 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008A SERIOUS flaw in Einstein's Relativity
If all below is true, there's a flaw in Einstein's Relativity: 1. IF both the speed of light and sound are constant in both directions BUT BUT ONLY there frequencies vary due to doppler effect.... 2. If speed of sound slows in the exact same fashion as light in traveling in a material/medium which is DUE TO SOUND ABSORPTION (and re-emission)...for Light also behaves in the same way. IF ALL THE ABOVE IS TRUE, there is a serious flaw and error. On May 31, 11:43 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > If all below is true, there's a flaw in Einstein's Relativity: GIGO: Garbage In = Garbage Out. > 1. IF both the speed of light and sound are constant in both > directions BUT BUT ONLY there frequencies vary due to doppler > effect.... False. Sound can vary with direction depending on the speed of the observer. Sound is different from light. > 2. If speed of sound slows in the exact same fashion as light in > traveling in a material/medium which is DUE TO SOUND ABSORPTION (and > re-emission)...for Light also behaves in the same way. False. Sound does not slow down in the exact same fashion as light. It can't. The properties of the electromagnetic field, or aether if it exists, which carry light are much different from the properties of air that carries sound. > IF ALL THE ABOVE IS TRUE, there is a serious flaw and error. All of your above statements are false. Therefore, there is no logical way to deduce from your statements whether Einsteinian relativity has a serious flaw or error. > On May 31, 11:43 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > If all below is true, there's a flaw in Einstein's Relativity: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > aether if it exists, which carry light are much different from the > properties of air that carries sound. Not false, sound, just like light, will slow according to it's medium. the frequencies are much different especially since the size difference of what is vibrating and the direction/motion it vibrates towards and the speed difference but.. Both light and sound are merely vibrations of their own medium itself. all the waves prove it. even up to water when compared in size and speed difference and all that. Sheesh man, check it out before you quote from the "einstein bible" > All of your above statements are false. No they are not. They all can be verified if you try. Stop thumpin' your book and "old memory brain chips" and open a new chip system and fill it with new things will ya. sheesh!  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > If all below is true, there's a flaw in Einstein's Relativity: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > IF ALL THE ABOVE IS TRUE, there is a serious flaw and error. Serious flaw in your understanding... dig a bit deeper. > gu...@hotmail.com wrote: > > If all below is true, there's a flaw in Einstein's Relativity: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Serious flaw in your understanding... dig a bit deeper. Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. Porosity (permitivity) should not be used. Nor is the capability of one to be absorbed and the other not be absorbed within a medium (otherwise same as comparing blue light to red light). > Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. Sound is a mechanical wave propagating via matter. Sound velocity is a function of many material properties. Light is a boson propagating at c with respect to all inertial observers and requires no matter to propagate. In sci.physics, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote on Sun, 01 Jun 2008 18:05:45 GMT <ZxB0k.189779$yE1.152616@attbi_s21>: >> Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Light is a boson propagating at c with respect to all inertial > observers and requires no matter to propagate. Light *is* affected by matter, generally slowing it down. Fizeau in particular showed this long ago. But it can travel easily in a vacuum, allowing among other things astronomical obervations. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** | In sci.physics, Sam Wormley | <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | | Light *is* affected by matter, generally slowing it down. Not too amazing, bullets are affected by water, generally slowing them down. | Fizeau in particular showed this long ago. But it can | travel easily in a vacuum, allowing among other things | astronomical obervations. Wow... bullets can travel easily in a vacuum too. Maybe bullets are bosons too. SignatureWhy did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way is the same? 1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B) where A = (0,0,0,t) A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v)) B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) x' = x-vt Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif "Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch Androcles > In sci.physics, Sam Wormley > <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > travel easily in a vacuum, allowing among other things > astronomical obervations. Define light... there is a difference between photons propagating at c and wave fronts. You should know that Ghost. In sci.physics, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote on Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:54:10 GMT <6YS0k.136699$TT4.121494@attbi_s22>: >> In sci.physics, Sam Wormley >> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Define light... there is a difference between photons propagating > at c and wave fronts. You should know that Ghost. I'm aware of the distinction between group and phase velocity, if that's what you mean. In any event, the slowdown of light pulses (not sure about photons as such) is measurable in a transparent medium, and can be leveraged for interesting effects, even in a simple triangular prism, though nowadays I suspect most astronomers use diffraction gratings, where no slowdown as such occurs; the light bounces off instead. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net fortune: not found ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. Light is a transverse vibration and sound is longitudinal. Sound cannot be polarized. Bob Kolker > > Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. > > Light is a transverse vibration and sound is longitudinal. Sound is no such thing. > Sound cannot be polarized. A prism shaped block of wood does what to sound? Did you ever try that simple experiment? :) On Jun 1, 6:13 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > > Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Did you ever try that simple experiment? > :) Have you ever measured the polarization of a light wave? One uses polarizers. Light in air or vacuum has two transverse polarizations. This was known well before Einstein. Look up the name Brewster. Brewster was one of the first to quantitatively, in detailed diagrams, describe the polarizations of light in air. There is no such device for measuring the polarization of a sound in air because the sound in air has only one polarization, longitudinal. I note in your question you don't really specify how a polarization in air is supposed to be measured. I suspect you are confusing wavevector with polarization vector. The wooden prism probably changes the direction of a sound beam, just as a glass prism changes the direction of a light beam. Refraction is one property that can be shared between light and sound. However, refraction is not defined in terms of polarization. You should know that the polarizations of light are not explained by aether theory. In the case of ordinary materials, the elastic properties are well known. A fluid supports only one polarization of a mechanical wave: longitudinal polarization. A solid supports all three polarizations of a mechanical wave: One longitudinal polarization and two transverse polarizations. However, the aether supports only two transverse polarizations. The aether does not support longitudinal polarization. No one has been able to come up with mechanical properties of the aether that supports only two transverse polarizations. I have tried to come up with a mechanical theory of the aether that explains the polarization properties of light. I have been completely unsuccessful. If you come up a mechanical property for the aether that is consistent with the polarization properties of light, I can assure you most of us skeptics will at least be impressed with your imagination. Regardless of how they think about Einstein. I doubt your problem is with Einstein. You don't know any science at all. Learn everything about light and sound that was known before the Michaelson Morley experiment, and then examine at your tautology. It won't sound so light. > Have you ever measured the polarization of a light wave? One uses > polarizers. Light in air or vacuum has two transverse polarizations. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > can assure you most of us skeptics will at least be impressed with > your imagination. Regardless of how they think about Einstein. Ok, just for fun I will try this one.. Lets see if this makes anything juggle in your brain. First, lets think of the aether as room filled with sphere balloons In the center of the room, there is a balloon and this balloon is setup to be a lightsource. (much bigger and slower of course) but to show the thing, we had to make it much bigger. To make it "lightup", we vibrate it in 2 axis. (I guess you would call them electric and magnetic) In the super classical sense, we spin the sphere balloon in 2 directions longitudinal and latitudinal. (so kinda like diagnally anyways) But we also see the sphere balloon is not balanced in either axis so...the sphere is not perfect and the balloon vibrates.... now bear with me here... It spins off center in 2 different axis causing vibrations that in turn have to be transfered to the next outer layer of sphere balloons while it is also spinning the next outer layer according to where the next layer is in contact with the middle source ballloon. The next outer layer is the secret and the cause. Place as many spheres around the starting sphere as you can, and tell me how the next level would be sending out vibrations. Would they still be the same directions? anyways. It's fun to think about. Now slap another layer on. :) Have fun! :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jun 3, 10:26 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > If you come up a mechanical property for the > > aether that is consistent with the polarization properties of light, I > > can assure you most of us skeptics will at least be impressed with > > your imagination. Regardless of how they think about Einstein. I give you plus marks for at least trying to come up with a model. I gave a challenge and you made an effort. However, I deduce that you are not completely convinced, nor do you have a complete picture. Try and build a working model of this, in either real balloons or in previously established equations for a single balloon. This is an initial effort that took a few minutes, so I encourage you to look more carefully. I don't think it will work, but I only looked at it a few minutes myself. Just some fleeting thoughts: > First, lets think of the aether as room filled with sphere balloons > In the center of the room, there is a balloon and this balloon > is setup to be a lightsource. (much bigger and slower of course) > but to show the thing, we had to make it much bigger. You haven't mentioned what properties of a single balloon you are talking about. A single balloon is very complex, but you obviously think you have a clear picture of how one works. Maybe you should start experimenting with single balloons before you start building multiballoon models. In a real study, you would have to specify the exact properties of your hypothetical balloons. Also note that you are well on your way to reconstructing some of those cosmological theories you mock. Can I call your balloons "cosmic foam"? A lot of better educated snots say they are building something new, and end up merely reconstructing the established theory. In your case, you don't even have the education to recognize someone elses theory. > To make it "lightup", we vibrate it in 2 axis. > (I guess you would call them electric and magnetic) Why is one electric and the other magnetic? It sounds like the identical physical displacement to me. The balloons that I know of are spherically symmetrical until they vibrate, and the vibrations are interchangeable. Are you going to make them elongated balloons? How are these two vibrations different to a stationary observer. Because I will tell you now, to a stationary (i.e., specific inertial) observer, the properties of electric and magnetic fields are different. Already there is a problem distinguishing electric and magnetic fields in your model. Calling the two axis "electric" and "magnetic" won't help you, since the two fields are intrinsically different (aside from the Lorentz transform). > In the super classical sense, we spin the sphere balloon in 2 directions > longitudinal and latitudinal. (so kinda like diagnally anyways) By this you mean the spin axis of the balloon is at 45 degrees to the radial vector of the source? If so, your aether supports longitudinal vibrations. The real aether does not. Or at least there is no longitudinal polarization to light. Your model seems to allow longitudinal vibrations. > But we also see the sphere balloon is not balanced in either axis > so...the sphere is not perfect and the balloon vibrates.... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > layer > is in contact with the middle source ballloon. Okay, a vibration that is half longitudinal and half transverse is moving outward from the source. Notice you still haven't eliminated the longitudinal polarization. > The next outer layer is the secret and the cause. Are you starting a religion? > Place as many spheres around the starting sphere as you can, > and tell me how the next level would be sending out vibrations. > Would they still be the same directions? Since you haven't specified the properties of a single balloon, I can't begin to say. And neither can you. Common, its your model. I'll conjecture. Light travels thousands of light years in the aether without attenuation, so frictional forces have to be negligible over the lengths scale of a single balloon. Given that the frictions forces are negligible, I would say yes. They are spinning in the same direction. If friction wasn't negligible, the polarization would change over a measurable distance. Which has never been measured since the discovery of polarization, more than a hundred years ago. > anyways. > It's fun to think about. I did. Not its your turn. > Now slap another layer on. It still will be rotating in the same direction. The longitudinal polarization hasn't gone away. > :) > Have fun! I want you to have some fun, too. The aether models still fail the polarization test. You haven't shown otherwise. > On Jun 3, 10:26 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > It still will be rotating in the same direction. The > longitudinal polarization hasn't gone away. Thanks for proof that you did not actually think about it at all. How many spheres did you fit around the center sphere? You did not even try it huh? Don't bother since you sure do not have a mechanical mind. You also did not add the next layer and how many spheres and the posistions of the spheres. You are a mechanically illiterate book monkey at best. so, take your insults and shove them in your rubber ruler filled a.s. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jun 4, 12:23 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jun 3, 10:26 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > Thanks for proof that you did not actually think about it at all. > How many spheres did you fit around the center sphere? I assumed a close packing geometry, using spheres of equal radius. Close packing geometry can be both face centered cubic (fcc) or hexagonal close packing (hcp). A spherical balloon has 12 nearest neighbors in both configurations. The configuration doesn't matter. If the balloon is spinning, and there is no friction on the surface, there is no attenuation of the wave regardless of polarization. There could not be any attenuation of the longitudinal polarization. How could it? > You did not even try it huh? Apparently you hadn't when you posed the problem. You hadn't told me what configuration to put in. You simply hollered "Balloon!" on the Internet. There are an infinite number of configurations that spheres can be stacked in. However, the aether is stable. If there was extra space between the spheres, there would always be a chance of collapse. There are no examples known of places where the aether has collapsed. So the simplest assumption is a face-centered cubic configuration. > Don't bother since you sure do not have a mechanical mind. You do not have a mechanical mind. You can't even stack oranges in an efficient manner. > You also did not add the next layer and how many spheres > and the positions of the spheres. The problem of layers for close packing has been done. Charles Kittel, "Introduction to Solid State Physics" 7th edition (Wiley, 1996) page 88. That page will show you how the layers are stacked in a face centered cubic configuration. As to how many spheres: Infinite, of course. The aether extends over all space. The extent is either infinite or so large that for practical purposes (i.e., measurements in this solar system) it is infinite. If the balloons weren't close packed, you should of said so. Unless you didn't think about it, of course. > You are a mechanically illiterate book monkey at best. You are a paranoid-schizophrenic compulsive-liar, at best. I treated you like a real scientist, and you went postal on me. Who else would scream insults when all I did was scientifically critique your theory. That's what real scientists do. They rationally critique each other. I would have critiqued any model a real scientist would present to me. Some scientists would be offended if I did not. All the scientists who are "worshipped" (your words) enjoyed criticism. Yes, I said enjoyed. Darwin thanked his "scientific critics." Darwin said that without scientific criticism, his study would not have been nearly as good. Darwin's thanks are in the foreword of "Origin of the Species." Darwin has to be on the list of most "worshipped" scientist, yet he actually thanked his critics. Einstein "enjoyed" a lot of criticism. He disliked quantum mechanics. He didn't flip a gasket (well, not for long) when Neils Bohr explained quantum mechanics to him. People continue to use quantum mechanics despite the criticism of Einstein. He was close friends with the people who proved him wrong. Etc. > so, take your insults and shove them in your rubber ruler filled >a.s. "Rubber ruler filled a.s?" You sound rheologically impaired. > Apparently you hadn't when you posed the problem. You hadn't told > me what configuration to put in. You simply hollered "Balloon!" on the > Internet. There are an infinite number of configurations that spheres > can be stacked in. Nature does not stack in infinite configurations. You really should wake up some day. and for vibration, space is going to happen unless the force will stop the vibration completely, and then you would not have light either. sheesh man! > You do not have a mechanical mind. You can't even stack oranges > in an efficient manner. You can not even think about free spinning gears (or rollers) correctly.. and your posting method sucks also, Leave a space in between my replies and yours. It makes finding your replies so much easier. But of course, you don't want ease of anything, you would rather live in a complicated world that only the smartest stupid people can figure out huh? > The problem of layers for close packing has been done. > Charles Kittel, "Introduction to Solid State Physics" 7th edition > (Wiley, 1996) page 88. That page will show you how the layers are > stacked in a face centered cubic configuration. cubic? LOL try spheric. there are no cubes in outerspace. Please do show me any one you find, it will be a fantastic discovery. LOL > If the balloons weren't close packed, you should of said so. > Unless you didn't think about it, of course. I said to think about it. close packed has problems that vibration would not overcome. (unless you have magical non-compressable material you also found in the cubic world of yours.) :) > You are a paranoid-schizophrenic compulsive-liar, at best. I > treated you like a real scientist, and you went postal on me. You have done no such thing, and I have done no such thing, apparently you don't even know what "going postal" is either. Sheesh again. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Apparently you hadn't when you posed the problem. You hadn't told >> me what configuration to put in. You simply hollered "Balloon!" on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nature does not stack in infinite configurations. > You really should wake up some day. Sphere packing problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_packing On Jun 5, 8:10 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > You can not even think about free spinning gears (or rollers) correctly.. You said spherical balloons. You didn't say free spinning gears or rollers. The word "balloon" does not immediately bring to mind gears and rollers. I personally can not see how a balloon can be made into a gear. Is this your new model for the aether? Free spinning gears and rollers. Well, I still don't see how this explains two transverse polarizations and no longitudinal polarization. I will cease trying to critique your models. You show no mechanical imagination. You don't even show any creativity in your name calling. > On Jun 5, 8:10 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: > > "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fc3a618a-ae9b-456e-8494-20202d4dddc9@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > You can not even think about free spinning gears (or rollers) correctly.. > You said spherical balloons. You didn't say free spinning gears or > rollers. The word "balloon" does not immediately bring to mind gears > and rollers. I personally can not see how a balloon can be made into a > gear. A balloon "gear" is one of the "gears" that operate speedometers in cars. the balloon gear is of course known as your tires. :) I do admit, I was a bit fuzzy on it.. (not enough coffee probably.) :) > Is this your new model for the aether? Free spinning gears and > rollers. Well, I still don't see how this explains two transverse > polarizations and no longitudinal polarization. transverse vibrations would be caused by dynamic balance problems. > I will cease trying to critique your models. You show no > mechanical imagination. You don't even show any creativity in your > name calling. I show no mechanical imagination? It is you that does not even know a tire is basicallly a special shaped balloon. whatever though. I fixed an average of 6 (more like a minumum) cars a day (6 days a week) for 23 yrs and never had a car come back for any work I did. You can add 1 car a month for favors on sundays too. hmm? lets check my math for that.. (good thing I have a calc because I don't have a brain) 6*6*52*23+12= at least 43068 mechanical repairs not counting tire repairs at all. better not drive in the USA.. There is a tiny tiny chance I might have fixed a car driving near you.. :) So I think I do know a little bit about mechanics. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jun 1, 6:13 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > > Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. Sound has one polarization, longitudinal, in nonabsorbing fluids. Sound has three polarizations, two transverse and one longitudinal, in nonabsorbing solids. Light in nonabsorbing media has only two polarizations, both transverse. > > Light is a transverse vibration and sound is longitudinal. > > Sound is no such thing. Yes, it is true. In fluids like air and water, sound has a longitudinal polarization only. Light in dielectric (i.e., nonabsorbing) media such as vacuum and air, light has two transverse polarizations. This is a fundamental difference between sound and light. > > Sound cannot be polarized. In fluids like air, sound is longitudinally polarized. What I meant by "sound can not be polarized" is that in air, there is only one polarization. That polarization is longitudinal. >> Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. > > Light is a transverse vibration and sound is longitudinal. > > Sound cannot be polarized. See: http://www.google.com/search?q=birefringence+ultrasound > Bob Kolker > >> Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > Bob Kolker Correction. Sound in a Newtonian fluid can't be polarized. However, the challenge stands even if we allow nonNewtonian fluid. The fluids in your link are nonNewtonian. However, perhaps you can tell me. Do any of the fluids in your list allow two transverse modes and no longitudinal modes? If not, then there is still a fundamental difference between light and sound. I already knew that solids allow all three polarizations for sound, as will many nonNewtonian fluids. However, this still is fundamentally different than the situation for light in a vaccuum. Just as an aside, light passing through a metal can have a longitudinal mode. The longitudinal mode of light propagating through a metal is called a plasmon. However, light is not propagating through aether alone in a metal. Light is propagating through aether with electrons passing through it. The longitudinal mode polarization, the plasmon, is considered a compression wave in the electrons. In a way, the plasmon can be considered a sound wave in an electron gas. So my answer to Spaceman is the same. There is no material where for sound there are two transverse polarizations and no longitudinal vibration. Light in a vacuum has two transverse polarizations and no longitudinal vibration. Since light in a vacuum in the Spaceman model is propagating through an aether, the aether has to have the mechanical properties necessary to support two transverse modes and no longitudinal modes. Thus, aether does not have the "obvious" properties of material. Find an explanation for the polarization properties of light in a vacuum using an "aether." The challenge stands. There is no known material, or any material proposed in theory, allow two transverse polarizations and suppresses longitudinal polarizations. >>>> Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. >>> Light is a transverse vibration and sound is longitudinal. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > allow two transverse polarizations and suppresses longitudinal > polarizations. I'll have to check this last point. Thanks. -Sam > > Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bob Kolker Read below ( a slit is a polarizer): 1. Place mulitple microphones/sound recording machines linearly on multiple tables. 2. Place a wall between the sound source and the recording machines. = no sound or faint sound on all microphones. 3. Place a long vertical slit in the mid-wall section. Each microphone will have a different amplitude of sound recorded. 4. Place a long horizontal slit instead of #3. Each/most microphone will have a different amplitude than that of #3. > > > Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Bob Kolker PS: A slit cannot affect or polarize a longitudinal wave(s). There is a distinction between a single photon and a light wave. Likewise for a single longitudinal sound pulste versus a sound wave(s). For this account a single sound pulse is longitudinal but not a sound wave. Oh contraire. Still no true discrepency between light and sound. > Read below ( a slit is a polarizer): > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 4. Place a long horizontal slit instead of #3. Each/most microphone > will have a different amplitude than that of #3. > > > > Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Still no true discrepency between light and sound. Uh...dispersion relation, longitudnal vs transverse polarization, material composition or lack thereof... Idiot. > > Read below ( a slit is a polarizer): > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 4. Place a long horizontal slit instead of #3. Each/most microphone > > will have a different amplitude than that of #3. > > > Describe only ONE "main" difference between light and sound then. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Read below ( a slit is a polarizer): No it isn't. > 1. Place mulitple microphones/sound recording machines linearly on > multiple tables. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 4. Place a long horizontal slit instead of #3. Each/most microphone > will have a different amplitude than that of #3. On May 31, 7:43 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > If all below is true, there's a flaw in Einstein's Relativity: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > IF ALL THE ABOVE IS TRUE, there is a serious flaw and error. Move toward light and its energy goes up; away and it goes down. It is blueshifted in gravity. Light falling in gravity gets energized as it moves inward with the gravitational force. Moving inward with gravity drives up light's energy. Mitch Raemsch |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.