0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The topic question? Because they, photons, do, and science has a very good reason why they do, despite the fact other reasons could exist. Who wants to argue with science?
however Einsteinians trumpet any such result as being proof (no it aint)(support yes, proof no).
Quote from: mad aetherist on 15/10/2018 13:23:38however Einsteinians trumpet any such result as being proof (no it aint)(support yes, proof no).There's no such thing as proof in physics anyway. Everything is about evidence.
Yet recent modern measurers had no trouble at all in trumpeting 1.750 arcsec (satellite readings) & 1.75000 arcsec (VLBI). Do u smell anything here?
Quote from: mad aetherist on 15/10/2018 22:22:12Yet recent modern measurers had no trouble at all in trumpeting 1.750 arcsec (satellite readings) & 1.75000 arcsec (VLBI). Do u smell anything here?Yes, and what smells is the claim that high precision measurements of the lensing found it to be 1.75000 arcsec exactly, whereas I calculated according to the relativity equation that the lensing should be more like 1.74945 arcsec. Where is the source of this 1.75000 arcsec claim of yours?
.............The Devil's Advocate Let us get carried away here, and adopt a simple, Einsteinian view of this subject . Light traveling through space is passing through a space/time matrix. It something, not nothing. If one accepts that gravity draws in and concentrates this matrix, then it follows that a denser S/T matrix would slow light in a manner very similar to water or glass. Different densities would slow it by different amounts, ergo a more dense region ( time period ) would slow it more, and light generated within a dense S/T region would emitted at a lower frequency as well. Alright ! There's your delayed light, and your redshift, all wrapped up in one potent picture. Enjoy !...P.
You have a good point , in that we don't exactly know what S/T is comprised of . Given that it appears to follow the size/time dictates of Lorentz theory , it is logical to presume that it gets denser as it is drawn in (concentrated and compressed) . This logic train does seem to be supported by 1/2 century of Relativity experiments , so I will remain invested in Einstein's "Contraction" , not the bending of "they" . Counterpoints welcome ........P.M.
And photinos emanating from the main body of a photon gives us charge fields (which can give electro fields & magneto fields).
Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/11/2018 23:00:10And photaenos emanating from the main body of a photon gives us charge fields (which can give electro fields & magneto fields).Are you sure you know what a photino is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photino.
And photaenos emanating from the main body of a photon gives us charge fields (which can give electro fields & magneto fields).
Call it a sponge if you like , I do . Einstein did indirectly , along with many . Your theories and lingo are a bit obscure for me , I prefer simpler descriptive terms and imagery . I do see , however , that your processes do not disprove my main contention ; that S/T can be compressed/expanded , and that such can result in the alteration of local lightspeed .Alright , folkses ! P.M.
First off , it is accepted physics that , although it's not matter , it's not nothing either , something is there .Secondly , the emphasis on pretty vs ugly holes convinces me these posts belong in an abnormal psychology thread .