- The so-called Final Theory has these interesting things to say about light at the above site. If anyone has read the book and can fill us in on some of the relevant details, that would be pretty nice. Does the Final Theory seem to have any disagreements with the theory of this thread? It definitely seems to have some flaws, but does well at explaining the flaws in conventional science. So I'm hoping his theory might have real insights.
Light slows as it passes through water or glass, causing it to bend, but how can it return to light-speed on its own once it exits? This is impossible in today's science. No object in nature can speed up of its own accord after being slowed. A bullet doesn't spontaneously speed up after it is slowed by passing through a wooden block, so how does a photon of light mysteriously return to its original speed once it exits a glass block? Also, continuously shining a light beam through a glass block will heat it, creating the further mystery that the beam actually loses energy as it passes through the glass, yet still manages to accelerate to its original speed upon exit.
Here is another related mystery: Bounce a light-beam between two parallel mirrors at a slight angle so that the beam bounces along the mirrors in a zig-zag pattern. How many bounces will it take before the light beam loses energy and slows down appreciably? 1000 bounces? 10,000? Of course, we know that the light beam will never slow down no matter how many times it bounces back and forth, despite the well-established fact that light imparts a small momentum punch when it bounces off objects (the principle behind solar sails). So, how does a single beam of light impart countless momentum punches as it zig-zags between the mirrors, yet still manage to emerge afterward at the same unchanging speed of light? According to today's science this is an impossible energy-for-free event.
==> These mysteries are solved in Chapter 5 via the new subatomic principle.
Einstein's Special Relativity Theory is all a mistake. Not only can clear errors be found in all supporting experiments and thought experiments, but even Einstein's own mathematical support for his theory has clear fatal errors. One of the flaws is so striking that two key lines were omitted from Einstein's published Special Relativity derivation found in his own book, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, published in 1961. A closer look at this derivation shows a large leap of logic that cannot be properly followed unless several missing lines are filled in. There is only one mathematically viable way to fill in these missing lines, which is shown below in simplified form:
Line 1: x = a + b -- note: speed-of-light term, c, has dropped out entirely by this point
Line 2: x = a + b * (c2/ c2) -- the undefined symbol, c, is artificially re-introduced Now, let the symbol y stand for the expression (b * c2)
Line 3: x = a + y / c2 -- the symbol, c, is kept from cancelling by hiding it within y in the numerator The two missing lines, now added above as lines 1 & 2, show that the speed-of-light term drops out of the derivation entirely and should never have appeared in the final equations. The above improper mathematical operations are the only way to add it back in, yet do not actually add the speed of light back at all, but only the meaningless letter C from the alphabet. Any letter from A to Z could have been chosen, showing how meaningless and arbitrary it was to choose the letter C, which was used to represent the speed of light earlier in the derivation before it dropped out completely. See if you can spot this yourself around lines 6 and 7 in Einstein’s own derivation.
Further, this is not the only fatal flaw in Einstein's derivation, but one of many. Variables are arbitrarily assigned and reassigned different values, then expressions from earlier in the derivation, which were only valid prior to these arbitrary value changes, are re-used as if they were still valid. In actuality, there is no viable mathematical support for Einstein's Special Relativity Theory at all. Don’t believe it? Again, look for yourself at the link above. Einstein's reputation has grown to such heights and his theories have become so deeply ingrained in our science today that few scientists, if any, are willing to seriously investigate this matter and see the errors that are in plain view.
==> The numerous flaws in Einstein's Derivation are detailed in Chapter 5.
General Relativity fails so completely to explain the motion of stars in galaxies that concepts as wild as mysterious ‘Dark Matter’ filling the universe must be invented to try to retain the theory. So, what exactly is going on with all the claims about Einstein’s Relativity Theories by our scientists?
==> This apparent paradox and "proof" of Special Relativity is clearly debunked in Chapter 5.
according to "General Relativity", all motion is in reference to a fixed, absolute 'space-time' grid permeating the universe. So General Relativity's basic definition completely undoes its very reason for existence
==> The true nature of electricity & magnetism is explained in Ch. 5, showing good reason why particle accelerators have a built-in light-speed limit, debunking this apparent evidence for Special Relativity Theory.
there are still further lab experiments and thought experiments that are commonly touted as proof, each of which can be readily shown to either have clear logical flaws or simple commonsense explanations other than "time dilation", "relativistic mass increase", or "space-time contraction".
==> Try your own hand at this or turn to Chapter 5 for the answers.
Black Holes are said to form when a star expends its nuclear energy and physically collapses. But starlight only shines from intact, functioning stars, of course. There is no more reason to expect light to shine from Black Holes than from a burnt-out, smashed light bulb.
Today’s belief in the Big Bang / Expanding Universe theories has even led today’s astronomers to claim that some type of mysterious antigravity force is pushing the galaxies apart -- faster and faster the more distant they are. Such a force has never been observed in any experiment or explained by any scientific theory, and it even violates our most cherished laws of physics. Where does this mysterious force come from and how is its ever-accelerating effect powered?
The only reason this concept ever arose is because light from distant galaxies is Red-Shifted -- i.e. it arrives with its colors shifted toward the low end of the visible spectrum where red light resides. It was assumed that this was the same as the Doppler Effect for sound, which describes the shift to lower frequencies in sound waves from objects that are speeding away. However, sound waves are completely different from light. Sound is not pure "sound energy" but compression waves within an atmosphere of air molecules, while light is considered to be a very strange form of pure energy, full of "quantum- mechanical" mysteries and paradoxes. Not only is there no clear scientific reason to link the Doppler Effect of sound with the Red Shift of light, but it is well known that light is easily red shifted by simply passing it through gases or plastics. The Compton Effect is a very well known cause for shifts in light frequency, and has nothing to do with motion of the light source. And as any astronomer knows, distant starlight passes through billions of light-years of various gases, plasmas, and fields before arriving at our telescopes. Is it any surprise that the further away a galaxy is, the more Red-Shifted its light?
==> The Big Bang Theory myth is debunked further in Chapter 6.
==> Quantum Mechanics is debunked, and the subatomic realm properly explained in Ch. 5
Today's science states light is mysteriously both a wave and a particle, depending on the detection method. This bizarre belief even leads to the conclusion that detecting starlight as either a wave or a particle then instantly reaches back billions of years in space and time to determine the corresponding form in which the light was originally transmitted. Such impossible time travel beliefs show just how lost today's science is due to its blind belief in quantum-mechanical theory as the true physical description of nature.
In fact, it is very easy to debunk even our simplest beliefs about light today. For example, it is currently believed light-waves somehow "cancel" in "destructive interference" when they meet out of phase so that the peaks of one wave coincide with the valleys of another. Yet, a simple experiment crossing 2 light- beams from common laser pointers shows that it is impossible for light to vanish into thin air simply because 2 beams are mis- aligned (out of phase). In fact, it is a violation of the Law Of Conservation Of Energy to even expect this to occur. Light is not a mysterious quantum-mechanical wave-particle entity, but something much simpler to understand.
==> The true nature of light is finally exposed in Ch. 5 since the new subatomic principle from from Ch. 4 also relates to energy of all types.
The wavelike interference pattern in the famous Double-Slit experiments is always equated to water waves interfering. But water waves are not "waves of pure water energy" in the same manner that we think of waves of light energy; they are a wavelike group behavior of countless particles (water molecules). Interference patterns between water waves are the result of interaction between groups of particles, not "waves of pure water energy".
So, why is this analogy used as proof that a similar interference pattern between light-beams is an interaction between "waves of pure light energy"? Simply because our instructors merely accept and repeat what they’ve been told, mentally locking themselves and us into the flawed science legacy that we have inherited. In actuality though, the Double Slit experiment is clear evidence for an interaction between groups of countless particles of light, just as the water-wave analogy would imply.
But what is meant by "particles of light"? This is not a reference to today's even more mysterious quantum-mechanical photons, but something much simpler that arises from the same sub-atomic principle that runs throughout The Final Theory. Also, this new perspective solves the mystery of why an interference pattern appears even when individual light photons are shot one by one through the slits. The answer is really quite simple and straightforward, removing all the mysterious and bizarre "quantum-mechanical" myths we are taught today.
Further, with the new understanding that this experiment shows group particle interaction and not individual energy wave interference, it is now easy to see why experiments with beams of electrons also show a similar interference pattern. Far from proof that even matter (electrons) has a bizarre wave-particle dual nature (as Quantum Mechanics states today), this merely shows straightforward particle interaction, just as we would expect from electrons. But what does this all mean?
==> This is all clearly explained in Ch. 5. Not only is the true nature of light finally explained, but a definitive end is finally brought to the bizarre theory of Quantum Mechanics.
Einstein's famous E = mc2 equation has been largely misunderstood and misrepresented. It is often shown in complex mathematical derivations and is said to literally describe matter mysteriously converting into energy in an atom-bomb explosion -- a process that is completely unexplained even today. But, in actuality, this equation is extremely easy to derive in only a few lines of simple math, and does not truly describe a process as mysterious as a transformation of "matter into energy".
For starters, consider that the classic kinetic energy equation, K.E. = ½mv2, is almost identical to Einstein's equation. In fact, it only differs by the factor-of-two term. That is, if we write the kinetic energy of an object traveling at light speed, the classic kinetic energy equation would be E = ½mc2. This is precisely Einstein's equation, only divided by two. So, why are these two equations so similar, and what does this really tell us about the nature of light, energy, and the atomic bomb? Here's a further hint in a simple four-line derivation that can easily be arrived at for Einstein's equation, based on well-known equations for the momentum of light:
p = E/c -- momentum of light, p, equals its energy content divided by its speed
p = mc -- momentum of light, stated in terms of its classical momentum, mass x speed
E/c = mc -- equating the two momentum terms in the two lines above
E = mc2 -- rearranging the above line gives Einstein’s famous equation
==> For the full truth about this equation and what it really says about light, energy, and the atomic bomb see Chapter 6.
:
