On Apr 23, 6:17*am, PD wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:23*am, 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.

Well, the electron is incapable of always being localizable, and so it
also fails at exhibiting the properties of a particle. And an electron
is incapable of delivering its momentum in continuous fashion, and so
it also fails at exhibiting the properties of a wave. To Tom's point,
this indicates that an electron is neither a particle or a wave in
this sense, though it exhibits properties of both.

The blame doesn't rest on the electron, of course. The problem is our
assumption that physical entities can be exhaustively and mutually
exclusively characterized as particles or as waves. That assumption
now appears to be poor.
The problem has been our lack of imagination. Newton's particle was a
little bit too simple a model for the electron but it was OK for
mathematizing gravity. Maxwell & all his followers recognized that
waves are the property of something real - not an existent in their
own right, as this supposition could not explain interference etc.
These phenomena need the possibility of negative & positive values
that can add to zero: this is not a property of existence, which can
be modeled by the simple integer numbers 1 and 0; hence the rational
belief in the aether in the 19th Century.
So, Gentlemen, back to the drawing boards & sharpen your imagination!

John Kennaugh wrote:
jem wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
jem wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
jem wrote:
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.
It has a picture of a president on one side and a picture of an
eagle on the other. If it was cubic it could have six pictures
one on each side. A 'picture' is not fundamentally different to
another 'picture' physically they are built up using the same
technique of raised bits of metal. They differ only in which
bits of metal are raised and by how much and what is done on one
side in no way puts constraints on what is done on the other and
you cannot distort "Kennaugh's logic" to imply that it says it
does.
In order to learn from an analogy, Kennaugh, you need to look to
the similarities, not the dissimilarities.
The statement "light is a wave and particles" is a paradox.
Definition "Paradox" -A statement which is seemingly absurd but may
nevertheless be true.
Any useful analogy must include a paradox. There is nothing even
vaguely paradoxical about two sides of a coin having different images
on them. There are no similarities to look for in the so called an
analogy.

Paradoxes are in the eye of the beholder. The light case is just as
trivially non-contradictory as the coin case

Don't be silly.

Geez you're thick. Single entities can be *defined* to have multiple
properties regardless the extent to which certain people find those
properties incompatible. "Light" is simply the *name* given to certain
phenomena that sometimes appear wave-like and sometimes appear
particle-like.


- just not to you.

(Incidentally, don't presume that logically impossible occurrences can't
happen. Our logic is just another model that's based on past
observations of Nature - it's as subject to falsification as any other
model.)



A wave on the other hand is a function of continuous fields and a
photon is definitely not continuous. Now if you watch a film it
looks to be a continuously moving picture but you know that it
is made up of a series of fixed images. It doesn't mean we have
to accept that it IS a continuously moving picture and IS also a
series of fixed images. It IS a series of fixed images which give
an impeccable impression of being a moving picture. Light is not
both waves AND photons - although it might be neither. The most
promising approach is that light IS made up of photons which
together give an impeccable impression of being waves. Just as we
understand how a series of fixed images can give rise to an
impression of continuously moving pictures it might be possible
to understand how photons can give the impression that they are
waves.
Light IS something* that exhibits *both* wave-like AND
particle-like behavior, but if it makes you happier to think that
light IS a particle which also "gives an impeccable impression" of
being a wave,
I do.

or IS a wave which also "gives an impeccable impression" of being a
particle,
I cannot see how that would work.

go right ahead, because such distinctions are entirely irrelevant
to Science.

* Having discussed related issues with you before, I know it's
necessary to point out that light isn't something that exists in
Nature with properties that Science attempts to discover
I'm afraid it is. The fact that physics has redefined itself to the
point where is can no longer be considered "science" is not my
problem.

The construction of predictive logical systems to compare against
observation is what *defines* Science.

No it doesn't. Other sciences do not restrict themselves to such a
narrow remit. Every other science tries to understand nature which puts
Physics on its own. Based on consensus of other science, physics is not
a science.

Like I said, your inability to understand what Science is, is your problem.


Your inability to understand
that, is your problem.


- it's something that exists in models of Nature where *what* it
is, is *exactly* what it's *defined* to be.

R.A.Waldron has suggested [1] a structural model of a photon with
which explains the wavelike properties of light but physics
doctrine has declared that a photon has no internal structure
which is rather limiting. Like trying to explain how one gets the
impression of detailed moving pictures from a series of blank
frames rather than assuming that something in the nature of the
frames gives rise to the impression of detailed moving pictures.

Your goal for physical models, Kennaugh, is to get them to conform
to your common-sense notions, but the modern view of Science is
that the proper goal for physical models is the accurate prediction
of experimental outcomes
So provided you can mathematically generate accurate tide tables
there is no need to enquire and try to understand the real physical
processes in nature which makes the tides go in and out. What a
truly degenerate view of science.

It's not that there's "no need to" - there's /no way to/ - there's
simply nothing about Nature that can be verified other than the outcomes
of repeatable experiments (i.e. measurements). The ontological
descriptions (i.e. models) which facilitate thinking about and talking
about the logical systems (i.e. the math) that Science creates to mirror
natural phenomena, simply *can't* be tested by observing Nature.

Case in point: LET and SRT are two distinct ontological models that are
based on the same mathematics (i.e. both models predict exactly the same
phenomenological behavior). However, since Nature provides no
information except phenomenological behavior, it's clear that Nature
*can't* tell us which is the better model.

They are the same model.

They use the same math, that's all. The LET model contains an
object-shrinking clock-slowing ether which the SR model doesn't contain,
i.e. they're different models.

Einstein objected to the asymmetry in the
theoretical structure of LET and avoided it by producing a 'theory'
without a theoretical structure. LET is maths + theoretical structure.
SR is the same maths without a theoretical structure.

Every physical theory is math (i.e. an axiomatic system) plus an
operational relationship between the math and specific measurements
(e.g. the measurements of clocks and rulers in SR and LET). LET and SR
are identical physical theories.

Until someone
comes up with an alternative explanation as to what the maths is
describing, Lorentz's is the only one on the table.

Nonsense. For SR, and every other physical theory, the math is
describing nothing more than logical relationships between specific
measurements.


Both Lorentz and Einstein considered Maxwell electrodynamics to be
impeccable. They were both trying to explain why the MMX showed that
every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether. Lorentz said it was an
illusion brought about by distortion of measurement due to our speed
w.r.t the aether. Einstein's approach was to simply accept that
experimentally every observer IS stationary w.r.t the aether

More nonsense. Einstein's "approach" was to abandon the at-the-time
common-sense notion of absolute time.

and so
Any ray of light moves in the observer's system of co-ordinates [in the
aether the observer is stationary w.r.t] with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

He assumed that nature must somehow provide a suitable aether - an
aether without the immobility of Lorentz's (1920 lecture) - which every
observer would find himself naturally stationary w.r.t. No one accepted
that idea so Lorentz's explanation is still the only one on the table.

Getting rid of the aether had nothing to do with Einstein it was simply
an arbitrary decision taken out of expediency that physics no longer
needed a physical interpretation to compliment the maths.

The physical interpretation of *every* physical theory is nothing more
than the link between math and measurement.

It no longer
needed to worry about what the Lorentz/Einstein maths was describing
from a physical standpoint.

What the math describes "from a physical standpoint" in *every* physical
theory are specific measurements.

That is why they are now one and the same
theory which is why it is not possible to distinguish one from another.

They're the same theory because they use identical math and the same
link to measurement. They're different models because they use
different ontological interpretations of that theory.



Understand? The math is testable - the "ontologics" aren't. Your quest
to understand Nature by discovering its driving mechanisms, is
pie-in-the-sky.

So it is wrong (pie-in-the-sky) to conclude that the fact that the tides
go in and out has something to do with the fact that a moon orbits the
earth?


It's not wrong to construct models - it's helpful in a heuristic sense
to do so. What I told you is that the ontological aspects of models
aren't testable. Building a Moon/Earth/gravity framework around the
tide table, isn't going to add any "understanding" beyond the tide table
itself, because there's absolutely no way to verify the correctness of
anything but the table entries - the "correctness" of your "explaining
mechanism" is completely determined by the correctness of the table.
Furthermore, your "explaining mechanism" isn't unique - other mechanisms
could always be created to generate the same table.

I believe that causality is an essential part of physics.

You only have to look to a stochastic theory like QM to see that's
wrong, although the non-uniqueness of causal relationships in
deterministic theories indicates that causality doesn't play an
"essential part" there either.

NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 30, 1:25 am, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:
You told me:
" My Einstein disproofs are
easy enough for middle schoolers to understand. ".

Show me a middle schooler who understands your " disproofs ".
Can you publish in " Physics Letters A " ?
How would you model the gravitational field of a laser ?

First of all... there are no such things as gravitational fields of
lasers, nor any light, for that matter! If there was such a thing,
people would get sucked into the strong beam of an aircraft search
light. Be more careful "what" you smoke, your reasoning ability is a
bit cloudy.

So by your reasoning, there is no gravity from mass since you
have sat next to a rock and not been sucked into it. It is
always good to see you finding more things to be wrong about.



Quoting an Abstract of an article entitled:
" Weak gravitational field of
the electromagnetic radiation in a ring laser "

" The gravitational field due to
the circulating flow of electromagnetic radiation of

a unidirectional ring laser is found by solving
the linearized Einstein field equations at
any interior point of the laser ring.

The general relativistic spin equations are then used
to study the behavior of a massive spinning neutral particle
at the center of the ring laser.

It is found that the particle exhibits the phenomenon known
as inertial frame-dragging. ".
-- " Physics Letters A ", Volume 269, Issue 4, p. 214-217
http://adsAbs.Harvard.EDU/abs/2000PhLA..269..214M

Jeff: Devices for making laser beams are an entirely different animal
from the laser light itself. I work with a small laser in my
experiments nearly daily, and I've not had anything be attracted to
the laser device, nor to the light beam. But since electricity is the
usual power source, there could be a static-like charge that builds
up. But tell me: Why does a Bohemian like you care one way or the
other? -- NoEinstein --

On May 1, 11:20*am, maxwell wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:17*am, PD wrote:



On Apr 23, 6:23*am, 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.

Well, the electron is incapable of always being localizable, and so it
also fails at exhibiting the properties of a particle. And an electron
is incapable of delivering its momentum in continuous fashion, and so
it also fails at exhibiting the properties of a wave. To Tom's point,
this indicates that an electron is neither a particle or a wave in
this sense, though it exhibits properties of both.

The blame doesn't rest on the electron, of course. The problem is our
assumption that physical entities can be exhaustively and mutually
exclusively characterized as particles or as waves. That assumption
now appears to be poor.

The problem has been our lack of imagination. *Newton's particle was a
little bit too simple a model for the electron but it was OK for
mathematizing gravity. *Maxwell & all his followers recognized that
waves are the property of something real - not an existent in their
own right, as this supposition could not explain interference etc.
These phenomena need the possibility of negative & positive values
that can add to zero: this is not a property of existence, which can
be modeled by the simple integer numbers 1 and 0; hence the rational
belief in the aether in the 19th Century.
So, Gentlemen, back to the drawing boards & sharpen your imagination!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Maxwell: Lorentz's explanation for the nil result of the M-M
experiment "allowed that" objects will contract due to velocity
(sic). His equation, that forms the diviser under E = mc^2,
disregards the need for an EXPANSION of each object through the 180
degrees of the apparatus's rotation in a horizontal plane. That is
like your conundrum with the " 1 and 0", but without a -1. Lorentz
thought that was just fine, because he was biased to believe that
since 'c' is the maximum velocity (sic), objects would only need to
contract (sic).

Interferometers are part of my niche. Because waves have both
"crests" and "valleys" they indeed have 1s, 0s, and minus1s. But the
sine curve variation of the true "photon" based light is due to
angular variation in going to the point of view on the target, not due
to the varying longitudinal vibrations of the "waves". — NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...967db2b?hl=en#

On May 1, 1:05*pm, jem wrote:

Dear jem: The MMX wrongly ruled out the existence of ether. But such
experiment simply lacked a control! By my invalidation of the MM
apparatus as a velocity detecting device, I’ve reinstated ether as the
fundamental energy form in the Universe! But the ether ISN’T a fixed
“grid” against which events can be measured. Rather it varies in
density and flow closely matching the massive objects that are in the
cosmos. Astronomers know that there are huge “Swiss cheese-like”
voids between the galaxies. Those are the areas from which the ether
coalesced into the adjacent (but not close) matter. So, the ether
density in those places is nil. If light required ether as a “medium”
of travel, light would not be able to travel (as a wave) through the
voids. But photons will travel perfectly well through either ether,
or through the voids.

The observed “wave-like” appearance of the interference patterns
caused by light passing through closely spaced vertical slits has the
“ripples” off of the “line of sight” of the light source and parts of
the ripple pattern of interference. But this is due to the varying
amount of bending of the rays caused by how close to the slit sides
the photons come. Because photons are composed of clumps of ether
units—that I call IOTA (the smallest things in the Universe)—and
because ether is polar, the greater concentration of ether inside the
atoms of the sides of the slit act like magnets to deflect the passing
photons. That is why photons can bend (like waves…). — NoEinstein —

On May 2, 12:15 am, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 30, 1:25 am, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:
You told me:
" My Einstein disproofs are
easy enough for middle schoolers to understand. ".

Show me a middle schooler who understands your " disproofs ".
Can you publish in " Physics Letters A " ?
How would you model the gravitational field of a laser ?

First of all... there are no such things as gravitational fields of
lasers, nor any light, for that matter! If there was such a thing,
people would get sucked into the strong beam of an aircraft search
light. Be more careful "what" you smoke, your reasoning ability is a
bit cloudy.

So by your reasoning, there is no gravity from mass since you
have sat next to a rock and not been sucked into it. It is
always good to see you finding more things to be wrong about.



Quoting an Abstract of an article entitled:
" Weak gravitational field of
the electromagnetic radiation in a ring laser "

" The gravitational field due to
the circulating flow of electromagnetic radiation of

a unidirectional ring laser is found by solving
the linearized Einstein field equations at
any interior point of the laser ring.

The general relativistic spin equations are then used
to study the behavior of a massive spinning neutral particle
at the center of the ring laser.

It is found that the particle exhibits the phenomenon known
as inertial frame-dragging. ".
-- " Physics Letters A ", Volume 269, Issue 4, p. 214-217
http://adsAbs.Harvard.EDU/abs/2000PhLA..269..214M

Jeff: Devices for making laser beams are an entirely different animal
from the laser light itself. I work with a small laser in my
experiments nearly daily, and I've not had anything be attracted to
the laser device, nor to the light beam. But since electricity is the
usual power source, there could be a static-like charge that builds
up. But tell me: Why does a Bohemian like you care one way or the
other? -- NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

:-} - ~ -

"NoEinstein" wrote in message
...
On Apr 24, 6:17 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...

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 -

I don't know what the "primary reason"
for the lack of acceptance of your "Einstein disproofs" is,
as I have not read your "Einstein disproofs",

but any idea, if it is powerful enough,
can overcome the Jewish bias in media.

Regarding your comment:
"Obama is a "minority" candidate
supported by "minority" Jews."

Although Obama has given lip service to Jews
in order to avoid being "Jimmy Cartered",
there is no doubt that the Clintons, the Bushes,
and McClain are owned lock, stock, and barrel by Jews,
and that Obama is not in their employee,
nor will he be intimidated by them,
once he becomes president.

Considering that Osama is the only threat to
the Jewish agenda, I wouldn't be surprised
if the Mossad finds themselves another
"James Earl Ray", and have him assassinate Obama,
so the deed can be blamed on Rednecks in general,
in order to instigate an enormous conflict between
Blacks and Whites, and get Jews back into control,
pulling the strings on either Clinton or McClain,
as they did on the Bushes.

--
Tom Potter

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

- Show quoted text -

Dear Tom: Shame on you! Don't put violent ideas into anyone's head!
The most divisive thing would be for any of our candidates for any
office to be harmed. America must not let that sort of "remedy" be
part of her legacy! - NoEinstein -

- NoEinstein - makes a good point when he states:
"The most divisive thing would be for any of our candidates for any
office to be harmed.",

and as can be seen,
I called attention to the fact that the War-for-Profit Gang
has a long history of doing "divisive things"
to set one class against another, one race against another,
one religion against another, etc.,

and that the Gang would greatly profit if they
found themselves another "James Earl Ray".

To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On May 2, 2:12*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On May 1, 11:20*am, maxwell wrote:



On Apr 23, 6:17*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 23, 6:23*am, 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.

Well, the electron is incapable of always being localizable, and so it
also fails at exhibiting the properties of a particle. And an electron
is incapable of delivering its momentum in continuous fashion, and so
it also fails at exhibiting the properties of a wave. To Tom's point,
this indicates that an electron is neither a particle or a wave in
this sense, though it exhibits properties of both.

The blame doesn't rest on the electron, of course. The problem is our
assumption that physical entities can be exhaustively and mutually
exclusively characterized as particles or as waves. That assumption
now appears to be poor.

The problem has been our lack of imagination. *Newton's particle was a
little bit too simple a model for the electron but it was OK for
mathematizing gravity. *Maxwell & all his followers recognized that
waves are the property of something real - not an existent in their
own right, as this supposition could not explain interference etc.
These phenomena need the possibility of negative & positive values
that can add to zero: this is not a property of existence, which can
be modeled by the simple integer numbers 1 and 0; hence the rational
belief in the aether in the 19th Century.
So, Gentlemen, back to the drawing boards & sharpen your imagination!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Maxwell: *Lorentz's explanation for the nil result of the M-M
experiment "allowed that" objects will contract due to velocity
(sic). *His equation, that forms the diviser under E = mc^2,
disregards the need for an EXPANSION of each object through the 180
degrees of the apparatus's rotation in a horizontal plane. *That is
like your conundrum with the " 1 and 0", but without a -1. *Lorentz
thought that was just fine, because he was biased to believe that
since 'c' is the maximum velocity (sic), objects would only need to
contract (sic).

Interferometers are part of my niche. *Because waves have both
"crests" and "valleys" they indeed have 1s, 0s, and minus1s. *But the
sine curve variation of the true "photon" based light is due to
angular variation in going to the point of view on the target, not due
to the varying longitudinal vibrations of the "waves". *— NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...

No waves, just timing differences. No photons either. Gauss & Weber
were on the right track. The LT is simply a kludge to squeeze a two-
time problem down to a one-time point. As Clerk-Maxwell pointed out
in his Intro to his treatise: the most significant experimental fact
of EM is that electrical effects occur at a finite separation in space
AND time.

NoEinstein wrote:
On May 1, 1:05 pm, jem wrote:
Dear jem: The MMX wrongly ruled out the existence of ether. But such
experiment simply lacked a control! By my invalidation of the MM
apparatus as a velocity detecting device, I’ve reinstated ether as the
fundamental energy form in the Universe! But the ether ISN’T a fixed
“grid” against which events can be measured. Rather it varies in
density and flow closely matching the massive objects that are in the
cosmos. Astronomers know that there are huge “Swiss cheese-like”
voids between the galaxies. Those are the areas from which the ether
coalesced into the adjacent (but not close) matter. So, the ether
density in those places is nil. If light required ether as a “medium”
of travel, light would not be able to travel (as a wave) through the
voids. But photons will travel perfectly well through either ether,
or through the voids.

The observed “wave-like” appearance of the interference patterns
caused by light passing through closely spaced vertical slits has the
“ripples” off of the “line of sight” of the light source and parts of
the ripple pattern of interference. But this is due to the varying
amount of bending of the rays caused by how close to the slit sides
the photons come. Because photons are composed of clumps of ether
units—that I call IOTA (the smallest things in the Universe)—and
because ether is polar, the greater concentration of ether inside the
atoms of the sides of the slit act like magnets to deflect the passing
photons. That is why photons can bend (like waves…). — NoEinstein —

Scientists create theories that describe Nature. Other scientists, who
understand those theories, write coffee-table books that try to explain
the highlights of the theories to the lay public. Certain members of
the lay public read those coffee-table books, get some half-baked ideas
from them, and produce what they naively think are alternative theories
using the only format they've ever seen scientific theories expressed in
- coffee-table books. Then when their self-evaluated "improved"
"theories" get ignored or ridiculed, they complain about how Science
suppresses new ideas.

Sound familiar? Read more about it here -
www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

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

"jem" wrote in message
...
| NoEinstein wrote:
| On May 1, 1:05 pm, jem wrote:
| Dear jem: The MMX wrongly ruled out the existence of ether. But such
| experiment simply lacked a control! By my invalidation of the MM
| apparatus as a velocity detecting device, I’ve reinstated ether as the
| fundamental energy form in the Universe! But the ether ISN’T a fixed
| “grid” against which events can be measured. Rather it varies in
| density and flow closely matching the massive objects that are in the
| cosmos. Astronomers know that there are huge “Swiss cheese-like”
| voids between the galaxies. Those are the areas from which the ether
| coalesced into the adjacent (but not close) matter. So, the ether
| density in those places is nil. If light required ether as a “medium”
| of travel, light would not be able to travel (as a wave) through the
| voids. But photons will travel perfectly well through either ether,
| or through the voids.
|
| The observed “wave-like” appearance of the interference patterns
| caused by light passing through closely spaced vertical slits has the
| “ripples” off of the “line of sight” of the light source and parts of
| the ripple pattern of interference. But this is due to the varying
| amount of bending of the rays caused by how close to the slit sides
| the photons come. Because photons are composed of clumps of ether
| units—that I call IOTA (the smallest things in the Universe)—and
| because ether is polar, the greater concentration of ether inside the
| atoms of the sides of the slit act like magnets to deflect the passing
| photons. That is why photons can bend (like waves…). — NoEinstein —
|
| Scientists create theories that describe Nature. Other scientists, who
| understand those theories, write coffee-table books that try to explain
| the highlights of the theories to the lay public. Certain members of
| the lay public read those coffee-table books, get some half-baked ideas
| from them, and produce what they naively think are alternative theories
| using the only format they've ever seen scientific theories expressed in
| - coffee-table books. Then when their self-evaluated "improved"
| "theories" get ignored or ridiculed, they complain about how Science
| suppresses new ideas.
|
| Sound familiar? Read more about it here -
| www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

A clown who creates his own crackpot theory is no scientist.

Q. Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v?
A. Because it is true.

Q. Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the time for each journey is the same?
A. Because he was a crackpot, unskilled and unaware of it.