be traveling 80 mph relative to the shore.

Again not quite. Take the same formula above and replace the plus
signs with minus signs.

*Light does
EXACTLY the same thing! *— NoEinstein —

Yes, you're right. So let's take a boat going 10 mph and throw light
from it, so that the speed is (10 mph + c)/(1 + (10 mph)*c/c^2).
Please do the itty bitty bit of algebra and tell me what answer you
get. Is it more than c, less than c, or the same as c?

PD-
* :-} ~

Yeah, I didn't think you could do fifth grade algebra.

On Apr 22, 6:59*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:08*pm, PD wrote:



On Apr 21, 5:45*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 21, 8:28*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 20, 8:30*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 19, 4:51*am, "Paul Mays" wrote:

"Paul Mays" wrote in message

.. .

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a
wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field?
How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know
whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps as
somewhat quantum string like items. *Of course, this still doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
*. - Brad Guth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
*I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc".

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the quantum
string like photon. *In other words, without the spin of atoms, we got
nothing.
. - Brad Guth

Well my interpretation Explains why there no need for gravitons to
denote the Causation of Gravity, What specifically light is and why its
detectable as a Wave or Little ball of stuff (Photon), Why its velocity
will always be independent of source or target, *and seemingly a constant..

Yet allows all existing physical rules to remain valid to a Intrinsically
Biased
observer.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
*I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: *You're right on all but one point: "The velocity of
emitted (or reflected) light ALWAYS increases or decreases depending
on the velocity and direction of the source or reflecting surface." *—
NoEinstein —

This is counter to experimental measurement, NoEinstein. Of course,
you could always say that you don't care.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* * *:-} -

Does that mean you don't care what experiment says?

* *:-} ~~~

Yes, that's what I thought.