Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by Goldminer » Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:37 pm

Goldminer wrote:
StalkingGoogle wrote:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401728,00.asp
In what's hopefully the final page to the story that wouldn't die – at least, not until someone takes a cue from Star Trek and invents a warp drive – scientists have gone and performed a retest of last year's experiment that suggested some subatomic particles were travelling faster than the speed of light.

The result? Hold onto your hats: Einstein's special theory of relativity remains in effect. The measured neutrinos do not, in fact, cross the speed limit of 186,282 miles per second.
All is well and good, since the neutrino itself is just a thinly wrapped concoction, an answer to a question that didn't need to be asked! My hat is off to Einstein, may he roll over in his grave.
NEUTRINO: Origin
In 1927, two physicists, C. D. Ellis and W. A. Wooster, set out to measure the energy given off by Radium E decaying into Polonium. The experiment was simple: place the most pure form of RaE available at the time into a calorimeter and measure the output. Beta decay was well understood at the time: each RaE atom naturally decays into one electron and one proton. The electron is emitted at a high velocity and the proton is recaptured by the atom to become a Polonium atom. The half life of this process is five days, meaning, it takes 5 days for half of any amount of RaE to transform into Polonium.

Image

Electrons in the innermost part of the RaE sample collide into other atoms on their journey to the surface. Since the number of atoms in the sample is also known, Ellis and Wooster only had to measure the heat given off by the Radium E sample to discover the amount of energy emitted in the process of decay. From experimental results, they calculated that each RaE atom naturally emits 0.36 MeV: exactly equivalent to the energy of one electron.

Image

It is important to remember that Ellis and Wooster were not interested in confirming or refuting special relativity. They did not use Einstein's equations in their calculations. They were only interested in discovering the total amount of energy generated in the experiment. Once the experiment was performed, they moved on to other research.

During the next few years, other physicists carried out numerous related experiments, more or less confirming Ellis and Wooster's initial findings. Several of the physicists performing similar experiments used a mass spectrograph to measure the velocity of the Radium E emitted electrons allowing them to apply Einstein's special relativity equation to calculate the total energy. In 1931, Viennese physicist Wolfgang Pauli, a strong proponent of Einstein's latest theory, compared these later studies to the original Ellis and Wooster experiment and noticed a discrepancy. From Einstein's equations, Pauli saw that each Radium atom should emit 1.16 MeV: almost 3 times what was measured by Ellis and Wooster's experiment.

Believing whole-heartedly in special relativity's equations, Pauli could only assume that 0.8 MeV was real and had to be accounted for in order to agree with Einstein's theory. In December 1930, Pauli, wrote a letter to Hans Geiger and Lise Meitner suggesting a new "massless", "chargeless" particle for explaining the discrepancy which carried away energy without detection. Pauli died soon after. A few years later, a contemporary, Enrico Fermi, tried to publish Pauli's theory of the new particle which Fermi named the "neutrino" in the English magazine, Nature. It was rejected as being too speculative and fantastic to publish.

Image

Postulating an "invisible" particle which magically carries away energy without a trace is quite a tale to tell in the land of physics. After all, no other particle in the universe is so much "nothing" with exception of the photon (which has momentum but no mass or charge and which is also continuously debated). Yet during the earlier part of the 20th century, physicists were abuzz with the fantastic stories of Einstein's relativistic world where time, space, and mass flow and change as readily as waves in the ocean. The universe turned out to be an even stranger place than anyone had imagined yet there were many experiments which confirmed Einstein's predictions. So why not the neutrino?

Sort'a like the neutrino is the force carrier for the mysterious N-rays
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

sjw40364
Guest

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by sjw40364 » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:52 pm

Not only is the Photon "supposedly" mass-less, but also free of charge, both claims I seriously doubt. You also forgot to mention the photon's magic ability to reflect off of a surface and somehow convey that image in exacting detail to your eye or imaging plate. And the photon becomes silly putty with no mass or charge how?

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by Goldminer » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:45 pm

sjw40364 wrote:Not only is the Photon "supposedly" mass-less,but also free of charge, both claims I seriously doubt. You also forgot to mention the photon's magic ability to reflect off of a surface and somehow convey that image in exacting detail to your eye or imaging plate. And the photon becomes silly putty with no mass or charge how?
You have evidence of an electric field or magnetic field bending or otherwise interacting with a beam of light?

I "forgot" nothing here. Since photons are an artifact of the interaction of radiation with matter, why would I need to describe their ability to form a picture anywhere? Especially one "photon?" Waves handle the situation just fine.

Waves have no problem reflecting off of matter, even the ionosphere. When you see "ghosts" around elements in the pictures received on TV, it is the result of waves taking a longer route to your antenna via reflection. Your "photons" have a hard time explaining the harmonic picture formed in the preliminary holograph.

The electric/magnetic properties are generated at the transmission and reception of the wave; the interaction with matter. Since we're not talking "photons" it's all right with me if you think they are silly putty.

Vertical Michelson Morley Interferometer Experiment Frank Pearce, the experimenter and lecturer is making a different point, but this experiment inadvertently demonstrates that gravity does not affect light.

Photon dies screaming

Resolving the Wave-Particle Paradox
Eric Reiter wrote:There is a famous test of the validity of the photon concept that has been performed in the past. This test closely resembles a simplified definition of the photon as described by Einstein. The definition states that a singly-emitted photon's worth of energy, an hv, must all go one way or another at a beam splitter (h = Planck's constant, v = frequency, v is Greek letter nu). Amazingly, I the am the only one to perform this test with gamma-rays. These tests with gamma-rays show that a single emitted “light quanta” can cause coincident detection events beyond a beam splitter at rates that far exceed accidental chance. I show how to defy this defining property of the photon. To defy this principle of the photon is to defy a very strong prediction of quantum mechanics. To my knowledge mine is the only serious challenge to quantum mechanics. There is no easy way to convey my message without invoking immediate skepticism. That is why I did the experiment so many different ways, and why my writings describe this test in far greater detail than any similar experiment you will ever find. My finding of coincident detections beyond a beam splitter means that similar tests, performed by others with visible light, are just measuring noise. My test does not split a gamma “photon” into two half-size detection pulses; it detects two full-size pulses in coincidence. This does not violate energy conservation; it violates the principle of the photon. The obvious explanation is the loading theory, long abandoned and unfairly treated in our textbooks. Light is emitted in a photon's worth of energy hv, but thereafter the narrow cone of light spreads classically. There are no photons!
Since you particle only priests already know everything, it's useless to think you might try to understand either article. Have a nice day.

By the way, Eric is a very personable fellow, and will be happy to engage in a civil discussion of his work. He is actually looking for someone to show him faults in his work. So far, no one has. (His work is not primarily about the speed of light, other than the fact that it is constant in the source frame for all "at rest with the source" detectors.)
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

sjw40364
Guest

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by sjw40364 » Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:14 pm

Goldminer wrote:
sjw40364 wrote:Not only is the Photon "supposedly" mass-less,but also free of charge, both claims I seriously doubt. You also forgot to mention the photon's magic ability to reflect off of a surface and somehow convey that image in exacting detail to your eye or imaging plate. And the photon becomes silly putty with no mass or charge how?
You have evidence of an electric field or magnetic field bending or otherwise interacting with a beam of light?

I "forgot" nothing here. Since photons are an artifact of the interaction of radiation with matter, why would I need to describe their ability to form a picture anywhere? Especially one "photon?" Waves handle the situation just fine.

Waves have no problem reflecting off of matter, even the ionosphere. When you see "ghosts" around elements in the pictures received on TV, it is the result of waves taking a longer route to your antenna via reflection. Your "photons" have a hard time explaining the harmonic picture formed in the preliminary holograph.

The electric/magnetic properties are generated at the transmission and reception of the wave; the interaction with matter. Since we're not talking "photons" it's all right with me if you think they are silly putty.

Vertical Michelson Morley Interferometer Experiment Frank Pearce, the experimenter and lecturer is making a different point, but this experiment inadvertently demonstrates that gravity does not affect light.

Photon dies screaming

Resolving the Wave-Particle Paradox
Eric Reiter wrote:There is a famous test of the validity of the photon concept that has been performed in the past. This test closely resembles a simplified definition of the photon as described by Einstein. The definition states that a singly-emitted photon's worth of energy, an hv, must all go one way or another at a beam splitter (h = Planck's constant, v = frequency, v is Greek letter nu). Amazingly, I the am the only one to perform this test with gamma-rays. These tests with gamma-rays show that a single emitted “light quanta” can cause coincident detection events beyond a beam splitter at rates that far exceed accidental chance. I show how to defy this defining property of the photon. To defy this principle of the photon is to defy a very strong prediction of quantum mechanics. To my knowledge mine is the only serious challenge to quantum mechanics. There is no easy way to convey my message without invoking immediate skepticism. That is why I did the experiment so many different ways, and why my writings describe this test in far greater detail than any similar experiment you will ever find. My finding of coincident detections beyond a beam splitter means that similar tests, performed by others with visible light, are just measuring noise. My test does not split a gamma “photon” into two half-size detection pulses; it detects two full-size pulses in coincidence. This does not violate energy conservation; it violates the principle of the photon. The obvious explanation is the loading theory, long abandoned and unfairly treated in our textbooks. Light is emitted in a photon's worth of energy hv, but thereafter the narrow cone of light spreads classically. There are no photons!
Since you particle only priests already know everything, it's useless to think you might try to understand either article. Have a nice day.

By the way, Eric is a very personable fellow, and will be happy to engage in a civil discussion of his work. He is actually looking for someone to show him faults in his work. So far, no one has. (His work is not primarily about the speed of light, other than the fact that it is constant in the source frame for all "at rest with the source" detectors.)
Yes I do, you call it gravitational lensing, but this is done to a mass-less particle how? I say its caused by electrical interactions, as I have seen no gravitational theory for anything atom size or less, have you??? And do you actually know that E=mc2 is not Einstein's original equation, it's just the adopted textbook version. His original Er=mc2, says the mass = the rest energy of a particle. A photon does not exist at rest, only at c, it therefore has mass and has energy, but only while traveling at velocity c. If you doubt this then you should study his tube thought experiments and others.

I doubt any tests claiming to have emitted a single photon. Photons are emitted in streams, one after another continuously. Being in effect gyroscopes they appear to travel in what you detect and call a wave, yet in reality is not. And just how does a detector detect a virtual particle that is a mass-less, non electrical nothing? That I am very curious to have explained?? You detect interference patterns because it is impossible to emit only one (1) photon, IMPOSSIBLE! This is why the pattern exists, because several are detected, a single photon is not split.

Movement and spin are everything. A moving spinning object in space effectively becomes a gyroscope connected electrically to the universe. You know how a gyroscope behaves on Earth, do you understand how one works in space or traveling at c???

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by Goldminer » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:48 pm

sjw40364 wrote:
Goldminer wrote:
sjw40364 wrote:Not only is the Photon "supposedly" mass-less,but also free of charge, both claims I seriously doubt. You also forgot to mention the photon's magic ability to reflect off of a surface and somehow convey that image in exacting detail to your eye or imaging plate. And the photon becomes silly putty with no mass or charge how?
You have evidence of an electric field or magnetic field bending or otherwise interacting with a beam of light?

I "forgot" nothing here. Since photons are an artifact of the interaction of radiation with matter, why would I need to describe their ability to form a picture anywhere? Especially one "photon?" Waves handle the situation just fine.

Waves have no problem reflecting off of matter, even the ionosphere. When you see "ghosts" around elements in the pictures received on TV, it is the result of waves taking a longer route to your antenna via reflection. Your "photons" have a hard time explaining the harmonic picture formed in the preliminary holograph.

The electric/magnetic properties are generated at the transmission and reception of the wave; the interaction with matter. Since we're not talking "photons" it's all right with me if you think they are silly putty.

Vertical Michelson Morley Interferometer Experiment Frank Pearce, the experimenter and lecturer is making a different point, but this experiment inadvertently demonstrates that gravity does not affect light.

Photon dies screaming

Resolving the Wave-Particle Paradox
Eric Reiter wrote:There is a famous test of the validity of the photon concept that has been performed in the past. This test closely resembles a simplified definition of the photon as described by Einstein. The definition states that a singly-emitted photon's worth of energy, an hv, must all go one way or another at a beam splitter (h = Planck's constant, v = frequency, v is Greek letter nu). Amazingly, I the am the only one to perform this test with gamma-rays. These tests with gamma-rays show that a single emitted “light quanta” can cause coincident detection events beyond a beam splitter at rates that far exceed accidental chance. I show how to defy this defining property of the photon. To defy this principle of the photon is to defy a very strong prediction of quantum mechanics. To my knowledge mine is the only serious challenge to quantum mechanics. There is no easy way to convey my message without invoking immediate skepticism. That is why I did the experiment so many different ways, and why my writings describe this test in far greater detail than any similar experiment you will ever find. My finding of coincident detections beyond a beam splitter means that similar tests, performed by others with visible light, are just measuring noise. My test does not split a gamma “photon” into two half-size detection pulses; it detects two full-size pulses in coincidence. This does not violate energy conservation; it violates the principle of the photon. The obvious explanation is the loading theory, long abandoned and unfairly treated in our textbooks. Light is emitted in a photon's worth of energy hv, but thereafter the narrow cone of light spreads classically. There are no photons!
Since you particle only priests already know everything, it's useless to think you might try to understand either article. Have a nice day.

By the way, Eric is a very personable fellow, and will be happy to engage in a civil discussion of his work. He is actually looking for someone to show him faults in his work. So far, no one has. (His work is not primarily about the speed of light, other than the fact that it is constant in the source frame for all "at rest with the source" detectors.)
Yes I do, you call it gravitational lensing, but this is done to a mass-less particle how?


I have no idea whom you are quoting here, since I have never believed in gravitational lensing. In fact, I have posted the links to the "vertical interferometer" which inadvertently disproves any direct gravity acceleration upon light propagation!
sjw40364 wrote:I say its caused by electrical interactions, as I have seen no gravitational theory for anything atom size or less, have you??? And do you actually know that E=mc2 is not Einstein's original equation, it's just the adopted textbook version. His original Er=mc2, says the mass = the rest energy of a particle. A photon does not exist at rest, only at c, it therefore has mass and has energy, but only while traveling at velocity c.
Einstein didn't say this, you did. Ocean waves deliver "momentum" when they reach the shore, but no mass is moving toward shore, until the shallower depth causes the waves to break. The "breaking of the waves" is analogous the the formation of "photons" as matter absorbs said energy of momentum (and the shore absorbs the wave momentum).
sjw40364 wrote:If you doubt this then you should study his tube thought experiments and others.


Which "tube" Gedankins? Vacuum tube experiments? If you are referring to his "light clock" transverse mirror Gedankin, I can assure you that I have criticized that to death. in the Silly Einstein thread.
sjw40364 wrote:I doubt any tests claiming to have emitted a single photon. Photons are emitted in streams, one after another continuously. Being in effect gyroscopes they appear to travel in what you detect and call a wave, yet in reality is not. And just how does a detector detect a virtual particle that is a mass-less, non electrical nothing? That I am very curious to have explained?? You detect interference patterns because it is impossible to emit only one (1) photon, IMPOSSIBLE! This is why the pattern exists, because several are detected, a single photon is not split.
You obviously didn't study Eric's work, at all. Your post demonstrates your ignorance on the subject. I agree that there is an analogy between gyroscopic effects and the electric/magnetic fields of the fundamental particles, the electron and proton, but these are not the light waves Furthermore the comparison is an analogy, not actual gyroscopes!

Why do you insist that I explain how "photons," virtual or not, do anything? I have explained how they are merely artifacts found at the emission and reception of the EMF waves. Do not expect me to explain problems that you have with your theory to you?! Especially in terms of your precious "photon."

You are entitled to your opinion; but you can not just make up your evidence out of thin air!
sjw40364 wrote:Movement and spin are everything. A moving spinning object in space effectively becomes a gyroscope connected electrically to the universe. You know how a gyroscope behaves on Earth, do you understand how one works in space or traveling at c???
I see! So you, the famous sjw, have been gathering evidence in space or traveling at "c"? Movement and spin are something, for sure. But by overlooking harmonics you will never explain reality, and harmonics are best explained with the concept of waves!

You have again side tracked a thread with your opinion. Have you no criticism of my earlier posts demonstrating that the electric neutrino is an answer to a nonexistent problem? Another Unicorn?
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

sjw40364
Guest

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by sjw40364 » Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:10 pm

And waves only exist in a sea of particles, where each is connected electrically to its neighbor. I personally have no problem with a photon traveling in wave pattern with it's neighbors, nor do I have a problem with all things floating in a wave of particles we can not yet detect. But until we actually detect said particles, said particles are only theoretical. An ocean only works the way it does because all the particles are in constant close association. For the universe to work on the same principle, the same principle must apply and one must assume we are awash in a sea of particles to support wave theory. Again, I have no problem with the concept, but as yet all such concepts are theoretical until this sea we are awash in is discovered.

As for virtual particles there are no such beasts, any more than there are point masses or objects that are points. If a photon can be detected then it must have charge and mass no matter how small it might be, or the detector detects what, nothing? Because no satisfactory mechanical answer exists for how photons convey images, any more than how electricity travels. And if you want to believe photons are artifacts of emf waves, then how do artifacts or emf waves either one convey images to my eyes?

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by Goldminer » Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:21 pm

sjw40364 wrote:And waves only exist in a sea of particles, where each is connected electrically to its neighbor. I personally have no problem with a photon traveling in wave pattern with it's neighbors, nor do I have a problem with all things floating in a wave of particles we can not yet detect. But until we actually detect said particles, said particles are only theoretical. An ocean only works the way it does because all the particles are in constant close association. For the universe to work on the same principle, the same principle must apply and one must assume we are awash in a sea of particles to support wave theory. Again, I have no problem with the concept, but as yet all such concepts are theoretical until this sea we are awash in is discovered.

As for virtual particles there are no such beasts, any more than there are point masses or objects that are points. If a photon can be detected then it must have charge and mass no matter how small it might be, or the detector detects what, nothing? Because no satisfactory mechanical answer exists for how photons convey images, any more than how electricity travels. And if you want to believe photons are artifacts of emf waves, then how do artifacts or emf waves either one convey images to my eyes?
Goldminer wrote:You have again side tracked a thread with your opinion. Have you no criticism of my earlier posts (by Goldminer » Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:37 pm) demonstrating that the electric neutrino is an answer to a nonexistent problem? Another Unicorn?
Nothing anybody else posts affects you, does it? Why don't you take your theories and questions that are not related to this thread to some other thread that is related, (preferably) or start your own in the appropriate main topic?

For example: You obviously do not understand optics or vision; so why not do some studying on these topics before revealing your (putting it politely) ignorance concerning the aforementioned subjects. This thread is about "neutrinos" and whether they can travel faster than "light." Get it?
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

sjw40364
Guest

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by sjw40364 » Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:57 pm

That question is related to every thread that exists. If you can not explain vision in a mechanical way with any theory, that theory exists how? There are no sidetracks in formulating a hypothesis. It fits or it d0oesn't, i simply am curious as to how you explain vision in your hypothesis?

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by Goldminer » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:38 pm

sjw40364 wrote:That question is related to every thread that exists. If you can not explain vision in a mechanical way with any theory, that theory exists how? There are no sidetracks in formulating a hypothesis. It fits or it d0oesn't, i simply am curious as to how you explain vision in your hypothesis?
Granted. So, why does this thread need a side track on how I or anybody else understands vision? You seem to have your own idea of how it works for you. Why must you impose your missionary complex of trying to get everybody else to agree with you? I agree with some of your ideas and not others. I don't see the need to cover what I believe concerning "vision," or "optics," here on this thread. So . . . I ain't gonna!

I have explained my "mechanical way" several times in several ways on many threads. You, MJV, and other "Particle Priests" have glossed right over the explanation, ridiculing the very credible ideas connected with the wave viewpoint, and thereby demonstrating you ignorance.

Stick to the topic, my friend.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Osmosis
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by Osmosis » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:58 pm

Light waves are just radio waves, folks. ;) ;)

rjhuntington
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 am

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by rjhuntington » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:18 am

Osmosis wrote:Light waves are just radio waves...
Exactly.The very same phenomenon, differing only in frequency (and thus wavelength).

rjhuntington
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 am

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by rjhuntington » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:26 am

Osmosis wrote:Light waves are just radio waves...
rjhuntington wrote:Exactly.The very same phenomenon, differing only in frequency (and thus wavelength).
Frequency and wavelength are wave properties, and since there can't be waves of nothing, there must be a suitable medium filling space and through which waves can propagate. That medium must obviously be the substance of the waves themselves. Just as waves of water propagate through a medium comprised of particles of water, light waves must propagate through a medium comprised of particles of light. Radio waves are just low-frequency light waves and so must propagate through the same medium as light. That would be the universal medium, the photonic aether.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:26 am

RJ said: Frequency and wavelength are wave properties, and since there can't be waves of nothing, there must be a suitable medium filling space and through which waves can propagate. That medium must obviously be the substance of the waves themselves.
* Why couldn't the waves be the motion of the photons themselves, as Miles Mathis claims?

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by webolife » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:22 pm

There is no "obvious" answer to the wave particle dilemma, since the debate has raged since the times of Galileo, Newton and Huygens and before. DesCartes understood light as a pressure, and this observer for one believes that ambient pressure is what it is. Maybe it's due to an imponderable photonic aether; maybe it's due to geometry/optics. Superluminal speeds are only a mystery to those who insist upon the c-constant presumption. Keep aware of the distinction between how light speed is allegedly "measured" [eg. clocking light pulse motion from point A to point B?] versus how it is "calculated" [based on presumption of wavelength and frequency relationships, or refractive index, or a constant/finite c-rate?]. What measurement adjustments have to be made in order to try to account for spurious results, noise, reflected light delays [eg. due to relay-switch time [eg. per Ralph Sansbury] versus across space travel time]? How do the introductory premises affect what kind of "adjustment" is being made? What mental roadblocks prevent the conception that light is pressure directed toward the source rather than "energy" or "matter" emitted from it?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Michael V
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Unread post by Michael V » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:08 pm

webolife,

I hold a torch/flash-light in front of my eyes - I do not see any light. If I push a switch on the torch, I do see a light.

Have I altered the state of the torch or have I altered the state of myself? Does operating the switch on the torch affect my visual reception/emission?

Surely the torch has changed state, since the switch belongs to the torch. So, how do you argue any other way than to say that the light also belongs to the torch?. If the light belongs to the torch and I am separated from the torch, then the torch must have "sent" me the light.

You answer is of great interest to me!

Michael

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests