Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

[sjw40364]

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.

Actually I have not the faintest clue how vision works any more than what the books say, and let's face it they really don't know. I actually like the guys theory. This is a post about light, and without vision that's meaningless except as a heat and radiation source. If we don't know how the photon, or emf wave artifact allows us to see in minute detail objects at distance, then we know so very little about light. And I haven't ridiculed anything, Simply asked a couple questions and made a few comments that you may take that way, but was certainly not meant that way.

[webolife]

Michael V said:
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.
Your answer is of great interest to me!
Michael

Michael V,
Thank you for the great respect of asking me this question!!

My answer is that "light" indeed belongs to both the flashlight and to my eye. This is a self-evident truth of vision.
No matter what happens at the light source I won't see light unless my eyes are open -- and the source and my eye are lined up!! But let's take a closer look at your question's set-up objections:

1. "The light belongs to the flashlight." This is quite reasonable since the only mechanism offered by anyone's theory (that I've seen around here anyway) is that electron[s] jump[s] down or inward to a lower "energy level", whatever that might mean to each theorist. Standardly thinking, this inward motion implies a Newton's third law type reaction, which results in an alleged emission -- of [a] photon[s] for some, or a spherical wavefront for others -- in the opposite/outward direction. But what if the same "universally operating" force is acting on my eye at the same time it is acting on the electron to make it "fall". As an analogy, think of standard gravitation acting on both me and the earth, and the moon and sun [eg. tides] at the same time. While many think there must be a "speed of gravitation" it is quite conceivable that gravitation is an instantaneous connection between me and the centroid of gravity such that any change in the "gravitational field" [however that is understood] affects both at the same time, albeit to different degrees. There are as many theoretical dilemmas in gravitation speed camps as there are in instant gravitation action thinking, but there can be little doubt that the gravitational action between two bodies "belongs to" both of those bodies. Then it is conceivable that when the falling electron loses some of it's potential energy, I who am also in the electron's field sense the "potential energy" change of the field via the resonantly designed 'voltage detector' of my retina. In this sense the light also belongs to me. However it would be understood that the initiating action was at the source centroid.

2. "I am separated from the torch" -- The universal force/pressure is pushing both me and the electron toward the system centroid [perhaps the atomic nucleus, however that is understood], just as if I were in orbit, gravitation would be pushing both me and my spacecraft toward the earth's surface, despite the fact that I am separated from the surface by some distance. As I am orbitting in equilibrium about the planet, I encounter a shift in the gravitational field, which causes my gravitational field sensor to register either more or less gravity [despite my being at some distance away], adding another piece of data to my gravitational field map of the earth. That analogy is how I visualize my seeing the shift in the electronic configuration of the "light source" from some distance [perhaps even to a distant star]. The connection between me and the source centroid is visualizable as a vector [or vector field] directed toward the centroid [just as in gravitation], allowing for [perhaps obviating] the concept that light is not an emitted phenomenon.

3. "The flashlight is in front of my eyes" -- this is the only other requirement for vision, that the vector[s] that cause[s] the electron to fall, the vector[s] causing my retina to react, be lined up. I would directly say that they are same vectors, acting at the same time!! Until you turn on the bulb, I see no light. If my eyes are closed, or looking another way, I see no light. That light always behaves in this rectilinear fashion makes optical ray diagrams the explanation for light action, without the necessity of invoking emitted particles or wave fronts, or for that matter the c-rate with its relativistically attached contradictions/dilemmas.

When the non-ideal situation that all objects in the universe are in motion comes into the conception, we realize that the connection between me and any other object is universal and instantaneous. That's how I see it.

I know your theory differs from this in many regards, but if you think it through [and show a little mercy ] you will realize that we share several things in common in our thinking.

[webolife]

An aside to my previous post to Michael... Goldminer, I have to agree with SJW that vision is a key piece to understanding the behavior of light. Whatever you think gravity is, you must admit that without an object to act upon [eg. a planet] then gravitation [eg. of the sun] is nigh unto impossible to describe. I feel the same about light [my theory combines light and gravitation as manifestations of the same universal pressure field]. No matter how it might frustrate a mechanistic explanation, unless someone witnesses the event, you can't really talk about what happened. All you can do is make blind conjectures based upon premises. That puts us all in the same boat... or maybe all in different boats observing the same complex occurrences from our own bias. Hence my signature line.

[Shrike]

Apparently the neutrinos didn't go faster then light after all.
as the head researcher resigns after admitting flaws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17560379

Related paper.
http://milesmathis.com/neutrino.pdf

[Corona]

Apparently the neutrinos didn't go faster then light after all.
as the head researcher resigns after admitting flaws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17560379

Related paper.
http://milesmathis.com/neutrino.pdf

why would he resign though? because of a mistake? Isn`t that human? They did double and triple check for any flaws for an extended time... I feel it`s more because once you propose something preposterous you are very quickly attacked and out of the game...