Re: Why the speed of light is constant



--
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"
"Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:F1cNj.8461$V14.5797@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Paul Mays wrote:
--
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"

Convention places the sig at the bottom.

Note the little >> versus >>> of the following text...
The Sig was at the bottom of my previous post and was
left after responder snipped my preceding text..



"Bryan Olson" wrote:
Paul Mays wrote:
[...]
the above explans why an Aether (Quantum State) has no drag and is not
directlly detectable while maintaining all existing physical intact.

Just like all non-existent things.

Note.. Directlly Detectable... Does not imply Non-existant.

But wait, there's less: "maintaining all existing physical intact."


Typo.... "maintaining all existing physical rules intact."



Its absolutelly Indirectly Detectable and is why so many,
including Einstine, Maxwell and many others have addressed it.

Where specific theories posited a detectable either, it turned
out not to be detected. Current etherists typically just say it
*has to* be there. They cannot experimentally distinguish light
moving through their beloved either from light moving through
empty space.

My position is that Einstine,Maxwell and others make the
same mistake when conceiving of Aether. They have the
same problem most Humans do and conceive it as a commom
Medium where Its independent and massive objects move
Through it. My construct is that it is Intrinsic with matter and
connected to all matter. In such a view it moves with the
Physical Particles its connected to. Which means it is connected
to the observer, any device the observer uses to attempt to
observe, and that which is being observerd leading to an
Intrinsic Bias. As for Detecting It cannot be Directlly as the
Observer is inside that which he attempts to observer.

But Indirectlly I consider Gravitational variance as a Effect Aspect
of Physical Particals seperated by the Quantum State (Aether).

Look at this concept on a 1 dim construct.

X'x = SPP'1, SPP'2,SPP'3 ect.
------ = QS (QP) (Quantum State with matter,
Quantum Point without matter)
< or > = direction of motion
+ or - = value of QS
^'x = point of observation

<...... +.......... <... - ..> ...+ .<..... - ........>
X'1-----------X'2---X'3---X'4---------X'5
^'1.... ^'2 ......^'3 ^'4 ^'5 ^'6 ^'7........... ^'8


If I consider only X'1 and X'8 as they expand the
QS reduces in steady state value ( the analogy I
use is an inverse rubber band where as you stretch
the band its tension decreases and increases as the
SPP's move closer together while always staying
connected no matter the separation distance.)

If I try to observe this variance at say ^'6 I cannot
detect this variance, as I (X'4) exist within that which
is varying. That's the intrinsic bias of which I speak

If X'3 try's to observe X'2 and X'4 it again is biased
and can never detect the variance.

Now set all X'x's to ringing and producing EM waves
propagated along -------- the discreet waves can never
be observed as any observation will be of the heterodyned
waves of all SPP's. Only if a observer was outside
could you observe a discreet wave. Now Lets send
a wave pulse from X'1 to X'5. The tension of the total
QS sets the value of travel on a global scale but as that
wave passes ^'4 its now within a local point where the
value of QS is reduced and the velocity of the wave slows.
But due to the position of say X'2 it would never detect the
variance. Locally it would seem a constant value.

The variance of the QS between SPP's would be undetectable
as a direct value but would have a local effect that would be
detectable and would seem to be a observable force .
This is the causation aspect of local gravity wells and
the mental construct of curved space/time.



Because some cannot understand a concept does not mean
the concept is incorrect.

The scientific theory of an either turned out to be incorrect.
Current stories of the either tend to avoid saying anything
specific enough that they could possibly be incorrect.

I agree. I have never stated I am correct. I take this position
as a mental exercise to see if there is a simple view that gives
rational for the existing theory in SR,GR,QM to be valid while
explaining the questions that existing theory has not been able to
explain. I am more than likely incorrect but my postulate does
exactly that. It gives Causation to G, gives a very simple explanation
of Duality, and reduces all the theory down to 4 Dim space/time while
showing how existing Physical Rules can still be valid with a few
exceptions. Those exception are that the Value of c is variable and
Set by the separation distance of Physical Particles, The Value of
UGC is Variable. and there is no such thing as Infinity or Paradox.

In my Postulate I can envision a simple Universe where there is
a Primal Physical Particle that was converted out of a Quanta of
Unified Indefinable Energy and expands following simple Newtonian
rules. And goes down to the basis construct of particles.

The problem is that we as observers are inside the box attempting to
model the outside of the box we can never Directly Observe. Being
so we have to Take into account the Intrinsic Bias of being an observer
connected to and acting upon that which we observe.

Using my view I can explain almost all of physics is very simple terms. Am
I correct, I will leave that for the future to confirm or disprove. As I
said I
have one thing I can hang my hat on. My postulate led me to write that it
predicted that the Universe will expand at an ever increasing rate of
expansion
right from the start in 89. COBI and other experiments seem to validate
that
prediction and gives the rational of Why. The Inverse Tensor nature of the
Quantum State.

Feel free to shred my Postulate and ask how it specifically addresses any
aspect
of existing physical theory. Note that most the time I get yelled at and
called
some nasty stuff while not asked how my view addresses A,B,C ect
specifically.
Generally I get told to read a book on physics, (I have ,Many) Do the Math,
(Don't need to as I think the math's that are used are just peachy) , or
that I
haven't the capacity to understand all the work done by physicist A,B,C or
the
work done at Accelerator A,B,C and never asked how my view addresses
specifically certain aspect of existing physical theory that I actually find
valid.




--
--Bryan


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hooray: the Church of Scotland shows the way
    ... the measurement processes. ... phenomena - the classical mechanics of Newton for particles and the wave ... Unlike the other great pillar of modern physics, General Relativity, quantum ... needed is an understanding that includes the human observer as part of the ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Two EPR questions
    ... >> must arise whenever one wants to ask whether an observer will ... Is its Markov model an ontological theory? ... There's a psychological problem which has led theoretical physics ... >> Lorentz invariance and relativity are important when one needs to ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... >>>The observer doesn't have this effect. ... The theory of relativity ... >This is essential to the difference between physics and mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... is naturally constant w.r.t the observer observing it is illogical as it ... You claim that the space in between contains no aether so it doesn't control the speed of light - that leaves the observer. ... As Dingle put it Mathematics should be a tool of physics and has become ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Original Sin
    ... "Quantum field theory in a nutshell", ... rest of the world in such a way that the Wavefunction Of ... observer collapses the wavefunction the second kind. ... like the two physics professors who in 2005 published "Quantum Enigma: ...
    (uk.religion.christian)