0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
There is nothing in your reply that goes deep enough to answer the question to a complete understanding mechanically speaking.
Your next statement:″ if the wave propagates to a place where the medium is different" What we are discussing and what I am digging for is the mechanical means or method of the particle motion process. Your theory does not supply this detailed information.
Now back to what you are saying. I agree with you that the speed of light depends on the medium but this is not what mainstream physics really thinks any more.
You and I both somewhat agree on the ether concept. Simply imagining that this concept is behind everything is not enough to convince the world at large.
Yet strangely as the photon leaves the diminishing gravitational field the photon increases speed.
That's correct Jeffrey. Because of the tautology described by Magueijo and Moffat in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507. Each observer defines his second and his metre using the local motion of light. Then they use them to measure the local motion of light, so they all say the speed is 299,792,458 m/s. Only their seconds are not the same, so the speeds are not the same. Their metres are the same because where light moves slower the second is bigger, and these cancel each other out when defining the metre.
Well I would now like to see you prove that assertion by providing the modifications to the Lorentz transforms.
You are flatly contradicting Einstein. Nevertheless I am prepared to review your evidence.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 09/07/2016 11:11:31Well I would now like to see you prove that assertion by providing the modifications to the Lorentz transforms.What? Lorentz transformations are nothing to do with it. Instead see the definition of the second: "It is quantitatively defined in terms of exactly 9,192,631,770 periods of a certain frequency of radiation from the caesium atom: a so-called atomic clock"
Quote from: jeffreyH on 09/07/2016 11:11:31You are flatly contradicting Einstein. Nevertheless I am prepared to review your evidence.What? I'm not flatly contradicting Einstein. I'm referring to the guy:"As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable".
At a lower elevation where the light moves slower, the 9,192,631,770 periods of caesium radiation yields a longer duration. We call it time dilation.
This is good information Collin2B I like to hear about what physicists agree upon. Thanks for that. There is really so little information about this topic of photon motion as it is in the perpetual state. As jeffreyH said this has to be taken down to the level of the very small and looked at. I am a bit surprised about how this fundamental assumption of physics today would have such a deep logical flaw in its model of photon motion. I am surprised no one has noticed it. Let us take the example you gave concerning the pendulum and Newton's law. In order for this model to be correct the photon would have to be placed in motion by some external force just as a pendulum has to have an initial starting force to start it swinging. Then the photon would then move through friction less space unimpeded forever. There are several problems with this model.1. Where is this initial force that puts the photon in motion coming from?2. How does it put every photon in motion with the exact same speed?3. If this motion was governed by Newton's law then the photon would be slowed down if the photon encountered an external force that opposes its motion. This has never happened that I know of. For example when photons collide with other particles they continue to move at the speed of light after the collision. 4. Here is the real clincher that breaks the generally assumed model of motion. When a photon enters a gravitational field it slows down and when it exits the gravitational field it then speeds up. The general assumption can not explain any of these actions.The only reasonable mechanical explanation that can explain every instance above is that photons are moving by their own accord completely independent of all other moving objects or external forces. For this to be possible then the photon must be moving through a medium that it is consubstantial with. It appears to me that mankind made a big mistake in 1905. I mean no disrespect to anyone but these facts of nature trouble me. They need to be explained. I do not believe that photons are being ejected from electrons like a pitcher throws a hardball.
JerryGG38Thanks for the ideas. Actually there are a few similarities to my concept. However there are major differences as well. My question to you would be provide more detail on what it means when you say "self propelled electric motor." I agree with you on the self propelled part but I disagree on the mechanical electrical motor explanation. You are so close though. Very good. I like the thought process.I am also wondering about the mechanics that lies beneath the phrase "the jump speed of the photons between gravitational lines." No mechanics provided on how and why it jumps between gravitational lines. Problem 2. There are not really gravitational lines in space.You also mention a density of field lines this too is similar in concept to what I am about to say.I am still working on my explanation should be ready later today.